1. Measures concerning human rights adopted under the auspices of European Political Cooperation or the Common Foreign and Security Policy and implemented using Community instruments are not covered in this paper. Community policy towards eastern Europe is dealt with in King, T., ‘The European Community and Human Rights in Eastern Europe’, Legal Issues of European Integration (1996/2) p. 93.Google Scholar

2. Pescatore, P. ‘The Content and Significance of Fundamental Rights in the Law of the European Communities’, 6 HRLJ (1981) p. 295 at p. 296.Google Scholar

3. E.g., in 1981, Claude Cheysson noted ‘The Community is weak, it has no weapon, it has no aircraft, it has no submarines, it is completely inept to exercise any domination. This in many ways is a great asset to deal in the Third World, to discuss with the Third World. The European Community is young, it has no past.’ Address to a World Bank seminar, Annapolis, 3 April 1981. Quoted in Lister, M., The European Community and the Developing World (1988) p. 189.Google Scholar

4. Pisani, E., Le main et l'outil (1984) p. 20.Google Scholar

5. European Commission, Memorandum on a Community Development Co-operation Policy, Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 5/71, p. 11.

6. Cheysson, C., ‘Europe and the Third World after Lomé’, 31 The World Today (1975) p. 232 at p. 235.Google Scholar

7. Simmonds, K.R., ‘The Lomé Convention and the New International Economic Order’, 13 CMLR (1976) p. 315 at p. 321.Google Scholar

8. Cheysson, C., ‘The Relationship between the European Community and Africa’ in Royal African Society, Europe and Africa: Trends and Relationships (1978) p. 15.Google Scholar

9. Nuttall, S., European Political Co-operation (1992) p. 268.Google Scholar

10. Bulletin 6/1977, para. 2.2.59.

11. Lister, op. cit. n. 3, at p. 198.

12. European Commission, Memorandum on the Linking of Economic Aid and Human Rights, 16 February 1978. COM (78) 47

13. Young-Anawaty, A., ‘Human Rights and the ACP-EEC Lomé II Convention: Business as usual at the EEC’, 13 NY Univ. J Int. L & Pol. (1980) p. 63.Google Scholar

14. In 1984, the Working Group was upgraded to a Sub-Committee of the Political Affairs Committee.

15. Political Affairs Committee, European Parliament (Rapporteur: G. Israel) Report on human rights in the world, 18 April 1983. DOC 1–83/83/I, at p. 5.

16. Political Affairs Committee, European Parliament (Rapporteur: K. de Gucht), Report on human rights in the world for the year 1987–88 and Community policy on human rights, 16 December 1988, DOC A2–0329/88, at p. 4. See also Political Affairs Committee, European Parliament (Rapporteur: K. Coates), Report on human rights in the world for the years 1989–90 and Community human rights policy, 5 August 1991, DOC A3–0221/91, at p. 5.

17. E.g., ‘Is there not a risk that it [criticism of human rights violations] would jeopardise the good economic relations which the Community maintains with countries which stand guilty of infringing the most elementary of human rights? The authors of this Report believe it to be a risk worth taking.’ Israel, op. cit. n. 15, at p. 1. See also Coates, op. cit. n. 16, at p. 24

18. This term is drawn from Nincic, M., Democracy and Foreign Policy (1992).Google Scholar

19. OJ C 161/83.

20. Political Affairs Committee, European Parliament (Rapporteur: J. Guimon Ugartecha), Report on human rights in the world for the year 1985–86 and Community policy on human rights, 19 January 1987, p. 40. DOC A2–208/86.

21. European Commission, Memorandum on the Community's Development Policy, 5 October 1982. COM (82) 640.

22. ‘Negotiations Update’, No. 85 The Courier (May/June 1984) p. I.Google Scholar

23. ‘Second Ministerial Meeting in the ACP-EEC Negotiations’, No. 84 The Courier (March/April 1984) p. III.Google Scholar

24. OJ L 169/86.

25. Although not, in Parliament's view, powerful enough, as it protested at the ‘arbitrary’ restriction of its power of veto to association agreements and called for it to be extended to all significant international agreements. OJ C 187/88.

