resolution booklet – rsc münster 2015

Resolution Booklet

of 26 European Youth Parliament Germany | 9th – 12th April 2015, Münster

European Youth Parliament Germany Europäisches Jugendparlament in Deutschland e.V. Sophienstraße 28-29 10178 Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

phone: +49 (0) 30 280 95 - 155


Programme of the General Assembly Saturday, April 11th 13:30 – 14:15 Opening Ceremony

Video Message by Dr. Markus Pieper, Member of the European Parliament Video Message by Sven Giegold, Member of the European Parliament Words of Welcome by Thomas Marquardt, Member of the Landtag of North Rhine-Westphalia Opening of the General Assembly by Harm van Leeuwen, President of the session European Anthem

14:15 – 15:00 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Security and Defence I

15:00 – 15:15 Coffee Break 15:15 – 16:00 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Development 16:00 – 16:45 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Economic and

Monetary Affairs 16:45 – 17:00 Coffee Break 17:00 – 17:45 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Women’s Rights and

Gender Equality 17:45 – 18:30 Welcome Address by Gerhard Joksch, Mayor of the City of Münster Sunday, April 12th 09:15 – 10:00 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Foreign Affairs 10:00 – 10:30 Key Note Speech by Christoph Strässer, Federal Government

Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid and Member of the German Bundestag

10:30 – 11:00 Session Picture 11:00 – 11:30 Coffee Break 11:30 – 12:15 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Liberties, Justice and

Home Affairs 12:15 – 13:00 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on International Trade 13:00 – 13:15 Coffee Break 13:15 – 14:00 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Security and

Defence III 14:00 – 14:45 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Security and

Defence II 14:45 – 16:00 Closing Ceremony


General rules The wish to speak is indicated by raising the committee placard. The authority of the board is absolute.

Procedure and time settings 1. Presentation of the motion for the resolution 2. 3 minutes to defend the motion for the resolution 3. 2 speeches lasting 1,5 minutes each, to attack the motion for the resolution 4. 1 minute for the proposing committee to answer to the attack speech 5. 30 minutes of general debate, split into 3 rounds 6. 3 minutes to sum up the debate 7. Voting procedure 8. Announcing the votes

Defence Speech One member of the proposing committee delivers the Defence Speech from the podium. It is used to explain the rationale of the overall lines of the motion for the resolution and to convince the plenary that it is worthy of being adopted. This speech can last a maximum of three minutes.

Attack Speeches An individual delegate, who is not a member of the proposing committee, delivers an Attack Speech from the podium. It reflects an individual opinion and is used to point out the flaws of the approach taken by the proposing committee and should suggest alternative solutions. Often, an Attack Speech is concluded with an appeal to the plenary not to adopt the resolution in its present form.

Response to the Attack Speech The proposing committee responds to the points raised by the Attack Speech. The response does not take place from the podium. The Response to the Attack Speech may last for one minute.

Points of Personal Privilege These are requests for a delegate to repeat a point that was inaudible. Failure to understand the language being spoken does not constitute a Point of Personal Privilege.


Direct Responses Once per debate, each committee may use the ‘Direct Response’ sign. Should a committee member raise the Committee Placard and the ‘Direct Response’ sign during the Open Debate, he/she will immediately be recognised by the board and given the floor as soon as the point being made is concluded. A Direct Response can only be used to refer to and discuss the point made directly beforehand. If two or more Direct Responses are requested at once, the board will decide which committee to recognise. In this case, the second Direct Response shall only be held if it can be referred to the first Direct Response, so on and so forth.

Points of Order These can be raised by the Chairperson if a delegate feels the board has not properly followed Parliamentary procedure. Ultimately, the authority of the board is absolute.

Summation Speech One or two members of the proposing committee deliver the Summation Speech from the podium; the microphone can only be passed once. It is used to summarise the debate, respond to the main points, selected criticisms and to once more explain why the chosen approach is the most sensible. It typically concludes with an appeal to vote in favour of the resolution. This speech can last a maximum of three minutes.


Grußwort zum Nationalen Schulwettbewerb des Europäischen Jugendparlaments in

Deutschland

Politik geht uns alle an, insbesondere auch auf europäischer Ebene. Wir können stolz sein,

dass wir in den Ländern Europas Demokratien haben und in Freiheit miteinander leben

können. Heute geht es darum, auf der Grundlage von Frieden, Toleranz und Verantwortung

gemeinsame Perspektiven zu entwickeln.

Sich für das Gemeinwohl einsetzen – das ist interessant und kann sogar spannend sein.

Besonders für junge Menschen ist es oftmals sehr reizvoll, sich politisch einzumischen. Das

Europäische Jugendparlament bietet dazu eine gute Gelegenheit. Der Auswahlprozess zur

Teilnahme zählt zu den anspruchsvollsten Schülerwettbewerben des Landes. Dass so viele

junge Menschen daran teilnehmen, zeigt, wie sehr sie politisches Engagement reizt.

