Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'The European Union and the external dimension of human rights policy` (97/C 206/21)

On 11 July 1996 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on 'The European Union and the external dimension of human rights policy`.

The Section for External Relations, Trade and Development Policy, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 April 1997 by a majority vote, with one vote against and three abstentions. The rapporteur was Mr Etty.

At its 345th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 89 votes to 10 with 14 abstentions.

1. Introduction

The principal aim of this opinion is to indicate what, in the ESC's view, should be the main thrust of a coherent, consistent EU human rights policy. The Committee also calls for the key elements of this policy to be the subject of wider debate in Europe than has hitherto been the case.

An important basic principle which the ESC feels should be applied here is that internal and external human rights policies should be firmly linked. The opinion thus pays considerable attention to this link. This represents an undisguised attempt to kill two birds with one stone by issuing an opinion on both the internal and external aspects of human rights policy. The comments on internal human rights policy have deliberately been couched in general terms and are always governed by what is considered necessary in the context of the EU's external human rights policy.

Moreover, if the EU's human rights policy is to be both consistent and coherent, clearer links must be established between EU policy and the policies of the Member States in this field. The question of whether human rights policy should be determined at intergovernmental level or EU level cannot remain undecided for very much longer. The ESC inclines towards (ultimately) opting for a policy determined at EU level, provided that adequate democratic control can be ensured.

Finally, the ESC would reiterate that, however important the EU may by now have become as a political and economic player on the world stage, if it wishes to create a better environment for the observance of basic human rights in the world, it should, in collaboration with the Member States, continue to seek to strengthen the United Nations.

Within these main guidelines, the ESC opinion puts forward a number of concrete proposals in respect of short-, medium- and long-term human rights policy.

2. General observations

2.1. Precisely because the political and economic importance of the EU on the world stage has increased to such a large extent and also in view of the enhanced standing of human rights as a factor in both the EU's internal and external policy, as set out in the Treaty of Maastricht, the Commission took the right course of action in deciding at the end of 1995 to address the issue of the external dimension of the EU's human rights policy (see COM(95) 567 final).

2.2. The survey set out in the Commission's Communication to the EU Council and the European Parliament, of the progress made to-date in the EU's human rights policy looks at the principles, priorities and instruments involved and provides the Economic and Social Committee with a welcome opportunity to undertake an initial, comprehensive assessment of this policy.

2.3. The Commission's Communication clearly indicates what the Commission regards as the EU's most important tasks in the short and medium term, the new issues which it wants to address and the most important strategic options to be pursued in order to improve both the consistency and the results of EU human rights policy.

2.4. The Commission document lacks clear, strategic guidelines for the implementation of a coherent human rights policy. The ESC has the impression that EU policy to date has generally been determined on a case-by-case basis. Be this as it may, the fundamentals of this policy have never been the subject of a public debate. The ESC takes the view that such a debate is indeed highly necessary and that the abovementioned guidelines need to be spelt out; needless to say, they must continue to ensure adequate flexibility with regard to the policy.

2.5. The document sets out a large number of declarations and intentions which are primarily of a general, fundamental nature. This is, in the ESC's view, understandable given that this is the Commission's first report on the subject. The ESC however hopes and expects that, in the not too distant future, the Commission will issue a more specific, detailed document which does more than set out guidelines for the work to be carried out by the Commission during its mandate, as is the case with the above-mentioned Communication.

2.6. It is noticeable that the Communication skates over the question of the link between the EU's internal and external human rights policy. It is logical for the communication to address the external dimension of EU human rights policy. The internal and external aspects of this policy cannot, however, be addressed separately. This point must be taken into consideration not only in respect of the consistency of the policy. It is also important for the EU to establish a clear link between both arms of its human rights policy, with an eye to achieving its policy objectives in respect of non-EU countries, even if this only involves being asked to take a stand on values on which it challenges other countries and calls upon them to respect.

