Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:18:50.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Application of Human Rights in African Caribbean and Pacific–European Union Development and Trade Partnership

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Justice Nwobike

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Africa Caribbean Pacific–European Union (ACP-EU) Development and Trade Cooperation Relationship is currently regulated by the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. This agreement, which has been described as “the only one of its kind in the world” is based on the three pillars of politics, trade, and development between the EU and its Member States on the one hand and a group of developing countries on the other.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 10: Special issue - Articles German Federalism: Theory and Recent Developments , 01 October 2005 , pp. 1381 - 1406
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 The Agreement was signed on 23 June 2000 and came into force on 1 April 2003. It replaced the Lome Conventions which had regulated the ACP-EU relationship for over 25 years. The full text of the Cotonou Agreement is available in OJ L 317, 15 December 2000 [hereinafter the Cotonou Agreement]. For an overview of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement see The European Union and the Developing Countries: The Cotonou Agreement (O. Babarinde/G. Faber eds., 2005); S. D. Salama/C. M. Salama, The New EU ACP Partnership Agreement, 14 J. Int'l Dev. 899 (2002); Karin Arts, ACP-EU Relations in a New Era: The Cotonou Agreement, 40 Com. Mark. L. Rev. 95 (2003); Bernd Martenczuk, From Lome to Cotonou: The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement in a Legal Perspective, 5 Eur. For. Aff. Rev. 461 (2000).Google Scholar

2 The ACP-EC Courier 19 (September 2000), special issue.Google Scholar

3 The ACP group was founded in 1975 with the signing of the Georgetown Agreement. The ACP group is composed of the following Countries: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Cote d’ Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Equitorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Niue Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, St Kitts and Namo, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands,Google Scholar

Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. It is worthy of note that Cuba is a member of the ACP Group but is not a signatory to the Cotonou agreement.Google Scholar

4 Cotonou Agreement (note 1), Article 1(1).Google Scholar

5 Cotonou Agreement (note 1), Article 9. Article 9(3) makes good governance a fundamental element of the Agreement and any breach will attract the measures stipulated in Article 97.Google Scholar

6 When negotiations are successfully concluded, it is expected that the EPA will regulate the trade relationship between the ACP countries and the EU, effective as of 2008.Google Scholar

7 Trade Negotiation Insight, 6 (July 2004), available at: http://www.ictsd.org/tni/tni_english/TNI_EN_3-4.pdf (last accessed 23 May 2005).Google Scholar

8 Adopted 26 June 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. 993, 3 Bevans 1153, entered into force 24 October 1945 [hereinafter UN Charter].Google Scholar

9 10 December 1948, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., (Resolutions, part 1), at 71, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948), reprinted in: 43 Am. J. Int'l L. Supp. 127 (1949) [hereinafter UDHR].Google Scholar

10 See Title I and V of the EU Constitution 2004, OJ C 31, 16 December 2004. The EU Constitution has not yet entered into force.Google Scholar

11 European Human Rights Report 2004, 49, available at: http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/ENHR2004.pdf (last accessed 22 May 2005).Google Scholar

12 Horng, D. C., The Human Rights Clause in the European Union's External Trade and Development Agreements, 9 Eur. L. J. 677 (2003).Google Scholar

13 For a detailed historical account see Karin Arts, Integrating Human Rights into Development Cooperation: The Case of the Lome Convention (2000), particularly chapter 5 [hereinafter Arts, Integrating Human Rights].Google Scholar

14 Addo, M. K., Some Issues in European Community Aid Policy and Human Rights, 1 Legal Issues of European Integration 73 (1988).Google Scholar

15 Concluded on 26 June 1981, entered into force on 21 October 1986, OAU Doc CAB/LEG/67/3 Rev. 5, reprinted in: 21 ILM 59 (1982).Google Scholar

16 Article 5(1) of the Lome Convention IV states that:Google Scholar

Cooperation shall be directed towards development centered on man, the main protagonist and beneficiary of development, which entails respect for and promotion of all human rights. Cooperative operations shall thus be conceived in accordance with the positive approach, where respect for human rights is recognised as a basic factor of real development and where cooperation is conceived as contributing to the promotion of these rights.Google Scholar

In this context development policy and cooperation are closely linked with the respect for and enjoyment of fundamental human rights. The role and potential of initiatives taken by individuals and groups shall also be recognised and fostered in order to achieve in practice real participation of the population in the development process in accordance with Article 13.Google Scholar