Die große Resonanz verdeutlicht aber auch die Attraktivität des Europäischen

Jugendparlaments. Und das zu Recht: Dieses Parlament zeigt konkret, wie Demokratie

funktioniert. Junge Menschen haben die Möglichkeit, über aktuelle politische Fragen zu

diskutieren, die alle in Europa betreffen. Dabei lernen sie viele Menschen aus anderen

Ländern und ihre Sichtweisen kennen, mit denen sie gemeinsam nach Antworten suchen.

Ich wünsche mir, dass der gegenseitige Austausch die Begeisterung für Europa verstärkt und

sich alle Beteiligten auch weiterhin für die europäische Idee einsetzen.

Allen Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmern des Wettbewerbs wünsche ich viel Erfolg.

Prof. Dr. Johanna Wanka

Bundesministerin für Bildung und Forschung


Words of Welcome by Svenja Schulze, MdL

Dear participants of the Regional Selection Conference for the European Youth Parliament,

a very warm welcome to you in Münster. I am happy, you decided to apply for being a

Member of Parliament – of the European Youth Parliament.

In 1919 Max Weber, a German economist and sociologist, wrote in his famous essay Politics

as a Vocation:

“Politics means a slow, powerful drilling through hard boards, with a mixture of

passion and a sense of proportion.”

I hope that this conference will be interesting and impressive to you and that it will inspire you

with this passion for drilling through hard boards.

I am glad that you spend four days discussing political issues, convincing others or seeking

for compromises. That shows your strong interest for policy, polity and politics. And I hope

that this interest – or in Weber’s words: passion – will last much longer than this conference,

even if you are not among those who will be selected for the EYP.

Kind regards

Svenja Schulze MdL


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE I

Giving the rising threat of terror attacks such as the recent Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, how can the EU prevent its citizens suspected

of associating with terrorists abroad from perpetruating crimes upon return?

Submitted by: Ellen Arndt (DE), Philip Czauderna (DE), Hagen Engels (DE), Elsa Jouan (FR), Kim Keller (DE), Nils Schmitt (DE), Alina Waitzmann (DE), Anja Wieczorek (DE), Christine Hanna Meiser (Chairperson, DE), Manon Lynn Schürch (Chairperson, CH)

The European Youth Parliament,

A. Observing that diverse national security policies reduce the overall effectiveness of EU legislation,

B. Further noting that the competency for legislating security and defence policy lies primarily with the Member States,

C. Noting with regret that discussions on the legitimacy of enhanced interrogation methods have continued despite their violation of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1,

D. Fully aware that anti-terror measures potentially endanger fundamental freedoms and could consequently damage citizen’s trust in European values and Member State governments,

E. Deeply concerned that despite multiple security measures, the external borders of the EU are still permeable to terrorists and their supporters,

F. Regretting that people returning from areas with terrorist insurgencies are more often subjected to security checks and monitoring,

G. Concerned that media coverage and a general lack of knowledge on the subject of terrorism have contributed to stereotypes concerning religious and ethnic minorities,

H. Taking into account that terrorist organisations recruit online, mostly through social media,

I. Alarmed that over 3000 European citizens, mainly aged between 16 and 25, have joined terrorist organisations abroad and are therefore considered foreign fighters,

J. Noting with deep concern that foreign fighters are indoctrinated and traumatised, and form direct connections to international terrorist networks,

K. Realising that the main causes behind EU citizens becoming foreign fighters are:

1 Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”


i) social exclusion and discrimination, leading to perceptions of political and social injustice,

ii) ideological and religious fanaticism;

1. Recommends the European Commission to set up a guideline in agreement with the

revised EU strategy for combating radicalisation and recruitment that:

a) standardises the counterterrorism strategies across all Member States,

b) assists recently joined Member States with less developed national security policies;

2. Condemns the use of enhanced interrogation methods;

3. Urges the European Commission to set up an EU-wide Personal Name Record (PNR)2 requiring:

a) restrictions on how long individual data will remain on record,

b) permission by national courts to access the data;

4. Strongly supports the continuation of the Schengen Agreement3;

5. Further requests Member States to increase border controls in border regions with non-Schengen states, particularly at the Greek-Turkish border, as well as to thoroughly monitor aeroplane passengers entering the EU;

6. Proposes a media campaign, mainly through social networks, to raise awareness about the propaganda methods of terrorist organisations and their affiliates;

7. Encourages collaboration between governments and NGOs in the funding and support of campaigns against Islamophobia;

8. Calls upon governments to focus on strategies to pre-emptively counter terrorism using alternative surveillance mechanisms such as background checks;

9. Further invites Member States to increase the level of transparency regarding the choice of criteria that leads to the surveillance of individuals.

