06. FRAME Reports

Permanent URI for this collection

https://reponew.gchumanrights.org/handle/20.500.11825/53

The reports constitute the chief result of the work of over a hundred of scholars gathered under the umbrella of FRAME project researching the means to foster human rights among European policies. FRAME is a large-scale, collaborative research project funded under the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) coordinated by the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies and conducted by 19 research institutes from around the world. As a complement to the on-going evaluation work carried out by the European Commission, and answering to the findings and recommendations of recent studies on EU human rights policies, the main objective of FRAME is to provide the necessary building blocks for the development of a comprehensive and coherent EU human rights policy comprised of: (i) a sound knowledge base taking into account the evolving factors, concepts, institutions and instruments underlying the protection and promotion of human rights at the EU, international and national levels; (ii) a critical examination and appraisal of the EU’s real and potential contribution to global human rights governance through its engagement with multiple actors and partners and through its multiple policies and instruments; (iii) a thorough scrutiny of the effectiveness of human rights promotion in the maze of EU institutions, competences and policies; and (iv) a set of indicators, tools and policy proposals allowing for a consistent and tailor-made integration of human rights in EU external and internal actions and policies. In this way, FRAME offers creative solutions to enhance the effectiveness and coherence of EU human rights policy and provides concrete guidance to EU policy-makers to help resolve problems hindering the protection and promotion of human rights. The project took off in March 2014 and will continue until 30 April 2017.

Browse

Jump to a point in the index:

Concepts of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law: a literature review

(FRAME, 2013-11) Timmer, Alexandra

This literature review is the first deliverable in Work Package 3 (“WP3”) of the FRAME project. Its topic is the conceptualization of the notions of human rights, democracy and rule of law in the recent academic literature. The purpose of this review is to lay a broad foundation for the rest of the research in WP 3. This review emphasizes that human rights, democracy and rule of law are all contested concepts, meaning that they are continually subject to questioning and revision. The review first outlines the major debates regarding the conceptualization of these ideals one by one. Thus, in regard to human rights the tension between the universalist credo and particularist approaches is discussed, as are problems in relation to the conceptualization of the rights-holder, and debates concerning the content of rights and obligations. In regard to the concept of democracy various models of democracy are examined. Concerning the rule of law the debate between proponents of thin and thick definitions of the rule of law is investigated. Though the chief focus of this literature review is on conceptual questions, it is recognized that questions regarding the implementation and promotion of human rights, democracy and rule of law are closely related. Therefore this review identifies some of the key current challenges that make the realization of the ideals of human rights, democracy and rule of law so complex. At the end of the review the relationship between these three ideals is discussed. One of the findings is that these ideals are contested in similar ways, meaning that there are cross-cutting themes in the ways these concepts are challenged in the literature. These cross-cutting challenges relate to (i) the position of vulnerable groups; (ii) concerns about national sovereignty; (iii) the role of legal pluralism and informal institutions; and (iv) perceived neo-imperialism and hypocrisy. The tension between universalism and particularism can be perceived as the overarching theme of these four challenges.
International Human Rights Protection: Institutions and Instruments

(FRAME, 2014-01) Mayrhofer, Monika ; Chavez, Carmela ; Hegde, Venkatachala G. ; Killander, Magnus ; Larik, Joris ; Nkrumah, Bright ; Salmón, Elizabeth

The present Report on the mapping study on relevant actors in human rights protection was written as part of Work Package 4 “Protection of Human Rights: Institution and Instruments” of the FP 7 project “Fostering Human Rights Among European (External and Internal) Policies”.1 The report is aimed at mapping out relevant institutions for the protection of human rights at the national, regional and international levels, including governmental as well as non-governmental organisations. It equally aims to present the instruments used at different levels, especially global and regional treaties as well as political agreements and non-binding instruments. Therefore, the report contains an overview of key institutions, their objectives and instruments. Attention is also given to the cooperation between these organisations in order to map the network of human rights institutions with a specific focus on their interactions with the European Union (EU) in this international governance network. The central organisation in the field of human rights at the global level is the United Nations, which has gradually developed a comprehensive and extensive international human rights system. It is a multi- tiered and sophisticated system and fulfils a leadership role in the setting of new human rights standards. The regional human rights systems are diverse with regard to scope, institutional arrangements, obligations and mechanisms. In Africa, the African Union (AU) has led the way to establish a range of human rights instruments as well as institutions and mechanisms to monitor their implementation. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights is remarkable as it not only codifies individual rights but also emphasises group rights as well as individual duties. The human rights system of the Americas has a long history, with the Organisation of American States (OAS) as the key organisation. The OAS has adopted various instruments and established a monitoring mechanism. It can be said that the OAS has developed Inter-American human rights and democratic standards, which contributed to the enhancement of democracy in the region. Although Asian human rights systems have developed later than their African, American or European counterparts, and the two regional organisations which have made such efforts, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), are mainly relying on soft-law instruments and the setting up of specific institutional arrangements for human rights is still inchoate. The European system is the most extensive and differentiated system with far-reaching obligations and monitoring capacities. Although the Council of Europe (CoE) is still the most important European human rights organisation the role of the European Union (EU) has gained in importance over the last decades by gradually accommodating human rights principles in primary law including the adoption of a human rights treaty (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) as well as by incorporating human rights considerations in its European External Action Service (EEAS). There have also been some attempts to establish human rights standards in the so-called “Islamic” regions. Only the Arab Charter on Human Rights, however, has entered into force to date. Non-Governmental Organisations play a crucial role at all levels. They provide information to international and national institutions, contribute to agenda setting and policy-making in the field of human rights, observe implementation and play an important role with regard to awareness raising. The mapping exercise shows that international human rights organisations were successful in creating an international forum for discussion and debate as well as agenda setting and decision making on human rights issues and prominently involving NGOs in this process. Some organisations have also done pioneering work concerning the development of human rights standards and the interpretation and adjudication of international human rights law. With regard to the implementation of human rights law and the prosecution and follow-up of human rights violations the picture is less favourable. Only some regional organisations have made an effort in this regard.
Mapping legal and policy instruments of the EU for human rights and democracy support

(FRAME, 2014-07) Churruca Muguruza, Cristina ; Gómez Isa, Felipe ; García San José, Daniel ; Fernández Sánchez, Pablo Antonio ; Márquez Carrasco, Carmen ; Muñoz Nogal, Ester ; Nagore Casas, María ; Timmer, Alexandra

This report is devoted to the mapping of legal and policy instruments of the EU for human rights and democracy support. In particular, it highlights the EU´s human rights priorities in terms of themes and vulnerable groups in its external action based on a review of EU policy documents and literature. In order to do so the report first identifies the instruments that set up the frame of the human rights and democracy policy. The framework of the EU’s human rights and democracy policy is presided by the Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy, which establishes the principles, objectives and priorities that must guide the EU’s action. Two general objectives, each with a different scope, can be identified in the Strategic Framework: the EU’s and its Member States’ commitment to promote the universality of human rights and the EU’s determination to promote human rights and democracy in its external action. In addition, the Strategic Framework highlights some areas of action which identify specific objectives and priority themes and groups. Although the Strategic Framework is on human rights and democracy, the emphasis throughout the document is on human rights, not on democracy. Democracy is ‘an aspiration’ that it is not defined. There are other relevant documents that set out the EU´s human rights and democracy policy. As well as general policy papers on mainstreaming human rights and promoting human rights and democracy in the EU external action, there are specific human rights guidelines on priority themes and vulnerable groups and human rights strategies towards particular third countries. In order to implement its human rights and democracy policy, the EU has developed a broad range of instruments. Some of them have been especially created in order to contribute to the specific objective of the promotion of human right and democracy worldwide; in particular, the EIDHR, the human rights clauses, the human rights focal points in EU Delegations, the EUSR for Human Rights, and the human rights dialogues and consultations. Moreover, the EU uses other traditional instruments of its CFSP to promote human rights and democracy in its relations with third countries. These instruments respond to the EU’s objective of mainstreaming human rights and democracy in all its policies and actions toward third countries. Among them, those that should be highlighted are the EU’s action in multilateral fora, bilateral political dialogues, démarches and declarations, election support, CFSP decisions, restrictive measures and, finally, thematic and geographic financial programmes. Regular assessment of the implementation of the EU’s human rights and democracy policy is one of the outcomes stated in the Action Plan. This evaluation of policy is mainly carried out through one specific instrument: the EU’s Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the world. In addition, as a consequence of the EU’s approach to put human rights at the core of its external action, human rights and democracy promotion constitute also an important part of other EU’s Annual Reports relating to other external policies, such as CFSP and Development. In addition to the general policy on human rights and democracy, the EU has developed specific policies in some priority themes and towards particular vulnerable groups. This report examines them individually starting with a historical perspective and considers the internal and external dimensions and the financial instruments, and the priority themes that have been translated into actions in the Action Plan. It analyses the promotion of freedom of expression online and offline, the promotion of freedom of religion or belief, the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and human rights, the support for the abolition of the death penalty, the eradication of torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the promotion of administration of justice and compliance with IHL, responding to violations and ensuring accountability, and the effective support to human rights defenders. The majority of them are long-established objectives of the EU’s human rights policy, but this does not imply that, since its formation, the EU has always devoted attention to the same particular issues. In fact, the contrary is often the case and in most of the cases the EU follows the development of events at the international level as it identifies key issues. Generally, the identification of the themes as a priority has been accompanied by the adoption of human rights guidelines providing legal and operational guidance to the EU’s work in its relations with third countries. However, there are some themes that have not been covered yet by guidelines. This shows the differences in the EU policy developments between the different thematic priorities. In particular, a thematic area in which coherence of the EU’s policies is called into question is the promotion of ESCRs. The EU continually emphasises the need to promote the indivisibility of human rights and the need to protect and promote both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. However, a trend towards the marginalisation of EU policies in this field, both at domestic and international level, can be identified. Further research will be needed in this regard. This report analyses as well the most recent and the most important instruments regarding vulnerable groups. In this regard, it focuses on LGBT’s, children, Roma, asylum seekers and refugees, persons with disabilities, and women, looking at the applicable legal framework and a historical overview of policy developments and the internal and external EU policies towards these groups. The analysis of EU documents shows that the EU does not conceive vulnerability as an enduring and universal aspect of the human condition, but as something that some particular groups suffer from. In connection with the priority groups identified in the policy formulation documents, the term ‘vulnerable groups’ is routinely used in the EU policy documents but there is no real reflection on the content of this term. The EU tends to focus on protecting groups in extremely vulnerable situations, but the focus seems to lie less on empowerment of these vulnerable groups, although increased participation is an EU-goal for several of these groups. On the other hand, vulnerability results from the interaction between marginalised groups and dominant groups: vulnerable groups are ‘created’ by dominant groups. However, the EU human rights and democracy policy documents show little awareness of this dynamic.
The positive and negative human rights impacts of non-state actors

