The EU’s engagement with foreign powers on human rights

With a mandate under the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union (EU) has been engaging with foreign powers like Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) nations on human rights issues. Despite the common and shared goals, the BRICS set-up is not institutionalised, which prompts the EU to engage with each country on a bilateral basis. Such collaborations have occurred in bilateral dialogues, multilateral fora, through developmental assistance, and negotiations in economic partnership agreements. The scope and content of the discussions and cooperation vary due to the difference in the political structures of the countries. While the EU and the BRICS may share some common goals politically and economically, pursuing shared objectives related to democracy and human rights promotion remains challenging. These countries may believe in human rights protection, but the understandings and the approaches vary drastically, as visible when issues of sovereignty and non-intervention are raised to resist comprehensive discussions. Although the BRICS are emerging as an interconnected group and have begun to cooperate more closely in multilateral fora, the EU may also have to consider dealing with it in its institutional capacity. It could be more challenging to fulfill the mandate of the Lisbon Treaty for the EU while dealing with this cohesive group that has different understandings on human rights protection within their own states.

The normative framework of the EU’s commitment to human rights

The chapter presents and assesses the various normative layers—domestic, European, regional, international—on which the European Union’s (EU’s) commitment to human rights is built. It analyses the interaction of EU primary law, general principles of law derived from constitutional traditions of Member States, and international human rights law, including relevant regional instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, and the Istanbul Convention. It is contended that, despite an impressive and pioneering normative framework on human rights, the EU currently faces a number of challenges that call for a strong stance on human rights realisation in all areas of its competence and influence. Enduring deficiencies in the relevant normative framework include the absence of a fully fledged EU competence to legislate in the area of human rights protection and the application of ‘double standards’ in the EU’s approach to human rights internally and externally, leading to a deep divide between internal and external policies guided by starkly different logics. Further areas of concern include the difficulties of the Charter of Fundamental Rights implementation in view of EU institutions and Member States’ competencies, which have become particularly apparent in the EU’s response to the Eurozone crisis and the arising tensions between EU and Member States’ austerity measures, as well as the uneven nature of the EU and Member States’ human rights obligations with regard to the international legal framework, leading to gaps and overlaps.

Human rights in EU development cooperation

The present chapter provides a comprehensive overview of how and why human rights became an integral part of the European Union’s (EU’s) policies for international cooperation. It describes the EU’s regulatory framework for global human rights promotion and critically assesses the Union’s financing and implementation instruments to deliver upon those commitments. In doing so, it describes various forms of human rights conditionality in the allocation of EU aid, as well as the EU’s dedicated programmes and financing mechanisms for human rights and democracy promotion. Finally, it assesses more recent approaches such as human rights mainstreaming and the application of a Rights-Based Approach to EU development cooperation.

EU enlargement policy and human rights

The enlargement policy of the European Union (EU) aims at integrating new members following an accession path. EU conditionality policy is a delicate balancing exercise between keeping the partner countries on the accession path and upholding fundamental values. Enlargement countries are now concentrated, with the exception of Turkey, in the Western Balkans. A key challenge is that the current leaderships in many of these states are shifting their countries increasingly in an authoritarian direction. The EU now faces a situation of establishing illiberal regimes in the region and so far seems to lack the willingness and the tools to engage and counter this. The chapter finds that human rights conditionality seems to allow for less-than-honest domestic compliance, where the EU’s requests are (mis)used to boost the power of domestic leadership. The stated principles of the EU can clash with the state’s actual performance for various reasons, including the prioritization of more direct economic interests or security goals. Conditionality tends to remain shallow as it is built on conditions that are easy to implement and measure but remain largely formal (for example, setting up an institution, adopting legislation). In the case of the Western Balkans, our research findings indicate that the enlargement process can result in favouring strong leaders who can deliver, even if the same ‘strength’ puts human rights compliance at risk. The greatest danger is that EU integration can end up legitimising the violation of human rights by the authorities.

The EU human rights and democratisation policy

The promise of the Lisbon Treaty to put human rights, democracy, and the rule of law at the centre of all external action led to renew the EU’s efforts to frame an effective response to the challenges that human rights and democracy face worldwide. A Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy was adopted in June 2012 followed by a second Action Plan for 2015–2019. The Action Plans looked to increase the coherence and complementarity of all the tools that support human rights and democracy across the world. This chapter first analyses the objectives and priorities that guide the EU human rights and democratisation policy and the specific tools and instruments developed by the EU to implement them. Then it sheds light on the opportunities and challenges posed by the human rights and democratisation policy using as an example some of the questions raised in the relations between the EU and Egypt, a country under the European Neighbourhood Policy. This case shows that to effectively promote and defend human rights and democracy would mean first of all integrating consistently their promotion in the different EU policies involved in a region such as development, migration, security, counter-terrorism, women’s rights and gender equality, enlargement, and trade. The chapter concludes that the EU should strive to keep its commitment and not to conceal its values in order to be a leading actor in the field of human rights.

