1

MNSTER2015

PREPARATION KIT

9th - 12th April

2

MNSTER 2015

AFETDEVE

ECONFEMM

INTALIBE

SEDE ISEDE IISEDE III

41016222632384248

CONTENT

3

MNSTER2015

Makenot war.

4

MNSTER 2015

Relevance and explanationIt has been more than a year since the protests on the Maidan in Kiev started. Ever since, the conflict in Ukraine has gained a great deal of speed, violence and relevance for EU for-eign policy. The conflict soon focused on Crimea, where pro-Russian rebel forces revolted against the recently established Ukrainian government, aided by Russian soldiers without insignia. The Russian annexation of the peninsula was justified through a quickly arranged referendum, but condemned by the Ukrainian and Western governments. Similar conflicts arose in Ukraines east, near Donetsk and Luhansk. The ensuing military conflict of the separatist rebels and Ukrainian military forces carries on until today and has claimed more than 5,000 deaths, according to the United Nations Human Rights Office.

The initial protests were sparked by former president Yanukovychs refusal to sign an asso-ciation agreement with the EU. The EUs involvement in the conflict has thus been evident. At the moment, the conflict seems to come down to a confrontation of European and Rus-sian influences in Ukraine and the political interests of both parties concerning the possibil-ity of European integration for Ukraine. Sanctions against Russia have been implemented by the EU and America. Nato has expressed its support for the leadership of Ukraine, fur-ther deepening the antagonism between Russia and western European powers.

Within the EU itself, however, the opinions on the conflict in Ukraine and especially on sanctions against Russia differ greatly: while Lithuanias foreign minister recently called for an extension of the sanctions, the Greek Syriza party condemns what it calls the EUs in-volvement in neo-Nazi and extremist groups in Ukraine. Non-governmental groups in oth-er EU countries, notably Germany, have criticised the sanctions against Russia. The diplo-matic and economic relationships between individual EU members and Russia also matter, especially where it concerns the trade of oil and gas imports from Russia. The EU strives to maintain a common line in its foreign policy, while keeping in mind the different political forces at work within the entire union.

The Syriza-led Greek government has demonstrated its friendlier stance towards Russia compared to other Member States. How should the EU deal with the Russian governments involvement in the conflict in Ukraine while taking into account the diversity of opinions within its Member States?

Written by: Liv Colell (DE) & Viktor Salenius (FI)

AFET

5

MNSTER2015

Further reading Timeline of the conflict in Ukraine as of January 2015: http://www.fpri.org/geopoliti-

cus/2015/02/ukraine-crisis-timeline-january-30-2015 Statement of Greeces Syriza party regarding the current situation:http://www.syriza.gr/article/id/55098/Statement-of-the-Political-Secretariat-of-SYRIZA-on-

the-issue-of-Ukraine.html#.VPs0Ki7sbPw

Key terms Crimea: A peninsula that is almost completely surrounded by the Black Sea and located

in the south east of Ukraine, close to the Russian border. It has had a special legal sta-tus within Ukraine since its formation in 1991.

Syriza: A coalition of Greek left-wing parties that was established in 2004. It represents the strongest force in the Greek parliament since January and is the main party in the coalition governing the country.

Common foreign and security policy (CFSP): The mutually accepted framework for all EU foreign policy. Almost all foreign policy decisions of the EU require unanimity be-tween all members. In most cases, these decisions are taken by the European Council (of ministers) as in the Treaty on the European Union (article 31). The leader of EU for-eign policy initiatives is its High Representative, currently Federica Mogherini from Italy.

Sanction: Sanctions on the international level are actions taken by countries against other countries for political reasons. It can take the form of economic sanctions (e.g. a trade embargo) or diplomatic sanctions (e.g. the removal from an embassy as a sym-bol of reduced diplomatic ties). A military intervention is the most serious degree of international sanctioning. Many sanctions are criticised because they affect another countrys sovereignty, guaranteed under international law (especially when sanctions are not agreed on by the UN Security Council), as well as its citizens civil rights.

Further reading Analysis of the Crimeas position within Ukraine and Europe:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10671066/What-is-the-

Crimea-and-why-does-it-matter.html Analysis of possible shifts in Greek policy due to Syrizas victory:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31029940 Introductions to different areas of the CFSP: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/chap-

ter/foreign_and_security_policy.html?root_default=SUM_1_CODED=25,SUM_2_COD-ED=2501&obsolete=false

The problem of sanctions under International Law discussed in an article by the Inter-national Committee of the Red Cross:

https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jq73.htm

Key questions What are the responsibilities and interests of the EU in the current military conflict in

Ukraine? What are Russias? Where do these responsibilities and interests collide and how do these collisions affect

the Ukrainian politics and population? How can different political forces within Ukraine be taken into consideration when

forming a common stance on how to deal with the Ukrainian government? What are the possible consequences of the on-going war in Ukraine for the EU, espe-

cially for neighbouring member states such as Poland and Romania, as well as for other

http://www.fpri.org/geopoliticus/2015/02/ukraine-crisis-timeline-january-30-2015http://www.fpri.org/geopoliticus/2015/02/ukraine-crisis-timeline-january-30-2015http://www.syriza.gr/article/id/55098/Statement-of-the-Political-Secretariat-of-SYRIZA-on-the-issue-of-Ukraine.html#.VPs0Ki7sbPwhttp://www.syriza.gr/article/id/55098/Statement-of-the-Political-Secretariat-of-SYRIZA-on-the-issue-of-Ukraine.html#.VPs0Ki7sbPwhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10671066/What-is-the-Crimea-and-why-does-it-matter.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10671066/What-is-the-Crimea-and-why-does-it-matter.htmlhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31029940http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/chapter/foreign_and_security_policy.html?root_default=SUM_1_CODED=25,SUM_2_CODED=2501&obsolete=falsehttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/chapter/foreign_and_security_policy.html?root_default=SUM_1_CODED=25,SUM_2_CODED=2501&obsolete=falsehttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/chapter/foreign_and_security_policy.html?root_default=SUM_1_CODED=25,SUM_2_CODED=2501&obsolete=falsehttps://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jq73.htm

6

MNSTER 2015

Eastern Partnership countries? Is the imposing of economic sanctions on Russia an effective strategy in resolving the

conflict? In light of its reviving antagonism against Russia, what role should Nato play in the ne-

gotiations? Should Nato get involved more actively in supporting the Ukrainian govern-ment?

What should the EU do to ensure that all measures taken represent the wishes of all member states as best as possible, without compromising the effectiveness of these measures for resolving the conflict?

Further reading Summary of the speech of the UNHCR spokesperson on the current humanitarian sit-

uation in Ukraine:http://www.unhcr.org/54d49d549.html Briefing note on the implications of the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine:http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/53d0b7774.pdf Analysis on nationalist sentiments in Ukraine:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/ukraine-nationalist-flags_b_6489988.html Article on NATO/EU involvement in Ukraine:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/09/nato-ukraine-and-the-eu-army-plan

Key conflictsThe EU is not a neutral party in the on-going conflict in Ukraine. The rise of a strong political division and pro-EU demonstrations in late 2013 eventually led to the ousting of the Yanuk-ovych government and the election of Poroshenko as president. Ukrainians fight over their foreign policy stance with two options: keeping open cooperation and trade contacts with the EU is contrasted with the option of aligning east and deepening the relations to Russia.

For the EU, this outline has become a big issue. Negotiating with Russia in any matter is increasingly difficult, as the two trade giants openly support rivalling parties in an armed conflict and as the viewpoint of the two sides are completely different. Peace talks will con-tinuously be shadowed by the fact that the modern day economic powers present in the debate, as well all military alliances including Nato, are partial to either side of the conflict.

Some of the countries supporting the Ukrainian government on the one hand, have strong political or economic links to Russia on the other. The EU in cooperation with the Unit-ed States has imposed strong economic sanctions on Russia on multiple occasions since March 2014. All member states need to stand unanimously behind the decisions taken, as it is common EU foreign policy issues. But the question whether this unanimity will stand for long becomes increasingly fragile. The newly elected ministers of the Syriza party in Greece, with foreign minister Kotzias known to have good relations to Moscow, have ex-pressed their discouragement to impose any new sanctions on Russia even if the conflict deepens.

