1

TITLE OF THE THESIS

‘The democratisation of the external relations of the EU with the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) Group of countries in the framework of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement

2000-2020 (CPA)’.

‘Case Study: Sub-Saharan Africa’

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................4

PART II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................7

PART III: METHODOLOGY- EMPIRICAL APPROACH................................................................18

PART IV: CONCLUSIONS/ IMPLEMENTATION..........................................................................19

PART V: TIMETABLE....................................................................................................................19

PART VI: INDICATIVE STRUCTURE...........................................................................................20

PART VII: REFERENCES- BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................22

2

ABBREVIATIONS

AASM Associated African States and Madagaskar

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific

COT Countries and Overseas Territories CPA Cotonou Partnership Agreement

CSO Civil Society Organisation

CSP Common Strategy Paper

EC European Community

EDF European Development Fund

EEC European Economic Community

EP European Parliament

EPA Economical Partnership Agreement

EU European Union

FASP Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

HR High Representative

JAES Joint Africa- EU Strategy

LDCs Least Developed Countries

MIC Middle Income Country

NSAs Non- State Actors

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

REC Region Economic Communities

3

Part I: INTRODUCTION

The present dissertation aims to study the external relations of the EU in relation to the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) group of states in the framework of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA) by assessing the democratisation efforts of both sides in relation to the targets and values of the CPA.

We have two regional systems: on the one hand, the European Union (EU), an exceptional unifying structure in the chronicles of international organisations; and on the other, the ACP group (79 states), which was created by the Georgetown Agreement (1975) and forms an inter-regional network of countries with distinct parts - Africa, Caribbean, Pacific - that have little cohesion. These two systems have been interconnected by conventional means that begin in 1957, with the Treaty of Rome, and continue to this day through a conventional evolution (Yaoundé I, II and Lomé I, II, III, IV) reaching the twenty-year Agreement of Cotonou (2000-2020).

The CPA is a binding Partner Agreement between the EU and the ACP group signed on 23 June 2000 in Cotonou (Benin) and forms the continuation of the Treaties of Yaoundé I, II (1963) and Lomé I, II, III, IV (1975-1995) following the end of de-colonisation, with the aim to maintain the special relationship that some EU (historically EEC/EC) member states had with their former colonies and overseas territories. The focal point of the CPA is economic, social and cultural development and the reduction and gradual eradication of poverty in ACP states, through a sustainable development model combined with their progressive integration in the global economy.

It still is the biggest innovative international development agreement between the North and the South, involving a very big number of member-states (79 ACP states participate in the CPA and the total number of the EU states), a binding conventional framework of intensive cooperation between the two sides, with a remarkable depth and scope, a content that includes three partnership pillars – political, development and trade – as well as pioneering founding principles, such as: (a) equality and common obligations between the two parties, (b) “ownership” of the development strategies by the ACP states and societies and (c) establishment of an institutional role not only by governments, but also by parliaments, local councils, the civil society and the private sector.

- From a political point of view, the CPA puts great emphasis on the maintenance of peace and security, on the political dialogue between the EU and ACP (article 8, political conditionality through financial leverage), on the dialogue on migration (article 13) and on the protection of human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law in the ACP states, a transgression of which may lead to the curtailing of financial support by the EU (article 96, non execution clause). A major innovation is the inclusive approach with Article 2 of the treaty, identifying “participation” as one of the fundamental principles underpinning ACP-EU cooperation. When flagrant violations of the essential elements of the CPA occur, a consultation procedure, as foreseen under article 96, can be initiated, aimed at finding a common solution to the political difficulties encountered by one of the parties. Article 96 is, however, sometimes perceived by the ACP to be negative, potentially punitive in nature, when unilaterally applied, and when applied incorrectly is neither complementary to nor in conformity with the key objectives of the CPA

- From a development point of view, the CPA, like the previous agreements (Yaoundé and Lomé), is closely connected to the developmental financing that the EU continues to provide through the European Development Fund (EDF) towards the ACP states. The EDF is subsidised on a mandatory basis by the EU member states, but the management of the funds falls solely on the European Commission, who decides on their disposal, in cooperation with the countries that

4

receive this support, and presents its decisions for final approval to the EDF Committee, which is formed by representatives from member states, with no fundamental jurisdiction.

- From a trade point of view, after the end of the commercial pillar of the CPA (one-sided, non mutual commercial preferences) in 2007, because of the end of the relevant WTO waiver, the commercial cooperation between the two sides is based not so much on the CPA, as on the mutual, asymmetric, compatible to the WTO, but controversial Regional Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), which aim to create Free Trade Zones between the EU and Regions of W. W.Africa (ECOWAS/UEMAO), Central Africa (CEEAC), East Africa (EAC), South Africa (SADC), Caribbean (CARIFORUM) and Pacific (PACIFIC).

The CPA, which ends in 2020, has already been revised twice (2005 and 2010) in order to respond to urgent international and regional challenges (e.g. climate change, food insecurities, vulnerable state institutions, effectiveness of assistance) and, while in 2015 there was to be a 3 rd

revision, the European Commission requested that this be suspended, as talks for the future of the EU-ACP relations post-Cotonou had already started.

There remains a large issue to be addressed: How the EU and the ACP states will be able to build a partnership that is more democratic, that will support the wishes of both parties, within the spirit of the benefits of the CPA and the mitigation of the tensions between the two sides.

The importance of the CPA in the implementation of external relations of the EU is undisputed; its assessment, therefore, in terms of target accomplishment is a challenge with an intense research potential, as the resulting conclusions and suggestions would contribute to the post-Cotonou era.

The main objective of this dissertation is to answer to the following question:

‘What is the impact of EU policy on the ACP Group of States in the CPA framework?’

Hypotheses:

a) “Good” governance promote democracy in the ACP countries in terms of the democratisation process within the institutional operations and their financial structures ( institution of rule of law).

b) The impact of the democratic nature of the EU Governance, as a model, on the concept of democracy adopted by the ACP countries as a state regime. 

c) The impact of the external relations of EU in the ACP countries strengthen the acquis of the Cotonou Agreement as to the common values and the interests of the two sides.

d) The non-governmental actors and the civil societies, contribute to the democratisation processes of the ACP countries.

The research scope will span the period 2007-2016, where we have a structural changes and a unified expression of the external relations of the EU in the international political stage with the Lisbon Treaty, (initially known as the Reform Treaty). The Lisbon Treaty is an international agreement which amends the two treaties which was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009. It amends the Maastricht Treaty (1993), known in updated form as the Treaty on European Union (2007) or TEU, and the Treaty

5

of Rome (1957), known in updated form as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2007) or TFEU.1

Following the evolutionary process of the formulation of EU external relations with third countries, the present study will focus on the relations between the EU and the ACP countries within the conventional framework of Cotonou, addressing questions that pertain to the viability and effectiveness of the present institutional framework, to the acquis of the CPA as to the common values and the interests of the two sides and to the role of non-governmental actors and the civil societies regions, local authorities, civil society, entrepreneurs, etc) contribution to the democratisation processes. It will also attempt to assess the policies and structures that had a positive impact and an added value to the EU-ACP relations.

The research part of this dissertation will focus on the sub-Saharan Africa, due to the necessary limitation of the research scope on the one hand, but also because of the different special weight and the strategic interests that the EU has with the three state groups (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific). The African continent is of singular interest to the EU both due to their past relationship and also because it receives the biggest bulk of the development funding. This stresses more than ever the need for an equal and cooperative partnership between the North and the South in the new geopolitical international environment.

More specifically, this dissertation proposes to introduce in the 1st part and analyse in the 2nd part the “good” and democratic governance of the European Union in its external relations with third countries and especially with the ACP states and the CPA as an instrument for the democratization of these countries.