2.7. No attention whatsoever is paid to the linkage between the human rights policy of the EU and that of its Member States, both as regards the policy pursued in the past and that to be pursued in the period for which the Commission communication has set out guidelines.

2.8. The key issue which unfortunately continues to receive too little attention is how the EU is to take decisions on human rights policy in the future.

2.9. The EU cannot pursue an effective human rights policy in isolation. Proper implementation of the UN's monitoring mechanism is one of the first prerequisites for protecting human rights at worldwide level. The EU and its Member States should therefore make an effort in the next few years to secure improvements in UN procedures in respect of reports, complaints and investigations and the 'charter-based` procedures. Endeavours must be made to achieve a high level agreement with the UN in respect of a number of the activities pursued by the EU.

3. Specific observations

3.1. Linkage between the internal and external human rights policies of the EU

3.1.1. All EU Member States are currently in fact already signatories to the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The ESC takes the view that it is desirable to strengthen the EU's internal human rights policy with a view to consolidating the corresponding external policy. There would appear to be three ways to strengthen the EU's internal human rights policy: EU accession to the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; the drawing-up of the EU's own 'bill of rights`; and incorporation of a number of specific provisions on human rights in a protocol to the EU Treaty.

3.1.2. The communication deals briefly with the first option, without taking a clear stance on the matter. In the meantime, a European Court of Justice opinion, issued on 28 March 1996, stated that the only way in which the EU could accede to the abovementioned European convention would be by amending the EC Treaty.

The ESC considers that, in the light of the Court of Justice opinion, the governments of the Member States, which have all ratified the European Convention, must seek to ensure that sooner or later a provision is incorporated into the EC Treaty empowering the EC to accede to the above Convention.

As things stand at present, it is very unlikely that a consensus can be reached between the Member States on this matter. There are also a large number of legal obstacles to EU/EC accession to the European Convention. The European Court of Justice has not yet given its views on this matter. The upshot of all this is that accession is not an option for the foreseeable future.

3.1.3. The second possibility is to draw up an EU 'Bill of Rights` incorporating not only civil and political rights (as is the case with the abovementioned European Convention) but also economic, social and cultural rights, as laid down in, inter alia, the European Social Charter ().

Such a Bill of Rights should not of course prejudice the rights laid down in the above European Convention and the European Social Charter.

A Bill of Rights can be established in one of two ways:

- by including of a provision in the EC Treaty committing the Community to establish such a bill; or

- an existing model could be incorporated in a protocol to the EU Treaty. The declaration on human rights drawn up by the European Parliament could be an appropriate model.

This option, too, is probably more of a longer-term option. It is likely that much time and discussion will be taken up with the choice of the fundamental rights to be set out in the Bill, their field of application, the precise status of the instrument and the precise definition of the rights.

The ESC hopes that the Commission will succeed in translating the debate on this long-term objective into a concrete policy as soon as possible.

3.1.4. As it does not look as if comprehensive measures will be introduced in the short term to strengthen the EU's internal human rights policy, the ESC proposes that a number of specific human rights provisions be incorporated in the new protocol to the Treaty of Maastricht. This covers not only provisions to give more detailed effect to the principles of equality and non-discrimination as part of the campaign against racism and xenophobia, currently under discussion in the IGC, but also the inclusion of (a) a number of economic and social rights listed in the declaration made at the Council of Ministers' meeting in Luxembourg in 1991 and (b) economic and social rights enshrined in a number of human rights conventions drawn up by the International Labour Organization (ILO) (Conventions 29 and 105 on forced labour, Conventions 87 and 98 on the freedom of association and to engage in collective bargaining and Convention 111 on discrimination in respect of employment and occupation, which outlaws discrimination on grounds of race, skin colour, religion, gender, political views, nationality and social origin). The ESC also has in mind provisions to outlaw trafficking in human beings and the most exploitative and dangerous forms of child labour. The Committee also favours provisions to strengthen the rights of children, particularly in respect of education and training ().

