documents, they appear to be less consistently implemented in sector interventions. It can be concluded that the incorporation of human rights into the formulation of sector programmes under the two largest development instruments of the EU appears to be strongly biased towards interventions in the areas of governance, democratization and justice. In other words, the mainstreaming of human rights throughout all sectors is far from realised according to the planned work. Furthermore, it is relevant to stress that the sectors with the most important economic implications, i.e. agriculture, energy, and infrastructure, are also the sectors where human rights principles are found at a very modest level.
A general conclusion is therefore that the synergy envisaged between human rights planning and economic development is modest, in some cases non-existent. A low and very modest overlap exists between economic programming and human rights. The study also indicates that economic and social rights are much more weakly present in programming compared to justice and governance efforts.
Finally, the case studies indicate, as far as results-based management planning is concerned, that human rights objectives and indicators are present with some strength in the governance sector, while less so in the socioeconomic sector programs. Overall, this chapter confirms a general finding of the previous mapping, namely that human rights are unevenly and inconsistently integrated into economic and social planning. Economic factors are hardly fostering strong human rights concerns in the EU external development action and planning.
Chapter VI on legal factors focuses on the protection of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) in military operations and missions carried out under EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). It is clearly laid down in the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) that the EU in its relations with third States shall contribute to the protection of human rights and that EU’s action on the international scene shall be guided by international law and human rights.
The EU is currently involved in 16 ongoing CSDP missions and operations, consisting of eleven civilian and five military missions and operations. In line with the strong emphasis in the TEU on protecting human rights and international law in the EU’s relations with third States, the EU has adopted a large number of operational policy documents on the protection of IHRL and IHL in CDSP military (and civil) operations and missions. Hence, it is clear that EU-led military forces from a policy view shall comply with IHRL and IHL standards when engaged in military missions and operations in third States. However, from a legal point of view it remains much more unclear whether EU-led military forces are required to respect and protect the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and IHL and IHRL standards when involved in military operations in third States.
The chapter identifies two legal factors that undermine the protection of IHL and IHRL in EU-led military operations in third States. First, the precise scope and content of IHL and IHRL obligations of EU-led military operations is unclear in law as well as in policy documents. Uncertainty as to which IHL and IHRL obligations EU-led military forces shall respect and protect in military operations in third States hinders the effective protection of IHL and IHRL. Secondly, publicly available EU human rights policy documents for CSDP military operations and missions have mainly focused on the promotion of IHRL and IHL in third States – by third States themselves – rather than on the EU’s and EU-led military forces’ own compliance with IHL and IHRL standards when involved in CSDP missions and operations in third States. Such
incoherence between the policy towards third States and EU/Member States is a legal factor that might hinder the effectiveness of EU human rights policies. The chapter recommends that the EU considers the possibility of ratifying additional IHRL and IHL conventions relevant in CSDP military operations and missions, including the four Geneva conventions and the two optional protocols from 1977.
Furthermore, it is recommended that the EU further specifies and clarifies in an operational policy document which IHL and IHRL standards EU-led military forces shall comply with during military (and civil) CSDP missions and operations in third States and how these – potentially conflicting – standards should interrelate in different scenarios. Finally, it is recommended that the EU initiate a review of how IHL and IHRL have been integrated into and protected during past and ongoing EU-led military operations in third States with a view to identify lessons learned and good practice which can be integrated into future EU-led military operations and reflected in mission specific operational documents.
not binding, and that EU staff is not consistently trained to deal with the immense complexity presented by religious values and policies. Another example is found in chapter V on economic factors where it is demonstrated that, while the key principles of rights-based development are widely mentioned in EU policy documents they appear to be less consistently implemented in actual sector interventions. A third example is mentioned in chapter II on anti-discrimination where it is demonstrated that EU and Member States’ delegations use different anti-discrimination and equality standards and that there is an uneven integration of anti-discrimination principles in different EU policy fields.
