In this session, Edyta Tuta-Lorenz from ENNHRI presented the UN Paris Principles and explained how they can serve as a guide for NHRIs’ work in the field of securitisation. Participants were presented with the General Observations of GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation and explored together their added value and concrete application in this field. As a result, participants learned to identify the international standards underpinning NHRIs’ work that make them unique actors in the field of securitisation and human rights.

In this introductory session, participants looked at what security is, what the link is between security and human rights, and the role of NHRIs in the security sector.

Luka Glušac, Assistant Director and Research Fellow at the University of Belgrade,  opened the session by explaining the concept of ‘security’ and its meaning in the governance sector. He started by presenting the good governance principles: accountability, rule of law, transparency, participation, responsiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency. Then, he explained how these principles should apply to security provision, management and oversight by state and non-state actors (‘good security sector governance’).

He continued by explaining what role NHRIs can play in overseeing the security sector. In this regard, he introduced the Triple-A Framework, which refers to “authority”, “ability”, and “attitude”. Based on this framework, he tried to explain that the role of NHRIs in monitoring the security sector depends on their powers, capacity, and willingness to hold the government and its security apparatus accountable.

The session ended with an exercise. The participants were divided into small groups and had to discuss and apply the Triple-A Framework to their respective national contexts. In a group session they discussed their specific mandates in the security field and their ideas on how to join forces with other actors involved.

In the second part of the session on securitisation and human rights, Luka Glušac outlined the theory of securitisation, how securitisation works in practice and how NHRIs can detect it.

He started by unpacking the rationale behind securitisation and placing it in the post-Cold War context. He explained the two main approaches to securitisation – liberalism and realism. Luka then gave an overview of the main definitions of security and securitisation, listing the different actors involved: securitisation actors (usually the actors with power and social capital, like the government, authorities, politicians and lobby groups), functional actors (the ones creating and transmitting the narrative, like NGOs, academia, parts of the parliament and the media), and the audience (the ones accepting or not accepting the narrative, mostly the general public or the parliament).

Luka continued the presentation with examples of cases of securitisation, such as the Paris attacks in 2015 and the British military action in Syria in 2015, to clarify what a case of securitisation in practice looks like. This was followed by the presentation of a third case, the case of the Danish cartoons, which he used as an exercise for the participants to discuss whether this is a case of securitisation or not and to discuss the possible role of NHRIs in these kinds of situations.

Edyta Tutor-Lorenz from the ENNHRI Secretariat ended the session with a presentation of the trends and recommendations regarding the impact of  securitisation on the rule of law and human rights from the ENNHRI Rule of Law report.

In this session, Luka Glušac presented different types of emergencies and their potential implications to security and human rights.

He began by explaining that armed forces are typically used for 3 missions: defence against external armed threats, UN peacekeeping operations and support to civilian authorities (the so-called internal role of armed forces). He then talked about the different tasks armed forces can take on (law enforcement, disaster-assistance, environmental assistance, a combination of the above three, and broader assistance) and explained the driving factors behind the use of a more frequent internal role of armed forces (the high demand for assistance in providing services, their possession of relevant resources, skills, manpower and unhindered access to all parts of a country and their ability to serve as a unifying mechanism). He continued by talking about the risks of deploying armed forces and whether the legal framework is clear enough on their mandate.

The session then focused on the potential role of NHRIs as early warning systems, using the provisions of the Kyiv Declaration, which discusses the role of NHRIs in conflict and post-conflict situations.

Volodymyr Shcherbakov, from the Office of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, presented a case study on securitisation in Ukraine while applying martial law. He spoke about the Ukrainian Law ‘on the Legal Regime of Martial Law’ and how it temporarily restricts different constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens, such as the right to freedom of movement, the right to elect and to be elected, the right to assemble peacefully, etc.

In the second part of the session on situations of emergency, the presentation focused on health crises, with a specific focus on the COVID-19 crisis.

Luka Glušac opened this session by talking about the implications of deploying the armed forces and other security forces to fight health crises, like the cutting-back of other military activities, the suspension of education at military schools, the higher risk of exposure to health risks of armed forces, etc.

He continued by focusing on the specific case of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the work of NHRIs, such as the impossibility of field visits, devising new ways to receive complaints, preparing special reports, etc. Different NHRIs shared their own experiences on coping with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Valle Olle, from the Estonian Chancellor of Justice, presented a case study of the COVID-19 impact at the national level in Estonia. On the one hand, he pointed out the positive aspects of the pandemic, such as the increase in awareness of hygiene principles. On the other hand, he talked about the difficulties during the pandemic, such as the ambiguity and outdatedness of legal provisions and the restriction of various fundamental rights, which influenced their NHRI’s workload as they received many petitions.

In this session, Johannes Heiler and Maximilian Scheid, two experts on counterterrorism at ODIHR, talked about the relation between counter-terrorism, human rights and securitisation.

They began their presentation by emphasising the importance of human rights in counter-terrorism measures. They stressed that a lack of human rights, injustice and conflict are conditions conducive to terrorism and that counter-terrorism and human rights protection should be seen as mutually reinforcing objectives.

