Throughout the Middle Ages it was very difficult to speak about human rights. The will of the feudal lords and the clergy had the ultimate say with respect to the rights granted to their subjects - or "flock." It is only after the beginning of the Renaissance period that European thinkers began to search the difference between their regimes and those of ancient Greece and Rome. Humanism was a concomitant element of the Renaissance which was further developed by the Enlightenment thinkers. In continental Europe, the declaration of human rights had to wait until the French Revolution. Anglo-Saxon practices can be dated back to earlier periods including the Magna Carta (1215), Habeas Corpus Laws and Bill of Rights in Britain; these documents may be considered as the basis of modern human rights.

On the European continent, the Revolution in France provoked a reactionary response from the other great powers whose leaders sought to maintain their Ancién rights in the face of revolutionary fervor. Yet, the reactionary bloc could not resist the winds of change as apparent in the movements of 1848 and the nationalist movements in Germany and France. As the 19th century progressed, limited forms of constitutionalism and parliamentary life became the norm. The democratic reforms in Europe in the Inter-War period were promising but the emergence authoritarian regimes everywhere dashed all hopes. Human rights became a sine qua non of modern life thanks to the efforts of the coalition that defeated Nazi Germany and setup the United Nations in 1945. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1947 was signed by most countries (the Communist bloc and Arab world notwithstanding)

and is today the norm. Human rights developments followed different paths on different continents, but today the United Nations and the European institutions, especially the Council of Europe, continue to raise the bar.

In the context of Europe human rights can be grouped in three categories.

Personal rights, social rights and group rights.

The basis of the European type of Human rights can be elated Human rights regarded be as a derivative of the humanist principles of the enlightenment period. In other words the patricians would have equal rights but not the women, slaves and aliens. In the case of Europe the beneficiaries of such rights were the bourgeois/patrician classes in European societies and the thinkers such as Rousseau and others who provided inspiration, and discussions for freedom and liberty. These idealists were the main source of inspiration for Virginia Declaration and the French Declaration of human rights. The story of human rights and democracy in Europe has had many ups and downs until the end of the Second World War

In Europe the impact of the Second World War itself and the tremendous loss of human life through combat and genocide under conditions that can be termed as absolutely inhuman, created the need not only to keep wars out of Europe but also to preserve and flourish human Rights and tend the wounds of the war. The idea of the leaders that came out of the war was to bring the peoples of Europe together into a closer unity to obtain these goals. The creation of NATO for defense, OSCE and, later EEC, for economic cooperation, and Council of Europe for human rights, whose main purpose was to bring Europe to a closer union where human rights would flourish.

In this presentation, I would like to talk to you about the human rights model that Council of Europe has created and put into practice. Furthermore, I would like to mention the human rights and democracy desires in other parts of the world and their half-hearted attempts to regulate human rights.

In the field of human rights the greatest achievement of the Council of Europe was to the preparation and adoption of its and Basic Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Basic Freedoms. This Convention provided not only based itself on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN but it became the first effective legal document that bound the member states of the Council of Europe to the recognition and implementation of human rights but also in cases of violation face the European Court of Human Rights whose decisions are binding.

The right for personal petition was not accepted by all signatories of the Convention. Turkey, an almost founding member of the COE, accepted this right only 1987. Today the use of this right is highest in Russian Federation followed by Turkey and newly democratic European states.

Until this convention human rights and liberties were treated as national issues even their values became universal by UN declaration. In Europe not only individuals can bring their violation complaints but member states can also sue another member state in cases of human rights violations. This convention has indeed made human rights not only a national issue but has legitimized international concern on human rights in one country but has prepared the ground for further legitimization by UN Security Council for its resolution for intervention or sanctions on the ground of violation of human rights or crimes against humanity for which UN has assumed the responsibility of jurisdiction. The fulfillment of conditions of the Convention and additional protocols has also become a condition for becoming a member in the European Union as stated in the Copenhagen Criteria. Council of Europe has created a post for the Commissar of Human Rights who is a watch-dog of for the preservation of human rights in member countries. In fact the new EU Treaty adopted during the Lisbon conference paves the way for EU to become an official to the Human Rights Convention.

I must also refer to the work done by the Council of Europe in the field of group rights. The primary concern has been focused on the rights of minorities. The protection of minorities is not a new issue the Tanzimat Declaration in Turkey can be considered as domestic commitment for the protection of Christian Turkey. The Paris Treaty of 1856 and the Laussane Treaty are international documents guaranteeing rights of Christians. The step taken by the Council of in the form of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities defines more clearly the rights of minorities but it does not define who the minorities are. The definition of minorities in their countries is left to the signatory states. Turkey and France are among the leading members who refused to sign the Convention. As far as Turkey is considered there are only Christian minorities whose rights are already protected by the Laussanne Treaty. As for France this country does not accept the presence of any minorities in that country. Because of looseness of the term national minorities many European cou have also adopted a number of countries do not consider millions of immigrants settled in their countries as minorities and accept a la carte rights. On the subject of minorities UN and OSCE have also adopted a number of text but all these hardly go beyond being recommendations.

