DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION DIRECTORATE B POLICY DEPARTMENT STUDY A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EU AND US APPROACHES TO HUMAN RIGHTS IN EXTERNAL RELATIONS Abstract Both the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) emphasise the centrality of human rights in their domestic and external policies. Despite their common attachment to human rights and a potential affinity of seemingly common transatlantic approaches to human rights issues in external policies, the EU and the US have diverged considerably in their respective promotion of human rights abroad. Drawing on the historical and legal underpinnings of human rights promotion in the EU and the US, the purpose of the present study is to provide a comparative analysis of how human rights are integrated and mainstreamed into their respective external policies, thereby using case studies such as EU Special Representatives/US Special Envoys, Democracy Promotion, the Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court to contextualise the argument. To this end, the study outlines the intricacies behind the institutional set-up of EU and US external action, and delves into the specificities of human rights-related policy-making in the realm of traditional foreign policy, international trade and international development. The study concludes with the formulation of recommendations for the further integration of human rights in EU external policies, as well as to the future collaboration between the EU and the US on human rights. EXPO/B/DROI/2014/27 November 2014 PE 534 981 EN Policy Department DG External Policies This study was requested by the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights. AUTHOR(S): Prof. Dr. Jan WOUTERS, Jean Monnet Chair ad-personam, Full Professor of International Law and International Organizations; Director, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies - Institute for International Law, University of Leuven, Belgium; Visiting Professor, College of Europe and Sciences Po. Laura BEKE, Junior Researcher, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, University of Leuven, Belgium. Anna-Luise CHANÉ, Junior Researcher, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, University of Leuven, Belgium. David D’HOLLANDER, Assistant Researcher, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, University of Leuven, Belgium. Dr. Kolja RAUBE, Senior Researcher, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, and Centre for European Studies, University of Leuven, Belgium. The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to everyone that contributed to the large- scale and transatlantic research effort which went into writing this report. In particular, we would like to thank Hew Donald, Prof. Dr. Geert De Baere, Dr. Kathleen Gutman, Dr. Axel Marx, Katrien Meuwissen, and Jed Odermatt, for their fruitful insight and valuable suggestions. Last but not least, we wish to warmly thank the interviewees, whose names have been kept confidential throughout the report, for providing our research with a strong empirical clout. ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBLE: Wanda TROSZCZYNSKA-VAN GENDEREN Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Policy Department SQM 03 Y 76 rue Wiertz 60 B-1047 Brussels Editorial Assistant: Simona IACOBLEV LINGUISTIC VERSION Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Editorial closing date: 10.11.2014. © European Union, 2014 Printed in Belgium ISBN: 978-92-823-6008-8 Doi: 10.2861/69726 2 A Comparative study of EU and US approaches to Human Rights in External Relations The Information Note is available on the Internet at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies.do?language=EN If you are unable to download the information you require, please request a paper copy by e-mail : [email protected] DISCLAIMER Any opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation, except for commercial purposes, are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and provided the publisher is given prior notice and supplied with a copy of the publication. 3 Policy Department DG External Policies TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES 7 LIST OF TABLES 7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12 1. INTRODUCTION 14 2. ‘MAINSTREAMING’ HUMAN RIGHTS 17 3. FOREIGN POLICY AND HUMAN RIGHTS 18 3.1 HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION’S FOREIGN POLICY 18 3.2 HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES’ FOREIGN POLICY 19 3.3 EU, US AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS 20 3.4 MAIN ACTORS IN EU AND US FOREIGN POLICY 21 3.4.1 European Union 22 3.4.2 United States 25 3.5 OBJECTIVES AND POLICY CONTEXT 26 3.5.1 European Union 26 3.5.2 United States 28 3.6 MAIN EU AND US FOREIGN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR LINK TO HUMAN RIGHTS 29 3.6.1 European Union 29 3.6.2 United States 32 3.7 COMPARATIVE CONCLUSIONS AND THE FUTURE OF EU-US COOPERATION 35 4. TRADE POLICY 36 4.1 MAIN ACTORS 36 4.2 OBJECTIVES AND POLICY CONTEXT: TRADE AND HUMAN RIGHTS 42 4.3 MAIN INSTRUMENTS 44 4.3.1 Unilateral/non-reciprocal trade instruments 44 4.3.2 Bilateral trade agreements 47 4.