![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article aims at furthering human rights protection in EU’s new generation’s trade agreements, with special regard to the human rights clause, which offers the possibility to take measures in the event the counterpart violates human rights, as well as legal tools aimed at ensuring that agreements themselves do not violate human rights, such as the human rights impact assessments. It will be shown that the EU is widening its action on human rights protection whereas its obligations should be better defined and enforced.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Anna Micara has a Ph.D and post-doc fellowship in International law. Now she is Adjunct Professor of International health law at Università degli Studi di Milano.
Notes
1. For an overview of WTO-plus agreements, see, among others, Henrik Horn, Petros C. Mavroidis, and André Sapir, Beyond the WTO? An anatomy of EU and US preferential trade agreements (Bruegel Blueprint Series, 2009), http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/publications/bp_trade_jan09.pdf.
2. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Global Europe: Competing in the World, October 4, 2006, COM(2006)567, 8–10.
3. Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and Its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, OJ 2011 L 127/6.
4. EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. Authentic Text as of May 2015, June 29, 2015, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=961.
5. Trade Agreement between the European Union and Its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, OJ 2012 L354.
6. Association Agreement between the European Union and Its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, OJ 2014 L 161/3.
7. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and Its Member States, of the other part, OJ 2017 L11.
8. EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement text as of on January 2016, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437.
9. EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement: texts of the agreement, December 8, 2017, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/.
10. Association involves ‘reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedures’ (Art. 217 TFEU). Recent association agreements, such as the one with Ukraine (note 6), include a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA).
11. For example, the FTA with Vietnam (note 8) clarifies that it is part of the overall bilateral relationship provided by the PCA.
12. Council Decision of 16 September 2010 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, OJ L 127/1; Council Decision of 31 May 2012 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, OJ 2012 L 354.
13. Emphasis added.
14. European Commission, Trade for All: Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy, October 14, 2015, 5.
15. See, among others, Opinion of October 4, 1979, 1/78, ECLI:EU:C:1979:224; Case C-70/94, Fritz Werner Industrie-Ausrüstungen GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany, ECLI:EU:C:1995:328.
16. Regulation 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, OJ 2005 L200/1. See also Regulation 978/2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, OJ 2012 L303/1.
17. Vivian Kube, The European Union’s External Human Rights Commitment: What is the Legal Value of Article 21 TEU?, EUI Working Paper LAW 2016/10, http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/40426/LAW_2016_10.pdf?sequence=1, 4–15.
18. Christoph Vedder, ‘Linkage of the Common Commercial Policy to the General Objectives for the Union’s External Action’, in Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon, ed. Marc Bungenberg and Christoph Herrmann (Heidelberg: Springer, 2013), 137.
19. See 44/79, Liselotte Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, [1979] ECR 3727, para. 17. On continuity, Gráinne de Búrca, ‘The Road Not Taken: The European Union As A Global Human Rights Actor’, The American Journal of International Law 105 (2011): 649.
20. Vedder note 18, 118.
21. Lorand Bartels, ‘The EU’s Human Rights Obligations in Relation to Policies with Extraterritorial Effects’, European Journal of International Law 25 (2015): 1074.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., 1075.
24. Ibid., 1087ff.
25. Enzo Cannizzaro, ‘The EU’s Human Rights Obligations in Relation to Policies with Extraterritorial Effects: A Reply to Lorand Bartels’, European Journal of International Law 25 (2015): 1095.
26. Ibid.
27. Bruno De Witte, ‘The EU and International Legal Order: The Case of Human Rights’, in Beyond the Established Legal Orders: Policy Interconnections between the EU and the Rest of the World, ed. Panos Koutrakos and Malcolm Evans (Oxford, Portland: Hart, 2011): 143–44.
28. Costello Moreno-Lax, ‘The Extraterritorial Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: From Territoriality to Facticity, the Effectiveness Model’, in The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, ed. Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, Angela Ward (Oxford, Portland: Hart, 2014), 1658ff.
29. Ibid., 1682.
30. See note 144.
31. Case T-512/12, Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) v Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:T:2015:953, para. 228.
32. Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in case C-104/16P, Council of the European Union v Front Polisario, para. 270.
33. Ibid., para. 270.
34. In general, on the international human rights law notion of jurisdiction see Marko Milanovic, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 19ff; Moreno-Lax, Costello note 28, 1663ff.