Greece is not the only country with a different stance from most other EU members. In fact, already in previous sanction debates, some countries took a cautious approach towards the hard economic measures taken, for fear of violating their own relations to Russia. Po-land and Finland were both eventually strong supporters of the sanctions, but undoubt-edly they bring about a difficult backfire on these countries for which trade with Russia is of crucial economic importance. Germany on the other hand has expressed wishes to

http://www.unhcr.org/54d49d549.htmlhttp://www.refworld.org/pdfid/53d0b7774.pdfhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/ukraine-nationalist-flags_b_6489988.htmlhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/09/nato-ukraine-and-the-eu-army-plan

7

MNSTER2015

almost immediately start the imposing of new sanctions. Also, the member states formerly part of the Soviet Union have during their short independence been relatively strict to-wards Russia and their Russian minorities, which might weigh in more than the possibility of shrinking exports. It is therefore clear that a united standing within the EU will become more and more difficult to reach, as all member states have different interests, different involvements, and different stakes relating to the Ukraine conflict.

Further reading The BBC timeline of the Crisis in Ukraine: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-

east-26248275 Chancellor Merkel threatens with new EU sanctions if the agreed-on ceasefire is vio-

lated: http://www.dw.de/merkel-warns-russia-of-new-sanctions-if-ukraine-ceasefire-vi-olated/a-18293845

StakeholdersEU: The EU is part of the source of the Ukraine conflict, in that the new Ukrainian govern-ment is openly in favour of deepening ties to the West. Peace in Ukraine is of top priority for the Union, and leaders of EU institutions have frequently engaged in negotiations with both Russia and Ukraine on how to move towards a stable future. High Representative Federica Mogherini recently stated that the key for resolving the conflict lies in the reached treaties, that the EU is doing enough on the sanctions front for the time being.

Any new action against Russia will require a unified action plan by member states leaders in the European Council. If the Minsk ceasefire deal proves ineffective, a new set of punitive measures might come into consideration, and the topic will surely stay on the agenda dur-ing coming summits of EU leaders.

Member states governments: Not all EU member states have the same economic ties to Russia. An increase in hostility between the Union and Russia could, effectively, harm national economies already in a state of slow recovery from the financial crisis. Greeces links to Russian leaders are more political than economic, but result in the same cautious approach on openly condemning Russian activity in Eastern Ukraine.

Russia: As the supporter of Eastern Ukrainian separatists, Russia faces the disapproval of the EU and the United States for interfering with the sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine. Counter-sanctions have been imposed on multiple occasions, the broadest of them being the one-year ban of all meat, dairy, vegetable and fruit imports from the West.

Ukraine: A country torn by two contradicting foreign policy views has become a country torn apart by a civil war. Diplomatic talks are held continuously between Western leaders and the government, while the separatists claim to stand under the influence of Russian policymakers. The recent Minsk ceasefire has brought some light for the wish of finding a way out of the conflict and a brighter future for the country.

Nato: The trans-Atlantic military alliance has not taken direct action in Ukraine, which is not member of the alliance. Nato has, however, been actively involved in reporting on its view on Russian involvement, as well as through increasing its Eastern positions in the Baltic states.

The United States has together with EU member states been in charge of the sanctioning

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26248275http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26248275http://www.dw.de/merkel-warns-russia-of-new-sanctions-if-ukraine-ceasefire-violated/a-18293845 http://www.dw.de/merkel-warns-russia-of-new-sanctions-if-ukraine-ceasefire-violated/a-18293845

8

MNSTER 2015

of Russia. As a symbolic sign of condemning intervention, the Group of 8 boycotted its sum-mit in Sochi last year, being reduced to G7 until Russia changes course. The IMF has taken charge of the aid packages sent to economically stabilise the new Ukrainian government.

Further reading Comment from Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=GHOogfETJZs#t=23 Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov addresses EU sanctions: https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=g_3c5iu_VYE

Measures in placeSo far, the EU sanctions on Russia have taken the form of a diplomatic ban on a number of people in President Putins circle, as well as broken cooperation with a number of Russian corporations including large energy companies. The economic impact the crisis is having on Russia is evident, but whether it is helpful for diplomatic negotiations remains unclear. The largest recent expansion of the sanctions was announced by the European Council last July. The sanctions list has since been unified with that of the United States.Russian counter-sanctions are of a similar nature, further including actions towards foreign companies operating in Russia, and lifting energy prices for export to Ukraine and Europe. The food import ban from last autumn is still in place, and has deranged many European agricultural exporters profits during the past months.

The long peace talks held in Minsk (Belarus) in February between France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia resulted in a ceasefire starting by 15th February and the withdrawal of heavy ar-tillery from the immediate border zone between government and separatist forces. Since then, several casualties from explosions have been reported from within the conflict zone.

So far Nato has kept from actively engaging in supporting Ukraine, as direct military action between Russia and Nato is strictly being avoided. But multiple press releases of Russian military movements have been published. Russia has already accused Nato forces of being present and active in Ukraine, and the military power of the west is definitely seen by Rus-sia and its allies as a threat and a provocation towards security at its borders.

Further reading List of EU sanctions against Russia: http://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-cov-

erage/eu_sanctions/index_en.htm The Minsk ceasefire plan: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29162903 Fact sheet on different types of EU sanctions in coherence with existing regulations

(mainly the CFSP): http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/135804.pdf

Timeline on how the war of sanctions has evolved since the start of conflicts: http://www.cctv-america.com/timeline-us-eu-sanctions-against-russia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHOogfETJZs#t=23https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHOogfETJZs#t=23https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_3c5iu_VYEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_3c5iu_VYEhttp://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu_sanctions/index_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu_sanctions/index_en.htmhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29162903http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/135804.pdfhttp://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/135804.pdfhttp://www.cctv-america.com/timeline-us-eu-sanctions-against-russiahttp://www.cctv-america.com/timeline-us-eu-sanctions-against-russia

9

MNSTER2015

NOTES

10

MNSTER 2015

The 11th European Development Fund for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries is currently in the planning phase. To what ex-tent should the EU use political conditionality to promote peace, democracy, rule of law and good governance?

Relevance and explanation2015 is the European Year of Development and also the year in which the UNs Millenni-um Goals were set to be fulfilled. Accordingly, the European Commission released a press statement declaring the 11th European Development Fund (EDF), the EUs main instru-ment for delivering development aid to the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group States (ACP) and oversea countries and territories (OCTs), in full force.

Most of EDFs approaches on development aid are based around political conditionality, a method used by the EU to promote both human rights and democratic practices. It is used to reward countries that meet criteria given by EU policies and penalise countries that do not. Examples of positive support include financial support of democratic reform programmes or assistance given to non-governmental organisations that promote demo-cratic principles. Negative actions usually involve the suspension of aid for development programmes and frameworks.

Whether political conditionality should be attached to foreign aid policies remains a con-troversial issue. While some critics question the effectiveness of such regulations, institu-tions like the Overseas Development Institute point out that among the various reasons for the disappointing export performance and general development of ACP (and other developing) countries, the quality of institutions has been identified as a major [restraint], thus underlining the importance of those principles for effective aid.

Critics of political conditionality also deplore that some criteria lead to a vicious circle only punishing the poorest parts of society while the already established elite in developing countries stays mainly unaffected. Another point often raised is the way donors measure the fulfilment of criteria such as good governance, which lacks an objective definition.

Still, the official website of the European Year of Development states that over the last decade, thanks to EU funding, almost 14 million pupils could go to primary school, more than 70 million people were linked to improved drinking water, and over 7.5 million births were attended by skilled health workers, saving the lives of mothers and babies, pointing out the progress and the contributions the EU has made. According to a review of the De-velopment Assistance Committee, the EU has taken steps to make its aid more effective

DEVEWritten by: Elisabeth Gerlach (DE) & Levent Aslan (TR)

11

MNSTER2015

and give it more impact with further progress still needed.

The ultimate simplification of this complex, multi-layered problem would be this: The ques-tion of whether to give without expecting any political reforms in return has become a major issue for the EU.

