We use cookies on this site to provide you with an informative and engaging experience and also to help us to continually improve our site for you. Without allowing cookies certain features of the site will not be available. To learn more about how we use cookies, please view our cookie policy. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, you consent to our use of cookies on this device in accordance with our policy.

Logo of Wolters Kluwer, Kluwer Law Online
European Foreign Affairs Review
Search content button

Home > All journals > European Foreign Affairs Review > 26(3) >

What Is the Added Value of the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime?

Cover image ofEuropean Foreign Affairs Review

$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *

$29.00 - Article (PDF) *

*service fee may apply
What Is the Added Value of the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime?


European Foreign Affairs Review
Volume 26, Issue 3 (2021) pp. 477 – 498

https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2021038



Abstract

The European Union’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EUGHRSR), adopted in December 2020, is expected to augment the Union’s role in global normative diplomacy. Although the Council has a long history of responding to human rights violations through geographic sanctions regimes, the EUGHRSR is the first thematic sanctions regime on the topic with a general scope of applicability. This article investigates what distinctive added value the thematic design of the EUGHRSR brings compared to the longstanding geographic approach. The EUGHRSR is envisaged as a more legalized accountability mechanism and its added value is presumed to lie in helping depoliticize sanctions by shifting the target focus away from states. The article shows that this presumption can be unattainable or undesirable as the successful implementation of the EUGHRSR necessitates bringing the state into the centre of analysis. The article in particular shows that in order to successfully deploy the EUGHRSR as an integral part of the EU common foreign and security policy, the Council has to (i) align the designation of targets with the EU’s foreign policy strategies, and (ii) take pro-human rights reforms in third countries as a ground for de-listing, even in the absence of individual accountability. Taking these positions, however, blurs the line between the EUGHRSR and geographic sanctions, therefore requires careful coordination and trade-off.


Keywords

damages, non-contractual liability, CFSP acts, normalization, CSDP missions and operations, restrictive measures, jurisdiction, CJEU, sanctions.


Extract




Subscribe to this journal

Interested in a subscription? Contact our sales team

Contribute to this journal

Go Directly to PeerEase! Submit Article

Browse by practice area
Share
Stay up to date


RSSETOC