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

Access Guide to Human Rights Information

(FRAME, 2015-12) Erken, Elif ; Kähler, Lena ; Marslev, Kristoffer ; Meier, Isabella ; Sano, Hans-Otto ; Sax, Helmut ; Sosa, Lorena ; Vivona, Maddalena ; Möstl, Markus ; Starl, Klaus

The Access Guide to Human Rights Information is based substantially on the information gathered through interviews with EU officials from the Commission, the Parliament and the Fundamental Rights Agency, reflected in the Baseline Study on Human Rights Indicators in the Context of the European Union, and on the other hand on the workshop results with international experts, held in Graz in April 2015. The common findings were that firstly, EU officials require genuine human rights information for their manifold tasks. Secondly, it was found that the methodology by the OHCHR of indicating the human rights commitments, implementation and situation on the ground is appropriate to satisfy the information needs. Thirdly, it was shown that there is a broad spectrum of existing data and information relevant to human rights. However, the information is not easily accessible for two reasons. One the one hand it requires expertise on human rights and skills for assessment. On the other hand, information resources are scattered and often, while relevant to human rights, not genuinely collected and offered as human rights information. The Access Guide to Human Rights Information therefore aims to provide EU officials with easy-to-access information on existing human rights indicators, human rights related data, as well as human rights compliance information provided by international and regional human rights bodies. For this purpose, the guide briefly discusses the pros and cons of these sources, shows exemplarily how to understand existing information and how to relate it to the normative content of the respective human rights provisions. The Access Guide to Human Rights Information provides the available human rights specific information based on the example of the prohibition of torture, the freedom of expression, the rights of the child, as well as on social indicators. Information sources are structured along a typology derived from the purpose they were processed for. Accordingly, a differentiation is made between the application of the OHCHR- model, compliance information provided by human rights bodies, as well as indicator-based human rights- related information. The Access Guide provides step-by-step guidance on the most effective retrieval and utilisation of existing human rights information based on exemplary research requests.
Analysing the findings of the research of the other work packages on policy tools

(FRAME, 2016-01) Podstawa, Karolina ; Haász, Veronika ; Vita, Viorica

The purpose of this FRAME Report is to map the EU internal fundamental and external human rights toolbox on the basis of the findings of other FRAME reports. This task involved answering two research questions. The first one is about identifying the categories according to which the tools need to be presented. The second question is about describing the concrete tools which compose the toolbox. The question of categories was addressed on the basis on past and current FRAME research. This report considers the categories identified by previous FRAME reports which seemed to be useful as organising principles for the presentation of the toolbox. The following categories were identified by other FRAME reports and briefly described in this report: - internal v. external policy tools; - paradigmatic instruments; - soft v. hard law tools; - tools displaying soft and hard power; - tools that serve conceptualisation, operationalisation, and evaluation of policies. It became clear from the outset that the first distinction was so radical in EU policies that it had to underpin any further categorization. Yet beyond this initial distinction, the remaining categories identifying by FRAME reports did not allow to identify a systematic sorting key which would allow to make sense of the toolbox. This report therefore adopts an approach which, while taking into account the above categories, reorganizes them by focusing rather on the functions of specific categories of tools. Addressing the second research question involved discussing each concrete tool in every category. Discussion focused on (1) the general positioning of each tool within the EU legal system, (2) human- or fundamental rights specific considerations regarding each tool and (3) challenges that have been pointed to in other FRAME deliverables in relation to each tool. The findings that emerge from the mapping of EU fundamental and human rights tools are the following: The European Union has at its disposal a wide range of instruments that can be used to reach EU internal fundamental rights and external human rights objectives. The freedom of the EU to adopt specific measures is limited by the exigencies of the EU and international legal systems on the one hand and political will on the other. Yet, in the current state of affairs – possibly with the exception of monitoring and evaluation tools – everything seems to be in place. This raises the question of how to ensure coherence among all the tools in the whole policy field, but also whether and to what extent tools can push the boundaries of the legal system. A question which this report was not able to answer relates to the effectiveness of policy instruments. On the one hand, the generalized lack of monitoring mechanisms makes it difficult to understand whether a specific instrument had a positive impact on human rights. It was also difficult to assess what in a given context would amount to effective implementation. Finally, the net results of the interaction or parallel functioning of instruments remain difficult to evaluate. The report closes with the identification of a number of points which should be taken into consideration for the purposes of the future reports to be produced within the WP 14.
Applicable regulatory frameworks regarding human rights violations in conflicts

(FRAME, 2015-09) Márquez Carrasco, Carmen ; Abrisketa, Joana ; Salmón, Elizabeth ; Nagore Casas, María ; Marinelli, Chiara ; Zafra, Rita ; Alamillos Sánchez, Rocío ; García Martín, Laura ; Íñigo Álvarez, Laura