Further reading Reviewing the evidence: How well does the European Development Fund perform? by

Mikaela Gavas:http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8218.pdf News Article: EU divided over conditionality of aid by Ccile Barbire:http://www.euractiv.com/sections/development-policy/eu-divided-over-conditionali-

ty-aid-311560 Political Conditionality in European Union Development Assistance - Assessing effec-

tiveness and consistency - by Selma Rothhttp://www.ie-ei.eu/IE-EI/Ressources/file/memoires/2009/ROTH.pdf Commission page on 15 things you may not know about EU development cooperation

in 2015https://europa.eu/eyd2015/en/content/eu-development-aid

Stakeholders The European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) are responsible

for managing the EDF. The European Commissions Directorate-General for International Cooperation and

Development (DG DEVCO)- Europe Aid: It was put in place to maximise the value and impact of aid by putting policies in an wider international context such as the UNs Mil-lennium Development Goals.

African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP): An organisation composed of 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific states, with all of them, except Cuba, signatories to the Cotonou Partnership Agreement.

ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly: An international assembly consisting equal rep-resentation from ACP and EU. Its main aims are the promotion of human rights and democracy through joint commitments. It has 3 sub-committees: Political Affairs; Eco-nomic Development, Finance and Trade; and Social Affairs and the Environment.

Non-state actors (NSA): A term used for a broad range of actors including non-gov-ernmental organisations (NGOs), community-based organisations, academia, political foundations, media etc. Their independency from state and their ability to provide ef-fective delivery of development programmes are important in terms of the goals EU wants to achieve.

Local authorities (LA): As they offer public service and build democratic institutions, local authorities have the power of enforceability.

Further reading The commissions page on European Development Fundhttp://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/about-funding/where-does-money-come/euro-

pean-development-fund_en ACP websitehttp://www.acp.int/content/secretariat-acp

http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8218.pdfhttp://www.euractiv.com/sections/development-policy/eu-divided-over-conditionality-aid-311560http://www.euractiv.com/sections/development-policy/eu-divided-over-conditionality-aid-311560http://www.ie-ei.eu/IE-EI/Ressources/file/memoires/2009/ROTH.pdfhttps://europa.eu/eyd2015/en/content/eu-development-aid http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/about-funding/where-does-money-come/european-development-fund_enhttp://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/about-funding/where-does-money-come/european-development-fund_enhttp://www.acp.int/content/secretariat-acp

12

MNSTER 2015

Key terms European Development Fund (EDF): EUs main instrument for delivering development

aid to the ACP countries. It is funded outside the EU budget by voluntary contributions from the EU Member States on the basis of specific contribution shares for a multi-an-nual period.

The Georgetown Agreement: The agreement which created ACP in 1975. In its pream-ble, the party states reaffirm their commitment to the respect for human rights and the rights of peoples, democratic principles and the rule of law.

Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF): It sets out the maximum annual amounts which the EU may spend in different political fields over a period of at least 5 years with the current one covering from 2014 to 2020. Not to be confused with EU budget, MFF is only a projection of EU spending, purposing budgetary discipline and predictability.

Budget support: This involves the direct financial transfer to the national treasury of the partner country conditional on policy dialogue, performance assessment and capac-ity building.

Further reading Introduction of European Development Fund by the European Commission http://

ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/about-funding/where-does-money-come/europe-an-development-fund_en

Full text for Georgetown Agreement: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/other_treaties/text.jsp?file_id=173331

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/policy-coherence-development_en http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/node/13967 Policy Coherence for what did you say by Laura Sullivan https://europa.eu/eyd2015/

en/concord/posts/policy-coherence-what-did-you-say

Key questions Compared to the 10th EDF, Frances contribution share for the 11th EDF drops by near-

ly 18 percent, with the UK and Italys shares also decreasing nearly 15 and 13 percent respectively. How should one interpret each countrys contribution from a political and financial perspective? What effect, if any, does the economic and debt crisis in Europe have?

What should the EUs stance be regarding political conditionality? Should the EU have specific goals and targets when promoting political and economic reforms in third countries?

What has been the response of populations and governments of ACP countries to po-litical conditionality so far?

To what extent should the EU compromise its own interests to minimise contradictions with the planning of development aid and promote policy coherence?

Key conflicts Whether the EDF shall be brought back to the MFF and therefore to the EU budget is a rather important question considering the European Parliaments willingness to take part in the planning phase of the EDF. In current conjuncture the European Parliament manag-es the EU budget and projects the MFF, while the Commission and the EIB are responsible for the EDF. Some experts are proposing the immediate integration of funding for the ACP countries into the main EU budget, suggesting a shift to EP in management department. The Commission, on the other hand, intends to do so after 2021 with a new Cotonou

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/about-funding/where-does-money-come/european-development-fund_enhttp://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/about-funding/where-does-money-come/european-development-fund_enhttp://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/about-funding/where-does-money-come/european-development-fund_enhttp://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/other_treaties/text.jsp?file_id=173331http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/other_treaties/text.jsp?file_id=173331https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/policy-coherence-development_enhttp://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/node/13967https://europa.eu/eyd2015/en/concord/posts/policy-coherence-what-did-you-sayhttps://europa.eu/eyd2015/en/concord/posts/policy-coherence-what-did-you-say

13

MNSTER2015

Agreement. With this possible replacement of a key actor, the whole planning process may be transformed due to the EPs current tendency to cut out funds for aid; which will de-crease the effect of thus, there should be discussion on the future of this conflict and the possible effects of an action.

Turning on to the relations between ACP countries and the EU, the latest report by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly indicates a conflict as well. While the ACP co-rappor-teur suggests there is a danger on imposing the models of civilisation that are contrary to peoples culture, the EP co-rapporteur argues that cultural rights are limited at the point at which they infringe on other human rights. The implementation of political conditionality should be effective enough to protect human rights and at the same time it should respect cultural values.

Further reading Draft report on cultural diversity and human rights in ACP and EU countriesh t tp : / /www.europar l . europa .eu/meetdocs /2014_2019/documents /acp/

dr/1048/1048505/1048505en.pdf Is the Earth flat or is it a cube? European foreign aid, political conditionality and democ-

racy by Jrg Fausthttp://www.die-gdi.de/briefing-paper/article/is-the-earth-flat-or-is-it-a-cube-europe-

an-foreign-aid-political-conditionality-and-democracy/[EF1] [EF2] European development aid as loans or gifts? News articlehttp://www.euractiv.com/sections/development-policy/growing-share-european-devel-

opment-aid-disguised-loans-310767

Measures in place Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA): The treaty between the EU and ACP. According

to the CPA, aid allocations are based on an assessment of a countrys needs and perfor-mance and includes the possibility to regularly adjust financial resources accordingly. In practice, it means that more money can be channelled to good performers and that the share of bad performers can be reduced. Even the partial or complete suspension of development cooperation between the EU and the country in violation may take place in the event of violation of good governance. It has 4 main principles:

o Equality of partners and ownership of development strategieso Participation: While the central governments are still the main actors, partnership

under the Cotonou Agreement is open to civil society, the private sector, and local governments as well.

o Dialogue and mutual obligationso Differentiation and regionalisation

Millenium Development Goals (MDG): In the year 2000, the EU joined world leaders of 189 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and agreed on eight specific goals (e.g. eradicate extreme poverty and hunger) to be achieved by 2015. Now the in-ternational community is expected to replace the MDGs with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and a new global agenda, the post-2015 development agenda.

African Peace Facility (APF): Founded in the Cotonau Agreement and funded by EDF, this instrument is the main source of funding to support the African Unions and African Regional Economic Communities efforts in the area of peace and security.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/acp/dr/1048/1048505/1048505en.pdfhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/acp/dr/1048/1048505/1048505en.pdfhttp://www.die-gdi.de/briefing-paper/article/is-the-earth-flat-or-is-it-a-cube-european-foreign-aid-political-conditionality-and-democracy/http://www.die-gdi.de/briefing-paper/article/is-the-earth-flat-or-is-it-a-cube-european-foreign-aid-political-conditionality-and-democracy/http://www.euractiv.com/sections/development-policy/growing-share-european-development-aid-disguised-loans-310767http://www.euractiv.com/sections/development-policy/growing-share-european-development-aid-disguised-loans-310767

14

MNSTER 2015

Agenda for change: Introduced in 2011, this policy aims at targeting development as-sistance more effectively by concentrating programming on two priority areas:

o Human rights, democracy and other aspects of good governanceo Inclusive and sustainable growth.