17 Arts, Karin/Byron, J., The Mid-Term Review of the Lome IV Convention: Heralding the Future?, 18 Third World Q. 73, 77 (1997).Google Scholar

18 Cotonou Agreement (note 1), Articles 96-97.Google Scholar

19 European Union Negotiating Mandate for Economic Partnership Agreements, adopted 21 June 2002, available at: http://www.epawatch.net/documents/doc71_2.doc (last accessed 23 May 2005).Google Scholar

20 Id.Google Scholar

21 Fierro, Elena, The EU's Approach to Human Rights Conditionality in Practice, 245 (2003).Google Scholar

22 Id.Google Scholar

23 Riedel, E./Will, M., Human Rights Clauses in External Agreements of the EC, in The EU and Human Rights, 723 (Philip Alston et al. eds., 1999); B. Simma/J. B. Aschenbrenner/C. Schulte, Human Rights Considerations in the Development Co-operation Activities of the EC, in The EU and Human Rights, 583 (Philip Alston et al. eds., 1999).Google Scholar

24 Article 177(2) Consolidated Version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, in Nigel Foster, Blackstone's EC Legislation 1999–2000, 10th ed. (1999).Google Scholar

25 Treaty of Nice, signed on 26 February 2001, entered into force on 1 February 2003.Google Scholar

26 Case C-268/94, Portugal v. Council, 1996 ECR I-6699.Google Scholar

27 Id., paras. 24, 26.Google Scholar

28 Steve Peers has criticized the judgment of the Court in Portugal v. Council. In his view, “the Court's finding that development policy must be subordinated to human rights has no support in treaty law.” See Steve Peers, Case C/268/94 Portugal v. Council, 35 Com. Mark. L. Rev. 550 (1989).Google Scholar

29 Karin Arts, Development Co-operation and Human Rights: Turbulent Times for EU Policy, in New Perspectives on European Union Development Cooperation, 12 (M. Lister ed., 1999) [hereinafter Arts, Development Co-operation].Google Scholar

30 Hilpold, Peter, EU development Cooperation at Crossroads: The Cotonou Agreement of 23 June 2000 and the Principle of Good Governance, 7 Eur. For. Aff. Rev. 53, 60 (2001).Google Scholar

31 Cotonou Agreement (note 1), Article 1(1).Google Scholar

32 Portugal v. Council (note 26), para. 27.Google Scholar

33 Brandtner, B./Rosas, Allan, Human Rights and the External Relations of the European Community: An Analysis of the Doctrine and Practice, Eur. J. Int'l L. 474 (1998).Google Scholar

34 Rosas, A., Mixed Union-Mixed Agreements, in International Law Aspects of the European Union, 145 (M. Koskenniemi ed., 1998).Google Scholar

35 Fierro (note 21), 281.Google Scholar

36 24 Bull. EC. No. 11, 1991, item 1.3.67.Google Scholar

37 24 Bull. EC No. 11, 1991, 122-123, para 6.Google Scholar

38 Commission, Communication on Democratisation, the Rule of Law, Respect for Human Rights, and Good Governance: The Challenges of the Partnership between the European Union and the ACP States, 146 COM 2 (1998).Google Scholar

39 See generally Cotonou Agreement (note 1), Article 96.Google Scholar

40 The ACP Countries are Equitorial Guinea, The Gambia, Liberia, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, and Zaire.Google Scholar

41 Arts, Integrating Human Rights (note 13), 340.Google Scholar

42 Commission, Communication on the Opening of Consultations with Niger pursuant to Article 366a of the Lome Convention, 204 COM 3 (1999).Google Scholar

43 Bulterman, M., Human Rights in the Treaty Relations of the European Community, 252-257 (2001).Google Scholar

44 DEC 2001/131/EC, OJ L 48, 17 February 2001.Google Scholar

45 200 The Courier 32 (September-October 2003).Google Scholar

46 EU Council of Ministers, Press Release (25 June 2001).Google Scholar

47 Council Decision 148/2002, Concluding Consultations with Zimbabwe under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, OJ L 50, 21 February 2001; Council Regulation 313/2001 of 18 February 2003, Extending Regulation Concerning Restrictive Measures in respect of Zimbabwe, OJ L 50, 20 February 2003.Google Scholar

48 Council Decision 321/2005 of 14 April 2005, Concluding Consultations with the Republic of Guinea under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, OJ L 104, 23 April 2005.Google Scholar

49 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, The European Union's Role in Promoting Human Rights and Democratisation in Third Countries, 252 COM 11, 22 (2001).Google Scholar

