Local Authorities or Cities? Perspectives from the Council of Europe

Since its promulgation in 1985, and having been ratified by all the 46 CoE member states, the European Charter of local self-government is considered to have paved the way for establishing a European constitutional local government law. It currently serves as the reference point for the CoE on local democracy, and it imposes international legal standards to safeguard local autonomy. With this Charter, the local level of government is recognized as an additional governmental level in the allocation of power: in a nutshell, it promotes a perspective of institutional pluralism. Local authorities – whose precise identification is left to each CoE member state while depositing their instruments of ratification – are described first and foremost as having a ‘right and ability […] within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population’ as Article 3(1) of the Charter states. This is called ‘local self-government’, which also means local autonomy. Second, local authorities are described as having a local self-government of democratic nature: this means, that they take their legitimation from representative democracy schemes. Local authorities, therefore, constitute the first democratically elected level of government (Article 13). This refers to a clearly defined administrative territorial unit. At the same time, local authorities are also recognized from an international perspective for their role as active players beyond states thanks to their right to and ability of self-government. This is granted by the legal value of the Charter and from its political dimension: this emerges from the monitoring work of the Congress, which conducts constant missions and issues reports with recommendations addressed to States to assess their compliance with the Charter and its provisions on local democracy. Despite the general nature of the Charter that makes it difficult for local authorities to directly rely on it in courts, the Charter is legally binding.

Despite its title, the very first aspect to underline of the European Urban Charter III (2023) is its soft-law nature, which contrasts with the legally binding nature of the 1985 Charter. Its previous versions – the European Urban Charter (1992) and the Manifesto for a new urbanity. European Urban Charter II (2008) – also had the same soft-law nature as they do not have the status of a convention. The 1992 version marked the first recognition of the urban phenomenon in Europe, through the outline of a catalogue of urban rights and principles. Accordingly, citizens of European towns have a right to: security, an unpolluted and healthy environment, employment, housing, mobility, health, sport and leisure, culture, multicultural integration, good quality architecture and physical surroundings, harmonization of functions, participation, economic development, sustained development, services and goods, natural wealth and resources, personal fulfillment, inter-municipal cooperation, financial mechanisms and structures, equality. This catalogue has been evolving and was later revised for modern urban living. In this sense, the 2023 Charter grouped urban principles under the six main themes of democracy and urban residents’ participation; social rights and economic and cultural development; sustainable development, protection of the environment and climate change; integrity and prevention of corruption, security and crime prevention; digitalization and artificial intelligence. From the first Charter, such catalogues of urban principles had the aim of giving value to towns and cities in the development of European societies because towns and cities were recognized as playing an important role as territorial units beyond states. Specifically, the first consideration on what a city is, was contained in the 1992 Charter. Accordingly, cities are complex entities whose identities are constantly changing, and whose boundaries are never at the limits of urban society, in so far as the city needs its surrounding regions and vice-versa. Rooted in both Latin and ancient Greek etymologies, the notion of city encompasses both a territorial, material dimension and a legal, historical one: therefore, despite being usually identified with the ‘municipality’, the city (or town) goes beyond its administrative boundaries.

While their nature is different, what both CoE acts have in common is their commitment to the local level of government. While with the 1985 Charter we see a focus on the concept of ‘local authorities’, with the Urban Charter(s) the target is ‘towns and cities’ with a general focus on the ‘urban’ dimension of policies, rights, principles, development. This does not mean that a clear definition is provided for what towns or cities actually are, and to what extent they differ from local authorities. However, what can be observed is that the notions of ‘towns’, ‘cities’, and ‘urban’ look at this urban territorial organization from a more holistic perspective heralding urban human rights for its residents first of all. This contrasts with ‘local authorities’, which is used to refer to a precise territorial unit confined to specific administrative borders. The Urban Charter itself is a more holistic document of soft-law, that aims to provide an ideal vision for urban living, while the 1985 Charter is more precise in its scope and is legally binding. While for precise definitions one should look at national constitutions and legislation or other EU instruments such as the 2020 OECD-European Commission document Cities in the World: A New Perspective on Urbanization, the CoE contributes to the urbanization trend by holistically creating more space for towns and cities. After all, we can say that lexical differences matter in conveying meaning.