Policy Coherence for Development (PCD): A strategy to align development objectives with all policies of the EU affecting developing countries. It aims at minimising contra-dictions and increase the effectiveness of development cooperation.

Further reading Overview of The ACP-EU partnership agreement by European Commissionhttp://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/sierra_leone/eu_sierra_leone/political_relations/part-

nership_framework/acp_eu_agreement/index_en.htm Brochure by the European Commission EU Contribution to the Millenium Develop-

ment Goalshttp://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/documents/mdg-brochure-2013_en.pdf Commissions page on Agenda for Changehttps://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/european-development-policy/agenda-change_

en

http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/sierra_leone/eu_sierra_leone/political_relations/partnership_framework/acp_eu_agreement/index_en.htmhttp://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/sierra_leone/eu_sierra_leone/political_relations/partnership_framework/acp_eu_agreement/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/documents/mdg-brochure-2013_en.pdfhttps://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/european-development-policy/agenda-change_enhttps://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/european-development-policy/agenda-change_en

15

MNSTER2015

NOTES

16

MNSTER 2015

Relevance and explanationThe internal market is one of the foundations of the EU. It stems from the belief that free trade and competitive markets provide the best basis for prosperity, through employment and economic growth. Free trade is established through the four fundamental freedoms of the EU. Goods, services, capital and persons can generally move freely between member states. However, more is needed to guarantee the success of the internal market. Thus, the EU was charged with establishing competition law: rules to guarantee a well-functioning, competitive market.

The main beneficiaries of competitive markets are the consumers. When producers have to compete for their customers, they will charge at the lowest prices possible and ensure the best quality of goods. To satisfy the wants of their customers best, and differentiate from other producers, they will offer a wider range of goods, giving the customers a choice. To deliver this choice and produce better products, businesses need to be innovative in their product concepts, design, pro-duction techniques, services etc. Com-panies have an interest in restricting competition because it allows them to charge higher prices, and thereby ulti-mately to reap higher profits.

There are several ways in which com-petition among producers can be re-stricted. A company can restrict compe-tition if it is in a position of strength on a given market. A dominant position is not in itself anti-competitive, but if the company exploits this position to elim-inate competition, it is considered to have abused it. Abuse of such position can be e.g. charging unreasonably high prices or depriving smaller competitors of customers by selling at unsustainably

Cartels as a threat to free European markets: With the European Commission fining companies more than 1.6 billion in antitrust cases in 2014, it appears anticompetitive practices are still wi-despread. How can the EU ensure more effective regulation of cartels?

ECONWritten by: Quirin von Blomberg (DE)

http://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z/d#node-21529595

17

MNSTER2015

low prices they cant compete with. Other restrictions to competition are mergers and ac-quisitions of companies that result in dominant market positions or benefits for companies granted by governments (state aid).

The most common form of anticompetitive practice are agreements between companies. As they are illegal under Article 101 TFEU , the European Commission is authorised to in-vestigate and penalise such conduct. It can impose heavy fines of up to 10% of the groups turnover on those companies found guilty. In 2014, fines reached in antitrust cases reached 1.6 billion. Those were imposed on companies from all sorts of sectors as cartels are not a sector-specific phenomenon. Cases of TVs, car glass and interest rate derivatives have each reached fines for collusion of more than one billion euros in recent years.

Further reading Key statistics on EU cases: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/statistics/statistics.

pdf Recent cartel cases: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/cases/cases.html Highly recommended article by The Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/busi-

ness/21599799-trustbusters-have-got-better-detecting-cartels-and-bolder-punishing-them-incentives

Key terms Internal market/single market: the EUs free-trade area with free movement of goods,

services, capital and persons (four freedoms) as well as common product standards and competition policy.

Competition: rivalry among producers to satisfy the needs of consumers, so that no producers have enough power to individually control the market. Different degrees of competition exist in economic theory, from hypothetical perfect competition to mo-nopoly (a complete lack of competition). In modern capitalist economies, fair competi-tion is thought to be essential for efficiency and low prices for consumers.

Hard core cartels (when firms agree not to compete with one another) are the most serious violations of competition law. They injure customers by raising prices and re-stricting supply, thus making goods and services completely unavailable to some pur-chasers and unnecessarily expensive for others. The categories of conduct most often defined as hard core cartels are: price fixing, output restrictions, market allocation and bid rigging (the submission of collusive tenders).

Antitrust or Competition law is a law that promotes or seeks to maintain market com-petition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies. In the EU it is chiefly enforced by the Commission.

Cartels can occur as horizontal as well as vertical agreements. Vertical agreements are all forms of consent between two firms at the same level in the supply chain while hori-zontal agreements exist between firms operating at different levels.

Key questions Should costlier investigation methods, as market screening, be employed? How can illicit collusion be distinguished from competition? How can harmful agreements be distinguished from beneficial ones? Should criminal prosecution complement civil litigation to improve deterrence of sanc-

tions? How can the cooperation between the European Commission and national competi-

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=ENhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/statistics/statistics.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/statistics/statistics.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/cases/cases.htmlhttp://www.economist.com/news/business/21599799-trustbusters-have-got-better-detecting-cartels-and-bolder-punishing-them-incentives http://www.economist.com/news/business/21599799-trustbusters-have-got-better-detecting-cartels-and-bolder-punishing-them-incentives http://www.economist.com/news/business/21599799-trustbusters-have-got-better-detecting-cartels-and-bolder-punishing-them-incentives http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/smact/index_en.htmhttp://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z/c#node-21529807http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/agreements_en.htmlhttp://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z/a#node-21529487

18

MNSTER 2015

tion authorities be improved?

Further reading Protocol of a peculiar investigation procedure:http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/12/cartels The Economist policy recommendations:http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21599775-market-rigging-unsexy-industries-

costs-consumers-lot-more-can-be-done-detect-and-deter

Key conflictsIt is generally agreed that to improve effective prevention of cartels, as most serious anti-competitive practice, deterrence must be increased. This can be done in two ways: Firstly, sanctions can be increased either in existing fines or deploying new ways, as criminal pros-ecution, practiced in e.g. the UK or the US. The prospect of incarceration can be a powerful deterrent for business people considering entering into a cartel agreement. Secondly the chances of detection must be improved by new investigative methods. Besides the whistle blowing programme that remains the main investigation tool, recent cases, like the LIBOR manipulations, have been detected with complex economic analy-sis that identify suspicious patterns in price developments. These proactive cartel detec-tion tools involve the analysis of observable economic data and firm behaviour, systematic monitoring of media, tracking of firms & individuals to detect behaviour which is inconsist-ent with a healthy competitive process. However some remain sceptical of such screening . Not only because of the cost of such schemes but because they have produced false posi-tives as well as false negatives. That is, they will fail to detect some cartels, and will probably also incorrectly flag some industries or markets that are not cartelised. Nevertheless, they might serve as useful indicator that prompts further investigation. It is not always clear to distinguish between competitive and collusive markets as they can look very similar. If firms price according to their costs, and cost (i.e. of inputs) changes, then prices shift together in competitive markets, just as they would in cartels. This prob-lem is furthered by the use of modern technology in pricing strategies. Algorithms em-ployed in dynamic pricing react rapidly to competitors price changes, sometimes wrongly suggesting that firms colluded. Competition authorities try to get around this, by not only looking at pricing but profitability; as profits tend to be higher in collusive markets than competitive ones. Furthermore, not all form of cartels are harmful. Some horizontal agreements between companies can fall short of a hard core cartel, and in certain cases may have beneficial ef-fects. For example, agreements between competitors related to research & development, production and marketing can result in reduced costs for companies, or improved prod-ucts, the benefits of which are passed on to consumers. The challenge for competition au-thorities is how to assess these agreements, balancing the pro-competitive effects against any anti-competitive effects which may distort the market.