In the 3rd part, the research will use the tools of theory framework and a specific methodology through an empirical approach (qualitative research). For the territory research two different African countries are selected as a case study, the Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as it is important to understand the Africa - Europe cooperation through the CPA.

The results will then enable us to consider other ways for a more promising and effective institutional relation between the EU and the ACP countries, the conclusions and implementation of which will be presented in the 4th part. In the 5th part, a timetable will be presented, in the 6th

part an indicative structure is proposed and in the last part (7 th) the references and an indicative bibliography will be presented for the needs of this dissertation.

It is worth noting that during the period of the research, as it is an ongoing procedure, elements of structure may change and get replaced, as new ideas and information comes to light.

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

6

PART II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The present dissertation will be based  on International Law, as our main points of reference are legal documents such as Treaties and the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA),  on Political Theory on Governance and European Governance, as the subject matter of this study is thedemocratisation process of the external policies of the EU on the one hand and the democratisation of the ACP countries on the other and on International Relationsas we will be studying relations between people, institutions and organisations within a system that goes beyond the national level.

Through this prism, I will be utilising the toolbox of traditional theories and trends in international relations, primarily realism, liberalism, international society and political economy; however, I will also employ alternative approaches in international relations, more widely known as post-positivist (Robert-Sorensen 2006, pp164): the liberalism of mutual dependence and institutional liberalism are tools that will assist in analysing the section on the role of non-governmental actors (regions, local authorities, civil society, entrepreneurs, etc).

The main advocate of the liberalist sociological approach, James Rosenau, focused in the importance of individuals in the international political scene and on supranational relations, both in a macro-scale between human populations and on a micro-level between individuals; he considered that there are various groups that operate beyond the boundaries of national jurisdiction, through supranational networks for a more peaceful world (Robert-Sorensen, 2006, pp. 173).

Moreover, the theory of liberal mutual dependence highlights the role of supranational relations and the different groups that are involved in international relations and which progressively have larger importance than states. In this theory, whose main supporters are Keohane and Nye, financial and institutional means are more useful in the new international system than state power and national interest. (Robert-Sorensen, 2006, pp178).

Finally, institutional liberalism studies the degree of institutionalisation of the international institutions in relation to their ‘width’, i.e. the number of thematic areas for which these institutions were initially formed, and to their ‘depth’, i.e. their commonality, their clarity and their independence. Furthermore, questions related to the existence and implementation of regulatory regimes, the conditions and mechanisms that were developed within them, if they remain stable through time and true to the conditions that necessitated their formation and their long-term consequences for the national political systems and the structure of international politics.

Due to the fact that the present dissertation focuses on the relations between a supranational organisation with special characteristics, such as the EU, and the group of ACP countries through an international treaty, such as Cotonou, I believe that institutional liberalism with contribute to a more in-depth analysis of this relationship and will assist in drawing conclusions based on International Law.

7

Questions :

Crucial questions such as following must be answered:

1) Is the EU external policy a democratic process in the ACP countries?

2) How it has the impact of the democratization process in the ACP countries

3) What is the role of non-governmental actors in democratization process (regions, local authorities, civil society, entrepreneurs, etc) in the framework of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA)?

After providing answers to these crucial questions on the role and effectiveness of the EU in the implementation of its external relations and analyzing these through a theoretical framework of “Governance” and “European Governance”, the study will then delve deeper into the relations between the EU and the ACP countries in the framework of the CPA; utilising the tools and conclusions of the first phase of this study (European Governance and the Democratisation of its External Relations), concrete conclusions will be formed with a view to incorporate these in the public debate that the EU has already began on the post-Cotonou era (2020) and to provide a new academic angle in the international scientific arena.

1) The EU external policy a democratic process in the ACP countries: “good” and “democratic” governance in European external relations.

According to the general International law, a necessary pre-requisite for a state to participate in the international community is for it to cover the triptych: rule of law/human rights/democracy. Through this perspective, the process of financial assistance between states began, which aims at “good” governance and, by extension, to their “democratic” governance. Today, even though all states self-proclaim themselves to be democratic, more than 150 are not. (Roukounas, E, 2004)

The decline of colonisation created a number of new states after 1960 in Africa, Asia and Latin America, where we also have a group of poor developing countries, the so-called by the French sociologist Alfred Sauvy “Third World”. Since 1965, the Third World moved towards the direction of re-adjusting the rules of international law on economic relations, so that they correspond to their particular needs. Efforts to create a New International Order began, with an emphasis on the need for international solidarity, but these were not highly successful. As far as solidarity is concerned, the third world has achieved the highest level of cohesion that we can observe today in the international relations via international organisations. (Roukounas, E, 2004).

Bringing together European countries and the EU as an entity with the newly formed states in the framework of participation in international organisations expresses a new form of solidarity between members of the legal order, provided that the two sides operate according to the principles of democracy, freedom, the rule of law and respect of the human rights (Roukounas, E, 2004). The establishment of the ACP group in 1972 was the product of a clear vision on international cooperation, emanating from the need to strengthen the former colonies and help establish these countries as independent economic and political actors.

It is important to mention that the three large member states - France, UK and Germany- as well as Belgium and the Netherlands, had already integrated issues of human rights, democracy and “good” governance into their development policies between 1989 and 1991.

The concept of “good” governance emerged from the circle of donor agencies/states between the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s and has since become one of the most used terms in academic and policy debates. (Smith, Β, 2007). Behind the new agenda of “good”

8

governance, the World Bank was the driving force with a liberal perspective. But for many reasons “good” governance remains controversial. There was no one accepted definition, a fact that weakened the process of “good” governance itself. Moreover, the fact that it was used either as a self-fulfilling promise, or as a pre-requisite for development cooperation, created misgivings among the recipient countries. State-donors used different strategies to implement “good” governance on third countries, strategies that, in many cases, had strict conditionalities and sanctions on funding and external assistance, as opposed towards those countries that complied with the demands of the donors (Carbone, M, 2012). The logic of the stick and carrot could be sai While the term “government” refers to the formal institutions of the state and their monopoly of legitimate coercive power, ie their legal authority to make decisions and to enforce them, or in other words to the formal and institutional processes which operate at the level of the nation state to maintain public order and facilitate collective action, “governance” is a concept referring to styles and processes of governing.

In a Political theoretical approach, governance is considered to signify ‘a change in the meaning of government, referring to a new process of governing; or a changed condition of ordered rule; or the new method by which society is governed’ (Rhodes, 1996, pp. 652–3). According to Rosenau et al. (1992, p. 3) “To presume the presence of governance without government is to conceive of functions that have to be performed in any viable human system . . . Among the many necessary functions, for example, are the needs wherein any system has to cope with external challenges, to prevent conflicts among its members . . . to procure resources . . . and to frame goals and policies designed to achieve them.”

Governance is ultimately concerned with creating the conditions for ordered rule and collective action, thus having outputs similar to those of government (Stoker, 1998, p. 17). The literature review of this concept indicates a consensus on the approach that the essence of governance is its focus on governing mechanisms which do not rest on recourse to the authority and sanctions of government. “The governance concept points to the creation of a structure or an order which cannot be externally imposed but is the result of the interaction of a multiplicity of governing and each other influencing actors.” (Kooiman and Van Vliet, 1993, p. 64).

Governance is used in a wide range of practitioner and academic settings in an attempt to capture a shift in thinking and ways of working. In the Anglosaxon political thought and practice, as well as in the policy debates in various Western democracies, the word governance has entered the vocabulary of elected and unelected officials. In developing countries, too, governance has entered the policy arena, as, for instance, even the World Bank has included this concept, in the form of commitment to efficient and accountable government, to its objectives or conditions for providing funding (Stoker, 1998, p. 17-18).

Sometimes, this concept is used as an alternative to government, especially when referring to operations such contracting, franchising and new forms of regulation and provision of (public) services (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992), especially when analyzing new forms of public management (Hood, 1991). This variety of references to governance derives from its multilateral theoretical roots: institutional economics, international relations, organizational studies, development studies, political science, public administration, etc (Jessop, 1995).

