The insertion of human rights commitments into international economic agreements is now a widespread practice. We argue that the effect of such commitments depends on the degree of leverage held by one partner over the other. In a comprehensive analysis of the European Union’s (EU’s) relations with developing countries, we find that human rights clauses are conditionally effective; they are associated with improved political freedom and physical integrity rights only in countries that are more heavily dependent on EU aid. An in-depth look at the EU’s enforcement of its human rights clause in the African-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) group reveals that the Union most often responds to violations of political rights—particularly coups and flawed elections—and that enforcement is indeed a more powerful catalyst for change in highly aid-dependent states. Alternative explanations—that the impact of the human rights clause depends on legalization, the country’s strategic importance, NGO activity, or domestic institutions—find little support.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Spilker and Böhmelt (2013) find that after correcting for selection, PTAs with hard human rights standards are not associated with reduced repression.
These include the association agreements with membership candidates, the Balkans, and the countries of the Euro-Med partnership; the partnership and cooperation agreements with former Soviet Republics; cooperation agreements with a number of countries in Asia and Latin America; and the Lomé/Cotonou agreement between the EU and ACP.
In 1997, Australia declined a cooperation agreement based on its objection to the human rights clause (Smith 1998, 264); in our review of the literature, this was the only example we found.
Research suggests that punishment imposed under the Cotonou Agreement may be more effective, but the impact may also depend on the political will of target country authorities, the attitude of fellow members of the ACP group, and the preferences of individual EU member states (Cuyckens 2010; Mackie and Zinke 2005; Portela 2007).
The Lomé/Cotonou Agreement and all Association Agreements explicitly serve as the framework for both trade and aid benefits. Cooperation Agreements are primarily concerned with trade, but aid is incorporated under the agreements’ mechanisms for political dialogue and cooperation. See Wu (2013, 348), Miller (2004, 21).
Following the suggestions of Berry et al. (2012), we can identify two symmetric interactive hypotheses: (1) the effect of the clause is positive when aid/trade dependence is high, and (2) the effect of aid/trade dependence is positive in the presence of a human rights clause. When aid/trade dependence is low, we do not expect the clause to have a significant effect on rights performance. In the absence of a clause we do not necessarily expect aid or trade dependence to exhibit an effect.
Among country-years party to a human rights clause, average annual EC aid is 67 million (constant USD); among non-clause country-years, the average is 53 million. Average export volume to the EU is higher in non-clause observations than in clause observations (authors’ data).
See Appendix Figure 1. The Appendix is available at the Review of International Organizations website.
See for example Conrad and Ritter (2013); Fariss, The changing standard of accountability and the positive relationship between human rights treaty ratification and compliance, unpublished Hafner-Burton (2005); Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui (2005); Hathaway (2005); Hill (2010); Lupu (2013b); Neumayer (2005); Simmons (2009).
We code only for agreements that have entered into force.
This variable was coded using the European Union’s record of its legal agreements with third countries (available at http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/searchByCountryAndContinent.do?id=4&letter=A).
Data on EC aid disbursements (gross, in constant USD) is taken from the OECD and from EuropeAid annual reports. Some data points for post-communist countries were missing during the 1990s; these were filled in using reports accessed by the authors in the European Commission archives (Brussels, May 2010). Data on GDP (constant USD) are from the World Bank Development Indicators.
While aid may ebb and flow partly in response to human rights, a country’s GDP (the denominator of our measure) is plausibly exogenous to any such interactions between the EU and the country in question.
Data on exports to the EU (in constant USD) are from the IMF Direction of Trade Statistics (IMF 2011). We focus on exports because these represent a crucial source of revenue for developing economies. In a robustness test, we also explore the effect of total trade (exports and imports) with the EU.
We run survival models predicting the ratification of an EU economic agreement containing a human rights clause. To proxy for the government’s incentives for repression, we use Conrad and Ritter’s (2013) measure of leader job security (where greater security is argued to be associated with a larger benefit to repression, see Conrad and Ritter 2013, 401). To capture improving human rights records, we use the change (over 1 year and 3 years) in the CIRI physical integrity rights index and the V-Dem electoral democracy index. We find, however, that none of these are significant predictors of economic agreements with the EU. See Appendix 2.
This dichotomous measure is based on the presence of multiparty elections and is unrelated to other aspects of human rights performance, making this an ideal variable for our purposes. Moreover, a focus on multiparty elections resonates with Bueno de Mesquita et al.’s (2005) finding that electoral competition is the aspect of democracy that is most significant for reducing human rights abuses.
