Human rights conditionality in the EU GSP scheme: "a focus on those in need or a need to refocus?"
31 Jul 2016-pp 342-366
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the role of the European Union in relation to the promotion of social rights and international labour standards in its Common Commercial Policy (CCP), and examine who the real beneficiaries of the social conditionality imposed by the Commission in the EU’s external trade policy are.
Abstract: Since the mid-1990s the European Union (EU) has been at the forefront of attempts to strengthen and promote the social dimension of globalisation through trade, focusing chiefly on the promotion of labour standards internationally through increased cooperation with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and through its external trade policies.
In a recent Communication on trade, growth and development the European Commission (2012) mentioned the need for change in order to foster growth, to develop synergies between trade and development policies and the importance of projecting the EU’s values and interests in the world, highlighting how the respect for human rights represents one of its core values in its external action. This is seen as part of the EU 2020 Strategy. In addition, the reform of the EU’s Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) to be implemented in 2014 is said to help the poorest developing countries. However, this stated different and more humane approach to trade begs an apparently very simple question: who are the beneficiaries of such change?
In the current multi-polar system in which the EU no longer constitutes the centre stage of global policy making and in the context of the EU’s “deep trade agenda”, namely the push for further trade liberalisation focusing on the removal of domestic non-tariff regulatory measures, as well as the escalation of the euro-zone crisis which is also unravelling, among other problems, the lack of solidarity among EU Member States and the inability to fight protectionism in situ, the legitimacy and credibility of EU action is called into question.
The chapter explores the role the EU has committed itself to in relation to the promotion of social rights and international labour standards in its Common Commercial Policy (CCP). In particular, it seeks to critically examine who the real beneficiaries of the social conditionality imposed by the Commission in the EU’s external trade policy are. Indeed, the injection of a human rights agenda in the EU’s external trade policy raises many complex questions in relation to competence, coherence, effectiveness and legitimacy of the EU as a global actor.
Furthermore, the conception of labour rights as human rights remains a moot and controversial question. This explains why at present there is little understanding of how to ensure the protection and promotion of social rights effectively through the EU’s external trade policy. In turn, this makes it all the more difficult to fully grasp what the role of the EU can be in developing a linkage between trade and the social, thus ensuring a system of trade promoting more equitable global trade and sustainability, which is founded on discourses of social responsibility and justice in addition to free trade and open market economies.
This analysis is particularly prominent and made necessary by fundamental changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon (TL) specifically in relation to the CCP as well as the EU’s envisaged accession to the ECHR and the conferral of the same legal value of the Treaties to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which combined with other key institutional changes, will impact on the EU internal policies as well as the EU’s external action.
In the light of these constitutional, institutional and substantive changes, the chapter explores whether it is possible to develop a legitimate and effective CCP in a globalised economy and draw some tentative conclusions as to what the above role of the EU in its external trade relations may tell us more generally about the EU’s humaneness.
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this article, a content analysis on the legal texts and political discourse is performed to identify four analytically distinct purposes: instrumental (gathering support for the FTA), functional (monitoring and information gathering on the implementation), deliberative (promoting democratic governance) and policy influence (advising the governments).
Abstract: In the last decade the EU has embarked on a series of deep and comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Each of these agreements includes a chapter on trade and sustainable development, encompassing labour (and environmental) provisions. Against the background of increased liberalization and rising attention paid to sustainable development, EU FTAs set up civil society mechanisms to advance the implementation of these commitments. While civil society meetings have become increasingly important in practice, the assessment of their success differs widely among actors. While some see it as a ‘fig leaf’ or ‘talking shop’, others are more optimistic about its potential to empower marginalised groups within EU trading partners. Evaluations will continue to diverge as long as the exact purposes of the civil society meetings have not been clarified. This chapter is a first attempt to uncover the purposes behind them. By combining a content analysis on the legal texts and political discourse we identify four analytically distinct purposes: instrumental (gathering support for the FTA), functional (monitoring and information gathering on the implementation), deliberative (promoting democratic governance) and policy influence (advising the governments). We do not aim to prioritise one purpose over another. However, we do argue that the primordial purpose of the mechanisms should depend on the domestic setting of the trade partner country and on the matureness of the mechanism.
7 citations
11 Oct 2016
TL;DR: The European Union has been at the forefront of attempts to strengthen and promote the social dimension of globalization, focusing mainly on the promotion of labour standards internationally, through increased cooperation with the International Labour Organization (ILO) and through its external trade policies as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: In the past decade the European Union (EU) has been at the forefront of attempts to strengthen and promote the social dimension of globalization, focusing chiefly on the promotion of labour standards internationally, through increased cooperation with the International Labour Organization (ILO) and through its external trade policies.
5 citations
01 Jan 2017
TL;DR: Fostering Human Rights among European Policies as mentioned in this paper is a large-scale FP7 Collaborative Project that aims to promote human rights among European policies. GA No. 320000.
