Western European Union v. Siedler; General Secretariat of the ACP Group v. Lutchmaya; General Secretariat of the ACP Group v. B.D
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 105, Heft 3, S. 560-567
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 105, Heft 3, S. 560-567
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: Failler , P 2015 , ' The ACP Group of States and the challenge of exporting fish to the European Union ' Journal of Fisheries & Livestock Production , vol 3 , no. 3 , 142 . DOI:10.4172/2332-2608.1000142
Access to the European union (EU) for fish products originated from the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States is fundamental as fish is globally one of the most important commodities exported by these States. The recent implementation of economic partnership agreements will not change the magnitude of the challenges that these countries have to face to comply with EU rules such as the new Rules of Origin or the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures that are becoming more and more stringent. Value addition of fishery and aquaculture products seems to be the most promising way to both comply with EU standards and get an optimal return of sea and freshwater resources exploitation.
BASE
In: Geopolitics, Band 12, Heft 4, S. 635-655
ISSN: 1557-3028
Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Acknowledgements -- List of Abbreviations -- Part I: Historical Foundations of the ACP-EU Relationship -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- Historical Context: Evolution of the ACP-EU Relationship -- Main Issues in the ACP-EU Relationship -- Shifting Strategies and Interests -- The Nature and Role of Development in the ACP-EU Relationship -- The Impact of the ACP-EU Partnership on ACP Regional Integration -- The Challenge of Asymmetries Between the ACP and the EU -- Political Issues in the ACP-EU Relationship -- Outline of the Book -- Notes -- Chapter 2: A History of the ACP-EU Relationship: The Origins and Spirit of Lomé -- From Yaoundé to Lomé -- Lomé and the Birth of the ACP -- The Life of Lomé -- From Lomé to Cotonou -- Concluding Reflections -- Notes -- Part II: An Anatomy of the ACP-EU Relationship -- Chapter 3: The EU and Africa: The Political Economy of an Asymmetrical Partnership -- Africa-EU Trade: From Lomé to Cotonou -- Africa-EU Economic Partnership Agreements -- African Opposition to the Economic Partnership Agreements -- The Role of Development Assistance in Africa-EU Relations -- Political Aspects of the Africa-EU Relationship -- Concluding Reflections -- Notes -- Chapter 4: The EU and the Caribbean: The Necessity of Unity -- From CARICOM to CARIFORUM -- From Lomé to Cotonou -- Trends in the EU-Caribbean Relationship -- The EU-CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement -- Flawed Negotiations -- Absence of an Effective Development Dimension -- Surrender of Policy Space -- Impact on Regional Integration -- Onerous Implementation -- The Future of Caribbean-EU Relations -- Caribbean-ACP Relations -- A Caribbean Perspective on the Future of ACP-EU Relations -- Concluding Reflections -- Notes -- Chapter 5: The EU and the Pacific: A Tale of Unfulfilled Expectations
In: Third world thematics: a TWQ journal, Band 1, Heft 4, S. 508-525
ISSN: 2379-9978
In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
"The African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) Group of States: From the Lomé Convention to the Cotonou Agreement and Beyond" published on by Oxford University Press.
In: Journal of European integration: Revue d'intégration européenne, Band 42, Heft 6, S. 783-798
ISSN: 1477-2280
Die Beziehungen zwischen der Europäischen Union und 79 Ländern Afrikas, der Karibik und des Pazifik – vereint als AKP-Gruppe auftretend – gründet im Cotonou Abkommen. Dieses rechtlich bindende Vertragswerk ist einzigartig auf der Welt, indem es Länder aus vier Kontinenten zusammenführt. Das Cotonou Abkommen definiert die EU-AKP-Beziehungen in den Bereichen der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, des Handels und des politischen Dialogs. Das Cotonou Abkommen läuft im Jahr 2020 aus. ZEI Direktor Prof. Dr. Ludger Kühnhardt analysiert die bisherigen Effekte der EU-AKP-Beziehungen und entwickelt weitgehende Vorschläge für deren zukünftige Entwicklung: Er entwickelt den Vorschlag einer strategischen Reifung hin zu einem "EU-AKP Assoziationsvertrag für Entwicklung". Er diskutiert thematische Prioritäten, regionale Besonderheiten und projiziert eine stärkere globale Sichtbarkeit der EU-AKP Gruppe über 2020 hinaus.
BASE
In: Journal of international development: the journal of the Development Studies Association, Band 25, Heft 5, S. 714-726
ISSN: 1099-1328
AbstractThe African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States and the European Union (EU) have engaged in what is known as a 'special privileged', legally binding contractual agreement on trade cooperation, development assistance and political dialogue since 1975. Currently expressed in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement for a 20‐year period from 2000, the agreement faces its final 5‐year review in 2015, which is proving conducive for an extensive debate between development practitioners on what future can be envisaged for ACP–EU relations in a world drastically different from the neocolonial era of the 1970s and offering new opportunities as well as challenges to trade, commerce and development assistance. From the perspective of a diplomatic representative of an ACP member state, a critique is offered of issues and instances in which the contested interests of the asymmetrical relationship can be interpreted in relation to the overarching objective of 'reducing and eventually eradicating poverty' as stated in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. The author argues that the ACP Group, as the unique, transcontinental coalition of developing countries can be a significant partner with the EU and 'new actors', through south‐south and triangular cooperations to challenge traditional thinking and practice on development assistance by a thoroughly refashioned paradigm, in which equality, sustainability, inclusive growth and structural transformation of ACP economies must be pre‐eminent. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
In: Journal of international development: the journal of the Development Studies Association, Band 14, Heft 6, S. 899-910
ISSN: 1099-1328
AbstractThis article reviews and assesses the recent Cotonou Partnership Agreement between the ACP group of developing countries and the EU. It places the Agreement in the context of the EU's commitment to refocusing its development policy and reforming its aid administration. It emphasises the innovative elements of the Agreement that set it apart from its Lome predecessors—the intention to move to reciprocal regional free trade agreements; the emphasis upon good governance; the rule of law and human rights; the enhanced role for non‐State actors and the private sector and the adoption of a rolling programme of aid provision. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Defence date: 16 January 2007 ; Supervisor: Prof. Bruno De Witte ; This thesis explores the impact of international human rights law on the changing trends in international development policy and practice. The subject matter is analysed through a case study of European Union development cooperation policy and its relations with the group of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states.1 Whilst there is a burgeoning literature on this subject, known as the nexus between human rights and development?,2 the discovery of the convergence or union between human rights and development may have come of some surprise to non-jurists and to those within in the field of development. According to professionals engaged in this domain, development is usually defined and identified with economic growth, trade, capital flows and the transfer of technology.3 As Johan Galtung argues, both concepts (human rights? and development?) have evolved in distinct historical contexts, therefore, any connection or compatibility has more to do with Western history and culture than anything else.4 Furthermore, as Sano states, whilst both human rights and development were institutionalised in the global system in the post-World War II climate, both have different roots and have emerged in different contexts.5 In light of these claims, an obvious point of departure should consider what is meant by the terms development? and human rights? and briefly describe the interlinkages between these previously distinct domains. To this end, the idea of a gradual convergence of human rights and development will be introduced6 and this will be followed by a discussion of where EU development cooperation policy fits into this debate. In the remaining sections of the introductory chapter, the aims of this thesis and research questions will be outlined. A description of the methodology used, literature review and an overview of the chapters will also be presented.
BASE
In: European foreign affairs review, Band 17, Heft 1, S. 1-25
ISSN: 1875-8223
The article presents the second Revision of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)-European Union (EU) Partnership Agreement (Cotonou Agreement (CA)) and contains an outlook on the future of the relations between the EU and the ACP Group of States, taking also into account the restructuring of the EU's external relations under the Lisbon Treaty and the establishment of the new European External Action Service (EEAS). The second Revision of the CA was signed in June 2010.Ten years after the conclusion of the CA, its second revision sought to find a balance between the increasing trend towards differentiation within the ACP Group and the unity of the ACP Group of States. The EU side felt that developments in the regional dimension had to be addressed, such as the relations with the African Union as a key interlocutor for peace and security in the pan-African dimension and the conclusion of (interim) Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Moreover, the 2010 Revision coincided with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009. The restructuring of the EU's external relations under the Lisbon Treaty and its impact on the relations between the EU and ACP also influenced the 2010 Revision, as the ACP were concerned about the loss of their special status under the new treaty regime. In addition, at the administrative level, the bilateral relations with the ACP countries will be dealt with by the EEAS and not by the former Commission's Directorate-General for development, which means a potential loss of exclusivity for the ACP Group.
In: Journal of international development: the journal of the Development Studies Association, Band 25, Heft 5, S. 742-756
ISSN: 1099-1328
AbstractThis Policy Arena has two main objectives. First, it seeks to unravel how the partnership between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group has evolved since the adoption of the Cotonou Agreement in 2000, including its 2005 and 2010 reviews and the implementation of its three key pillars (development cooperation, trade and political dialogue). Second, it explores the prospects of EU‐ACP relations in the medium to long term. In particular, it discusses whether the ACP‐EU cooperation framework is still relevant in the light of a number of global changes and, more specifically, whether the ACP configuration is still useful to its members. To address these issues, both the EU and the ACP Group have established two working groups. Within the ACP, voices are critical of the EU‐ACP partnership, but there appears to be more willingness to reform and renew it. Within the EU, the record of the Cotonou Agreement is seen more positively, but there seems to be less willingness to preserve it. The third review of the Cotonou Agreement to be finalised by 2015, and more generally its expiration in 2020, provides an opportunity – to which this Policy Arena seeks to contribute – to rethink the EU‐ACP cooperation model. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
A few weeks before the Brexit date of 31 October 2019, the big questions remain unanswered: Will Britain withdraw from the European Union? And if so, with or without a deal? These decisions not only affect the European Union and the United Kingdom itself, they also have consequences for the 79 countries of the ACP group, which have many links with both partners. Above all, a 'hard brexit' would create uncertainty for ACP countries and jeopardise their development opportunities. In the event of a disorderly Brexit, however, these risks for the ACP countries arise not so much from international trade as from possible changes in development policy.
BASE