The significance of the governance concept to theory is not to provide a causal analysis nor a new normative theory, but an organizing framework for understanding changing processes of governing. According to Judge et al. (1995, p. 3) such conceptual frameworks “provide a

9

language and frame of reference through which reality can be examined and lead theorists to ask questions that might not otherwise occur. The result, if successful, is new and fresh insights that other frameworks or perspectives might not have yielded. Conceptual frameworks can constitute an attempt to establish a paradigm shift.”

Thus, the governance concept allows us to identify important questions, as well as useful answers. It provides a reference point which challenges many of the assumptions on traditional public administration and the drafting and implementation of public policy. For these reason it is really important to examine and understand the architectural structure and the methods of the EU in the external relations field, in the demanding process in ACP countries as far. It is important to find out the democratic aspect of the EU governance and its influence to the democratic process. d to be describing this relation between donor and recipient.

The EU has come relatively recently to the debate on governance and development and “good” governance made its first appearance in an official EU document, where the Council and member states met within the Council on 28 November 1991 and declared the RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT, where the EU would support efforts of developing countries to advance “good” governance. (Conference organized by International IDEA in collaboration with the Commission of European Communities and the ACP Secretariat, 23-25 November, Stockholm – Sweden).

It is a fact that the EU has a comparative advantage in support for democracy and human rights because of its long history of external engagement in different areas, either as EU, or through her member states, and has had its own experiences of democratisation, from which it can draw useful lessons. More specifically, democracy and human rights are embedded across the policy framework for EU external action, as part of the broader development projects, in areas such as political dialogue, trade and security.

After all, the absence of hard power and military capability is compensated for by a willingness to engage in external relations at a global level through the multilateral arena, in the pursuit of peace-keeping operations, trade and global environment negotiations and a growing portfolio of strategic partnership agreements, all of which demonstrate the increasing activity of the EU in the international arena. Democracy and human rights are central to the EU’s identity, as well as to the values it seeks to project internationally. The EU’s self-identity as a normative international actor, where external relations’ policy is shaped by normative concerns, such as respect for human rights, the rule of law and multilateralism, can be traced to the Maastricht Treaty. (Farell, M. 2013). The new principles in development policy, complementarity, co-ordination and coherence, showed that a new perspective was being raised in the donors’ policy, were there was a willingness for cooperation and not for “liberal” action, as, until that time, due to the colonial past of the European countries and the liberal good governance introduced by the World Bank, there was a reservation in the relations between donors and recipients.

With the signing of the Nice Treaty in 2000 and the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000/C 364/01), the road opens for structural changes in the operation of the Union, in matters of good governance in foreign policy and political integration. Also, on July of 2001, the European Commission developed a reform, the White Paper (EC, 2001) on European governance. In the framework of this text, the Commission proposed its own definition for “European governance” in order to drive forward a wide-ranging democratic process in the Union by proposing four major changes: (1) more involvement of citizens, (2) more effective definition of policies and legislation, (3) engagement in the debate on global governance, and finally (4) the refocusing of policies and institutions on clear objectives.

In December 2001, the Laeken Declaration established the European Convention, where the governments and parliaments of 28 countries, including candidate countries, the European

10

Parliament, the Commission and observers from the civil society were represented. In June 2003 the Convention presented the Constitutional Treaty, which was giving the tools to support the Union in this procedure, but unfortunately the referenda of France and the Netherlands in 2005 rejected the proposed treaty.

Within the framework of the European consensus on development, which stressed the importance of integrating the concept of democratic governance into every sectoral programme, the Commission proposed to the EU a common approach to good governance, as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – (UN, 2002), could not be achieved without good governance. So, in October 2003, the European Commission adopted a communication offering what was defined as a pragmatic approach to good governance, based on dialogue and capacity building. The starting point was the replacement of the prevailing “one-size-fits-all” with a sort of “a la carte” approach, tailored to specific situations. In the case of “difficult partnership”, the priority would be to engage local authorities in the effort to find a solution by taking initiatives both internationally and regionally. This Communication proposes stronger EU support for good governance in developing countries and invites the Commission and Member States to harmonize their efforts in this field. (EC, 2006 - 421)

In August 2006, a new communication was adopted by the European Commission on democratic governance, where the Commission emphasised an evolution in its thinking from the understanding of good governance as a technocratic issue, to a holistic view, encompassing several dimensions - political, economic, social and cultural. Good governance, thus, would include access to health, education and justice, pluralism in the media, the functioning of parliament and the management of public accounts and natural resources. (EC 2006)

In March 2007, on the 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaties, the Union, in the Presidency of the Council, stated the ambition to be a leader in the promotion of development and democracy, good governance, and peace resolution in world conflicts. So, in December 2007, the heads of the EU decided to sign the New Treaty in Lisbon, which came into force in December 2009. The Lisbon Treaty comprises the most important innovation enabling the EU to have a clear international presence and coherent policy through the creation of the two new positions: A president of the European Council, who stays in office for a renewable two -and -a - half -year term, and the High Representative (HR) of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (FASP), who is also the Vice- President of the European Commission. (Article 21.3 TEU). 

The High Representative (HR) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (FASP) is in charge of "Europe in the World" and is responsible for coordinating the work of all Commissioners in charge of external relations portfolios. The HR chairs the Commission's Group on External Action to deliver a common approach for EU action on the world stage. A new instrument, the European External Action Service (EEAS), supports the HR, consisting of staff from the European Commission, the General Secretariat of the Council and the Diplomatic Services of the EU member states, which of course gives a more representative presence. (Article 18.4 TEU) 

In article 21 of the Treaty, all the aspects of the EU' s international role would from now on be referred to as "external actions" rather than "external relations", as they were called in the past. The Lisbon Treaty encouraged the EU to maintain its diplomatic relations with other countries as a single actor. In the area of “good” governance, the Lisbon Treaty (2007), theoretically, has made a big revolution in this subject:

…as express or confirms a movement of interactions between the two elements of the binomial, making perhaps the transformation of governance into a “new European governance” of which certain contours are emerging. (Vercauterren, P. 2011)

11

The main point of the Treaty provides the EU with a legal personality giving it the capacity to make treaties, conduct diplomatic relations, join international organisations on its own. Also, it has granted the EU an increased international political legitimacy, which in action is one big step forward. Although the EU has begun to address challenges with the Lisbon Treaty, many problems arose with the new Treaty.

The new structures that were created by the Lisbon Treaty present many weaknesses in effect. Some say characteristically that the institution of the HR wears two hats, as it represents the Commission and the EU as a whole, without being interested in national issues and at the same time it monitors the implementation of the decisions that are being taken by the European Council and the Council. More specifically, as to the relations between EU and third countries it operates as an integral part of the Commission, but when CFSP issues come to the fore, HR operates as a representative of the European Council, with rights of initiative, but in cooperation with members of the Commission and member state foreign ministries.

Moreover, weaknesses are presented in the newly founded structure, the European External Action Service (EEAS), whereby, although the purpose of its operation is the support of the HR in promoting initiatives of the Union in its foreign relations, in practice one observes contradictions between the European institutions themselves and between the European institutions and the member states.

The presence of this new structure, the EEAS, forms a new parameter in the timely and effective implementation of the foreign relations of the EU, which already has a multitude of different agencies and entities affecting these relations. The Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO) , was formed on 1 January 2011, following the merger of the EuropeAid Cooperation Office (AIDCO) with the Directorate General for Development and Relations with ACP States (DG DEV). AIDCO was founded on 1 January 2001 with the mission of implementing the EU external aid programmes around the world. At that time, DG DEV and the Directorate General for External Relations (DG RELEX) were responsible for policy and programming.

The Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, (DG DEVCO) consists of eight Directorates and is responsible for defining development policy and for implementing aid, many other EU policies have an impact on developing countries and are therefore coordinated with development policy. Τhe EU operates 141 Delegations and Offices around the world. They manage development and cooperation programmes while representing the EU in host countries. EU Delegations in partner countries are at the forefront of implementing EU development aid priorities.

Furthermore, it would be worth looking into the way that the budget for the Union’s development policy is managed and audited, as the relevant funds are being managed by the Commission’s External Relations Directorate – DG RELEX. Following the member states’ (especially the bigger ones) pressure, these funds did not fall under EEAS, so that the budget is not under the complete control of the Commission. As a result, DG RELEX now falls under the control of the Council (the HR), while the Commission only has responsibility in issues of development, enlargement, external commerce and climate. However, the management of the EDF, which is the main funding tool for the EU’s development policy and to which all member states contribute, essentially belongs to the Commission, which has a final say on the disposal of the EDF funds. This is done with the formal cooperation of the receiving countries and following the final agreement of the competent EDF commission, which consists of the EU member states – however, this is more of a nominative role, as all the proposals submitted by the Commission are adopted.

After the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has developed a range of new policies and strategies to promote her approach to democracy and human rights, through external actions which includes: i) the EU

12

Communication on ‘Empowering Local Authorities in partner countries for enhanced governance and more effective development outcomes’ (EC, 2013), ii) the EU Communication on ‘The roots of democracy and sustainable development Europe’s engagement with civil society in external action” (EC, 2012), iii) the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (EC, Luxemburg, 2012), iv) the EU Communication on “EU support for sustainable change in transition societies” (EC, 2012), v) the Council conclusions by the HR/VP and European Commission on “A New Response to a Changing Neighborhood” (EC, 2012), vi) the EU Communication on “ Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: An Agenda for Change” (EC, 2011), vii) the EU Communication on “Human rights and democracy at the heart of EU external action - towards a more effective approach” (EC & HR, 2011) and viii) a New Response to a Changing Neighborhood: A review of European Neighborhood Policy” ( EC. 2011).

2) The democratisation process in the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) Group within their institutional operations and their financial structures (institution of rule of law).

Contemporary relations between the EU and the developing world continued to be shaped by three interrelated historical circumstances: European colonialism, the Cold War and the creation of enlargement of the EU (M van Reisen, 2011). The EU in the 21st century faces a lot of challenges, especially due to rapid changes in the world order, which include: the emerging global powers, the international economic crisis, changes in energy security, climate change, sustainable development, terrorism, etc.

The crucial question is to what extend the EU’s strong international presence is actually transformed into a capacity to shape the external environment by influencing the world, and in our case the ACP countries as far as democratization process.

In this case, the theory of institutional liberalism will provide the necessary tools for drawing conclusions as to how much the EU has managed, in the field of international relations, to influence other countries, like the ACP.

Concerning the ACP group, the idea is to help these countries integrate with their regional neighbours as a step toward global integration and to help them build institutional capacities and apply principles of “good” governance. It is important to mention that the EU is the largest donor in the world and that provokes reactions and great expectations from the third countries.

The questions which must be answered are the following:

-Is “good” governance a fundamental element in the EU process regarding the democratization procedure of the ACP Group and under which conditions? -How governance implemented in the partnership between the EU and ACP countries and taken beyond the donor-recipient relationship, focusing on an equal partnership-based approach?

The ACP group of states was instituted with the Georgetown Agreement (1975), but does not enjoy any recognition apart for the Cotonou framework (previous Yaoundé and Lomé) and remains an interregional network of countries with distinct components (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific), characterised by minimum cohesion, very low to non-existent interregional cooperation, having the securing of development funding from the EU its main raison d’ être.

13

Since 1975, the ACP Group has grown from 46 member states to 79 by 2014 (with South Sudan’s expected accession to the Group, it will rise to 80). Although there has been integration within the separate ACP sub-regions, the ACP Group as a whole has not further integrated nor established any relations beyond the EU. The ACP countries are becoming increasingly organized around regional organisations, with the African Union, the Pacific Islands Forum and CARIFORUM strengthening their roles. A continuation of the ACP Group in its current form beyond 2020 without significant changes is unlikely to satisfy ACP members and the EU as a key partner.

Τhe Treaty of Rome (1957) was the first connection between the then EEC and the Countries and Overseas Territories (COTs), leading up to the Treaty of Lisbon, where structural changes and a unified expression of the external relations of the EU in the international political stage are expressed. The cooperation of the EU and the South is considered to be the oldest of all and forms the continuation of the relations of the European states with their former colonies (i.e. France). The fourth part of the Treaty of Rome was dedicated to overseas countries and territories and a first Convention Association was annexed to the Treaty. The European Development Fund (EDF) was set up in this Convention of Association, with the OCTs annexed to the Treaty, and is the Community’s means of expressing its solidarity with its first partners’ development by earmarking a considerable amount of financial aid.

In the early 1960s, some of the colonies became independent nations, but almost all were keen to keep all the benefits of their association with the EEC, which meant financial solidarity with their economic and social development and privileged access to the European market for their goods. So the Convention Association between the EEC and the Associated African States and Madagascar (AASM) was signed in Yaoundé on 23 July 1963, which produced a real European development policy with 18 AASM countries, and then with the Lomé Conventions, the first of which was signed with 46 States of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, the ACP Group of countries, in 1975.

The first time when human rights were introduced by the EC was in Lomé III Convention (1985), which was deemed by the ACP to be in contradiction to the principles of sovereignty and equal partnership. The introduction of a link between development and human rights, respect for democratic principles and the rule of law, was in the Lomé IV Convention (article 5). These essential elements were strengthened in the CPA (2000), in article 96, and reinforced with a mechanism for prior consultation in “cases of special urgency”. In the context of the Cotonou Agreement, the EU member states and the European Commission pushed for the inclusion of “good” governance as an “essential element”, but after extensive discussions it was included as a “fundamental element”: this meant that serious cases of corruption and mismanagement of resources would constitute grounds for the suspension of aid.

The official institutionalisation of the ACP Group in 1975 paved the way for the ratification of the Lomé Conventions, which set up a framework for cooperation between the ACP countries (78 members, as Cuba doesn’t participate) and the European Communities and its member states. The ACP-EU relationship is the largest source of aid to ACP countries, where aid has been well organised in a structured, predictable and long – term legislative framework. Originally, the ACP – EU relations focused on economic cooperation, as neither EEC, nor the ACP countries were to extend their cooperation to political issues. The basis of the Lomé Conventions, revised on a five-year basis until 1995, has been preserved and deepened in the CPA. The 1995 mid-term review of Lomé IV introduced the first legally binding human rights clause, thus bringing about a step in ACP-EU political dialogue and providing the political dialogue aspects in the CPA. (Negre M, et All, 2013).

14

3) The Cotonou Partnership Agreement and the role of non-governmental actors in the democratisation process (regions, local authorities, civil society, entrepreneurs, etc)?

The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: Background and Assessment

The Cotonou Agreement, signed in 2000, is the latest phase of a partnership which began 50 years ago with the Yaoundé Convention (1963). The original partnership appeared at a very specific historical juncture, shaped by the experience and dynamics of (de)colonisation.

The Green Paper of 1996 (EC, November 1996) paved the way for the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA) and claimed that the EU’s relationship with ACP states had already moved beyond both the colonial and the post-colonial phase. Negotiations started in September 1998 and the signature of the new ACP- EU Partnership Agreement was in June. The new Agreement builds on the acquis of twenty-five years of experience, as the result of the Lomé Conventions.

The overall objective of the Cotonou Agreement (Article 1) was stated as: 'reducing and eventually eradicating poverty consistent with the objectives of sustainable development and the gradual integration of the ACP countries into the world economy’. This was to be pursued through three separate pillars — political dialogue, trade relations and development cooperation — and with the support of joint institutions: a Council of Ministers, a Committee of Ambassadors and a Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA). Assessing the performance of these elements is a necessary step to decide which ones should be preserved after 2020. “Good” governance was a fundamental and positive element of the partnership, a subject for regular dialogue and an era for active Community support.

