Janus advances? An analysis of EC development policy and the 2005 amended Cotonou partnership agreement

European Foreign Affairs Review

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 39-66

  Hadfield, Amelia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85050834736     PISSN: 13846299     EISSN: 18758223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.54648/eerr2007004     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, The European Community's Development Policy, COM (2000) 212 final, Brussels, 26 April 2000, p. 4.
2. Partnership Agreement Between the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the One Part and the European Community and its Member States of the Other Part, Signed in Cotonou, 23 June 2000, [2000] O.J. L317/1, Article 1, 2nd para., hereafter 'CPA' or 'CPA 2000'. Due to significant ratification delays, CPA 2000 only entered into force on 17 January 2003.
3. C. Santiso, 'Improving the Governance of European Foreign Aid: Development Cooperation as an Element of Foreign Policy', CEPS Working Document, No. 189, Brussels, October 2002, p. 2.
4. The following text established the salient points that were distilled into the 2006 consensus: European Commission, DG Development, 'Consultation on the Future of EU Development Policy', Issues Paper, Brussels, 7 January 2005.
5. European Commission Communication 'The European Consensus', COM (2005) 311 Final, p. 4.
6. European Commission, DG Development, The European Consensus on Development, DE 129, Brussels, June 2006, p. 13.
7. The concept of 'actorness' employed above and elswhere is premised on the impact which the EU as a foreign policy actor has upon its external environment based on the opportunity, presence and capability as outlined by C. Bretherton and J. Vogler, The European Union as a Global Actor (Routledge, London, 1999), chapter 1.
8. S. Dearden, 'The Future Role of the European Union in Europe's Development Assistance' (2003) 16/1 Cambridge Review of International Affairs, pp. 105-117 at p. 106.
9. M. Holland, '20/20 Vision? The EU's Cotonou Partnership Agreement' (2003) 9/2 The Brown Journal of World Affairs, pp. 161-175 at p. 163.
10. O. Babarinde and G. Faber, 'From Lomé to Cotonou: Business as Usual?' (2004) 9 EFA Rev., pp. 27-47.
11. S. Maxwell and K. Christiansen, '"Negotiation as Simultaneous Equation": Building a New Partnership with Africa' (2002) 72/3 International Affairs, pp. 477-491 at p. 478.
12. European Commission, DG Development, Info Note on The Cotonou Agreement, available at .
13. V. Dimier, 'Constructing Conditionality: The Bureaucratization of EC Development Aid' (2006) 11 EFA Rev., pp. 263-280 at p. 264.
14. Article 96, CPA 2000, note 3 above. Applying the Cotonou transitionally during 2002, political conditionality was first exercised with Zimbabwe. This was extended in 2003 and applied elsewhere to the Central African Republic, Guinea, Ginea-Bassau, Liberia and Somalia. Breach of human rights conditionality in 2004 triggered suspensions to Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast and Liberia, lifting restrictions for Guinea-Bassau. 2005 conditionality was invoked against the Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Zimbabwe. D. Allen and M. Smith, 'External Policy Developments' (2003-2006) 41-44 Journal of Common Market Studies, Annual Reviews.
15. M. Farrell, 'A Triumph of Realism over Idealism? Cooperation Between the European Union and Africa' (2005) 27/3 European Integration, pp. 263-283 at p. 276.
16. For recent information relating to Official Development Assistance (ODA), see C. Montes and S. Migliorisi, Development Strategies, EU Donor Atlas, Mapping Official Development Assistance, Ref. AMS/451, European Commission, Brussels, 2004.
17. F. Cardoso, W. Khüne and J. Honwana, Reflection Paper: Priorities in EU Development Cooperation in Africa: Beyond 2000, Council of Ministers, Brussels.
18. G. Olsen, 'Changing European concerns: security and complex political emergencies instead of development' in K. Arts and A. Dickson (eds), EU Development Cooperation: From Model to Symbol (Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2004), p. 81.
19. K. Arts, 'Changing interests in EU development cooperation: the impact of EU membership and advancing integration' in Arts and Dickson, note 24 above, p. 104.
20. R. Ginsberg, 'Conceptualizing the European Union as an international actor' (1999) 73/3 Journal of Common Market Studies, pp. 429-454 at p. 439.
21. B. Hettne and F. Söderbaum, 'Civilian Power or Soft Imperialism? The EU as a Global Actor and the Role of Interregionalism' (2005) 10 EFA Rev., pp. 535-552 at p. 545.
22. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, The European Community's Development Policy, COM (2000) 212 final, Brussels, 26 April 2000, p. 11
23. C. Montes, S. Migliorisi and T. Wolfe, 'An Evaluation of EU Aid to the ACP', European Commission, Ref. 951338, 1998, p. 33.
24. The reforms undertaken by the European Commission represent the context within which the 2000 Statement should be placed. The process began with the outright criticism of the European Commission in 1998 by the European Court of Justice. Acting on an injunction issued by the European Parliament regarding the absence of an adequate legal basis for various EC programmes, the ECJ issued a ruling in May 1998 that publicly contested the legal foundation for EC action in the area of aid. The European Court of Auditors then censured the administrative structure and practices of the Commission in 2000. This promoted major reviews, as evidenced in the text Reforming the Commission: A White Paper, Brussels, 5 April 2000, COM (2000).