2 In 2011 the European Commission proposed that data of flight passengers such as travel routes, computer IP-addresses, hotel bookings and credit card information should be collected. This data could potentially help investigators in tracking terrorists across borders. Some Member States already collect this data but there is no European framework for it and thus it is difficult for intelligence services to use it. 3 The Schengen Agreement of 1985 creates an area where the free movement of persons is guaranteed. The signatory states to the agreement have abolished all internal borders in lieu of a single external border. Common rules and procedures are applied with regard to visas for short stays, asylum requests and border controls. (Europe Direct)

of 26 European Youth Parliament Germany | 8th – 12th of April 2015 in Münster European Youth Parliament Germany | 8th – 12th of April 2015 in Münster

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT

The 11th European Development Fund for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries is currently in the planning phase. To what extent

should the EU use political conditionality to promote peace, democracy, rule of law and good governance?

Submitted by: Tristan Hof (DE), Barbara Hogenschurz (DE), Sidney Kühn (DE), Theresa

Musiol (DE), Havana Paris (FR), Svea Schmidt (DE), Katharina Schmitt (DE), Benjamin Tumeko (DE), Levent Aslan (TR, Chairperson), Elisabeth Gerlach (DE, Chairperson)


A. Keeping in mind the lack of a coherent set of guidelines and aims for the establishment and maintenance of good governance for ACP countries to adhere to,

B. Condemns governments that misappropriate funds allocated to their countries from the European Development Fund4 (EDF),

C. Regrets that sanctions such as the withdrawal of development aid primarily affect the lower classes of society,

D. Bearing in mind that due to the varied nature of African Caribbean Pacific (ACP) countries5, a case-by-case approach is needed,

E. Noting with regret that differing expectations of political conditionality cause EU member states to make inconsistent contributions to the EDF,

F. Realising that implementing political conditionality may incentivise beneficiary countries to depend on development funds’ financial support in the long term;

1. Asks the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly6 (JPA) to formulate a resolution to create

guidelines and aims that help enable good governance in ACP countries;

2. Further asks the JPA’s Subcommittee of Political Affairs to:

a) monitor ACP countries’ progress on following the JPA’s resolution,

4 Managed by European Commission and European Investment Bank, the European Development Fund is EU’s main instrument for delivering development aid to the ACP countries. It is funded outside the EU budget by voluntary contributions from the EU Member States. 5 African Caribbean Pacific Group of States is an organisation composed of 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific states. 6 ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly is an international assembly consisting equal representation from ACP and EU. Its main aims are the promotion of human rights and democracy through joint commitments.

of 26 European Youth Parliament Germany | 8th – 12th of April 2015 in Münster

b) publish an annual report covering its findings,

c) inform ACP countries’ governments about the consequences of violating the resolution regarding good governance;

3. Suggests a gradual reduction of the development funds received by countries who violate the agreements regarding good governance, which can be reversed when the country resumes its adherence to the JPA resolution;

4. Proposes the reallocation of development funds to local and regional Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) similar to the African Peace Facility7 in case of a state’s failure to meet JPA’s principles, to cover the expenses of:

a) healthcare,

b) education,

c) protection of human rights;

5. Requests JPA’s Subcommittee of Social Affairs and Environment to analyse data on the quality of life in ACP countries from independent research NGOs and local authorities to provide advice for case-by-case evaluations regarding the allocation of funds by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank;

6. Invites the Member States to establish a multilateral agreement on their contributions to the EDF based on their respective gross domestic products8 (GDPs);

7. Urges the JPA’s Subcommittee of Economic Development, Finance and Trade to assess the optimal self-sustainable economy models for ACP countries.

7 Funded by EDF, African Peace Facility is the main source to support African Regional Economic Communities’ efforts in the area of peace and security 8 Gross domestic product estimates are commonly used to measure the economic performance of a whole country or region.


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY

AFFAIRS Cartels as a threat to European markets: With the European

Commission fining companies more than €1.6 billion in antitrust cases in 2014, it appears anticompetitive practices are still widespread. How

can the EU ensure more effective regulation of cartels?

