Suchergebnisse

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.

Following the adoption of the Rome Treaty, the European Union (EU) developed a formal and privileged cooperation framework for its relationship with countries in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (ACP). Since 2000 cooperation between the EU and the ACP is governed through the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA), which encompasses three complementary dimensions: political dialogue, economic and trade cooperation, and development cooperation. The changing global context, along with institutional, political and socioeconomic developments in the EU and the ACP, raise questions about whether this approach to cooperation has sufficiently delivered on its objectives, and which evolutions – or revolutions – may be necessary for these regions' future cooperation. This paper seeks to complement existing evidence with the findings of a detailed review of the literature and the perceptions of past, present and future ACP–EU cooperation gathered from a wide range of stakeholders in ten ACP countries.

Cotonou agreement, signed in June 2000, between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Countries, is characterized by the respect of Human Rights, Democratic standards and Rule of Law in one side, and the quest for compliance with the standards principles of World trade Organization (WTO) in the other side. Since then the development policy implemented by Europe for ACP Countries was created with the Treaty of Rome which established European Development Funds, in favor of these countries. For many years, this partnership, mainly economic, has given huge benefits to ACP countries to ensure their development. For almost two decades that the political standards rules were introduced into this partnership, no doubt to notice that some countries, including Togo, are still reluctant to introduce real democratic reforms to ensure effective political changes. Despite sanctions here and there from the European Union, these countries find support from China who treats with African countries, a specific partnership excluding any Civil Society. ; L'Accord de Cotonou, signé en juin 2000 entre l'Union européenne et les États d'Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique (ACP), se caractérise par un respect des droits de l'homme, des normes démocratiques et de l'État de droit d'une part, et la quête d'une conformité des normes aux principes de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC), d'autre part. En effet, la politique de développement mise en place par l'Europe au profit des États ACP a vu le jour avec le Traité de Rome et la création du Fonds européen de développement au profit des ces pays. Pendant longtemps, le partenariat, essentiellement économique, a octroyé d'énormes avantages aux pays ACP en vue d'assurer leur développement. Depuis bientôt deux décennies que les normes politiques ont été insérées dans ce partenariat, force est de constater que quelques pays, dont le Togo, demeurent toujours réticents quant à l'instauration de réelles réformes démocratiques en vue d'assurer une véritable alternance politique. En ...

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.

In the last decade the European Union (EU) has been negotiating with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries to establish Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). In this article, EPAs are located within the context of the wider shift in EU trade policy towards bilateralism. This is done with reference to recent work in International Political Economy (IPE) emphasizing the "domestic-societal" and "systemic" drivers of preferential liberalization. Although these pressures are not necessarily sufficient to explain the EPAs, they do account for why they have gone beyond the original remit of "World Trade Organization (WTO) compatibility" and why aspects of the agreements bear close similarity to the EU's supposedly more commercially oriented bilateral agreements. Adapted from the source document.

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.

2010/2011 ; Questa tesi presenta la collaborazione tra l'Unione Europea ed i paesi ACP (Africa, Caraibi e Pacifico) con particolare riferimento a Lesotho e Sudafrica. Si concentra soprattutto sull'impatto dell'Accordo di Cotonou sulle politiche locali di cooperazione tra i due paesi. La ricerca parte da due ipotesi: (1) La firma dell'accordo di partenariato di Cotonou, dal Lesotho e Sudafrica ha migliorato la cooperazione transfrontaliera tra i due paesi; (2) Lo sviluppo socio-economico e politico attuale è dovuto alla collaborazione tra l'Unione Europea ed i paesi ACP. Il lavoro si basa su un approccio empirico e l'analisi qualitativa e quantitativa dei dati e delle osservazioni raccolte in Lesotho. La ricerca sul campo è costituita da un periodo trascorso presso la delegazione dell'Unione Europea in Lesotho, durante il quale sono stati raccolti dati, interviste e rapporti ufficiali. Il primo capitolo presenta la storia della collaborazione tra l'UE e gli Stati ACP, partendo dalle convenzioni di Yaoundé e Lomé all'accordo di Cotonou. Nel secondo capitolo assieme ad una revisione della letteratura vengono descritti i paesi ACP ed i loro legami con l'Unione Europea. Con il terzo capitolo si passa alla ricerca sul campo, mostrando le differenze tra le varie normative e la situazione reale nei paesi selezionati. Vengono presentanti vari progetti e la loro evoluzione. I programmi transfrontalieri tra Lesotho e Sudafrica sono introdotti ed analizzati nel quarto capitolo assieme alla loro trasformazione nel tempo. L'ultimo capitolo sposta il focus sui progetti locali, i loro problemi e la loro possibile risoluzione futura. La tesi finisce con le conclusioni e le raccomandazioni per il futuro. ; XXIV Ciclo

