Protecting peaceful protest:The OSCE/ODIHR and freedom of peaceful assembly

This article reviews ongoing work to increase awareness of, and raise standards in relation to, freedom of peaceful assembly across Europe, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia. The work is led by the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) at the Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe (OCSE). The article begins by highlighting the importance of freedom of peaceful assembly within democratic societies, and then describes the development of the ODIHR Guidelines on Peaceful Assembly. The article outlines some of the key issues of contention relating to the regulation of freedom of assembly, and discusses the process of reviewing the existing and draft legislation against the standards articulated in the Guidelines. In this context, the article also explores the potential for constructive engagement between government, civil society, and the OSCE to facilitate legislative amendments that respect key human rights norms and principles. Finally, the article reviews recent developments in training monitors of public assemblies with the aim of building local monitoring capacity and thus developing an evidence base of the practical implementation of laws relating to freedom of peaceful assembly. © The Author (2009). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech

This is a study of free speech and hate speech with reference to the international standards and to the United States jurisprudence. The study, in a comparative and critical fashion, depicts the historical evolution and the application of the concept of ‘free speech,’ within the context of ‘hate speech.’ The main question of this article is how free speech can be discerned from hate speech, and whether the latter should be restricted. To this end, it examines the regulation of free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in light of the international standards, particularly under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The study not only illustrates how elusive the endeavour of striking a balance between free speech and other vital interests could be, but also discusses whether and how hate speech should be eliminated within the ‘marketplace of ideas.’

The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases

This paper discusses whether or not Strasbourg organs have created principled criteria governing the use of the doctrine within the context of free speech and public morals. The first part of the paper gives an overview of the doctrine and further examines how the doctrine has evolved within the European context. Part II focuses on the rationale behind the doctrine and discusses the legitimacy of the doctrine in light of its application to various forms of free speech. Part III covers one of the most problematic applications of the doctrine in matters concerning public morality, where Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation. This part will discuss whether or not the “lack of European consensus” criterion is an elusive concept that might create a risk of abuse in the application of the doctrine. The paper concludes that while margin of appreciation today serves as a flexible instrument between the local necessities and the universal application of human rights, the imprecise and contradictory points might lead to its potential abuse that might endanger its future existence.