Work Package 10 (WP 10) ‘Human Rights Violations in Conflicts’, part of the FP7 research project ‘Fostering Human Rights Among European (External and Internal) Policies’ (FRAME) aims at providing a comprehensive assessment of the EU external policies in response to conflicts and crisis situations, exploring ways to prevent and overcome violence through the critical assessment of the instruments available to the EU to integrate human rights, humanitarian law and democracy/rule of law principles in these policies. The ultimate purpose of this Work Package is to contribute to the fostering of human rights in EU conflict-related policies. Departing from the idea that the legal framework of EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) integrates EU law and international law, this report will examine the concurrent application of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and their interaction with other bodies of law that offer a framework for protection in situations of conflict and violent crisis. Hence the main goal of this report is to present and analyse the different international regulatory frameworks applicable to human rights violations with particular attention to vulnerabilities in conflict situations of inter- and intra-State violence. In FRAME Report D10.1 ‘Survey study on human rights violations in conflict-settings’ a comprehensive survey of the various patterns of human rights violations related to conflict and violent crisis situations was conducted, 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. As indicated in that study, human rights violations in conflict-settings represent clear evidence of the erosion of respect for humanitarian and human rights norms, which has aggravated the protection and assistance needs of refugees and other groups in conflict situations, and complicated the task of providing humanitarian assistance and increased the risks faced by humanitarian personnel. Confronted to this scenario this report studies and examines the relationship between the regulatory frameworks applicable in conflict situations: international human rights law (IHRL), humanitarian law (IHL) and the legal regime for humanitarian assistance, as well as international refugee law (IRL) and international criminal law (ICL). In many contemporary conflict settings key issues arise regarding the relationship between those legal frameworks. They mainly concern: a) the convergence and complementarity between IHRL and IHL; b) the interpretation of key rules for the protection of civilians like the civilian-combatant distinction or civilian and military objectives; c) the concept of protection from a IHL, IHRL and humanitarian assistance perspective. Specific analysis is developed on these questions, with a focus on vulnerable groups in society, which are particularly affected by armed conflict and violent crises (children, women, internally displaced persons, refugees). This report also focuses on the interplay of the international regulatory frameworks with ICL, that arises especially when violence takes a systematic and widespread dimension, amounting possibly to war crimes, crimes against humanity or even genocide. In particular, this study considers the cooperation with and support of the International Criminal Court (ICC) by the EU as part of a broader analysis of the relationship between the protection of human rights and promoting democracy and ICL and the extent to which the application of ICL contributes to the promotion of democracy in post-conflict scenarios. The role of truth, justice and reparation as integral components of any process of transition are also addressed.
Assessing factors influencing human rights around the world: three case studies

(FRAME, 2016-03) Burra, Srinivas ; Killander, Magnus ; Nkrumah, Bright ; Chavez, Carmela ; Uchuypoma, Diego ; Constantino, Renato ; Castañeda, Bruno ; Lassen, Eva Maria

This report contains three studies on the dynamics and interactions of factors hindering or enabling the protection of human rights in selected third countries. The following countries, from three different continents, have been selected: India, South Africa and Peru. From this country-based contextualisation of factors a case study was chosen for each country highlighting the influences of factors in a particular human rights area. Chapter II focuses on India and evidences that various factors impede the realization of human rights in the country. The study zooms in on economic, social and political factors, which are often structural in nature and which prevent individuals and groups from accessing institutional mechanisms for the enforcement of human rights. The chapter includes a case study on ‘encounter killings’, which in India are generally referred to as those incidents in which there is a loss of life of individuals in the hands of police and security forces when they resort to use of force for the purpose of maintaining law and order. Chapter III assesses the current human rights situation in South Africa by setting out the historical, political, legal, economic, social, cultural, religious, ethnical and technological factors that both enhance and militate against the promotion of human rights. Against the backdrop of the legacy of apartheid and the country’s socioeconomic challenges, the chapter provides an evaluation and literature review of the various constraints that impede against the promotion of basic rights in South Africa. The chapter proceeds to a case study of factors that impede the realisation of socioeconomic rights and the role of NGOs and social movements to remedy the situation through protest, advocacy and litigation. Chapter IV analyses factors facilitating and hindering human rights protection in Peru. The chapter provides an overview of historical, legal, political, economic, ethnic, religious, and technological factors facilitating or hindering the promotion and protection of human rights in the country. The chapter then focuses on identifying the social and institutional factors that explain the weak participation of civil society directly involved in human rights policies. Three cases of national councils involved in promoting and protecting human rights are object of analysis: the national human rights council, the national health council, and the national education council. The results emerging from the case studies feed into the overarching theme of the Work package 2, namely factors that facilitate or hinder human rights protection in the EU, and among its internal and external policies. The report affirms the need for a holistic and contextualised approach to factors hindering and enabling human rights in third countries. The factors explored in each selected case study are in many respects intertwined and inter-related in contextualized dynamics. This complex intersection requires that the EU in its external actions pay careful attention to the factors that come into play in each country and their societal contextualisation. The report also illustrates the complex role played by civil society in third countries, and demonstrates that the EU in its endeavours to support the human rights agenda of civil society in third countries, would have to pay careful attention to the diversity of factors which in each country puts limitations to or offer possibilities for civil society.
Assessing the strategic use of the EU fundamental and human rights toolbox

