Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Rule of Law as Non-trade Policy Objective in EU Preferential Trade Agreements with Developing Countries

  • Article
  • Published:
Hague Journal on the Rule of Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In line with the Lisbon Treaty, the safeguarding and promotion of EU fundamental values has acquired the legal status of a guiding principle and a general objective of the whole spectrum of its external policies, including EU trade policy. In this vein, and with a view to strengthening the linkages between sustainable development, trade, and peace, justice and the rule of law (RoL) in the Agenda 2030, the article examines the RoL as a non-trade policy objective (NTPO) that has been incorporated into the vast majority of EU preferential trade agreements (PTAs) with third countries. In particular, it focuses on the EU’s five “new generation” PTAs with developing countries, located on different continents, emphasizing the PTAs’enforcement and dispute settlement mechanisms. We find that, although the PTAs contain far-reaching RoL clauses, the EU lacks a comprehensive strategy of promoting the RoL under its trade policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Only publicly available data were used.

Notes

  1. For the EU's shift to the bilateral and plurilateral trade agenda, see: European Commission, Communication to the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Global Europe: Competing in the World”, COM (2006) 567 final of 4 October 2006.

  2. For the concept of the EU’s “new generation” of PTAs, see: European Commission DG “Trade” (2016) Strategic Plan 2016–2020. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/august/tradoc_154919.pdf.

  3. Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, OJC 326, 26.10.2012, p 13–47 (“TEU” or “TEU”(L)).

  4. European Commission, Communication to the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Trade for All: Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy”, COM (2015) 0497 final of 14 October 2015.

  5. For the purposes of this article, we regard a country as “developing” if it is included in the DAC List of ODA recipients. http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/DAC-List-of-ODA-Recipients-for-reporting-2018-and-2019-flows.pdf.

  6. European Court of Justice (ECJ), Partiécologiste “Les Verts”/European Parliament, Case 294/83, Judgment of 23 April 1986.

  7. CJEU,Van Gend en Loos v NederlandseAdministratie der Belastingen, Case 26/62, Judgment of 14 August 1962.

  8. CJEU, COSTA v E.N.E.L, Case 6/64, Judgment of 15 July 1964.

  9. Treaty on European Union, OJ C 191 of 29 July 1992, Preamble, Arts. 177(2), 181(1) (“TEU(M)”).

  10. Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, OJ C 340 of 10 November 1997, Art.6(1) (“TEU(A)”).

  11. European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: A New EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law, COM(2014) 158 final/2 of 11 March 2014.

  12. European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: Further Strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union. State of Play and Possible Next Steps, COM (2019) 163 final of 3 April 2019.

  13. European Commission for Democracy through Law, Rule of Law Checklist, Study No. 711/2013 of 18 March 2016(“CoE Rule of Law Checklist”).

  14. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. OJ C 326, pp. 391–407.

  15. CJEU, PJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty's Treasury and Others, Case C 72/15 of 28 March 2017.

  16. European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: A New EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law, COM(2014) 158 final/2 of 11 March 2014.

  17. CJEU, Commission v Poland, Case C-619/18, Judgment of 24 June 2019, para 71.

  18. CJEU, Wilson v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg, Case C/506-4, Judgment of 19 September 2006, para. 52-53.

  19. CJEU, Celmer, Case C-216/18 PPU, Judgment of 25 July 2018.

  20. European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: A New EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law, COM(2014) 158 final/2 of 11 March 2014, 4; CoE Rule of Law Checklist, 20 24.

  21. See, for instance, the CJEU cases: Kühne&Heitz NV/ProduktschapvoorPluimvee en Eieren, Case C-453/00, Judgment of 13 January 2004, StergiosDelimitis/HenningerBräu AG, Judgmentof 28 February 1991, Case C-234/89; Syndicatfrançais de l'Express international (SFEI) and others/La Poste and others, Case C-39/94, Judgment of 11 July 1996.

  22. TEU, Art. 4; TFEU, Arts. 4, 15, 16.

  23. CJEU, Commission/Spain, Case C-417/99, Judgment of 13 September 2001.

  24. European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament, the European Council and Council “Strengthening the rule of law within the Union. A blueprint for action”, COM/2013/343 final of 17 July 2019, 6; European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “EU Enlargement Strategy”, COM(2015) 611 final of 10 November 2015, p. 2; European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “2019 Communication on EU Enlargement Strategy”, COM(2019) 260 final of 29 May 2019, p. 4.