3.2. Principles, activities and instruments so far provided for under the policy

3.2.1. It goes without saying that the ESC categorically and unreservedly endorses the principles on which the EU human rights policy is based (universal and indivisible human rights and the interdependence between human rights, democracy and development). The EU Member States were signatories to the Final Declaration and the Action Programme adopted at the UN's second world conference on human rights, held in Vienna in June 1993. The ESC therefore assumes that EU human rights policy will be developed in accordance with the policy agreed in Vienna.

The ESC also endorses the Commission's view as regards the policy implications of these principles, in particular in respect of the relative nature of the principle of 'non-interference`; the expression, in whatever way, of concern over the violation of human rights and the insistence on these rights being respected cannot be regarded as interference in the internal affairs of a state - these subjects are an important, legitimate part of dialogue with non-EU states. The ESC also takes the view that, in discussions of human rights problems with non-EU states, the EU must take full account of the major political, economic, social, cultural and religious differences between the various countries in the world, of the time which may be required to bring national practices into line with international standards, and of the specific needs of some states; this is necessary to enable these differences to be catered for when possible solutions are being discussed; such talks need to be hallmarked not only by care and mutual respect but also by a spirit of criticism and openness.

3.2.2. The IGC has been asked to consider whether common foreign and security policy should be an intergovernmental or a Community policy. This issue is of course closely bound up with the question of whether or not decisions would be taken on the basis of a unanimous vote.

The common foreign and security policy is, on paper at least, a twin-track policy; it is based primarily on an intergovernmental approach, but there is a move towards a Community approach.

The ESC would like to see the Commission examine the long-term possibilities as regards the partial extension to human rights promotion of majority voting in respect of the issues of common foreign and security policy. Such a step would only be possible if considerable progress were made beforehand in bringing about greater democracy in the EU, in particular by granting the European Parliament full joint legislative and monitoring powers. The advantages of majority-voting in respect of human rights policy are clear: the attainment of a uniform, consistent policy; the combining of forces; external recognition of the EU as an economic and political block; and greater effectiveness of EU work.

3.2.3. As regards the EU's specific activities, it has in the last few years rightly paid considerable attention to vulnerable groups and the social protection of these groups. The ESC hopes that the EU will continue to place emphasis on these points in its future policy.

3.2.4. In the agreements which it has concluded with third countries, the EU has also rightly sought to pursue a twin-track approach to promoting respect for human rights: on the one hand, it has taken positive steps to encourage greater respect for fundamental human rights in partner countries, whilst, on the other hand, being ready to apply sanctions as a last resort. The ESC hopes that this approach, combined with moves to base EU external human rights policy more clearly on its internal human rights policy, will help to enshrine dialogue as a means of solving the problems which have arisen.

The ESC notes that agreements with third countries do not yet include adequate arrangements for monitoring compliance with human rights clauses. The establishment of such monitoring arrangements may in future make an important contribution to the creation of an EU human rights policy. An initial and very important prerequisite in this respect is to compile a system of annual reports, which would normally be available to the public, on the human rights situations in all states with which the EU has concluded agreements or is to conclude agreements. Information can be collated by the EU's representatives in the various states. This presupposes that EU officials receive adequate training in this field. Use may also be made of material obtained from bodies representing the Member States, independent investigative bodies and non-governmental organizations.

3.2.5. The ESC shares the Commission's view that the ILO's human rights conventions are important instruments of human rights policy.

The ESC is however surprised to note that the rights enshrined in ILO Convention No 111, dealing with discrimination in respect of employment and occupation, are not included amongst the social rights which the Commission states it wishes to promote in the context of bilateral relations. It is very important that the EU clearly indicates that it is consistent in its desire to secure improved observance of all five of the ILO conventions on basic human rights, including the outlawing of discrimination on grounds of race, colour, religion, gender, political views, nationality and social origin.