50 Membership is based upon Cotonou Agreement (note 1), Article 94, which provides that membership will be considered for any “independent State whose structural characteristics and economic situation are comparable to those of the ACP States.”Google Scholar

51 Arts, Integrating Human Rights (note 13), 303.Google Scholar

52 Id., 302-303.Google Scholar

53 196 The Courier 6 (January-February 2003).Google Scholar

54 For an analysis of the role of gender in the Cotonou Agreement see Karin Arts/Wide, Gender Aspects of the Cotonou Agreement (2001), 11-12, available at: http://www.igtn.org/Cotonou/WIDE%20Gender%20and%20Cotonou.pdf (last accessed 22 May 2005).Google Scholar

55 Cotonou Agreement (note 1), Article 50(1).Google Scholar

56 Id., Article 50(2).Google Scholar

57 Id., Article 50(3).Google Scholar

58 Id., Article 2.Google Scholar

59 Article 131 of the Treaty of Rome.Google Scholar

60 Ambassador Mary Whelan of Ireland recently declared: “On behalf of the European Union, I wish to reiterate our commitment to the Right to Development, as set out in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. It is also a commitment that is manifested in the development cooperation partnerships and agreements that we have with countries throughout the world.” See address delivered by Ambassador Mary Whelan, Ambassador of Ireland to the United Nations, on the Right to Development at the 60th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on 23 March 2004. See also Karin Arts, Implementing the Right to Development? An Analysis of European Community Development and Human Rights Policies, in Human Rights in Developing Countries Yearbook, 59 (P. Baehr ed., 1996).Google Scholar

61 CESCR General Comment 3 on the Nature of States Parties Obligations, 14 December 1990, para 14.Google Scholar

62 Goals 1 and 8 of the UN MDGs emphasises poverty eradication and the need to build a global partnership for development. The United Nations MDGs are available at: http://www.developmentgoals.org/ (last accessed 22 May 2005).Google Scholar

63 According to Tomasevski, “much as with other donors, the practice was punitive and arbitrary.” See K. Tomasevski, Between Sanctions and Elections: Aid Donors and their Human Rights Performance, 48 (1997).Google Scholar

64 Arts, Integrating Human Rights (note 13), 370.Google Scholar

65 Tomasevski (note 63), 10.Google Scholar

66 Arts, Integrating Human Rights (note 13); W. Brown, The European Union and Africa (2002), particularly chapter 4; and FIERRO (note 21).Google Scholar

67 CESCR General Comment 8, On the Relationship between Economic Sanctions and Respect for Economic Social and Cultural Rights, para 3.Google Scholar

68 See, for example, the EU sanctions against the Regime of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, which included travel ban on the President and members of his cabinet.Google Scholar

69 Arts, Development Co-operation (note 29), 18.Google Scholar

70 Council Reply to EP question 593/92, rendered 22 October 1992, EPCD Bull., 1992, 490.Google Scholar

71 Petersmann, E. U., Human Rights and the Law of the World Trade Organisation, 37(2) J. World Trade 241, 259 (2003), especially n. 62.Google Scholar

72 Council Decision of 14 April 2005, Concluding Consultations with the Republic of Guinea under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, OJ L104, 23 April 2005.Google Scholar

73 Trade Negotiation Insight, 6 (July 2004), available at: http://www.ictsd.org/tni/tni_english/TNI_EN_3-4.pdf (last accessed 23 May 2005).Google Scholar

74 Francis AST Matambayla/Susanna Wolf, The Cotonou Agreement and the Challenges of Making the New EU-ACP Trade Regime WTO Compatible, 35(1) J. World Trade 123, 131 (2001).Google Scholar

75 Cotonou Agreement (note 1), Article 34(4), which provides that: “Economic and Trade Cooperation shall be implemented in full conformity with the provisions of the WTO, including special and differential treatment, taking account of the Parties mutual interests and their respective levels of development.” See also A. Abass, The Cotonou Trade Regime and WTO Law, 10 Eur. L. J. 439, 462 (2004).Google Scholar

76 For an update on the state of negotiations see Trade Negotiation Insight, available at: http://www.acp-eu-trade.org/tni.html (last accessed 22 May 2005).Google Scholar

77 Cotonou Agreement (note 1), Article 34(1).Google Scholar

78 49 The Courier 3, 6-7 (May-June 1978).Google Scholar

79 Tomasevski (note 63), 148.Google Scholar

80 Brandtner, B./Rosas, A., Trade Preferences and Human Rights, in The EU and Human Rights (Philip Alston et al. eds., 1999), 699 [hereinafter Brandtner/Rosas, Trade Preferences].Google Scholar