Submitted by: Cécile Bourgoin (FR), Lucas Brendler (DE), Niels Hayen (DE), Felix Käppel (DE), Timur Levent Kesdogan (DE), Sang-Jin Kim (DE), Max Eric Mihailescu (DE), Max Rostek (DE), Hayarpi Vardanyan (AM), Quirin von Blomberg (DE, Chairperson), Jianan Liu (CH, Chairperson)


A. Reconfirming the European Commission’s (EC) role as guardian of the European Common market as defined in the Proceedings for the application of Art. 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)9,

B. Fully aware that cartels violate EU principles of the single market and ultimately harm consumers by:

i) charging higher prices,

ii) limiting choice,

iii) reducing innovation and quality of goods,

C. Guided by the belief that competition policies should prevent the formation of cartels and fight existing ones effectively,

D. Alarmed that companies pursue anticompetitive agreements as profitable business strategies due to low deterrence,

E. Deeply concerned by the low detection rates of cartels due to insufficient investigation practices both on the EU level and by the Member States,

F. Regretting that existing antitrust measures are underfinanced,

G. Deeply convinced that fines in antitrust cases are insufficiently high to provide adequate deterrence,

H. Recognising that criminal prosecution of individuals involved in anticompetitive practices is only featured in the national legislation of two Member States;

9 Art. 101 of the TFEU prohibits agreements between two or more independent market operators which restrict competition. Art. 102 of the TFEU prohibits firm that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse their position.


I. Noting that the Leniency Policy10 remains the most effective investigative tool for cartel detection;

1. Urges the Directorate-General for Competition to amend the Guidelines on the method of

setting fines so that these are:

a) equal to the additional profits earned through collusive practices,

b) supplemented by a variable percentage of turnover determined by aggravating or mitigating circumstances;

2. Directs the sustained standardisation of competition laws to ensure equitable sanctions across all Member States;

3. Calls upon the Member States to implement criminal prosecution of individuals in their antitrust law;

4. Instructs the European Commission to improve the effectiveness of their investigations by:

a) employing proactive market screening11 to identify suspicious activities,

b) increasing the resources for antitrust investigations;

5. Encourages collaboration between the national competition agencies and:

a) international organisations, particularly the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the Organisation for Economic and Cultural Development (OECD),

b) the competition authorities of non-EU states.

10 Under the Leniency Policy, the European Commission grants reduction of fines and clemency to those companies disclosing their involvement in anticompetitive practices and contributing to the investigation into cartels. (Commission notice on immunity of fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, 2006) 11 Identification of suspicious pricing patterns using statistical analysis of observable economic data and firm behaviour, systematic monitoring of media, tracking of firms & individuals to detect behaviour which is inconsistent with healthy competition.


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND GENDER

EQUALITY Despite the 2013 European Commission communication on the

elimination of female genital mutilation (FGM), the practice is still carried out not only within the EU, but also in third countries. What action

should Member States take to help those at risk of being taken abroad for FGM?

Submitted by: Luise Cornelli (DE), Clémence Fabry (FR), Celina Heinzelmann (DE), Celina Hollmichel (DE), Justus Widmann (DE), Valeria Wollenweber (DE), Jasmin Kühner (DE, Chairperson), David Norali Ghasemi (DE, Chairperson)


A. Deeply concerned that there are 140 million victims of FGM12 with another three million women and girls at risk of suffering mutilation globally,

B. Alarmed that within the EU, 500.000 women and girls are affected by FGM and another 180.000 run risk of undergoing the procedure,

C. Fully believing that FGM violates several human rights such as:

i) the right to personal security and integrity,

ii) the right to physical and mental health,

iii) the right to sexual and reproductive health,

iv) the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatments,

D. Noting with deep concern that FGM is carried out mostly on girls below the age of fifteen,

E. Aware of the short and long-term consequences of FGM, including but not limited to:

i) physical damage, such as infertility, infection, sepsis, increased risk of severe complications during childbirth and death,

ii) psychological damage, such as shame, reduced sexual pleasure, loss of integrity and post-traumatic stress disorder,

F. Keeping in mind that FGM is a deep-rooted traditional practice carried out mainly in Africa, parts of the Middle East and Asia for various religious, cultural and social reasons,

G. Observing that FGM is a cultural tradition in the affected countries and is therefore commonly passed on to younger generations,

12 The World Health Organisation (WHO) classifies Female Genial Mutilation in four major types: 1. Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris, 2. Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minor, with or without excision of the labia majora, 3. Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal, 4. Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes


H. Bearing in mind the conflict between tolerating cultural traditions and customs and the need to strive for the global respect for human rights,

I. Deeply disturbed by the fact that FGM is used to suppress women and thereby counteracts gender equality,

J. Noting with regret that FGM is a taboo issue with low awareness within the EU,

K. Disturbed that girls are taken abroad to undergo the FGM procedure since it is illegal within the EU,

L. Emphasising that measures taken by the European Commission (Communication 2013/833), the European Parliament (Resolution 2012/2684) and the UN (Resolution 67/146) have been unsuccessful;

1. Calls upon the European Commission to establish training programmes for medical staff,

teachers, social workers and religious leaders of all faiths within the EU, enabling them to help women and girls who suffered FGM or are at risk of undergoing the procedure;

