European Union

Written by Rosamund Shreeves

Facts and figures

Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes all procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical purposes. FGM is carried out for cultural, religious and social reasons, mostly on young girls between infancy and the age of 15. It has no health benefits and can result in serious effects on health and wellbeing, even death, while generating considerable healthcare costs.

The exact number of girls and women affected by FGM is not known, but the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimates that, worldwide, at least 200 million women and girls have been ‘cut’, while around four million girls are at risk of undergoing FGM every year. The practice, most common in 28 African countries, is also prevalent in parts of the Middle East and Asia, and reported to a lesser extent elsewhere.

Analysis shows that FGM has declined strongly in some countries over the past decade but stagnated in others. Progress is threatened by population growth in high-risk areas, increased vulnerability in humanitarian contexts, crossing borders to evade prohibition, and – as in The Gambia in 2024 and 2026 – attempts to reverse legislation outlawing the practice. FGM performed by health professionals is gaining traction and now represents 1 in 4 cases according to World Health Organization estimates. This does not reduce harm and is contrary to medical ethics.

Data on FGM prevalence in Europe are lacking. The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) is developing a common methodology for collecting administrative data and supporting the collection of data on women and girls at risk in the EU. The four studies it conducted between 2012 and 2020 found that there are victims (or potential victims) in at least 16 EU countries: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland and Sweden. The European End FGM network estimates that there are over 600 000 FGM survivors living in Europe and that 180 000 girls are at risk in 13 European countries alone. Around 20 000 women and girls from FGM-practising countries seek asylum in the EU every year, with an estimated 1 000  asylum claims relating directly to FGM.

Commitments and action to combat FGM

FGM is a form of child abuse and gender-based violence, recognised internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity; the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and the right to life in cases where the procedure results in death. Measures have been adopted at international, EU and national level to prevent FGM and to protect FGM victims.

Instruments and action at international level

At international level, United Nations (UN), African Union and Council of Europe standards are benchmarks for work to combat FGM. Treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Geneva Convention, all cover FGM indirectly, with specific guidance on protection and asylum for victims. In Africa, the parties to the Maputo Protocol (Article V) and Convention on Ending Violence Against Women and Girls commit to eliminate FGM. The Council of Europe’s Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) is the first treaty to recognise that FGM exists in Europe (Article 38). It sets out obligations on preventing and combating the practice and providing support for victims and those at risk. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development identifies FGM as a harmful practice, to be eliminated by 2030 (SDG 5, target 5.3). The EU is committed to the 2030 Agenda and bound by the Istanbul Convention in areas of EU competence, including judicial cooperation in criminal matters and asylum policy. The first EU monitoring report under the Convention highlights work to improve data collection and support victims. The European Commission also reports on EU efforts to combat FGM on or around 6 February every year.

EU legislation, policy and funding

The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights affirm the principles of gender equality and non-discrimination and guarantee the right to dignity and physical and mental integrity. FGM is a prosecutable offence under national law in all EU Member States, either as a specific criminal act or as an act of bodily harm or injury. Under the EU Directive on combating violence against women, to be transposed by 14 June 2027, all Member States must criminalise FGM as a specific offence and set a maximum prison sentence of not less than five years for perpetrators. To complement the directive, the Commission has committed to table a recommendation on preventing and combating FGM and other harmful practices. EU asylum law recognises FGM victims as vulnerable applicants requiring specific support. Legislation on reception and international protection that is applicable since 1 January 2026 and revisions to EU law on victims’ rights should strengthen support for victims of FGM. Research by EIGE shows a need for coherent implementation of migration law and policy to ensure that women and girls affected by or at risk of FGM can access protection.

Combating gender-based violence, including FGM, is a priority of the EU’s current external action plan for gender equality (GAP III) and its strategies on children’s rights and gender equality. The EU has a coordinated approach to combating FGM across the fields of justice, police, health, social services, child protection, education, immigration and asylum and external relations. The objectives include developing reliable EU-level data, improving access to support and justice for victims, raising awareness among relevant professionals and communities, ensuring that EU asylum and victim protection law is implemented effectively and promoting the elimination of FGM worldwide.

EU external funding supports the UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme to eliminate FGM and the joint EU-UN Spotlight Initiative, whose holistic approach has led to promising practices. The Commission has recognised the need for further action to raise awareness in the communities concerned within the EU. Funding for this and support for frontline organisations is available under the citizens, equality, rights and values programme for 2021 to 2027, notably the longstanding Daphne strand, which focused on combating harmful practices in 2022 and 2025.

Outlook

The UN is highlighting an urgent need to step up efforts to meet the target of eliminating FGM by 2030 and highlights an estimated global funding gap of US$2.1 billion. Against this backdrop and funding cuts to UNFPA, UNICEF, and organisations supporting women and girls, for the 2026 International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM the UN is calling for commitment and sustained investment. Civil society organisations are urging the EU to use the new legislation on violence against women and on asylum, the implementation of the expected 2026-2030 EU gender equality strategy and the preparation of the next multiannual budget and external gender action plan, to build on existing efforts to improve FGM prevention and support for survivors. They are also calling for commensurate, dedicated funding through the proposed citizens, equality, rights and values (CERV+) programme and Global Europe budgetary instrument.

European Parliament position

The European Parliament has played an important role in raising awareness and pushing for firm action on FGM, including through the work of its Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM). Parliament adopted resolutions on FGM in 2001, 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2018, calling on the Commission and Member States to provide the legal and other means required to raise awareness, protect and support victims and ensure that offenders are prosecuted. It has also set out its own recommendations for an EU strategy to put an end to FGM around the world and denounced moves to repeal legal protections. At an exchange of views on FGM in the EU in June 2025, Members stressed the need to follow up on the provisions on FGM in the Directive on combating violence against women.