  25. E.g. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, pp. 16–22.

  26. For an overview of the CJEU case law related to equality and non-discrimination in the domain of labour, see: https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=953&langId=en. Accessed 08 July 2020.

  27. European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: A New EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law, COM(2014) 158 final/2 of 11 March 2014, 4; European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: Further Strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union. State of Play and Possible Next Steps, COM (2019)163 final of 3 April 2019, p. 1.

  28. CoE Rule of Law Checklist, pp. 30-31.

  29. Ibid., 19-20.

  30. The term “Washington Consensus” refers to ten macroeconomic policy prescriptions, introduced by the Washington D.C-based institutions (the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the US Department of Treasury),as a standard reform “menu” for developing countries.

  31. United Nations General Assembly, “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, A/RES/70/1 of 21 October 2015; “The New European Consensus on Development ‘Our World, Our Dignity, Our Future’: Joint Statement by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/system/files/european-consensus-on-development-final-20170626_en.pdf.

  32. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Global Europe: Competing in the World. A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy”, COM(2006)567 final of 4 October 2006.

  33. European Commission, Communication to the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Trade for All: Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy”, COM (2015)0497 final of 14 October 2015.

  34. European Union External Action Service, EU Global Strategy. https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/eu-global-strategy_en?page = 1.

  35. European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “EU Enlargement Strategy”, COM(2015) 611 final of 10 November 2015, p.5.

  36. European Commission DG “International Cooperation and Development” (n.d.) Policy Coherence for Development. https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/policy-coherence-development_en; European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document “2019 Report on Policy Coherence for Development”, SWD(2019)20 final of 28 January 2019.

  37. Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, U.N.T.S., 1155, I-18232.

  38. Agreement amending the Fourth ACP-EC Convention of Lomé, signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995, OJ L 156/3 of 29 May 1998, Art. 5.

  39. Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, OJ L 289/1/4 of 30 October 2008; Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 July 2000, OJ L 317/3 of 15 December 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “EU-CARIFORUM EPA”).

  40. Stabilization and Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Kosovo, of the other part, OJ L 71 of 16 March 2016, pp. 3-321.

  41. Ibid., Art. 13; Art. 3.

  42. Ibid., Title VII.

  43. Association Agreement between the EU and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, OJ L 161/3 of 29 May 2014, Art. 2-3 (“EU-Ukraine AA”).

  44. EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 6, Art.14.

  45. EU-Ukraine AA, Chapter 12.

  46. Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, OJ L 354 of 21 December 2012, 3-2607, Art.1 (“EU-Peru-Colombia FTA”).

  47. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969. U.N.T.S. vol. 1155, 31.

  48. Ibid., Art.4.

  49. Ibid., Art. 10.

  50. EU-Vietnam Trade Agreement (“EU-Vietnam FTA”). https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437; Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, of the other part. OJ L 329, 3.12.2016, p. 8–42.

  51. WTO (n.d.), Trade Facilitation. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/tradfa_e.htm.

  52. EU-Kosovo SAA, Art. 48; EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 37(1); EU-CARIFORUM EPA, Art. 20(1).

  53. EU-Kosovo SAA, Art. 48(3); EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 37(3); EU-CARIFORUM EPA, Art. 20(3).

  54. Ibid.

  55. Protocol II to EU-Ukraine Association Agreement on Mutual Administrative Assistance on Customs Matters. OJ L 161/2121 of 29 May 2014.

  56. Ibid., Arts. 4 and 7. See also: EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 67, Annex V.

  57. Ibid., Arts.4 and 7. See also: EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 67, Annex V, Art. 7-8.

  58. “Customs and Trade Facilitation” chapters are contained in all the agreements studied, except for the EU-Kosovo SAA.

  59. For the requirements of legality, see: EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 76(1)(a); EU-CARIFORUM EPA, Art. 31; EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 59(1)(b); EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 4.4-4.5; for the requirements of legal certainty: EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 76(1)(a)(c)(d), Art. 76(2)(b)(c), EU-CARIFORUM EPA, Art. 31(2)(c), Art. 31(3)(c), EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 59(2)(b)(d); EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 4.3.3; for authorities’ impartiality: EU-CARIFORUM EPA, Art.31(3); for the requirements of non-discrimination: EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 76(1)(m); EU-CARIFORUM EPA, Art. 30(2)(e); EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 59(1), Art. 59(2)(c); EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 4.8.

