Council of Ministers: Justice

Dear delegates,

It is my pleasure to welcome you to Yale Model Government Europe and to the Council of Justice Ministers. This guide will provide you with a description of our committee’s structure, some policy context, and a brief survey of our committee’s relevance to our crisis simulation. But before getting to the information that will be foundational to your debate experience, I would like to introduce myself.

Originally from Washington, DC, I am a sophomore at Yale College double majoring in History and French. I have been involved with Model UN programs for over 8 years now, both in an administrative and competitive capacity, and have learned a lot from both perspectives. Having served as the Assistant Secretary-General for Domestic Delegations for YMUN XLIII, I am so excited to be a part of my first international secretariat with YMGE. On campus I am also an editor at the Yale Daily News, and this summer I conducted research on digital policy reform in the European Union at the Lisbon Council in Brussels.

When I have some free time, I am a huge fan of classic NBC sitcoms like The Office and 30 Rock, but my deep interest in politics also translates into a nightly habit of watching NBC News and late night binges of House of Cards. And while I do a lot more in my free time than just watch television, I will look favorably upon those who share my taste in Netflix originals.

I am very excited to meet all of you in just a few months! YMGE promises to be an exceptional experience for each and every one of you, and I look forward to facilitating committee sessions that are full of thoughtful and respectful debate. In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to send me an e-mail at alexander.rivkin@yale.edu.

Sincerely,

Alexander Rivkin

Structure and Scope

The Council of Justice Ministers – also referred to as the Justice Council Configuration – is a body made up of the justice ministers from the 28 member states of the European Union. As it is a configuration, the Council of Justice Ministers forms a subordinate body of the Council of the European Union, one of the three main body that governs the European Union.

The Council of the European Union forms a core element of the supranational body’s governmental and organizational structure. A pseudo-executive branch, the Council exercises executive authority in conjunction with the European Commission and legislative authority in conjunction with the European Parliament. The primary executive competence of the Council is its responsibility to coordinate member policy, develop a common EU security and foreign policy, and conclude international agreements. So while the Council does not oversee the vast executive bureaucracy in Brussels, as that is a competence of the European Commission, it retains important authority over matters of state and domestic policy.

The legislative power of the Council is expressed in the principle of “Co-decision,” a policy which holds that the Council has the right to legislative approval over all legislation affecting competences that are shared with the member states. Therefore, while legislation must originate in the European Commission, the European Council shares legislative approval powers with the European Parliament, and has final say over many core policies in the European Union.

The Council of the European Union is made up of delegations nominated by the heads of state and government of all 28 EU member states, and is presided over by a member state in a rotating system of 6 month presidencies. In order to ensure that even the smallest countries are able to serve as presidents of the council without placing too great a strain on their limited civil service, the presidencies are grouped in systems of three, with each of the three countries in one cycle providing logistical and administrative support to the president country. The current “triple-shared” presidency began in June of 2017 and consists of Estonia, Bulgaria, and Austria. While Estonia holds the presidency during the time our committee convenes, the power and prerogatives of the president will be retained by the dais for the purposes of this simulation.

Depending on the issue being discussed or policy proposal being considered, the Council will meet in one of its many configurations. The Justice Council Configuration, as described earlier, is made up of the Justice ministers of all member states, and is charged with the mission of coordinating and developing common policies on issues relating to justice and constitutional rights. Convening every three months, the Council of Justice Ministers primarily handles judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal cases, and oversees the fundamental rights of every European citizen. As agreed in the EU treaties, Ireland, the UK, and Denmark do not participate in all meetings of the Justice Council Configuration, and are not bound to all of its decisions.

The Committee of Justice Ministers is also charged with maintain the four fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the single market (capital, goods, services, and labour), an element of European integration that has come under increasing fire in recent years due to the Eurozone crisis and waves of migrants arriving from Africa and the Middle East.