(FRAME, 2014-07) David, Nicolas ; Dowell-Jones, Mary ; Footer, Mary ; Kenner, Jeffrey ; Mustaniemi-Laakso, Maija ; Nolan, Aoife

This report on the positive and negative human rights impacts of non-state actors (NSAs) is the first deliverable in Work Package 7 (WP7), ‘Engagement with Private Actors, TNCs and Civil Society’, of the FP7 project, ‘Fostering Human Rights among European Policies’, FRAME.1 It is essentially a mapping exercise to identify and analyse positive and negative human rights impacts of NSAs consistent with Task 1 in the description of work for WP7. The human rights impacts of four main vertical groupings of NSAs are mapped: 1) the double-edged role of businesses, including trans-national corporations (TNCs) and financial services, in creating opportunities for advancing individual human rights, but also their corporate social responsibility for human rights violations; 2) the contribution of civil society, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and stakeholders representing the interests of women, minority groups and children, in protecting and promoting human rights; 3) the increasingly important influence of dynamic international financial institutions (IFIs); and 4) the role of human rights defenders (HRDs) in identifying human rights abuses and building trust. Human rights impacts of each of these groups of NSAs are analysed horizontally by reference to areas including, inter alia, the rights of the person, labour rights, the rights of children, gender equality, non-discrimination, indigenous peoples’ rights, and the rights of peoples to their culture, religion/belief and language.2 In recent decades the growing influence of NSAs on human rights, and the need for international organisations to engage with them, has been widely recognised, but defining NSAs has presented a difficult challenge. Following an introduction setting out the aims and methodology of the report, the first general part, Chapters II-V, reflects on the challenge of defining NSAs and considers to what extent the international human rights regime encompasses the broad categorisation of NSAs in this report. It also discusses the EU’s approach to engagement with NSAs, the cross-cutting issue of the media, and the measurement of NSA impacts on human rights. In the following parts, Chapters VI-IX, the report analyses the positive and negative human rights impacts of each of the identified vertical groupings of NSAs by reference to the horizontal areas referred to above. The report concludes in Chapter X with a summary of the main findings in respect of the four groups of NSAs. The conclusion highlights several significant points that assist our understanding of both the positive and negative human rights impacts of these different types of NSAs. Overall, the report provides a broad foundation for the next stages of research in WP7, which will involve a critical assessment of the EU’s engagement with NSAs and an exploration of the need for deeper institutionalised engagement in meeting the challenges of protecting and promoting human rights in EU internal and external policies.
Factors which enable or hinder the protection of human rights

(FRAME, 2014-08) Lassen, Eva Maria ; Mayrhofer, Monika ; Vedel Kessing, Peter ; Sano, Hans-Otto ; García San José, Daniel ; Frank Jørgensen, Rikke

In assessing the factors that influence the protection and promotion of human rights in the European Union (EU), this report elucidates those factors that cut across the catalogue of human rights. This report seeks to examine contemporary human rights challenges in this context by mapping the historical, political, legal, economic, social, cultural, religious, ethnical and technological factors that both facilitate and hamper human rights in the EU. This report is part of Work Package 2 ‘Challenges and Factors’ of the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) project Fostering Human Rights among European Policies (FRAME). This first cluster of FRAME constitutes the foundations of a sound knowledge base for the assessment of EU human rights policies, encompassing the evolving factors, concepts, institutions and instruments that underlie human rights protection and promotion. The objective of the report is to analyse these crucial factors while taking into account challenges brought about by globalisation, with a focus on access to basic rights. The report does this through the provision of a qualitative mapping addressing the major topics related to each factor. The report is divided into 10 chapters and provides a chapter on each of the above cross-cutting factors, including an overview of the factor drawn from a literature review, an assessment of current knowledge of the factor and its impact on human rights in the EU, and challenges and gaps requiring further study. The report canvasses the major landmarks in EU history, with a view both to its external and internal policies (Chapter II, Historical), before addressing the inherently political nature of human rights themselves and the importance of States, sovereignty, ideologies, power, citizenship and democracy to their implementation (Chapter III, Political). Turning to legal factors, the report considers the coherence of obligations within the EU; whether the EU is bound by human rights obligations when acting externally; the relationship of human rights obligations and other international law norms; and finally shared human rights responsibility between the EU and Member States (Chapter IV, Legal). Taking post-crisis Europe as its departure point, the report analyses the economic dimensions of human rights in the EU, including the significance of economic decline, the internal market, poverty, employment, foreign policy, and development and trade (Chapter V, Economic). Turning to social factors, the report addresses the importance of the principle of non-discrimination in EU policy and institutions, before specifically considering the aspects of gender, sexual orientation, disability and age (Chapter VI, Social). The report then zooms in on cultural and religious factors. Taking a dualistic approach, this chapter focuses on those cultural and religious factors which may hinder or facilitate EU human rights policies as well as topical human rights issues which have a substantial impact on the space provided for culture and religion in a human rights context (Chapter VII, Cultural and Religious). Closely related to cultural and religious factors, the report proceeds to ethnical factors, addressing in particular ethnic minorities and their enjoyment of basic rights (Chapter VIII, Ethnical). The report goes on to consider the importance of technological factors in relation to human rights policies in the EU. This chapter analyses non-discriminatory access to the internet; protecting internet freedoms;freedom of expression and self-regulation; privacy, surveillance, and cyber security; and internet governance (Chapter IX, Technological). Finally, the report concludes with a summary of the chapters, key insights from each factor, and recommendations for further study and analysis. The EU today stands at a crossroads with regard to human rights. Taking into account, historical, political, legal, economic social, cultural, religious, ethnical and technological factors that enable or hinder human rights protection, this report sets out the cross-cutting issues that may inform the Union’s future direction.
Coherence of human rights policymaking in EU institutions and other EU agencies and bodies

