Problems, challenges and opportunities

Скачать 383.29 Kb.
НазваниеProblems, challenges and opportunities
Размер383.29 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

Box 3.3: Making democracy work

Code of good practice in electoral matters

(Venice Commission, Opinion No. 190/2002; Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1320 (2003); Congress of Local and Regional Authority of Europe Resolution 148 (2003); Declaration by the Committee of Ministers (13 May 2004))

Developed by the Venice Commission in response to a request from the Parliamentary Assembly, (Resolution 1264 (2001)), the Code of good practice in electoral matters, provides the detailed criteria against which free and fair elections in Europe can be measured. In particular, it establishes the criteria for ensuring five principles are upheld:

  • universal suffrage: including the minimum age, nationality and residence criteria;

  • equal suffrage: including the principle of one person one vote, the rights of national minorities and equality of the sexes;

  • free suffrage: including the freedom of voters to form an opinion, express their wishes and combat electoral fraud;

  • secret suffrage: including the secrecy of individual ballots and the prevention of family voting;

  • direct suffrage: ensuring direct election of representatives at national and local levels.

Both the Committee of Ministers declaration and the Parliamentary Assembly’s resolution call upon member states to bring their electoral law into line with these criteria. They will also form the basis of the Council’s future election observation and monitoring activities.

Instruments of direct democracy

(Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (96) 2 on referendums and popular initiative)

In this recommendation, the Committee of Ministers lays down conditions for the holding of local referendums and popular initiatives. Stressing that representative democracy must remain the basis of local democracy, the Committee of Ministers acknowledges that the right of citizens to have their say in major decisions on long-term or virtually irreversible commitments is one of the democratic principles common to all member states of the Council of Europe.

Financing of political parties

(Venice Commission (2001) “Guidelines and report on the financing of political parties” (doc. CDL-INF (2001) 8); Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec(2003)4E on common rules against corruption in the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns (8 April 2003);Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe Recommendation 86 (2000) on the financial transparency of political parties and their democratic functioning at the local level)

Having surveyed member states on the ways in which political parties are funded and the possibilities of corruption where parties are too dependent upon private finance, the Venice Commission established criteria for public financing of political parties. These have been built upon by the Committee of Minister’s common rules which establish the following basic rules:

  • public and private financing of political parties is acceptable, as long as conflicts of interest are avoided, all donations are transparent and political parties remain independent;

  • the state should ensure that there are rules governing donations to political parties, including a ceiling on the maximum donation acceptable from any individual or legal entity;

  • donations from foreign governments or enterprises should be prohibited or regulated;

  • electoral campaign expenditure should be limited and the rules for recording and auditing it clear;

  • states should provide for independent monitoring in respect of the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns, including the monitoring of accounts.

The Council has been especially concerned to ensure that ethnic minorities, immigrants and foreign residents are treated equally and fairly through the electoral process.76 A more recent concern has been the practice of family voting in some countries and the need to protect women’s individual voting rights.77 The problem is neatly summarised by Walter Schwimmer in his foreword to a 2002 publication on the issue:

“Family voting” is when a male family member votes with or for one or more women relatives or when family members vote together in the open, often facilitated by polling officials. This undermines the political rights of women and implies failure to comply with both international and national legal instruments. ... [It] amounts to the disenfranchisement of women, a lack of respect for fair electoral proceedings, and leaves the door open to electoral fraud.78

In many respects, this new focus on the problem of family voting can be seen as a continuation of the Council’s work in defending free and fair elections. However, it also raises a significant point about the development of representative democracy across Europe. Pulling together election observer reports from the Council’s own activities and those of the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe), the research of the Congress identifies the problem as being associated almost entirely with the new democracies in Europe, where, with relatively new democratic political structures and unlike in older democracies, the individual right to vote is not always well established, particularly in rural areas.79

This concern is, arguably, symptomatic of the Council’s wider concern with ensuring that those members that have joined the Council since 1989 live up to the same supposedly high democratic standards as the founding member states. While such concerns may have substance in relation to some new democracies, they are patently not true in relation to all of them. Moreover, they create an artificial distinction between old and new democracies, and pose problems for the future development of democratic practices in the established democracies as well as those in transition. In response to declining electoral turnout a number of established democracies have introduced postal voting as an option for all citizens, or even as a mandatory practice in some elections. Remote voting of this nature removes the opportunity for election officials or impartial observers to prevent family voting. The push towards remote e-voting via the Internet or other technologies compounds the threat of family voting.80 The problem of family voting could return to old democracies, as well as the new, if remote voting either by post or electronically becomes the norm.