(FRAME, 2016-07) Altafin, Chiara ; Haász, Veronika ; Podstawa, Karolina

The report on ‘Assessing the strategic use of the EU fundamental and human rights toolbox’, which includes case studies on Hungary and Poland, Turkey, and Ukraine, evaluates the strategic use of the EU internal fundamental and external human rights toolbox. It builds on the previous report (FRAME Deliverable 14.1, forthcoming) which mapped the EU fundamental and human rights toolbox by identifying the concrete tools and providing different categorisations for them. The present report goes a step further and analyses what it means to use these tools in a strategic way. As objects of analysis, three case studies were chosen focusing on three crisis situations affecting human rights in EU policies: the Polish-Hungarian constitutional crisis, the refugee crisis and the Ukrainian crisis. The report starts with an introductory chapter describing the concept of ‘strategy’ and the related ‘strategic use of tools’ which the guides the analysis of the subsequent three chapters focusing on the three separate case studies. The ‘strategic use of tools’ is the use of policy tools that follows the EU strategic documents affecting human rights. Thus, the analysis of the ‘strategic use’ of the EU’s fundamental and human rights toolbox would involve effectively implementing strategic/programmatic documents. The analysis of the three case studies builds around the concept of crisis understood as an extraordinary change of circumstances. Each analysis starts off with determining the toolbox that accompanies the relevant ‘strategic document’ prior to crisis. This may be referred to as long-term strategies. Then, upon the radical change of circumstances, this long-term toolbox must be adjusted if not completely changed. In the analysis offered by the three case studies, an attempt is made to determine whether the long-term tools have been implemented and what was the impact of the crisis on the use of tools. […] The general conclusions echo the preliminary conclusions drawn by FRAME Deliverable 15.1 (forthcoming) in relation to coherence, implementation, and effectiveness. It is clear that the existence of strategy matters, and could be considered as a guardian of coherence. Yet, its content will be nothing more than declaratory if not duly implemented and its effectiveness evaluated. In this sense, the present report adds to the understanding of what makes a strategy implementable and effective. The EU human and fundamental rights policy would benefit greatly from increased coherence, effectiveness and enhanced implementation of the policy tools. In particular, there exists a gap between the strategies concerning human rights and their implementation by the European Union, and those of the Member States. An important issue with regard to the EU’s commitment to human rights is the lack of clear, visible and accountable leadership at the top of the European Union institutions. It is not surprising that human rights leadership is hardly visible at Member States’ level. This means that no matter how many strategic documents exist, the tools will tend not to be used in strategic terms but rather on an ad hoc basis. The case studies are not good examples of the strategic use of fundamental and human rights tools for preventive purposes. They show that the EU tools deal with consequences more than they prevent fundamental and human rights violations. It is admittedly difficult to foresee crisis situations, nevertheless, this report evidences the EU’s tendency to adopt a reactive attitude even in situations that have been similarly experienced in the past, such as for example the Hungarian and the Polish constitutional crisis. If the strategic use of human rights tools by the EU must be such that it follows the objectives set out in strategic documents, the research included in this report and the conclusions of the workshop on the topic that took place in Venice on 5 and 6 May 2016 point to a rather wide gap between what the strategy sets out to accomplish and the actual results delivered through the use of the tools. It must be recognised that, whilst one can desire strategic use of tools for human rights, the actual delivery is patchy and sometimes involves unpleasant choices. Likewise, it is difficult to have complete knowledge of all the stakes associated with a crisis situation, which makes the recommendations as to strategic use of tools difficult if not impossible to make. This report has evidenced that the EU was not able to fully implement its strategies, at least not without some negative collateral effects. At the same time, it is a positive thing that the strategies and the toolbox are available, even if implemented to a larger or smaller degree.
Bilateral relations with China, India and South Africa

(FRAME, 2016-09) Kopper, Ákos ; Jain, Rajendra K. ; Killander, Magnus ; Mkhabela, Justice ; Nkrumah, Bright ; Pillay, Kevashinee ; Zhou, Zirong ; Yin, Lingying ; He, Fei ; Li, Lifan

This report presents a study of the EU’s efforts in promoting human rights towards three partner countries: India, South Africa and China. These three countries were chosen for three reasons. First, they are major global actors, second they are culturally different from the west and finally they all share a level of resentment against Europe promoting its values given their historical legacies (although in greatly different ways). The question this report aims to answer is how are EU’s efforts for human rights promotion received in these three countries. To answer this question four major issue areas were identified as angles of study: 1. Human Rights dialogues and consultations; 2. EU influencing and empowering local actors (such as NGOs or CSOs); 3. the link between Human Rights and economic/trade relations; and finally, 4. criticism formulated by these countries against the EU. In order to meaningfully answer these questions this report took the approach of introducing these issues from the perspective of the EU’s partner countries themselves. Thus, one FRAME partner from each country studied was offered a general framework to work with including specific questions and was asked to draft a case study accordingly. This approach has some obvious merits, but it also has some potential weaknesses. Benefits include that readers get the opportunity to learn about how the EU is seen from the outside, i.e. what aspects of its human rights policies are praised and what aspects of it are criticised. Furthermore, they can also read suggestions on how local experts advise the EU to improve its policies in helping their country to improve human rights conditions. The possible weakness is that this approach emphasises these issues from the partner countries’ perspectives, thus, for example, issues which are sensitive to discuss in the partner country may receive less attention in the study. […] Following the case studies, the report concludes with a brief summary of the study and a section that highlight the main issues and recommendation raised in the case studies.
Case Study on Holding Private Military and Security Companies Accountable for Human Rights Violations

(FRAME, 2016-04) Wallace, Stuart

This case study examines how to hold private military and security companies (PSCs) accountable for human rights violations. It follows on from previous reports in this work package which identified PSCs as perpetrators of some of the most egregious human rights violations perpetrated by any businesses. The regulation of PSCs has also been identified as a specific gap in the EU’s business and human rights policy as the EU has not yet established a legal framework for effective regulation of PSC activities. The current legal framework at both national and supra-national levels is widely seen as inadequate and the need for greater regulation has been explicitly recognised by the European Parliament. In this project, PSCs will act as a lens through which the effectiveness of various remedial mechanisms in the field of business and human rights are analysed. The case study identifies the key factors or criteria underpinning the effectiveness of grievance mechanisms. These include: the ability to investigate and determine the facts of a given case; the accessibility of the remedy to the victims of a human rights abuse; the speed of the remedy; the transparency of the overall process; and the redress offered by the remedy to successful claimants. The case study then proceeds to analyse a number of grievance mechanisms at operational/company level, national level and international level to see whether they meet these criteria for effective grievance mechanisms. In particular it looks at five judicial and non-judicial remedies: the grievance mechanism operated by the Private Security Company Aegis; the National Contact Points system operated under the auspices of the OECD; the UK judicial system; the Association established by the International Code of Conduct for private security providers; and the European Court of Human Rights.
Case study: Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)