AbstractGlobal economic, demographic and geopolitical as well as internal developments since the signature of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement in 2000 have had a profound impact on relations between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group. The paper analyses the process of adaptation in the areas of development cooperation and in the political and security context, reflected in two revisions in 2005 and 2010. It discusses the influence of the Lisbon Treaty on the objective of poverty reduction, and the role of EU values and security concerns. The negotiation of new trading arrangements compatible with the World Trade Organisation triggered a veritable storm in ACP–EU relations. The paper discusses factors, which proved to be major hurdles to the successful and timely conclusion of the Economic Partnership Agreements, as real trade between the two groups saw a reversal of the downward trend and the ACP recovered part of the previously lost market share of ACP goods in total EU imports. The exclusivity of the flagship partnership has started to crumble as the importance of new partners increased both on ACP and EU side. The author maintains that with the Cotonou Partnership Agreement's purpose defined as solely supporting the development of the ACP countries, it is not surprising that it does not count among the strategic partnerships from the EU perspective. Yet, it is too early to predict the future of the ACP–EU relationship beyond 2020, but both the EU and the ACP have an interest in starting off their discussions and negotiations on their future relationship on the right footing. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In the past ten years, the long-standing trade relations between the European Union (EU) and the African,
Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries have experienced radical transformations. The negotiations of the
Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the EU and seven regional groupings formed by the
ACP countries have led to the EU being maneuvered into an unexpectedly weak position. For the first time,
European negotiators had to substantially leave their pre-agreed negotiation path and positions due to the immense pressure from ACP countries, regional organizations, and non-state actors – and still have not been able to finalize negotiations that had initially been expected to only take five years until the end of 2007.
These developments constitute a two-tire puzzle: Not only could the EU not play its 'negotiation game'and largely determine the outcomes of negotiations, but also did the outcomes of the negotiations differ between the individual regional negotiations groups despite a single European mandate for all seven regionally conducted EPA negotiations. The paper argues that a comparative 'outside-in perspective' from the ACP countries' side towards the EU is essential to understand the puzzling EPA negotiation process and its (preliminary) outcomes. More specifically, it argues that the negotiations were rather determined by regional dynamics, different negotiation structures of individual EPA configurations, and the role of
regional hegemons than by the EU's actions and positions. This perspective has so far gained little attention.
Trade negotiations with the EU have largely been illustrated as a clear-cut case in most studies and it is to be questioned to what extent the EPA negotiations challenge such a scenario. The paper presents a comparative case study on the EPA negotiation groups of the Southern African Development Community(SADC) and the East African Community (EAC) from a 'South-Eastern African perspective'.

The rise and fall of preferential trade -- Understanding the EU-ACP economic partnership agreements: the case of the Cariforum -- European policy diffusion and the politics of regional integration in the Pacific -- Developmentalism and the political economy of trade adjustment in Mauritius -- Southern Africa and the global politics of trade preference erosion

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.

1\. Introduction 6 2\. From Block-to-Block to Region-to-Region. The EPA Negotiations with a 'Not So Weak South' 7 3\. Theorizing Regional Dynamics in the New EU-ACP Trade Relations 11 3.1 Beyond a 'North-South' Scenario 11 3.2 Beyond a 'Global South' – Regional Hegemons in a Heterogeneous South 12 4\. Comparing Regional Dynamics in the SADC and the EAC EPA Negotiations 13 4.1 Negotiation Structures 13 4.1.1 The Negotiation Structure of the SADC EPA Group 13 4.1.2 The Negotiation Structure of the EAC EPA Group 14 4.2 Regional Coalition Building in the EPA Begotiations 15 4.2.1 From North vs. South to East vs. West – Varying Coalitions in the SADC EPA Group 15 4.2.2 A Joint Approach or a Non-Approach? Inside the EAC Negotiation Group 16 4.3 Leading or Lagging Transformations? Regional Hegemons in the EPA Negotiations 20 4.3.1 South Africa in the SADC-EU EPA Negotiations 20 4.3.2 Kenya in the EAC-EU EPA Negotiations 22 5\. Negotiating Economic Partnership Agreements, Transforming North-South Trade Relations? 24 Literature 26 ; In the past ten years, the long-standing trade relations between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries have experienced radical transformations. The negotiations of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the EU and seven regional groupings formed by the ACP countries have led to the EU being maneuvered into an unexpectedly weak position. For the first time, European negotiators had to substantially leave their pre-agreed negotiation path and positions due to the immense pressure from ACP countries, regional organizations, and non-state actors – and still have not been able to finalize negotiations that had initially been expected to only take five years until the end of 2007. These developments constitute a two-tire puzzle: Not only could the EU not play its 'negotiation game' and largely determine the outcomes of negotiations, but also did the outcomes of the negotiations differ between the individual regional negotiations groups despite ...

The Political Economy of EEC Relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific States is a collection of papers the covers various areas of concerns in the relationship between the European Economic Community (EEC) and African, Caribbean and Pacific States (AFP). The text first covers the political economy of the EEC-ACP relations, and the proceeds to discussing indexation and stabilization scheme. In the last part, the selection deals with concerns in technology transfer, trade, and market access between the EEC and ACP. The book will be of great use to economists, sociologists, and political sci