This publication is a further update of an ‘at a glance’ note originally published in January 2015.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Ending female genital mutilation: A call to action‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Flooding is quickly emerging as a threat that is compromising and undermining food security, health, infrastructure, and economies both in the short- and long-term. Credit: Shutterstock

By Esther Ngumbi
URBANA, Illinois, US, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

South Africa, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe are currently experiencing severe flooding. According to the World Health Organization, 1.3 million people have been affected. In addition, hundreds of people have died , infrastructure has been destroyed, access to health services has been disrupted, and the risks of water- and mosquito-borne diseases are rising.

Alarmingly, the devastating impacts of flooding on  crop production, an important source of livelihoods in Africa, and on agricultural crops relevant to meeting food security needs rarely receive coverage or make headlines. If they do, the coverage does not comprehensively capture the extent of the damage or the immediate and long-term consequences of flooding.

Time and again, research has shown that flooding affects  global crop production and has immediate and long-lasting consequences for agricultural production, food systems, national economies, and food security

Also disturbing is the lack of coverage of the devastating impacts of flooding on soils, soil quality, soil health, and the billions of beneficial soil microorganisms that support the production of healthy and nutritious crops.

This needs to change. Time and again, research has shown that flooding affects  global crop production and has immediate and long-lasting consequences for agricultural production, food systems, national economies, and food security.

For example, a 2022 study reported that flooding threatened food security for more than 5.6 million people across several African countries. The study also found that an estimated 12 percent of food-insecure households in several African countries, including Nigeria, Kenya, Mozambique, and Malawi, experienced food insecurity due to flooding, which compromised their ability to produce, access, and utilize food.

Notably, this comprehensive study revealed that flooding impacts emerge at different spatial and temporal scales. Damage to crops and displacement of families occur immediately following flooding, but secondary impacts persist, leaving soils unhealthy and unable to support the production of healthy crops in subsequent seasons. In addition, infrastructure destroyed by flooding and livelihoods disrupted take time to rebuild.

Current and future climate forecasts indicate that  flooding and other weather and climate extreme events will continue  flooding and other weather and climate extremes will continue, underscoring the need for countries across Africa and around the world to prioritize efforts to understand and mitigate flooding.

So, what can be done?

First, to develop sustainable and sufficient solutions, it is important to comprehensively map flooding and  the many dimensions through which flooding and other climate change-associated stressors can lead to food insecurity.

Certainly, flooding can lead to and affect food insecurity through several driving mechanisms , including crop losses that reduce agricultural production, infrastructure damage that disrupts supply chains while hindering people’s ability to access markets. For example, the recent flooding events in South Africa and Mozambique have reportedly resulted in losses of economically important crops such as avocados and citrus, disrupted food transportation corridors, slowed cross-border logistics networks, and isolated communities, disrupting food distribution networks. Additionally, studies in Burkina Faso , Malawi, and South-Eastern Nigeria demonstrated that flooding can lead to crop failures and affect food security.

Second, there is an urgent need to develop a comprehensive understanding and assessment of who is most affected by flooding, at what scale, and how the multidimensional impacts of flooding on food security evolve over time.

Developing this kind of understanding requires systems thinking and cross-disciplinary coordinated collaboration, bridging disciplines such as climate science, agronomy, plant science, entomology, economics, nutrition, hydrology, epidemiology, public health, social science, data science, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and infrastructure.

For example, agronomists can quantify crop losses from flooding, soil changes, and recovery timelines. Economists, on the other hand, can model the impacts of flooding on livelihoods, markets, and national economies.

Data scientists can track floods and map flood risk zones, and infrastructure specialists can assess the vulnerability of current infrastructure to flooding. When these disciplines converge, they can help governments and humanitarian agencies develop data-driven action plans to prepare for, prevent, and implement timely flood response solutions.

Third, there is a need to proactively invest in both short- and long-term solutions to mitigate the negative impacts of flooding on food security and enhance livelihoods resillience and food security . Some proactive measures include restoring wetlands, which naturally act as flood buffers to absorb excess rainfall; building climate-resilient infrastructure; sharing early warning information with communities about upcoming flooding events; making affordable insurance policies available to farmers to protect their farming enterprises; and strengthening agrifood systems.

Strengthening agrifood systems can take multiple forms, including ensuring that farmers have access to flood-resilient crop varieties and that they plant diversified crops and adopt climate-smart agricultural practices, all of which can help buffer farmers, communities, and citizens of countries from flooding-related impacts.

Flooding is quickly emerging as a threat that is compromising and undermining food security, health, infrastructure, and economies both in the short- and long-term.

We must normalize accounting for the multidimensional impacts of flooding events on agriculture, soil health and quality, and the infrastructure that supports agricultural food systems and ecosystems. In doing so, the worst outcomes of flooding could be prevented in agriculture and food security.

ZWISCHENBERICHT über den Vorschlag für einen Beschluss des Rates über den Abschluss – im Namen der Europäischen Union – des Abkommens zur Gründung einer Assoziation zwischen der Europäischen Union und dem Fürstentum Andorra beziehungsweise der Republik San Marino
Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten
Željana Zovko

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

The 158th session of the Executive Board took place on 2-7 February 2026 at WHO headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Pictured is Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. Credit: WHO / Christopher Black

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

On February 3, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched its 2026 global appeal to help millions of people living in protracted conflicts and humanitarian crises access lifesaving healthcare. Following a trend of sharply declining international funding, the agency warns that it is becoming increasingly difficult to respond to emerging health threats, including pandemics and drug-resistant infections.

According to figures from the United Nations (UN), roughly a quarter of a billion people are currently living through humanitarian crises that threaten their access to healthcare and shelter, even as global defense spending has surpassed USD 2.5 trillion annually. Meanwhile, WHO estimates that approximately 4.6 billion people lack access to essential health services and 2.1 billion face significant financial strain from rising health costs.