2. Demands the European Commission to initiate a multi-platform media campaign which raises awareness about the issue of FGM;

3. Urges the European Commission to fund an advisory group consisting of NGO members as well as victims of FGM to advocate for the eradication of FGM in affected developing countries;

4. Recommends that Member States oblige their citizens to report every suspicion of FGM in their surroundings to the authorities, as already established in Sweden13;

5. Draws attention to the need for special legislation in all Member States to prosecute parents and guardians who take girls abroad to undergo FGM, even if the procedure is legal in these third countries;

6. Further recommends that Member States enable judges to impose court orders in case of strong evidence that a girl is at risk of undergoing FGM;

7. Affirms that the aforementioned orders should include:

a) mandatory, regular medical control examinations of those at risk,

b) a prohibition to leave the territory of the EU;

8. Directs all Member States to create anonymous self-help groups and telephone hotlines that supply safe psychological help to FGM victims or those at risk;

9. Encourages the European Council and all Member States to fund NGOs fighting FGM both within the EU and in third countries.

13 Sweden Act on (1982:316) Prohibiting the Genital Mutilation („Circumcision“) of Woman Section 2


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The Syriza-led Greek government has demonstrated its friendlier stance towards Russia compared to other Member States. How should the EU

deal with the Russian government’s involvement in the conflict in Ukraine while taking into account the diversity of opinions within its

Member States?

Submitted by: Sarah Barcikowski (DE), Jana Gall (DE), Manon Germain (FR), William Girvan (DE), Moritz Müller (DE), Sebastian Pfeiffer (DE), Julian Schönauer (DE), Lucas Tletz (DE), Liv Colell (DE, Chairperson), Viktor M. Salenius (FI, Chairperson)


A. Deeply concerned about the negative impact of the ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine on the quality of life of Eastern European people, particularly those whose families are divided by the conflict zone,

B. Noting with deep concern the violations of human rights that have occurred in the course of the conflict in Ukraine,

C. Alarmed by the fact that strong nationalist sentiments are gaining ground in the Russian Federation, Ukraine and EU Member States bordering the Russian Federation,

D. Convinced that a prosperous future for Ukraine is only achievable through a diplomatic resolution of the conflict that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty,

E. Emphasising that military intervention in a foreign state violates the territorial sovereignty of that state and is therefore strictly prohibited by international law,

F. Taking into account that a diplomatic solution to the conflict requires the Russian government’s co-operation, due to its key role in the escalation of the conflict,

G. Taking note of the overlap of interests and spheres of influence, cultural as well as political, between EU Member States and the Russian Federation in Ukraine,

H. Realising that the sanctions and counter-sanctions imposed as a result of the conflict in Ukraine have affected both the Russian Federation and EU Member States negatively, causing the Russian Federation to fall into recession and many EU Member States to temporarily lose an important export market,

I. Fully aware of the diversity of opinions among EU Member States as to the appropriate response to the conflict and the proper application of military and diplomatic measures,

J. Recognising the strong economic ties between Ukraine and the EU, as well as the new Ukrainian government’s wish to join the EU by 2020;


1. Demands that the borders between Ukraine and the self-proclaimed People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk as well as the Crimea remain free for crossing by citizens intending to visit family members;

2. Urges both the Ukrainian government and separatist forces active in Eastern Ukraine to grant humanitarian organisations continuous access to the conflict zone;

3. Draws attention to the obligation of all involved parties to abide by the Minsk II ceasefire agreement14;

4. Calls upon the European Council to symbolically retract the Head of the Delegation of the EU to Russia in case of considerable violation of the Minsk II ceasefire agreement, rather than imposing further economic sanctions;

5. Expresses its hope that EU Member States refrain from undertaking diplomatic initiatives that substantially diverge from the common EU stance regarding the conflict;

6. Further appeals to the Council of the European Union to authorise the High Representative15 to act with legally binding effect on behalf of all EU Member States in matters concerning the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine;

7. Recommends the creation of a European Solidarity Fund that provides financial support to those EU Member States most negatively affected by Russian counter-sanctions;

8. Solemnly affirms the efforts of the Ukrainian government to fulfill the Copenhagen Criteria16 with the intention of qualifying as a candidate country by 2020;

9. Proposes the implementation of reconciliation initiatives after the resolution of the conflict, working towards a sustainable peaceful coexistence between the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

14 Treaty signed by the Russian Federation, Ukraine, France and Germany on a ceasefire in the conflict in Ukraine to commence on 15 February 2015. It orders the withdrawal of all heavy artillery from the immediate proximity of the conflict zone in Eastern Ukraine. 15 The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission is entrusted with the mission to implement the strategies and decisions taken by the European Council and the Council of the European Union regarding the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Federica Mogherini (IT) currently holds the office. (www.europa.eu) 16 A set of political and economic conditions to be met by any state seeking EU membership, including stable political and legislative institutions, a functioning market economy and the ability to take on the obligations of EU membership such as the monetary union. (www.europa.eu)


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND

HOME AFFAIRS With over a year having passed since the adoption of the Dublin III

regulations, there is disagreement over whether they ensure an effective and humane asylum process. What more should the EU do to protect the rights of asylum seekers whilst ensuring that Member States can

cope with the influx of refugees?

