Ensuring Coherence in the EU Policies on Human Rights
The European Union dedicates important part to the human rights policies primarily defined in the core document of the Union, the EU Charter on human rights, which aim is to bring under one umbrella the strategies of the EU acquis in fundamental rights. Considering the number of instruments the EU developed over the time, the coherence plays important part in the implementation of the EU policies to build on human-rights policies. Although, the plethora of instruments make complicated for different institutions to uphold to the standards of human rights. The reason is that it is difficult to implement the principal human-rights documents in a real environment and situations. The nature of the human rights and democratization is crossing and needs significant effort to have consistency and coherence. This is key not only for the actions related to the desired synergy between the European Commission and the Member States, but also for the actions the EU takes in external relations. Various instruments need to support the EU’s commitment to protect fundamental rights as reaffirmed by the proclamation of the Charter. Some of those instruments include traditional diplomacy, interventions in the United Nations Fora, or in particular cases, sanctions. The other instruments include agreements for financial co-operations; bilateral dialogues or human-rights clause incorporated in the trade agreements the Union signs with third countries.
The EU is committed to human rights and number of factors could influence the human-rights agenda inside the Union or their communication abroad. Many factors influence the human-rights policies of the EU. Historically, Europe has placed the human rights at the center of the EU identity, regardless different histories and numerous interpretations. Legally, human rights obligations bind the EU and its Member States in the cases of the implementation of the EU law, but it is not always final if the EU could impose the same legally binding obligations. In additions, ethnic, social, cultural, and technological factors influences the human-rights policies. Each of these factors creates difficulties for real measurement of the implementation of the human rights policies.
In the lecture by Professor Jeffrey Kenner, he points out that the European Union “has an obligation under its founding treaties to engage with non-state actors and consult them when undertaking its activities.” As Kenner suggests, engagement with non-state actors plays a key role in the EU’s external action. In these relations with non-state actors, the EU uses some of its funding instruments, such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, which positions the EU as an important donor of development toward sustainable societies with more democratic capacity. However, the image that the European Union wants to create as an international organization dedicated to the human rights through non-state actors is still a young and faces number of challenges for further developments.
The European Union also tries to promote human rights policies through trade agreements, which primarily purpose is to enforce development in the third countries. Trade and development policies affect the human rights indirectly. The European Union uses many instruments that combine the “twin policies” trade and development. The EU uses, Aid for Trade for development to finance trading infrastructure in developing countries, EU International Agreements, which have trade provisions, but contain the provisions on development cooperation, such it is the Cotonou Agreement. Moreover, the EU trade policy contains several channels for influencing human-rights situation in a particular country outside of the EU structure. For fostering its trade policies, the EU uses unilateral instruments that can pose restrictions on the import of certain goods into the EU, which may be critical to human rights. In various cases it contains restrictions for import of timber, military equipment, and conflict minerals. Another instrument is the Generalized System of Preferences, which enables tariff preferences in exchange for human rights respect. In the cases when such commitments fail, the EU has a right to impose sanctions, which was done three times. The EU imposed sanctions on Myanmar, Belarus and Sri Lanka. Despite the unilateral instruments, the EU has bilateral instruments through trade agreement in which it can impose human rights clauses and sustainable development chapters. The trade agreement has human rights clauses that define the relations between the EU and the partner country in a situation when the essential elements of the agreement are breached. The EU could halt the trade preferences with sanctions, as it has happened in about 20 cases. Further, the sustainable development chapters included in the “new generation trade agreements” foster sustainable development, which includes “labor right” and a process of “dialogue” that includes not only the governments, but also the civil society. The EU channels the human rights through development policies, in which human rights are objective. Thus, the EU uses providing aid to develop countries governments, finances certain projects related to human rights, and fostering development of strategy documents for human rights.
Regardless the numbers of instruments the EU has to improve the coherence of its policies on human rights, the EU faces many challenges to reduce its weaknesses when implements the human rights in international operations. The Common Security and Defense Policy is a EU security tool, which aim is the international peace and security. The EU started 34 Crisis Management Operations since 2003. The EU has civilian missions, military or mixed, which depend of the member states contributions. The CSDP missions include operations in Ukraine, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Afghanistan, Congo, Mali and other countries that faces crisis. The general tendency is that protection of human rights should be systematically addressed in all phases of the CSDP operations. Regardless, the EU should work on the accountability for human rights violations in the CSDP missions. The current problems include criticism about the immunity of personnel of the EU-led operations, experts attribute cases of misconduct and abuse to the lack of an adequate training, and the Court of Justice of the EU has no jurisdiction on the CSDP missions and operations. Another issue is private military and security services, which responsibilities depend on the contents of concluded contracts with the EU institutions. In addition, the EU is not party to the most human rights treaties; different actors are subject to different rights instruments.
In the “Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2015–2019,” (2015, July 20) the Council of the European Union adopted on July 20th 2015, the EU stipulates the need for coherence in its policies. The EU wants to increase the coherence of existing EU tools through financing instruments, analyses, action plans, reports from election observation, election assistance, enlargement progress reports, civil society engagements roadmaps, etc. The Action Plan envisages that the EU will work on preventing conflict and crisis and would nurture policies to ensure more policy coherence in the fields of migration, trade and investment, development cooperation and counter terrorism. The EU will have a mid-term review of the Action Plan in 2017, in which crucial role has the need for a consistent address to the human-rights dimension in the areas of people smuggling, protection of refugees rights, defense of the rights of internally displaced person, and the promotion of the ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. Overall, the EU should further work in achieving the consistency of its programs or regulations to enforce at least the first article of the EU Chart on Fundamental Rights, which says, “human dignity is inviolable, it must be respected and protected.”
References:
1. Council conclusions on the action plan on human rights and democracy 2015–2019. (2015, July 20). In http://edx.org. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://bit.ly/1jkY02S