These disparities are expected to worsen in the coming years, as the world is projected to face a shortage of 11 million healthcare workers by 2030—more than half of whom are nurses. Seeking nearly USD 1 billion to support civilians across 36 emergency settings—14 of which are classified as extremely severe—WHO aims to protect and support millions of people living in the world’s most fragile crisis settings.

“This appeal is a call to stand with people living through conflict, displacement and disaster – to give them not just services, but the confidence that the world has not turned its back on them,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “It is not charity. It is a strategic investment in health and security. In fact, access to health care restores dignity, stabilizes communities and offers a pathway toward recovery.”

Since its founding in 1948, WHO has served as a critical lifeline for crisis-affected populations—promoting universal health coverage, coordinating international responses to health emergencies, and tracking emerging health threats and progress worldwide. In 2025 alone, WHO and its partners provided emergency health services to approximately 30 million people, delivering vaccinations to 5.3 million children, facilitating 53 million health consultations, supporting more than 8,000 health facilities, and deploying 1,370 mobile clinics.

“In today’s most complex emergencies, WHO remains indispensable – protecting health, upholding international humanitarian law, and ensuring life-saving care reaches people in places where few others can operate,” said Marita Sørheim-Rensvik, Deputy Permanent Representative of Norway to the UN Office at Geneva. “From safeguarding access to sexual and reproductive health and rights to supporting frontline health workers under immense strain, WHO’s role is vital.”

The 2026 appeal follows a year in which humanitarian financing fell below 2016 levels, forcing WHO and its partners to reach only one-third of the 81 million people originally targeted for health assistance. Additionally, this comes after the United States exit from WHO on January 22, which is estimated to reduce the agency’s budget for 2026 and 2027 from USD 5.3 billion to USD 4.2 billion.

Ghebreyesus addressed WHO’s Executive Board in Geneva on February 2, warning of the far-reaching consequences expected after last year’s steep funding cuts, describing 2025 as one of the organization’s “most difficult years” in its history. “Sudden and severe cuts to bilateral aid have also caused huge disruptions to health systems and services in many countries,” he said.

Ghebreyesus also noted that the agency narrowly avoided a far more severe financial collapse due to a host of member states agreeing to raise mandatory assessed contributions. This would reduce WHO’s dependence on voluntary designated funding. These reforms have enabled WHO to mobilize roughly 85 percent of its core budget for 2026-2027, though Ghebreyesus warned that the remaining gap will be “hard to mobilize” in today’s strained financial environment. He cautioned that “pockets of poverty” remain across critically underfunded areas, including emergency preparedness, antimicrobial resistance, and climate resilience.

Ghebreyesus also warned noted that the funding crisis has exposed deeper challenges for global health governance, especially among low and middle-income countries that struggle to maintain access to essential services. He stressed that the crisis presents a crucial opportunity for transformation, noting that a “leaner” WHO can become more focused on its core mission and mandate within the broader UN80 reform initiative. “This means sharpening our focus on our core mandate and comparative advantage, doing what we do best – supporting countries through our normative and technical work – and leaving to others what they do best,” he added.

As a result of shrinking global funding, WHO says that it and its partners have been “forced to make difficult choices” about which operations to sustain going forward. The agency stated its intentions to concentrate solely on the most critical, high-impact interventions–such as keeping essential health facilities running, delivering emergency medical supplies and trauma care, restoring immunization efforts, ensuring access to reproductive, maternal, and child health services, and preventing and responding to disease outbreaks.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is working with health authorities in South Sudan and partners to scale up cholera prevention efforts, including a vaccination campaign. Credit:WHO/South Sudan

“In 2026, WHO is adapting its emergency response again. We are applying the discipline of emergency medicine: focusing first on actions that save lives,” said Ghebreyesus. “We are placing greater emphasis on country leadership and local partnerships. We are concentrating on areas where WHO adds the greatest value and reducing duplication so that every dollar has maximum impact.”

In 2026, WHO will prioritize its emergency health response in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Afghanistan, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Ukraine, and Myanmar, while also addressing ongoing outbreaks of cholera and mpox. As the lead agency for health coordination in humanitarian crises, WHO works with more than 1,500 partners across 24 emergency settings worldwide to ensure that national authorities and local organizations remain at the center of emergency response efforts.

Additionally, WHO’s strategy going forward places strong emphasis on helping countries reduce reliance on external aid and build long-term financial self-sufficiency. A key element of this approach is domestic resource mobilization, including the introduction of higher health taxes on harmful products such as tobacco, sugary beverages, and alcohol.

In recent months, WHO has made important progress in strengthening global responses to emerging health threats, even as antimicrobial resistance continues to escalate—with one in six bacterial infections worldwide now resistant to antibiotics. The agency has also expanded its disease surveillance capabilities, relying on AI-powered epidemic intelligence tools to help countries detect and contain hundreds of outbreaks before they evolve into major crises. WHO’s work has also been reinforced by last year’s adoption of the Pandemic Agreement and amended International Health Regulations (IHR), which aim to bolster global preparedness in the post-COVID-19 era.

“The pandemic taught all of us many lessons – especially that global threats demand a global response,” said Ghebreyesus. “Solidarity is the best immunity.” He emphasized that the future effectiveness of WHO hinges on predictable, sustained funding:“This is your WHO. Its strength is your unity. Its future is your choice.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

An artist in Colombia draws an image of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Credit: UN Colombia/Jose Rios Source: UN News

By UN High Commission for Human Rights
GENEVA, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has launched a USD 400 million funding appeal for 2026 to address global human rights needs, warning that with mounting crises, the world cannot afford a human rights system in crisis.

“The cost of our work is low; the human cost of underinvestment is immeasurable,” Türk told States at the launch. “In times of conflict and in times of peace, we are a lifeline for the abused, a megaphone for the silenced, a steadfast ally to those who risk everything to defend the rights of others.”