Submitted by: Yasmin Kartes (DE), Tobias Jäckel (DE), Zelda Montéville (FR), Friedel Pape (DE), Lena Predeick (DE), Regina Geis (DE), Sarah Madai (DE), Christina Petrik (DE), Franziska Franke (DE, Chairperson), Daniela Toma (RO, Chairperson)


A. Keeping in mind the EU’s commitment to promoting human rights around the world,

B. Noting with regret the lack of solidarity and political interest among Member States to develop a common solution for dealing with asylum seekers and refugees,

C. Aware that the opt-out clause17 enables Member States to reject certain EU legislation which causes inconsistencies in the asylum system,

D. Alarmed by the perils asylum seekers face in their home countries and on their way to Europe, such as human trafficking and capsizing,

E. Recognizing that measured on a global scale, only a very small part of all refugees seeks asylum in the EU,

F. Emphasising that some Member States struggle with overcrowding and the financial burden of asylum seekers, peripheral Member States in particular,

G. Deeply disturbed by overcrowded and under-resourced reception centres and refugee homes where applicants may suffer inhumane treatment,

H. Fully alarmed that the rise of right-wing parties, xenophobia and racism causes difficulties for asylum seekers to integrate in their receiving countries,

I. Alarmed by asylum seekers’ limited access to the labour market during the verification process of their refugee status,

J. Noting with regret the lack of communication between Member States concerning job vacancies which could be available for asylum seekers if they were be granted freedom of movement,

K. Concerned by the fact that qualifications acquired by refugees are not always recognized in the EU,

17 A clause that permits parties to an agreement to reject particular provisions.


L. Appreciating the work of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in assisting Member States during the asylum process;

1. Invites Member States to improve their co-operation in the administration of the asylum

process;

2. Supports the introduction of alternate legal opportunities for asylum seekers to enter the EU;

3. Calls for the establishment of a new department in the EASO with the purpose of carrying out unannounced controls in reception centres;

4. Strongly urges the Commission to establish a comprehensive guide of precise requirements that have to be met by reception centres;

5. Requests that each application interview should be filmed and collected by the EASO department in order to avoid manipulation of any kind and as potential evidence in case of human rights violations;

6. Encourages non-governmental organisations and Member States to inform citizens about the situation of asylum seekers, e.g. through schools or media involvement;

7. Recommends Member States to provide short-term work permits to asylum seekers and obligatory language courses;

8. Suggests that qualifications acquired by refugees are evaluated and recognised by local authorities during the verification process;

9. Further suggests the creation of a Common European Database containing data about language skills, family links in Europe, age and former occupation of refugees.


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE

EU Member States collectively are the world’s third largest arms exporter. Building on the 2008 Common Position on arms export controls, how should the EU balance the economic interest of its

Member States with the aims of its Common Security and Defence Policy, such as peace, security and respect for human rights?

Submitted by: Rene Adiyaman (DE), André Brendler (DE), Ole Grunenberg (DE), Annika Hirschlein (DE), Cosimo Jacker (DE), Aylin Kesdogan (DE), Elouisa Maria Müller (DE), Anaïs Le Strat (FR), Christiane Suchanek (DE, Chairperson), Mike Whyard (UK, Vice President)


A. Fully aware of the lack of consistency between Member States with regards to the regulation of arms exports, such as different classifications of weapons and the availability of statistics on the matter,

B. Concerned with the lack of transparency of armaments export from EU Member States,

C. Condemning the lack of sanctions within the EU legal acts regarding arms trading,

D. Observing the opportunity for diverging interpretations of the aforementioned legislation which allows EU Member States to bypass embargoes,

E. Alarmed by the lack of responsibility of individual Member States to avoid the diversion of military items by granting export licences resulting in unwanted or illegal end-users18,

F. Noting with regret that weapons exported from Europe are regularly used during conflicts in unstable regions,

G. Believing that the EU and its Member States share a humanitarian ethos, implying a responsibility for the welfare of civilians who could be injured or killed by exported European weapons,

H. Recognising the benefits of arms exports to the European economy as shown by the fact that granted arms licenses were worth over €37 billion in 2011 and that the industry provides large-scale employment;