Further reading Findings by the OECD on the effectiveness of proactive investigation methods: http://

www.oecd.org/competition/exofficio-cartel-investigations.htm

StakeholdersA study by the OECD found the median price increase of cartels compared to competitive markets to be 15 to 20%, with a high of over 50%. The damage of such anticompetitive

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/12/cartelshttp://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21599775-market-rigging-unsexy-industries-costs-consumers-lot-more-can-be-done-detect-and-deter http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21599775-market-rigging-unsexy-industries-costs-consumers-lot-more-can-be-done-detect-and-deter http://competitionpolicy.ac.uk/documents/8158338/8256111/CCP+Working+Paper+08-19.pdfhttp://competitionpolicy.ac.uk/documents/8158338/8256111/CCP+Working+Paper+08-19.pdfhttps://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/screening-for-cartels-in-procurement-procedures-lessons-learnedhttp://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/dynamic-pricinghttp://www.oecd.org/competition/exofficio-cartel-investigations.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/competition/exofficio-cartel-investigations.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/competition/cartels/2081831.pdf

19

MNSTER2015

practices is always carried by the consumer. Consumers choose either not to pay the high-er price for some or all of the cartelised product that they desire, thus forgoing the product, or they pay the cartel price and thereby unknowingly transfer wealth to the cartel opera-tors. A recently legislated directive (see Measures in place) gives consumers full rights for compensation and refocuses the EUs competition policy on the consumers benefit. Companies engage in cartels because despite seemingly heavy fines, it remains profitable and therefore a rational business strategy to do so. An academic paper, albeit focussing on the US, yet applicable to the EU, concluded that sanctions against cartels remain too low and given the chances of detection, which it estimates at one in five, do not ensure ade-quate deterrence. This substantiates the words by an executive of a large cement firm: ...its hard to stop fixing prices when its still so worthwhile. The European Commission is the main safeguard and enforcer of competition rules in the EU. It decides on mergers and acquisitions, carries out investigations and imposes fines to offenders. Since not all forms of agreement between companies are illegal, the commis-sion often has to decide on a case basis whether an agreements is beneficial or harmful to the consumer. All aspects of enforcing competition policy take into account consumers interests. It works in close cooperation with the European Competition Network (ECN), an association of national competition authorities, to ensure the effective prevention of cartels across national borders by coordinating investigations and sharing best practices. In a globalised economy with companies increasingly a borders, restrictions to competition have implica-tions on markets in several countries or even continents. The Commission is involved in close cooperation with competition authorities (e.g. U.S. Department of Justice, Japan Fair Trade Commission, etc.) through bilateral agreements as well as multinational organisa-tions (i.e. OECD, WTO). Together with the European Parliament, the EU Council is where EU laws on consumer protection and competition law are approved.

Further reading EU institutions: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/institutions_en.html Key actors in legal procedures: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/key_actors_

en.pdf

Measures in placeSince cartels are illegal, they are generally highly secretive and evidence of their existence is not easy to find. The leniency policy encourages companies to hand over inside evidence of cartels to the European Commission. The first company in any cartel to do so will not have to pay a fine. This results in the cartel being destabilised. In recent years, most cartels have been detected by the European Commission after one cartel member confessed and asked for leniency, though the European Commission also successfully continues to carry out its own investigations to detect cartels.

Since 2008 companies found by the Commission to have participated in a cartel can settle their case by acknowledging their involvement in the cartel and getting a smaller fine in return. Where the parties to a cartel case agree with the Commission findings, the Com-mission wants to be able to use an instrument to speed up the adoption of a Decision. This should free resources to deal with other cases, increasing the detection rate and overall efficiency of the Commissions antitrust enforcement. This is also expected to have a posi-tive impact on general deterrence.

The main tool for prosecuting cartels in the EU remain fines on the offending companies.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1917657http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20140329_WBC625_0.pnghttp://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20140329_WBC625_0.pnghttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/institutions_en.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/key_actors_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/key_actors_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/leniency/leniency.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/legislation/cartels_settlements/settlements_en.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/legislation/cartels_settlements/settlements_en.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/overview/factsheet_fines_en.pdf

20

MNSTER 2015

The table on the right summa-rises the method used in the calculation of fines.

Infringements of the EU anti-trust rules (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU), such as price cartels or abuses of a dominant position in the market, are not only det-rimental for the economy and consumers at large: they also cause concrete harm to infring-ers customers and competitors (e.g. higher prices, lost profits). The Court of Justice of the Eu-ropean Union has established that any citizen or business has a right to full compensation for the harm caused to them by an infringement of the EU antitrust rules.

However, most victims, par-ticularly SMEs and consumers, rarely obtain compensation in practice. The right to compensation is an EU right, but its exercise is governed by national rules. These often make it costly and difficult to bring antitrust damages actions. The Eu-ropean Parliament legislated a Directive on antitrust damages actions to remove the main obstacles standing in the way of effective compensation, and to guarantee a minimum pro-tection for citizens and businesses, everywhere in the EU. It will have to be implemented in the legislation of Member States by December 2016.

Further reading Antitrust procedures in anticompetitive agreements: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/

antitrust/procedures_101_en.html Antitrust legislation: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.

html EU paving way for class action in civil litigation against cartels: http://uk.reuters.com/

article/2014/04/17/uk-eu-cartels-compensation-idUKBREA3G1MG20140417

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures_101_en.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures_101_en.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.htmlhttp://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/uk-eu-cartels-compensation-idUKBREA3G1MG20140417 http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/uk-eu-cartels-compensation-idUKBREA3G1MG20140417

21

MNSTER2015

NOTES

22

MNSTER 2015

Relevance and explanationFemale genital mutilation (FGM) is a specific form of violence involving procedures that in-tentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-therapeutic purposes. The procedures, which are often performed without anaesthetic or sterilised equipment, have no health benefits for girls or women, and are categorised into 4 main groups: clitori-dectomy, excision, infibulation and other. It is estimated that around 140 million women have been affected by FGM worldwide. Immediate complications can include shock, severe pain, haemorrhage (bleeding), infection, open sores and injury to nearby genital tissue. Apart from the lasting psychological impact and reduced sexual pleasure, other long term consequences include urinary tract infections, cysts, infertility, and an increased need for further surgeries. FGM is recognised internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. The practice also violates a persons rights to health, security and physical integrity, their right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life, when the procedure results in death.

FGM is considered a crime within the EU. In addition, in some countries, a principle of extra-territoriality renders it possible to prosecute the practicers even when FGM is committed outside of the countrys borders. The practice is most common in the western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa, in a few countries in Asia and the Middle East, and globally among migrants from these areas. It is also widespread in some EU countries, including, but not limited to; Austria, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.

Further reading http://europa.eu/!Hp96jH http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-violence/eliminating-female-geni-

tal-mutilation/index_en.htm http://www.desertflowerfoundation.org/en/ http://www.taskforcefgm.de/en/situation/was-ist-fgm/motiv/

Despite the 2013 European Commission communication on the elimination of female genital mutilation (FGM), the practice is still carried out not only within the EU, but also in third coun-tries. What action should Member States take to help those at risk of being taken abroad for FGM?

FEMMWritten by: Caoimhe Healy (IE) & David Norali Ghasem (DE)

http://europa.eu/!Hp96jH http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-violence/eliminating-female-genital-mutilation/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-violence/eliminating-female-genital-mutilation/index_en.htmhttp://www.desertflowerfoundation.org/enhttp://www.taskforcefgm.de/en/situation/was-ist-fgm/motiv

23

MNSTER2015

Key terms Female genital mutilation: sometimes called female genital cutting (FGC), female cir-

cumcision (FC), or excision. Many communities also use local names to refer to this practice including Tahor or Sunna (both Arabic terms).

Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin sur-rounding the clitoris).

Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are the lips that surround the vagina).

Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.

Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterising the genital area.

De-infibulation: the act of undoing Type 3 FGM, infibulation. It is safer to have this pro-cedure done in the presence of a medical health professional.

Key questions1. What are the social, economic and religious reasons for FGM being performed? 2. What are the complications and impacts associated with FGM? What is the difference

between male circumcision and FGM? 3. Why do people subject their daughters to FGM? Is FGM an Islamic practice, or part of

any other religious requirement? Or is it a regional, cultural, practice?4. Should FGM still be legally banned when it is an important part of peoples culture?

What right do Western societies have to impose their cultural views on another culture/society?

5. What measures should be taken to ensure the collection of reliable data about FGM victims in Europe?

6. How can the EU stop FGM-tourism while ensuring that freedom of travel and right of privacy are protected, as well as no general suspicion against mainly African immigrants arises?