(FRAME, 2016-05) Márquez Carrasco, Carmen ; Churruca Muguruza, Cristina ; Alamillos Sánchez, Rocío

The present Report entitled ‘Case study: Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)’ was written as part of Work Package 10 (WP 10) ‘Human Rights Violations in Conflicts’ of the FP7 project ‘Fostering Human Rights Among European (External and Internal) Policies’ (FRAME).1 This report is aimed at providing an analysis of the the integration of human rights, humanitarian law and democracy/rule of law principles and tools into the European Union (EU) Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), with a focus on the protection of vulnerable groups. The report further assesses the complementarity of CSDP action with other EU external policies embedded in the EU's comprehensive approach to external conflicts and crises. Attention is also given to the cooperation and complementarity of EU action in the area of crisis management, with the relevant security actions of other multilateral actors on various policy levels. The report is divided into seven parts. Chapter I outlines the scope and aim and explains the methodology used to conduct the research. Chapter II provides an overview of all CSDP missions and operations to date and places it within the framework of the EU’s foreign policy and the EU comprehensive approach to external conflicts and crises. Chapter II places particular emphasis on the concept of ‘human security’ as a tool for a comprehensive approach for human rights and security linkages in EU foreign policy. As part of the EU comprehensive responses to crisis and conflict, the study covers the interaction between the EU with other international and regional institutions in the area of crisis management. Chapter III analyses the CSDP legal and policy framework on the protection and respect for human rights and IHL and support to democracy and the rule of law with a focus on the protection of vulnerable groups and gender mainstreaming. Notably, the integration of the human rights and gender component in CSDP has been progressively materialised through the adoption of a set of guidelines on several human rights priority issues, as well as by the setting-up of different mechanisms aiming at strengthening respect for international standards in third countries. Despite all of this progress, the study unveils existing areas for improvement in terms of policy. Chapter IV covers the integration of human rights and IHL in the CSDP decision-making and planning phases by providing a detailed analysis of the role of key actors and bodies involved. The protection of human rights should play a strategic role in this decision-making, whether as triggers for initiating or for discontinuing EU action. Once the Council decides to establish a CSDP mission or operation, the planning bodies play a key role in the effective operationalisation of the protection of human rights and the principles of democracy and the rule of law as part of the mandate (objectives and tasks), and in the prevention of human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law at the implementation stage. Chapter V evaluates how human rights, IHL and support to democracy and the rule of law are to be integrated in the different types of mandate of CSDP, although each mission or operation has its own particularities that should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Chapter V also covers the responsibility of the EU and its member states in the conduct of operations, and the difficulties that the procurement of services from Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) poses in this regard. Chapter V reflects on the possible ways of enduring accountability, particularly in the event of wrongful acts committed by mission personnel. Chapter VI includes three case studies, namely: EUTM Mali and EUCAP Niger in the framework of the EU Strategy for Security and Development in the Sahel and the military EUNAVFOR MED, renamed Operation Sophia as one component of the comprehensive approach towards both the refugee crisis and restoring stability in Libya. These case studies serve to examine issues such as the coherence and complementarity of the various policies and instruments of the EU in the framework of a comprehensive approach, the limits to the use of force and the applicability of IHL and the protection vulnerable groups in the course of operations. The report concludes in Chapter VII with a summary of the main findings that serve to provide an understanding of the importance and the need to respect and integrate human rights, humanitarian law and democracy/rule of law principles and tools into the CSDP. The EU is strongly committed to promote and protect human rights and to support democracy worldwide but in the area of crisis management it also determines the success of the mission or operation and its long-lasting results. Overall, the report provides a broad foundation for the next stage of research in WP10, which will consist of the formulation of policy recommendations on how to foster coherence and efficiency of EU external policy related to all phases of crisis and conflict, in order to prevent and overcome violence through the integration of human rights, humanitarian law and democracy/rule of law principles, and meet the challenges of protecting and promoting human rights in EU external policies.
Challenges to the Effectiveness of EU Human Rights and Democratisation Policies

(FRAME, 2016-05) Gómez Isa, Felipe ; Muñoz Nogal, Ester ; Nagore Casas, María ; Szoszkiewicz, Łukasz ; Wladasch, Katrin ; Dai, Wenhai ; Lv, Si ; Nie, Xiaojing ; Zhou, Zirong ; Uchuypoma, Diego ; Marinelli, Chiara ; Constantino, Renato