Of 3483 observations, 1930 were matched.
Our results hold when we instead use the Freedom House political rights index.
Cingranelli and Richards (2008). The index captures human rights practices, not legislation. It is coded using annual human rights reports by Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department. Cingranelli and Richards (1999) show that rights violations in the four component areas are hierarchically related and, hence, can be aggregated into a single ordered index.
The V-Dem and Fariss variables are continuous. Although CIRI is an ordinal variable, we nevertheless opt for OLS because of the inclusion of a lagged dependent variable. On the acceptability (and even advantages) of OLS for ordered dependent variables, particularly when the number of categories is large, see Aldrich and Cnudde (1975, 599), Andersen (2004), Lumley et al. (2002). We present pooled models as our main set of results, following prevailing practice in research on human rights (see Conrad and DeMeritt 2013; Hafner-Burton 2008; Kim and Sikkink 2010; Lupu 2013a). In robustness checks, we estimate models with country- and year-fixed effects (Appendix 8).
We opt for parsimony in our main models (see Achen 2002; Schrodt 2014). Additional controls included in Appendix 3 are: oil and gas production; EU economic and military intervention (two separate measures); ratification of the ICCPR and CAT; and an indicator for whether a country is an EU membership candidate.
These are: Sub-Saharan Africa, Former Soviet Union, Asia, and Middle East/North Africa (Latin America is the omitted category). Key results remain robust if region dummies are removed.
We compare the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for the AR(1), AR(2), and AR(3) specifications. In addition, we regress the residuals on the lagged residuals for each of these models. Based on these fit statistics and residual diagnostics, the AR(2) model is our preferred specification.
This is consistent with Spilker and Böhmelt’s (2013) finding, also in a matched dataset.
Interacting the clause with both aid and trade in the same model yields the same finding: the effect of the clause is conditional on aid dependence but not trade dependence.
Estimates from Stata’s ‘margins’ command are based on models 2 and 5 (Table 2). We do not present marginal effects for the Fariss physical integrity rights measure because there is no accepted approach for deriving point estimates and confidence intervals from coefficients aggregated using Rubin’s rule (Rubin 1987). See footnote 29. We also examine the marginal effect of aid dependence conditional on a human rights clause, and we confirm that aid dependence has a significant (positive) effect in the presence of a clause, but not in its absence.
On the linkages between different types of human rights, see also Fariss and Schnakenberg (2014).
Restrictions under the Cotonou Agreement were lifted on November 1, 2014. However, other restrictive measures, such as travel bans and asset freezes targeting individuals, remain (as of February 2015).
Kreutz’s (2015) coding of EU intervention does not include aid suspension, which is the tool most often used to enforce violations of the human rights clause. There is very little overlap between his cases of military/economic intervention and the cases of Article 96 consultations examined here.
The European Council provides a comprehensive list of all consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement since 2000 (European Council 2015). Other sources include Bartels (2005); Bradley (2005); Crawford (2001); Del Biondo (2011); Hazelzet (2005); Holland (2002); Portela (2010); Saltnes (2013); Zimelis (2011).
One of the few differences between the two agreements is Cotonou’s stronger emphasis on political dialogue with state and non-state actors.
This is roughly the point at which our statistical model predicts aid dependence to have a significant effect.
It is coded as “1” if the observation in question falls between −6 and 6 on the Polity2 index. Results are robust if we employ Simmons (2009) measure of partial/transitional regimes.
Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement is one example. While the EU has at times withheld aid without a suspension clause (Smith 1998, 264), the clause provides a formal mechanism. 70% of country-years that were party to a human rights clause were also party to a suspension clause.
See Appendix 5 for the full results.
Although prior research finds that global human rights treaties have their strongest effect in transitional/partial regimes, it may be that these treaties, unlike the smaller and more narrow economic agreements under study here, are particularly well-suited to triggering domestic mobilization (see Simmons 2009, Ch. 4).
Variables for total aid and trade dependence (with all countries) would be inappropriate because EU aid and trade would constitute a sizeable proportion.
Results available by request.
See footnote 41.
Achen, C. (2002). Toward a new political methodology: Microfoundations and ART. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 423–450.
Aggestam, L. (2008). Introduction: Ethical power Europe? International Affairs, 84(1), 1–11.
Aldrich, J., & Cnudde, C. F. (1975). Probing the bounds of conventional wisdom: A comparison of Regression, Probit, and discriminant analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 19(3), 571–608.
Andersen, Robert. 2004. Regression models for ordinal data. In Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim Futing Liao (eds.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods: Volume 3. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 941-942.
