study human rights mainstreaming in eu's external relations - EIUC

DG EXPO Policy Department
By the end of 2004, training had continued and fact sheets had been prepared. By linking
with country desks, delegations and heads of mission, the human rights unit has proactively
tried to re-focus political dialogues around human rights issues. In some cases, human rights
dialogues have contributed to the mainstreaming of human rights within wider regional
strategies, as in the case of Central Asia.
In this respect, what the EU has achieved is considerable. Putting in place mainstreaming is
not an easy task for the EU. Eventually, it is more difficult for the EU than the UN, due to the
quasi-federal nature of the EU and the complexities and different interplays of competences
and functions of actors which characterise the different policies related to external relations,
from the CFSP to, potentially, the external dimensions of first and third pillar actions. Overall,
the clearest achievements have been made concerning the ‘political’ dimension of human
rights mainstreaming (mainstreaming human rights into political dialogues and the
implementation of some thematic human rights guidelines). On the other hand, human
rights mainstreaming has seemed to be less satisfactory in specific thematic areas, such as
the area of development cooperation, where in fact the UN has so far seemed to have
pursued a more consistent human rights-based approach. Starting from this very general
assessment, in the following more specific shortcomings and points of ambiguity are
identified.
Mainstreaming all human rights
There appears to be a tension between the EU commitment to all human rights and the
almost exclusive focus on specific sets and issues of human rights, usually related to civil and
political rights. This emerges, for example, in the tools for mainstreaming. On the one hand,
the EU reaffirms in many instances the principle of indivisibility and interdependence of
human rights. It also considers that, within human rights dialogues, the partner country
accession to all main human rights treaties, including the covenant on economic, social and
cultural rights, should be a matter of discussion. On the other, when discussing, for example,
the practical arrangements for human rights dialogues, the Council urges that the countries
involved in the dialogues should include in their delegations “representatives of the various
institutions and Ministries responsible for human rights matters, such as Justice and Interior
Ministries, the police, prison administration, etc.” 84 without, in fact, naming any ministry or
body concerned with social and economic policies, or cultural issues. The same priority to
civil and political rights is evident also in relation to the EIDHR. Within objective 1, for
example, the activities to be supported cover almost exclusively the core ‘rights to freedom’
of thought, religion, expression, information, association and movement. Also the four areas
of activity within objective 2 focus overwhelmingly on rights complementing liberal
democratic regimes.
Overall, what seems to lack is a more comprehensive consideration of human rights that
includes economic, social and cultural rights. This could explain why the ‘socio-economic’
dimension of human rights mainstreaming has been less emphasised. The training materials
provided by the Commission are heavily focused on the above-mentioned ‘political’
dimension of mainstreaming, including the human rights guidelines. This is certainly
84 Council of the European Union (2001) “European Union guidelines on Human Rights dialogues”,
para.7
42