Search

This article traces the formation of Africa's position in view of the negotiations with the European Union for a successor to the Cotonou Agreement set to expire in February 2020, providing some explanations for the failure of the ACP Group and the African Union to achieve a consolidated position. By examining official discourses and the role of different actors, it demonstrates that the ACP Group and the AU manifested alternative views on the EU-ACP cooperation model and on the part that each wished to play in the negotiation and implementation of the future agreement. Moreover, it shows how, in spite of previous frictions, the ACP Secretariat and ACP Committee of Ambassadors on the one hand and the AU Commission and the AU Permanent Representatives Committee on the other formed two separate common fronts to defend their territories and preserve (or increase) their role as the EU's legitimate interlocutors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of Africa for Europe was highlighted in the 1950 Schuman Declaration. Although the overarching framework for relations between the European Union and Africa is embedded in the 2000 Cotonou Agreement, cooperation between the European Union and Africa became increasingly institutionalized through the European Union–Africa Summits of 2000, 2007, 2010 and 2014, during which political leaders from both sides made strong rhetorical commitments to a strategic partnership. Yet, for the wider public, the relationship between the European Union and Africa appears to be both obscure and complex. The fifth European Union–Africa Summit is scheduled to take place in Ivory Coast in November 2017. This article will provide an overview of the development of European Union–Africa relations that coincided with the emergence of the African Union, the successor of the Organisation of African Unity. The so-called ‘strategic partnership’ between the European Union and the African Union represents the most comprehensive partnership the African Union has with any non-African actor. By highlighting current challenges affecting both, such as irregular migration, this article will, however, demonstrate that cooperation between the two is limited and somewhat lacking in strategic direction. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the European Union and the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) nation-states are the most recent construct in a long history of developing countries' dependency and reliance on developed European countries. Even though Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) are widely used by countries party to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the European Union is hiding behind illusions of non-economic trade benefits, such as increased stability and health benefits, in their EPAs with ACP countries. The European Union has the economic bargaining power, creating an upper hand in the trade negotiations with the former colonial countries and other developing countries. The EPAs, like other PTAs, consistently have provisions that should be found to violate the most-favored nation (MFN) clause. Even though GATT Article XXIV allows for PTAs, in order for the WTO to achieve one of its initiatives to liberalize world trade, the MFN clause should penetrate throughout the EU-ACP agreements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

West African elites have successfully argued for an Economic Partnership Agreement Development Programme (EPADP) as part of free trade negotiations with the European Commission. ECOWAS officials state that the EPADP is necessary to realise the ‘development dimension’ of trade. In particular, they have (re)articulated Europe's own narratives relating to Aid for Trade and private sector development – insisting that the European Commission delivers on its promises. Accordingly, European negotiators have conceded the principle of the EPADP, stating that around €6·5 billion will be delivered. This article, however, examines the likely (in)capacity of the EPADP to meaningfully marry trade and development in the context of premature liberalisation under Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Crucially, it argues that West African extraversion in terms of EPADP resources may entrench predatory elites while locking-in ECOWAS states into inequitable trade structures that re-embed poverty in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Since 2000 the cooperation between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states has been governed through the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. This article complements existing research that focuses on Brussels-based stakeholders with an analysis drawing on the existing literature and on stakeholders' perceptions of ACP–EU cooperation and ACP institutions gathered via interviews in nine ACP countries. The findings presented observe a social disconnect between, on the one hand, the Cotonou Partnership Agreement's institutions and Brussels-based representatives, and, on the other hand, the broad-based and multistakeholder partnership they are tasked to promote. The article points to low levels of support in ACP countries, particularly in Africa, to continued ACP–EU cooperation in its present form, and stresses the need for an open and participatory process of reviewing and reshaping ACP–EU relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the Africa-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) European Union (EU) Joint Parliamentary Assembly. It states that the Cotonou Agreement has created a partnership between EU and its Member States, and 78 countries of ACP. It mentions that parliamentary dimensions have grown in importance within the framework of EU-ACP.

Since the year 2001, Kenya’s copyright regime has extensively been shaped by Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement; World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty; Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA); and The Cotonou Agreement, which have advocated for effective copyright administration and management structures in addition to stiffer penalties for those who violate copyright laws. Despite better administrative structures being put in place, copyright infringement in Kenya has persisted. Being able to balance the needs of rights owners and information consumers becomes a critical role librarians have to play. Knowledge about copyright, thus, becomes critical. Despite the fact that librarians in Kenya are not a homogenous group, how knowledgeable the different librarian cadres are concerning copyright issues is least understood. The raison d’être for this study is to find out whether different cadres of librarians based on academic qualifications differ in the level of knowledge on copyright issues. A questionnaire was used to collect data. Results indicate no statistically significant difference in self-reported knowledge of copyright among the five librarian cadres based on their education level and neither is there a statistically significant difference based on librarians’ years of service. Statistically significant differences among the five librarian cadres exist when we compare “tested knowledge” of copyright issues. Evidence of insufficient mastery of provisions in the Kenyan copyright law does exist. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article reports on the development cooperation of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)-European Union (EU) Partnership Agreement (Cotonou Agreement (CA). It notes that the partnership is to build relations and also to reconstruct the EU's external relations under Lisbon Treaty and the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS). It mentions that the revision of the CA has been signed in June 2010.

The Cotonou Partnership between the states of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) and the European Union (EU) provides a case in which the human rights approach to development is being put into practice. This article uses the partnership to address broader questions regarding the effectiveness of the new approach to development. The EU-ACP partnership is innovative because it reflects the changing international consensus on development, but it is not clear if the norms used in the Cotonou Agreement have achieved the consensus needed to comprise any real shift in development policy. Moreover, it can be argued that what diminishes the efficacy of the human rights approach in the EU-ACP relationship is political conditionality as this mechanism may lead to interventions that are counterproductive to the establishment of stable democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Development Consensus 2005 contains a broad policy re-statement of the EU's world view vis-a-vis its internal and external relations. It places poverty eradication and sustainable development at the heart of its policy. The context within which poverty eradication is pursued is an increasingly globalised and interdependent world that constantly creates new opportunities and challenges. Combating global poverty is seen by both parties not only as a moral obligation; rather as a building block for a more stable, peaceful, prosperous and equitable world, reflecting the interdependency of its richer and poorer countries. The EU has in its relations with the African, Pacific and Caribbean countries, past and present, pursued a development agenda via successive aid and development cooperation arrangements starting with the Yaounde I convention, through Lome to the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA). In this article I reflect on the CPA, based on a corpus of shared objectives, principles and the Lome 'acquis' in relation to Malawi non-state actors (NSAs). I reflect on the opportunities and challenges it presents and how contemplated social dialogue between government and NSAs on the one hand and the EU can translate into poverty reduction, sustainable development and integration of the local economy to the global economy. I conclude that unlike its predecessors, Yaounde and Lome conventions, the CPA acknowledges the complementary role of NSAs in the development process, however NSAs in Malawi face constraints in terms of organisation and capacity building that affects their participation. What I do not do is to offer a discussion of the CPA as a whole, for that is outside the scope of this article, but rather have focused on the governance aspect vis-a-vis NSAs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we present a new proposal for the measurement of development, applied to the Pacific Countries of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group (ACP), conditional on their insularity, and with privileged relations with the European Union. Our index has been constructed attending to the criteria defined in the Goals of the Millennium Declaration. For this purpose we will use the P distance method for the year 2007, the last year for which data are available. This index integrates socio-economic variables that permit a territorial ordering of the Pacific ACPs, in terms of those partial indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the economic partnership agreement (EPA) between the European Union (EU) and the Pacific Islands consisting of African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries. It mentions that partial EPAs has been initialled in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Fiji, with no agreements have been made in the remaining Pacific Island countries. It explains the reasons on the possible misunderstanding of the role conceptions and negotiation goals between EU and EPA.

Distinguishing between '(good) governance' as a process and an outcome, this article examines both the processes and outcomes of governance in the context of the EU's relationship with ACP states since the adoption of the Cotonou Agreement. The article discusses and assesses a variety of governance mechanisms, including the European Commission's use of the governance concept, Economic Partnership Agreements, manifestations of partner preferences, the European Development Fund, the revision of the Cotonou Agreement, and Fisheries Partnership Agreements. Specific examples of the wielding of each mechanism are assessed based upon two criteria: the extent to which the wielding of the mechanism by the EU is a manifestation of 'good governance', and the extent to which the mechanisms have resulted, or are likely to result, in the sustainable development of and reduction of poverty in ACP countries. The examples are chosen to illustrate contradictions between rhetoric and practice and the consequential negative (actual and potential) impact upon development in ACP states. The article ends with some suggestions for improving the EU's governance processes and their outcomes for development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The formation of the CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) honours the commitment made by all African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) nations via Article 36 of the Cotonou Agreement to conclude an agreement that is compatible with the rules and law of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It is a comprehensive agreement that covers not just goods but services, investment, and trade related issues such as innovation and intellectual property. This article posits that now that negotiations have ceased and an agreement has been signed, it is necessary to focus attention on effective implementation of the agreement. Further, this paper suggests that the development of innovation and industrial policies is a salient part of the implementation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The changes made to the Cotonou Agreement in its first formal Review in 2005 are considered. Although some of these, to the political dimensions chapter of Cotonou, may appear to fundamentally alter the EU-ACP relationship, the author argues that it is the changes to the management of the EDF that are likely to have the more important long-term impact on implementation. These occurred partly in the 2005 Review, but also in revisions made in the same period to the financial regulations governing the use of the EDF. The Review allowed the EU to update Cotonou to reflect recent international thinking on development policy and also to cater for the funding needs of its increasingly close relationship with the African Union. This latter relationship is in fact starting to outshine that with the ACP Group that the Agreement actually covers, which suggests that further, perhaps more radical, adjustments can be expected during the next review in 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines two limited forms of preferential trade arrangements: the African Growth and Opportunities Act of 2000 (AGOA) enacted by the U.S. Congress, and the Cotonou Agreement between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP). Both of these regimes are motivated by the belief that allowing trade status for developing economies will accelerate their economic growth and development.

Focuses on the forces impacting the longstanding relationship between the European Union and African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states that are altering the fundamental nature of the relationship. Signing of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement in Cotonou in 2000; Exogenous and endogenous forces of change; Effectiveness of the Lomé model; Differences between the contents of the Lomé and Cotonou agreements; Experiences with the fundamental changes and their impact on cooperation between the countries involved; Superiority of the Cotonou agreement over the Lomé Conventions.

The Cotonou Agreement, signed on 23 June 2000, defines the new relationship between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states. It was the result of 18 months of negotiations to decide the future of EU-ACP relations after the Lomé Convention's expiry on 29 February 2000. This article highlights the significant changes represented by the Cotonou Agreement and emphasises some of the dangers that may result for the ACP states. In doing so, the article adopts a neo-Gramscian perspective showing how the nature of the new EU-ACP agreement has significantly shifted the relationship further from one of co-operation to one of coercion. The new approach taken by the EU can be understood within the context of the hegemonic dominance of neoliberalism within political elites. This is most explicitly demonstrated by the EU's major justification for the proposed changes: the need to comply with the core principles and rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]