Consequently, there is a potential clash in the Council’s activities. On the one hand, it is advancing the principles of a secret ballot as being at the heart of representative democracy. On the other hand, it is helping to define the standards for experiments and developments in e-voting. While the Council’s motivation for this involvement is to ensure that the principles of democratic elections are respected, the consequence of e-voting may be that the privacy of voting may be undermined in many contexts. The assumption that family voting only occurs within transition democracies which suffer from “cultural practices that reflect the dominance of patriarchy over democracy”81 is a bold and possibly misplaced one. While the problem may not be as widespread in established democracies it is still easy to imagine circumstances where dominant individuals will exercise voting on behalf of others in their household, especially when they can do so from their homes. Given the opportunity, family voting will occur in some households, even in the most stable and developed democratic cultures. Moreover, it will be difficult for the Council to argue against the extension of remote voting practices into those countries currently identified as being particularly guilty of allowing family voting, if it is promoting it in other countries as a solution to the democratic deficit.

Through a range of mechanisms the Council is seeking to sustain and develop representative democracy and to reconfirm the legitimacy of parliaments. In so doing, it is responding to both the challenges of widened democratic practices and the opportunities that new technologies and other innovations can offer. However, at the same time the Council needs to balance the development of democracy with the establishment and protection of its core principles.

Transparency, responsiveness and accountability

Issues of transparency, responsiveness and accountability of elected politicians are a perennial problem in models of representative democracy.82 Transparency, in particular, has taxed the Council in its deliberations. Attention has focused especially upon the role of the media as an independent watchdog of democracy and as a safeguard for freedom of expression. From this perspective, a free and critical media is fundamental to achieving transparency of the political process, ensuring that politicians are responsive to popular will and that governments are properly accountable for their policies and actions. One of the most pressing concerns is that without effective transparency and accountability, politics is prone to corrupt and oligarchic tendencies. The setting of ethical standards for individuals in public office and the monitoring of their behaviour, therefore, provides an important focus for democratic developments.

Transparency, responsiveness and accountability covers a multitude of different democratic features, ranging from the role of elections in holding individuals to account through to the responsiveness of governments to the “general will” and the transparency of internal processes to ensure that individuals are not making unfair personal gain through public office. While all of these remain significant, the Council has been particularly concerned with three institutional features that underpin such practices. First, there has been an emphasis upon defining and enforcing the ethical standards to which public servants should be bound. These standards build upon a long history of public service ethics and provide a minimum standard by which all public organisations should be judged across Europe. Second, and linked to this first point, the Council has been anxious to address corruption at all levels of government across Europe and, indeed, the wider problems of organised crime and corruption and its threat to democracy. Finally, the role of a free and active media as a vital institutional component of an effective democracy has been extensively promoted by the Council. In many respects, this third feature makes the most important contribution to the transparency, responsiveness and accountability of governments not only by identifying government failure or corruption but, also, by providing a pluralistic public space in which the “general will” is deliberated. Furthermore, the very existence of an active free press may discourage corruption and mitigate the oligarchic tendencies of all governments. Each of these three concerns will be dealt with in turn.

Public service ethics have a long tradition in democratic practice.83 Its core principles are widely accepted and include the belief that: holders of public office should act in the “public interest” and not seek to make personal gain from their office; they should not accept gifts from others seeking advantage or place themselves under an obligation to any individual; they should avoid any conflicts of interests and take steps to remove themselves from decisions where such conflicts arise; they should act objectively, making decisions on the merits of each individual case; their activities should be transparent and open to public scrutiny; and they should remain accountable for their actions.84 These principles are reaffirmed in a Committee of Minister’s recommendation on codes of conduct for public officials.85 They are also widely accepted and practised across many European countries.

Given the maturity of many democracies in Europe, it seems surprising that the Council needs to continue to focus upon public service ethics. However, the ongoing promotion of ethical standards across all levels of government is seen as being fundamental to maintaining public confidence in the institutions of democracy. High standards of public service are necessary not only among national governments but must also be present at the local level, where public servants are not only more visible but, also, where the opportunities for corrupt or unethical behaviour are equally high. It is for this reason that the Steering Committee for Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) has produced a model initiatives package on public ethics at the local level.86 While not a legal instrument it nevertheless provides model examples of how public service ethics are maintained and monitored in various countries, and the relationship between standards in public life at central and local levels. Consequently, it not only reaffirms the principles set out in the Committee of Ministers recommendation on codes of conduct for public officials but, also, provides various examples of the institutional and organisational frameworks in which these values can be embedded.

The fight against unethical or corrupt behaviour in public service, however, cannot be constrained to the behaviour of public officials, whether elected or appointed. The Council has been concerned with the broader problems and effects of corruption wherever it occurs. As the preamble to the Committee of Ministers resolution on corruption states:

corruption represents a serious threat to the basic principles and values of the Council of Europe, undermines the confidence of citizens in democracy, erodes the rule of law, constitutes a denial of human rights and hinders social and economic development.87

Thus, corruption not only affects the immediate institutions of democracy but is also an attack on democratic principles (for example, where there is corruption it is impossible for all citizens to have political equality) and the underlying institutions that sustain democracy (such as the rule of law). The existence of two European-wide conventions on corruption88 and the creation of two bodies that focus on the rule of law89 and the monitoring of corruption90 demonstrate the importance that the Council attaches to this problem. Indeed, measures to fight corruption are central to much of the Council’s activities. The conventions not only provide a concrete definition of corruption and by default, therefore, a statement of its unacceptability, but also a set of legal and institutional measures that member states are expected to take in order to combat it. The Venice Commission and GRECO, in different ways, provide external monitoring and reporting of nation state’s effectiveness in stamping out corruption, although it should be noted that not all European countries are members of these bodies. Consequently, the Council’s activities to combat corruption provide an important underpinning for democracy.

All of these efforts, so far, have been focused upon the ways in which government should be organised and the ways in which high standards of public service can be maintained. However, the Council of Europe also recognises the role of the media in promoting transparency, responsiveness and accountability of government. Three related issues have been central to its concerns for several decades. First, the issue of freedom of expression as a fundamental feature of democracy is upheld in various aspects of the Council’s work. For example, a 1978 recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly reiterates “its conviction that freedom of the press and television, as a fundamental component of freedom of expression, is a prerequisite for a democratic political system”.91 This assertion develops from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which, among other rights, includes the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”.92 The defence of this right in relation to the media has been deemed so important that the European Court of Human Rights has given over 100 judgments on Article 10 since 1960, developing a substantial case-law on the issue.93 Despite both the case-law and the Convention, however, the Parliamentary Assembly recognises that “serious violations of freedom of expression” persist across Europe and the rest of the world,94 and recommends that the Council expands its monitoring activities in this area. In particular, it highlights the concern that “recent terrorist attacks can provide a pretext for introducing new restrictions to freedom of information”.95 While media freedom is effectively embedded in the Council’s acquis, therefore, there remain concerns about the extent to which governments constrain or attack such freedom. Of particular concern is the harassment and intimidation of both journalists and the media more generally by particular states.

Second, and linked to the notion of freedom of expression, the Council has been concerned with media pluralism and the real independence of different forms of media from political influence. The particular concern here is the concentration of the media in the hands of a few individuals and the deliberate manipulation of the media to suit a few vested interests. In the preamble to its 1999 recommendation on measures to promote media pluralism, the Committee of Ministers emphasised that:

the public service broadcasting sector should enable different groups and interests in society – including linguistic, social, economic, cultural or political minorities – to express themselves … [and] that the existence of a multiplicity of autonomous and independent media outlets at the national, regional and local levels generally enhances pluralism and democracy.96

Consequently, attention is both upon those who seek to control the media by restricting pluralism and those whose interests remain ignored because of a lack of media pluralism. In particular, the rights and cultures of national minorities and migrant workers are considered to be under particular threat where media pluralism is restricted.97

Third, the Council has developed a converse concern with the ethics of journalism and the need to regulate the media to ensure that it acts fairly towards individuals. This concern focuses upon the objectivity and neutrality of the media and, particularly, “the right of reply to any individual citizen who has been the subject of an allegation”.98 Consequently, the Council recognises the need for regulation of the media, especially with the exploitation of new technologies providing additional avenues for media development. However, it also recognises that balancing regulation with the protection of freedom of expression and media pluralism is a complex problem that is not easily resolved. It is for this reason that monitoring of member states and their relationships with the media remains important.

All of these concerns are, in essence, an acknowledgement that the media provides strong support for transparency, responsiveness and accountability in government. Wherever the media is investigating government policies, holding individuals or governments to account for their actions, or providing an expression of public concern or interest, it is making an important contribution to democracy, even though governments may not necessarily welcome their interventions. In particular, an effective media can help in the promotion of ethical standards among public servants and the wider battle against corruption. However, there remains a paradox at the heart of this principle. Transparency, responsiveness and accountability are fundamental to strong democratic institutions in that they encourage trust in those institutions. At the same time, however, effective policies and instruments that expose failing standards or corruption in government serve to undermine trust in those same institutions. There are instances where distrust of democratic institutions is healthy, especially where governments are systematically abusing their powers. However, there are other instances where minor failings are given too much emphasis and lead to a breakdown in trust among citizens which is out of proportion with the seriousness of the offence. Scepticism is a healthy feature of democracy that is enhanced through measures to ensure transparency, responsiveness and accountability but it also needs to be balanced with attempts to preserve the legitimacy of democratic institutions.

Box 3.4: Transparency, responsiveness and accountability

The conduct of public officials

(Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (2000) 10 on codes of conducts for public officials)

The code of conduct for public officials establishes the standards of behaviour expected of public officials in a democracy. It specifies that:

  • conflicts of interests should be avoided. Public officials should declare any potential conflicts and take steps to avoid them;

  • public officials should avoid engagement with any activities outside of public life that are incompatible with their position or function;

  • public officials should not demand or accept gifts or seek personal gain for either themselves or their family or friends;

  • misuse of public office is not acceptable;

  • administrative and legal frameworks should provide facility for the reporting of any activities that are inconsistent with the code.

Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (98) 12 on supervision of local authorities' action specifies ways for making the systems of supervision evolve in a way favourable to local self-government without endangering their effectiveness.

Twenty guiding principles for the fight against corruption

(Committee of Ministers Resolution 97 (24))

Aware that corruption poses a serious threat to democracy, the Committee of Ministers adopted a resolution in 1997 that, among other principles, encourages national and international initiatives to fight corruption, including criminalisation and the seizure of the proceeds of corrupt practices; limits immunity from investigation and prosecution; encourages transparency in public procurement; and reaffirms the independence of the media in highlighting corrupt practices.

Conventions on corruption

(Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, ETS No. 173; Civil Law Convention on Corruption, ETS No. 174)

The Criminal Law Convention on Corruption aims to co-ordinate criminalisation of a large number of corrupt practices including:

  • active and passive bribery of domestic and foreign public officials;

  • active and passive bribery of national and foreign parliamentarians and of members of international parliamentary assemblies;

  • active and passive bribery in the private sector;

  • active and passive bribery of international civil servants;

  • active and passive bribery of domestic, foreign and international judges and officials of international courts;

  • active and passive trading in influence;

  • money-laundering of proceeds from corruption offences;

  • accounting offences (invoices, accounting documents, etc.) connected with corruption offences.

It provides for enhanced international co-operation (mutual assistance, extradition and the provision of information) in the investigation and prosecution of corruption offences. As soon as they ratify it, states which do not already belong to GRECO will automatically become members.

The Civil Law Convention on Corruption is the first attempt to define common international rules in the field of civil law and corruption. It requires contracting parties to provide in their domestic law “for effective remedies for persons who have suffered damage as a result of acts of corruption, to enable them to defend their rights and interests, including the possibility of obtaining compensation for damage” (Art.1).

Sub-national democracy and subsidiarity

Box 3.5: Sub-national democracy and subsidiarity

(European Charter of Local Self-Government, ETS No. 122; Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (95) 19 on the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity)

The charter establishes the basic rules guaranteeing the political, administrative and financial independence of local authorities. It provides that the principle of local self-government shall be recognised in domestic legislation and, where practicable, in the constitution. It also requires local authorities to be elected in universal suffrage.

Under the charter, local authorities are able to regulate and manage public affairs under their own responsibility in the interests of the local population, subject to legal limits. Consequently, the charter introduces the principle of subsidiarity, stating that public responsibilities should be exercised preferably by the authorities closest to the citizens, the higher level being considered only when the co-ordination or discharge of duties is impossible or less efficient at the level immediately below. To this end, it sets out the principles concerning the protection of local authority boundaries, the existence of adequate administrative structures and resources for the tasks of local authorities, the conditions under which responsibilities at local level are exercised, administrative supervision of local authorities' activities, financial resources of local authorities and legal protection of local self-government.

The Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (95) 19 on the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity specifies further how the core set of powers pertaining to each level of local and regional authorities should be established and exercised.

The institutions of sub-central government are particularly important to the Council of Europe. This importance is illustrated by a number of concrete steps that the Council has taken to support the development of local and regional government and to ensure that these institutions remain central to its work. First, the creation of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe in 1994 as a consultative body, itself a development from the Council’s original Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities in Europe, has raised the voice of local government in European affairs to a much higher status than is found in many European states. The Congress is regularly consulted by both the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, making it a significant part of the Council’s work. In addition, it has successfully brought forward a number of conventions and charters that support the development of democracy in member states. Second, the European Charter on Local Self-Government, adopted in 1985, has become a significant instrument with which to promote and evaluate the role of local and regional government in national democratic structures and to monitor central-local government relations more generally. As already noted, the principles enshrined in this charter are forming the foundations of a United Nations world charter on local self-government. Furthermore, as will be shown below, the charter has become a defining standard for democracy. Finally, the Council has adopted a number of other charters and conventions which focus especially upon sub-central issues and which promote the work of local or regional authorities. Consequently, the Council has demonstrated a strong commitment to the institutions of democracy beneath that of the nation state.

Given that the other statutory organs of the Council are comprised primarily of representatives from state-level governments and parliaments, it seems unusual that the Council should provide such an emphasis to sub-central institutions. To explain this emphasis and to analyse the role played by these institutions, it is necessary to begin by examining the Council’s understanding of local democracy in relation to democratic theory. Democratic theory holds a special place for local democracy and its institutional embodiment, local government. Traditional justifications for the existence of local government include pluralist arguments that the institutions of local democracy provide for a diffusion of power within society, arguments that local democracy supports diversity and difference in the face of an otherwise constrictively uniform set of central policies, and arguments that local government can be more responsive to citizen needs than remote central governments.99 More recently, there has also been a revival of interest in the role of local democracy in facilitating and encouraging political participation as part of a broader democratic polity. This argument has its roots in 19th century political thought and maintains that local institutions of democracy are the most accessible locations for political skills to be acquired and practised. J. S. Mill argued in 1861 that local democracy not only provided greater opportunities for political participation but that it was an instrument of social inclusion:

But in the case of local bodies, besides the function of electing, many citizens in turn have the chance

of being elected, and many, either by selection or by rotation, fill one or other of the numerous local

executive offices … It may be added, that these local functions, not being in general sought by the

higher ranks, carry down the important political education which they are the means of conferring, to

a much lower grade in society.100

Similarly, Alexis de Tocqueville, in his study of democracy in America, was struck by the capacity for democratic self-government among small communities, even where wider state institutions were failing to provide democracy.101 These theories have been built upon in recent decades to support the belief that democracy is intrinsically dependent upon effective institutions of local democracy to support a wider democratic culture and practice.102 Without local democracy, democracy at a national (or indeed, international) level cannot thrive.

These beliefs are given substance in the European Charter of Local Self-Government.103 In the preamble to the charter, the Council commits itself to many of the principles set out above. It states that “local authorities are one of the main foundations of any democratic regime”, confirms the “right of citizens to participate in the conduct of public affairs” and argues “that it is at the local level that this right can be most directly exercised”. Consequently, the charter emphasises the principle of subsidiarity in which “public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities which are closest to the citizen”.104 It also commits signatory countries to developing a power of general competence for local authorities and establishes, among other things, the principle that local authorities should have legal remedies where they can demonstrate undue interference by central governments in the “free exercise of their powers”.105 The charter, therefore, establishes an important set of principles which are concerned with protecting local democracy as a fundamental feature of national democracy.

The charter has been widely accepted across Europe. By November 2003 only four countries had not signed the treaty106 and a further three had yet to ratify it.107 For the other thirty-eight countries, therefore, it seems that the concept of local self-government and the principles enshrined in the charter are widely accepted and implemented. However, this overview ignores the distinction between commitment and action. In 1998 the Congress observed that many countries that had ratified the charter had not incorporated its principles into domestic law, thereby denying local authorities the capacity to appeal to the courts where national legislation or regulations were in breach of the charter.108 The monitoring reports of the Congress on local and regional democracy in individual member states paint a much more complex and even less satisfactory picture. While few states are directly criticised for failing to support local democracy, many are criticised for only implementing some aspects of the charter or for failing to always act within its spirit. Central governments in many states are still resistant to extending political legitimacy and financial powers to local or regional governments, despite their commitment to the principles set out in the charter. In this respect, the charter and its ratification provide a starting point for realising the Council’s local democracy and subsidiarity ambitions, rather than an end point. While the Council remains committed to local democracy, it has considerably more work to do to encourage member states to deliver it.

The activities of the Council in this area are not restricted exclusively to concerns with local democracy: the Council has developed a number of other charters and conventions that focus on aspects of sub-central government. In particular, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. and the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at the Local Level, both emphasise an important complementary role for sub-central government. Both of these treaties recognise that regional and local governments may provide a much better focus for protecting minority rights and cultures than nation states. In this respect, regions are seen as being a response to globalisation and are associated with cultural diversity in the context of the increasing internationalisation of political and economic interests. It is such concerns that lie behind the Congress recommendation to strengthen the activities and promotion of regions with legislative powers109 and its focus on sustainable regions under global rules.110 Moreover, the logical extension of this focus has been the development of a European Charter on Regional Self-Government which sets out “the general frame of reference for the fundamental powers to be granted to all regions and at the same time opens up areas of latitude for differentiation and organisation so that specific regional interests according to types of region may be taken into account’.111 While consensus has not been achieved on this issue and the charter remains in draft format, its significance for further promoting sub-central government as a means of protecting the democratic interests and cultures of minorities remains an important aspect of the Council’s work.

The focus on regional and local democracy is not simply aimed at the development of democratic institutions but also supporting democratic practice. The Council, and particularly the Congress, recognises that local and regional democratic institutions also provide much greater opportunity for political engagement among those groups that are traditionally marginalised from politics at the level of the nation state. Thus, the European Urban Charter, in its declaration of urban rights, includes participation as a fundamental component of life within European cities.112 While this charter is somewhat idealistic and lacking in concrete recommendations to member states, it nevertheless articulates a vision of cities that includes local democracy. Similarly, the Charter on the Participation of Young People in Municipal and Regional Life (1992), revised in 2003, sets out guidelines to encourage young people to play their part in decisions affecting them and to be actively involved in social changes in their neighbourhood, municipality or region. The Congress has provided an institutional home for the debate and development of local and regional government and, therefore, for the promotion of local democracy. There can be little doubt that the Council accepts the argument that local democracy is a fundamental component of a vibrant and healthy national and European democracy. However, the other pillars have also been actively engaged in promoting local and regional democracy. Since 1979, the Committee of Ministers have made over twenty recommendations to member states in the field of local democracy, including significant recommendations on citizen participation,113 local government finance,114 and the implementation of the subsidiarity principle.115 These recommendations show an encouraging level of engagement from the Committee of Ministers in sub-central government. It is evident that for wider benefits to accrue from developments in local democracy it is necessary for the other pillars of the Council of Europe to continue to be closely engaged in supporting and enhancing it.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8


Problems, challenges and opportunities iconChallenges, Opportunities, and Next Steps”

Problems, challenges and opportunities iconProblems and Opportunities Summary 13

Problems, challenges and opportunities iconУмк “Opportunities Upper Intermediate” авторы: Michael Harris, David Mower, Anna Sikorzynska издательство “Longman” (Pearson Education, 2004)
Анализируемый учебник является завершающим в умк ‘Opportunities’, который рекомендован Министерством образования РФ
Problems, challenges and opportunities iconBoundAry value problems and characteristic value problems

Problems, challenges and opportunities iconПонасенко И. И., учитель английского языка моу гимназия №23 г. Челябинск Анализ умк “Opportunities Upper Intermediate” Издательство “Longman”
Умк “Opportunities Upper Intermediate “ авторы: Michael Harris, David Mower, Anna Sikorzynska издательство “Longman” (Pearson Education,...
Problems, challenges and opportunities iconHealth and Climate Opportunities

Problems, challenges and opportunities iconOpportunities for Outsourcing in Rural China

Problems, challenges and opportunities iconHistory, Concepts, and Research Opportunities

Problems, challenges and opportunities iconRemapping Urban Spaces – American Challenges

Problems, challenges and opportunities icon書名 Cabell's directory of publishing opportunities in economics and

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2014
обратиться к администрации
Главная страница