Development cooperation through the European Development Fund (EDF) - which remains outside the regular EU budget — is an essential element of the partnership. EU officials praise the EDF for its strong performance, predictability and promotion of ownership by all actors (a precursor to the 'Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness'). This positive assessment is shared by ACP actors - for some of whom the ACP group would have already disappeared if EDF contributions were managed differently.

A shortcoming noted by ACP recipients was the excessive bureaucracy and that some of the conditions attached to EDF funding lessened its appeal. This was more evident when compared to more “executive” approaches by new donors (i.e. China), although other voices in ACP countries welcomed these conditions. An important point raised concerns on the policy of 'differentiation', recently adopted as part of the EU's 'Agenda for Change' and which would see a greater proportion of development funds allocated to the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and fragile states. This is widely regarded by ACP countries — including its Heads of State, as reflected on the Sipopo Declaration — as a worrisome and dangerous unilateral move which may reduce available funds and send the wrong signal by punishing those countries which are doing better. (European Parliament, OPPD, 2012)

Trade relations are the second pillar of the Cotonou agreement. Although non-reciprocal trade preferences granting ACP partners EU market access were maintained in the Cotonou agreement, these were to be gradually replaced by WTO-compatible Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) by 2007. (Keijzer, Ν,Negre, M, Lein, B, and Tissi, N. 2013). However, progress has been very slow, with only one full (CARIFORUM) and one interim (ESA) EPA having been signed. EPA negotiations are, almost unanimously, considered as the biggest stumbling block within the ACP-EU partnership (Keijzer, Ν,Negre, M, Lein, B, and Tissi, N. 2013). ACP countries perceive the EU to defend an unnecessarily fast agenda — more so given the lack of progress within the WTO — which undermines regional integration by promoting the division of LDCs and non-LDCs within a region (as each category has access to different trade regimes).

15

Related to this, but also on the debate around 'differentiation', is the broader question of those ACP countries which have attained Middle Income Country (MIC) status and their position within the group. ACP voices are also extremely critical of the way in which trade negotiations have been conducted: they perceive these as an 'EU monologue' making partner countries feel they are being dictated to. Although EPA negotiations are formally independent from the Cotonou agreement, these are perceived as closely interlinked and this has fostered a negative mood hampering solidarity and promoting divisions within the ACP-EU partnership.

Finally, the assessment of the political dialogue and the work of the joint institutions is a mixed one. EU actors acknowledge that the legally binding character of the CPA contributes to the effectiveness of a political dialogue which covers a wide variety of issues and also includes non-state organisations (NSOs) ( Article 8). Nonetheless, within ACP countries there seems to be a low level of awareness of political dialogue mechanisms, which are furthermore perceived as asymmetrical. This may be due to the great visibility of articles 96 and 97 which allow consultations and the suspension of partners in cases of human rights violations. Very few actors knew of Article 12, which allows ACP countries to request consultations on EU policies. Interestingly, government officials were more sceptic of the values shared by the EU and ACP than civil society organisations (CSOs) (Negre, M, Keijzer,N., Lein, B., and Tissi, N. 2003).

In this section, the Cotonou Agreement contains innovative provisions, introducing the opening partnership to non- state actors (NSAs), as the Lomé Conventions always supported the lead role for central governments in ACP – EU relations. The other development players (e.g. local and regional authorities, civil society, private sector, etc) had very few opportunities to participate in the EU - ACP cooperation or to access resources. The CPA strongly emphasises the cooperation of NSAs in article 2. There is α question as to the role of NSAs and local governments in promoting democratic governance and in the new architecture of international development cooperation through the CPA:

-What is the involvement of non-governmental actors, which are the criteria of evaluation and how do they influence the democratisation process?

In both revisions of the CPA (2005 and 2010), the CPA has been a key promoter of the NSAs involvement in ACP- EU relations and the NSAs in several countries strengthened this cooperation. Main issues have to be addressed for the NSAs, such as the quality of their participation, the definition of the civil society (who is who in civil society) and an instrumental approach towards NSA participation with criteria and transparent procedures. The implementation of the NSA provisions in the CPA could be enhanced by adopting a governance approach, which will recognise the legitimate role of local governments and civil society, which is one of the objectives of this research. (ecdpm, 2007).

Θεωρίες του κοινωνικού φιλελευθερισμού και της αλληλεξάρτησης…. ( να αναπτυχθούν)

EU- Africa relations: Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES)

As this study is going to focus on Africa, in its analysis of two African states, it is important to delve into the EU policies for Sub-Saharan Africa beyond the CPA which involves the ACP in general.

The relationship between Africa and Europe dates back to the dawn of time. It has been marked by events of diverse and varied nature whose remembrance may sometimes arouse deep emotions. For that reason it is necessary to transform the handicap of the past into real factors for development. Africa must see Europe not any more as a past-colonial enemy, nor as a donor, but as an equal partner based on true and honest relations between the two parts and Europe must

16

support this point of view. In this perspective, the principles of mutual respect, shared responsibility and common vision on the governance of international public assets must constantly guide this cooperation.

Europe has subjected its assistance to Africa to the advent of the rule of law, since the Yaoundé Convention, through the Lomé Agreements to the recent CPA, in which respect for human rights, freedom of expression, respect for minorities, etc, are stressed, so that the African countries become a fertile ground of “good" political and economic governance.

It is important to stress that the division of Africa to Dark Africa and Arab Africa, because of the differentiation that it presents in the way that it responds to its indigenous problems, emanating from the social and economic decline, was done on the basis of the modern institutional cooperation between the European and African states deriving from two distinct legal documents: the Cotonou Agreement, which concerns the Dark Africa (or Sub-Saharan Africa) and the Barcelona Declaration (November 1995), which concerns the Arab Africa. Regardless, the procedure both cooperation frameworks between Europe and African states have followed is one of creating a strengthened cooperative bond and a new, dynamic and equal relation and has been recognised and used many times as the counterpart to the tensions provoked by the Seattle Conference in the North-South relations (Grigoriou, P, 2009).

From April 2000, the two continents realised that there was a need to review their cooperation in order to integrate emerging challenges arising from globalisation. The new dialogue which started in Cairo in April 2000, led to the subsequent adoption of a new cooperation framework in 2007, namely, the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES). Importantly, the EU Strategy for Africa, emphasised a new approach to EU- Africa relations, based on ownership, equality and partnership. But does the EU- African Strategy achieve to built ownership and in what terms?

The African side invites Europe to change the approach by doing things differently, or to change its objectives and focus on development, by restructuring its aid for this purpose. As, Dr. Rene N’Guettia Kouassi (Bulletin 2014), the Director of the Economic Affairs of the African Union Commission, said:

….the development must be considered a pre-requisite, indeed a condition sine qua non to pacify Africa by establishing permanently and irreversibly the Greek democracy in all its fullness. For we cannot emphasize enough that where there is development, there is peace and the rule of law.

The JAES, taken as complementary support to Africa’s efforts to attain its development and integration objectives, has opened up new avenues and opportunities for collective action for Africa and Europe’s common vision. The JAES, adopted at the Lisbon Summit (2007), set a new framework of cooperation based on the principles of mutual respect, shared responsibility and pooling of efforts in the governance of world public assets and the reform of the UN system and the Bretton Woods institutions. The JAES sought to create closer engagement with non- state actors, particularly civil society, organisations, businesses and interest groups with international potential. In the case of JAES, inter-regionalism is presented as a way to promote socio-economic development, human rights, political dialogue and mutual cooperation between the EU and Africa, where supranational institutional linkages are conducted through the European Parliament and the pan- African Parliament and annual meetings of the Commissions, with the deployment of an EU delegation to the African Union in Addis Ababa. It is noted by the Commission that the JAES serves as the overarching policy framework for intercontinental relations, complementing rather than replacing other frameworks such as the Cotonou Agreement and the Union for the Mediterranean (former Euro- Mediterranean Partnership, EMP).