35. Michelle Everson and Correia Gonçalves, ‘Article 16’, in The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, ed. Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward (Oxford, Portland: Hart, 2014), 438.
36. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights, General Comment 17, The right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he or she is the author (article 15, paragraph 1 (c), of the Covenant) (12 January 2006) UN Doc E/C.12/GC/1712, para. 1.
37. See Case C–366/10, Air Transport Association of America and Others, EU:C:2011:864, paras 62–63.
38. On responsibility see, among others, Pieter Jan Kuijper and Esa Paasivirta, ‘EU International Responsibility and its Attribution: From the Inside Looking Out’, in The International Responsibility of the European Union, European and International Perspectives, ed. Malcolm Evans and Panos Koutrakos (Oxford, Portland: Hart, 2013), 35.
39. See, among others, Gráinne De Burca, ‘After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: The Court of Justice as a Human Rights Adjudicator?’, Maastricht J. Eur. Comp. L. 20 (2013): 168.
40. For a history of the clause see Lorand Bartels, A Model Human Rights Clause for the EU’s International Trade Agreements, German Institute for Human Rights, 2014, http://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/uploads/tx_commerce/Studie_A_Model_Human_Rights_Clause.pdf,12ff.
41. Fourth Lomé Convention signed on 15 December 1989, entered into force 1 September 1991, art. 5.
42. (emphasis added). Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, OJ 2004 L 304, art. 2. See also Framework agreement for trade and economic cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Argentine Republic OJ 1990 L 295, art. 1; Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part OJ 2000 L70, art. 2.
43. Partnership and cooperation agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, on the other part OJ 1999 L 205/3, art. 2; Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, and Ukraine OJ 1998 L 49/3, art. 2; Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part OJ 1999 L 246, art. 2.
44. EU-Ukraine (note 6), art. 2.
45. Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, OJ 2014 L 261/4, art. 2.
46. Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other, OJ 2012 L 346, art. 1.1.
47. EU-Peru Colombia (note 5), art. 1; EU-Vietnam (note 8), art. 1.
48. Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Canada, of the other part, OJ 2016 L 329, art. 1.
49. José Rafael Marín Aís, ‘The Contribution of the EU to the Development of Customary Norms in the Field of Human Rights Protection’, in The European Union’s External Action in Times of Crisis, ed. Piet Eeckhout and Manuel López-Escudero (Oxford, Portland: Hart, 2016), 280.
50. Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, of the other part, OJ 2016 L 329, art. 1.1.
51. Ibid., art. 1.2.
52. EU-Vietnam (note 8), art. 1.2.
53. Lorand Bartels, ‘The Application of Human Rights Conditionality in the EU’s Bilateral Trade Agreements and other Trade Arrangements with Third Countries’, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2008/406991/EXPO-INTA_ET(2008)406991_EN.pdf, 3–4.
54. Economic Partnership Agreement Between The West African States, The Economic Community Of West African States (Ecowas) And The West African Economic And Monetary Union (Uemoa), Of The One Part, And The European Union And Its Member States, Of The Other Part, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/october/tradoc_153867.pdf.
55. Agreement amending the Partnership Agreement between the members of 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 on 23 June 2000, OJ 2005 L 209.
56. See for example, EPA West African States, Ecowas, Uemoa-UE (note 54), art. 105.
57. In this regard see Angelica Bonfanti, ‘Diritti umani e politiche dell’Unione europea in materia commerciale e di investimenti stranieri: la comunicazione Commercio per tutti, tra regionalismo e multilateralismo economico’, Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 10 (2016): 236.
58. Commission Staff Working Document, Human Rights and Sustainable Development in the EU-Vietnam Relations with Specific Regard to the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, 26.1.2016, SWD(2016) 21, 7.
59. Lorand Bartels, The European Parliament’s Role in Relation to Human Rights in Trade and Investment Agreements, 2014, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/433751/EXPO-JOIN_ET(2014)433751_EN.pdf, 13.
60. According to the Declaration of the Parties (Annex 8-E, Joint Declaration on Articles 8.16, 9.8, and 28.6) ‘With respect to Articles 8.16, 9.8 (Denial of benefits) and 28.6 (National security), the Parties confirm their understanding that measures that are ‘related to the maintenance of international peace and security’ include the protection of human rights’ (emphasis added). Although this is an interpretative tool, according to Bonfanti (note 57) 236, this provision could not guarantee that human rights protection is to be considered as a justification for general exceptions (see art. 28.3 CETA which reminds to art. XX GATT 94).