(FRAME, 2014-09) Lewis, Tamara ; Benedek, Wolfgang ; Müller-Funk, Anna

This report is submitted in connection with Work Package 8 of the FP7 FRAME (Fostering Human Rights Among European Policies) project. The report falls within Cluster Two, tasked to look at the actors in the European Union’s Multi-Level, Multi-Actor Human Rights Engagement. Work Package 8, entitled, ‘Coherence Among EU Institutions and Member States’. There is one main objective related to the first report; namely, to analyse the coherence of EU internal and external policies regarding fundamental and human rights across different policy fields such as commercial policy, migration and asylum, the area of freedom, security and justice and counterterrorism. The specific task for the report, as described in the project proposal, is to analyse the competences and responsibilities of EU institutions and bodies that initiate policies in fundamental and human rights in light of recent institutional developments brought on by the Lisbon Treaty. The focus of the task is on interactions between and the roles of the European Parliament, its subcommittee on human rights, the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice of the EU, the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European External Action Service and EU Delegations. In accordance with both the main objective and the specific task for this first report, this study begins with the premise that coherence is visible in three aspects of policy environments – organizational structures, policy regimes and interests - of the European Union (EU) to identify (in)coherence in current EU human rights policies among the EU Institutions. Beginning with the notion of competence, this report looks at how the EU institutions and agencies have viewed coherence in written and verbal discourse and then briefly sets forth how coherence is defined in other non-human rights contexts. Using those definitions and the views of coherence found in EU institutions as guidelines, a unique definition of coherence for EU human rights policy is created. This definition is the basis for the analysis of EU human rights policies and their (in)coherence in the final portion of the report. Regarding structures, this report examines the competence and responsibility of EU Institutions, agencies and bodies, as set forth in the treaties, regulations, rules of procedures and other key documents. The report continues by examining the policy regime in EU fundamental and human rights described in key instruments and documents. Finally, the policies and instruments, together with the competences of the institutions are analysed to identify (in)coherence in EU human rights policies as they have developed since the entry into effect of the Lisbon Treaty. In the annexes to this report, three case studies present concrete examples of the (in)coherence in EU institutions and their human rights policies. One study examines how the FRA has fostered coherence in the structural aspects of EU policymaking by collaborating with a number of bodies and agencies to combat hate crimes in the EU, strengthen protection of LGBT rights and train workers in the respect for fundamental rights when dealing with border management. A second mini-study focuses on conflicting policy interests that lead to incoherence in the EU energy policy. A final study raises concerns about incoherence in policy drafting using the example of the approaches of the institutional actors in the drafting of the Recast Reception Directive. This report makes the following (preliminary) suggested actions to enhance coherence in fundamental and human rights policies among and within the EU institutions:  Adopt a definition of coherence to be consistently used by EU institutions when developing policy.  Develop mandates with clear references to legal bases and policy areas (AFSJ, CSDP, development, etc.)  Create institutional awareness of both fundamental rights and human rights policymaking by establishing one directorate-general solely responsible for coordination and cooperation within the Stockholm Programme and its successor and the Strategic Framework environments.  Give a broader mandate and more independence to FRA, enhancing its ability to monitor and report on violations of fundamental rights, including in the area of police and judicial cooperation and permit the agency to have a presence in human rights dialogues.  Continue training and other awareness-raising activities in all Commission services and among other institutional staff so that fundamental and human rights impacts are assessed early and throughout (informally and formally) all policymaking processes.  Use impact assessments consistently in both internal policy-making and external action to determine the effects of all proposals on fundamental and human rights.
Fundamental rights in the institutions and instruments of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

(FRAME, 2014-09) Engström, Viljam ; Heikkilä, Mikaela ;

The purpose of this research report is to give an overview of institutional decision-making in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). Particular attention will be paid to how European Union (EU) institutions active in the AFSJ engage with fundamental rights and through which instruments. AFSJ policies raise fundamental rights concerns by their very definition. The aim of the study is to show the nexus of such concerns to institutional and instrumental features. The timing of this report is delicate, due to the fact that the Stockholm Programme, which sets the policy priorities in the AFSJ, is coming to an end in 2014. During the European Council in June 2014, new strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning of the AFSJ were adopted. This report seeks to lay the foundation for the establishment of a nexus between institutional features of the AFSJ, the legal and policy tools available and the fundamental/human rights issues that may be of concern when acting in the AFSJ. The study will therefore not only provide the reader with an overview of the AFSJ policy-making landscape, but also an insight into recognised fundamental/human rights concerns that arise across the different policies. The discussions in this report build upon previous research concerning the EU and the AFSJ in the fields of both law and political science. Particular attention has also been paid to include EU policy and legislative instruments in the discussion. The report has been divided into three main parts. First, focus is put on the institutional landscape. This landscape consists of EU primary legislative actors, agencies and Member States at the implementing end, and democratic and legal mechanisms for monitoring and oversight. The multitude of actors also includes external actors as well as sub-actors in the form of committees, working groups and networks. Second, the interest is turned to the instruments through which policies are enacted in the different policy areas of the AFSJ. The interaction with fundamental rights is in this context displayed both in respect of general EU acts, as well as in respect of the specific legislative regime of individual policy areas. The overview of actors and instruments suggest some issues of particular concern for the realisation of fundamental rights in the AFSJ. In a third part, these concerns are summed up. The report singles out multiple possible sources of incoherence for the protection of rights of individuals. These sources entail (as non-exhaustive main categories) competence issues, Member State discretion and differentiation of obligations, lack of mainstreaming of fundamental rights concerns, flaws in accountability mechanisms, technocratisation of AFSJ policies, securitisation of fundamental rights issues, and disregard for external fundamental rights implications. It is to be noted that the concerns identified arise differently for different actors. Eventually, the activities of every individual actor and the implications of every single instrument must be assessed in more detail in order to pinpoint more concrete fundamental rights repercussions. This does not mean, however, that general conclusions on the role of fundamental rights in the institutions and instruments in the AFSJ, or on the coherence of the protection in the internal and external dimension of AFSJ policies could not be made. Above all, the discussions in the report reveal a two-fold image: on the one hand, especially since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the AFSJ has changed dramatically. The AFSJ has been brought into the general constitutional scheme of EU decision-making and has become part of a system of constitutional checks (including fundamental rights). On the other hand, the AFSJ continues to be a policy area that is characterised by institutional peculiarities and novel forms of governance. The institutional improvements that the communitarisation of the AFSJ brought with it are counterbalanced by the challenges arising out of these special features. The incoherence affecting the protection granted to individuals can have a constitutional source. The very balancing of ́freedom ́, ́security ́ and ́justice ́ is inherent in all policy-making in the area. There is also a constitutional differentiation of Member State obligations. Furthermore, the fact that AFSJ decision-making (mostly) follows the ordinary EU decision- making procedure also means that the area displays the general problems of EU decision- making and institutional design. Fundamental rights issues can have their source at all levels of AFSJ policy- and law-making. One particular feature characterising the AFSJ is the complexity of the institutional design of the area. There is also in the AFSJ an increasing externalisation or outsourcing of functions, which not only challenges the reach of the EU system for the protection of fundamental rights, but also potentially exports flaws of the EU system to concern third country nationals. The use of agencies is a feature that has occupied much academic literature concerning the AFSJ. Agencies are both in themselves an expression of experimentalist governance as well as a source of novel governance techniques, which bring with them a particular set of challenges. Yet another feature of the AFSJ is the use of instruments and integration mechanisms that grant Member States considerable freedom of action. These tools may cause concern in cases where individual States do not respect fundamental rights. At the same time, further integration may not be a political option, or alternatively, requires a differentiation of obligations which raises new coherence issues. Given the nature of the cooperation within the AFSJ and the multiple sources of potential fundamental rights concern, the rights of individuals in the AFSJ will require constant attention. This report provides a background for further research on fundamental rights in the AFSJ.
Human rights violations in conflict settings

(FRAME, 2014-09) Márquez Carrasco, Carmen ; Íñigo Álvarez, Laura ; Loozen, Nora ; Salmón, Elizabeth

The dramatic reality of contemporary conflicts and related violent crisis is the heavy toll of armed violence on civilians. The changing nature of conflict have brought about strategies and tactics that have made vulnerable groups in society the specific target of attack, as the evidence compiled in databases and reports suggests. In a context of evolving forms of ‘war’ and other forms of violent conflict, the protection of human rights faces unprecedented challenges and poses essential dilemmas. Against this backdrop, Work Package 10 (WP 10) ‘Human Rights Violations in Conflicts’, part of the FP7 project ‘Fostering Human Rights Among European (External and Internal) Policies’ (FRAME) aims at providing a comprehensive assessment of the Europan Union external policies in response to conflicts and crisis situations, exploring ways to prevent and overcome violence through the integration of human rights, humanitarian law and democracy/rule of law principles. As a first step, this report (Deliverable 10.1) tackles the complex relationship between conflicts and human rights, taking into account the evolving and multifaceted nature of conflicts in the modern world. The report provides a comprehensive survey of the various patterns of human rights violations related to conflict and violent crisis situations with a specific focus on the rights of vulnerable groups, as well as on the role of non-state actors as key players in the context of new forms of violence and war. After introducing in section I the aims and scope of the report, section II provides an account of the changing character of contemporary violent conflict and related crisis. It addresses theoretical debates, political approaches and law on the changing landscape of contemporary conflict, exploring in particular general trends and evolving forms of violence and ‘war’ and gives an overview of the relevant data on the basis of existing databases. It presents the transformation of objectives, dynamics, and actors of conflicts: from national armies fighting each other (inter-state wars), to armies fighting for independence, separation or political control (intra-state or civil wars), to various forms of violence, involving non-state actors such as rebels, gangs and organized crime. Section III lays out the relationship between human rights violations and conflict, establishing the interaction that underpins the analysis in this report. It identifies trends in the current landscape of conflict and violent crisis and examines the interaction between human rights violations and conflict. This interplay is studied from a multidisciplinary perspective: legal and non legal approaches taking into consideration conflict analysis discussion and peace and conflict databases presented in the previous section. Section IV examines the special role of non-state actors, specifically non-state armed actors and private companies, as perpetrators of conflict-related human rights violations. This section seeks to survey the role of non-State actors as ‘perpetrators’ of human rights violations in armed conflicts-settings and other situations of violence. In particular two types of non-state actors are addressed in view of the way they affect human rights: non-state armed groups (rebel and opposition groups, and terrorist and other criminal groups); and economic non-state actors (multinational corporations and private military and security companies). Section V focuses specifically on the nature and types of human rights violations related to conflict and other crisis settings, seeking to identify common patterns in ongoing conflict and crisis situations around the world, as well as cross-cutting issues. Specific patterns such as the ‘civilianization’ of modern conflict or sexual violence as a method or tactic of warfare are analysed in this context. Section VI of the report focuses on the impact of conflicts/crisis situations of the rights of selected vulnerable groups, including women; children; refugees and internally displaced persons, and indigenous peoples. It identifies patterns, perpetrators and trends of serious human rights violations committed against them on the basis of the information provided by existing databases and human rights reports. The structural discrimination of vulnerable groups is presented, along with the human rights abuses they suffer. The last section offers some preliminary conclusions on how prevention of such violations and protection of the selected vulnerable groups might be strengthened and indicates factors to be considered in the analysis of normative and policy frameworks, the next phases of the Frame project. Among the main preliminary findings of the report it has been concluded that there is a need for greater clarity of States obligations under international human rights law in the context of conflicts. In this sense, the applicability of IHRL to non-state armed actors merits further research and analysis. Furthermore, the use of autonomous weapons systems under international humanitarian law and human rights law also needs to be clarified. This survey study has also led to the conclusion that the analysis of human rights violations as causes of conflict is an imperative aspect of conflict prevention. Furthermore, the changing nature of armed conflict has affected different vulnerable groups and has created new challenges, which requires an assessement of their needs at all stages of conflict and an analysis of the role of all the actors involved in this continuum. Indeed the applicable legal frameworks on vulnerable groups related to conflict-settings must be continuously assessed in light of any new circumstances or challenges that arise in all possible conflict senarios. The report has identified certain areas where development would be beneficial, such as internal conflicts related to situations of lawlessness and urban violence. Finally, as impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations in conflict settings remain rampant, the report concludes that there is a need of more systematic reporting methods of all serious human rights violations.
The integration of human rights in EU development and trade policies