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 49 5. DEVELOPMENT POLICY 51 5.1 MAIN ACTORS 51 5.2 OBJECTIVES AND POLICY CONTEXT 54 4 A Comparative study of EU and US approaches to Human Rights in External Relations 5.3 POLICY APPROACHES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION 55 5.3.1 Human rights as a condition for providing development assistance 55 5.3.2 Human rights as a cross-cutting aspect in development planning 59 5.4 EU-US COORDINATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION 59 5.5 CONCLUSIONS 60 5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS 61 6. CASE STUDIES 63 6.1 EU SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES AND US SPECIAL ENVOYS 63 6.1.1 Historical development 63 6.1.2 Institutional setting 64 6.1.3 Functions and tasks 68 6.1.4 Geographical and thematic priorities 69 6.1.5 Recommendations 73 6.2 DEMOCRACY PROMOTION 74 6.2.1 The concept of democracy promotion 75 6.2.2 Strategies for democracy promotion 77 6.2.3 EU and US democracy assistance 78 6.2.4 Supporting bottom-up democratic reform 84 6.2.5 EU-US cooperation: challenges and opportunities 88 6.2.6 Recommendations 89 6.3 HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 90 6.3.1 Introduction 90 6.3.2 Positions on the mandate of the HRC 91 6.3.3 Priorities at the HRC 95 6.3.4 Enabling and hindering factors 97 6.3.5 EU-US cooperation at the HRC 99 6.3.6 Comparison and concluding remarks 100 6.3.7 Recommendations 101 6.4 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 102 6.4.1 Introduction 102 6.4.2 Positions on the mandate of the ICC 102 6.4.3 Strategies, methods and tools with regard to the ICC 109 6.4.4 EU-US cooperation with regard to the ICC – past, present and future 117 6.4.5 Conclusions 118 6.4.6 Recommendations 119 5 Policy Department DG External Policies 7. CONCLUDING REMARKS 120 8. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EU 123 9. REFERENCES 129 10. ANNEX 138 6 A Comparative study of EU and US approaches to Human Rights in External Relations List of Figures Figure 1: EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy ................................................................27 Figure 2: Overview of DRL Administered Foreign Assistance Appropriations (in millions)..........................34 Figure 3: Institutional setting of the EUSRs.....................................................................................................................65 Figure 4: ODA commitments to ‘Government and Civil Society’ from the US and EU Institutions, 2000-2012, Total Amounts in USD million dollars and percentage as compared to total sector spending ....................................................................................................................................................78 Figure 5: US commitments for sub-sectors of ‘Government-Society’, 2012, as % of total sector...............79 Figure 6: EU commitments for sub-sectors of ‘Government-Society’, 2012, as % of total sector...............80 Figure 7: EU and US financial commitments for bottom-up democracy promotion, 2000-2012, in USD millions .......................................................................................................................................................85 List of Tables Table 1: Comparison between the EC ‘exclusive competence’ and USTR ‘principal responsibility’ to act in trade-related matters, prior to and after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.....37 Table 2: Comparison between EU and US Parliamentary Involvement in Trade-related Matters, prior to and after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty ...................................................................39 Table 3: Comparison between EU Special Representatives and US Special Envoys......................................71 Table 4: Comparing recipients of EU and US democracy and human rights assistance..............................83 Table 5: Overview of US Criticism of the ICC............................................................................................................. 104 7 Policy Department DG External Policies List of Abbreviations AA Association Agreement AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act AFL-CIO American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations ASP Assembly of States Parties ASPA American Service-Members' Protection Act ATPA Andean Trade Preference Act BIA Bilateral Immunity Agreement BSSC Budget Support Steering Committee CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CBI Caribbean Basin Initiative CCP Common Commercial Policy CEDAW Convention on the Elimination