Chatham House Rule
The Chatham House Rule states:
- "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".[1]
The rule originated in 1927 at Chatham House, the headquarters of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which had been founded in 1920 as a sister institute to the American Council on Foreign Relations.[2] It has been refined twice in 1992 and 2002.[3]
According to Chatham House, the rule originated with "the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information."[4] David Miller has charged that the rule is "designed to protect elite discussions from transparency and accountability." [5]
In 2006, Chatham House criticised David Blunkett when he attempted to invoke the rule in relation to remarks he had made about an amnesty for asylum seekers.
- "Not for the first time business and political figures have cited the Chatham House Rule retrospectively in an attempt to get across a specific message or to defend themselves during difficult questioning," the organisation said in a statement.
- "Just because an event is held on our premises does not mean it is held under the Chatham House rule, indeed the overwhelming majority of our events are on the record. Given that Mr Blunkett's speech and the Q&A was filmed and his comments were reported at the time, it seems strange that Mr Blunkett should now assume that the meeting was off the record in any sense."[6]
Notes
- ↑ About Us - Chatham House Rule, Chatham House, accessed 23 March 2009.
- ↑ About Us - Chatham House History, Chatham House, accessed 23 March 2009.
- ↑ About Us - Chatham House Rule, Chatham House, accessed 23 March 2009.
- ↑ About Us - Chatham House Rule, Chatham House, accessed 23 March 2009.
- ↑ David Miller, 'Terrorism Studies' and the war on dissent', Spinwatch, 7 November 2006.
- ↑ Ben Dowell, Blunkett comments on the record, says Chatham House, MediaGuardian, 14 June 2006.