Topic History

Despite the increasing prevalence of news reports in the information age, terrorism is not a new topic of discussion in Europe. Defined as the intentional employment of violence by ideologues to create terror, confusion, and chaos, terrorism in Europe is generally acknowledged to have its origins in the early 20th century anarchist movements, which sought to destabilize the fragile balance of European power through acts of terror to achieve their ultimate ideological goal of a stateless society. In more recent history – considered in this context to be the part of the 20th century after World War Two – terrorism became a phenomenon associated with separatist movements through Europe. Some of the most infamous terrorist movements in European history were associated less with religious sentiment than violent separatist ideology and include the Irish Republican Army in the United Kingdom and the Basque Separatist Movement (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) in northern Spain. During this era, as the European Union and its predecessor organizations were forming, anarchist extremism remained a prevalent, if somewhat diminished, threat, and along with environmental and separatist extremism made up the motivation for the majority of terrorist attacks in Europe.

Since the fall of the Twin Towers in the United States on September 11th, 2001, violent extremism in Europe has been increasingly couched in radical interpretations of Islam. This evolution of terrorism in Europe has seen fatalities and frequency of attacks soar to previously unimaginable levels. It is important to note that while the rise of Islamic extremism marks a new chapter in the evolution of terrorism in Europe, it is not the only form of violent extremism that plagues the continent today. Some of the continent’s deadliest terrorist attacks are still motivated by other factors, include the 2011 attacks in Norway by Anders Breivik that left 77 people, many of them children, dead. Europol recognizes the multitudinous motivations behind terrorism in Europe today and has created five categories with which to organize information about terrorist attacks in Europe: Jihadist terrorism, ethno-nationalist and separatist terrorism, left-wing and anarchist terrorism, right-wing terrorism, and single issue terrorism. It is worth noting, however, that the designation of Jihadist terrorism was previously labeled as “religiously-motivate” terrorism, a change which reflects the increasing threat of radical Islamic terrorism and the declining presence of other religiously radical groups.

Current Situation

The frequency and deadliness of terrorist attacks in Europe continues to rise to unprecedented levels, with Europol reporting over 150 deaths and 350 injuries in terrorist attacks across Europe in 2015 alone. Although terrorism in Europe is generally committed by European citizens who have been radicalized at home, the increasingly desperate situation in Syria has damaged both European security and European tolerance, which in turn fuel the sort of social milieu that are conducive to radicalization. The emergence of ISIS as a major player in the Syrian Civil War has given a platform to a violent extremist group that advocates lone-wolf attacks, and many attacks in Europe have been clearly linked to this terrorist group. In addition, although almost a negligible percentage of Syrian refugees have been convincingly linked to terrorist activity, the flood of migrants from the middle east has increased xenophobia in Europe and made the environment more hostile to Muslims who call the continent their home.

In response to both the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks and the consequent tightening of civil liberties, the Council of Justice Minister sought to intervene in what it saw as a vicious cycle of radicalization with the release of a joint resolution in November of 2015. The joint resolution concluded the need for member states to prioritize the interruption of the radicalization cycle in their respective criminal justice systems. Specifically, the resolution recognized the phenomenon wherein European jails had become hotbeds of jihadism and sought to make policy proposals that would address this. This is the primary action that the Justice minister configuration of the European Council has taken to address radicalization, although the increasing frequency of terrorism and extremism have precipitated several crises that merit the attention and consideration of this council.

Threatening the Fundamental Freedoms

The association of terrorism with the refugee crisis, along with economic anxieties, has precipitated a level of frontier closure unprecedented in Europe since the creation of the Schengen Zone. Many countries throughout the European Union, especially former communist countries, have succumbed to nationalist and protectionist political ideologies at their highest levels of government, and have begun to act unilaterally to stem the inflow of migrants from both outside the European Union and from other European Union member states. Other countries have sought emergency measures to control their borders with increasing frequency, stretching the definition of these notions as exceptional.