Apodaca, C., & Stohl, M. (1999). United States human rights policy and foreign assistance. International Studies Quarterly, 43, 185–198.
Arts, K. (2000). Integrating human rights into development cooperation: The case of the Lomé Convention. Cambridge: Kluwer Law International.
Balfour, R. (2006). Principles of democracy and human rights. In S. Lucarelli & I. Manners (Eds.), Values and principles in European Union foreign policy. New York: Routledge.
Bartels, L. (2005). Human rights conditionality in the EU’s international agreements. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bearce, D. H., & Tirone, D. C. (2010). Foreign aid effectiveness and the strategic goals of donor governments. Journal of Politics, 72(3), 837–851.
Berry, W. D., Golder, M., & Milton, D. (2012). Improving tests of theories positing interaction. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 653–671.
Bonaglia, F., Goldstein, A., & Petito, F. (2006). Values in European Union development and cooperation policy. In S. Lucarelli & I. Manners (Eds.), Values and principles in European Union foreign policy. New York: Routledge.
Bradley, A. (2005). An ACP perspective and overview of article 96 cases. The European Centre for Development Policy Management, August. http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/DP-64D-ACP-Perspective-Overview-Article96-Cases-2005.pdf.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Downs, G. W., Smith, A., & Cherif, F. M. (2005). Thinking inside the box: A closer look at democracy and human rights. International Studies Quarterly, 49, 439–457.
Checkel, J. T. (2005). International institutions and socialization in Europe: Introduction and framework. International Organization, 59(Fall), 801–826.
Cingranelli, D. L., & Richards, D. L. (1999). Measuring the level, pattern, and sequence of government respect for physical integrity rights. International Studies Quarterly, 43(2), 407–417.
Cingranelli, D. L., & Richards, D. L. (2008). The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Dataset Version, 2008.03.12 http://www.humanrightsdata.org.
Clement, D. (2012). Human rights in Canadian domestic and foreign politics. Human Rights Quarterly, 34(3), 751–778.
Conrad, C. R. (2014). Divergent incentives for dictators: Domestic institutions and (international Promises not to) torture. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(1), 34–67.
Conrad, C., & DeMeritt, J. (2013). Constrained by the Bank and the ballot: Unearned revenue, democracy and state incentives to repress. Journal of Peace Research, 50(1), 105–119.
Conrad, C., & Ritter, E. H. (2013). Treaties, tenure, and torture: The conflicting domestic effects of international law. Journal of Politics, 75(2), 397–409.
Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Lindberg, S. I., Skaaning, S.-E., Teorell, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, M. S., Glynn, A., Hicken, A., Knutsen, C. H., Marquardt, K. L., McMann, K., Miri, F., Paxton, P., Pemstein, D., Staton, J., Tzelgov, E., Wang, Y.-t., & Zimmerman, B. (2015). V-Dem [country-year/country-date] dataset v5. Varieties of democracy (V-Dem) project.
Crawford, G. (1997). Foreign aid and political conditionality: Issues of effectiveness and consistency. Democratization, 4(3), 69–108.
Crawford, G. (2001). Foreign aid and political reform: A comparative analysis of democracy assistance and political conditionality. New York: Palgrave.
Cuyckens, H. (2010). Human rights clauses in agreements between the community and third countries: The case of the Cotonou agreement. Working Paper, March. https://www.law.kuleuven.be/iir/nl/onderzoek/wp/WP147e.pdf.
Dai, X. (2005). Why comply? The domestic constituency mechanism. International Organization, 59(Spring), 363–398.
Davenport, C. (2007). State repression and political order. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 1–23.
Davenport, C. (2010). State repression and the domestic democratic Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davenport, C., & Armstrong, D. A. (2004). Democracy and the violations of human rights: A statistical analysis from 1976 to 1996. American Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 538–554.
De Felice, D. (2015). Diverging visions on political conditionality: The role of domestic politics and international socialization in French and British aid. World Development, 75, 26–45.
Del Biondo, K. (2011). EU aid conditionality in ACP countries: Explaining inconsistency in EU sanctions practice. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 7(3), 380–395.
Donno, D. (2010). Who is punished? Regional intergovernmental Organizations and the enforcement of democratic norms. International Organization, 64(4), 593–625.
Donno, D. (2013). Defending democratic norms: International actors and the politics of electoral misconduct. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dunning, T. (2004). Conditioning the effects of aid: Cold war politics, donor credibility, and democracy in Africa. International Organization, 58(2), 409–423.