It is critical to note that, with the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, through successive Plans of Actions, it has become clear that the European member states establish bilateral diplomacy

17

with the African countries, which often distances itself from the Community policy of the European Union. Thus, the lack of harmonization between bilateral policies and Community policy is likely to convey several, often contradictory, messages to Africa.

Africa needs money to finance the multitude of infrastructure projects, attain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 and succeed in the economic and political integration. After more than half a century of cooperation with Europe, Africa appears to be a continent that has stalled in its quest for progress and development. It seems that the cooperation with Europe, dating back to the Yaoundé Conventions, has so far not enabled Africa to develop and master its destiny, to co-participate in the management of world affairs.

The paradox here is that Europe has a plethora of financial instruments (bilateral and Community) to support the ACP countries, but the problem lies in the access of these funds which is extremely difficult. From the part of Europeans, this constraint of access to European funds is explained by the low capacity of ACP countries and on the other side by the complexity of the access procedures and justification of the use of the funds. Thus, the European Development Fund (EFD) is not fully utilised, as the related budgets are not fully disbursed. Furthermore, Africa still has three different agreements with the EU, thus dividing it into three geographical areas, where the Sub-Saharan area has financial instruments arising from the CPA.

The main tool in the relationship between the European Commission and partner developing countries is the Country Strategy Paper (CSP). In line with the practice of many international development agencies, the European Community formulates a medium-term strategy for the provision of development assistance on the basis of a country’s official national policy priorities. Developing countries have laid down their priorities in Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) which are required for getting support from the World Bank and the IMF. According to the European Commission, the establishment of a common framework for the formulation of CSPs makes “a significant contribution to achieving the goal of multiannual programming and to increasing the effectiveness and quality of the EU’s external aid”. (Hout, W. 2012)

Although the CPA, the European Consensus on Development and the JAES have laid an improvement in the EU development policies toward Africa, the EU is not at all a coherent development actor. Rather, the European Commission is often acting as just another donor or as the 29th member state, where the fact to built her own identity as a global actor competes with the interests and identities of many member states. So, it is more than obvious, that European governance in its entirety is missing in the external relations; or rather it appears “à la carte”. (Carbone, M.2012).

Development review of the ACP-EU relations post 2020

In a rapidly changing world, with major changes in the EU and the ACP relations, the two parties have begun to re-examine the future of this longstanding partnership and that of the ACP Group itself. Official negotiations for the future status of the EU-ACP relations are expected to begin in August 2018, 18 months prior to the end of the Agreement (Art. 95), but the Commission has decided to commence informal debates in the issue earlier, in order to pre-empt and somewhat direct the results of the official negotiations of 2018.

In this framework, the Commission has suggested to immediately begin a discussion on the post 2020 EU-ACP relations and to not proceed to the final revision of the CPA that was to take place this year (2015). EU and ACP have agreed to base these discussions also on the results of the important international meetings of 2015 for the global development agenda, which will formulate the whole framework within which the international community will effectively respond to the development, economic, trade and environmental challenges of the next 15 years; these are the

18

international discussions on the Funding of Development (Addis Ababa, July 2015), on the Sustainable Development Targets (New York, September 2015), on Climate Change (Paris, December 2015) and on World Trade (Ministerial WTO, Nairobi, December 2015).

The ACP Group has been quite pro-active in the past years, launching several initiatives both at the political and the purely technical level. An Ambassadorial Working Group on future perspectives was established in November 2010 and has held several consultations with various actors and stakeholders. In December 2012, the 7th ACP Heads of State and Government Meeting in Equatorial Guinea adopted the Sipopo declaration on the future of the ACP Group. In March 2013, an ACP Eminet Persons Group (EPG) was launched to reflect on the future of the ACP Group. It is interesting to note that the ACP countries question the importance that the EU places on their special relationship, as this is not reflected explicitly in the Lisbon Treaty, nor in the EEAS organogramme.

From the EU front, an informal Commission European External Action Service (EEAS) Working Group was established in 2011. A formal EU inter-service Group comprising the Directorates General and Commissions and the EEAS also started to reflect on this in October 2013. Past EU Presidencies of Poland, Cyprus and Greece have also held informal debates in Brussels on the future of ACP-EU relations. Also, a few EU member states, as of 2014, also started their own internal discussion processes, like Belgium, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The new Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, Neven Mimica, has put the future of the CPA high on the 2015 agenda, as he has identified the ACP-EU relations as one of his three priorities in this legislative period of his mandate. Furthermore, the Commissioner announced the launch of broad consultation on the subject, stressing that the “question is not whether ACP countries are still important to the EU or not, but about how to best design our cooperation in the future.” Already, the Green Paper or Joint Consultation Paper of the Commission has been given for consultation (European Commission and HR of the Union for FASP, 2015) and has began informal discussions through the organisation of 7 thematic round tables in EU capitals (Bonn, Luxemburg, Brussels, Riga, London, the Hague, Berlin, Paris) and in a wide circle of participants (academia, think tanks, EU member states, EU institutions, NGOs, the private sector, etc).

In this framework, it is important to evaluate the Agreement policies and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of this procedure, as we need to assess not only the added value in these countries, in the framework of democratisation and “good” governance, but also the “win-win” situation for both sides. It is really important to define what “partnership” means for each side, as any policy based on a narrow self-interest will meet resistance from its partners. In that case, it is also important to examine if the implementation of an Agreement or a Convention is really a democratic procedure.

Has democratization in these countries been achieved? Has there been any progress in tackling serious modern problems that are pillars of this Agreement, such as peace, environmental protection, the rule of law, development and employment, addressing hunger, controlling migration flows, gender equality, education, et.al? If we only think of the migration issue, for instance, a deeply political, social and economic problem, as waves of migrant flows come into Europe in the past few years from these countries, costing lives, we come to the conclusion that Europe has effectively failed its targets, or at least has not achieved them to the degree that was

19

necessary, as the migration issue reflects in essence the failure of the above policies in these countries, to a greater or a lesser extend in each one

In this point of view, it is important to have a development review of all the scenarios that are suggested for the future of the relations between the EU and the ACP in the post Cotonou era and to study all the conclusions and revisions of the two parties ( EU- ACP).

PART III: METHODOLOGY- EMPIRICAL APPROACH

More specifically, the research will be limited to the Sub-Saharan Africa where two countries of the area, with different characteristics, will be studied: Ethiopia, as an English-speaking developing country and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as a French-speaking country that belongs to the less developed African countries.

Methodology :

The main methodological approach of this study is the use of comparative case studies. Comparison will be based mostly on qualitative analysis and conducted on two levels of generalization.

A. Qualitative research will be used in order to establish the best possible analysis in the main hypothesis and questions of the thesis.

B. In depth- analysis of the two case studies: In this part a more detailed study will take place where the issues related to democratization and ‘good’ governance in the two countries and the involvement of the NSA in the development actions of EU and member states. Local views and perspectives in these issues are very important for the research as are the actions taken at the level of the EU delegations and embassies in these countries.

C. The following tools for the qualitative method will be utilised:

C1. Sources:

The main part will be based on primary resources, on political analysis, on theories and studies and other archive material, which will cover the period of time that the present proposal will focus on, but also other periods as well. Moreover, support will be provided from the results of the research that are the secondary sources of this study.