This report is aimed at exploring the effectiveness of EU policies in the field of human rights and democracy promotion against the background of a number of selected case studies. Since the end of the Cold War, the EU has projected itself as a normative power, placing human rights and democratic principles as essential pillars of EU’s identity at both internal and external level. The Lisbon Treaty represents the culmination of a process in which the EU has tried to legally ground human rights and democracy as core goals of its foreign policy. The Lisbon Treaty also made a significant change in the institutional architecture to deal with its foreign policy, namely the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS). It has generated great expectations, but it is still in a process of institutional consolidation. A strong EEAS is a precondition for an effective EU’s human rights and democratization policy. In spite of these significant legal and institutional developments, there are serious concerns about the capacity of the EU to have a significant impact on the democratization processes taking place in different regions of the world. The EU suffers from a delivery gap, an enormous distance between the rhetoric proclamations in Brussels and the impact on the ground of its policies and programmes. This Deliverable is aimed at exploring the effectiveness of EU policies in the field of human rights and democracy promotion against the background of a number of selected case studies. Cases from different regions of the world have been chosen, including Ukraine, Serbia and Albania from Europe, Peru and Bolivia from Latin America, Egypt and Tunisia from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA region), and China from Asia. The goal is to compare the policies of the EU across the countries and regions to identify best practices and challenges for the EU. There are inherent methodological difficulties associated with the attempt to measure the effectiveness and impact of human rights and democratization policies and programmes. While in the field of development cooperation the EU has developed a long tradition and well-established methodologies to assess the impact and effectiveness of its interventions, that is not the case in the area of human rights and democratization support. The main methodological constraints are the conceptual indeterminacy of the concept of democracy; the problem of attribution; the multidimensional and multi-level character of democratization processes; and the so-called counterfactual, given that one cannot know what would have happened in a given process of democratization without the external support. Taking into account these difficulties, this report has used both quantitative tools (especially the funds allocated to the different countries and programmes) and qualitative methods. The report is primarily based on a desk review of primary (agreements, norms and EU documents) and secondary sources. While academic literature was of utmost importance, the report has also relied on previous evaluations of EU policies and programmes in the field of human rights and democracy promotion. The information was also complemented with semi-structured interviews to EU officials, academics and other stake-holders such as relevant members of both international and local human rights NGOs.
Coherence and efficiency of the EU external policy related to conflict and crisis

(FRAME, 2016-09) Márquez Carrasco, Carmen ; Alamillos Sánchez, Rocío ; Íñigo Álvarez, Laura

The present Report is part of Work Package 10 (WP 10) ‘Human Rights Violations in Conflicts’ of the FP7 research project ‘Fostering Human Rights Among European (External and Internal) Policies’ (FRAME). On the basis of the previous research developed in WP 10, this report is aimed at providing policy recommendations on how to foster the coherence and efficiency of the EU external policy related to all phases of crisis and conflicts to prevent and overcome violence through the critical assessment of the instruments available to the EU to integrate human rights, international humanitarian law and democracy/rule of law principles. Information was gathered and analysed in previous reports of WP 10. First, FRAME Report D. 10.1 entitled ‘Survey study on human rights violations in conflict-settings’ explores 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. Second, FRAME Report 10.2 entitled ‘Applicable regulatory frameworks regarding human rights violations in conflicts’ analyses and clarifies the relationship between the regulatory frameworks applicable in conflict situations: international human rights law (IHRL), international humanitarian law (IHL) and the legal regime for humanitarian assistance, as well as international refugee law (IRL) and international criminal law (ICL) with particular attention given to vulnerable groups in conflict situations. Third, FRAME Report 10.3 ‘Case study: CSDP’ provides a critical assessment of the integration of human rights, humanitarian law and democracy/rule of law principles and tools into EU CSDP policy and missions. The report looks into the framework and implementation of the EU policy on human rights and gender mainstreaming in CSDP and in relation to the promotion and protection of human rights of vulnerable groups. The report examines the applicability of human rights and IHL to CSDP and the existing safeguards that seek to prevent violations of human rights and IHL in the course of the mandate. The recommendations provided in the present report also take due account of existing lessons learned and best practices, not only at the EU level but at the level of other crisis management actors, in particular the United Nations (UN). In addition, there are references to other studies in the area of CSDP containing recommendations in relation to more concrete issues that fall outside the scope of the present Deliverable 10.4. The study is structured in five chapters, including the introduction. The second chapter contains general recommendations to the EU on external action, which also concern Member States’ relations with third countries and organisations. The third chapter provides recommendations on the EU’s comprehensive approach to conflict and crises and how it can be improved with regards to crisis management policies to strengthen support to human rights policies. The fourth chapter addresses several aspects related to the EU intervention in conflict and crisis situations: applicable law, responsibility and accountability. As analysed in previous reports, the inter-operatibility between IHL and IHRL has also implications for EU crisis management interventions, in terms of the applicable legal framework and responsibility in the for violations of the applicable norms. The last chapter focuses on the protection of vulnerable groups in EU crisis management interventions, providing recommendations for the improvement of the implementation of current policies and for the adoption of new frameworks for other groups. In this regard, gender mainstreaming, the protection of children in armed conflict and the protection of civilians have been subject to more extensive policies and protection in the conduct of operations. However, other groups such as refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs) and minorities whose rights are directly affected by EU security policies have not received attention to the same extend.
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.
Conceptions of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in selected third countries

(FRAME, 2015-12) Sosa, Lorena ; Timmer, Alexandra ; Nkrumah, Bright ; Ncube, Vuyisile ; Kapapelo, Eduardo ; Killander, Magnus ; Constantino, Renato ; Rodríguez, Julio ; Uchuypoma, Diego ; Yan, Zihan ; Patel, Shan ; Vijapur, Abdulrahim P.

