News
BackThe Committee on International Trade INTA of the European Parliament invited Lorand Bartels, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Cambridge to present his results and recommendations on human rights clauses in trade and investment agreements. It became obvious that there is still a long way to go until human rights are not only theoretically enshrined in trade agreements, but also applied in practice.
The clauses are not the problem, but their implementation
Human rights clauses have been part of trade and investment agreements of the EU for 20 years now. As a rule, these clauses do not guarantee specific human rights, but in very general terms the fundamental human rights and democratic principles, as they are, among other, laid down in the UN Human Rights Charter. From Bartels’ point of view, an expert in this field, this does make sense, as these are very broad in any case. Bartels also does not regard it as critical whether human rights clauses are enshrined in trade agreements directly or in framework agreements, as long as they do not lose their binding effect. In this context, he also pointed out the necessity to ensure in the currently negotiated agreement with India that a clause enshrined in the framework agreement would be sufficiently linked with the actual agreement to ensure its binding effect.
Hence, the problem lies not with the clauses themselves but with their implementation. It is exactly this issue where Lorand Bartels places his recommendations.
Right to veto for civil society and trade unions
The recommendations state among other that in future the Commission shall provide the European Parliament with a report on the Human rights situation every two years; another request is that various bodies, for example the European Parliament, but also civil society organisations or trade unions, shall be able to initiate a review. Such a review would ensure that human rights clauses are not only implied more frequently but also in accordance with their actual meaning and purpose. In the past, it has often been the case that they were used as a political tool, but not to actually protect human rights.
The expert made a further important point by explaining that not only human rights outside trade agreements were the issue, but that they were frequently undermined by these agreements themselves. For example, the obligation to liberalise the water sector could put the human right to clean drinking water at risk. Bartels therefore demanded that there had to be options for unilateral measures by the states involved if the implementation of a trade agreement would have a negative impact on the human rights situation.
The following debate of the MEPs, lead by Conservative British Members, dealt in particular with the question whether trade policy and human rights should be linked at all. Lorand Bartels pointed out that it was also in the interest of the EU to enshrine human rights in trade agreements. This was not only about taking a moral standpoint, but the issue was to ensure that all states involved would act in compliance with the same human rights standards.
Human rights clauses have been part of trade and investment agreements of the EU for 20 years now. As a rule, these clauses do not guarantee specific human rights, but in very general terms the fundamental human rights and democratic principles, as they are, among other, laid down in the UN Human Rights Charter. From Bartels’ point of view, an expert in this field, this does make sense, as these are very broad in any case. Bartels also does not regard it as critical whether human rights clauses are enshrined in trade agreements directly or in framework agreements, as long as they do not lose their binding effect. In this context, he also pointed out the necessity to ensure in the currently negotiated agreement with India that a clause enshrined in the framework agreement would be sufficiently linked with the actual agreement to ensure its binding effect.
Hence, the problem lies not with the clauses themselves but with their implementation. It is exactly this issue where Lorand Bartels places his recommendations.
Right to veto for civil society and trade unions
The recommendations state among other that in future the Commission shall provide the European Parliament with a report on the Human rights situation every two years; another request is that various bodies, for example the European Parliament, but also civil society organisations or trade unions, shall be able to initiate a review. Such a review would ensure that human rights clauses are not only implied more frequently but also in accordance with their actual meaning and purpose. In the past, it has often been the case that they were used as a political tool, but not to actually protect human rights.
The expert made a further important point by explaining that not only human rights outside trade agreements were the issue, but that they were frequently undermined by these agreements themselves. For example, the obligation to liberalise the water sector could put the human right to clean drinking water at risk. Bartels therefore demanded that there had to be options for unilateral measures by the states involved if the implementation of a trade agreement would have a negative impact on the human rights situation.
The following debate of the MEPs, lead by Conservative British Members, dealt in particular with the question whether trade policy and human rights should be linked at all. Lorand Bartels pointed out that it was also in the interest of the EU to enshrine human rights in trade agreements. This was not only about taking a moral standpoint, but the issue was to ensure that all states involved would act in compliance with the same human rights standards.