(FRAME, 2014-09) Beke, Laura ; D’Hollander, David ; Hachez, Nicolas ; Pérez de las Heras, Beatriz

The EU has attempted to foster the nexus between trade, development and human rights by gradually integrating human rights into its trade and development policies from the 1990s onwards. The Lisbon Treaty subsequently made it a legal requirement for all relevant EU institutions and bodies to ensure that trade and development are a positive force for human rights. FRAME WP 9 seeks to make sense of the intricate toolbox the EU has at its disposal to foster human rights throughout its trade and development policies, and to evaluate how the EU’s nexus between trade, development and human rights is coming to fruition in the post-Lisbon era. This first report maps the various ways human rights are integrated into trade and development policies and instruments and lays out the building blocks towards further research in this area. Human rights are channelled into trade policies through two types of instruments: unilateral and bilateral. Unilateral trade measures (i) grant preferential market access to developing countries in exchange for the implementation of human rights standards under its GSP scheme; and (ii) place restrictions on the trade in certain goods that have been detrimental to human rights. In practice, research shows that the GSP, although deemed to be ‘a dying breed’, has concretely resorted to human rights conditionality the most, as trade preferences were withdrawn on three occasions in response to human rights violations (Myanmar, 1997-2013; Belarus, 2007-present and Sri Lanka, 2010-present). EU issue-specific measures tend to paint a bleaker picture. While earlier measures on instruments of torture (2005), export of military equipment (2008) and renewable energy (2009) pay considerable attention to their linkages to human rights, the more recent measures relating to extractive industries and international forest management have been increasingly silent on this issue. Bilateral or regional trade agreements have systematically included human rights clauses since 1995, and have since recently also included sustainable development chapters specifically addressing labour rights. However, amongst a number of other flaws the monitoring and enforcement of such clauses has been found to be particularly erratic, leading to suspicions of pusillanimity and double standards. Another explanation might be that the EU favours ‘quiet diplomacy’ when human rights issues emerge in relation to trade relations. Even so, this mixed record in effectively linking bilateral trade instruments to human rights affects the credibility of the EU as a global human rights actor. Investment agreements are still in the making since Lisbon made FDI an exclusive EU policy. Regarding human rights, the little information available regarding EU BITs currently negotiated does not indicate that the EU will break any ground or adopt a particularly bold stance in linking investment and human rights. Regarding development, under the impetus of the Agenda for Change and the Strategic Framework, human rights, democracy, the rule of law and good governance have been made a priority of the EU’s development policies, as is evident notably in the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework. The EU has developed policies and measures which may be summarised into three broad categories. First, it has progressively refined its legal and policy frameworks for conditioning the provision of development assistance based on a country’s performance on human rights and democratic governance trough negative and positive conditionality. Second, the EU has scaled up its support for actors and processes related to human rights (notably the funding of the EIDHR was increased). Third, the EU is developing more coherent ’transversal’ policies integrating human rights as a cross-cutting dimension of development cooperation, such as ‘Human Rights Country Strategies’ for nearly all of its partner countries. The EU and in particular DG DEVCO have moved to strengthen the development-human rights nexus in several ways, most importantly the development and promotion of a ‘rights-based approach encompassing all human rights’ in programmes and projects. Progress has thus been made at the level of policy formulation, but the implementation of such policies and their capacity to shape the EU’s development cooperation efforts towards partner countries will require close follow-up and scrutiny.
EU human rights engagement in UN bodies

(FRAME, 2014-11) Baranowska, Grażyna ; Chané, Anna-Luise ; D’Hollander, David ; Hauser, Agata ; Jaraczewski, Jakub ; Kędzia, Zdzisław ; Lewicki, Mariusz ; Połczyńska, Anna

This report presents the outcome of the analysis and critical assessment of EU human rights engagement in UN bodies. The EU has committed itself in the Treaty on the European Union to ‘promote multilateral solutions to common problems, in particular in the framework of the United Nations.’ In light of this provision, and taking into account the considerable challenges the EU-UN cooperation encounters, the present report aims at four goals. Firstly, to map the long-standing and multifaceted engagement of the EU within and towards UN human rights bodies. Secondly, to critically assess the EU’s engagement in the UN from the perspective of both its policy and institutions. Thirdly, to identify specific and structural flaws in the EU’s approach to human rights at the UN. Fourthly, to find creative ways of enhancing the EU’s position, role, inclusion in and impact upon these UN bodies. The deliverable consists of seven chapters. The first chapter presents the aims of the report and the methodology of the research. It also explains the key concepts of the deliverable, such as coherence, leadership or mutual influence between the EU and the UN. The second chapter explores two of the guiding principles of the EU’s external policy: human rights and multilateralism. In particular, it contains an analysis of the Union’s commitment to ‘effective multilateralism’ and consistency of specific human rights priorities throughout the EU legislation and other documents. The third chapter presents the institutional framework of the EU-UN relations. As both, the EU and the UN, share a common trait – a high complexity of their organisational structure, chapter III begins with a detailed mapping of both organisations. It also explains the role of different stakeholders in the EU-UN cooperation. This chapter also tackles the relationships between stakeholders and the coordination of the EU’s position at the UN. The status of the EU in the UN is also explored from the point of view of the legal framework of both organisations. The fourth chapter presents the processes and dynamics behind the formulation of EU human rights aims, objectives and priorities at the UN. It indicates the critical factors, relevant actors and their roles as well as the overall characteristics of the process. The chapter also provides a detailed analysis of the EU’s specific goals and objectives at the UN as well as their consistency. The report focuses on the Union’s priorities with regard to (i) thematic human rights issues, (ii) its country-specific priorities, and (iii) its aims and objectives relating to the institutional architecture of the UN. The fifth chapter concerns the tools and methods deployed by the EU at the UN. Particular attention has been paid to the issue of the EU’s resolution initiatives in UN human rights fora: the UNGA Third Committee and the HRC. The analysis focuses on resolution initiatives tabled by the Union, but also tackles the national initiatives of the EU Member States and the co-sponsoring of resolutions by the EU/Member States. It also explores the EU’s involvement in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process. Taking into account that the EU does not formally participate in the UPR, the involvement of its Member States is analysed, also from the point of view of realisation of EU human rights priorities. This section also explains the notion of light-coordination. Finally, the fifth chapter explores the EU’s financial contribution to UN human rights activities, in particular to the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. The deliverable is supplemented by four case studies included in chapter six of the deliverable. They are related to EU’s engagement in specific thematic topics at the UN covering the areas of: economic, social and cultural rights, human rights defenders, the right to development and counterterrorism. The final chapter presents the conclusions of the research. Due to the comprehensive nature of the analysis of the various dimensions of EU-UN interaction, the report seeks not only to advance the existing knowledge on the topic, but also to create a broad base for future research. In particular, the findings of this study will constitute the background for next deliverables of this work package on the Union’s engagement with regional multilateral organisations.
Human Rights Indicators in the Context of the European Union

(FRAME, 2014-12) Starl, Klaus ; Apostolovski, Veronika ; Meier, Isabella ; Möstl, Markus ; Vivona, Maddalena ; Kulmer, Alexandra