Key conflictsWithin the EU, there is a strong social and political consensus concerning the condemning of FGM as a serious crime. It is seen as a violation of human rights. Nevertheless, natives, as well as immigrants, from countries in which this practice is still performed, see it as a cul-tural practice, and in some cases even a religious one. There are still EU citizens who be-lieve that FGM is an honourable tradition that needs to be upheld. The circumcisers who perform FGM on young girls and women, are usually older women who are well-respected and highly paid within their communities.

The widespread lack of knowledge and education around FGM is one of the key problems preventing the abolishment of this violation. In Africa especially, many parents think that FGM is a necessary procedure which protects their daughters from illnesses, rids them of unbecoming sexual urges, and in rare cases, is seen as a cure for lesbianism.

The other spin-off issue, is that many sufferers are afraid to speak out about FGM. There seems to be an international taboo on the subject. Women who do choose make their sto-ries public can often face social isolation within their communities. Some victims also see

24

MNSTER 2015

the term female genital mutilation as somewhat of a degrading term, and again are afraid to speak out about it.

One of the greatest problems the EU faces however, is that of immigrants living in Europe, taking their young daughters abroad for this procedure. Between the lack of reliable data, the need to respect the right to freedom of travel and of privacy, and the need to protect its citizens and their rights, the EU is facing a very large crisis that needs to be dealt with before this becomes an endemic trade.

Further reading http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-violence/eliminating-female-geni-

tal-mutilation/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/fgm_taboo.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/fgm_midwife_view.pdf

StakeholdersNon-governmental organisations (NGOs) play a large part in fighting the battle against FGM. In the grand scheme of things their goal is to help protect endangered young girls and women from this procedure. On a smaller scale, they are trying to combat a lack of education and awareness; poverty; religious fundamentalism; and conservative, traditional, and patriarchal social structures.

Influential representatives of important Islamic denominations, such as Sunnis and Shiites, have both permitted and condemned FGM. While the bulk of the Middle East is not known for performing FGM, it is widespread in northern Africa where it has become linked with the Islamic faith. FGM is mainly associated with the Sunni denomination of Islam. It is also performed by Christians in north and east Africa.

The European Commission has set out a list of measures to combat FGM, which will be im-plemented over the upcoming years. These include multidisciplinary cooperation between member states, other international governments and NGOs, and also the designing of spe-cial training programmes for health practitioners who are working with migrants.

Further reading http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1153_en.htm http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/content/fatwas-against-fgm-maurita-

nia-and-niger http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&refer-

ence=P7-TA-2014-0105 http://www.stopfgmmideast.org/the-point-of-view-of-the-supreme-leader-of-the-is-

lamic-republic-of-iran-on-female-genital-mutilation/

Measures in placeSince 1997, great efforts have been made to counteract FGM, through research, work with-in communities, and changes in public policy. In 2008, the WHO, together with 9 other United Nations partners, issued a new statement which supported increased advocacy for the abandonment of FGM. The 2008 statement provides evidence collected over the past decade about the practice. It highlights the increased recognition of the human rights and legal dimensions of the problem and provides data on the frequency and scope of FGM.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-violence/eliminating-female-genital-mutilation/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-violence/eliminating-female-genital-mutilation/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/fgm_taboo.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/fgm_midwife_view.pdfhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1153_en.htmhttp://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/content/fatwas-against-fgm-mauritania-and-nigerhttp://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/content/fatwas-against-fgm-mauritania-and-nigerhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0105http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0105http://www.stopfgmmideast.org/the-point-of-view-of-the-supreme-leader-of-the-islamic-republic-of-iran-on-female-genital-mutilation/ http://www.stopfgmmideast.org/the-point-of-view-of-the-supreme-leader-of-the-islamic-republic-of-iran-on-female-genital-mutilation/

25

MNSTER2015

It also summarises research about why FGM continues, how to stop it, and its damaging effects on the health of women, girls and newborn babies. The new statement builds on the original from 1997. In December 2012, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the elimination of FGM.

In June of the same year, the European Parliament adopted the Resolution on ending female genital mutilation and in November 2013, the EC issued the Communication to the European Parliament and the Council Towards the elimination of female genital muti-lation. Following a call of the European Commission to the European Institute on Gender Equality (EIGE), the Institute launched a study on the estimation of the number of women and girls at risk of FGM in selected EU Member States. The pilot studies will be carried out in Ireland, Portugal and Sweden. These Member States have been selected based on dif-ferent criteria, such as having a national action plan and a specific law to prosecute FGM, and creating FGM-specific records in different settings like health-care, child protection, asylum, and immigration and border services. The study concluded at the end of 2014 and its results and recommendations will be communicated by June 2015.

Further reading http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&refer-

ence=P7-TA-2012-261 http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fjustice%2Fgen-

der-equality%2Ffiles%2Fgender_based_violence%2F131125_fgm_communication_en.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGJgwm5SuH4H4qgo_A4rVE6zmu1dw

Additional research videosThese links have been included as extra research. The first two links are TED Talks videos, which give first hand accounts from victims of FGM. The second is a link to a film on you-tube, called The Desert Flower, which tells the story of one particular FGM sufferer. It is not required you watch all of these, but they may interest you. http://www.ted.com/talks/kakenya_ntaiya_a_girl_who_demanded_school http://www.ted.com/talks/khadija_gbla_my_mother_s_strange_definition_of_empower-

ment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RGfqToaVnQ

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-261http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-261http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fjustice%2Fgender-equality%2Ffiles%2Fgender_based_violence%2F131125_fgm_communication_en.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGJgwm5SuH4H4qgo_A4rVE6zmu1dwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fjustice%2Fgender-equality%2Ffiles%2Fgender_based_violence%2F131125_fgm_communication_en.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGJgwm5SuH4H4qgo_A4rVE6zmu1dwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fjustice%2Fgender-equality%2Ffiles%2Fgender_based_violence%2F131125_fgm_communication_en.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGJgwm5SuH4H4qgo_A4rVE6zmu1dwhttp://www.ted.com/talks/kakenya_ntaiya_a_girl_who_demanded_schoolhttp://www.ted.com/talks/khadija_gbla_my_mother_s_strange_definition_of_empowermenthttp://www.ted.com/talks/khadija_gbla_my_mother_s_strange_definition_of_empowermenthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RGfqToaVnQ

26

MNSTER 2015

Relevance and explanationThe economy of arms exports is a lucrative business within the EU. In 2011, the EU grant-ed arms export licences worth 37.52 billion. Within the EU, France, the United King-dom, Germany and Italy are the major arms exporters that keep trading armaments to un-stable or autocratic countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and so on. The total weight of this trade sets the EU as one of the most active arms exporting regions worldwide. In order to provide a more transparent trade, the European Union had put forward legally binding regulations in arms export control. The most important European approaches are the Code of Conduct of 1998 and the Common Position on arms export controls of 2008 . These European regulations focus on transparency and include the publication of annual reports on arms exports. The problem of this policy area is that the trade of armaments is still the responsibility of the Member States rather than adhering to an integrated EU policy. In order to revise the current export controls system, the European Commission has adopted a Communication in 2014. Together with the European Parliament and the Council, the Commission is work-ing on concrete initiatives for new and suitable EU export controls, but this is only one step of the policy process which may take a long time before anything changes. The relevance of the issue of arms export controls is evident, for example, looking at the arms export to the former Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi. Newspapers report that European countries have not only provided military and electronic equipment, but also ammunition. This raises the question: how are trading interests compatible with European moral values and aims such as peace, security and respect for human rights?

Further reading http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/08675r2en8.pdf h t t p : / / e u r - l e x . e u r o p a . e u / L e x U r i S e r v / L e x U r i S e r v . d o ? u r i = O -

J:L:2008:335:0099:0103:EN:PDF Academic introduction to the topic: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/biblio-

theque/briefing/2013/130454/LDM_BRI(2013)130454_REV1_EN.pdf Review of export control policy: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/april/tra-

Written by: Christiane Suchanek (DE) & Mike Whyard (UK)

EU Member States collectively are the worlds third-largest arms exporter. Building on the 2008 Common Position on arms export controls, how should the EU balance the economic interest of its Member States with the aims of its Com-mon Security and Defence Policy, such as peace, security and respect for human rights?

