Bridging The Divide? Integrating the Functions of National Equality Bodies and National Human Rights Institutions in the EU

Colm OCinneide 23rd October 2013

National equality bodies (NEBs) and national human rights institutions (NHRIs) play important roles in promoting respect for human dignity and fundamental rights in many European states. NEBs promote respect for the principle of equal treatment and help victims of discrimination to obtain a remedy under national and EU anti-discrimination law. NHRIs promote respect for human rights and monitor state compliance with their commitments under international human rights law.

Both types of body therefore often engage in similar activities, perform similar functions, have similar legal powers and seek to achieve similar objectives. However, in the majority of member states of the EU, NEBs and NHRIs are separate institutions. The British Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is at present one of only four integrated bodies in the EU that functions in a comprehensive manner as both a NEB and a NHRI.

This reflects the existence of a broader conceptual divide between ‘equality/non-discrimination’ and ‘human rights’ in legal, political and regulatory discourses across Europe. Even though equality is a fundamental human right, it is common for non-discrimination/equal treatment norms and broader human rights values to be treated as different and distinct spheres of concern by national governments, European institutions and civil society. This divide between equality and human rights has begun to close in recent years, in part due to the expanding equality jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in cases such as DH v Czech Republic (2008) 47 EHRR 3. It nevertheless remains a significant axis of distinction within the overall system of rights protection in Europe.

However, a number of EU member states have recently established single combined bodies which are designed to perform the functions of both NEBs and NHRIs. Such an integration process has either been recently completed or is currently underway in a number of EU member states, including Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK (specifically in Britain), and discussions about establishing integrated bodies are also underway in a number of other European states.

The establishment of these new integrated institutions is the focus of a recently completed research study conducted by the co-authors of this post and generously funded by the Nuffield Foundation. This study analysed the practical lessons that can be learnt from the process of establishing integrated equality and human rights bodies. Its conclusions suggest that such bodies can generate useful synergies between the different elements of their remit. However, this potential may remain unfulfilled if the challenges of integration are not adequately addressed. Equality and human rights may be different dialects of a common language, but mutual comprehension should not always be assumed.

The full report can be read at ‘Bridging the Divide?’: Launch of report on the integration of national equality and human rights bodies | Equality and Diversity Forum.

Neil Crowther is an Independent Consultant; former Director of Human Rights Policy, Equality and Human Rights Commission. Colm O’Cinneide is a Reader in Law, UCL

Comments

  1. Andrew says:

    Equality and human-rights sometimes pull in different directions?

    In England – I do not know about other parts of the UK – there is a wide degree of testamentary freedom; if your children are grown-up and financially independent you owe them nothing when you write your will, and to change that might be seen as an obvious breach of A1P1 among others.

    But the consequence of that is that you can disinherit the child who marries someone of the “wrong” race or gender or comes out as gay. Marie Stopes, seen as a heroine of human rights, quarrelled with her son who married a woman who wore glasses for myopia because she thought he was perpetuating her unhealthy genes; her support for birth-control rights was linked to her eugenic obsessions.

    And of course freedom of expression and the press, a basic human right, protects newspapers and broadcasters who oppose immigration and same-sex marriage and women bishops.

    The same body should not be protecting both causes – but this is not perhaps a good time to call for two state-funded bodies to replace one!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *