much more “long term”, and that there was also the question of Ukraine. The idea was to have a real European dialogue on political and economic issues. In her opinion, the Council of Europe, even if its members are in fact the same, had a real specificity which lied in all the Conventions and especially in the European Convention on Human Rights which the Speaker just mentioned. She pointed out that there were no mechanisms for implementing the European Political Community and that it was therefore important to have a meeting at this stage. She recalled that the first one had taken place in Prague and that the second one would take place in Chisinau because the fact that the Republic of Moldova was a country threatened by Russia was well known. It was a more political initiative in a way, she said. She then added that she wanted to add a point about the United Nations, because there would indeed be UN representation. However, since effective multilateralism was being discussed, she remined that the United Nations had also failed, and in particular the Security Council. Firstly, because one of its permanent members declared an illegal war, but also because there was a feeling today that the Security Council no longer represented the world as it was: it represented the world of 1945, which was more a Western world, even if China and Russia were present. However, she recalled that several large emerging countries were candidates, such as Brazil, South Africa and India – which were no longer countries like Germany or Japan. In her view, there was today a real problem of representativeness of the Security Council. Thus, effective multilateralism was one of the subjects that would have to be dealt with and one of the consequences of the war in Ukraine. Otherwise, the risk was that the UN would be marginalised and that only regional organisations would function, something that would be, according to her, very good internally and for Europe, but which would be lacking for the rest of the world. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked Mr KOX about ensuring that the Heads of State and Government respected the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Mr KOX said if the final statements the following day were adopted, then all Heads of State and Government would have to implement all final judgments of the Court. Whether to implement it would be closed by the Summit; it would be a part of the obligation. He also spoke about creating a better mechanism to ensure countries involved realised that executing a judgment serves one’s own country, too. He said there would be a special appendix on that need for the convention system, its development, and 10 principles that the Heads of State and Government would be committing to. It allows national parliaments to be held accountable. Most of these principles were also in Ms Fiona O’LOUGHLIN’s report. This was a step forward. Heads of State and Government realised if they cannot uphold and protect democracy it meant not upholding the Council of Europe, and by extension effective multilateralism. They would then be in the hands of those who think they have power without arguments. They would not be disappointed. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked how things could happen when the convention was agreed on from three different perspectives. Ms GYLFADÓTTIR said a system was created to ensure the worst-case scenarios would be impossible, and that she was optimistic, but it wasn’t possible. There were will, obligation, diversity, complicated societies, challenges and cultures and norms; domestic, political things, and government shifts and elections, which were complicated. She said she did not pretend multilateralism did not have its flaws, but it was so much better than everything else that was tried. It was a bit humbler to describe it in that way. It was a step on paper to push forward for. People also did not relate to it. It was an obligation to have the dialogue and to try to do it as no one else would do it for them. Ms BERMANN responded in the affirmative, saying that she fully agreed with these words and recalling that there was also a principle of reality: the use of force existed in the world, and it was often very difficult to oppose it. It was possible to react to it, as was done in the case of Ukraine, by adopting sanctions and by helping the country. There was a lot that could be done to restore order. She said that she knew the United Nations in the 1990s when she had been at the Permanent Mission to the UN. At that time, it was the end of the Cold War and the Big Blue Dream was evoked. Everyone had thought that perpetual peace would have been ensured by the United Nations, by the Blue Helmets, and then the massacres in Srebrenica and the genocide in Rwanda happened and everyone came back to a very negative reality. At the same time, following this, she recalled that work had been done on robust peacekeeping to be able to enforce the mandates. There had been also resolutions concerning the situation of women in conflict zones. She maintained that there was progress, even if it was slow and unsatisfactory, and that they must continue to try to apply to their principles. Mr KOX agreed with Ms GYLFADÓTTIR but said tomorrow the Heads of State and Government would deliver,

20 DE JULHO DE 2023 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

21