1. Urges the European Council to amend the Common Position of 200819 by creating an

information gathering mechanism which will provide data based on a uniform set of criteria, including:

a) financial value of weapons deals, 18 Referring to the Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP 19 Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP


b) types of weapons exported as classified in the Common Military List of the European Union (EU ML)20,

c) the destination of the weapons;

2. Endorses the strengthening of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI)21 and its Sanctions Committee in order to increase the liability of EU Member States who breach the Common Position, thus enabling legal proceedings to be raised to the European Court of Justice;

3. Strongly requests that EU Member States conclude contracts with all weapons trading partners which prohibit the recipient from re-selling the goods to states which are on the EU weapons trade blacklist;

4. Recommends an increase in the frequency and stringency of European External Action Service (EEAS)22 reports on the internal situation of states, which will help to guide the European Council’s decisions on arms trade embargoes using criteria such as human rights records and political stability;

5. Suggests that financial support be given to selected non-governmental organisations from the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO)23 to help victims of conflicts enabled by illegitimately traded European armaments;

6. Encourages the enhancement of networking between companies and their trading partners in order to increase the economic success of the armament industry by creating EU backed:

a) international industry exhibitions,

b) online platforms,

c) expertise conferences for Research & Development staff within the industry.

20 EU ML: contains classifications for items that need to be assessed under the criteria of the Common Position 2008/944/CFSP when governments decide on granting or denying an export license 21 FPI: institution responsible for monitoring and evaluating EU sanctions as trade embargoes 22 The EEAS is the European Union’s diplomatic service and provides expertise on foreign affairs issues 23 ECHO: A body of the European Commission in the field of humanitarian aid and civil protection that provides networking, monitoring, project and aid funding


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE III

With EU Common Security and Defence Policy missions often operating parallel to UN interventions, how can the EU improve its co-operation

with the United Nations in the areas of peacekeeping and peacebuilding?

Submitted by: Tim Abt (DE), Vanessa Olivia Ackermann (DE), Jana Blome (DE), Sebastian Gausepohl (DE), Marianne Lollivier (FR), Annalena Obeerfeld (DE), Johanna Orth (DE), Lara Jo Pitzer (DE), Hidde Fokkema (NL, Chairperson), Lisa Latussek (DE, Chairperson)


A. Stressing the EU’s responsibility to promote peace around the world,

B. Aware of the fact that joint missions of the UN and the EU have been carried out in the past,

C. Keeping in mind that the lack of a designated UN office to co-ordinate missions hinders effective co-operation with the EU,

D. Concerned about the inefficiency of many peacekeeping missions that are carried out separately due to a lack of co-operation between the EU and the UN,

E. Bearing in mind that changing the communication structure between the EU and the UN will affect the EU’s relationship with other organisations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO),

F. Fully aware of the imbalance between the EU’s financial contribution of 40.6% to the entire budget for UN missions and its contribution of only 7% of the staff,

G. Strongly emphasising its desire to further support the UN’s peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions,

H. Noting with regret that some seats on the United Nations Security Council are permanent, rather than being allocated diplomatically;

1. Encourages the EU and the UN to take advantage of each other’s expertise in

peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions by conducting a joint analysis of past and running missions;

2. Recommends the UN to take a more active role in the co-ordination of its peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions, rather than leaving this up to the participating countries;


3. Calls upon the EU and the UN to establish transparent communication structures, including regular meetings of European External Action Service24 and UNSC delegations, as well as open exchange of necessary information;

4. Requests that EU Member States obtain permission from NATO to share confidential information with the headquarters of the acting military forces of UN missions if it is crucial for the success of the mission;

5. Suggests the provision of more personnel for peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions, including humanitarian and military experts, in addition to ongoing financial support;

6. Proposes a modular approach25 to promote co-operation without diminishing the EU’s freedom to decide internally on the extension of its involvement;

7. Urges Member States to place a stronger emphasis on the European Council’s interests when voting in the UN General Assembly as well as in the UNSC.

24 European External Action Service: Serves as a foreign ministry and diplomatic corps for the EU, implementing the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy and other areas of the EU’s external representation. 25 Modular approach: according to the Plan of Action on Enhancing EU CSDP Support to UN Peacekeeping F6/B1: The EU provides one or several components to a UN operation apart from financial support, which could include “niche capabilities in the areas of (…) Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration, rule of law and border management”.


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE II

Violent conflicts close to the EU’s border, such as in Ukraine and in Syria and Iraq, have sparked a renewed debate about EU defence

policies. How can the EU best develop its defence policy and capabilities in order to facilitate a collective response to conflicts

worldwide?