61. See EU-Canada (note 48), art. 2.
62. The EU-Morocco Protocol ‘is implemented in accordance with Article 1 of the Association Agreement on developing dialogue and cooperation and Article 2 of the same Agreement concerning the respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights’ (Art. 1(2)).
63. Nicolas Hachez, ‘Essential Elements’ Clauses in EU Trade Agreements Making Trade Work in A Way that Helps Human Rights?, 2015, https://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/publications/wp158hachez.pdf, 14–15.
64. Emphasis added. Agreement on partnership and cooperation establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part OJ 1997 L 327, art. 107.2; EC-Azerbaijan (note 43), art. 98; EU-Central America (note 46), art. 355; EU-Vietnam (note 8), art. 57.2.
65. Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, OJ 2013 L 20, art. 45.4.
66. EU-Ukraine (note 6), art. 478.1.
67. Ibid., art. 478.2. Concerning agreements with Eastern neighbors see Narine Ghazaryan, ‘A New Generation of Human Rights Clauses? The Case of Association Agreements in the Eastern Neighborhood’, in European Law Review 40 (2015), 391.
68. See, among others, European Parliament resolution of 5 July 2016 on implementation of the 2010 recommendations of Parliament on social and environmental standards, human rights and corporate responsibility (2015/2038(INI)), para. 20; Emily Reid, Balancing Human Rights, Environmental Protection and International Trade, Lessons from the EU Experience (Oxford, Portland: Hart, 2015), 172–74.
69. Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part, OJ 2006 L 143.
70. Emphasis added. Case C–581/11 P, Muhamad Mugraby v Council of the European Union and European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2012:466, para. 70.
71. Ibid., para. 72.
72. On the difference between non-execution clause and suspension clause (Baltic clause) see European Commission, Communication on the Inclusion of Respect for Democratic Principles and Human Rights in Agreements between the Community and Third Countries, COM(95)216, 8. The Baltic clause provided that ‘[t]he parties reserve the right to suspend this Agreement in whole or in part with immediate effect if a serious breach of its essential provisions occurs’.
73. See Reid (note 68), 172ff.
74. French parliament scraps planned extra tax on palm oil, June 23, 2016, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-palmoil-idUSKCN0Z90Z7. See also, in general Hachez (note 63), 21–22.
75. Commission (note 14), p. 9.
76. European Parliament resolution on the human rights and democracy clause in European Union agreements (2005/2057(INI)), 14 February 2006.
77. Bartels (note 53), 17.
78. European Parliament resolution of 5 July 2016 on implementation of the 2010 recommendations of Parliament on social and environmental standards, human rights and corporate responsibility (2015/2038(INI)), para. 20.d.
79. Frank Hoffmeister, ‘The Contribution of EU Practice to International Law’, in Developments in EU External Relations Law, ed. Marise Cremona (Oxford: OUP, 2008), 114.
80. Marín Aís (note 49), 275.
81. Ghazaryan (note 67), 410. Another important political instrument that the EU uses since a long time is the human rights dialogue which has also been criticised concerning effectiveness and which has been enhanced in recent FTAs with provisions on positive cooperation specifically on human rights, including the enhancement of the human rights dialogue, (EU-Central America (note 46), art. 29; EU-Vietnam (note 8), art. 35).
82. Reid (note 68), 162–65.
83. See for example EU-Georgia (note 45), art. 2. EU-Vietnam (note 8), art. 3; EU-Peru Colombia (note 5), art. 2.4; EU-Central America (note 46), art. 15.
84. EU-Canada (note 48), art. 5; EU-Central America (note 46), art. 17.
85. European Parliament, Shrinking space for civil society: the EU response, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/578039/EXPO_STU(2017)578039_EN.pdf.
86. Especially the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) on which see Diane Desierto, Public Policy in International Economic Law, the ICESCR in Trade, Finance and Investment (Oxford, 2015), 160.
87. The International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants was first adopted in 1961 and later revised in 1972, 1978 and 1991.
88. Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, Annex 1C of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, 1 January 1995, 1869 UNTS 299.
89. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant, Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Switzerland, E/C.12/CHE/CO/2-3, 26 November 2010, para. 24.
