A couple of days ago, I wrote to Richard D North asking if he could remember whether the BBC climate change seminar which he attended in 2006 was held under the Chatham House Rule. This is rather an important point.Chatham House, also known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, originated in the aftermath of the First World War and has become a respected source of independent analysis, informed debate and influential ideas on how to build a prosperous and secure world.
The House has given its name to the famous Chatham House Rule, first established here in 1927 and revised twice since. The Rule is used around the world to ensure free and open debate.
This is what the rule says:
“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed”.
The world-famous Chatham House Rule may be invoked at meetings to encourage openness and the sharing of information.
EXPLANATION of the Rule
The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion.
Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?
A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don’t have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted.
The value of the Chatham House Rule in sensitive diplomatic negotiations or conflict resolution is obvious. Parties can, if the rule is in operation, freely express views and explore ideas without having to worry that what they say may be held against them in the future, but this is clearly an intermediate stage in the process of negotiation or decision making. It is a means of clearing the ground so that substantive discussions and decision making can take place, or of exploring sensitive issues in a way that might be difficult if everything that is said has to be on the record. It is certainly not intended to be a means of hiding a decision making process behind closed doors. In my view, and I suspect in the view of Chatham House too, using the rule for this purpose would be inappropriate.
Here is Richard D North’s reply to my enquiry:
Recent Comments