Human rights indicators are an essential instrument for planning, monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of human rights protection and promotion. On the international, regional, national and local levels, numerous mechanisms for measuring human rights have been developed; some of them were already applied in practice with varying degrees of success, while others remained theoretical attempts. Such mechanisms usually resort to qualitative and/or quantitative indicators to measure the current state and/or progress of particular human rights or assess the impacts of policies/measures in a defined geographical area within a given time-frame. The aim of this study is to critically assess and analyse existing human rights indicators systems, and identify their objectives, target audience and methodology. This is done in order to formulate objectives for human rights indicators to be used in the European Union’s human rights (internal and external) policies. Up until now, several EU institutions have taken initiatives to measure human rights or have at least underlined the necessity to do so. Human rights measurements may indeed be utilised by the EU to ground its policies on a solid base of evidence and further help backing EU actions with increased legitimacy. When identifying meaningful and applicable mechanisms to measure human rights, the EU may well build on the existing work on human rights indicators. However, a comparison of the EU’s attempts to develop human rights indicators reveals considerable discrepancies in the approaches taken. These differences are often closely linked with the specific purposes and objectives of the producers and users of human rights indicators. This study starts with an analysis of the current application of human rights indicators in the European Union’s internal and external action, their legal and political framework, as well as their rationale. It further assesses, through qualitative fieldwork research, the needs of key European stakeholders towards a human rights indicator system. An extensive mapping of various mechanisms for measuring human rights was done. The mapping results encompass instruments produced by a variety of actors, based on different rationales, data sources and with different areas of application. The focus has been put on those mechanisms which are developed and applied by the organisations mentioned in respective EU documents, i.e. the UN institutions and the Council of Europe. In order to find out if those mechanisms are suitable for further adaption and use by the EU, their intrinsic quality has been evaluated first. This was then finally matched with the requirements of EU bodies. The selection criteria do primarily reflect relevance, appropriateness and reliability. Therefore, established quality criteria for the identification of human rights indicators are key for the selection. Additionally, pragmatic criteria such as being already used in practice, taking into account data availability and user- friendliness are considered. Due to the variety of purposes of human rights measurement, the range of requirements that should be measured demand a comparative, but also differentiated analysis. The methodology needs to be consistent and broadly accepted. Flexible frequency of application must be ensured. The instruments need to enable the proof of causality between measure and impact. The report concludes with the selection of the structure-process-outcome model by the OHCHR. This model is designed to measure the extent to which human rights dimensions respect, protect, fulfil and promote human rights standards in any given environment. As a human rights indicator model it does fulfil all of the mentioned criteria. In order to give EU stakeholders a pragmatic tool at hand for their daily work, it is proposed that an easy to access ‘instant information tool’, i.e. an information database on compliance including a compilation of existing indicators and related data sets, should be developed.
EU human rights, democracy and rule of law: from concepts to practice

(FRAME, 2014-12) Timmer, Alexandra ; Majtényi, Balázs ; Häusler, Katharina ; Salát, Orsolya

This report provides an analysis of the EU’s conceptualisation and operationalisation of the concepts of human rights, democracy and rule of law. It is the second Deliverable in Work Package 3 of the FRAME project. The report understands the term ‘concepts’ to refer to the content of, or the ideas that underlie, the notions of human rights, democracy, and rule of law (Chapter I). Accordingly, the objective of this report is to analyse what content the EU assigns to human rights, democracy, and rule of law. As human constructs, concepts are dynamic and they have no clear boundaries. To complicate matters, the concepts of human rights, democracy and rule of law are famously elusive, which also certainly holds true for their application by the EU. Chapter II describes one clearly discernible trend: the EU has increasingly moved away from ‘thin’/formal to more ‘thick’/substantive conceptions of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. Over the years, the EU has come to interpret these concepts in a fairly broad and holistic manner, which is conceptually underpinned by respect for human dignity. In external action, the EU’s approach to these concepts is even broader. This report shows that the content of each concept consists of several components: o Human rights are the rights humans universally enjoy, and that entail a universal legal obligation on the part of states to uphold them. Human rights are indivisible, in the sense that the EU recognises civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights. In the EU’s conceptualisation, human rights are primarily individual but they can also have collective dimensions (e.g. when it comes to environmental protection). o Theruleoflawisthepropermethodofgovernance,whichincludesbothformalandsubstantive elements. Within the EU, the rule of law includes legality; legal certainty; prohibition of arbitrariness of the executive powers; independent judiciary; effective judicial review including respect for fundamental rights; and equality before the law. o The concept of democracy determines who governs. There are several principles underlying the EU’s vision of democracy: democratic equality; representative democracy; participatory democracy; transparency and deliberation. There are several themes that cut across all three concepts. This report highlights two in particular: the interaction between universalism and cultural relativism, and the question of how to ensure that human rights, democracy and rule of law are conceptualised in inclusive ways. Chapters III and IV turn to the question how the EU operationalizes these concepts. On the internal scene (Chapter III), the report provides a case study of Hungary. In spite of the fact that Hungary is an EU member state, it diverges from the values enshrined in Article 2 of TEU and the concept of democratic rule of law with human rights. Criticism by international and European organizations has not been followed by fundamental changes of the characteristics of the newly setup constitutional system. Chapter IV analyses the ways in which the EU operationalizes human rights, democracy and rule of law in its external action through its human rights dialogues (HRDs), election observations missions (EOMs) and resolutions by the European Parliament (EP). It focused thereby on the case studies of Egypt and Pakistan. The key question of this analysis is whether the EU’s external policy actors in practice follow the conceptual principles, which have been developed. The conclusion is that this is mixed. Especially as regards social and economic rights and the protection of ‘vulnerable’ groups, conceptualisation and operationalisation do not seem to correspond.
Mapping, analysing and implementing foreign policy instruments

(FRAME, 2014-12) Fraczek, Susanne ; Huszka, Beáta ; Hüttner, Claudia ; Körtvélyesi, Zsolt ; Majtényi, Balázs ; Romsics, Gergely

This report provides a framework for mapping, analysing and implementing foreign policy instruments. It is the first Deliverable in Work Package 6 of the FRAME project. The FRAME is a research project funded under the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) focusing on EU internal and external human rights policies. Within FRAME, the focus of Work Package 6 is on Regional Partnerships and Bilateral Cooperation. Its main role is to support the regional case studies to be prepared as part of Work Package 6. The objective of this report is to map and assess the human rights instruments the EU uses as part of its regional and bilateral relationships as well as the consistent and qualitative integration of human rights in the EU’s external policy. It provides the theoretical and methodological basis to the case studies of Work Package 6, which will analyse to what extent human rights issues structure bilateral dialogue and whether the EU’s rhetorical emphasis on human rights issues is backed by acts: other instruments (e.g. financial instruments and strategic partnerships) through which it can provide incentives to promote and protect human rights in its partner countries. Thus a general aim of Work Package 6 is to assess the consistency of the EU’s discourse and policy of external human rights promotion, as it appears in bilateral relations. This report offers a discussion of the role of human rights tools and instruments in the EU’s external action at a more general level, while the case studies will look into the operation of these tools in the context of particular bilateral partnerships and regional cooperation. Part I surveys the literature produced by academic and think tank communities between 1998 and 2013 offering an overview of the narratives about the EU’s external human rights activism and actorness on the international scene. Although the human rights component was present in certain EU policy fields prior to the 1990s the EU’s human rights identity emerged in the 1990s connected to international political developments such as transition in Central Eastern Europe and the enfolding crisis in the Western Balkans, thus marking a beginning of a period of more intense discussions about the EU’s external agenda and capabilities in the field of human rights. The goal of this part of the report is to inform the reader about the debates and issues raised by scholars and policy researchers regarding the role of human rights in the EU’s external action. This comprehensive literature review reveals an apparent hiatus of targeted fieldwork which would be necessary for moving beyond institutional accounts and macro-summaries of developments. Such field research could also help to generate policy recommendations as to how the various inconsistencies of the EU’s external human rights promotion could be tackled in practice that are pointed out by many authors studying EU foreign policy. Part II scrutinises the various inconsistencies that characterise the EU’s approach to human rights in its external relations. These deserve special attention as such inconsistencies undermine the credibility and efficiency of the EU’s engagement in third countries and its promotion of human rights. Therefore these, often interrelated, inconsistencies are worthy of consideration by decision makers as these have consequences on policy outcomes and should thus be looked at in more detail. Part II also outlines the theoretical debates about the question whether and to what extent human rights are (and should be) part of European foreign policy, besides highlighting the main criticisms of the EU’s external human rights engagement, which will be revisited by the case studies. Part III looks more closely at foreign policy tools and instruments, their types, relations and general introduction, with special regard to their possible role in human rights promotion. A detailed description of the various foreign policy tools based on EU documents was already provided by Deliverable 12.1, therefore this chapter instead investigates how these tools and instruments fit together in a unified fashion thus defining their role and place in the EU’s wider human rights tool kit that require a combined approach to reach their full potential. This part seeks to map instruments by presenting them as a system and looks at various categorisations and classifications, assessing how various tools and instruments hang together, while also noting the existing inconsistencies in their application. Instruments are categorised based on various dichotomies such as hard power versus soft power tools; positive and negative instruments; secret and public instruments; human rights specific and general instruments; unilaterally and multilaterally applied instruments; tools along the diplomatic-economic- military axis; discretionary, mandatory and prohibited instruments. The chapter closes with recommendations concerning how some of the shortcomings could be tackled. Part IV is devoted to presenting and mapping instruments of EU enlargement. Enlargement policy requires special attention not only because it is set at the boundary between EU external and internal policies, allowing for questions of coherence and consistency to be discussed from this particular angle, it is also central to human rights promotion by EU institutions. While human rights have acquired an increasing role in enlargement policy since the 1990s, enlargement policy discourse and practice in turn over the last two decades have played a significant part in shaping the EU’s human rights policy. Thus enlargement greatly contributed to the development of the EU’s external human rights policy, demonstrated also by the fact that a number of instruments developed in enlargement policy have been taken over to other EU policy fields or have potential to be so. The chapter outlines how enlargement policy has evolved over the last twenty years in terms of placing growing importance on human rights, with a focus on the period since 2007; while it also maps relevant instruments currently applied within the enlargement framework discussing these in more detail based on relevant EU documents and academic works.
Improving EU Engagement with Non-State Actors