INTA

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/08675r2en8.pdfhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:335:0099:0103:EN:PDFhttp://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/april/tradoc_152446.pdfhttp://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/08675r2en8.pdfhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:335:0099:0103:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:335:0099:0103:EN:PDFhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2013/130454/LDM_BRI(2013)130454_REV1_EN.pdfhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2013/130454/LDM_BRI(2013)130454_REV1_EN.pdfhttp://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/april/tradoc_152446.pdf

27

MNSTER2015

doc_152446.pdf Newspaper article: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/01/eu-

arms-exports-libya

Key terms Armament: Military weapons and equipment (may also include dual-use items); be

careful: the term may also mean the preparation of a country for war Licences: If a company wants to export military equipment to another country, the

national government has to decide whether to grant the trade or not. This is called an export license. The decision of the government (e.g. in Germany the Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control) is based on national laws and the eight criteria of common position. Yet there is no way to control or sanction the Member States deci-sions.

Diversion: Diversion of military equipment can mean two things. items are either passed on from the legal end-user to an unauthorized end-user, or they are used in an unau-thorized way by the authorized end-user

Non-proliferation and disarmament: Non-proliferation means the prevention of weap-ons increasing or spreading. It is usually used in combination with nuclear weapons and their acquisition by nations. Disarmament refers to giving up or re-ducing armed forces. These terms are often used together with the aims of arms ex-port controls.

European Security Strategy, A Secure Europe in a better world: adopted in 2003 by the European Council, updated in 2008. Mentions five key challenges faced by the EU: ter-rorism, proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), regional conflicts, State failure and organised crime.

Arms embargoes: Embargoes are political trade restrictions put in place against specific countries by the European Union (or the United Nations). The Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) as part of the Commission is in charge of propos-ing embargoes and sanctions for adoption by the Council of the European Union. There are different types of embargoes that aim at arms trade:

1) A ban on exporting or supplying arms and associated technical assis-tance, train-ing and financing

2) A ban on exporting equipment (military ammunition, weapons and goods) that might be used for the violation of human rights within a country

Dual-use items: Dual-use items are goods usually used for civilian purposes but which may have military applications, or may contribute to the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).The EU controls for example the trade with and export of dual-use items.

EU ML: Common Military List of the European Union. contains items that need to be assessed under the eight common criteria when granting or denying an export licence. The list is regularly updated and contains 22 categories of arms, munitions, military equipment and technologies. There is also a list for Dual-use items.

The no undercut principle: The national governments have to consult other Member States when they think about granting an export licence that is essentially identical to a licence that has been refused by another Member State.

Further reading An overview of European regulations on non-proliferation, disarmament and arms ex-

port controls: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/index_en.htm The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute provides for instance data and

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/april/tradoc_152446.pdfhttp://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/01/eu-arms-exports-libya http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/01/eu-arms-exports-libya http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2013/130454/LDM_BRI%282013%29130454_REV1_EN.pdfhttp://www.bafa.de/bafa/en/export_control/index.htmlhttp://www.bafa.de/bafa/en/export_control/index.htmlhttp://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/european-security-strategy?lang=enhttp://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoeshttp://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fpi/what-we-do/sanctions_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fpi/what-we-do/sanctions_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:085:0001:0036:EN:PDFhttp://ec.europa.eu/trade/import-and-export-rules/export-from-eu/dual-use-controls/http://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/index_en.htm

28

MNSTER 2015

academic research papers: http://www.sipri.org/publications An overview of possible sanctions, embargoes and restrictions listed by the gov-ern-

ment of the UK: https://www.gov.uk/sanctions-embargoes-and-restrictions Dual-use items and the EU law: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/import-and-export-rules/ex-

port-from-eu/dual-use-controls/

Key facts and figuresThe latest facts and figures on arms trade can be found here: SIPRI collects all kinds of information on arms trade, armament and also research pa-

pers: http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/transfers At the end of this page, you can find the annual reports on arms exports of the EU:

http://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/arms-export-control/index_en.htm

Key questions1. How can the compliance of the Member States with the common position of 2008 and

especially the eight common criteria be improved?

2. The Council concluded its review of the common position in 2012 with the result that the provisions and instruments of the common position are still suitable for its goals. How is this decision consistent with problems such as the lack of monitoring, the lack of implementation and no-compliance? How can the common position of 2008 be im-proved, so that these problems will be solved?

3. How can the implementation of arms embargoes be controlled? How can in this sense the position of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) and its Sanctions Com-mittee be strengthened?

4. How can the EU enhance its rules in order to reduce the risk of diversion of military technology and equipment?

5. How can be ensured that the no undercut principle is been followed by the Member States? Under which circumstances should an export licence be granted if another Member State already rejected an approval?

Further reading The Service for Foreign Policy Instruments: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fpi/what-we-do/

sanctions_en.htm

Key conflicts There is a lack of harmonisation between EU member states which is characterised by

countries ignoring previous embargoes by interpreting them differently or au-thorising doubtful arms transfers. This leads directly to the next problem: the im-plementation of the common position is not judged by the Court of Justice of the EU and there is no mechanism for sanctioning rule-breaking countries.

Although the EU annual reports state that transparency and information sharing was enhanced during the last years, there is still a great lack of transparency. Mem-ber States do not use the same statistical methods, different national classifications of mil-itary equipment (different to the EU ML) and do not provide some data of their actual

http://www.sipri.org/publicationshttps://www.gov.uk/sanctions-embargoes-and-restrictionshttp://ec.europa.eu/trade/import-and-export-rules/export-from-eu/dual-use-controls/http://ec.europa.eu/trade/import-and-export-rules/export-from-eu/dual-use-controls/http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/transfershttp://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/arms-export-control/index_en.htmhttp://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/arms-export-control/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fpi/what-we-do/sanctions_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fpi/what-we-do/sanctions_en.htm

29

MNSTER2015

arms exports (e.g. the financial value, the type of weapons and the end-user of deliver-ies).

Since there is no mechanism for controlling the authorized export licences, Member States are still trading armament to unstable or human rights violating regions. An ex-ample is the transfer of weapons to rebel fighters in Libya in 2011, though there was already an embargo at that time. Furthermore, European countries traded weapons to countries in the Middle East and North Africa region which were then used for internal repression by the government. Also one of the greatest buyers of European arms Saudi Arabia is a country in which the human-rights situation is worrying. This contradicts the criteria of the common position.

The risk of diversion of European military items is still high, though the Member States claim to consider this point when they authorise arms exports. Several coun-tries, es-pecially China and Saudi Arabia are not the end-users of the sold material, but sell the European arms to parties or countries which are embargoed be the EU.

Another severe problem concerns the transfers of surveillance software and other technologies for observing opponents of the regime. These items are not included in the EU ML or the Dual-use list, so that there is no control system at all in place.

Further reading http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2013/130454/LDM_

BRI%282013%29130454_REV1_EN.pdf http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1103b.pdf

StakeholdersThe main stakeholders are the national governments with their Ministries on Economic Affairs and Exports Controls. These national authorities are in charge of implementing the European laws on arms trade and authorising export licences. The exact composition of the responsible ministries and the ones granting licences might be different between the Member States since there is no harmonisation of this process.

The national authorities are also part of the Council of the European Union which is the main European institution that decides on the European legislation for arms exports.

The European Council decides the main direction the trade policy of the Union.

The European External Action Service (EEAS) and its Division for Non-proliferation, Disar-mament and Arms review current policies and support transparency, responsibility and the implementation of the common position. The EEAS has a special position within the EU and can influence the legislation of the Council, but it does not have decisive pow-er.

Furthermore, the role of companies has to be kept in mind. The military industry is a mul-ti-billion euro industry which has enough money to invest in lobbying and putting pressure on national governments.

Further reading External Actions Service: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarma-

ment/arms-export-control/index_en.htm Opponents of arms trade: http://www.enaat.org/de/ https://www.caat.org.uk/

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2013/130454/LDM_BRI%282013%29130454_REV1_EN.pdfhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2013/130454/LDM_BRI%282013%29130454_REV1_EN.pdfhttp://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1103b.pdfhttp://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/arms-export-control/index_en.htmhttp://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/arms-export-control/index_en.htmhttp://www.enaat.org/de/ https://www.caat.org.uk

30

MNSTER 2015

Measures in place

There are national, European and international legislation and treaties. The national laws are very different within the EU, so that one has to keep in mind that the interpretation and implementation of the European rules is varied.

