European Union Approaches to Human Rights Violations in Kosovo before and after Independence

This article examines European Union (EU) approaches to the question of human rights violations in Kosovo before and after its proclamation of independence, in February 2008. While the 1999 NATO-led humanitarian intervention in the region was often justified as necessary due to the continuous abuses of human rights, perpetrated by the Serbian forces against the ethic Kosovo Albanians, the post-interventionist period has witnessed a dramatic reversal of roles, with the rights of the remaining Serbian minority being regularly abused by the dominant Albanian population. However, in contrast to the former scenario, the Brussels administration has remained quite salient about the post-independence context – a grey zone of unviable political and social components, capable of generating new confrontations and human rights abuses within the borders of Kosovo. Aware of this dynamic and the existing EU official rhetoric, it is possible to conclude that the embedded human rights concerns in Kosovo are not likely to disappear, but even more importantly, their relevance has been significantly eroded.

The frustrated accesion of the European Union to the European Convention of Human Rights: a brief analysis of opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice of European Union

Trabajo redactado en inglés sobre la última sentencia 2/13, del Tribunal de Justicia de Europa sobre la adhesión de la Unión Europea al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos fundamentales. Análisis de la opinión 2/13 y sus objeciones.

Mental health and human rights in forensic psychiatry in the European Union

One of the most important events which characterizes the process of transitioning to the European Union is the ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the European Council in 1950. Since then, the topic of human rights has become the inspiring principle in the construction of the European Community and afterwards the institutional apparatus which constitutes the Union. The primary objective of the European Union States currently is to promote a harmonization of the national legislations on mental health, favoring a central health policy which reduces inequalities amongst the member States. For this reason Europe is a region of the world in which is more abundant the normative one about mental health, especially in form of Recommendations directed to the States by the Council of Europe, although norms of direct application also exist. Special interest has the sentences dictated by the European Court of Human Rights and the conclusions of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It should be mentioned the work of European Union equally and of the Office for Europe of the World Organization of the Health. This group of juridical instruments configures the most complete regulation on the mental patient's rights.

The externalisation of the asylum function in the European Union

This paper aims to identify and assess the main items in the strategy followed by the EU and its member states on the externalisation of their asylum function. First, it analyses the European harmonisation of the return to safe third countries and to countries of first asylum, which is carried out by means of readmission agreements. Second, it refers to the strategies defined by the Hague and the Stockholm programs concerning the External Aspects of the European Union Asylum Policy, on the detention centres for illegal immigrants abroad, and on the proposals for delocalisation of asylum applications processing centres beyond the EU borders. Finally, this paper considers whether the strategy of externalisation of the function of asylum sometimes lacks legitimacy, and to what extent there is a fair balance between the interests of the states and the protection of the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers.

Right to asylum and border control : implications of european union policies on access to EU territory of people in need of international protection

Depuis plusieurs années, les États membres de l’Union européenne (UE) se soumettent à des politiques restrictives, en matière d’asile, qui les contraignent à respecter leur engagement de protéger les personnes qui fuient la persécution. Plusieurs politiques de dissuasion de l’UE sont controversées. Certaines ont d’abord été élaborées dans différents États, avant que l’UE ne mette en place une politique commune en matière d’asile. Certaines des ces politiques migratoires ont été copiées, et ont un effet négatif sur la transformation des procédures d’asile et du droit des réfugiés dans d’autres pays, tel le Canada. En raison des normes minimales imposées par la législation de l’UE, les États membres adoptent des politiques et instaurent des pratiques, qui sont mises en doute et sont critiquées par l’UNHCR et les ONG, quant au respect des obligations internationales à l'égard des droits de la personne. Parmi les politiques et les pratiques les plus critiquées certaines touchent le secteur du contrôle frontalier. En tentant de remédier à l’abolition des frontières internes, les États membres imposent aux demandeurs d’asile des barrières migratoires quasi impossibles à surmonter. Les forçant ainsi à s’entasser dans des centres de migration, au nord de l’Afrique, à rebrousser chemin ou encore à mourir en haute mer.

The Court of Justice of the European Union as a fundamental rights tribunal: challenges for the effective delivery of fundamental rights in the area of freedom, security and justice. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 49, 29 August 2012

This paper reflects on the challenges facing the effective implementation of the new EU fundamental rights architecture that emerged from the Lisbon Treaty. Particular attention is paid to the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and its ability to function as a ‘fundamental rights tribunal’. The paper first analyses the praxis of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and its long-standing experience in overseeing the practical implementation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Against this analysis, it then examines the readiness of the CJEU to live up to its consolidated and strengthened mandate on fundamental rights as one of the prime guarantors of the effective implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. We specifically review the role of ‘third-party interventions’ by non-governmental organisations, international and regional human rights actors as well as ‘interim relief measures’ when ensuring effective judicial protection of vulnerable individuals in cases of alleged violations of fundamental human rights. To flesh out our arguments, we rely on examples within the scope of the relatively new and complex domain of EU legislation, the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), and its immigration, external border and asylum policies. In view of the fundamental rights-sensitive nature of these domains, which often encounter shifts of accountability and responsibility in their practical application, and the Lisbon Treaty’s expansion of the jurisdiction of the CJEU to interpret and review EU AFSJ legislation, this area can be seen as an excellent test case for the analyses at hand. The final section puts forth a set of policy suggestions that can assist the CJEU in the process of adjusting itself to the new fundamental rights context in a post-Lisbon Treaty setting.

The EU’s Human Rights Promotion in China and Myanmar: Trading Rights for Might? EU Diplomacy Paper No. 5, October 2014

This paper aims to answer two questions: generally, to what extent the human rights promotion of the European Union (EU) in third countries is consistent, and more specifically, why the EU’s approach towards human rights promotion in China and Myanmar differs despite similar breaches of human rights. It compares the EU’s approach to the two countries over two time periods in the late 1980s and 1990s in the context of the EU’s evolving human rights promotion. Based on the two case studies, this paper finds that the EU’s human rights promotion in third countries varies significantly. Whereas one would expect the EU’s approach to become increasingly assertive throughout the 1990s, this has only been the case with Myanmar. China’s economic and political importance to the EU appears to have counterweighed the general rise in European attention to third countries’ human rights records. In other words, this paper finds that commercial interests take precedence over human rights concerns in case of important trading partners.

The Limited Influence of the European Union in Armenia and Azerbaijan: A Domestic Explanation. EU Diplomacy Paper 9/2015

This paper seeks to explain why the European Union (EU) has had limited influence in Armenia and Azerbaijan in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Combining approaches from external governance, norm diffusion and structural foreign policy, it offers an explanation based on domestic factors in the two countries: the political regime, state capacity, political structures, domestic incentives and the perceived legitimacy of EU rules. Although willingness to reform appears to exist in Armenia, such willingness remains constrained by the country’s vulnerable geopolitical location and high dependence on Russia. By contrast, none of the domestic preconditions for EU influence identified by the analytical framework were found in Azerbaijan. The author argues that the Eastern Partnership has not properly addressed the extent to which the clan structures feed into informal political practices and enforce the sustainability of an existing regime in both countries, and that, in addition, the EU has underestimated the multipolar environment which the two countries have to operate in, making it unlikely that the current policy can reach its objectives in Armenia and Azerbaijan.