In 2025, staff working for the UN Human Rights Office in 87 countries observed more than 1,300 trials, supported 67,000 survivors of torture, documented tens of thousands of human rights violations, and contributed to the release of more than 4,000 people from arbitrary detention.

Türk also stressed that addressing inequalities and respecting economic and social rights are vital to peace and stability. “Human rights make economies work for everyone, rather than deepening exclusion and breeding instability,” he said.

The Office in 2025 worked with more than 35 governments on the human rights economy, which aims to align all economic policies with human rights. For example, in Djibouti, it helped conduct a human rights analysis of the health budget, with a focus on people with disabilities. It provided critical human rights analysis to numerous UN Country Teams working on sustainable development.

Türk outlined several consequences of reduced funding in 2025. For instance, the Office conducted only 5,000 human rights monitoring missions, a decrease from 11,000 in 2024. The Office’s programme in Myanmar suffered cuts of more than 60 percent. In Honduras, support for demilitarisation of the prison system and for justice and security sector reforms was reduced. In Chad, advocacy and support for nearly 600 detainees held without legal basis had to be discontinued.

“Our reporting provides credible information on atrocities and human rights trends at a time when truth is being eroded by disinformation and censorship. It informs deliberations both in the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council, and is widely cited by international courts, providing critical evidence for accountability,” he said.

The liquidity crisis of the regular budget also significantly affected the work of the broader human rights ecosystem. For instance, 35 scheduled State party dialogues by UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies could not take place.

Four out of eight planned country visits by the Sub-Committee on Prevention of Torture had to be cancelled. UN Special Rapporteurs’ ability to carry out country visits was curtailed, and the Human Rights Council’s investigative bodies were unable to fulfil their mandates fully.

The UN Human Rights Chief also regretted that the Office lost approximately 300 staff out of a total of 2,000 and was forced to close or radically reduce its presence in 17 countries, erasing entire programmes critical for endangered, threatened, or marginalised communities, from Colombia and Guinea-Bissau to Tajikistan.

“All this is weakening our ‘Protection by Presence’ – a simple idea with powerful impact: that the physical presence of trained human rights officers on the ground deters violations and reduces harm,” Türk said.

In 2025, the Office’s approved regular budget was USD 246 million, but it received only USD 191.5 million, resulting in a USD 54.5 million shortfall. It had also requested USD 500 million in voluntary contributions and received only USD 257.8 million.

The UN Human Rights Chief thanked the 113 funding partners – Governments, multilateral donors, private entities, among others – who contributed to the 2025 budget and helped save and improve lives.

For 2026, the UN General Assembly has approved a regular budget of USD 224.3 million, which is based on assessed contributions from Member States. This amount is 10 per cent lower than in 2025, and further uncertainty remains about the actual amount the Office will receive due to the liquidity crisis the UN is facing.

Through its 2026 Appeal, the Office is requesting an additional USD 400 million in voluntary contributions.

“Historically, human rights account for an extremely small portion of all UN spending. We need to step up support for this low-cost, high-impact work that helps stabilise communities, builds trust in institutions, and supports lasting peace,” the High Commissioner said.

“And we need more unearmarked and timely contributions so we can respond quickly, as human rights cannot wait.”

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Credit: Denis Balibouse/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Samuel King
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

In early January, an emergency UN Security Council meeting on Venezuela followed a familiar path of paralysis. Members clashed over the US government’s abduction of Nicolás Maduro, with many warning it set a dangerous precedent, but no resolution came.

This wasn’t exceptional. In 2024, permanent members cast eight vetoes, the highest since 1986. In 2025, the Council adopted only 44 resolutions, the lowest since 1991. Deep divisions prevented meaningful responses to Gaza and to conflicts in Myanmar, Sudan and Ukraine.

Designed in 1945, the Security Council is the UN’s most powerful body, tasked with maintaining international peace and security, but also crucially protecting the privileged position of the most powerful states following the Second World War. Of its 15 members, 10 are elected for two-year terms, but five – China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA – are permanent and have veto powers. A single veto can block any resolution, regardless of global support. The Council’s anachronistic structure reflects and reproduces outdated power dynamics.

Since launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has continually used its veto despite breaching the UN Charter. On Gaza, the USA vetoed four ceasefire proposals before the Council passed Resolution 2728 in March 2024, 171 days into Israel’s assault. By then over 10,000 people had been killed.

When the Council is gridlocked, it means more suffering on the ground. Civilian protection fails, peace processes stall and human rights crimes go unpunished.

The case for reform

Since the UN was established, the number of member states has quadrupled and the global population has grown from 2.5 to 8 billion. But former colonial powers that represent a minority of the world’s population still hold permanent seats while entire continents remain unrepresented.

Calls for reform have been made for decades, but they face a formidable challenge: reform requires amendment of the UN Charter, a process that needs a favourable two-thirds General Assembly vote, ratification by two-thirds of member states and approval from all five permanent Council members.

The African Union has advanced the clearest demand. Emphasising historical justice and equal power for the global south, it calls for the Council to be expanded to 26 members, with Africa holding two permanent seats with full veto rights and five non-permanent seats.

India has been particularly vocal in demanding a greater role on a reformed Council. The G4 – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – has proposed expansion to 25 or 26 members with six new permanent seats: two for Africa, two for Asia and the Pacific, one for Latin America and the Caribbean and one for Western Europe. New permanent members would gain veto powers after a 10-to-15-year review period.

Uniting for Consensus, a group led by Italy that includes Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan and South Korea, opposes the creation of new permanent seats, arguing this would simply expand an existing oligarchy. Instead, they propose longer rotating terms and greater representation for underrepresented regions.

The five permanent members show varying degrees of openness to reform. France and the UK support expansion with veto powers, while the USA supports adding permanent African seats but without a veto. China backs new African seats, but virulently opposes Japan’s permanent membership, while Russia supports reform in principle but warns against making the Council ‘too broad’.