According to the terms of the Schengen Agreement, signatory states are permitted to reinstate border controls with another Schengen country when there is a serious and demonstrable threat to "public policy or internal security" or when the "control of an external border is no longer ensured due to exceptional circumstances." Before doing so, member states must notify the European Commission and act in close consultation with neighboring countries. Only in complying with these policies, and with the understanding that the border controls are temporary, are these actions lawful and consistent with the European Treaties.

The concern exists, however, that the deterioration of regular order between Schengen member states is jeopardizing the long term viability of the four fundamental freedoms. As the European Council configuration charged with the preservation of these four freedoms, it is the concern of the Council of Justice Ministers to find a resolution to this problem that balances the national security interests of member states with the fundamental freedoms central to the European project.

Violations of Human Rights

The rise of terrorism in Europe, and the consequent efforts to crackdown on terrorist cells throughout the continent, have resulted in increased allegations that the fundamental rights of minority populations are being infringed on.

Examples of increased security measures that have been challenged as violating either the word or the spirit of the European Charter on Human Rights are numerous. The French government has taken several actions restricting freedom of religious expression in the name of increased security, including the banning of face coverings as well as the attempted restrictions on swimwear for conservative Muslim women. Both of these policy actions were met with strong resistance by non-governmental organizations dedicated to the preservation of the European Charter of Human Rights, and both were litigated in court. And the potential problems extend beyond France. Germany has passed various levels of a full-veil ban, and Switzerland, with one foot in the EU and one foot out, has banned the call to prayer and minarets. Although the political motivations behind these decisions vary slightly, many of them trace their origins back to the xenophobia that has resulted from a surge in Jihadist terrorism.

As a body constituted of justice ministers assembled from around Europe, the council of justice ministers is uniquely positioned to ensure that both the spirit and word of European law is followed. As the anti-Muslim hysteria that has resulted from increasing violence in Europe threatens to deprive law abiding European Muslims of their rights, the council of justice ministers must consider how to best coordinate European policy to protect the rights of their most vulnerable citizens.

Bloc Positions

Although all national governments profess a dedication to and admiration for the fundamental laws of the European Union as codified in the treaties, several nations have been more vocal in expressing their discontent with the status quo and believe that the EU has overreached in recent years, especially in cases regarding immigration and national security. The Visegrad Group, a bloc of eastern European nations consisting of Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, has been particularly vocal in its opposition to Brussels insistence on accommodating muslim refugees and indigenous muslim populations. Southern European States are particularly sensitive to issues of border closure, and Italy, Greece, and Spain have suffered from the closure of borders for issues of “national security.”

Suggestions for Further Research

The equal and fair application of European law, the preservation of the fundamental freedoms, and the protection of the European Charter of Human Rights are all responsibilities of the Council of Justice Ministers that are central to issues of terrorism and national security across the European Union today. In order to understand your nation’s position vis-a-vis these issues, it is imperative you conduct thorough research on your country’s history with terrorism, specifically violent extremism and jihadism, and understand the impact of these traumatic events on your nation’s civic and legal culture. Do your people value security over equality? Order over freedom? How do these value paradigms compare and contrast with the values codified in European Law, and what flexibility do European laws and institutions give your national government to make policy decisions based on this worldview.

As justice ministers in the European Union, you should enter our simulation with strong familiarity with your nation’s legal system, a good understanding of the European Charter of Human Rights and the Fundamental Freedoms, and at least a cursory understanding of European laws relevant to national security and terrorism. Coming into our committee chamber with this common basis of understanding will allow you all to make concrete and meaningful proposals to a room full of individuals capable of providing informed responses and counterpoints.

Geopolitical considerations are essential to discussing the long-term viability of the four fundamental freedoms, and I encourage you all to closely study the map of the European Union to understand how vulnerable your country is to external immigration, what its historic relationships are with the middle east and Islam, and how porous its land and sea borders are.

Lastly, please do not hesitate to email me at alexander.rivkin@yale.edu should have any questions about research or general concerns of whatever nature.