Furthermore, the ESC does not share the Commission's (apparent) view that international labour standards drawn up by the ILO are either exclusively or mainly of relevance in the context of bilateral or multilateral trade relations. The ESC takes the view that there is much more scope for EU-ILO cooperation in the field of human rights in a way which ties in well with the objectives of EU policy. A case in point here is the technical cooperation and practical support which the ILO (with its unique tripartite structure) can give the EU in its efforts to strengthen democracy and human rights in the world. Particular attention should be paid to the problems of indigenous peoples (regarded by the Commission as one of the special target groups of EU human rights policy). The only international agreements to protect indigenous people are the conventions draw up by the ILO.

3.3. Future policy

3.3.1. The Commission rightly attaches considerable importance to preventive aspects of its policy to promote human rights and democratic principles. The ESC both hopes and expects that the EU will work closely with the UN and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in this area. The EU and its Member States must work for strengthening and reform of the UN and its agencies. Such an approach would be in accordance with the positive stance towards the UN and the OSCE demonstrated by the Commission in its policy review. Such an approach also need not jeopardize the transparency of EU human rights policy, which the Commission regards as an important strategic consideration.

3.3.2. On the subject of the consistency and effectiveness of EU human rights policy, the ESC would reiterate the need for closer links between the work of the EU and that of the Member States in this field. The Commission does not go much further than simply expressing the desire for improvements in the exchange of information. It must surely be possible, however, in the field of (aspects of) human rights policy to coordinate policy on a regular basis and to achieve a degree of work-sharing (e.g. in relations with international bodies). In this context reference is made once again to the abovementioned recommendation with regard to drawing-up of reports on the human rights situation in countries with which the EU concludes agreements (see point 3.2.4 above). A more ambitious - but in the long term necessary - step is the introduction of assessment arrangements for EU human rights policy.

Efforts must also be made to make the human rights policy more cohesive - up to now it has been implemented in a rather fragmented way (e.g. in relation to peace and security, economic policy and policy on development cooperation).

3.3.3. In the ESC's view, the Commission should, in the section dealing with strengthening and broadening the scope of EU instruments, state that the EU wishes to make a distinct contribution to the campaign to achieve (still) broader ratification of the ILO Conventions on basic human rights. This campaign was triggered by the social affairs' summit, organized by the UN in 1994, and given added impulse by the World Trade Organization ministerial conference held in Singapore last December (). The EU should also seek to promote the establishment of a special complaints procedure to deal with violations of ILO Conventions 29 and 105 on forced labour and Convention 111 on discrimination; this procedure could be based on the 'freedom of association procedure` introduced by the ILO in respect of Conventions 87 and 98 dealing with the most important freedoms to join trade unions.

The Commission already supported both these measures in its communication, dated 19 July 1996, to the Council on the subject of the WTO conference ('The trading system and internationally recognized labour standards`).

In both these campaigns there is also a need for a careful division of tasks between the Commission and the Member States.

3.3.4. A policy to promote the rule of law, democracy and human rights will almost always be a long-term matter. Furthermore, we are regrettably in all likelihood not dealing here with occasional cases in which these values are under threat. Vast sums of money may be at stake. For the Committee this is a further reason to urge the EU to coordinate its policy effectively with that of the UN. If the EU is clearly seen to be adopting a multilateral approach, this would put it in a strong position to secure greater acceptance for such a stand from those Member States which are major contributors to the UN budget.

3.3.4.1. The Commission document ignores involvement of non-governmental players, such as enterprises, in infringements of human rights. In the ESC's view this matter should be discussed between the Commission and the business world; discussions should cover the observance of particular rules of conduct - in countries accused of systematic and sustained violation of basic human rights - by enterprises which operate at international level and have registered offices in an EU Member State. The ESC wishes to be involved in the formulation of Commission views on this subject.