These positions reflect competition and a desire to prevent rivals gaining power. Current permanent members fear diluted influence, while states that see themselves as rising powers want the status and sway that comes with Council membership.

Adding new members could help redress the imbalance against the global south, but wouldn’t necessarily make the Council more effective, accountable and committed to protecting human lives and human rights, particularly if more states get veto powers.

A French-Mexican initiative from 2015 offers a more modest path: voluntary veto restraint in mass atrocity situations. The proposal asks permanent members to refrain from vetoes in cases of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. This complements efforts to increase the political costs of vetoes, including the Code of Conduct signed by 121 states and General Assembly Resolution 76/262, which requires debate whenever a veto is cast.

New challenges

Now a new challenge has emerged from the Trump administration, which recently launched the Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This has mutated from a temporary institution set up by a Security Council resolution to govern over Gaza into a seemingly permanent one that envisages a broader global role under Trump’s personal control. Its membership skews toward authoritarian regimes, and human rights don’t get a mention in its draft charter.

Instead of legitimising the Board of Peace, efforts should focus on Security Council reform to address the two fundamental flaws of representation and veto power. Accountability and transparency must also be enhanced. Civil society must have space to engage with the Council and urge states to prioritise the UN Charter over self-interest.

Some momentum exists. The September 2024 Pact for the Future committed leaders to developing a consolidated reform model. Since 2008, formal intergovernmental negotiations have addressed membership expansion, regional representation, veto reform and working methods. These became more transparent in 2023, with sessions recorded online, allowing civil society to track proceedings and challenge blocking states.

However, reform efforts faced entrenched interests, geopolitical rivalries and institutional inertia even before Trump started causing chaos. The UN faces a demanding 2026, forced to make funding cuts amid a liquidity crisis while choosing the next secretary-general. In such circumstances, it’s tempting to defer difficult decisions.

But the reform case is clear, as is the choice: act to make the Council fit for purpose or accept continuing paralysis and irrelevance, allowing it to be supplanted by Trump’s Board of Peace.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

The current UN financial crisis, described as the worst in the 80-year-old history of the world body, triggers the question: is the US using its financial clout defaulting in its arrears and its assessed contributions to precipitate the collapse of the UN?

If the crisis continues, the UN headquarters will be forced to shut down by August, ahead of the annual meeting of world leaders in September this year, according to a report in the New York Times last week, quoting unnamed senior UN officials.

But apparently there is still hope for survival —judging by a report coming out of the White House.

Asked about the current state of finances, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters February 5: “We’ve seen cuts by the United States. We’ve seen cuts by European countries over the last year. And every day, I talk to you about what happens when there’s no money, right?”

“Rations are being reduced, health care not being delivered. So, I mean it’s pretty clear. In terms of the Secretariat, should it come to pass, it will impact our ability to run meetings in this building, to do the political work we do, the peacekeeping work that we do”, he pointed out.

About hopes of a possible resolution, he said “I do also have to say that we saw the reports…earlier this week – of the President of the United States signing a budget bill, which includes funding for the United Nations”.

“We welcome that, and we will stay in contact with the US over the coming days and weeks to monitor the transfers of those monies,” said Dujarric.

Meanwhile, in an interview with IPS last week, Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Founder/CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), said the potential financial collapse of the UN is depressing and yet so indicative of these times, when leadership everywhere is devoid of any sense of responsibility and has no care for the future.

They are the antithesis of the UN’s founding fathers and mothers, who, having experienced the hell of war and destitution first hand, committed themselves to creating a global peace and security architecture with the goal of preventing such hell for us – the future generation – their descendants, she argued.

“We all know that the UN system has never been perfect. It has never lived up to its potential. Often this has been due to the shenanigans of the powerful states, who persist in manipulating the institution for their own interests”.

The UN Security Council has long been the insecurity Council, given how the P5 are all implicated in one or other of the worst wars and genocides of the past 25 years, she said.

“But they are not solely to blame. Within the system too, we have seen both leadership and staff with vested interests, benefitting from the inertia, and unwilling to uphold new practices and priorities that would have brought transformative impact”.

“But dysfunction should not lead to abandonment and the dismantling of the system. The UN cannot be stripped and have its key assets and functions sold to the lowest bidder”.

Already, she said, the dystopian (US-created) Board of Peace is akin to the corporate raiders and vulture funds of the finance world – trying to strip the UN of its key functions but with no accountability or guard rails pertaining to its actions.

As it stands, the U.S. currently owes about $2.196 billion to the U.N.’s regular budget, including $767 million for this year and for prior years, according to U.N. sources.

The U.S. also owes $1.8 billion for the separate budget for the U.N.’s peacekeeping operations overseas, and that also will rise.

As of February 5, only 51 countries had paid their dues in full for 2026—that’s 51 out of 193. A breakdown of the last four payments follows: Australia, $65,309,876, Austria, $20,041,168, Croatia, $2,801,889, and Cyprus $1,120,513.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS on the one hand, the United States has been in arrears in its payments to the United Nations quite a bit in recent years, but the UN has managed to get by.

However, the extent of the Trump administration’s cutbacks and the ways they are being targeted at particularly vulnerable programs has resulted in this unprecedented fiscal crisis.

“The hostility of the Trump administration to the United Nations is extreme. Trump has made clear he believes there should be no legal restraints on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, so it is not surprising he would seek to undermine the world’s primary institution mandated with supporting international law and world order,” declared Dr Zunes.

Addressing the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee last week Chandramouli Ramanathan, Assistant Secretary-General, Controller, Management Strategy, Policy said: “The UN staff is progressively losing confidence in the entire budget process,” referring to cash shortages that have led to severe spending and hiring restrictions. The United Nations needs to find a compromise that allows the Organization to function effectively, he added.