(FRAME, 2015-03) Benedek, Wolfgang ; Footer, Mary ; Kenner, Jeffrey ; Mustaniemi-Laakso, Maija ; Nindler, Reinmar ; Nolan, Aoife ; Wallace, Stuart

This report, FRAME 7.2, provides analysis of the EU’s engagement with non-state actors. In the context of FRAME, non-state actors (NSAs) are understood to encompass businesses, international financial institutions (IFIs), civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights defenders (HRDs), and the report is divided along these lines of analysis. The report relies on both desk research and qualitative, interview-based research to identify and evaluate the means through which the EU and the different types of NSAs engage with each other on human rights. The report begins with contextualising introductions to each of the areas of engagement with NSAs before analysing engagement with each group individually in the subsequent chapters. The report concludes by identifying some cross-cutting issues. The report establishes that engagement with NSAs has the potential to add a great deal of value to the EU’s human rights policies and activities both internally and externally. The EU can draw on the expertise and experience of NSAs when forming policies, utilise NSA infrastructures in third states to gather information or implement policy and, through working with NSAs, generate greater political and financial leverage than the EU would be able to generate on its own. The report identifies a number of cross-cutting issues that need to be addressed in order to strengthen engagement with NSAs, such as improving the quality and consistency of public consultations, which serve as a key point of engagement across the EU, and improving the transparency of the process of EU engagement with various NSAs. The EU’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) agenda has evolved as the key source of engagement on human rights issues with businesses. Interviews have provided a rich source of practical experiences of CSR from both the EU institutional and business perspectives. Also, one of the researchers participated in the recent Multistakeholder Forum on CSR where debate took place on further refinements of the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures in a ‘smart mix’ of CSR initiatives. However, as this is a broad policy area, which engages multiple DGs of the Commission and other institutions and bodies within the EU’s infrastructure, there is a risk that the EU’s overall CSR policy will lack coherence and focused direction. This risk is, if anything, amplified by recent changes in configurations of DGs within the EU. We also foresee the need for better engagement with businesses to successfully operationalise the non- financial reporting directive and to improve the remedial structures for human rights violations perpetrated by, or arising in the supply chains of, businesses. Our research shows that the EU’s engagement with IFIs on the subject of human rights both at project and policy level is limited. While the EIB has made some laudable steps to incorporate human rights standards in its work practice, as part of its obligations as an internalised ‘EU Bank’, the other IFIs demonstrated a more limited appreciation for the human rights impacts of their activities. The report considers that the EIB’s experience of incorporating human rights norms into its project activities could serve as a useful template for other IFIs and that the EU should actively facilitate this exchange and commence a more regular dialogue with the other IFIs on the subject of human rights. The report also identifies some issues surrounding the EU’s engagement with CSOs on human rights both within the Union and as part of its external action, for example as part of development co-operation and the European Neighbourhood Policy. While we identified a number of useful fora in which the EU engaged with CSOs, including the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) Forum and EU- NGO Forum, our research showed that the EU engaged with a relatively narrow spectrum of CSOs, favouring large, professional, Brussels-based CSOs and CSO platforms. There is a need for the EU to broaden and diversify the range of CSOs it engages with. Our research also highlighted the need to improve communication channels between the EU and CSOs. On one side, the EU needs to improve its communication with CSOs on policy changes and public consultations. On the other side, the EU needs to improve its communication channels between it and CSOs on the ground in order to receive accurate and up-to-date information on the human rights situations in third countries. Finally, while EU engagement with HRDs on human rights was broadly positive and beneficial for both parties, especially with regard to their receipt of funding under instruments such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, our research revealed some problematic issues that need to be addressed if the EU wishes to strengthen engagement. Engagement between EU delegations and HRDs in third countries is worryingly inconsistent. Equally, while there have been significant improvements in the delivery of funding to HRDs in third countries, accessing EU funding remains difficult for them and needs to be made more flexible and less administratively onerous across the board.
The EU’s engagement with regional multilateral organisations Case study: African perspective

(FRAME, 2015-06) Chané, Anna-Luise ; Ho Tu Nam, Nora ; Killander, Magnus ; Lewandowski, Tomasz ; Miamingi, Remember ; Nkrumah, Bright

This deliverable of Work Package No 5 assesses the engagement of the EU with the AU and other intergovernmental organisations in Africa. Through the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES), the EU and its member states on the one hand and the AU and African states on the other hand have committed themselves to work towards the realisation of joint values such as human rights. The deliverable consists of eight chapters. The first chapter sets out the aims, conceptual framework, methodology and structure of the report. The second chapter explores the place of human rights and multilateralism in the EU, with a focus on the EU treaties, guidelines on human rights and the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights. The third chapter discusses the institutional framework related to promotion and protection of human rights in the AU and other African intergovernmental organisations with a human rights mandate such as the EAC and ECOWAS. The chapter also consider the major EU human rights stakeholders of relevance to relations with Africa. The fourth chapter considers substantive goals and objectives in relation to the EU human rights policy towards Africa and goals and objectives enshrined in international agreements between the EU and African states, including the Cotonou Agreement and JAES. The chapter further discusses the JAES roadmap and action plans, sub-regional cooperation strategies and EU member state initiatives in relation to human rights. The fifth chapter studies the tools and methods employed by the EU at African intergovernmental organisations. Particluar attention is given to the human rights dialogue between the EU and the AU. The chapter also considers other initiatives such as the Africa-EU Platform for Dialogue on Governance and Human Rights, the EU-Africa Summit, the EU-Africa High Level Policy Dialogue, the Commission- to Commission meetings and sub-regional political dialogues. The sixth chapter considers the EUs and its member states important role in providing financing for the AU and other African intergovernmental organisations. The chapter consider issues such as aid earmarking and coordination. The seventh chapter consists of two case studies, one focusing on food security and the other on human rights defenders. The report illustrates how the relationship between the EU and the AU and other African regional IOs has become more equal in recent years and that Africa is now treated as one unit, represented by the AU. Challenges remain in relation to making the relationship functioning effectively, in particular in light of the numerous actors involved in EU-Africa relations, including EU and AU member states, AU institutions, RECs and civil society actors. The effectiveness of interventions such as the EU-AU human rights dialogue in promoting EU human rights strategies is questionable, in particular in light of the divergent opinions on many issues despite the slogan of ‘two unions, one vision’. Financing from the EU plays an important role for African intergovernmental organisations to perform their functions. However, reliance on donor funding remains controversial and coordination among donors could still be improved.
The impact of EU trade and development policies on human rights

(FRAME, 2015-06) Brando, Nicolás ; Hachez, Nicolas ; Lein, Brecht ; Marx, Axel

Since the Lisbon treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009, all policies of the European Union must contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights. For the Union’s external policies in particular, Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union stipulates that the EU should consistently and coherently ‘consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law’ (TEU, Art 21, 2-b). As such, both the Union’s Common Commercial Policy and its development cooperation are to be guided by the EU’s human rights principles and objectives. A previous report under this work package provided a comprehensive mapping of the EU’s toolbox to implement these commitments and found that, on the whole, the EU is well-equipped to promote human rights in trade and development policies. In spite of the proliferation of legal and political commitments for human rights promotion since the Lisbon treaty, and the availability of the tools for their respective implementation, little is known however, about the actual impact of these human rights provisions in EU trade and development policies. Indeed, assessing the impact of the EU’s various trade and development policies on the human rights of citizens in EU partner countries would be methodologically daunting and is infeasible within the scope of this –and arguably any – report. Rather, the present report aims to assess:  to what extent the EU itself is equipped – and willing – to adequately assess (ex-ante) and evaluate (ex-post) the effects of its trade and development policies on human rights; and  In how far the provisions to take into account human rights considerations throughout these policies can make a difference in practice. In order to do so, this report analyses the Union’s various evaluation and impact assessment procedures, ex-ante and ex-post, to see in how far they take into account human rights considerations, in their scope and objectives, as well as throughout their procedures. It first describes the general underlying principles and objectives of including human rights in impact assessments and ex-post evaluations. Subsequently, and in view of recent EU commitments towards a ‘Rights Based Approach to Development’, this report looks into the EU’s evaluation system for development cooperation, notably to see in how far its current evaluation function is equipped to conduct rights-based evaluations. In a next chapter on the EU’s system for ex-ante impact assessments, this report studies the extent to which development and human rights concerns are taken into account in both the policy and practice of the Commission’s ex-ante impact assessment tools. A fourth chapter then maps out the particular assessment challenges and opportunities within the field of EU trade policy and finally chapter five offers a case study on the practical application of rights-provisions under one of the EU’s new generation trade agreements, notably the 2012 EU- Colombia trade agreement.
In-depth studies of selected factors which enable or hinder the protection of human rights in the context of globalisation

(FRAME, 2015-06) Mayrhofer, Monika ; Zarrehparvar, Mandana ; Sano, Hans-Otto ; Marslev, Kristoffer ; Møller Pedersen, Anja ; Vedel Kessing, Peter ; Lassen, Eva Maria ; Lassen, Eva Maria

Under the auspices of the FP7 project Fostering Human Rights among European Policies (FRAME), this publication is a follow-up on the first report (D 2.1) on ‘factors which enable or hinder the protection of human rights’. The first report assesses a wide range of factors – historical, political, legal, economic, social, cultural, religious, ethnic and technological – and their impact on the protection of human rights in EU internal and external policies, particularly in light of the challenges brought about by globalisation. The purpose of this second report is to provide an in-depth and thorough examination of some of the challenges and factors that were identified in the first report as most in need of further scholarly exploration and study. Dealing with EU efforts to address social factors that hinder the realisation of human rights for many people around the globe, Chapter II focuses on anti-discrimination and the European External Action Service (EEAS). Based on an outline of the legal and policy framework concerning anti-discrimination in EU external action, the chapter analyses gaps and challenges in the integration of anti-discrimination principles in activities and policies of the EEAS. The analysis finds that recent measures to promote equality and anti-discrimination have reportedly had a positive effect on the anti-discrimination work of the EEAS. However, incoherence in various forms – between anti-discrimination standards used by EU- and Member States’ delegations, between different policy areas and between the EU’s internal and external activities – is identified as a key challenge. Along similar lines, Chapter III focuses on ethnic and other factors related to EU internal policies on non-discrimination and equality. The chapter argues that despite potentially strong drivers for the promotion and protection of ethnic minorities’ rights in the EU and among EU Member States, the initial excitement about the Union’s anti-discrimination directives has morphed into reluctance by Member States to take actual measures to realise substantive equality. An amalgamation of historical, legal, economic and political factors contributes to Member States’ unwillingness to further develop and mainstream the core values of non-discrimination and equal treatment. Chapter IV concerns religious minorities under pressure. The issue of religious and cultural diversity and tolerance as well as the protection of religious minorities are among the biggest challenges facing the EU in the area of religion, both internally and externally. Yet, due to a range of religious, historical, cultural and political factors, including the diversity in the organisation of state-religion relations across Member States, the EU has generally steered away from a common line on religious affairs within the EU. As result of this, the protection of religious minorities is uneven across Europe. Interestingly, internal reluctance contrasts with external ambitions in the form of progressive policies. This incoherence poses a challenge to the EU’s efficiency in its internal and external endeavours to promote the protection of religious minorities. Chapter V examines the nature and consistency of the integration of human rights into EU development programming, with a particular focus on the envisaged synergy between economic factors and the protection of human rights. In recent years, the EU has confirmed its commitment to integrate a human rights-based approach throughout its development activities. However, the chapter demonstrates that the application of human rights standards and principles in EU development programming suffers from a strong ‘governance bias’. In socioeconomic interventions, and in particular in the sectors with the most important economic implications, i.e. agriculture, energy, and infrastructure, human rights are vaguely integrated. Thus, the chapter concludes that economic factors are hardly fostering strong human rights concerns in the EU external development action and planning. Drawing attention to the EU’s relations to the wider world, Chapter VI zooms in on the legal factors that influence the protection of international human rights and international humanitarian law in EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions. The EU has adopted a large number of operational policy documents on the protection of human rights in CSDP operations and missions. However, the chapter identifies two legal factors that undermine these policy-level commitments. Firstly, uncertainty about which obligations EU-led military forces shall respect and protect hinders the effective protection of human rights. Secondly, EU human rights policy documents have mainly focused on the promotion of human rights in third states – by third States themselves – rather than on the EU’s and EU-led military forces’ own compliance with human rights standards when involved in CSDP missions and operations in third States. Such incoherence between the policy towards third states and EU/Member States is a legal factor that might hinder the effectiveness of EU human rights policies. The selected challenges and factors put under scrutiny in this report are in many respects inter-related. The in-depth studies have further drawn attention to the inconsistent and incoherent implementation of the EU’s human rights policies as a crosscutting challenge – a challenge that can potentially compromise the effective protection of human rights, both within the EU and in the Union’s external relations to third States.
The EU’s engagement with regional multilateral organisations Case study: Inter-American perspective

(FRAME, 2015-06) Balcerzak, Filip ; Chané, Anna-Luise ; Marinelli, Chiara ; Romero, Amilcar ; Salmón, Elizabeth

The sixth deliverable of Work Package No 5 (WP 5) presents the outcome of the analysis and critical assessment of EU human rights engagement with the Organization of American States (OAS). The EU has committed itself in the Treaty on European Union to promote and protect human rights and to ‘develop relations and build partnerships with [...] international, regional or global organisations’. The EU’s 2012 Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy explicitly identifies the OAS as one of the regional organisations with which the Union works in partnership in order to strengthen regional human rights mechanisms. In light of this commitment, the present report aims at four goals: mapping the human rights cooperation of the EU with the OAS, critically assessing this cooperation from a policy and institutional perspective, identifying specific and structural flaws in the EU’s approach, and looking for creative ways to facilitate a critical but constructive and effective relationship between the EU and the OAS. The deliverable consists of seven chapters. The first chapter is introductory. It explains the aims, scope and methodology of the analysis. The second chapter focuses on the legal and policy framework of EU-OAS relations. In a first section it traces the Union’s human rights commitment throughout the relevant legal instruments and policy documents; it then examines the legal framework for EU-OAS human rights cooperation. The third chapter maps the institutional framework of the EU-OAS relations with respect to human rights. It identifies the main EU and OAS bodies relevant for human rights protection, with special attention paid to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). The fourth chapter describes the goals and objectives of the EU with regard to the OAS in the field of human rights. Special attention is paid to the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the European Commission and the OAS in 2009. The fifth chapter presents tools and methods employed by the EU in its engagement with the OAS in the field of human rights. The analysis distinguishes between a political approach and a thematic approach and puts emphasis on the aspect of financing. The sixth chapter contains two case studies, used to contextualise the analysis of the previous chapters. The first case study analyses the influence of EU-OAS cooperation on the development of the IACHR and the IACtHR. The second case study focuses on the impact of this cooperation on human rights protection at OAS member state level, using the example of the Republic of Peru. The seventh chapter assesses the EU’s engagement described in previous chapters from the perspective of coordination, coherence, consistency, effectiveness, realisation, influence and leadership. The final conclusions are presented in the eighth chapter. The research shows that the EU has a significant impact on the internal and public work of the IACHR and the IACtHR – the OAS bodies most relevant from the perspective of human rights. Along with this international impact, at the national level, the Union’s biggest contribution in Peru is based on civil society human rights projects implemented nationwide. Although EU-OAS human rights cooperation yields essentially positive results at the regional and national level, further coordination is required in order to achieve EU internal mandates.
Human rights priorities in the European Union's external and internal policies: an assessment of consistency with a special focus on vulnerable groups

(FRAME, 2015-07) Abrisketa, Joana ; Churruca Muguruza, Cristina ; Cruz, Cristina : de la ; García, Laura ; Márquez Carrasco, Carmen ; Morondo, Dolores ; Nagore Casas, María ; Sosa, Lorena ; Timmer, Alexandra