Regarding social rights both the council of Europe and EU has developed extensive social rights documents. These documents include follow-up mechanisms but they can hardly be as enforcement systems. ILO has also defined the rights of workers but in the global economic system many countries outside Europe scoff at these rights. Transborder minorities also cause problems in a number of countries. One of the most important problems is that of gypsies or romas. Romas obtained the change of travelling in Europe freely after Romania became a member of EU. No country wishes them to settle in their countries. A multitude of these problems exist after the breakdown of Austria Hungaian Empire, Soviet Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

To end the European part of the human rights discourse I must refer to the situation in Turkey. As we cannot speak of human rights in a country as a solo concept, to florist human rights can exist symbiotically with democracy and rule of law. Levels of education, the economic welfare and social rights also play a role. In the case of Turkey, we have adopted most of the rights embodied in the UN and CE documents and have even incorporated them in our legal system. The inadequacies in the field of implementation become evident when we look at the number of variety of individual complaints continuously bought before the Human Rights court. The lack of the rule of law is evident because we have not yet succeeded in preparing an agreed Constitution. We also have serious income distribution and education levels problems. However, the progress we have attained in these fields cannot be minimize and we boast for being in better shape than even many other European countries as well as all of our neighbors.

Arab world - Islam and human Rights

Particularly following the demise of the Soviet Union the countries of the Midde East could no longer keep themselves close to the currents of globalization by hiding behind their socialist economic principles and Islamism. For some years Arab youth and intellectuals have been demanding reforms i n almost every field. Political Islam was also fervent for being denied power in their lands. Authoriterian leaders while paying lip service to Islam in reality they were denying political Islam to contest in fair elections and the same is true for people who demanded European type of democracy and human rights.

In the current resurgence of political Islam, however, Muslim states relate legal rule exclusively to Islamic the shari'a even if they endorse the Notion of democracy.

Both Muslims and non-Muslims alike who subscribe to democracy agree with Max Weber's view that democratic systems are based on legal ruleas I stated earlier. This consensus diminishes, however, when the substance of the legal notions employed is pre-determined dogma. Against this, the very substance of international law alienates itself from assertive Muslims. Ulema believe that the Islamic shari'a is the exclusive basis for a legal rule acceptable to all Muslims. This is the case in all Arab and non Arab Moslem countries in the Middle East.

Shari'a in fact was constructed by Muslim jurists....Although derived from the Qur'an and Suna, Shari'a cannot be considered as divine because it is the pruduct of human interpretation of those sources.Where do the fault lines of conflict between the shari'a and the universality of human rights lie?

An international law exists, but no institution capable of enforcing legal norms worldwide exists.

The Clash of Civilizations?, "Samuel Huntington has brought this conflict to the fore.

Indeed, the article aroused a great dispute.Huntington responds to his critics by pointing to this very "confrontation between the West.and a coalition of Islamic and Confucian states rejecting Western universalism." We may observe this attitude in the Extreme Moslem, Chinese, Indian and former colonies' attitutes who claim that Universal Rights in reality are the product of former colonialist countries and each country must develop its own type of human rights.

Turkey however as a secular modern republic cannot be in this category. Turkey even asks other countries to carry out reforms. As President Abdullah Gül said at the Islamic Conference Organisation meeting in 2003 when he was the foreign minister of Turkey:

"I would like take stock of what we as the Muslim world are faced with today. We need to attempt to determine the issues and shortcomings that continue to hamper our progress at home. We have a spiritual heritage of peace, harmony, tolerance and affection. It should strengthen our inspiration, for achieving freedom, peace, prosperity and democracy. And, we have many strategic advantages and potentialities. But, we also face strategic risks. Our fates have in the past often been dominated by these risks.

The time has come that we avoid precisely this. The question is how do we do this? We must act with a refreshed vision-a vision in which good governance, transparency and accountability will reign, the fundamental rights and freedoms as well as gender equality are upheld, and there would be no place for blunting rhetoric and slogans. In short, we should first put our house in order. Rational thinking should be our dividing force, as we draw our strength from our spiritual values. Creating a synergy from these values inherent in our being will be our test in as well as our contribution to our modern age."

The prople in the Arab world have arisen demandind reforms. I hope that the kind of reforms they demand are those uttered by President GUL