This report presents a comparative analysis of the different understandings and perspectives on human rights, democracy and rule of law in third countries with which EU has established strategic partnerships: China, India, Peru and South Africa. This explorative report focuses on theoretical conceptions of human rights, democracy and rule of law, with limited attention to their operationalization. The eventual aim of Work Package 3, of which this report forms a part, is to provide the EU with conceptualizations of human rights, democracy and the rule of law that take into consideration the diverse conceptions found in third countries and in other international organisations. This comparative study poses a challenge to the reader who is unfamiliar with non-western perspectives on human rights, democracy and rule of law. While South African conceptions appear largely familiar to a European audience, China, India, and Peru present notions and perspectives that are more divergent – compared to those found in the EU. In this sense, this report is meant to challenge some of the reader’s assumptions. The report starts with a detailed description of the methodology used (Chapter II). It clarifies the terminology used, and the methods of data collection and analysis. It also discusses the practical and methodological challenges of this comparative study. Chapter III provides a description of the historical, social, and political context of each of the countries under review, in order to more fully understand the development of the domestic conceptions of human rights, democracy and rule of law. Chapter IV is dedicated to the comparative analysis of the domestic conceptions. This chapter is divided into three parts. Human rights conceptualisations are examined in Section A. This sections shows that in the countries under review, the notion of ‘human dignity’, present in the European conception, is combined with other traditional notions that encourage group understandings of human rights and moderate individualism. This is the case with the notions of ‘harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood’ in India, the principle of Ubuntu in South Africa and the principle of unity in China. With the exception of China, where the ‘universal and relative’ character of human rights is emphasized, the universality of human rights was endorsed in all countries. The same holds for the indivisibility of human rights, although prevalence of one set of rights was perceived in practice. The main distinction, amongst the countries and with the EU, was the notion of ‘minority’, inherently connected to each country’s own historical construction. Collective rights, and moreover, the country’s approach towards diversity, is deeply connected to these notions. The review also shows that the approach towards equality taken by the countries under review is very similar to the one adopted at the EU, recognizing the equality of individuals and prohibiting discrimination based on enumerated grounds. The main difference is found in relation to the recognition of sexual orientation as a ground for discrimination. The next chapter discusses conceptions on democracy in Section B. It finds that South Africa, Peru and India all hold similar conceptions of democracy as the EU. At the same time, these countries have distinctive elements in their concept of democracy, for instance by recognizing both constitutional authority and traditional authority (South Africa), fostering the political representation and participation of socially disadvantaged groups (India). The Chinese conception of democracy diverges widely from the EU conception of democracy since it does not include free and competitive elections as a core element, nor does the principle of ‘multi-party cooperation’ challenge the undisputed leadership of the Communist Party of China. Also, contrary to the liberal and free-market foundation of the EU, we found an explicit commitment to socialism in the Constitution of China and India, and explicit references to a ‘social state’ and ‘social justice’ as core constitutional values in Peru and South Africa, respectively. As regards the rule of law, dealt with in Section C, this report finds that the EU shares core minimal/ ‘thin’ elements with all four countries under review. Chinese, Indian, South African and Peruvian views on legality and equality before the law do not appear much different from the EU’s views. On the other elements of the rule of law, conceptual divergences occur, particularly with regards to China, which promotes the notion of a ‘socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics.’ It appears that in modern day China the rule of law is viewed more as an instrument (to rein in corruption, for example, and to attain the desired social system) than as an end in itself. The report concludes that some elements of the domestic conceptions of human rights, democracy and rule of law in China, India, Peru and South Africa are widely different from the EU’s conceptions, although there is also much shared ground. Without doubt, EU external policies should be sensitive to possible conceptual differences and indicate awareness of these differences in their conceptualisations of human rights, democracy and rule of law. It also recognises that an enduring challenge is to distinguish compliance/implementation from abstract conceptions. The report also shows that human rights occupy a privileged position in international relations and in EU foreign policy in particular, and that this emphasis on human rights is also reflected at national level. The degree of standard setting on human rights – by means of binding international treaties and authoritative soft law instruments – is not matched for democracy and rule of law.
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.
Critically assessing human rights integration in AFSJ policies

(FRAME, 2015-10) Heikkilä, Mikaela ; Mustaniemi-Laakso, Maija ; Egan, Suzanne ; Finlay, Graham ; Lewis, Tamara ; Heschl, Lisa Maria ; Salomon, Stefan ; Planitzer, Julia ; Sax, Helmut