Towards ever greater coherence? Human rights policies in the evolving EU

Coherence remains one of the most important challenges facing the European Union (EU) with respect to its commitment to human rights. While perfect coherence in EU human rights policy may never be possible, and is perhaps not even desirable, the normative coherence of EU human rights policy-making under international human rights law remains essential to uphold such a commitment and ultimately to avoid human rights violations by EU actors themselves. ‘Hard interests’, including security, managing migration, or economic policy, must never be used as an excuse to violate human rights, especially by the EU. The present chapter offers a number of suggestions to overcome different types of incoherence, and to promote normative, interest-based, and structural coherence in EU human rights action. Starting from this three-fold typology of incoherence, the chapter identifies different ways in which incoherence is a challenge for EU human rights policy, and offers suggestions to EU actors for opportunities to promote coherent human rights policy and best practices in this regard. Despite the EU’s complex institutional structure and web of competences, significant opportunities remain for the EU and its Member States to act coherently for human rights, both through law—in particular international and regional human rights law—and through the practice of EU actors themselves.

The EU’s engagement with business on human rights

Since the turn of the millennium, the European Union (EU) has sought to advance its policies on business and human rights with the aim of achieving specific outcomes on human rights protection, core labour standards, and a better alignment of European and global approaches to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). At the heart of this endeavour lies the European Commission’s renewed strategy for CSR in its 2011 Communication. This chapter critically analyses the impact of the EU’s re-calibration of its CSR policy to allow for the fuller engagement of European business with human rights on the internal and external plane. The EU has sought to develop a ‘smart mix’ of voluntary policy measures and complementary regulatory initiatives to achieve its aims. Consequently, it has made considerable progress towards embedding business and human rights in European law and policy. However, it continues to face challenges due to its lack of competence along the whole spectrum of business-related human rights, and the transversal character of EU policy, which elicits a multidimensional response to implementation, involving a plethora of actors from government, business, and civil society.

Introduction

Over the past decades, the European Union (EU or Union) has undergone a remarkable transformation—from a primarily economic integration project whose founding treaties were completely silent on human rights, to a political union of values that puts human rights front and centre. The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force one decade ago, on 1 December 2009, is widely regarded as the high point of the Union’s journey in that direction. Not only did the Treaty recognise human rights as one of the EU’s founding values, as the guiding principles and objectives of all EU external action, it also gave the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal value as the Treaties and obliged the Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)....

Conclusion

This chapter first outlines the important opportunities offered by the European Union’s (EU’s) commitment to human rights in light of an increasingly worrisome internal and international context, characterised by enduring conflicts and a rise in authoritarianism and populism. Building on the foregoing chapters, this chapter then reflects on the challenge faced by the EU to deliver on its commitment to human rights. This chapter examines the challenge of delivery from a triple perspective: implementation, coherence, and effectiveness. The implementation section takes a descriptive approach to the delivery challenge, by exposing the various ways in which the EU fails to concretely apply its commitment in its daily operations. The coherence section takes an analytical approach to the delivery challenge by explaining it in terms of misalignments in the EU’s institutional and policy set-up. Finally, the effectiveness section takes a normative approach to the delivery challenge by suggesting ways in which the EU’s commitment can become more successful in improving respect for human rights within and outside the Union. The chapter then concludes with recommendations.

EU security and counter-terrorism policies and human rights

Numerous terrorist attacks both within and outside the European Union (EU or the Union) have prompted the Union to increasingly act in the field of counter-terrorism. Since the adoption of the Union’s counter-terrorism strategy in 2005, the Union’s action in relation to counter-terrorism has been based on four connected pillars: to prevent, to protect, to pursue, and to respond. A general trend in the Union’s counter-terrorism action has been a move towards a pre-emptive approach, where the focus lies on countering terrorism threats in advance. The aim of this chapter is to discuss whether the adoption of these pre-emptive measures strengthen the security landscape of the Union. The chapter thus takes a closer look at how the Union strives to detect persons planning or preparing terrorist offences, and to hinder actual attacks from taking place. In particular, attention is paid to the EU’s police and judicial cooperation, general surveillance, the criminalisation of preparatory terrorist offences, and cooperation with third states and international organisations. A central objective is also to assess how the various counter-terrorism measures concur with international human rights law, including the Union’s legal framework on data protection.