Évènement sur l’évaluation de la 2ème phase du programme mondial en faveur de l’éducation aux droits des l’homme

Le 13 septembre 2017, l’OIDEL a présenté un rapport sur l’évaluation de la deuxième phase du Programme Mondial pour l’enseignement des Droits de l’Homme. Le side-event “Assessment of the world programme for human rights education second phase” a réuni Alfred Fernandez, Beatrice Bilotti, Michel Veuthey, Ricardo Espinoza et Massimo Baldassarre.

Monsieur Fernandez a souligné l’importance de la transparence lors de la soumission des rapports des Etats lors de la deuxième phase. Elle a servi de guide à l’élaboration du rapport.

Beatrice Bilotti a expliqué la méthode de rédaction du rapport présenté et les difficultés rencontrées dans l’analyse du contenu des rapports ou lors de l’assemblages des analyses lorsque des Etats n’avaient pas rendus le rapport (ou rapport rendu en retard et donc non comptabilisé).

Le commentaire de Ricardo Espinosa sur la qualité des informations rendues pour ce rapport a mis en valeur le rôle important de la société civile dans le processus de rédaction.

L’importance de la responsabilité des institutions académiques s’articule autour de quatre idées fortes selon Michel Veuthey: être une plateforme avec d’autres acteurs dans le domaine de l’éducation, être un stimulateur dans le recherche, délivrer des enseignements et partager une ouverture de savoirs avec les médias sous toutes leurs formes.

Enfin, l’engagement de l’Italie dans l’enseignement des droits de l’homme fut souligné par Massimo Baldassarre.


Maéva Guyot


93th Council of the OIEC:

Last week OIDEL participated in the OIEC Council in Beirut. OIEC – Catholic International Education Office. OIEC is the entity that represents Catholic Education around the world, around the 70% of non-governmental schools are catholic.

The Council of the OIEC was from Thursday 27th until Saturday 29th April. Many issues were discussed but we would like to highlight the presentation of the new OIEC representation around the International Organizations.

Additionally, OIDEL made a presentation on “Education 2030: The role of civil society”. The presentation was an occasion to present the new challenges of the international community and to show the role of Catholic Education in the implementation of the new agenda. Moreover, OIDEL took the opportunity to show how Catholic Education can improve the realization of the right to education in other UN mechanisms.

Among the events OIDEL take part we can highlight the participation of two other events. One was an audience with the President of Lebanon Michel Aoun, in the Baabda Palace. The other one was the participation on a conference on the importance of the TIC for the realization of the right to education. Conference organized by the Lebanese Catholic Education and the Ministry of Education of Lebanon.

The whole trip was a wonderful experience and we look forward that OIDEL can play an important role in this new phase of the OIEC, and we also look forward to contribute with all the regions and countries that are part of it.


Ignasi Grau

18th Session of the Working Group on the Right to Development

This weekly session of the Working Group (WG) was organized as a place to discuss about criteria and sub-criteria written in the draft of the Declaration on the Right to Development (RTD) and find a common language to agree upon. OIDEL has participate on this Working Group as part of the CINGO.

This WG has been working on the RTD for years, discussing on the principles and identifying the necessity of indicators and criteria. They represent an innovation, a new vision of human rights in which individual and collective rights are interrelated in the process of guaranteeing an equal and fair development for all.

The invited experts presented, from different perspectives, the reasons of the importance of this document and the need of a comprehensive development of standards and indicators. Some of them stressed also the importance of a link with the language of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to gain consensus and they discussed on the issue of the nature of the document, whether it should be legally binding or not.

During the discussion, it was addressed the issue of consensus and the need of a joint, equilibrated action, recalling also Goal 17 of the SDGs, but the difficulties were numerous, starting with the US declaration of no further engagement in the discussion and the polarization between developing and developed countries.

Some of the States present, as the one represented by the European Union, expressed disagreement on the necessity to adopt a legally binding document. Furthermore, the EU reminded the numerous reserves they have on the language of the criteria and sub-criteria.

Following this statement, some States as Egypt, Venezuela, Iran, Equator, together with NAM and CINGO[1], reminded the WG that the document shall be finished between this and the 19th session and there has been sufficient time to come up with comments and modifications to discuss instead of just taking a disagreeing position.

From this moment on, the WG found itself at an impasse, the EU and Japan were asking for more time to consult on the documents, more than the one already given by the numerous recesses. The other States, supported by NAM and CINGO, were appealing the States to engage in a constructive dialogue to use at best the time given. Neither formal nor informal meetings helped the States to move from this strong polarization. Nothing broke the division created during these sessions, not even the sensible words of the Chairperson Ambassador Zamir Akram or the appeal of CINGO to remember that the WG exist to ameliorate the life of people and not to take political positions.