25. The Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, The European Community's Development Policy, COM (2000) 212 final, Brussels, 26 April 2000
26. The European Community's Development Policy, note 2 above, pp. 4-5.
27. Statement by the Council and the Commission, note 36 above, p. 2.
28. The European Community's Development Policy, note 2 above, p. 16.
29. 'Commission shakes up management of external assistance', press release IP/00/480, Brussels, 16 May 2006.
30. Statement by the Council and the Commission, note 36 above, p. 12.
31. The European Community's Development Policy, note 2 above, p. 5.
32. G. Lenziin Khüne et al. (eds), WEU's Role in Crisis Management and Conflict Resolution in Sub-Saharan Africa (Institute for Security Studies of WEU, Paris, 1995), pp. 63-64 in Olsen, note 24 above, p. 94.
33. D. Allen and M. Smith, 'External Policy Developments' (2004-2005) 42-43 Journal of Common Market Studies, Annual Reviews, p. 106 [2004] and p. 120 [2005].
34. Statement by the Council and the Commission, note 36 above, pp. 1-2, emphasis added.
35. J. Page, 'Three Issues in Security and Development' (2004) 4/3 Conflict, Security & Development, pp. 299-308 at p. 300.
36. S. Biscop, The European Security Strategy: A Global Agenda for Positive Power (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2005), p. 25, emphasis added.
37. R. Picciotto, 'Aid and Conflict: The Policy Coherence Challenge' (2004) 4/3 Conflict, Security & Development, pp. 543-562 at p. 543.
38. M. Duffield, Global Governance and the New Wars (Zed Books, London, 2002), p. 42.
39. R. Culpeper, 'Human Security, Equitable and Sustainable Development: Foundations for Canada's International Policy', NSI Paper on the International Policy Review, The North-South Institute, Ottawa, 2005, in Biscop, note 60 above, p. 25.
40. cf. S. Ogata and A. Sen, Report of the Commission on Human Security (United Nations, New York, 2003)
41. st Century (Development Assistance Committee, Paris, 1988)
42. E. J. Pentilla, 'The Role of the G8 in International Peace and Security', Adelphi Paper, No. 355, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, 2003.
43. M. Clarke, 'A Good Diplomatic and Development Opportunity for the UK: The G8, the EU and a New Start for Africa', Opinion (2005) 5/1 Conflict, Security & Development, p. 122.
44. L. Gelb and J. Rosenthal, 'The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy: Reaching a Values Consensus' (2003) 82/3 Foreign Affairs, pp. 2-7.
45. European Commission, DG Development, Consultation on the Future of EU Development Policy, Issues Paper, Brussels, 7 January 2005, p. 4.
46. K. A. Annan, 'Problems without Passports' (2002) 132 Foreign Policy, pp. 30-31.
47. cf. European Security Strategy, 'A Secure Europe in a Better World', Brussels, 12 December 2003
48. Communication from the Commission, 'Policy coherence for development: accelerating progress towards attaining the millennium development goals', Brussels, 12 April 2005 COM (2005) final
49. R. Picciotto, 'Why The World Needs Millennium Security Goals', Opinion, (2006) 6/1 Conflict, Security and Development, pp. 111-120 at p. 115.
50. To review the legal perspectives on EC development see B. Martenczuk, 'From Lomé to Cotonou: The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement in a Legal Perspective' (2000) 5 EFA Rev., pp. 461-487.
51. P. Hipold, 'EU Development Cooperation at a Crossroads: The Cotonou Agreement of 23 June 2000 and the Principle of Good Governance' (2002) 7 EFA Rev., pp. 53-72.
52. Jean-Louis Schiltz: 'The eradication of poverty remains the principle objective of the revised Cotonou Agreement', General Affairs and External Relations, Brussels, 26 June 2005.
53. IP/05/789, 'The EU and the ACP countries sign the revised Cotonou Agreement', Brussels, 24 June 2005.
54. S. Kingah, 'The Revised Cotonou Agreement Between the European Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific States: Innovations on Security, Political Dialogue, Transparency, Money and Social Responsibility' (2006) 50/1 Journal of African Law, pp. 59-71 at p. 63.
55. K. Karl, 'From Georgetown to Cotonou: The ACP Group faces up to new challenges', The Courier, Special Issue, Cotonou Agreement, September 2000, p. 23.
56. The following text established the salient points that were distilled into the 2006 consensus: European Commission, DG Development, 'Consultation on the Future of EU Development Policy', Issues Paper, Brussels, 7 January 2005.
57. European Commission, DG Development, 'Consultation on the Future of EU Development Policy', Issues Paper, Brussels, 7 January 2005.
58. European Commission Communication, The European Consensus, note 72 above, p. 4.
59. The European Consensus on Development, note 6 above, p. 13.
60. The European Consensus on Development, note 6 above, p. 23, emphasis added.
61. C. Hamilton, The Age, Melbourne, 2 July 2005.
62. cf. D. Willemte Velde et al., 'A Critical Assessment of the EU's Trade-Related Assistance to Third Countries: Lessons from the Past, Policy Options for the Future', Study for the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament, Overseas Development Institute, 15 February 2006.
63. The European Consensus on Development, note 7 above, p. 13.