  60. EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 76(1)(b); EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 59(2)(c).

  61. E.g. EU- Peru-Colombia FTA, Art.59(2)(d)(e)(f), Art. 59(3); EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 4.8.

  62. E.g. EU- Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 59(3)(c); EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 4.14.

  63. E.g. EU- Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 59(3); EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 76(2)..

  64. EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 76(1)(h), EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 59(2)(a); EU-CARIFORUM EPA, Art. 31(1).

  65. E.g. EU-Kosovo SAA, Art. 77; EU-Ukraine AA., Chapter 9, Section. 2; EU-CARIFORUM EPA.

  66. E.g. EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 170; EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 220.

  67. E.g. EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 228; EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 12.14.

  68. EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 150 (publicprocurement).

  69. EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 201 (7).

  70. EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 196(4); EU-Ukraine AA, Art.161, EU-CARIFORUM EPA, Art. 143 A; EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 12.17.

  71. WTO, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1869 UNTS 299; 33 ILM 1197 of 1994.

  72. Ibid., Part II.

  73. E.g. EU-Kosovo SAA, Art. 77.

  74. EU-Kosovo SAA, Art. 140.

  75. EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 298; EU-CARIFORUM EPA, Art. 203; EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 15(2).

  76. E.g. EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 42 (IP rights); Art. 47(multilateral safeguard measures); Art. 285(5) (trade and sustainable development).

  77. EU-Kosovo SAA, Protocol V.

  78. EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 305; EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 301; EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 15(3).

  79. E.g. EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Chapter 3.

  80. E.g. EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 312-313.

  81. E.g. Ibid., Art. 478.

  82. E.g.EU-Peru-Colombia FTA, Art. 319.

References

  • Araujo B (2016) The EU deep trade agenda. Law and policy. OUP, OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham T (2011) The rule of law. Penguin Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao L (2006) Culture in law and development: nurturing positive change. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (1997) Formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law: an analytical framework. Public Law 1:467–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona M (2010) The European Union and Regional Trade Agreements. In: Hermannand C, Terchechte J (eds) European yearbook of international economic law 2010. Springer, Berlin, pp 245–269

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cremona M (2016) Structural principles and their role in EU external relations law. Curr Leg Probl 69(1):35–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dee M (2015) The European Union in a multipolar world. Palgrave McMillan, Basingstocke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borchert I, Conconi P, Di Ubaldo, M, Herghelegiu C (2020) The pursuit of non-trade policy objectives in EU Trade Policy. https://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=14655. Accessed 10 July 2020

  • Dolle T (2015) Human rights clauses in EU trade agreements: the New European Strategy in free trade agreements negotiations focuses on human rights—advantages and disadvantages. In: Weiß N, Thouvenin J (eds) The influence of human rights on international law. Springer, Berlin, pp 213–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Donno D, Neureiter M (2017) Can Human Rights Conditionality Reduce Repression? Examining the European Union’s Economic Agreements. Rev Int Org 13(3):335–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1978) Political Judges and the Rule of Law. Proceedings of the British Academy 64:259–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis M (2010) Toward a common ground definition of the rule of law incorporating substantive principles of justice. Univ Pittsburgh Law Rev 72:191–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Erbeznik K (2011) Money can’t buy you law: the effects of foreign aid on the rule of law in developing countries. Indiana J Glob Legal Stud 18(2):873–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freyburg T, Lavenex S, Schimmelfennig F, Skripka T, Wetzel A (2011) Democracy promotion through functional cooperation? The case of European Neighbourhood Policy. Democratization 18:1026–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller L (1964) The morality of law. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Furculita C (2019) The Dispute Settlement Mechanism in EU-Ukraine DCFTA: Could it Be Paralyzed at the Stage of Panel Selection? EUTIP Working Paper. https://more.bham.ac.uk/eutip/the-dispute-settlement-mechanism-in-eu-ukraine-dcft-could-it-be-paralyzed-at-the-stage-of-panel-selection/. Accessed 10 July 2020