26. In January 1992, Parliament witheld assent to financial protocols with Syria because of its concern at human rights abuses in Syria. In March 1993 the Commission urged Parliament to ratify the protocols, warning that refusal might make Syria less co-operative in the Middle East peace process but Parliament nevertheless refused to grant assent until December 1993 when the Syrian Government provided assurances concerning the treatment of Syrian Jews and agreed that it would be willing to address human rights questions during meetings of the Community-Syria Co-operation Council.

Parliament had frequently expressed dissatisfaction with Turkey's human rights record and in February 1995 passed a Resolution deploring Turkish violations of human rights and making clear that assent to the proposed customs union between the Community and Turkey would be conditional upon an improvement in the protection of human rights. There was, however, little discernible progress in the following months and Parliamentary assent seemed unlikely. It was only after Tony Blair had received personal assurances from Tansu Çiller that Turkey would implement further reforms concerning human rights and democracy that British Labour MEP's, the largest group within the Socialist bloc, agreed to vote for the customs union. Parliament also obtained an undertaking from the Commission to submit an annual report on human rights in Turkey. The report presented in October 1996 acknowledged that there had been little improvement in the observation of human rights and blamed the lack of progress on the complex political situation in Turkey. Parliament reacted to the report by refusing to assent to the grant to Turkey of compensatory financial measures in respect of the implementation of the Customs Union.

27. Bulletin 7/8/1986, para. 2.4.4.

28. Ugartechea, op. cit. n. 20, para. 66, paras. 85–86.

29. Debates of the European Parliament, 2–350/104, 11 March 1987.

30. ‘Inventing the Future: Opening of Negotiations for the renewal of the ACP Convention’, No. 112 The Courier (November/December 1988) p. I.Google Scholar

31. ‘Lomé IV: ACP-EEC Council of Ministers at Brazzavile’ No. 114 The Courier (March/April 1989) p. I.Google Scholar

32. European Commission, Human Rights, Democracy and Development Policy, 25 March 1991 SEC(91)61.

33. But see Müllerson, R., Human Rights Diplomacy (1997) pp. 118–147Google Scholar who argues that a State adopting a principled approach to human rights violations must take into account the characteristics of the violator and its own capacity to apply pressure.

34. Bulletin de l'Afrique Noire. France/Afrique, p. 2. 28 June 1990.

35. Federal Ministry of Economic Co-operation and Development German Development Policy: Memorandum of the Government of the FRGfor the DAC Annual Aid Review (1992).

36. Netherlands Ministry of Co-operation, Informatie, No. 17/e, September 1990.

37. Douglas Hurd, speech at the Overseas Development Institute, London, 6 June 1990, noted in 24 IDS Bulletin (1993) p. 7.

38. Bulletin, 6/1991, para. 1.45.

39. See Abi-Saab, G., ‘The Legal Formulation of a Right to Development’, in Dupuy, R.-J., ed., The Right to Development at the International Level (1980) p. 169Google Scholar; Kabir-ur-Rahman, Khan, ‘International law of development and the law of the GATT’ in Snyder, F. and Slinn, P., eds., International Law of Development (1987) p. 175 at p. 176.Google Scholar

40. Bedjaoui, M., ‘The Right to Development’, in Bedjaoui, M., ed., International Law: Achievements and Prospects (1991) p. 1188.Google Scholar

41. See Arts, K., ‘Implementing the Right to Development? An Analysis of European Community Development and Human Rights Policies’, in Baehr, P., Sadiwa, L. and Smith, J., eds., Human Rights in Developing Countries – Yearbook 1996 (1997) p. 37 at p. 48.Google Scholar

42. E.g., Bhagwati, J., The Economics of Underdeveloped Countries (1966)Google Scholar; Hewlett, S., The Cruel Dilemmas of Development: Twentieth Century Brazil (1980).Google Scholar

43. Bhagwati, op. cit. n. 42, at p. 204.

44. See Hadenius, A., Democracy and Development (1992)Google Scholar; Olson, M., ‘Dictatorship, Democracy and Development’, 87 American Political Science Review (1993) p. 567CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bhagwati, J., ‘The New Thinking on Development’, 6 Journal of Democracy (1995) p. 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leftwich, A., ed., Democracy and Development: Theory and Practice (1996).Google Scholar

45. These policy differences are summarised in Nelson, J. and Eglington, S., Global Goals, Contentious Means: Issues of multiple aid conditionality (1993) Table 1.Google Scholar

46. Bulletin 11/1991, para. 2.3.1.

47. The Commission had drawn attention to the need to ensure that the conditionality policies of Member States and the Community were consistent. Op. cit. n. 32, p. 8.

48. Consistency between the development policies of the Community and the Member States was subsequently required by Article 130(u) of the Treaty on European Union. Regular meetings are held between the Commission and the member States to ensure that this requirement is implemented in practice – see European Commission, Communication on complementarity between the Community's development co-operation policy and the policies of the Member States, 3 May 1995 COM (95)160.

49. Nationality Decrees issued in Tunis and Morocco, PCIJ Rep., Series B (1923) No. 4, 27.

50. General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX), 21 December 1965.

51. UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970.

52. E.g., Ouchakov, N., ‘La compétence interne de l'état’, 141 Recueil des Cours (1974) p. 5Google Scholar; Tunkin, G., ‘Theory of International Law’ (1974) pp. 35–49Google Scholar; Chkhikvadze, V., ‘Human Rights and Non-interference in the Internal Affairs of States’, 12 International Affairs, Moscow (1978) p. 22.Google Scholar

53. Jackson, R., Quasi-states: sovereignty, international relations and the Third World (1990).Google Scholar

54. Jackson, op. cit. n. 53, at p. 23.

55. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, ICJ Rep. (1986) para. 205.

56. Franck, T., ‘The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance’, 86 AJIL (1992) p. 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosas, A., ‘Democracy and Human Rights’, in Rosas, A. and Helgesen, J., eds., Human Rights in a Changing East-West Perspective (1990) p. 17.Google Scholar

57. Brownlie, I., ‘General Course on Public International Law’, 255 Recueil des Cours (1995) p. 21 at p. 73Google Scholar; Cassese, A., Human Rights in a Changing World (1990) p. 49Google Scholar; Crawford, J., ‘Democracy and International Law’, 64 BYIL (1993) p. 113 at p. 116.Google Scholar

58. The World Bank, Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth (1989).Google Scholar

59. European Commission, The Role of the Commission in supporting Structural Adjustment in ACP States, 17 January 1992, SEC(91) 232 p. 20.

60. European Commission, Green Paper on relations between the European Union and the ACP countries on the eve of the 21st century, 20 November 1996, COM (96) 570, p. 61.

61. Moore, M. and Robinson, M., ‘Can aid promote good government?’ No. 153The Courier (09/10 1995) p. 79.Google Scholar

62. Loc. cit. n. 55, at para. 268.

63. Swedish International Peace Research Institute, World Armaments and Disarmament (1996), Table 8A.3.

64. Bulletin 6/1992, paras. I.27-I.28.

65. Bulletin 6/1992, para. I.28.

66. Bulletin 6/1991, para.I.47.

67. ‘US moving ahead of EU with tougher rules for the export of weapons’, The Irish Times (25 July 1996) p. 11.Google Scholar

68. Article J 1(2) of the TEU dealt with the role of human rights in the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

69. European Commission, Report to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation in 1992 of the Resolution of the Council and of the Member States meeting in the Council on human rights, democracy and development adopted on 28 November 1991, 21 October 1992, SEC (92) 1915.

European Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation in 1993 of the Resolution of the Council and of the Member States meeting in the Council on human rights, democracy and development adopted on 28 November 1991, 23 February 1994, COM(94)42. European Commission, Report on the implementation of measures intended to promote observance of human rights and democratic principles for 1994, 12 July 1994, COM (95) 191.

European Commission, Report from the Commission on the implementation of measures intended to promote observance of human rights and democratic principles for 1995, 17 January 1997, COM (96) 672.

70. OJ L 52/92.

71. OJ L 48/81.

72. OJ L 295/90.

73. OJ L 79/91.

74. OJ L 340/91.

75. The third preambular paragraph notes that ‘the main beneficiary of co-operation is man, and that respect of his rights should therefore be promoted.’

76. OJ L 313/92.

77. OJ L 94/92.

78. OJ L 404/92.

79. OJ L 25/1993.

80. OJ L 163/1992.

81. OJ L 223/94.

82. European Commission, Communication on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries, 23 May 1995, COM (95) 216, p. 7.

83. European Commission, Decision of 26 January 1993, MIN (93) 1137.

84. Article 21, Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Estonia on trade and commercial and economic co-operation, 11 May 1992, OJ L 403/92.

85. Article 117(2), Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Bulgaria, 1 February 1993.

86. Agence Europe, Europa Development, No. 53, April 1994, p. 6 and No. 57, October 1994, p. 6.

87. Bulletin 5/1995, para. 1.2.3. The guidelines are set out in: European Commission Communication on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries, op. cit. n. 82.

88. In the case of agreements with OSCE countries, reference would also be made to the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe.

89. Case C-268/94 Portuguese Republic v. Council, [1996] ECR I-6177.

90. OJ L 360/94.

91. Alston, P., ‘Linking Trade and Human Rights’, 23 GYIL (1980) p. 126.Google Scholar

92. OJ L 348/94.

93. OJ L 85/97.

94. The Singapore Ministerial Declaration of the World Trade Organisation noted the parties' commitment to core labour standards but rejected the use of these standards for protectionist purposes and agreed that the comparative advantage of countries, particularly low-wage developing countries, must not be put in question, WT/MIN(96)/DEC, 18 December 1996. The significance of this statement for future attempts to link trade with labour standards was disputed between the delegates. See Leary, V.A., ‘The WTO and the Social Clause: Post-Singapore’, 8 EJIL (1997) 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

95. European Commission, Integration of Developing Countries in the International Trading System: Role of the GSP 1995–2004, 1 June 1994, COM(94) 212.

96. See OECD, Trade, Employment and Labour Standards: A Study of Core Workers' Rights and International Trade (1996).

97. International Labour Organisation, The Social Dimensions of the Liberalisation of World Trade (1994) GB.261/WP/SLD.

98. Convention 29 has been ratified by 135 States. International Labour Conference Lists of Ratifications by Convention and by Country, Doc.81/III/(5).

99. Convention 111 has not been ratified by Ireland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom.

100. OJ L 369/87; OJ L 31/92; OJ L 141/94.

101. Article 2(1) defines illicit commercial practices as ‘any international trade practices attributable to third countries which are incompatible with international law or with the generally accepted rules’ OJ L 252/84.

102. Schoneveld, F., ‘The European Community Reaction to the ‘Illicit’ Commercial Trade Practices of Other Countries’, 26 JWT (1992) p. 17.Google Scholar

103. European Commission, Proposal for a Council Regulation applying a three-year scheme of Generalised Tariff Preferences (1995–1997) in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries, 19 September 1994, COM (94) 337.

104. European Parliament Commission d'enquete sur le problème de la drogue dans les pays de la Communauté europiénne, p. 27. AX-48–87–646-FR-C.

105. OJ L 160/96.

106. Bulletin 1/2/1994, para. 1.3.80.

107. Resolution on democracy and development of the Joint Assembly, adopted at Amsterdam, 26 September 1991. Report of the ACP-ECC Council of Ministers for 1991, p. 156.

108. ‘ACP-EEC Joint Assembly discusses the future of the Lomé Convention’ No. 136 The Courier (November/December 1992) p. 7.Google Scholar

109. ACP-EEC Joint Assembly. Resolution on democracy, human rights and development in the ACP countries, adopted at Gaborone, 30 March 1993, OJ C 234/93.

110. ‘Joint Assembly in Gaborone: Pons-Grau report – success the second time around’ No. 139 The Courier (May/June 1993) p. 7.Google Scholar

111. Bulletin 1/2/1992, para. 1.5.13.

112. Bulletin 7/8/1993, para. 1.4.6.

113. Nuttall, S., ‘Interaction between European Political Co-operation and the European Community’, 7 YEL (1987) p. 211 at p. 239.Google Scholar

114. European Commission, General Report on the Activities of the European Communities in 1992, para. 898.

115. Liberia: Bulletin 7/8/1990, para. 1.5.7; 9/1991, para. 1.4.8; 12/1991, para 1.4.8. Somalia: Bulletin 1/2/1991, paras. 1.4.2 & 1.4.13; 5/1991, para. 1.4.9; 11/1991, para 1.4.17. Sudan: Bulletin 1/2/1991, para. 1.4.22.

116. European Commission. Report to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation in 1992 of the Resolution of the Council and of the Member States meeting in the Council on human rights, democracy and development, op. cit. n. 69 p. 13.

117. Bulletin 12/1991, para. 1.3.38.

118. Bulletin 12/1991, para. 1.4.9.

119. Bulletin 1/2/1992, para. 1.5.13.

120. Bulletin 7/8/1993, para. 1.4.6.

121. Bulletin 10/1994, para. 1.3.8.

122. Agence Europe, Europa Development, No. 58, November 1994, p. 4.

123. Kamminga, M., Inter-State Accountability for Violations of Human Rights (1992) p. 55.Google Scholar

124. European Commission, Communication on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries, p. 7 op. cit. n. 82.

125. ICJ Rep., op. cit. n. 55, para. 138.

126. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. Ltd. ICJ Rep. 1970 para 32.

127. Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1991) Vol. II, Pan 1, para. 92.Google Scholar

128. European Commission, Human rights. Democracy and Development Policy, op. cit. n. 39, at p. 7.

129. Bulletin 1/2/1994, para. 1.3.80.

130. Agence Europe, Europa Development, No. 59, December 1994, p. 2.

131. Noted in Bossuyt, J., Laporte, G. and G, Brigaldino, eds., European Development Policy after the Treaty of Maastricht: The Mid-Term Review of Lome (1993) p. 45.Google Scholar

132. European Commission, Proposal for a Council Decision on a Framework Procedure for implementing Article 366(a) of the Fourth Lomé Convention, 21 February 1996, COM (96) 69.

133. OJ L 229/91.

134. Speaking at a meeting of East Asian leaders on 13 October 1994, Mahathir bin Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia, noted that Europeans must accept that Asian ways of politics and administration would not be carbon copies of those in the European Union. ‘Reflecting resentment at previous attempts by the EU to link human rights standards to trade or aid, he said that no Asian country had demanded that European states reform themsleves. But Mr Mahathir said he was sure that there were many Asian leaders who, in their more exuberant moments, thought they could solve the Serbian atrocities in Bosnia, the Basque problem, the income inequalities between northern and southern Italy, the problem of homelessness in rich societies, drug addiction, classroom violence, vandalism and the ridiculous health systems in Western Europe.’ ‘East Asians scold Europe for “Incredible Arrogance”’ International Herald Tribune (14 October 1994) p. 1.Google Scholar

See also Yash, Ghai, ‘Human Rights and Governance: The Asia Debate’, 15 Australian YIL (1994) p. 1Google Scholar; Kausikan, B., ‘Asia's Different Standard’, 92 Foreign Policy (1993) p. 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

135. Economic and Social Committee, Opinion on relations between the EU and ASEAN, 31 January 1996, CES 99/96.

136. European Commission, Creating a new dynamic in EU-ASEAN relations, 3 July 1996, COM (96)314

137. Reuters, ASEAN, Europe seek new deal on rights and trade, 26 July 1996.

138. EIS European Report, Minister fails to solve wrangle on human rights clause, No. 2195, 1 February 1997, Pt. V, p. 5.

139. Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize (CESCR only), Botswana, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau (CCPR only), Haiti (CESCR only), Kiribati, Liberia, Mauritania, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe (CCPR only), Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands (CCPR only), Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, 14 NQHR (1996) p. 363.

140. OJ C 320/96.

141. Verbatim Report of Proceedings in the European Parliament on 20 September 1996, p. 35.

142. European Commission Communication on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries, op. cit. n. 82, Annex 3. European Commission General Report on the activities of the European Union 1996, Table III.

143. Hundred and thirty four States (including the 15 Community Member States) have signed the 1966 Covenants, 14 NQHR (1996) p. 363.

144. European Commission, op. cit. n. 60, p. 12.

145. OJ C 20/1997.