Submitted by: Jade Colombat (FR), Phillip Girvan (DE), Christian Gonder (DE), Henrik Jaufmann (DE), Tim Rautenberg (DE), Charlotte Uphoff (DE), Mathis Wiechmann (DE), Hannu Zhang (DE), Ripsime Hovsepyan (Chairperson, AM), Ulrich Johannes Völker (Vice-President, DE)


A. Welcoming the past achievements of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the EU for the worldwide promotion of common European values, as envisaged in the preamble of the Lisbon Treaty, such as:

i) peace,

ii) democratic governance,

iii) protection of human rights,

B. Noting with concern the complexity, inefficiency and lack of democratic legitimation of the decision-making processes within the CSDP,

C. Fully aware that the European Security Strategy (ESS)26 is outdated and that there is an urgent need to reanalyse the key threats identified therein,

D. Believing that an ever closer integration of the strategies and structures of the CSDP into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) might compromise the goals and values of the EU in the long term,

E. Contemplating that the EU and its Member States have so far neither made use of the authorisation of military action provided for by Article 44 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)27 nor fully implemented the existing strategic guidelines such as the:

i) Saint-Malo Declaration28,

26 Formulated in 2003 by the European Council as the strategic framework for the CSDP, the ESS analyses and defines the EU’s security environment, identifies key security challenges and their political implications for the EU. 27 Article 44 TEU reads as follows: “(1) Within the framework of the decisions adopted in accordance with Article 43, the Council may entrust the implementation of a task to a group of Member States which are willing and have the necessary capability for such a task. Those Member States, in association with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall agree among themselves on the management of the task. (2) Member States participating in the task shall keep the Council regularly informed of its progress on their own initiative or at the request of another Member State. Those States shall inform the Council immediately should the completion of the task entail major consequences or require amendment of the objective, scope and conditions determined for the task in the decisions referred to in paragraph 1. In such cases, the Council shall adopt the necessary decisions.”


i) Ghent Framework29,

ii) Declaration of Strengthening Capabilities30,

iii) Headline Goal 201031,

F. Noting with concern that existing international initiatives such as the European Defence Agency (EDA)32, EU Battlegroups33 and Eurocorps34 have not yet brought about an effective integration of the EU Member States’ defence policies and capabilities;

1. Reiterates that the EU and its Member States should always maintain diplomacy and

civilian crisis management as their preferred means of intervention in international crises;

2. Recalls that the strength of its internal market allows for the EU to utilise economic pressure as an effective instrument to promote common European values beyond its borders;

3. Realises that democratic and effective external action of the EU requires a centralisation of decision-making processes which can only be guaranteed by the further establishment of federal structures;

4. Calls upon the European Council to revise the ESS to address emerging threats to the security of the EU and its Member States such as cyber warfare and cyber terrorism;

5. Strongly recommends that the CSDP be increasingly detached from NATO structures to further rely on a credible military force of its own as envisaged by the Saint-Malo Declaration;

6. Urges a reassessment of the functionality of the existing common European military forces under the realm of the CSDP, while expecting every EU Member State to voluntarily contribute an equitable share of funds and troops thereto;

7. Encourages the utilisation of EU Battlegroups in order to seize their full potential as a flagship of the CSDP and European values overseas when deployed according to the conditions set in the Petersberg Tasks35;

28 “Joint Declaration on European Defence” from the Franco-British Summit in 1998, where the Heads of State and Government of France and the United Kingdom agreed that the EU needs to be in a position to play its full role on the international stage. 29 Declaration by the EU Member States‘ ministers of defence of December 2010 on the pooling and sharing of military capabilities. 30 Declaration by the Council of the EU of December 2008 on the development of military and civilian capabilities for conflict management. 31 Target for the improvement of military capabilities set by the European Council in 2004. 32 The EDA was established in July 2004 by a Joint Action of the Council of the EU “to support the Member States in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the ESDP (today: CSDP) as it stands now and develops in the future”. 33 The EU Battlegroup (EUBG) is a military unit adhering to the CSDP. Often based on contributions from a coalition of member states, each of the eighteen Battlegroups consists of a battalion-sized force (1,500 troops) reinforced with combat support elements. 34The European Corps, sometimes shortened as Eurocorps, is an intergovernmental army corps of approximately 1,000 soldiers stationed in Strasbourg, France. It was established in May 1992 and is open for participation by all EU Member States. 35 Included into the EU treaty framework with the Lisbon Treaty (Art. 42 TEU), the Petersberg Tasks establish the scope of action of the CSDP. They include humanitarian and rescue tasks, conflict prevention and peacekeeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management including peacemaking, joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks as well as post-conflict stabilisation tasks.


8. Invites EU Member States to facilitate the effective implementation of the principle of pooling and sharing of military capabilities and equipment within the EDA by introducing a European Defence Semester for the regular assessment of national policies.


Notes

resolution booklet – rsc münster 2015

Documents