OSCE commitments generally take the form of documents adopted by consensus at OSCE summits or ministerial meetings. Each meeting takes place in a particular political climate and context. Not surprisingly, the OSCE summits and ministerial meetings have, therefore, had differing characters in creating new commitments. Whereas some meetings, in particular in the early 1990s, created a large set of important new norms, others restricted themselves to making minor changes and additions. This process approach has led to a large number of OSCE documents. As a result, it is not always easy for practitioners to find out which standards apply to a specific situation, particularly as each document contains, to a varying degree, both repetitions and innovations. As a basic guideline, the user should note that all of these documents, together, form the existing framework of the OSCE. Thus, a document does not become invalid when new documents are adopted. The documents build on each other and constitute what could be called the OSCE acquis. They have been adopted by consensus and are, therefore, politically binding on all OSCE participating States. This also applies to participating States admitted later, which were required to accept the acquis upon accession. Consequently, a user should not rely only on a single document, but should check the whole range of existing documents in order to find the actual scope of commitments on a given right or fundamental freedom. Often, an early document stipulates only a general principle that is then further elaborated in subsequent documents. However, since the commitments and documents build on each other, a commitment in an early document does not lose its force if a subsequent document has only a general reference to this right. At the same time, each document, as a whole, reflects a specific historical context and its structure follows a certain logic that puts the different parts of the document in a wider context. Reading the document in its entirety can, equally, thus provide important information as to the understanding and interpretation of the norms concerned. This explains the dual approach in this compilation, which consists of thematic and chronological components. 3. Human dimension commitments and pluralistic democracy based on the rule of law In a number of cases, OSCE human dimension commitments go far beyond the level provided for in “traditional”, legally binding human rights instruments. In traditional human rights treaties, individual (or group) rights are formulated, and the state party has the obligation to respect and/or guarantee those rights. How to implement these obligations, however, is most often left to the discretion of the states. The OSCE human dimension goes much further in linking human rights with the institutional and political system of a state. In essence, OSCE States have agreed through their human dimension commitments that pluralistic democracy based on the rule of law is the only system of government suitable to guarantee human rights effectively. This explains why the OSCE human dimension has been described as a common pan-European public order (ordre public). In other words, the OSCE is not simply an organization of 56 xvii