An important European rule is the Code of Conduct of 1998. Building on this treaty, the Common Position on arms export controls of 2008 was established that set up some new instruments (especially concerning information sharing), but also adopted the eight com-mon criteria of the Code. When it comes to authorising arms export licenses, Member States have to consider these criteria.The international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was signed by 130 states, including the states of the European Union, in 2013. This treaty was initiated by the United Nations General Assembly and it aims to regulate international trade in conventional arms and eradicating the illegal arms trade. The ATT is the first to lay down internationally binding rules for arms exports.

Further reading Introduction of the legal system of the EU: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-prolifera-

tion-and-disarmament/arms-export-control/index_en.htm Common Position 2008/944/CFSP: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:335:0099:0103:EN:PDF The ATT and further information on the treaty can be found here: http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/ Research paper on balancing the effectiveness and responsibility of the European de-

fence market including the current legislation: http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/transfers/controlling/research/armaments/

transfers/publications/other_publ/other%20publications/conference-report-eu-de-fence-market-flemish-peace-institute

Additional VideosTo ensure that you have a better overview of the topic you may also watch these videos. About global arms trade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMLz5svLAbAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mv8D-VS4qY This video of Amnesty International underlines the importance of public pressure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWVJr55PdQM

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/08675r2en8.pdfhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:335:0099:0103:EN:PDFhttp://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/arms-export-control/index_en.htmhttp://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/arms-export-control/index_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:335:0099:0103:EN:PDFhttp://www.un.org/disarmament/ATThttp://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/transfers/controlling/research/armaments/transfers/publications/other_publ/other%20publications/conference-report-eu-defence-market-flemish-peace-institutehttp://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/transfers/controlling/research/armaments/transfers/publications/other_publ/other%20publications/conference-report-eu-defence-market-flemish-peace-institutehttp://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/transfers/controlling/research/armaments/transfers/publications/other_publ/other%20publications/conference-report-eu-defence-market-flemish-peace-institutehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMLz5svLAbAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mv8D-VS4qYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWVJr55PdQM

31

MNSTER2015

NOTES

32

MNSTER 2015

Relevance and explanationDuring the past five years, the civil war in Syria, the on-going Arab Spring, ethnic an civil wars bundled with rebel uprisings in Africa and other conflicts have resulted in millions of new refugees. The number of asylum seekers to the 28 Member States of the EU has dou-bled over the past five years to 435,385 applicants each year.

Tragically, more than 3,000 migrants have died crossing the Mediterranean in 2014, more than four times the estimated deaths in 2013. Many people are desperately seeking a better and safer life, taking increasingly high-risk routes, many fall into the hands of hu-man-traffickers.

Most of the migrants enter the Union in southern states with external borders such as It-aly or Greece, which struggle to deal with the high influx of refugees whilst other Member States have less refugees in their country.

The debate surrounding the issues associated with asylum seekers has been raging on a regional, national, and international level. Many of the issues discussed reach further than migrants themselves. Much of the debate relates to national sovereignty, as well as fear of immigrants of all colours an backgrounds by the public, of what (financial) assistance migrants may be granted by host countries. Media reports regularly suggest that many ref-ugees in the EU live under inhumane conditions with their rights being violated or without chances to integrate into their host country.

Further reading Migrants and asylum in the EU:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24583286 Refugees in the EU:http://ecre.org/refugees/refugees/refugees-in-the-eu.html coverage on refugees in Europe and European asylum policy by euronews (2012):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-XjmRIHRDI

With over a year having passed since the adoption of the Dublin III regulations, there is disagreement over whether they ensure an effective and humane asylum process. What more should the EU do to protect the rights of asylum seekers whilst ensuring that Member States can cope with the influx of refugees?

Written by: Daniela Toma (RO) & Franziska Franke (DE)

LIBE

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24583286http://ecre.org/refugees/refugees/refugees-in-the-eu.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-XjmRIHRDI

33

MNSTER2015

Key terms refugee: a person outside of his or her country of nationality who is unable or unwilling to return

because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, reli-gion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion

asylum seeker:a person who is trying to get asylum in a foreign country Dublin III regulation:determines the European Union country responsible for examining an asylum application.

It establishes the principle that only one Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application. The objective is to avoid asylum seekers from being sent from one country to another, and also to prevent abuse of the system by the submission of sev-eral applications for asylum by one person.

EURODAC:a fingerprint comparison database that is used for asylum seekers and people without Eu-

ropean residence permits. Eurodac has the purpose to make the Dublin III Regulation more efficient.

Common European Asylum System (CEAS):Noting that there are huge differences between national asylum systems, EU countries

are working to develop and establish a common asylum system. The aim is to create a level playing field, where any person seeking protection will be treated in the same way, according to the same standards, wherever they apply for asylum.

Further reading Dublin regulation:http://ecre.org/topics/areas-of-work/introduction/10-dublin-regulation.html History of Common European Asylum policy:http://ecre.org/topics/areas-of-work/introduction/194.html

Key questions How should a Common European Asylum System, which protects the rights of refugees

but also prevents the abuse of asylum, be designed ? How can it be ensured that all refugees in the EU live under humane conditions ? How can a fair burden distribution among Member State be achieved, respecting the

Member States sovereignty ? How can the EU best support its member states struggling to deal with high numbers

of refugees ? Should the Dublin III Regulations be maintained, amended or abolished ? How should connections between individual asylum seekers and particular Member

States or country preferences be taken consideration ? How can the integration process of refugees be facilitated ?

Further reading issues concerning the European Asylum Systems:http://carl/eton.ca/ces/eulearning/politics/human-rights/immigration-and-asy-

lum-some-concerns-for-europe

http://ecre.org/topics/areas-of-work/introduction/10-dublin-regulation.htmlhttp://ecre.org/topics/areas-of-work/introduction/194.htmlhttp://carl/eton.ca/ces/eulearning/politics/human-rights/immigration-and-asylum-some-concerns-for-europehttp://carl/eton.ca/ces/eulearning/politics/human-rights/immigration-and-asylum-some-concerns-for-europe

34

MNSTER 2015

Key conflictsThe discussion about the efficiency of the CEAS is centered mainly on the Dublin III Regu-lation, with the two main issues being the lack of (shared) responsibility between member countries, as a result of a lack of solidarity, and the unequal burden distribution between them. The regulation establishes no obligatory approach for EU countries to cooperate. Voluntary participation, absorbing asylum-seekers of congested member states, has only happened at a minimum level. Moreover, the three directives are criticised for the problematic effects they have on the asylum seekers. The Reception Condition Directive includes detention rules that offer six grounds for detaining an asylum seeker. The Qualification Directive fails to support the principle of non-refoulement (prohibiting the handing over of victims to their prosecutors), guaranteed in Art. 3 of the European Human Rights Convention. Finally, the definition of a safe third country in Art. 36-39 of the Asylum Procedure Directive is said to infringe on the right to a fair procedure. On the other hand, there are a series of novelties introduced by the revised Dublin Regu-lation: the right to information (Art. 4), the right to be heard (Art. 5), protection for minors (Art. 6) as well as temporary legal protection. While these indeed confer better protection and respect to asylum seekers, it still does not address the problem of jurisdiction and re-sponsibility of the member states. Additionally, there are the concerns regarding the treatment of asylum seekers. The condi-tions they face when coming to the EU vary mostly according to national laws and reveal an underlying problem in the treatment of immigrants in general. In Italy they face fines and deportation under the 2002 immigration law and in Greece refugees live in overcrowded facilities that lack proper sanitation which differ greatly from the facilities found in northern MSs. All these issues have a great impact on the outcome of the CEAS and weigh in heavily in the discussion regarding its efficiency.

Further reading Challenges in the asylum process for both refugees and states: http://www.cfr.org/

migration/europes-migration-crisis/p32874 More on the discussion: http://www.carleton.ca/ces/wp-content/uploads/Bendel-pol-

icy-brief-20143.pdf Criticism of the Dublin system: https://internationalrefugeelaw.wor