During this last day, NAM held a private meeting after which presented a document with recommendations and conclusions discussed during an informal. In this occasion too, the States couldn’t agree on the issue of the legally binding document nor on the respect of the deadline for the drafting of this Document on the RTD.


Beatrice Bilotti

[1] Group of organizations consulting and presenting a united front in the WG in which OIDEL is an active participant.

Challenges and opportunities to reinforce children’s rights through the implementation, follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda

Annual full-day meeting on the rights of the child, 18th session of the HRC, March the 6th

The reinforcement of the 2030 SDGs Agenda provides a system of follow up and accountability checks, even though there are still some difficulties between the States and not everyone has submitted the national plan for the implementation. According to Mr. Rodolfo Succar, Defensoría de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes de la Provincia de Santa Fe- Argentina, change is still possible because it depends on the application of laws. Public policies for children, monitoring of the mass media as opinion makers and monitoring of the juvinile criminal system can be a social investment made to be by States to keep the situation under control, gather data and plan the interventions. The gathering of data is, in fact, necessary to analyse the context and the individuals’ history, to create a matrix for the prevention and monitoring of future situations. It has to be kept in mind that not always the answer is the one anticipated but the system allows ridefinition and filling in the gaps.

In any case, the participation of the children is considered fundamental for the good realization of the SDGs, from the enjoyment of rights to the consideration of the child as an actor of the change as suggested in the 2030 Agenda. This tool is considered by Dr. Flavia Bustreo, Assistant Director-General for Family, Women’s and Children’s Health, World Health Organization and Ms. Marta Santos Pais, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, as a path for prevention and protection from violence against children. The 2030 Agenda is considered by the panelists as a roadmap for the creation of an historical breakthrough in the protection of children. What is necessary is a strong leadership able to promote sustainable development in every situation and in each country, through the promotion of participation. A strong accountability is the basis for the measurement of the national reviews and implementation, together with data gathering that is still lacking in this area.

Furthermore, the participation of children as agents of the change is one of the funding principle of the Agenda. Informing, forming and mobilizing citizens, in Ms. Marie-Chantal Coulibaly, Citizen Voice and Action Coordinator, World Vision Mali, is in fact the final purpose and tool of the 2030 Agenda. If the citizens are not informed of the rights they detain or the instruments they can appeal to there will be no empowerment and no dialogue.

The interventions of all the single States and NGOs suggest a general commitment to the SDGs with some questions on the good practice raised by some countries. The issue of the implementation of the SDGs in developed countries or areas afflicted by conflict was raised by different representatives and the help of the developed countries was asked, in terms of sponsoring rights and donations to sustain the programs in action. Some States furthered the question of the most untouched issues as child pornography or poverty, child marriages and abuses, conflicts, health access, malnutrition, both in developing and in developed countries. With the support of NGOs, the general attitude is towards the embracement of the 2030 Agenda and promotion of effective ameliorations.

The panelists suggest the commitment of the States in raising verifiable and comparable data to allow the organizations to create ad hoc projects. Furthermore, the investment of the government in the key areas of education and empowerment is stressed and, most of all, the necessity to build a dialogue between the children and the governments. A safe environment in which children can learn, discuss, dialogue, grow and rethink the projects addressing the issues most concerning as poverty, education, bulling, family and the spaces in the city. The best interest of the child and their integral growth should be always the compass regulating the actions of the States.

A strong legal framework is certainly necessary but it is not sufficient, there must be monitoring mechanisms that continuously investigate new paths and fill in the gaps.

In conclusion, cooperation is certainly necessary, political will and action are at the core of the improvements, together with the coordination between national and international instruments. The definition of clear language, data gathering and mobilization of the civil society are fundamental. From the 44 Reports expected from the States no direct reference was made to children. This is symptomatic, according to Ms. Santos Pais, of a reality not focused on the children’s rights nor interested in their opinion. The situation must change, efforts need to be made not only in the creation of a strong and effective legal system, with monitoring mechanisms and verifiable activities, but also in the practical application of the 2030 Agenda.