  • Gurry F (2019) Rethinking the role of intellectual property. In: Abbot F, Cottier T, Gurry F (eds) International intellectual property in an integrated world economy. Walters Kluwer, New York, pp 143–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallstein W (1983) Die Europäische Gemeinschaft. ECON, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J, Barbu M, Campling L, Richardson B, Smith A (2018) Governing labour standards through free trade agreements: limits of the European Union’s trade and sustainable development chapters. J Common Mark Stud 57(2):260–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann H (2008) Mapping the European administrative space. West Eur Polit 31:662–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaremba U (2020) Non-economic values and objectives in EU trade policy: different models of externalization and enforcement. In: Weiß W, Furculita C (eds) Global politics and EU Trade policy. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–184

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov D (2004) Behind the Copenhagen Façade. The meaning and structure of the Copenhagen political criterion of democracy and the rule of law. Eur Integr Online Papers 8:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov D (2008) The ENP conditionality: pre-accession mistakes repeated. In: Tulmets E, Delcour L (eds) Pioneer Europe? Testing EU Foreign Policy in the Neighbourhood. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 105–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov D, Magen A, Pech L (2016) Introduction: the great rule of law debate in the EU. J Common Mark Stud 54(5):1045–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larik J (2016) Foreign policy objectives in European Constitutional Law. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Loughlin M (2009) The Rule of Law in European Jurisprudence. European Commission for Democracy through Law. https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-DEM(2009)006-e. Accessed 10 July 2020

  • Marx A, Natens B, Geraets D, Wouters J (2015) Global Governance through Trade: an introduction. In: Wouters J, Marx A, Geraets D, Natens B (eds) Global Governance through trade: EU policies and approaches. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer T (2018) Free trade, fair trade, and selective enforcement. Columbia Law Rev 118(2):491–566

    Google Scholar 

  • North D (1991) Institutions. J Econ Perspect 5(1):97–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orbie J, Gistelinck M, Kerremans B (2009) The social dimension of EU Trade Policies. In: Orbie J, Tortell L (eds) The European Union and the social dimension of globalization. How the EU influences the world?. Routledge, London, pp 148–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Palombella G (2014) The EU’s Sense of the Rule of Law and the Issue of its Oversight. EUI Working Papers.https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/33857/RSCAS_2014_125.pdf?sequence=2

  • Maiani F, Petrov R, Mouliarova E (2009/10) European Integration without EU Membership: Models, Experiences, Perspectives.EUI Max Weber Programme (MWP). https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/11294. Accessed 10 July 2020

  • Poletti A, Sicurelli D (2018) The political economy of normative trade power Europe. Palgrave McMillan, Basigstocke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Portela C (2018) Enforcing Respect for Labour Standards with Targeted Sanctions. CLS + Working Paper. https://www.fes-asia.org/news/enforcing-respect-for-labour-standards-with-targeted-sanctions/. Accessed 10 July 2020

  • Rabinovych M (2020) Where economic development meets the rule of law? Promoting sustainable development goals through the european neighbourhood policy. Brill Open Law 2(1):140–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raz J (1979) The authority of law: essays on law and morality. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik D (2006) Goodbye, Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? A review of the World Bank’s Economic Growth in the 1990s: learning from a decade of reform. J Econ Lit XLIV:973–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roeben V (2019) Judicial protection as the meta-norm in the EU judicial architecture. Hague J Rule Law 12:29–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi L (2017) The Principle of Equality among Member States of the European Union. In: Rossi L, Casolari F (eds) The principle of equality in EU Law. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • The World Bank (1992) Governance and development. The World Bank, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Torma A (2011) The European administrative space. Eur Integr Stud 9:149–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallindas G (2019) The role of the court of justice in the legitimation of the EU’s Action: the transparency principles example. In: Garben S, Govaere I, Nemitz P (eds) Critical reflections on constitutional democracy in the European Union. Bloomsbury Publishing, Oxford, pp 225–245

    Google Scholar 

  • von Arnauld A (2006) Rechtssicherheit. Perspektivische Annäherungen an eine’idéedirectrice’ des Rechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kyiv School of Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine

    Maryna Rabinovych

Authors
  1. Maryna Rabinovych
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Not applicable: single-authored contribution.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryna Rabinovych.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declares that they have no competing interest.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rabinovych, M. The Rule of Law as Non-trade Policy Objective in EU Preferential Trade Agreements with Developing Countries. Hague J Rule Law 12, 485–509 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-020-00145-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-020-00145-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation