![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper develops an analytical framework to assess the quality of deliberation in the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA). Despite rhetoric on ‘equal partnership’ between ACP and EU countries, academic assessments of the Cotonou Agreement point to the lasting asymmetrical power relationship, most visible in the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) negotiations. However, this paper assesses to what extent the JPA debate on EPAs can approach the ideal type of deliberation. The empirical investigation is based on participatory observation, semi-structured interviews and an analysis of primary documents, including the attendance lists of 29 JPA sessions, more than 40 resolutions and 120 parliamentary questions related to the trade-development nexus.
Notes
1. See Gomes, “Reshaping an Asymmetrical Partnership”; Carbone, “Rethinking ACP-EU Relations”; Keijzer and Negre, “Outsourcing a Partnership?” and Pape, “An Old Partnership.”
2. European Commission, “Towards a New Partnership.”
3. Goodison, “The European Union”; “EU Trade Policy”; Flint, “The End of a Special Relationship?”; Storey, “Normative Power Europe?”; Hurt, “Co-operation and Coercion?”; Farrell, “A Triumph of Realism”; and Langan, “A Moral Economy Approach.”
4. European Commission, “Towards a New Partnership,” 13.
5. Steenbergen et al., “Measuring Political Deliberation,” 21.
6. Carbone, “Rethinking ACP-EU Relations.”
7. Steven, “The EU, Africa and Economic Partnership Agreements,” 441–58; and Goodison, “The European Union.”
8. Williams, “Shifting Between Hegemony and Dominance?”; “The EU as a Foreign Policy Actor.”
9. Flint, “The End of a Special Relationship?” 79–92; and Hurt, “Co-operation and Coercion?”
10. Carbone, “Theory and Practice of Participation,” 241–55; and Hurt, “Civil Society and European Union Development Policy.”
11. Delputte, “Talking Shop or Relevant Actor.”
12. Corre, Parliaments and Development.
13. Delputte, “The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.”
14. Delputte, “EPA’s: Welkome stimulans.”
15. Kerremans and Martins-Gistelinck, “Labour Rights in EPAs.”
16. Delputte, “Talking Shop or Relevant Actor.”
17. Delputte, “The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly”; “Talking Shop or Relevant Actor.”
18. Steenbergen et al., “Measuring Political Deliberation,” 21.
19. Stie, “Assessing Democratic Legitimacy,” 1.
20. Bächtiger, “Debate and Deliberation in Legislatures.”
21. Ibid., 3–4.
22. Habermas, “Between the Facts and Norms”; and Risse, “Let’s Argue!” 1–39.
23. Risse, “Let’s Argue!” 2.
24. Habermas, “Between the Facts and Norms”.
25. Stie, “Assessing Democratic Legitimacy.”
26. Ibid., 4–6.
27. Ibid., 13.
28. Steenbergen et al., “Measuring Political Deliberation,” 26.
29. Rawls, A Theory of Justice.
30. Mill, Utilitarianism. See also Steenbergen et al., “Measuring Political Deliberation,” 26.
31. Risse, “Let’s Argue!” 10.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid., 19.
34. See Martin, “Parliamentary Questions, the Behaviour of Legislators, and the Function of Legislatures” on the merits of analysing parliamentary questions.
35. ‘The process of relating categories to their subcategories is termed ‘axial’ because coding occurs around the axis of the category, linking categories at the level of properties and dimensions’, see Strauss and Corbin, “Basics of Qualitative Research.”
36. In the 2016 round of interviews, it was not possible to conduct semi-structured interviews with ACP parliamentarians due to time constrictions. However, the authors’ participatory observation at the 2016 sessions, complimented by the interviews with ACP officials and experts, provided ample information.
37. Expert interview with EU institution and EU NGO, 13 July 2016.
38. Expert interview with EU institution (DG Trade), 14 July 2016.
39. See Delputte, “The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly,” 241–60.
40. For this analysis, we have considered data from the first JPA session in 2000 in Brussels until the 30th session in 2015 in Brussels. No data were available for the 7th session of 2004 and the 5th session in Brussels in 2002 was cancelled, so we have analysed the attendance lists of 29 sessions in between 2000 and 2015.
41. The inauguration session in Brussels in 2000 also recorded a high attendance rate (84%).
42. Namibia and Zambia were both noted as countries that send representatives of the ruling and oppositions party. However, as there is only one Head of Delegation, this does not guarantee that the opposition can take the floor.
43. Expert interview with EU NGO, 19 July 2016.
44. In interviews with an expert and MEP, both recognised JPA members as being part of the elite, although the MEP did not want to be recognised as such and called for more pluralism through broader participation of different interest groups, including young people, farmers and civil society amongst others. Expert interview with EU institution, 13 July 2016 and expert interview with MEP, 13 July 2016.
45. Resolution on ‘experiences from the European regional integration process relevant to ACP countries’ (2008), point 21.
46. Resolution on ‘EPA: problems and perspectives’ (2004), point B.
47. Just over half the texts reviewed had 0–3 references to these groups, 10% of the texts had between 6 and 9 references, while the bulk of ten or more references were in a quarter of the texts.
48. MEP Joao Ferreira, 31st session of the JPA, Windhoek, Namibia, 13–15 June 2016.
49. Expert interview with EU institution, 12 July 2016.
50. Expert interview with EU NGO, 13 July 2016.
51. Note that this can also impact participation.
52. See in particular, the resolution on ‘EPA: problems and perspectives’ (2004), point 18 and Resolution on ‘EPAs and their impacts on ACP states’ (2009), point N.
53. Resolution on ‘EPAs’ (2002) point 6 and Resolution on the ‘review of negotiations on EPAs’ (2006) point 21.
54. See the parliamentary session from the JPA plenary session in Windhoek, Namibia, 13–15 June 2016, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/acp/2016_namibia/pdf/1096273en.pdf and the Committee session questions, Brussels, Belgium, 7–9 December, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/acp/2015_acp2/pdf/1080041en.pdf.
55. Expert interview with JPA Secretariat, 22 July 2016.
56. Ibid.
57. See also Bächtiger, “Debate and Deliberation in Legislatures” for a thorough discussion on the question why parliamentary contexts can enable genuine deliberation.
58. For example, in the 32nd session of the JPA in Nairobi, Kenya there were divergences over a resolution on Gabon, which was not passed. However, without participatory evidence or ‘openness’ via local media, the issues that led to this divergence may not necessarily come to the fore. Moreover, they certainly won’t be available from merely analysing resolutions.
59. Question by MEP Mikel Amezaga and response by the Commission, 17th session, Prague, Czech Republic, 6–9 April 2009.
60. Expert interview with EU NGO, 13 July 2016.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. Expert interview with MEP, 12 July 2016.
64. Expert interview with EU NGO, 13 July 2016.
65. Expert interview with ACP think-tank, 8 July 2016.
66. Steenbergen et al., “Measuring Political Deliberation,” 30.
67. Indeed, the aforementioned example on the failure to have a resolution on Gabon is an exception, 32nd JPA in Nairobi, Kenya 19–21 December 2016.
68. Expert interview with EU NGO, 19 July 2016.
69. Expert interview with MEP, 12 July 2016.
70. Expert interview with MEP, 13 July 2016.
71. Expert interview with EU institution, 19 July 2016.
72. Ibid.
73. Expert interview with ACP Ambassador, 13 July 2016.