The promotion and integration of human rights in EU external trade relations

The European Union (EU) has made the upholding of human rights an integral part of its external trade relations and requires that all trade, cooperation, partnership and association agreements with third countries, including unilateral trade instruments, contain with varying modalities and intensity a commitment to the respect for human rights. The paper discusses selected aspects of the EU’s promotion and integration of human rights in its external trade relations and assesses the impact of the changes introduced by the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) on EU practice

An analysis of the legal obligations of the EU stemming from its international trade agreements

Introduction: Since the mid-1990s, the European Union (EU) has developed a sophisticated array of instruments to promote human rights in its external trade policy such as human rights clauses in bilateral trade agreements and a set of human rights criteria in the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). In 2010, a Communication was adopted on Trade, Growth and World Affairs, which emphasized the trade-human rights nexus, by stating that the aim of the EU is to encourage the EU’s partners to promote the respect of human rights, labour standards, the environment and good governance through trade. However, the effectiveness and credibility of the EU's approach to human rights in its trade policy has been called into question because of the selective and uneven application of these human rights instruments. This and other trade-related human rights concerns have been recognized and addressed in the Council’s 2012 Strategic Framework and corresponding Action Plan for Human Rights and Democracy (“Strategic Framework”), which provides a roadmap to mainstream human rights into ‘all areas of its external action without exception’. In a similar vein, in a Communication on Trade, Growth and Development the European Commission mentioned the need for change in order to foster growth, 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. The 2009 Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) reinforced the EU’s external commercial competence in combination with projecting a stronger normative approach in its international relations via Articles 3(5) and 21 TEU,4 thus advancing values, principles and objectives that are presented as “European” and whose universal application is sought via explicit reference to compliance with international law. However, the promotion of human rights externally raises many challenges of vertical and horizontal consistency - requiring the EU and all Member States to speak with one voice in their external relations but also the absence of inter-institutional conflict at EU level. In addition, it is also problematic from the perspective of coherence because of the mismatch between the internal and external dimension of human rights promotion and protection, the inevitable clash between the objectives of the different EU external policies and human rights as well as the disparity in treatment between the EU’s trading partners. Against this background, the paper intends to explore and examine selected aspects of the EU’s legal obligations in its external trade policies in the light of these Treaty changes

The promotion of social rights and labour standards in the EU’s external trade relations

The article looks at the EU’s increased practice of promoting social rights and international labour standards in its external trade relations, unilaterally through the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP; and largely under its incentive scheme, namely the GSP+), and at regional and bilateral levels via international agreements, which encompass reciprocal or non-reciprocal preferential trade links with third countries

Towards the constitutionalization of new forms of governance: a revised institutional framework for the European employment strategy

EU social governanc

[Introduction] Extraterritoriality of EU law and human rights after Lisbon: the case of trade and public procurement

The paper introduces the theme and topics of this Special Issue on the extraterritoriality of EU law and human rights in the fields of trade and public procurement since the entry into force of the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon. It briefly explores the meaning of extraterritoriality in international (human rights) law and the EU legal order highlighting the complexity of such notion in both legal systems. In so doing, it provides the context and focus of analysis of the collection of papers that make up this Special Issue, which addresses a number of topical questions concerning the extraterritorial conduct of the EU, as well as the extraterritorial effects of EU law in those specific fields, from the perspective of human rights

Cessation of refugee status and actors of protection: CJEU, judgment of 20 January 2021, OA

In her analysis of the OA judgment, concerning the revocation of international protection status with the possible concomitant return of a refugee to their country of origin, Samantha Velluti examines the case by drawing on a comparison with previous rulings of the CJEU as well as the English and German courts. The importance of the judgment lies in shedding light on the meaning of ‘protection’ and ‘actor of protection’ in the country of origin. Even after Brexit, the judgment will continue to have effects in the United Kingdom and be followed accordingly

The revised Reception Conditions Directive and adequate and dignified material reception conditions for those seeking international protection

The Recast Reception Conditions Directive (RCDr; Directive 2013/33/EU) constitutes an improvement with regard to the reception conditions that Member States are required to provide for those seeking international protection. However, it still envisages the possibility for Member States to reduce or withdraw material reception conditions and to grant less favourable treatment to international protection applicants compared to nationals where it is ?duly justified.? This may potentially lead Member States to grant unacceptably low levels of material reception conditions and could be below what is an adequate standard of living as required under the Directive itself. Using the lens of the right to human dignity, the article examines selected cases of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in order to see how the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR) may assist in ensuring that the implementation of the RCDr by the Member States provides for adequate and dignified standard of living conditions for those seeking international protection

Extraterritoriality of EU Law and Human Rights after Lisbon: The Case of Trade and Public Procurement

The paper introduces the theme and topics of this Special Issue on the extraterritoriality of EU law and human rights in the fields of trade and public procurement since the entry into force of the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon. It briefly explores the meaning of extraterritoriality in international (human rights) law and the EU legal order highlighting the complexity of such notion in both legal systems. In so doing, it provides the context and focus of analysis of the collection of papers that make up this Special Issue, which addresses a number of topical questions concerning the extraterritorial conduct of the EU, as well as the extraterritorial effects of EU law in those specific fields, from the perspective of human rights

Written submission from the School of Law, Politics and Sociology, University of Sussex (OEU0007)to the Women and equalities Committee inquiry: ensuring strong equalities legislation after EU exit

Undoubtedly, the UK’s equalities legislation has become stronger in recent years providing important protection for people who experience discrimination. Nevertheless, this has happened in the context of widening economic inequality, cuts in public services and restrictions on access to justice – all of which make it harder for victims of discrimination to realise the rights that exist on paper. If the UK leaves the EU, the next few years will be a period of great political, economic and social instability when it will be vital to ensure that protection against discrimination is strengthened not weakened and that a culture of support for equality and human rights is promoted throughout the UK. The rights that must be protected benefit everyone in the UK, not only supporting marginalised people and victims of discrimination but also making workplaces fairer for all and underpinning the legitimacy of our democratic institutions

New Governance and EU Constitutionalism: Friends or Foes?

The current EU is a highly institutionalized template for integration, equipped with a whole spectrum of different modes of regulation ranging from ‘hard’ to ‘soft’ which, particularly in recent years, have been pragmatically combined together to develop a hybrid and multi-tiered EU system. The dramatic expansion of the EU governance tool-kit and variety of the objectives and internal structures of these EU governance tools have relied on a non-clearly identifiable mix of legal and policy instruments. These changes in EU governance pose a challenge to the rule of law and its main tenets and do not sit well with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) because they occupy an unsettled constitutional space. This space is characterized by a range of possible encounters between constitutionalism and governance. New EU governance, therefore, forces European scholars to rethink the way the EU system operates and the way Europeanization is being pursued. The paper explores the relationship between New Governance, law and constitutionalism, the problems concerning their conceptualization and further understanding in the context of EU social governance. Its main argument is that a stronger dialogue between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ regulatory mechanisms, that is, between New Governance and constitutionalism, may lead to a hybridized multi-level governance regime in which all governance tools are designed to achieve the same set of goals