90. Report of the Special Rapporteur Olivier de Schutter, The right to food, Seed policies and the right to food: enhancing agrobiodiversity and encouraging innovation, A/64/170, July 23, 2009, para. 4.
91. EU-Korea (note 3), art. 10.39; EU-Singapore (note 4), art. 11.35.
92. EU Vietnam (note 8), IP chapter art. 11.
93. EU- Central America (note 46), art. 259.3; Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, OJ 2008 L 289/I/3, art. 149.
94. See TRIPs art. 30 and WTO, Report of the panel, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, DS114.
95. EU-Peru and Colombia (note 5), art. 231.
96. EU-Singapore (note 4), art. 11.31; EU-Korea (note 3), art. 10.35.
97. On the notion of ‘conflict’ see, among others, Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). On conflicts between trade and human rights see, among others, Andreas Ziegler and Bertram Boie, ‘The Relationshiop between International Trade Law and International Human Rights Law’, in Hierarchy in International Law, ed. Erika De Wet and Jure Vidmar (Oxford: OUP, 2012), 272.
98. Doha Declaration on TRIPs and Public Health, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2, 14 November 2001.
99. See note 60.
100. See para. 6.1.
101. Bartels (note 40), 30.
102. Ibid.
103. EU-Vietnam (note 8), ch. 2 art. 20; EU-Korea (note 3), art. 2.15, EU-Singapore (note 4), art. 2.14.
104. See EU-Korea (note 3), art 7.50.
105. EU-Central America (note 46), art. 203.e.ii; CETA (note 7), art. 28.3.
106. Bartels (note 40), 28.
107. Markus Krajewski, Ensuring the Primacy of Human Rights in Trade and Investment Policies: Model Clauses for a UN Treaty on Transnational Corporations, Other Businesses and Human Rights 2017, https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/CIDSE_Study_Primacy_HR_Trade_%26_Investment_Policies_March_2017.pdf, 21.
108. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, Addendum, Guiding Principles On Human Rights Impact Assessments of Trade and Investment Agreements, December 2011, A/HRC/19/59/&dd.5, 5. See also Klaus D. Beiter, ‘Establishing Conformity between TRIPS and Human Rights: Hierarchy in International Law, Human Rights Obligations of the WTO and Extraterritorial State Obligations Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, in TRIPS Plus 20 From Trade Rules to Market Principles, ed. Hans Ullrich, Retho Hilty, Matthias Lamping, and Joseph Drexl (Springer, 2016), 470–75.
109. In this regard it is useful to remind to the debate on human rights within the WTO Dispute settlement system on which see, among others, Gabrielle Marceau, ‘WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights’, in European Journal of International Law (2002): 753.
110. Ziegler, Boie (note 97), 298.
111. See also Krajewski (note 107), 25–27 with special regard to the proposal according to which ‘a treaty on businesses and human rights could establish a formal supremacy of human rights obligations over trade and investment agreements through a supremacy clause’.
112. Ex CETA (note 7), ch. 22–24; EU-Vietnam (note 8), ch. 15.
113. According to Bartels, ‘these chapters are based on a model dating back to NAFTA … without a significant link being made to the concept of sustainable development … One suspects that this duplication of effort was based on a narrow view of the human rights clause’ (Bartels (note 40), 33).
114. EU-Vietnam (note 8), ch 15, art. 15.
115. Ibid. ch 15, art. 16–17.
116. A broad farmers’ exemption would allow farmers to use saved seeds as well as sell and exchange them. While the 1978 version implicitly allowed farmers to use saved seeds and to do to a certain extent acts having commercial implications (art. 5 UPOV 1978), the 1991 version restricts the farmers privilege removing the possibility for States to allow farmers to exchange or sell seeds saved from the harvest of protected varieties.
117. EU-Central America (note 46), art. 259.3.
118. Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States (note 93), art. 149.1.
119. In this regard see also the famous Alston – Petersmann debate in Paul Alston, ‘Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to Petersmann’, in European Journal of International Law 13, no. (4) (2002): 815–44; Ernst-Ullrich Petersmann, ‘Time for a United Nations ‘Global Compact’ for Integrating Human Rights into the Law of Worldwide Organizations: Lessons from European Integration’, in European Journal of International Law 13 (2002): 621–50.
