Why UN Experts Welcomed Greece's 2015 Bailout Referendum

Facebook ↗WhatsApp ↗
0 0 Edit this post
UN Experts Welcome the 2015 Greek Referendum, Criticise Creditors

On 30 June 2015, five days before Greeks voted on their creditors' bailout terms, two United Nations independent experts publicly welcomed the referendum. Alfred de Zayas and Virginia Dandan argued that letting citizens decide was an exercise of self-determination, criticised the IMF and the EU for insisting on more austerity, and said no loan agreement can oblige a state to violate the human rights of its people. Here is what they said, why it mattered, and what happened next.

Who issued the statement

The statement came from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva. Its authors held two mandates under the Human Rights Council: Alfred de Zayas, the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, and Virginia Dandan, the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity.

Both belong to the Council's "Special Procedures", the largest group of independent experts in the UN human rights system. They monitor specific countries or themes, serve in a personal capacity, are not UN staff and are not paid for the work. That independence is important for reading the statement: it expressed the experts' own assessment, not a decision of the UN as a whole or of the Security Council or General Assembly.

The two experts also tied their words to an earlier warning. On 2 June 2015 Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, the Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights, had cautioned that human rights obligations do not stop at the doors of international institutions such as lenders.

The background: a referendum called in a crisis

Greece had lived under bailout programmes since 2010, with deep cuts to pensions, wages and public services in return for loans from the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF (the so-called troika). By 2015 the economy had shrunk by around a quarter and unemployment was above 25%.

In January 2015 the left-wing Syriza party won elections promising to end austerity. Months of talks with creditors followed. On 27 June, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras announced a referendum on the creditors' latest proposal, and parliament approved it the next day. Banks closed and capital controls were imposed as the European Central Bank declined to expand emergency liquidity, and on 30 June the existing bailout programme expired as Greece missed a repayment to the IMF.

That was the setting when the UN experts spoke: some European leaders had openly criticised the decision to hold a vote, and the outcome of the negotiations looked uncertain.

What the experts argued

The statement made several connected points, summarised here in plain language.

A vote as self-determination

The experts said human rights bodies should welcome the referendum as an expression of the Greek people's right to self-determination under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the right to take part in public affairs under Article 25. In their words, Referenda are in the best traditions of democratic governance.

Criticism of the creditors

They called it disappointing that the IMF and the EU had not found a solution without further "retrogressive" austerity, meaning measures that roll back rights people already enjoy, such as access to health care, pensions or social protection.

The government's mandate

Voters had elected Tsipras to negotiate a fairer deal, the experts noted, and giving in to an ultimatum would break that trust. Every state, they added, is responsible for the welfare of the people in its jurisdiction, and that includes control over its own budget and regulations, which outside actors should not override.

Human rights above loan contracts

The most far-reaching argument was legal. Citing Article 103 of the UN Charter, which gives the Charter priority over other treaties, they said no loan agreement can force a country to violate its population's rights or cancel its sovereignty. They went further, suggesting that such a clause would be void under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the article on conflicts with fundamental norms of international law. They also cited Articles 2 and 5 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, arguing that foreign debt is no excuse for letting rights slide backwards.

Solidarity and the roots of the crisis

Finally, they pointed to a 2013 finding by the debt expert that austerity tied to the bailouts had pushed Greece into recession and undermined economic and social rights, and they argued that the crisis had a major cause in the global financial meltdown of 2007 and 2008. They closed with a plain line: democracy means self-determination, and self-determination often calls for referenda.

How much weight did the statement carry?

Statements by Special Procedures experts are not binding judgments. They carry moral and political weight and feed into the UN human rights record, but they do not change treaties or loan contracts.

Some of the legal reasoning is also debated among international lawyers. The idea that human rights obligations limit what creditors and international organisations may demand is widely discussed and has support in UN human rights work, including the 2014 report on Greece by the debt expert. The claim that a bailout agreement could be void under the Vienna Convention, however, is a strong reading of a provision that is rarely applied. Creditor governments, for their part, argued that they were also accountable to their own voters and taxpayers. Readers should see the statement as an authoritative human rights perspective, not as the final word on international law.

What happened after the vote

The referendum took place on 5 July 2015. About 61.3% of voters rejected the creditors' proposal and 38.7% accepted it, on a turnout of 62.5%. "No" won in every region of the country.

The result did not end the crisis. Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis resigned the next day. On 8 July the government asked for a new three-year loan, and on 13 July Tsipras accepted an agreement with terms widely seen as tougher than the ones voters had just rejected. Dozens of Syriza MPs voted against or abstained, the party split, and Tsipras won a snap election in September 2015 on a low turnout. Greece formally left its bailout programmes in August 2018.

For many Greeks the sequence remains painful: a clear democratic vote followed within days by a deal that went in the opposite direction. That is why the UN experts' statement is still quoted in debates about debt, democracy and human rights.

Why it still matters

  • Debt and rights: The episode helped shape later UN work, including guiding principles on assessing the human rights impact of economic reforms.
  • Democracy in the eurozone: It raised a question still discussed today: how much room does a member state have to choose its own economic path when it depends on shared institutions and creditors?
  • Social costs: Studies and UN reports on Greece documented rising poverty, unemployment and pressure on health care during the austerity years, a reminder that economic programmes have human consequences.

To read the original texts, see the OHCHR statement and the related pages below.

Sources: OHCHR: UN experts' statement on the Greek referendum (30 June 2015); OHCHR: statement by the Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights (2 June 2015); OHCHR: Independent Expert on international solidarity; OHCHR: Independent Expert on a democratic and equitable international order; OHCHR: debt expert's country visits, including the 2014 report on Greece (A/HRC/25/50/Add.1); OHCHR: Greece country page; Wikipedia: 2015 Greek bailout referendum; Al Jazeera: Greece overwhelmingly rejects bailout terms (6 July 2015).

Related:

Labels:

Facebook ↗WhatsApp ↗

COMMENTS

BLOGGER