81 WTO Ministerial Conference, Singapore, 9-13 December 1996, Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para 4.Google Scholar

82 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, adopted by the International Labour Conference on 18 June 1998, para 5.Google Scholar

83 On the legality of linking trade preferences to human rights see J. L. Stamberger, Developments: The Legality of Conditional Preferences to Developing Countries under the GATT Enabling Clause, 4 Chi. J. Int'l L. 607 (2003).Google Scholar

84 Council Regulation 2501/2001, Applying a Scheme of Generalised Tariff Preferences for the Period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2004, OJ L 346, 31 December 2001, Title III.Google Scholar

85 Id., Article 14.Google Scholar

86 Id., Article 15(1).Google Scholar

87 Proposal for EU scheme of Trade Preferences for 2006-2008, available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/global/gsp/memo201004_en.htm (last accessed 22 May 2005).Google Scholar

88 Id.Google Scholar

89 Council Regulation 2501/2001 (note 84), Articles 27-30.Google Scholar

90 Notice of 16 January 1996; Council Regulation 552/97 of 24 March 1997, Temporarily Withdrawing Access to Generalised Tariff Preferences from the Union of Myanmar, OJ L 85, 27 March 1997, 8.Google Scholar

91 Council Regulation 552/97, id.Google Scholar

92 See generally Cotonou Agreement (note 1), Article 50.Google Scholar

93 European Union Negotiation Mandate for Economic Partnership Agreements, adopted 21 June 2002, available at: http://www.epawatch.net/documents/doc71_2.doc (last accessed 23 May 2005).Google Scholar

94 Id.Google Scholar

95 Cleveland, S. H., Human Rights Sanctions and International Trade: A Theory of Compatibility, 5 JIEL 133 (2002).Google Scholar

96 Brandtner/Rosas, Trade Preferences (note 80), 705.Google Scholar

97 Charnovitz, S., The Moral exception in Trade Policy, 38 Va. J. Int'l L. 689 (1998).Google Scholar

98 UN Document A/55/342, Globalisation and its Impact on the Full Enjoyment of all Human Rights: Preliminary Report of the Secretary General, 55th session of the General Assembly, 4.Google Scholar

99 See Report of the High Commissioner on the Impact of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/13, June 2001; Report of the High Commissioner on Globalisation and its Impact on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/2002/54, 15 January 2002; Report of the High Commissioner on Liberalisation of Trade in Services and Human Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/2002/9, 25 June 2002; and Report of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Trade and Investment, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/9, 2 July 2003.Google Scholar

100 European Parliament Document, Trade and Development – Assisting Developing Countries to Benefit from Trade, A5-0277/2003 Final, 8, para 6.Google Scholar

101 United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, 30 ILM 1594 (1991).Google Scholar

102 Trebilcock, M. J./Howse, R., The Regulation of International Trade, 2d ed., 140 (2001).Google Scholar

103 Mauritius has argued that Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture (regarding the taking into account of “non-trade concerns”) should be read in conjunction with Article 11 of ICESCR recognising the right of everyone to adequate food. See WTO Document G/AG/NG/W/36/Rev.1 of 9 November 2000.Google Scholar

104 Lim, H., Trade and Human Rights What's at Issue?, 35(2) J. World Trade 275, 284 (2001).Google Scholar

105 Report of the High Commissioner on Liberalisation of Trade in Services and Human Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/2002/9, 25 June 2002, para 7.Google Scholar

106 See the WTO study by Nordstrom/Winters, Trade, Income Disparity and Poverty, in WTO Special Study No. 5 (2000).Google Scholar

107 Cotonou Agreement (note 1), Article 9(2).Google Scholar

108 Id., Article 9(1).Google Scholar

109 Report of the High Commissioner on Liberalisation of Trade in Services and Human Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/2002/9, 25 June 2002, 2 [hereinafter Report on Liberalisation of Trade].Google Scholar

110 As at 16 February 2005.Google Scholar

111 Report on Liberalisation of Trade (note 109).Google Scholar

112 Horng (note 12), 698.Google Scholar

113 Oloka-Onyango, J./Udagama, D., Working Paper on Human Rights as the Primary Objective of International Trade, Investment and Finance Policy and Practice, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/11, 17 June 1999, para 3.Google Scholar