Chatham House Rule


Under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to a meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed to reveal who made any particular comment. It is designed to increase openness of discussion. The rule is a system for holding debates and discussion panels on controversial topics, named after the London headquarters of the Chatham House, where the rule originated in June 1927.

The rule

The rule was created in 1927 and refined in 1992. Since its most recent refinement in 2002, the rule states:
Although sometimes referred to as Chatham House Rules, Chatham House states that the singular should be used as there is only one rule.

Purpose

The rule aims to foster open dialogue on public policy and current affairs. It enables individuals to express and debate controversial opinions without risking their professional standing and establishes a clear distinction between personal views and those of their employer.
The original rule of 1927 was refined in October 1992 and again in 2002. Chatham House has translated the rule into Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

Use

European Central Bank

The European Central Bank sometimes adopts the Chatham House Rule. In May 2015, release of a speech, which adhered to the rule, by ECB board member Benoît Cœuré caused divided opinion as to its use and his self-publication. The Cœuré speech affected currency, and stock and bond markets. Thereafter, ECB invocations of the rule for a question-and-answer session and opening remarks for Cœuré, respectively, by Vice President Vítor Constâncio and fellow board member Peter Praet, gained attention. An ECB governing council member Boštjan Jazbec also had, the same month, convened questions-and-answers, under the rule.

Bilderberg Group

The Bilderberg Group uses the Chatham House Rule for its annual conferences, which feature between 120 and 150 prominent politicians, CEOs, national security experts, academics, and journalists invited by the group's steering committee. The practice has been criticized by some commentators, who view the conferences as a means for policymakers to make decisions without public accountability.

Other groups