Second, the study of the five selected factors confirms and deepens the impression gained from report D 2.1., namely that there often appears to be incoherence between the EU’s internal and external human rights policies. It is remarkable that the TEU consistently uses the term ‘human rights’ when describing the EU’s relationship with third States, whereas the term ‘fundamental rights’ is used when describing human rights within the EU. Furthermore, the guidelines and policies on how to ensure protection of human rights in third States seem to be more elaborated than policies on the protection and promotion of human rights within the EU. An example is found in chapter VI on legal factors and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operations in third States. While operational CSDP policy documents on how to ensure that third States comply with human rights – and the measures the EU can take in this regard – are detailed and comprehensive, the policy documents on how to ensure that EU-led military forces comply with human rights standards appear to be brief, general and superficial.
Another example is found in chapter IV on religious factors, where it is shown that the EU in its external guidelines has adopted a progressive and comprehensive interpretation of freedom of religion and protection of religious minorities, whereas there is no common line on religious affairs in the EU’s internal policies and the EU has been unable to agree on a directive covering anti-discrimination vis-à-vis religion. Chapter II and III on anti-discrimination likewise demonstrate incoherence between the EU’s internal and external policies. Different grounds and areas of discrimination are considered and implemented in external compared to internal policies and laws.
The inconsistent and incoherent implementation of the EU’s human rights policies, as has been documented in this report through the in-depth studies of the five selected factors, can potentially undermine the effective protection of human rights both within the EU and in the EU’ external policies in third States.
At an overall level it is recommended that the EU takes measures to ensure a more effective and consistent implementation of its human rights polices and that the identified incoherence between the EU’s internal and external human rights policies is reduced. Chapter II-VI comprise, as described, concrete examples of inconsistent and incoherent EU policies related to the studied factors and topics and recommend specific initiatives the EU could undertake with a view to further a more consistent and coherent EU human rights policy in relation to the studied factor and topic.
not binding, and that EU staff is not consistently trained to deal with the immense complexity presented by religious values and policies. Another example is found in chapter V on economic factors where it is demonstrated that, while the key principles of rights-based development are widely mentioned in EU policy documents they appear to be less consistently implemented in actual sector interventions. A third example is mentioned in chapter II on anti-discrimination where it is demonstrated that EU and Member States’ delegations use different anti-discrimination and equality standards and that there is an uneven integration of anti-discrimination principles in different EU policy fields.
Second, the study of the five selected factors confirms and deepens the impression gained from report D 2.1., namely that there often appears to be incoherence between the EU’s internal and external human rights policies. It is remarkable that the TEU consistently uses the term ‘human rights’ when describing the EU’s relationship with third States, whereas the term ‘fundamental rights’ is used when describing human rights within the EU. Furthermore, the guidelines and policies on how to ensure protection of human rights in third States seem to be more elaborated than policies on the protection and promotion of human rights within the EU. An example is found in chapter VI on legal factors and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operations in third States. While operational CSDP policy documents on how to ensure that third States comply with human rights – and the measures the EU can take in this regard – are detailed and comprehensive, the policy documents on how to ensure that EU-led military forces comply with human rights standards appear to be brief, general and superficial.
Another example is found in chapter IV on religious factors, where it is shown that the EU in its external guidelines has adopted a progressive and comprehensive interpretation of freedom of religion and protection of religious minorities, whereas there is no common line on religious affairs in the EU’s internal policies and the EU has been unable to agree on a directive covering anti-discrimination vis-à-vis religion. Chapter II and III on anti-discrimination likewise demonstrate incoherence between the EU’s internal and external policies. Different grounds and areas of discrimination are considered and implemented in external compared to internal policies and laws.
The inconsistent and incoherent implementation of the EU’s human rights policies, as has been documented in this report through the in-depth studies of the five selected factors, can potentially undermine the effective protection of human rights both within the EU and in the EU’ external policies in third States.
At an overall level it is recommended that the EU takes measures to ensure a more effective and consistent implementation of its human rights polices and that the identified incoherence between the EU’s internal and external human rights policies is reduced. Chapter II-VI comprise, as described, concrete examples of inconsistent and incoherent EU policies related to the studied factors and topics and recommend specific initiatives the EU could undertake with a view to further a more consistent and coherent EU human rights policy in relation to the studied factor and topic.