The sources that will be used to provide the data of this research are primary and secondary: from the external policy-makers of the EU, the institutional voices of the Cotonou Agreement and the official representatives of the ACP group of States, local authorities, etc. In particular, tools such as official archives, printed and online newspapers and magazines will be drawn from, as well as a wide range of Greek and international bibliography. As far as bibliography is concerned, the selection will be made based on the valid scientific documentation of its content. The present

20

proposal suggests a first draft of the selected resources, which will be enriched the subject is further analysed.

C2. Interviews:

The most important sources of information are based in Brussels, such as representatives of the Commission’s DG Development, DG RELEX, the EEAS, the HP, the ACP Secretaria, experts, etc

The method of verification of information and the interpretation of the source will be used on the written sources (documents and studies) and various interviews with the a) open-question method, and b) written, with the closed-question method.

C3. Field Mission

During the field mission, interviews with local government representatives, civil society representatives, EU member State’s representatives, the EU delegation and other representatives of other donor countries as well as important regional powers will take place.

For the writing of this dissertation, I will use the APA Style: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. APA Style has been adapted by many disciplines and is used by writers around the world.

PART IV: CONCLUSIONS/ IMPLEMENTATION

There is a wide research field in the relations between the EU and the ACP countries, and an even wider one with Africa in general, due to its geopolitical position and the long term relations with the member states of the EU. Moreover, the study of the governance model of the EU in the framework of its external relations and the democratisation process of these relations with the third countries will certainly provide some very useful insight and suggest conclusions both for the operation of the EU, and for its relations with third countries through its development activities.

For this reason, the suggested dissertation will prove to be a very important research effort, as its results will have multiple recipients and will contribute to the evolution of the international scientific bibliography on these matters.

21

PART V: TIMETABLE

January 2017-December 2017

January 2018-December 2018

January 2019-December 2019

Objectives -Empirical exploration:Precision of the study and methodology approach-Deepening in Theory: Finalizing the theoretical framework-Start the territory observation with interviews and research

-Evaluation and analyses the result issues-Looking for supplementary documents or/interviews- Begin the writing of the dissertation

- Writing of the dissertation

Methodology -Construction of theMethodology framework- Analyze the territory of the research: collecting valuable information for the implementation of the case- study

-Territory research in the select countries- Analyse the results in the framework of the theoretical and methodological point of view

- Conclusions & implementation

22

PART VI: INDICATIVE STRUCTURE

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. The European Union and democratic governance in its external relations.

1. How the EU implements external relations’ policy as a single actor.

2. The EU and democratic governance towards a coordinated development policy: EU external action from the Rome Treaty (1957) to the Lisbon Treaty (2009)

3. The architectural structure and the methods of the EU external relations after the Lisbon Treaty.

4. External relations of the EU with third countries: Is the EU decision-making process democratic? What is the role of the member states and the European regions to this process?

2. Democratisation and good governance in the EU external relations and the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) Group of countries.

2.1. The EU governance and the ACP countries: an assessment in this partnership

2.2. Conventional framework of the bilateral relations of the EU and the ACP states: How this cooperation develops.

2.3. What was the impact of the EU policies on the ACP countries? Did they contribute to their democratisation?

2.4. How could the partnership between the EU and ACP countries go beyond a donor-recipient relationship and focus on a partnership-based approach?

2.5. From the Yaoundé Treaty to the Cotonou era.

3. The Cotonou Partnership Agreement ( 2000-2020)

3.1. The ACP-EU conventional framework

3.2. How does the Cotonou Partnership Agreement affect the democratisation of the relations between the EU, the member-states and the ACP countries?

3.3. To what extent has the Cotonou Partnership Agreement succeeded in its goals? Assessing the Cotonou acquis.

3.4. The main actors in this collaboration and the role of the intra and non – governmental actors is in this procedure. Involvement of new actors.

3.5. The future of the Cotonou Partership Agreement: Evaluation of the Agreement and proposals for the post- Cotonou era.

.

23

4. EU- Africa relations in the Cotonou era. EU external factors and Africa’s perspective

4.1. Locating the EU’s strategic behaviour in sub-Saharan Africa.

4.2. The EU policies in Africa: Strategic framework, legitimacy and African regionalism

4.3. The Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES)

4.4. Ownership in the EU-Africa relations: The procedure of democratisation and democratic governance in the goals of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement ( CPA)

3. Methodology- Empirical Approach

3.1 Methodology

3.2 Empirical approach

3.2.1 Case study: Two sub-Saharan Africa countries

3.2.1.1 The Republic of Kenya (RK)

3.2.1.2 The Democratic Republic of Congo ( DRC)

4. Conclusions- Implementation

5. Timetable

6. Structure

7. References- Bibliography

24

PART VII: REFERENCES- BIBLIOGRAPHY

7.1 References

Greek

-Γρηγορίου Π. (2009). Η Πολιτική και Θεσμική Διάσταση των Διμερών Σχέσεων ΕΕ και Αφρικανικών Χωρών. Αφρική και Ανάπτυξη. Η Τελευταία Παγκόσμια Ευκαιρία, Τσάλτας, Γρ., εκδ. Ι.Σιδέρης, σελ. 104

-Ρούκουνας, Ε. (2004) Διεθνές Δίκαιο, (τεύχος πρώτο), Σχέσεις διεθνούς δικαίου και εσωτερικού δικαίου. Τρόποι παραγωγής δικαίου, (3η έκδ.), εκδ. Αντ.Σάκκουλα

English/French

-Carbone, M. ( 2012). The European Union, Good Governance and Aid Co-ordination, EU Strategies on Governance Reform, Between development and State-building ,Routledge, ISBN 0415622034(hbk)ed. By Will Hout, Routledge, pg 15-21

-Commission Européenne (2014), L’ Accord de Cotonou, et le cadre financier pluriannuel, 2014-2020, ISBN 978-92-79-25088-0, retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/acp/overview/documents/devco-cotonou-consol-europe-aid-2012_en.pdf

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2000/C 364/01) Official Journal of the European Communities, retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf,

Council of European Union, the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, Luxembourg, 25 June 2012, 11855/12, retrieved from

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf

Dialogue for Democratic Development Renewing the ACP- EU Partnership for the 21st century, RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT, Conference organized by International IDEA in collaboration with the Commission of European Communities and the ACP Secretaria, 23-25 November 1991, Stockholm, Sweden, retrieved from

http://archive.idea.int/lome/bgr_docs/resolution.html/

Ecdpm (2007). Haw has the CPA delivered on its key innovation? In the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, , pg. 16-20, , retrieved from , retrieved from www.ecdpm.org/pmr13

European Commission, Presidency Conclusions European Council meeting in Laeken 14 and 15 December 2001, retrieved from

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-01-18_en.htm

25

European Union, 30 August 2006, Governance in the European consensus on development [COM(2006) 421 final ,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:r13012/

European Union, Treaty of Lisbon, 2007, Official Journal of the European Union C 306, 17.12.2007, retrieved from,

http://eur-lex.europa/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=URISERV:ai0033&from=EN

European Commission: Governance in the consensus on development, [COM(2006) 421 final

ACP Group Summit of Heads of State, 'Sipopo Declaration’: Future of ACP in a changing world', December 2012, retrieved from,

http://www.acp.int/sites/acpsec.waw.be/files/Final%20ACP2806512%20Rev%208%20Draft_Sipopo_Declaration.pdf

European Commission, International Cooperation and Development, Relations with the EEAS, EU institutions and Member States, retrieved from , https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/node/582_fr

European Commission, the EU Communication on Empowering Local Authorities in partner countries for enhanced governance and more effective development outcomes, Brussels, 15.5.2013, COM(2013) 280 final,retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/communication-local-authorities-in-partner-countries-com2013280-20130515_en_4.pdf

European Commission, the EU on The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe's engagement with Civil Society in external relations, Brussels, 12.9.2012, COM(2012) 492 final, retrieved from

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0492:FIN:EN:PDF

European Commission, Supporting societies in democratic transition, Brussels, 03 October 2012, retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1060_en.htm

