Ombudsman as a Global Institution by Tero Erkkilä

Author:Tero Erkkilä
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783030326753
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

The increasing number of on-site visits by the Ombudsman was also reflected in interviews and some interviewees perceived tensions between the different obligations of the Ombudsman, arguing that the new NPM tasks and related site visits drew resources from the traditional tasks in legal oversight. On the other hand, the NPM function was seen to bring prestige with it, described as the “crown jewel” of international human rights regime. But others argued that this was rather narrow perspective, as the NPM only concerned closed institutions.

Together with the increasing number of inspections, the NPM and UNCRPD tasks were likely to set new demands for expertise of the Ombudsman (Eduskunnan oikeusasiamies 2012, 37). Interviewees stated that the office might need to consider this in its staff policy, basically complementing legal expertise with other kinds of specialists. Relating to its UNCRPD and NPM tasks, the Ombudsman may now also use external expertise in addition to its own resources (Oikeusasiamies 2019c). This shows how the additional tasks acquired by the ombudsman may change the institution from within.

The Ombudsman had also adopted new mediating tasks (Kuusikko 2011, 147–52), involving proposing compensation for those whose rights had been violated. This had become increasingly involved, related to work of the European Court of Human Rights, which had repeatedly ruled against Finland in cases concerning delays in Finnish courts of law (Helsingin Sanomat 2018a). Mediating activities were also named as a potential source of tension between the traditional position as a legal overseer and the new tasks adopted by the Ombudsman. It is interesting to note that the Ombudsman’s potential role as a mediator had been discussed already in the 1990s when Lauri Lehtimaja was Ombudsman (Lehtimaja 1999), though Jacob Söderman had been also interested in the model. The Ombudsman’s international collaboration had drawn attention to the médiateur function that the ombudsman institution has in certain countries.

Not everyone shared the above concerns of new tasks undermining the legal overseer’s role, though the criticism was generally understood. As a remedy to the resource conflict, it was stated that the Ombudsman should not be the first actor to go into the field, except in NPM matters, when it was its duty to do so. As an example of this, the Finnish Ombudsman had refused to enter the field in the European Ombudsman’s initiative on co-operation in Frontex return flights (see Chap. 6), arguing that it is not the first actor to do so. Here the role of legal overseer was evoked—the responsible actors should intervene first and the Ombudsman should act as the overseer of their work. The Ombudsman would be the supervisor of the supervisors.

The second Deputy Ombudsman, adopted in 1998, received a special mandate to focus on matters related to children, based on the proposal of the Parliament (Kuusikko 2011, 138), corresponding with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that had come into force in Finland already in 1991 (Oikeusasiamies 2019a). The oversight of the rights of children also involved inspections and institutional visits. This

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.