Anderlini, elaborating further, told IPS “now more than ever, the institution must be sustained and enabled to thrive and deliver on the promise of the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the body of conventions and policies that have been developed through painstaking work to meet the challenges of today’s world.”

When global military spending is topping $2.6 trillion, she said, the UN’s approved annual budget of $3.45 billion seems like pocket change.

“It is absurd for our governments to be borrowing billions to fund weapons, but nickel and diming the UN, governmental agencies and civil society organizations that work to prevent conflict, build peace and ensure human and environmental security.”

“We live in an era where one man’s assets may soon be valued at over one trillion dollars and the world’s billionaire class wealth increased by $2.5 trillion in just one year 2025. They are lauded and applauded even though their wealth is made on the backs, bodies and lands of “We the people of the United Nations” – whether through tax avoidance or investment in high climate impact sectors such as fossil fuels and mining.”

Perhaps they should be taxed and forced to foot the bill for their complicity in the disasters that the UN is forced to clean up.

Peace and development are good for business, she argued. “They are essential for any society to survive and thrive. The UN and the global ecosystem of institutions and people dedicated to caring for the world give us our humanity – far beyond anything that can be limited to monetary value. But in dollar terms they are a great investment with returns that benefit billions of people worldwide, not just a stockpile of deadly weapons or a handful of billionaires”.

Thanks to member states’ abrogation of responsibility to uphold human rights and prevent the scourge of war, violence cost the world $19.97 trillion in 2024, or 11.6% of global GDP. According the Institute of Economics and peace this represents $2,455 per person, includes military spending, internal security, and lost economic activity, declared Anderlini.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Written by Clare Ferguson with Sara Raja.

Parliament has consistently highlighted the need to protect children online, addressing issues such as cyberbullying, hate speech, child sexual abuse and mental health risks. The European Commission is due to put forward an EU action plan against cyberbullying aimed at protecting children, young adults and others at particular risk online. The plan should address the lack of a common definition of cyberbullying along with proposals for prevention and awareness-raising measures. Members are set to debate the cyberbullying action plan following a Commission statement on Tuesday.

With a Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) report calling for stronger EU coordination, Members are due to debate the development of the EU’s first-ever anti-poverty strategy on Wednesday. The EMPL report highlights the multidimensional nature of poverty, particularly among children, people with disabilities, older people and those in precarious employment. It also stresses the need to improve minimum income schemes, and the importance of quality jobs, effective social protection and access to public services. Finally, the report calls for adequate funding, including through the 2028–2034 multiannual financial framework (MFF), to support implementation of the strategy, improve coherence across existing initiatives and contribute to the goal of eradicating poverty by 2035, including through access to affordable essential goods and housing.

Workplace incidents remain a significant challenge in the EU, particularly in the construction, transport, and manufacturing sectors. Parliament has urged action, particularly on contractor and subcontractor liability, and an EMPL report tabled for debate on Wednesday reiterates this call. The report calls for a comprehensive strategy against labour exploitation, including tackling illegal work, organised crime and abusive business practices such as some subcontracting activities. It highlights the need for effective enforcement through closer cooperation between the European Labour Authority, Europol, national authorities and social partners.

On Tuesday, Parliament is set to consider a provisional text on a regulation implementing the bilateral safeguard clause for agricultural products incorporated into the trade pillar of the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement. The safeguard clause would allow the EU to temporarily suspend Mercosur tariff preferences and reinstate most-favoured nation duties under stricter and faster procedures should imports undercut EU prices or represent a danger to EU producers. In the provisional text, Parliament succeeded in lowering the thresholds for triggering a safeguard investigation from 10 % to 5 % and extending the reference period to three years. The Commission may also, at the request of EU industry, extend monitoring to products or sectors not listed in the regulation.

Late payment, last-minute order cancellations, and unilateral contract changes on the part of large buyers in a different country can considerably harm EU farmers’ businesses. While the Unfair Trading Practices (UTP) Directive seeks to protect farmers from such activities, Members are expected to consider a provisional agreement on strengthening the directive on Thursday. A Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) report proposes extending the rules to operators based outside the EU whose commercial activities target the EU internal market. It also suggests establishing alerts on cross-border UTPs. Under the provisional agreement, national authorities would be required to act on their own initiative to stop cross-border UTPs, even in the absence of a formal complaint.

The EU wine sector is facing change, both in growing conditions and drinking habits, leading to a risk of surplus production. On Monday, Members are scheduled to debate a provisional agreement reached with the Council on amending several EU rules governing the sector. An AGRI committee report calls for a higher EU co-financing rate for vineyard restructuring. The provisional agreement proposes to harmonise labelling, particularly regarding alcohol content and to increase EU and national support to promote high-quality European wines outside the EU.

On Tuesday, Members are set to consider a provisional agreement reached between Parliament and the Council on proposals to amend the European Climate Law, introducing an intermediate climate target for 2040. The amendment would include a binding 90 % net emissions reduction target for 2040, compared to 1990, and a capped potential contribution of international carbon credits towards meeting this target.

The 70th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW) in March is expected to focus on access to justice for women and girls. On Thursday, Parliament is due to consider recommendations to the Council on the EU’s priorities for the 70th session. An own-initiative report from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) urges the Council to lead efforts against the global backlash on gender rights and calls on the EU to defend diversity, equality and inclusion, safeguard the UNCSW‘s mandate, and address funding shortfalls.

On Wednesday, Members are expected to debate two questions for oral answer to the Commission on the accession of third countries (in this case Albania and Montenegro) to the Hague conventions (specifically the Hague Judgments Convention). There are various procedures for handling the effects of ratification of an acceding state on existing parties in Hague Conventions. In one scenario, if existing parties do not oppose the accession by submitting a declaration within a set time limit, their agreement to the accession is tacit. However, when the Commission raises no objection to a third country’s accession and does not submit a declaration of opposition, the Council and Parliament cannot give their consent. It is therefore Parliament’s position that the Commission must present a proposal for acceptance in such cases, even where not required by the convention itself.