The ESC is closely following the debate on the social responsibilities of enterprises and has noted with interest the codes of conduct drawn up by a large number of enterprises in respect of their activities; these codes of conduct frequently also make reference to human rights. The Committee feels that these codes could best be framed via cooperation and negotiations between the social partners, as this would be a more effective guarantee of consistent conduct and the commitment of all players in achieving the declared objectives. The ESC welcomes the fact that enterprises have set out guidelines for their conduct but would point out that if hundreds of enterprises draw up all sorts of differing codes of conduct, a very disorderly situation will arise. An important point which needs to be raised in this context is how the observance of these codes is to be monitored. The ESC strongly urges that enterprises expressly link their codes of conduct to the codes of conduct for multinational enterprises drawn up a considerable time ago by the OECD and the ILO.

3.3.5. The ESC takes the view that the EU (working in close cooperation with the Member States) should seek to bring about improved cooperation between the international bodies dealing with human rights policy or whose activities may have an impact on the human rights situation in those countries in which they operate. The incorporation in international trade agreements (in particular agreements within the framework of the WTO) of a social clause aimed at promoting respect for basic social rights is one potential area for cooperation, but it is certainly neither the only example nor the most significant one. The EU Member States should make a special effort to alert the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to the need to observe basic human rights in the context of economic reform processes initiated by these two bodies in conjunction with governments.

The ESC also strongly endorses the Commission's intention of continuing to promote the work of NGOs in the field of human rights and of cooperating with these bodies. This constitutes a valuable complement to the role which the organizations represented at the ESC (employers, workers and others) are already fulfilling in this area and wish to go on fulfilling in the future, preferably in collaboration with their counterparts in the non-EU states concerned, e.g. by participating in the implementation of the relevant projects. The ESC is interested in the Commission's conception of the role which NGOs could play in (a) monitoring the human rights situation in states with which the EU has concluded agreements (see point 3.2.4 above) and (b) promoting awareness of human rights in those states.

The Committee thinks it important for the EU to support the gradual adoption of economic measures by local players in countries where production operations and services are being set up with EU financial assistance. The Committee is aware that a development of this kind, designed to promote greater autonomy for the social partners, provides an opportunity for more public involvement in public life and is a tool capable of helping significantly to protect and promote human rights in the future.

3.3.6. Finally, the ESC would like to put forward three practical proposals for measures which the EU could take in the context of its short and medium-term human rights policy. These proposals are as follows: the establishment of an advisory body; the publication of a 'Human rights reference handbook` and joint action to counteract attempts by third countries to make agreements subject to qualifications.

3.3.7. The ESC calls upon the Commission to examine the scope for establishing a European advisory committee on human rights. The governments of some EU Member States have already set up such independent advisory bodies.

The ESC wishes to be involved in the implementation of this proposal. Such a committee could help to pinpoint problems and formulate solutions for possible incorporation in the future development of human rights policy.

3.3.8. Under the previous Netherlands presidency of the EU, the initial decision was taken to publish a 'Human rights reference handbook`. The book was published by the British presidency of the Council. The book, which was both descriptive and practical, was very well received and is still widely consulted. The publication of a revised, updated version would certainly fulfil a need. Attention should be paid in particular to developments which have taken place in the EU's common human rights policy since 1992.

3.3.9. Initial cautious attempts are being made in the EU to agree on joint action to counteract fundamental reservations put forward by third countries in respect of international human rights agreements. Such reservations certainly do not help to strengthen international legal standards.

The ESC approves the line pursued by the EU and its Member States in this field. It calls for steps to be taken to identify (a) the procedure which is being applied or should be applied and (b) the EU body which should take the lead in any action which may be taken in this field.

Brussels, 24 April 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() See: for a Europe of Civic and Social Rights. Final Report - March 1996, Report by the Comité des Sages chaired by Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo.

() See the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990).

() In this context it should be noted that Ireland, Britain and Luxembourg have still not ratified ILO Convention 111. All the other EU states have ratified the five ILO Conventions on basic human rights.