Bibliography
The following pages contain selected bibliographies for each chapter of the report. For full bibliographies, please refer to the table below.
Anti-discrimination and the European External Action Service – Case study on how an EU body addresses social factors that hinder the
protection of human rights
Page 28
Ethnic factors and EU internal policies of
non-discrimination and equality Page 53
Religious factors: Religious minorities under
pressure Page 84
The nature and consistency of human rights
integration in EU external country strategies Page 113 Legal factors: A case-study on international
human rights and international humanitarian law in EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy missions
Page 146
1. Introduction
Lassen, E. M. et al., Report on factors which enable or hinder the protection of human rights (FP7 FRAME Deliverable 2.1, European Union 2014).
2. Anti-discrimination and the European External Action Service – Case study on how an EU body addresses social factors that hinder the protection of human rights
Bell, M., ‘The Implementation of European Anti-Discrimination Directives: Converging towards a Common Model?’ (2008) 79:1 The Political Quarterly 36-44.
De Búrca, G., ‘Stumbling into Experimentalism: The EU Anti-Discrimination Regime’ in Sabel, C. F. and Zeitlin, J. (eds.), Experimentalist Governance in the European Union, Towards a New Architecture (Oxford University Press 2010) 215-236.
Lensu, M., ‘Equality and Non-Discrimination in EU-External Action’ in Benedek, W., Benoît-Rohmer, F., Karl, W. and Nowak, M. (eds.), European Yearbook on Human Rights (European Academic Press 2011) 255-266.
Tobler, C., ‘Equality and Non-Discrimination under the ECHR and EU Law, A Comparison Focusing on Discrimination against LGBTI Persons’ (2014) 74:3 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 521-561.
3. Ethnic factors and EU internal policies of non-discrimination and equality
Ammer, M., Crowley, N. et al., ‘Study on Equality Bodies set up under Directives 2000/43/EC,
2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC’ (Human Rights Consultancy and Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Human Rights 2010).
Bell, M., ‘Combating racism through European laws: A comparison of the Racial Equality Directive and Protocol 12’ in Chopin. I. and Niessen, J. (eds.), Combating Racial and Ethnic Discrimination: Taking the European Legislative Agenda Further (Migration Policy Group/Commission for Racial Equality 2002a).
Brown, C., ‘The Race Directive: Towards Equality for All the Peoples of Europe?’ (2002) 21:2 Yearbook of European Law 223-238.
Equinet, ‘Equality Bodies and National Human Rights Institutions-Making the Link to Maximise Impact, An Equinet Perspective’ (The European Network of Equality Bodies 2011).
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘EU-MIDIS: European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey. Main Results Report’ (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2009)
<http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/663-FRA-2011_EU_MIDIS_EN.pdf> accessed 27 April 2015.
Simoni, A., ‘Roma and Legal Culture: Roots and Old and New Faces of a Complex Equality Issue’ (2011) 13 European Anti-Discrimination Law Review 11-19.
4. Religious factors: Religious minorities under pressure
Council of the European Union, ‘EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief’ (Foreign Affairs Council meeting 24 June 2013).
European Parliament Working Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief, ‘Annual Report 2013’ (2013).
Foret, F., Religion and Politics in the European Union: The Secular Canopy (Cambridge University Press 2015).
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief’, (Heiner Bielefeldt, United Nations, 24 December 2012) Available from
<http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/A.HRC.22.51_English.pdf> accessed 25 May 2015.
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief’ (Heiner Bielefeldt, United Nations, 26 December 2013) Available from
<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/Annual.aspx> accessed 25 May 2015.
Ventura, M., Dynamic Law and Religion in Europe. Acknowledging Change. Choosing Change, EUI Working Papers, RSCAS 2013/91 (European University Institute 2013).
3. Ethnic factors and EU internal policies of non-discrimination and equality
Ammer, M., Crowley, N. et al., ‘Study on Equality Bodies set up under Directives 2000/43/EC,
2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC’ (Human Rights Consultancy and Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Human Rights 2010).
Bell, M., ‘Combating racism through European laws: A comparison of the Racial Equality Directive and Protocol 12’ in Chopin. I. and Niessen, J. (eds.), Combating Racial and Ethnic Discrimination: Taking the European Legislative Agenda Further (Migration Policy Group/Commission for Racial Equality 2002a).
Brown, C., ‘The Race Directive: Towards Equality for All the Peoples of Europe?’ (2002) 21:2 Yearbook of European Law 223-238.
Equinet, ‘Equality Bodies and National Human Rights Institutions-Making the Link to Maximise Impact, An Equinet Perspective’ (The European Network of Equality Bodies 2011).
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘EU-MIDIS: European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey. Main Results Report’ (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2009)
<http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/663-FRA-2011_EU_MIDIS_EN.pdf> accessed 27 April 2015.
Simoni, A., ‘Roma and Legal Culture: Roots and Old and New Faces of a Complex Equality Issue’ (2011) 13 European Anti-Discrimination Law Review 11-19.
4. Religious factors: Religious minorities under pressure
Council of the European Union, ‘EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief’ (Foreign Affairs Council meeting 24 June 2013).
European Parliament Working Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief, ‘Annual Report 2013’ (2013).
Foret, F., Religion and Politics in the European Union: The Secular Canopy (Cambridge University Press 2015).
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief’, (Heiner Bielefeldt, United Nations, 24 December 2012) Available from
<http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/A.HRC.22.51_English.pdf> accessed 25 May 2015.
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief’ (Heiner Bielefeldt, United Nations, 26 December 2013) Available from
<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/Annual.aspx> accessed 25 May 2015.
Ventura, M., Dynamic Law and Religion in Europe. Acknowledging Change. Choosing Change, EUI Working Papers, RSCAS 2013/91 (European University Institute 2013).
5. The nature and consistency of human rights integration in EU external country strategies
Broberg, M., ‘From colonial power to human rights promoter: On the legal regulation of the European Union's relations with the developing countries’ (2013) 26:4 Cambridge Review of International Affairs 675-687.
D’Hollander, D., Marx, A., and Wouters, J., ‘Integrating Human Rights in EU Development Cooperation Policy: Achievements and Challenges’ (FRAME Working Paper No. 134, European Union, April 2014) Available from <http://www.fp7-frame.eu/wp-content/materiale/w-papers/WP134-DHollander-Marx-Woutersx.pdf> accessed 1 June 2015.
European Commission (2014a), ‘Commission Staff Working Document. Tool-Box A Rights-Based Approach, Encompassing all Human Rights for EU Development Cooperation’ SWD (2014) 152 final.
Hickey, S. and Mitlin, D. (eds.), Rights-Based Approaches to Development. Exploring the Potential and Pitfalls (VA: Kumarian Press 2009).
OHCHR, Frequently Asked Questions On A Human Rights-Based Approach To Development Cooperation (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2008) Available from
<http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FAQen.pdf> accessed 14 May 2015.
6. Legal factors: A case-study on international human rights and
international humanitarian law in EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy missions
Al-Skeini v. UK App no 55721/07 (ECtHR, 7 July 2011).
Council of the European Union, ‘Mainstreaming of human rights into ESDP’ (11936/4/06 Rev 4, 14 September 2006).
EEAS, ‘EU Concept for EU-led Military Operations and Missions’ (17107/14, 19 December 2014).
Moreno-Lax, V. and Costello, C., ‘The Extraterritorial Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: From Territoriality to Facticity, the Effectiveness Model’ in Peers, S., Hervey, T. K., Kenner, J., and Ward, A. (eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A commentary (Hart Publishing 2014) 1657-1685.
Naert, F., ‘Observance of international humanitarian law by forces under the command of the European Union’ (2013) International Review of the Red Cross 637-643.
Nowak, M. and Charbord, A., ‘Prohibition of Torture and Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ in Peers, S., Hervey, T. K., Kenner, J., and Ward, A. (eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A commentary (Hart Publishing 2014) 61-97.