120. See Beiter (note 108), 487–90 and Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, http://www.etoconsortium.org/nc/en/main-navigation/library/maastricht-principles/?tx_drblob_pi1%5BdownloadUid%5D=23, principle 3.
121. Fons Coomans, ‘The Extraterritorial Scope of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Work of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, in Human Rights Law Review 11 (2011): 34.
122. Beiter (note 108), 490–91.
123. Clair Gammage, ‘Protecting Human Rights in the Context of Free Trade? The Case of the SADC Group Economic Partnership Agreement’, in European Law Journal 20 (2014): 779.
124. Draft Declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.15/4/2, 6 March 2017.
125. Simon Walker, The Future of Human Rights Impact Assessments of Trade Agreements (Antwerp, Oxford, Portland: Intersentia, 2009), 4.
126. EU Council, EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, June 25, 2012, 11855/12.
127. See the Complaint about maladministration, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/20140807complaint_ombudsperson_vn.pdf, 2.
128. Draft recommendation of the European Ombudsman in the inquiry into complaint 1409/2014/JN against the European Commission, March 3, 2015, https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/recommendation.faces/en/59398/html.bookmark, para. 3.
129. European Parliament resolution of 17 April 2014 on the state of play of the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (2013/2989(RSP)), para. 25.
130. Draft recommendation of the European Ombudsman (note 128), para. 21.
131. Ibid., para. 24.
132. Action plan (note 159), 6.
133. Decision in case 1409/2014/MHZ on the European Commission’s failure to carry out a prior human rights impact assessment of the EU-Vietnam free trade agreement, February 26, 2016, https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/64308/html.bookmark, para. 15.
134. Ibid.
135. Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1, 2 and 3 and their Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, OJ 2012 L 241.
136. Case T-512/12 (note 31), para. 115.
137. See ICJ, Advisory opinion on Western Sahara, October 16, 1975.
138. Case T-512/12 (note 31), para. 164. See also Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet (note 32), para. 220.
139. Case T-572/93, Odigitria v Council and Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1995:131.
140. Case T-512/12 (note 31), para. 224.
141. Ibid.
142. Ibid., para. 225.
143. Ibid. para. 227.
144. Ibid., para. 228.
145. Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet (note 32), para. 269.
146. Ibid., para. 269.
147. Case C-104/16 P, Council of the European Union v Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario), ECLI:EU:C:2016:973.
148. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, Addendum, (note 132), 5. See also Maastricht Principles n 150, principle 14; Report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, Promoting innovation and access to health technologies, September 2016, 9.
149. Certain subcommittees have been established (Bartels (note 53), 17) but see the proposal on draft article on human right committee and monitoring in Bartels (note 40), 37. See also the European Parliament resolution of 5 July 2016 on implementation of the 2010 recommendations of Parliament on social and environmental standards, human rights and corporate responsibility (2015/2038(INI)), para. 20.
150. See European Commission, (note 14), 26–27; Council of the EU, Council Conclusions on the Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2015–2019, Doc. 10897/15, July 20, 2015, 23.
151. See Action Plan n 159.
152. Council of the EU, (note 150), 23.
153. Ibid., 25.
154. Guidelines on the analysis of human rights impacts in impact assessments for trade-related policy initiatives http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/july/tradoc_153591.pdf.
155. Walker (note 125), 4. See also the Handbook for trade sustainability impact assessment second edition, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/april/tradoc_154464.PDF.
156. See, for example, Ecorys, Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment in support of negotiations of a DCFTA between the EU and Morocco Final Report, Rotterdam, November 25, 2013, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/november/tradoc_151926.pdf, pp. 53ff; Civic Consulting, Evaluation of the Implementation of the Free Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States and the Republic of Korea Inception Report, October 2016, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/october/tradoc_155014.pdf, 62.
157. Motion for a European Parliament Resolution on the Annual Report on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter 2015 (2016/2219(INI)).
158. Guidelines (note 154), 5–6.
159. Case T-512/12 (note 31).
160. Ibid. See also the Communication From The Commission, Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union, COM/2010/573, 19.10.2010.
161. Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet (note 32), para. 259.
162. In this sense also Vivian Kube, The Polisario Case: Do EU Fundamental Rights Matter for EU Trade Policies?, 2017, http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-polisario-case-do-eu-fundamental-rights-matter-for-eu-trade-polices.