Beatrice Bilotti


15.00 18.00
18th meeting
Annual full-day meeting on the rights of the child

Challenges and opportunities to reinforce children’s rights through the implementation, follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda

  Chair: H.E. Mr. Amr Ramadan, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council

Moderator: H.E. Mr. Peter Sørensen, Head of the European Union Delegation to the United Nations in Geneva


•          Mr. Rodolfo Succar, Defensoría de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes de la Provincia de Santa Fe, Argentina

•          Dr. Flavia Bustreo, Assistant Director-General for Family, Women’s and Children’s Health, World Health Organization

•          Ms. Marta Santos Pais, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children

•          Ms. Marie-Chantal Coulibaly, Citizen Voice and Action Coordinator, World Vision Mali

A/HRC/34/RES/7/29, A/HRC/34/RES/31/7, A/HRC/34/NI/9, A/HRC/34/NGO/8, A/HRC/34/NGO/39, A/HRC/34/NGO/113, A/HRC/34/NGO/160

Human Rights Council: Third Phase of World Program of Human Rights Education

We would like, first of all, to thank the Member States, and particularly the Platform for Human Rights Education and Training[2], for their participation in the high-level panel discussion that took place in September on the occasion of the 5th anniversary of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. The World Programme for Human Rights Education is an essential tool for implementing the UN Declaration, by providing a concrete framework for action and by strengthening partnerships and cooperation at all levels.

We are in the Third Phase of the World Programme (2015-2019)[3], which aims to promote social inclusion of marginalised groups; foster interreligious and intercultural dialogue; and combat stereotypes and violence, with a particular emphasis on the role of journalists and other media professionals.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has recently invited all Member States and National Human Rights Institutions to submit information on national implementation of the third phase of the World Programme. We urge all Member States to contribute their national feedback, due on 18 April.

Human rights education is a sustainable approach to dressages the root causes of any human rights violations, concerning all people, and is key to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

Human Rights Education requires the involvement of all relevant actors, including the participation of civil society at all stages of the policy-making processes.

In this spirit, the NGO Working Group on Human Rights Education and Learning is co-organizing an exhibition on Human Rights Education with SGI and HRE2020[4], with thanks to the OHCHR. You are most welcome to visit.

Claire de Lavernette

[1] This statement reflects views of NGOs expressed in the discussions of the NGO Working Group on Human Rights Education and Learning of the NGO Human Rights Committee of Conference of NGOs (CoNGO). http://ngowghrelgva.wordpress.com
[2] Brazil, Costa Rica, Italy, Morocco, the Philippines, Senegal, Slovenia, Switzerland and Thailand
[3] A/HRC/27/28 (4 August 2014), “Plan of Action for the third phase (2015–2019) of the World Programme for Human Rights Education”.
[4] Global Coalition for Human Rights Education, www.hre2020.org



L’autonomie des écoles et la liberté d’enseignement

Beaucoup d’États ayant procédé à de profondes mutations de leur système éducatif l’ont fait dans le sens d’une plus grande responsabilisation des acteurs de l’éducation et d’une diminution des pouvoirs d’intervention de l’État central.

Cette tendance se fait d’abord au sein même de l’école publique. Le degré des décentralisations et d’octroi d’autonomie varie d’une simple orientation générale, comme en France, jusqu’à un radical transfert des pouvoirs décisionnels de l’État central vers les autorités locales et les chefs d’établissement, au Danemark ou en Finlande par exemple.

Cette décentralisation a aussi pour effet de conférer aux parents d’élèves de plus larges possibilités de choix. Quelles sont les raisons d’une telle évolution, sachant que subsiste, dans la très grande majorité des pays, une volonté farouche de contrôler la prestation éducative à un niveau national? Nous identifions quatre raisons : 1) la pression des  normes  internationales, 2) l’impératif de la qualité, 3) la question de la gouvernance et 4) l’émergence de la société civile.

1). Les dispositions des instruments internationaux relatifs au droit à l’éducation constituent sans doute un élément de réponse. Ils établissent clairement le droit des parents d’être reconnus comme les premiers responsables de l’éducation de leurs enfants ainsi que leur droit de choisir le type d’établissement scolaire en fonction de leurs options philosophiques ou religieuses, les critères ayant été heureusement étendus aux choix pédagogiques par la Charte européenne des droits fondamentaux

Cette perspective conduit nécessairement les États à adapter leur législation interne dans le sens d’une responsabilisation des acteurs de l’éducation, essentiellement ici les parents d’élèves. Les mêmes instruments internationaux, nous l’avons vu, situent clairement les objectifs de l’éducation au niveau de l’épanouissement personnel des potentialités de chaque élève.

2). Dans la plupart des pays se pose de manière brûlante la question de la qualité et de l’efficacité pédagogique et éducative de l’école. Les nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la communication, et bien d’autres facteurs ne sont que difficilement pris en compte dans l’évolution des systèmes scolaires qui peinent à  suivre le rythme

Par ailleurs, il est une autre réalité toujours davantage prise en compte aujourd’hui : la nécessité pour l’école de former des « citoyens » à part entière. Tout le monde s’accorde aujourd’hui sur le fait qu’une telle formation théorique ne peut déployer ses effets démocratiques que dans un contexte où la participation et la responsabilité personnelles sont valorisées.