Quick links to all our publications for this plenary session:

European Parliament Plenary Session February 2026 – agenda

• New action plan against cyberbullying
• Developing a new EU anti-poverty strategy
• Addressing subcontracting chains and the role of intermediaries in order to protect workers’ rights
• The EU-Mercosur bilateral safeguard clause
• Cross-border enforcement of rules on unfair trading practices in the agri-food supply chain
• Wine sector package
• Amending the European Climate Law
• EU priorities for the 70th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women Accession of third countries to Hague conventions
• Accession of third countries to Hague conventions

At least 78 bodies have been buried, while it's feared that more than 170 people were killed altogether.

We replied to citizens who took the time to write to the President.

Elements of replies in English

The European Parliament and the European Union (EU) are responding to ongoing developments in Iran.

The European Parliament’s response to the recent violent crackdown of protesters and political dissidents in Iran has been clear.

On 8 January President Roberta Metsola, expressed the European Parliament’s solidarity with the people of Iran.  Addressing the European Parliament plenary on 19 January, the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, stated that Parliament has acted firmly by banning Iranian diplomats and representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iranfrom its premises on 12 January 2026.

Parliament’s position on the situation in Iran

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on 22 January 2026 on the brutal repression of protesters in Iran.

The European Parliament stands in full solidarity with the people of Iran and their brave and legitimate protest movement. It strongly condemns the widespread, intentional and disproportionate use of force by security forces.

Following pressure from the European Parliament the Council designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as terrorist organisation. It demands the expansion and strict enforcement of EU sanctions, including asset freezes and visa bans.

Parliament extends its full solidarity to the Iranian diaspora, which plays a crucial role in demanding freedom and democracy and supporting the protests. It recognises the Iranian people as the sole legitimate source of authority and sovereignty in Iran.

Parliament reiterates its call for Iran to grant immediate and unhindered access to the UN-mandated fact-finding mission to address grave crimes under international law, including murder, torture, rape and enforced disappearances.

Finally, Parliament urges EU countries to revoke the diplomatic status of the staff of Iran’s embassies and consulates across the EU.

Background

Citizens often send messages to the President of the European Parliament expressing their views and/or requesting action. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) replies to these messages, which may sometimes be identical as part of wider public campaigns.

DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Establishing Horizon Europe, the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, for the period 2028-2034 laying down its rules for participation and dissemination, and repealing Regulation (EU) 2021/695
Committee on Security and Defence
Costas Mavrides

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Spokespersons for Parliament and for the political groups will hold a briefing on the 9 - 12 February plenary session, on Friday at 11.00 in Parliament’s Anna Politkovskaya press room.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Spokespersons for Parliament and for the political groups will hold a briefing on the 9 - 12 February plenary session, on Friday at 11.00 in Parliament’s Anna Politkovskaya press room.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Die digitale Transformation verändert die Arbeitswelt deutscher Unternehmen grundlegend. Kreative Teams müssen mehr Inhalte in kürzerer Zeit erstellen. Dabei dürfen Qualität und Markenidentität nicht leiden. Generative KI-Werkzeuge bieten hier neue Möglichkeiten, den kreativen Prozess zu beschleunigen und zu bereichern.

Interessant ist die Entwicklung von KI-Modellen für unterschiedliche kreative Anforderungen. Diese Modelle können Texte, Bilder und Designs generieren, die auf bestimmte Branchen, Stile oder Zwecke zugeschnitten sind. Für deutsche Unternehmen bietet dies neue Wege, ihre digitale Präsenz zu stärken und gleichzeitig Ressourcen effizienter einzusetzen.

Die Integration solcher KI-Werkzeuge in bestehende Arbeitsabläufe wirft jedoch auch Fragen auf. Wie lassen sich verschiedene Modelle sinnvoll kombinieren? Welche rechtlichen Aspekte müssen beachtet werden? Können Unternehmen sicherstellen, dass die KI-generierten Inhalte ihre Markenidentität authentisch widerspiegeln?

Praktische Anwendungsfälle in deutschen Unternehmen

Kleine und mittlere deutsche Unternehmen nutzen KI-Tools immer häufiger, um ihre Designprozesse zu beschleunigen. Die schnelle Erstellung von Konzeptentwürfen dient als Hauptbeispiel. Designs, die früher Tage dauerten, benötigen jetzt oft nur noch wenige Stunden, da Designer mehrere Varianten erstellen können, bevor sie die endgültige Version verfeinern.

Solche Tools erweisen sich besonders nützlich für mehrsprachige Marketingkampagnen. Deutsche Unternehmen mit internationaler Reichweite können Kampagnenmaterial für verschiedene Märkte ohne Verzögerung wiederverwenden. KI-gestützte Funktionen helfen, kulturelle Besonderheiten zu berücksichtigen und die klare Markenidentität über Regionen hinweg zu erhalten.

Produktvisualisierung ohne ressourcenintensive Fotoshootings sticht als weiterer wichtiger Vorteil hervor. Teams können digitale Darstellungen von Produkten in verschiedenen Umgebungen erstellen. Dieser Ansatz kann dazu beitragen, Kosten zu senken und unterstützt schnellere Produkteinführungen.

Ein konkretes Fallbeispiel zeigt sich bei einem deutschen Möbelhersteller, der seine Produktionszeit deutlich reduzieren konnte. Das Unternehmen nutzt Adobe Firefly-Modelle, um Produkte digital in verschiedene Raumstile zu platzieren. Diese computergenerierte Visualisierung hilft Kunden bei fundierten Entscheidungen und reduziert den Bedarf an traditionellen Fotografie-Workflows. Das Resultat: effizientere Projektgenehmigungen und kürzere Markteinführungszeiten.

Partnermodelle im Firefly-Ökosystem

Drittanbieter- bzw. Partnermodelle beziehen sich auf KI-Systeme, die von externen Anbietern entwickelt, aber in die Adobe-Umgebung integriert wurden. Diese Modelle fügen Firefly spezialisierte Funktionen hinzu und adressieren spezifische kreative Anforderungen. Sie funktionieren wie Erweiterungen und sind direkt über die vertraute Adobe-Oberfläche zugänglich.

Die Integration von Google Imagen 3 und anderen Partnermodellen steigert die Kernfähigkeiten von Firefly deutlich. Diese Bildgenerierungsansätze bieten Zugang zu alternativen Methoden für Bildmaterial. Partner wie Luma, Runway und Pika bringen zusätzliche Stärken in Bereichen wie Videogenerierung oder 3D-Inhaltserstellung ein.

Für Unternehmen, die Flexibilität suchen, bieten Adobe Firefly-Modelle eine Möglichkeit, das passende Modell für jedes kreative Szenario auszuwählen. Bei der Auswahl sollten Teams Faktoren wie Bildqualität, Formatvielfalt und Integrationsgrad in bestehende Adobe-Workflows berücksichtigen.

Rechtliche und ethische Rahmenbedingungen für KI-Kreativität

Der EU-AI-Act legt wichtige Regeln für die Nutzung generativer KI in ganz Europa fest. Diese Verordnung bewertet KI-Systeme nach Risiko und definiert Standards für Transparenz und Sicherheit. Kreative KI-Lösungen stehen vor Anforderungen zur Offenlegung von Trainingsdaten und zur konsistenten Kennzeichnung synthetischer Inhalte.

Content Credentials haben in Deutschland und in der gesamten EU als Best Practice für Transparenz Akzeptanz gefunden und liefern nachvollziehbare Daten über Inhaltsursprung und Bearbeitungsverlauf. Diese Anmeldedaten sind in Metadaten eingebettet und erfüllen direkt die Erwartungen des EU-AI-Act und des Digital Services Act (DSA).

In der Praxis verwenden Kreativabteilungen Content Credentials, um jedes mit Firefly oder ähnlicher Software generierte Asset automatisch zu kennzeichnen. Dies ermöglicht es, die Herkunft bei Audits nachzuweisen und stärkt die rechtliche Compliance sowie Transparenz in der Kommunikation mit Behörden oder Kunden.

Die Datenschutzkonformität bei der Implementierung von KI-Kreativwerkzeugen ist ein weiterer entscheidender Aspekt. Unternehmen müssen sicherstellen, dass ihre KI-Nutzung den DSGVO-Anforderungen entspricht, besonders wenn personenbezogene Daten verarbeitet werden. Adobe Firefly-Modelle bieten hier Vorteile durch ihre transparente Datenverwaltung und klaren Nutzungsbedingungen.

Zukunftsperspektiven für KI-gestützte Kreativarbeit

Die Entwicklung von Adobe Firefly-Partnermodellen folgt bestimmten Prioritäten aus dem Unternehmenssektor. Organisationen benötigen Tools, die Text-, Bild- und Videofunktionen kombinieren und flexibel in etablierte Workflows passen. Die Nachfrage nach multimodaler Fähigkeit zeigt sich in Firelys Kombination von Bild- und Textmodellen.

Die praktische Umsetzung stützt sich auf zentrale Modellauswahlmenüs in der Firefly-Benutzeroberfläche. Kreativteams wechseln direkt zwischen nativen Firefly-Modellen und Partnersystemen und bearbeiten verschiedene Szenarien wie mehrsprachige Kampagnen oder die Einhaltung von Markenprinzipien. Viele Unternehmen erstellen Richtlinien zur Modellauswahl und testen regelmäßig Outputs auf Compliance-Anforderungen.

Für 2026 entstehen neue Berufsbilder und Spezialisierungen, die Wissen zu KI mit kreativen Fähigkeiten verbinden. Positionen wie „KI-Prompt-Designer“ oder „KI-Workflow-Manager“ gewinnen an Bedeutung, da Unternehmen gezieltes Wissen über KI aufbauen und Datenmanagementpraktiken verbessern müssen.

Die frühe Einführung von kreativen KI-Tools kann Wettbewerbsvorteile bieten. Schnellere Bearbeitungszeiten und niedrigere Kosten zählen zu den möglichen Vorteilen. Deutsche Unternehmen, die jetzt in diese Technologien investieren, positionieren sich gut für die kommenden Entwicklungen im Kreativsektor und können sich einen Vorsprung gegenüber Mitbewerbern verschaffen.

Der Beitrag Kreative KI-Werkzeuge für deutsche Unternehmen im digitalen Wandel erschien zuerst auf Neurope.eu - News aus Europa.

Written by Harriet Kennedy.

Amidst increasing political pressure to adopt a stricter approach to migration, certain EU Member States have begun calling for reform of the protections available to migrants under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The calls have centred around Article 3 and Article 8 of the ECHR.

Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. It blocks states from deporting individuals to places where they would be at risk of such treatment. It is absolute and cannot be restricted in any circumstances. Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life. It is a qualified right, meaning that it can be subject to limitations: it must be in accordance with the law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim and proportionate to the aim pursued.

Since June 2025 in particular, calls for reform have intensified, culminating in an agreement between Council of Europe states to adopt a political declaration on issues related to migration and the ECHR. The declaration is expected in May 2026. As yet, there is no consensus on the changes which should be made, or whether changes should be made at all. Nonetheless, support for reform seems to be growing amongst EU Member States.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights: Legal requirements and proposals for reform‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Dauer des Videos : 60'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

Length of video : 60'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Newsletter - 9-12 February 2026 - Strasbourg plenary session

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP