Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

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.

Kurzbeiträge, Überblicke, Interviews zur Bedeutung und Entwicklung der Fischerei, u.a. in Gabun

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.

This study describes the development of food production and consumption in ACP regions after the last two decades and prospects for the years to come

The Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA), which governs relations between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group and the European Union (EU), will expire in the year 2020. While the three pillars of this framework addressing political dialogue, development cooperation and trade are generally considered to have served their purpose well, there are clear signs that significant changes within the ACP group, the EU and the wider international landscape demand a different articulation of the relationship. A tacit understanding among Europeans is that the ball is in the ACP's corner in terms of defining and determining their own future as a group and its relationship vis-à-vis the EU as such. However, a momentum needs to be built for the coming 2015 revision of the Cotonou Agreement with a view to a plausible post-2020 scenario, in which the EU also needs to set out its own desires and priorities in giving shape to the cooperation. In previous years the EU Member States increasingly "outsourced" the management of the partnership to the European Commission, but there is a gradually growing recognition that the CPA is presently the principal functioning vehicle guiding EUAfrica relations. European perceptions on the future of the Cotonou Agreement point to two sets of arguments, namely: Reasons to do away with the ACP-EU partnership: Weak rationale to keep a common framework with these very different regions, combined with weak evidence of the development of an ACP identity or intra-ACP trade; Decreasing relevance of ex-colonial ties, particularly in the context of an enlarged EU, but also more generally of the agreement's strong focus on official development assistance; Poor track record in shaping joint positions and interventions at international fora. Elements in the partnership deemed worth preserving: Legally binding nature that favours political dialogue as well as predictability and strategy ownership in development cooperation; A relatively strong performance of the European Development Fund (EDF) compared to other EU development cooperation instruments, combined with its multi-stakeholder approach to the design and management of development strategies; Potential alliance for global public goods provision. Despite the fact that there is not yet an official position from the EU nor its Member States on what should happen after the CPA expires, European actors (European Commission, European Parliament, Member States) seem to be inclined to move towards a more regional approach of the Union's external relations while maintaining the valuable aspects of the present setup. While the EU's declining strategic interest in the Caribbean – and especially the Pacific – is no secret, too rejectionist a stance towards the cooperation framework by EU Member States could seriously harm the promotion of their values and interests in Africa. The EU would currently seem most inclined to preserve key elements of the CPA in a "light version" of the current ACP-EU agreement, by transferring those elements into separate EU regional strategies towards Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, or a combination of both. European policy discussions on this matter are also long overdue, given that the preparations for the third revision of the CPA in 2015 will be a key "warming-up session" for the negotiations for post-2020. The EPA negotiations have seriously and negatively affected ACPEU relations in the recent past and could also harm the EU's own position and trade with Africa in the medium- to long term if continued in the same manner.

Development aid, one of the most important mechanisms for the redistribution of global wealth, represents financial flows that have economic growth and social improvement as their main objective. It has also frequently been described as an instrument which is able to diminish international migrations and is used by several developed countries. Recently, much empirical evidence and several contributors have argued that connection and set out other grounds. This paper explores the interaction between development aid and migrations from developing to developed countries. We want to determine, if the amount of development aid has any impact on migrations from African, Caribbean, and the Pacific Group of States. Our results show that development aid does not have a direct effect on migrations and therefore, in terms of international migrations, is not effective. Moreover, we will argue that the donor side should use different policies and other mechanisms to manage migrations from those countries.