Emmanuel, N. G. (2013). Democratization in Malawi: Responding to international and domestic pressures. African and Asian Studies, 12, 415–434.
European Council. (2015). Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement–Consultation Procedure. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-africa/article-96-cotonou-agreement/. Accessed June 2015.
Fariss, C. J. (2014). Respect for human rights has improved over time: Modeling the changing standard of accountability. American Political Science Review, 108(2), 297–318.
Fariss, C. J. (forthcoming). The changing standard of accountability and the positive relationship between human rights treaty ratification and compliance. British Journal of Political Science.
Fariss, C. J., & Schnakenberg, K. E. (2014). Measuring mutual dependence between state repressive actions. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(6), 1003–1032.
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011). Human Rights in German Development Policy. BMZ Strategy Paper 4.
Fierro, E. (2003). The EU’s approach to human rights conditionality in practice. New York: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Furuoka, F. (2005). Human rights conditionality and aid allocation: Case study of Japanese foreign aid policy. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 4(2), 125–146.
Geddes, B., Wright, J., & Frantz, E. (2014). Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: A new dataset. Perspectives on Politics, 12(2), 313–331.
Girod, D. M. (2012). Effective foreign aid following civil war: The nonstrategic-desperation hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 188–201.
Gleditsch, N. P., Wallensteen, P., Eriksson, M., Sollenberg, M., & Strand, H. (2002). Armed conflict 1946-2001: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Reseearch, 39(5), 615–637.
Goemans, H., & Marinov, N. (2014). Coups and democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 799–825.
Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2005). Trading human rights: How preferential trade agreements influence government repression. International Organization, 59(3), 593–629.
Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2008). Sticks and stones: Naming and shaming the human rights enforcement problem. International Organization, 62(4), 689–716.
Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2009). Forced to be good: Why trade agreements boost human rights. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Tsutsui, K. (2005). Human rights in a globalizing world: The paradox of empty Promises. American Journal of Sociology, 110(5), 1373–1411.
Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Tsutsui, K. (2007). Justice lost! The failure of international human rights law to matter where needed most. Journal of Peace Research, 44(4), 407–425.
Harbom, L., & Wallensteen, P. (2009). Armed conflicts, 1946-2008. Journal of Peace Research, 46(4), 577–587.
Hathaway, O. (2003). The cost of commitment. Stanford law Review, 55(5), 1821–1862.
Hathaway, O. (2005). Between power and principle: An integrated theory of international law. The University of Chicaco law Review, 72(2), 469–536.
Hazelzet, H. (2005). Suspension of development cooperation: An instrument to promote human rights and democracy? The European Centre for Development Policy Management, August. http://global.wisc.edu/development/resources/clayton-hazelzet.pdf.
Hill, D. (2010). Estimating the effects of human rights treaties on state behavior. Journal of Politics, 72(4), 1161–1174.
Holland, M. (2002). The European Union and the third world. New York: Palgrave.
Hyde, S. D. (2011). The pseudo-Democrat's dilemma: Why election monitoring became an international norm. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1–24.
Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (1995). The promise of institutionalist theory. International Security, 20(1), 39–51.
Kim, H., & Sikkink, K. (2010). Explaining the deterrence effect of human rights prosecutions for transitional countries. International Studies Quarterly, 54, 939–963.
King, G., Zeng, L. (2007). When can history be our guide? The pitfalls of counterfactual inference. International Studies Quarterly, 51(1), 183–210.
Kreutz, J. (2005). Hard measures by a soft power? Sanctions policy of the European Union 1981–2004. Bonn International Center for Conversion. http://www.bicc.de/uploads/tx_bicctools/paper45.pdf.
Kreutz, J. (2015). Human rights, Geostrategy, and EU foreign policy, 1989-2008. International Organization, 69, 195–217.
Leonard, M. (2005). Why Europe will run the 21st century. London: Fourth Estate.
Lumley, T., Diehr, P., Emerson, S., & Lu, C. (2002). The importance of the normality assumption in large public health datasets. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 151–169.
Lupu, Y. (2013a). Best evidence: The role of Information in domestic judicial enforcement of international human rights agreements. International Organization, 67(3), 469–503.
Lupu, Y. (2013b). The informative power of treaty commitment: Using the spatial model to address selection effects. American Journal of Political Science, 57(4), 912–925.
Lupu, Y. (2015). Legislative veto players and the effects of international human rights agreements. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 578–594.
Mackie, J., & Zinke, J. (2005). When agreement breaks down, what next? The Cotonou Agreement’s article 96 consultation procedure. The European Centre for Development Policy Management, August. http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/DP-64A-Cotonou-Agreements-Article-96-Consultation-Procedure-2005.pdf.
Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.
Manners, I. (2008). The normative ethics of the European Union. International Affairs, 84(1), 45–60.
Mbangu, L. (2005). Recent cases of article 96 consultations. The European Centre for Development Policy Management, August. http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/DP-64C-Recent-Cases-Article96-Consultations-2005.pdf.
Meernik, J., Krueger, E. L., & Poe, S. C. (1998). Testing models of U.S. foreign policy: Foreign aid during and after the cold war. Journal of Politics, 60(1), 63–85.
Miller, V. (2004). The human rights clause in the EU’s external agreements. House of Commons Library, Research Paper 04/33.
Mosley, L. (2010). Labor rights and multinational production. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Is respect for human rights rewarded? Human Rights Quarterly, 25, 510–527.
Neumayer, E. (2005). Do International human rights treaties improve respect for human rights? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(6), 925–953.
Nielsen, R. A. (2013). Rewarding human rights? Selective aid sanctions against repressive states. International Studies Quarterly, 57, 791–803.
Orbie, J. (2011). Promoting labour standards through trade: Normative power or regulatory state Europe? In R. G. Whitman (Ed.), Normative power Europe: Empirical and theoretical Perspectives (pp. 161–184). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Piron, L.-H. (2005). Integrating human rights into development: A synthesis of donor approaches and experiences. Overseas Development Institute. Available at: https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/4404.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2017.
Poe, S. C., & Tate, C. N. (1994). Repression of human rights to personal integrity in the 1980s: A global analysis. American Political Science Review, 88(4), 853–872.
Portela, C. (2007). Aid suspensions as coercive tools? The European Union’s experience in the African-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) context. Review of European and Russian Affairs, 3(2), 38–53.
Portela, C. (2010). European Union sanctions and foreign policy: When and why do they work? New York: Routledge.
Portela, C., & Mbangu-Kiala, L. (2007). Political dialogue and human rights in the framework of the Cotonou agreement. Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union, 10 July. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2007/381397/EXPO-AFET_ET(2007)381397_EN.pdf.
Powell, E. J., & Staton, J. K. (2009). Domestic judicial institutions and human rights treaty violation. International Studies Quarterly, 53, 149–174.
Prorok, A. K., & Appel, B. J. (2014). Compliance with international humanitarian law: Democratic third parties and civilian targeting in interstate war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(4), 713–740.
Richards, D. L. (2016). The myth of Information effects in human rights data. Human Rights Quarterly, 38(2), 477–492.
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Saltnes, J. D. (2013). The EU’s human rights policy: Unpacking the literature on the EU’s implementation of aid conditionality. ARENA Centre for European Studies, March. http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-publications/workingpapers/working-papers2013/wp2-13.pdf.
Schnakenberg, K. E., & Fariss, C. J. (2014). Dynamic patterns of human rights practices. Political Science Research and Methods, 2(01), 1–31.
Schrodt, P. A. (2014). Seven deadly sins of contemporary quantitative political analysis. Journal of Peace Research, 51(2), 287–300.
Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law and domestic politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, K. E. (1998). The use of political conditionality in the EU's relations with third countries: How effective? European Foreign Affairs Review, 3, 253–274.
Spilker, G., & Böhmelt, T. (2013). The impact of preferential trade agreements on governmental repression Revisited. Review of International Organizations, 8, 343–361.
Szymanski, M., & Smith, M. E. (2005). Coherence and conditionality in European foreign policy: Negotiating the EU–Mexico global agreement. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(1), 171–192.
Von Stein, J. (2015). Making Promises, keeping Promises: Democracy, ratification and compliance in international human rights law. British Journal of Political Science forthcoming (published online as FirstView).
Whitman, R. G. (2011). Normative power Europe: Empirical and theoretical Perspectives, Palgrave studies in European Union. Politics: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wu, C.-H. (2013). The evolution of EU-ASEAN relations: Legal framework and policy change. National Taiwan University law Review, 8(2), 329–372.
Youngs, R. (2004). Normative dynamics and strategic interests in the EU’s external identity. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(2), 415–435.
Zimelis, A. (2011). Conditionality and the EU-ACP Partnership: A misguided approach to development? Australian Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 389–406.
About this article
Cite this article
Donno, D., Neureiter, M. Can human rights conditionality reduce repression? Examining the European Union’s economic agreements. Rev Int Organ 13, 335–357 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-017-9283-2
- Human rights
- European Union
- Foreign aid
- International law