Deliverable D12.1 provided a mapping of legal and policy instruments of the EU for human rights and democracy support towards third countries, with focus on the identification by the EU of its human rights priorities for this policy. These human rights priorities were set out in the EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy, which distinguished two types of human rights priorities: ‘vulnerable groups’ and ‘human rights themes.’ These human rights priorities and the instruments for their implementation having been analysed, the main goal of this report is to assess whether those human rights themes and vulnerable groups are effectively and consistently reflected across the range of EU policies with particular relevance for the protection and promotion of human rights: development cooperation, trade, the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the external dimension of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) and the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Two main tasks have been addressed: (i) the identification of inconsistencies in the understanding and usage of ‘vulnerable groups’ and ‘human rights themes’ by the relevant EU policy documents issued in each step of the policy cycle, from formulation to implementation and evaluation and (ii) the identification of possible gaps in the selection of priorities by the EU, i.e. groups that should deserve special protection but are not prioritised in the context of the policy documents concerned. The report focuses on those external policies which have a significant human rights dimension and therefore where the EU should enhance its efforts to integrate these human rights priorities. These policies are development, trade, CSDP, the external dimension of AFSJ and ENP. Furthermore, the EU’s internal approach to vulnerability and human rights themes also forms part of the report. One of the most controversial issues in connection with the EU’s performance on human rights is precisely the appreciation of ‘double standards’ in the internal vs. external approaches to human rights. In order to address this critique the report will also cover the EU’s internal policy on social inclusion and fight against exclusion. In order to achieve the expounded objectives, the researchers have analysed the main documents issued by the EU in each step of the policy cycle, including documents belonging to the policy formulation phase, as well as implementation documents and evaluation reports. The main documents studied in development cooperation, trade, CSDP and AFSJ have been listed in Annexes I to IV. Regarding ENP, the main documents are the bilateral Action Plans which are listed in the own text of chapter VII. The level of visibility of human rights priorities is not equal in each concrete policy field. In some of them, such as in development cooperation or AFSJ, the sensitivity of the EU towards human rights issues is more developed while there is still much work to do in other areas such as trade or ENP. Accordingly, in the first set of policies, the EU has been much more prolific in the production of documents and materials dealing with the integration of human rights concerns than in the second set of policies. This report has shown that ‘vulnerability’ has multiple meanings and usages within the analysed EU’s external policies. The EU has not defined ‘vulnerability’ nor has developed a framework to identify who are vulnerable in the context of each policy. The meaning of vulnerability can be only determined within the specific context of each policy. Moreover, the EU’s approach in each of the policies analysed is not always straightforward.Vulnerability appears also connected to other concepts such as discrimination, marginalization, victimization, exclusion or protection. The boundaries between these concepts are not always clear when the documents are analysed. In some cases it seems that the EU uses these terms interchangeably; in other cases, certain terms, such as discrimination and protection, appear as central notions to the EU’s understanding of vulnerability and, finally, sometimes one term, such as ‘victimization’ in the context of the AFSJ, is treated almost in equal terms than vulnerability. The lack of definition of vulnerable group in the internal sphere contrasts sharply with the specificity of the EU when it defines vulnerable groups in the internal fields of employment and social exclusion. Both the Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion and the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs provide a definition of vulnerable groups. In addition, in the internal sphere the EU prioritizes also within the ‘most vulnerable’, and there is a clear understanding and specific indicators of who are ‘at risk of poverty or social exclusion.’ In the external sphere, two main approaches to vulnerability have been identified in EU’s documents: a ‘vulnerable groups approach’, where the document does not define vulnerability but simply lists the groups that are considered vulnerable in the specific context addressed by the document; and a ‘factors approach’ where the documents rather than listing groups explain the factors which render certain people vulnerable. In addition, the report has identified certain tensions arising from the EU’s conception and usages of vulnerability and vulnerable groups: (i) Universality of human rights vs. the need to prioritise the rights of certain groups; (ii) the internal vs. the external rhetoric regarding vulnerable groups; (iii) the risks of the using the concept of vulnerability vs. its potential and (iv) the diversity of agendas between different actors. The visibility of human rights priorities is much more clearly stated in certain policies, such as CSDP, development and the AFSJ, whereas the human rights component is much less visible in others, such as the ENP and trade. In almost all the policies, the analysis has also identified a clear predominance of the references to vulnerable groups in comparison with the references to the human rights themes. In addition, there is also a clear predominance of some vulnerable groups, namely women and children, within the documents. On the contrary, the protection of other vulnerable groups whose rights could be directly influenced by the policies concerned is recognised to a far lesser extent. This is the case, for example, of minorities and forced migrants within the CSDP, or disabled people and forced migrants within the development policy, although these groups are equally exposed to vulnerability in those spheres. In addition, in some policies such as development and CSDP, a ‘phenomenon of dilution’ of the human rights components has been observed as the policy cycle moves from formulation to implementation. The clarity of the human rights discourse present in the formulation phase becomes blurred when the policies are implemented.
The global human rights protection governance system

(FRAME, 2015-07) Häusler, Katharina ; Bregaglio, Renata ; Chavez, Carmela ; Dai, Tingting ; Gómez Isa, Felipe ; Hegde, Venkatachala G. ; Jaraczewski, Jakub ; Killander, Magnus ; Lukas, Karin ; Nagore Casas, María ; Nkrumah, Bright ; Yin, Lingying ; Mayrhofer, Monika

This report was written as part of the FP7 research project ‘Fostering Human Rights Among European (External and Internal) Policies’ and falls under Work Package 4 ‘Protection of Human Rights: Institution and Instruments’. The report builds on the D 4.1 ‘Report on the mapping study on relevant actors in human rights protection’ which outlined institutions and instruments for the protection of human rights at the national, European Union (EU), regional and international level. As the objective of WP 4 is to assess the institutions and instruments operating to protect human rights at the international, regional and national levels, the specific task of D4.2 ‘Report on the global governance protection system’ is to further this investigation by identifying gaps, tensions and contradictions in the regional and global human rights protection governance system. In order to tackle the quantity of institutions, instruments and levels involved, the report focuses in particular on the regional level. The first part of the report deals with the European level. The contributions shine spotlights on different aspects of the complex European human rights system, with a particular focus on the EU. The second part concentrates on regional human rights systems in Africa, the Americas and Asia and highlights gaps, contradictions and tensions of human rights institutions and instruments in these regions. The third part briefly summarises the most important conclusions. The review of academic legal literature at the beginning of the report (chapter II) elaborates on the broader European context by discussing the insufficiencies and inconsistencies of and the tensions and contradictions between different human rights protection systems in Europe. Examples of this are the complicated legal relationship between the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) and national constitutions. Moreover, the large number of Council of Europe’s (CoE) instruments which codify diverse human rights standards lack adequate supervisory mechanisms, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) suffers from severe work overload. Concerning the human rights regime of the EU, the legal literature review discusses the fragmented EU fundamental rights framework, the subordinate role of economic, social and cultural rights and the lack of an internal EU fundamental rights monitoring mechanism. The report then (chapter III) analyses the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities/Union (ECJ), the ECtHR and the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) in two selected areas: asylum and migration and the secondary role of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) in EU law and possible tensions between these rights and the four fundamental (economic) freedoms. It finds that there are serious human rights gaps concerning the protection of migrants such as, e.g. difficulties for migrant children to access basic services. It also points out that ESCR, which in any event have a weak position within the EU, are further threatened by the ongoing economic crises, amounting to serious violations of these rights e.g. in Greece. The political science analysis of the EU’s legal and institutional fundamental and human rights frameworks (chapter IV) shows that tensions between the Member States and the EU are a problematic and disconcerting force when it comes to human and fundamental rights protection. The specific political system of the EU allows Member States to a certain extent to safeguard their national political FRAME interests which are in some cases at odds with the human rights values laid down in the Treaties. Other problematic issues are the lack of coherence which is observable in all EU institutions, a lack of knowledge about EU human and fundamental rights competences not only among EU citizens but also among policy makers and thus, the need for a better communication to the European public as well as the necessity of revealing and addressing political aspects, processes and responsibilities concerning human rights law and policies. The analysis further points to the need for institutional learning and adequate human rights training of EU officers, the demand for a stronger focus on conceptual and strategic human rights issues and the necessity of addressing trade-offs between human rights and other interests in EU external and internal action. In addition, an analysis of EU human rights political and legal documents (chapter V) demonstrates the lack of a comprehensive and overarching EU internal human rights policy, the uneven reflection of the concept of positive duties in EU policy documents and the fact that a majority of EU policy and legal documents refer to human rights on a very general and abstract level. The review of the outcome reports of the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council (UPR) of EU Member States (chapter VI) reveals that there is not only a lack of ratification of specific human rights instruments by EU Member States – e.g. the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families – but also a lack of, or inadequate, implementation of these instruments. Part II of the report covers regional human rights protection systems in Africa, the Americas and Asia. The African Union (chapter VII) has developed a considerable body of human rights instruments that are distinguished from other regional systems by explicitly taking into consideration all generations of rights. Some of them offer wider protection, some of them leave out key human rights issues. The most important gaps were identified in the field of implementation of these sometimes far-reaching instruments. This is not only a result of a rather weak and ineffective institutional framework, but also of the inadequate implementation of these instruments by state parties. The Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) (chapter VIII) evolved on the initiative of the Organization of American States and has adopted various regional human rights instruments. The problems identified include the repeated overruling of human rights standards of the IAHRS through military jurisdiction and amnesties, evasion of and withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and difficulties of state parties to comply with judgments that involve measures regarding ESCR. Only recently have two international organisations in Asia started to advance regional human rights protection. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) adopted the ‘ASEAN Human Rights Declaration’ in 2012, which is criticised for falling far below international human rights standards and which is equipped only with a very weak and toothless supervisory body. The South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) mainly relies on soft law instruments and has not established any formal institutional monitoring mechanism.

Browse

Browsing 06. FRAME Reports by Issue Date

Results Per Page

Sort Options