They continued the presentation with a broad overview of international, regional and national counter-terrorism instruments and policies. With this overview, they wanted to stress that counter-terrorism legislation at the national level  might be too broad and too vague, making it prone to misuse and arbitrary application.

Johannes and Maximilian ended the session with a group work exercise followed by a discussion on securitisation trends in the counter-terrorism space and their human rights impact. The participants were divided into 4 groups and had to brainstorm on human rights impact based on experiences in their own countries. Two groups focused on the so called ‘foreign terrorist fighters’ and the other two groups focused on violent extremism and radicalisation that lead to terrorism (‘VERLT’).

Johannes Heiler and Maximilian Scheid opened this session with an introduction on policing approaches in counterterrorism and other contexts and their human rights implications. They discussed the difference between a control-oriented approach and a service-oriented approach, between democratic policing and community policing, and the role NHRIs can play in monitoring policing activities. They also discussed the risks associated with the expansion and regulation of policing (over-policing of specific groups, privacy issues, data protection, lack of transparency, etc.).

Emily Mills, from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, presented their work on counterterrorism, policing and community relations against the specific national background of past conflicts. She gave an overview of the complex legal system and the challenges faced in Northern Ireland. She then went on to discuss the stop and search method and the additional safeguards in place in Northern Ireland to prevent arbitrary use. She ended her presentation with an overview of the work the Northern Irish NHRI does in this area, ranging from advising the government to investigation and litigation.

Michelle Jansen, from the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, presented the Dutch case of ethnic profiling. The Dutch government is increasingly using big data and algorithms, which often leads to cases of (indirect) discrimination. She gave examples of several cases where the use of (ethnic) profiling mechanisms led to discrimination in practice. She ended her presentation talking about the possible role NHRIs could play with regard to this issue.

The session ended with a roundtable discussion on practical experiences. The participants had the opportunity to share their good practices and potential future work on securitisation and law enforcement.

Luka Glušac opened this session with an introduction on how securitisation is used to fight political opposition and restrict civic space. In recent years, there has been a trend of increasing attacks against NHRIs, shrinking of civic space and dominating executive power. NHRIs are increasingly seen by the government as political opposition and therefore brought into the political arena.

He continued his presentation by showing how existing and new legislation can be used to securitise certain issues.  More and more laws are being adopted that restrict civic space, challenge human rights standards and lower human rights standards already achieved.

Then the participants split into groups and discussed the text of the Georgian “foreign agents” law (a highly problematic and non-democratic law). Their task was to identify the securitised provisions and discuss these with each other. After this exercise there was time for a group discussion on how NHRIs can overcome this type of legislation and what their role is when this type of legislation comes into force in their country.

In this session, participants looked at the concept of societal security and how it connects migrants and securitisation and how the securitisation of migration in Europe has affected people on the move.

Luka Glušac opened this session by introducing the concept of societal security. He discussed how migrants are often seen as potential threats and therefore securitised. He used the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum to discuss the securitisation of migration. Adopted in May 2024, the Pact provides a framework for illegal migration and the regulation for migration crises. Edyta Tutor-Lorenz from the ENNHRI Secretariat explained how this crisis regulation allows derogations from registrations and other legal processes, putting the human rights of migrants at risk.

Goda Jurevičiūtė, from the Lithuanian Seimas Ombudspersons’ Office, continued the session with a case study. She talked about the extensive migration from Belarus to Lithuania that led to overcrowded border stations and eventually the collapse of their asylum system. She then discussed the government’s response to this crisis, namely the adoption of emergency legislation, changing the legal status of foreigners (increasing the waiting period for applications, abolishing the right to appeal and limiting access to asylum during emergencies) and endangering their human rights.

Emily Mills, from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, then presented on the situation in Northern Ireland. She explained how Northern Ireland’s migration legislation is almost impossible for migrants to follow and outlined how the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission  has successfully challenged the UK Government’s Illegal Migration Act.

In this session, participants learned to understand different aspects of the security-privacy dilemma, how the development of technology affects the right to privacy, and how NHRIs can build partnerships and liaise with external experts.

Luka Glušac opened the session by addressing the security-privacy dilemma. He first discussed the difference between mass surveillance and targeted surveillance and how the increase in mass surveillance is linked to the terrorist attacks that have taken place in Europe. He also discussed the use of metadata and how this form of surveillance can be more intrusive than wiretapping (the monitoring of telephone and Internet-based conversations by a third party), even though it does not always require a court order.

He continued the session with a case study of the Serbian NHRI, which joined forces with the Information and Data Protection Commissioner to oversee telecommunication companies. They did research into the Electronic Communication Law, which gave companies the right to keep information for one year and to register any access to the phone listings and proposed 14 systematic measures related to the interception of communication and the legislative improvements and oversight (only two were fully implemented). This case is an example of good practice and shows how useful it can be for NHRIs to cooperate with other bodies on these matters.

Marcin Malecko, from the Office of  the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights, presented a recent Polish case before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the use of secret spyware (Pegasus) and uncontrolled data collection. The Commissioner joined as a third party (amicus curiae) in the proceedings. The case was successful, and the European Court of Human Rights found three violations of the right to privacy, meaning that Polish legislation will have to be amended to comply with the human rights standards.