The aim of this report (FRAME deliverable D 11.2) is to critically assess the integration of human rights into certain EU justice and home affairs policies. The report scrutinises the EU’s action in relation to border checks, asylum and immigration, and in connection to organised and serious crime, terrorism, human trafficking, as well as international crimes. The central goal is to identify gaps and incoherencies in how human rights are integrated into and protected in the said policies. Special consideration is given to the relationship between the internal and external dimensions of the investigated policies. The report builds upon FRAME deliverable D 11.1, in which the integration of fundamental rights in the institutions and instruments of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) was considered. While deliverable D 11.1 addresses the coherence of the structures and instruments of the AFSJ, the present report focuses on studying the content of the policies and their impact on the realisation of human rights. To some extent, however, this report also pinpoints structural matters that negatively or positively affect the realisation of human rights. The report is mainly based on desk research on EU legislation and policy documents in the areas under scrutiny. In the analysis special attention is given to human rights problems identified in reports by international and EU human rights monitoring bodies and to criticism raised by human rights NGOs. The report is composed of four chapters. Chapter I, the introductory chapter, outlines the scope and aim of the report and explains some of the central concepts used in the report. In Chapter II, the EU policies on immigration, border checks and asylum are analysed. Questions considered in this chapter include the EU visa regime, border checks and surveillance, the EU asylum acquis, protection in the contexts of return and readmission, and the social and economic rights of non-EU citizens staying in the Union. In Chapter III, attention is directed towards the EU collaboration regarding organised and serious crime. This chapter contains a general part on the fight against organised and serious crime, after which the EU approaches to human trafficking, counter-terrorism and international crimes are addressed in greater detail. This chapter also includes a case study on extraordinary rendition. On the basis of the analysis in the substantive chapters of the report, the concluding chapter (Chapter IV) identifies crosscutting issues affecting the realisation of human rights in the areas that the report analyses and proposes recommendations. The analysis of the various justice and home affairs policies clearly shows that the AFSJ is an area of EU action in which special consideration to human rights must be given. It is argued that three crosscutting issues negatively affect the integration of human rights in the justice and home affairs policies considered in this report. These issues are: (a) a strong security focus or ‘securisation’; (b) lack of coherence; and (c) lack of solidarity. As regards securitisation, a trend towards accepting increasingly punitive and coercive measures to counteract serious crime and irregular migration is identified, and concern is expressed for the human rights implications of this trend. In relation to coherence, the report points to the many different types of incoherence that are found to be present in the justice and home affairs policies. Particular concern is expressed concerning the lack of coherence between the EU’s human rights rhetoric and the actual integration and monitoring of human rights standards. The external action of the EU in the field of justice and home affairs is sometimes also plagued by differential standards as compared to the EU’s internal action, and depending on whether or not the external partner is a key strategic ally. The lack of solidarity is identified as a factor that negatively affects the possibilities of the EU to overcome the human rights problems identified in the report. While the Union is aware of the many human rights issues within the field of justice and home affairs, it seems unable to adopt effective measure to overcome them. Based on these findings, the report makes recommendations for a more human rights-based approach to the EU’s justice and home affairs. Most importantly, the report asserts that Member State discretion and mutual trust should not override protection of human rights, and that political will and solidarity among the Member States are necessary if more profound changes in the justice and home affairs cooperation are to be achieved. It is further proposed that human rights monitoring should be enhanced in many areas of justice and home affairs. Likewise, the importance of human rights impact assessments before adopting new legislation and policies is emphasised. The report also stresses the value of academic research in this regard. EU policy choices in the realm of justice and home affairs should be based on solid facts and objective research rather than on unsubstantiated fear and prejudices.
Engagement with regional multilateral organisations Case study: ASEAN Perspective

(FRAME, 2016-04) Jaraczewski, Jakub ; Kędzia, Zdzisław ; Mocker, Susanna ; Satayanurug, Pawat

This deliverable of Work Package No 5 assesses the engagement of the EU with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Through a series of joint agreements, with the most recent being the Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action to Strengthen the ASEAN-EU Enhanced Partnership (2013- 2017), the EU and its Member States on the one hand and the ASEAN on the other hand have committed themselves to cooperate inter alia on human rights, including through extending support to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR). The deliverable consists of six 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, the EU Human Rights Guidelines and the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy. The third chapter discusses the institutional framework related to promotion and protection of human rights in ASEAN and also identifies the major EU human rights stakeholders relevant to cooperation with ASEAN in this area. The fourth chapter considers substantive goals and objectives in relation to the EU’s human rights policy towards South-East Asia as well as goals and objectives enshrined in international agreements between the EU and South-East Asian states. The chapter further discusses the Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action roadmap and action plans, sub-regional cooperation strategies and EU Member States’ initiatives in relation to human rights. The fifth chapter studies the tools and methods employed by the EU at ASEAN. Particluar attention is given to the human rights dialogue between the EU and ASEAN. The chapter also considers other initiatives and elements of the EU’s activities towards ASEAN and its Member States. The report illustrates how the relationship between the EU and ASEAN has developed in the recent 25 years from a purely economic engagement to a much broader scope of interaction, which includes the protection and promotion of human rights. Major challenges remain in making this engagement more efficient, which is affected i.a. by differences in the approaches to human rights, the nascent status of ASEAN’s human rights mechanisms, as well as the influence of, both, trade and security aspects of the relationship. Coordination also appears to be an issue due to the numerous actors involved in EU- ASEAN relations, including the Member States of both organisations. An important policy question remains how to reconcile the human rights needs with interests in other areas of cooperation.
Engagement with regional multilateral organisations Case study: OIC and League of Arab States

(FRAME, 2016-03) Gunn, Jeremy ; Lagresa, Alvaro

This paper will examine the contours of EU cooperation with the LAS and the OIC in the specific case of human rights. In doing so, this paper argues that this cooperation, apart from being at an incipient stage, is understood instrumentally by the actors involved, although in different ways. While the EU has a longstanding and varied record on human rights, the LAS and the OIC are, if anything, latecomers to the human rights politics sphere. In section III, the EU human rights foreign action is presented. The EU has an intricate fabric of institutions that lay the agenda, decide, and implement human rights actions. Its foreign action is not an exception, and the EEAS is now leading the interregional dialogue with the LAS and the OIC. After revising the current dialogues between the considered regional organisation, sections IV and V focus on the LAS and the OIC’s understanding of human rights respectively. In both cases, the lack of intention from member states to deposit sovereignty on their organisations is responsible for flawed declarations on human rights, full of references to respect domestic law, an attitude which affects the universal interpretation of human rights. In the case of the OIC, and to a lesser extent the LAS, religious references are numerous, limiting again the universality and indivisibility of human rights. This is fully contrasted not only when analysing their speeches and actions, but also through careful understanding of their human rights charters. It has been found, however, that in both cases, human rights rhetoric and language has been gradually incorporated in the work of the organisations, with the launching of institutions dedicated to human rights. When the cooperation with the EU is observed, other issues come to the surface. In section VI these dialogues are considered, finding that human rights are included in most communications, and that human rights are part of concrete common actions, including workshops and conferences. However, in the recently adopted Memoranda of Understanding between the EU and the two organisations at hand, no mention is made of human rights whatsoever, while other spheres of cooperation enjoy far more traction. The latter include security, counter-terrorism, migration and crisis management. As such, we conclude that EU cooperation with ‘Arab’ and ‘Muslim’ regional organisation is not founded, on a common interest to advance human rights promotion and protection. In view of the above mentioned ‘hard interests’, human rights are left to occupy, if any, a mere rhetorical role in the dialogues.
EU and Member State competences in human rights