Abstract: Fostering Human Rights among European Policies. Large-Scale FP7 Collaborative Project. GA No. 320000. 1 May 2013-30 April 2017
4 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, becuase of the nature of these problems as discussed by the authors, whereas science has developed to deal with tame problems.
Abstract: The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, becuase of the nature of these problems. They are “wicked” problems, whereas science has developed to deal with “tame” problems. Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the undisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about “optimal solutions” to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse, there are no “solutions” in the sense of definitive and objective answers.
13,262 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that by thinking beyond traditional conceptions of the EU's international role and examining the case study of its international pursuit of the abolition of the death penalty, we may best conceive of the European Union as a normative power Europe.
Abstract: Twenty years ago, in the pages of the Journal of Common Market Studies, Hedley Bull launched a searing critique of the European Community’s ‘civilian power’ in international affairs. Since that time the increasing role of the European Union (EU) in areas of security and defence policy has led to a seductiveness in adopting the notion of ‘military power Europe’. In contrast, I will attempt to argue that by thinking beyond traditional conceptions of the EU’s international role and examining the case study of its international pursuit of the abolition of the death penalty, we may best conceive of the EU as a ‘normative power Europe’.
2,034 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a growing number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) have come to play a significant role in governing state compliance with human rights, and they are more effective than softer human rights agreements (HRAs) in changing repressive behaviors.
Abstract: A growing number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) have come to play a significant role in governing state compliance with human rights. When they supply hard standards that tie material benefits of integration to compliance with human rights principles, PTAs are more effective than softer human rights agreements (HRAs) in changing repressive behaviors. PTAs improve members' human rights through coercion, by supplying the instruments and resources to change actors' incentives to promote reforms that would not otherwise be implemented. I develop three hypotheses: (1) state commitment to HRAs and (2) PTAs supplying soft human rights standards (not tied to market benefits) do not systematically produce improvement in human rights behaviors, while (3) state commitment to PTAs supplying hard human rights standards does often produce better practices. I draw on several cases to illustrate the processes of influence and test the argument on the experience of 177 states during the period 1972 to 2002.I would like to thank Mike Colaresi, Dan Drezner, David Lake, Lisa Martin, Walter Mattli, John Meyer, Mark Pollack, Erik Voeten, Jim Vreeland, and two anonymous reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful comments on various drafts of this manuscript, as well as the many other people who have helped me by asking hard questions along the way. I would also like to thank Michael Barnett, Charles Franklin, and Jon Pevehouse for advice during the dissertation research that supports this article, and Alexander H. Montgomery for assistance in data management. All faults are my own. For generous assistance in the collection of data, I thank the National Science Foundation (SES 2CDZ414 and SES 0135422), John Meyer, and Francisco Ramirez. For support during the writing of the article, I thank Nuffield College at Oxford University, and most importantly, Lynn Eden and Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation.
548 citations
Book•
01 Jun 2006
TL;DR: The Neo-Medieval Paradigm of European Power Politics as mentioned in this paper is a Neo-medieval paradigm for political and economic governance in the modern world, and its implications are discussed in detail in Section 2.
Abstract: Preface Introduction: The Neo-Medieval Paradigm 1. Return to Europe 2. European Power Politics 3. Diversity and Adaptation 4. Economic Governance 5. Democratic Governance 6. Governance Beyond Borders 7. Implications of Neo-Medievalism Bibliography
459 citations
TL;DR: The European Union has been, is and always will be a normative power in world politics as discussed by the authors, which is a strong claim with a critical aim: to promote normative approaches to the study of the EU in the world.
Abstract: The creative efforts of the European integration process have changed what passes for ‘normal’ in world politics. Simply by existing as different in a world of states and the relations between them, the European Union changes the normality of ‘international relations’. In this respect the EU is a normative power: it changes the norms, standards and prescriptions of world politics away from the bounded expectations of state-centricity. However, it is one thing to say that the EU is a normative power by virtue of its hybrid polity consisting of supranational and international forms of governance; it is another to argue that the EU acts in a normative (i.e. ethically good) way. The focus of this article will be on the ways in which we might judge the normative ethics of the EU in world politics by critically discussing the principles that it seeks to promote, the practices through which it promotes them, and the impact they have.1 The EU has been, is and always will be a normative power in world politics. This is a strong claim with a critical aim: to promote normative approaches to the study of the EU in world politics. This aim is built on the acknowledgement in critical theory that ‘theory is always for someone and for some purpose’, since ‘theory constitutes as well as explains the questions it asks (and those it does not ask)’.2 There is a simple temptation to attempt to analyse EU policy and influence in world politics empirically without ever asking why the EU is or is not acting, or how we might best judge what the EU should be doing in world politics. A
420 citations