L’efficacité pédagogique et éducative de l’école indépendante, tant au plan de sa capacité d’adaptation aux besoins pédagogiques nouveaux qu’à celui de l’éducation personnelle, est généralement reconnue. Sur le terrain scolaire, le secteur indépendant constitue souvent un « laboratoire » expérimental et innovateur dont profite l’école publique.

3). Outre les problèmes pédagogiques évoqués, les systèmes nationaux d’éducation se trouvent confrontés à des difficultés de gouvernance. Pour reprendre une expression célèbre en France il y a quelques années, les systèmes d’éducation publique deviennent toujours davantage des « mammouths » qu’il s’agit de dégraisser ; l’efficacité de ce régime amaigrissant passe nécessairement par une répartition plus judicieuse des responsabilités. Comme le dit M. Toulemonde dans son ouvrage Et si on tuait le mammouth paru la semaine dernière en France : “Il n’est plus temps de tenter d’agiliser le mammouth… Enterrons-le sans fleurs ni couronnes et engageons-nous dans les voies explorées non seulement par nos voisins mais en France même par l’enseignement supérieur… Donnons l’essentiel du pouvoir aux acteurs locaux par la décentralisation, la déconcentration, l’autonomie des établissements“.

4). Enfin, et c’est peut-être le facteur le plus important, cette évolution des législations éducatives s’inscrit dans le contexte du développement de la société civile. La discussion autour du bipôle classique « public-privé » tend à céder le pas à une réflexion sur la participation et la responsabilité des acteurs issus de la société civile, et ce dans tous les domaines, bien au-delà de la seule question scolaire.

Au-delà des querelles opposant les défenseurs des diverses conceptions de cette société civile et de son champ d’autonomie, on s’accorde généralement à reconnaître que cette société civile, lorsqu’elle agit dans des activités dites « publiques », ne peut être simplement comprise dans les catégories opposant ce qui relève de l’«officiel», de l’«étatique» ou du « gouvernemental » d’une part au « privé » d’autre part.

Trois principes

1. L’État n’intervient pas dans les choix pédagogiques des établissements, sinon pour veiller à la mise en place d’un cadre d’équité et de responsabilité général. Si l’on raisonne à partir du principe de subsidiarité, les parents deviennent manifestement incapables d’assurer seuls le financement de l’école.

2. Les parents et les enseignants sont considérés comme des acteurs responsables de l’enseignement. Cette « confiance » dans le citoyen est un fondement de la démocratie .Le monopole éducatif de l’État repose souvent sur une méfiance explicite ou implicite envers les parents et les enseignants, auxquels le droit – et le devoir – de participation effective aux décisions et aux responsabilités est ainsi nié.

3. Les pouvoirs publics agissent de telle manière que les établissements scolaires puissent, de manière autonome, offrir une prestation pédagogique réellement pluraliste. Ils veillent à la transparence et à la véracité de l’information fournie par les prestataires et mettent en œuvre un système de financement non discriminatoire permettant aux parents de choisir entre divers établissements scolaires.


A. Fernandez et I. Grau

Round table. School autonomy and school values: religion, pedagogical concepts and philosophical approaches




The right to education includes the freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic principles
The growing complexity, increasing inequalities and social contrasts stimulate new adaptive responses from the educational systems. Private and Independent sector, by nature, have provedto be best fitted to meet diverse cultural, religious, philosophical or pedagogical convictions.

School autonomy
The concept of autonomy is commonly discussed in reference to organizational and professional independence in schools. In Europe, independent schools enjoy freedom particularly regarding governance, curriculum and diverse aspects of management and administration. However, the essence of independent free education is based on values, embedded in cultural heritage, and linked to a broader notion of education that goes beyond standardized instruction. That is our understanding of autonomy.

Values and the diversity of responses as a foundational pillar of democracy
Advocating different religious, philosophical and pedagogical values, independent schools promote and strengthen the students’ self-knowledge and self-confidence, together with the
development of empathic skills, which are crucial for living a peaceful life in democracy, withtolerance and respect for others people choices.


Round Table 24.1. 2017

European Parliament (Brussels)

17h00 Opening

Nuno Melo MEP; Andrew Lewer MEP, Simon Steen – Ecnais Chairman

17h15 – 18h15 Round table

One representative from each organization regarding autonomy, values and right to education and freedom of choice.

18h15 Closure