(FRAME, 2015-10) Lewis, Tamara ; Portaru (Raducanu), Adina ; Schoen, Ricki ; Murphy, Karen ; McIntyre, TJ ; Finlay, Graham

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, ‘Coherence Among EU Institutions and Member States’, examines the principles, competences, actions and interactions of EU institutions and the Member States that characterise human rights policies and that lead to coherence or incoherence in the EU and Member States’ promotion of human rights. Having examined the potential for ‘horizontal’ coherence and incoherence in the Work Package’s first report, 8.1, ‘Report on coherence of human rights policymaking in EU Institutions and other EU agencies and bodies’, this report examines ‘vertical’ coherence and incoherence, produced by the interaction between the EU and its institutions and the Member States. The specific task for the report, as described in the proposal for FP7 FRAME, is to examine the competences and responsibilities of the EU and its Member States and the implications of EU fundamental principles including the principle of sincere cooperation. In this report, we focus on the key statements of EU actors with regard to vertical coherence and consider their implementation in policies in a number of fields, including multilateral and bilateral action. These include policies governed by the competences conferred on EU institutions and Member States, including those where the EU has ‘exclusive’ competence, like trade, and their interaction with policy areas with shared competence, like development. In contrast to these areas where competences are supposed to be clear, we also examine policies with more ‘intergovernmental’ characteristics, such as the CSDP and CFSP. In accordance with the understanding of competence developed for 8.1, this study begins with the premise that coherence and incoherence are visible in three aspects of policy environments – organisational structures, policy regimes and interests - of the EU and its Member States. In terms of structures, we first engage in an account of the principles governing policy-making in the European Union (III.A) before conducting a mapping of the competences of the EU and its Member States (III.B). We then examine discursive aspects of policy regimes, by describing the pronouncements on vertical coherence regarding human rights of different EU institutions, illustrating their coherent or incoherent approaches and implementation with particular examples.(III.C) In this survey, we find a wide variety of approaches to the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms and a limited engagement with the principles that are supposed to govern relations between the EU and its Member States. Crucial principles, like ‘proportionality’ and ‘sincere cooperation’ are often not referenced and, where they are, are found to be only beginning to be applied in a coherent manner. There is the real possibility that, as these principles evolve, particularly in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, further incoherence may appear, particularly between the principles of ‘proportionality’ and ‘sincere cooperation’.
EU engagement with other European regional organisations

(FRAME, 2016-04) Chané, Anna-Luise ; Hauser, Agata ; Jaraczewski, Jakub ; Jóźwicki, Władysław ; Kędzia, Zdzisław ; Šimáková, Michaela Anna ; Suchocka, Hanna ; Wallace, Stuart

This deliverable of Work Package 5 presents the outcome of the analysis and critical assessment of EU human rights engagement with other European regional organisations. Cooperation between the European Union and the Council of Europe has become more systematic, in particular in the framework of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2007. This document inter alia identifies shared priorities and focal areas of cooperation among which are listed human rights and fundamental freedoms; rule of law and legal co-operation; democracy and good governance; democratic stability; intercultural dialogue and cultural diversity; education, youth and promotion of human contacts; and social cohesion. In the light of the Lisbon Treaty, including the new legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the commitment to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights, cooperation between the EU and the system of human rights protection established within the CoE should be significantly enhanced. However, the road leading up to the accession to the European Convention may be more difficult than expected as has been indicated by the Opinion 2/13 of the CJEU on the Draft Accession Agreement, adopted on 18 December 2014. In the case of the OSCE, although the role of the EU has never been formally defined in details, the EU participation in the work of OSCE bodies has been recognized by the established practice and formalised by the Rules of Procedure of the organisation adopted in 2006. The EU attaches particular importance to co-operation with the OSCE on security-related matters and conflict prevention in Europe. The report consists of four chapters. The first chapter presents the aims of the report as well as methodology of the research. It also explains the basic conceptual framework of the deliverable. The second chapter is devoted to the cooperation of the European Union with the Council of Europe. In particular, the authors of the report analyse the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Union and the Council of Europe, EU’s policy documents and the issue of the rapprochement of the human rights protection systems of these two organisations. It also tackles the issue of common human rights standards. The third chapter presents the issue of the European Union’s cooperation with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It explains the position of the EU vis-à-vis the OSCE and it presents the EU’s substantive human rights goals and objectives. The authors of the report have also analysed the issue of common human rights standards and the EU’s engagement in and support for the OSCE human rights activities. The report is supplemented by four case studies related to: 1. The role of Venice Commission ’Democracy through Law‘ and its cooperation with the European Union; 2. The legal influence of the ECHR on the EU in case of the right to an effective remedy and right to fair trial; 3. Joint Programme – Peer to Peer II, and 4. The EU’s external human rights policy in view of crisis at the EU’s doorstep: towards a gradual division of labour between EU-OSCE in Ukraine. The fourth and final chapter presents the conclusions of the research. The report seeks not only to advance existing scholarship on the topic, but also to create a broad knowledge base for future research.
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.
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.

Browse

Browsing 06. FRAME Reports by Title

Results Per Page

Sort Options