European Commission, Annual Report 2014 on the European Union's development and external assistance policies and their implementation in 2013, Brussels, 13.8.2014, final, retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/annual-report-2014-working-document-eu-development-external-assistance-policies-implementation-in-2013_en.pdf

European Commission, The Cotonou Agreement, (signed in Cotonou on n 23 June 2000, Revised in Luxemburg on 25 June 2005 and Revised in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010), and multiannual Financial framework 2014-20 EU, Luxembourg: Publications Office, 2014, http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri? Or http://dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2841/43863

European Council, The Council conclusions by the HR/VP and European Commission on “ A New Response to a Changing Neighborhood” (2012), retrieved from

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/splash/?requested=%2fuedocs%2fcms_data%2fdocs%2fpressdata%2fEN%2fforaff%2f131181.pdfthe+Council+conclusions+by+the+HR%2fVP+and+Euroepan+Commission+on+%E2%80%9C+A+New+Response+to+a+Changing+Neighbourhood%E2%80%9D+%282012%29%2c%2f

26

European Commission, Green Paper, Public Procurement in the European Union. Exploring the Way Forward, 27 November 1996, retrieved from

http://europa.eu/documents/comm/green_papers/pdf/com-96-583_en.pdf

European Commission, The EU Communication on “ Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: An Agenda for Change” Brussels, 13.10.2011, COM(2011) 637 final, retrieved from

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0637&from=EN

European Commission and the HR, the EU Communication on “ Human rights and democracy at the heart of EU external action- towards a more effective approach” Brussels, 12.12.2011, COM(2011) 886 final, retrieved from

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0886:FIN:EN:PDF

European Commission and EEAS, a New Response to a Changing Neighborhood: A review of European Neighborhood Policy” Brussels, 25 May 2011, retrieved from

http :// eeas . europa . eu / enp / pdf / pdf / com _11_303_ en . pdf

European Commission, White Paper on European governance, retrieved from

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT?HTML/?uri=URISERV:I10109&from=FR

European Commission and HR f the Union for FASP, Towards a new partnership between, the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries after 2020, Joint Consultation Paper, 6 October 2015, retrieved from

https://ec.europa/europaid/sites/devco/files/joint-consultation-paper-post-cotonou_en_0_pdf

European Commission ( 2001). The new ACP- EU agreement: general overview /EU, European Union. Directorate- General VIII- Development, http://ec.europa.eu/eclas/F/?func=direct&local_base=EUC01&doc_number=000544845

European Parliament, THE TREATY OF NICE AND THE CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE, was signed in 26 February 2001 entered into force on 1 February 2003, retrieved from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_1.1.4.pdf

European Parliament, OPPD in Co-operation with Policy Department, 'Economic Partnership Agreements EU-ACP: Facts and Key Issues' (Updated Extended Edition), 2012

Farell, M. African regionalism (2013). External influences and continental shaping forces, The European Union in Africa: incoherent policies, asymmetrical partnership, declining relevance? Manchester University Press, pg 99.

Fettweiss, C.J. (2011). Free riding or restraint? Examining European grand strategy. Comparative Strategy, 30, 316-332

Hood, C. (1991), A Public Management for All Seasons, Public Administration, 69, pp. 3-19.

Hout, W. (2012). Governance and Development: changing EU policies, EU STRATEGIES ON GOVERNANCE REFORM: Between development and State-building, Routledge, ISBN 0415622034(hbk), p.1-12

27

Hyden, G. (2008) After the Paris Declaration: Taking on the Issue of Power, Development Policy Review, 26 (3): 259-74

Jackson Patrick Thaddeus, The Conduct of Inquiry in the Internationals Relations, Philosophy of science ands its implications for the study of world politics, Routlege, 2011

Jessop. B. (1996), Partnership in the Greater Manchester and the Thames Gateway, Paper for DoE seminar

Judge, D., Stoker, G., Wolman, H., (1995), Urban Politics and Theory: An Introduction, in D. Judge, G. Stoker and H. Woman, Theories of Urban Politics, London: Sage, pp.1-13.

Keijzer, Ν,Negre, M, Lein, B, and Tissi, N. 2013. ACP-EU relations beyond 2020: Exploring European Perceptions. ECDPM/DIE Briefing Note, pp. 1-4, retrieved from

http://ecdpm.org/publications/acp-eu-relations-beyond-2020/

Kooiman, J. and Van Vliet, M., (1993), Governance and Public Management in K. Eliasen and J. Kooiman (eds), Managing Public Organisations, London: Sage

Kouassi Rene N’Guettia, Africa- Europe Cooperation: Why a paradigm shift? In the Bulletin 2014, Africa- EU relations, by ecdpm, ISSN 2309-1827, African Union COMMISSION, June 2014

Laporte, Geert, 'What future for the ACP and the Cotonou Agreement?', ECDPM Briefing Note, April 2012 , retrieved from

http://www.ecdpm.org/Web_ECDPM/Web/Content/Download.nsf/0/A80840C540D36BE8C12579D000311896/$FILE/BN34-What%20future%20for%20the%20ACP-FINAL.pdf

Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40 (2), 235-258

M van Reisen, (2011) ed by Will Hout, The enlarged European Union and the developing world: what future? In Mold, EU Development Policy in a Changing World, p.59

Nye, J.S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs

Negre M, et All, Towards renewal or Oblivion?, Prospects for post-2020 cooperation between the European Union and the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Group. German Development Institute, 2013. ECDPM/DIE Discussion Paper, pp 1-54, retrieved from

http://ecdpm.org/publications/towards-renewal-or-oblivion-post-2020-cooperation

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T., (1992), Reinventing Government, Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley

Rhodes, R. (1996) The New Governance: Governing without Government, Political Studies, 44, pp.652-667

Rosenau, J. (1992), Governance, Order and Change in World Politics, in J. Rosenau & E.-O. Czempiel (eds), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-30

Scheipers, S.& Sicurelli, D. (2007). Normative power Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(2), 435-457.

28

Sjursen, H. (2006). What kind of power? Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 169-181.

Whitman, R.G. (1998). From civilian power to superpower? The international identity of the European Union, London: Macmillan.

Smith, B. (2007). Good Governance and Development, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Stoker, G. (1998), Governance as theory: five propositions, ISSJ 155/1998, UNESCO, Blackwell Publishers, 17-28

Union Européenne, TRAITÉ DE LISBONNE, MODIFIANT LE TRAITÉ SUR L’ UNION EUROPÉENNE ET LE TRAITÉ INSTITUANT LA COMMUNAUTÉ EUROPÉENNE (2007/C306/01), Journal Officiel de l’ Union européenne, 17 décembre 2007

United Nations, News on Millennium Development Goals( MDGs), started in 2002, retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

Van Reisen, M.2012. ACP:3D-Future Perspectives of the ACP Group, retrieved from http://www.epg.acp.int/fileadmin/user_apload/Van_Reisen_ACP_Final_Report.pdf

Vercauterren, P. The European governance by the yardstick of the Lisbon Treaty: what is the situation of governance?, Studia Europaea, Jun 2011, ISSN:1224-8746 7.2 INDICATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Greek

Ρούκουνας, Ε. (2004) Διεθνές Δίκαιο, (τεύχος πρώτο), Σχέσεις Διεθνούς Δικαίου και Εσωτερικού Δικαίου. Τρόποι παραγωγής δικαίου, (3η εκδ. Αντ. Σάκκουλα).

Τσάλτας, Γρ. (επιμέλεια- παρουσίαση), ΑΦΡΙΚΗ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΠΤΥΞΗ, Η Τελευταία Παγκόσμια Πρόκληση-Ευκαιρία, Εκδ. Σιδέρης, Αθήνα 2009

Jackson, Robert and Sorensen, Georg, Η Θεωρία και Μεθοδολογία των Διεθνών Σχέσεων, πρόλογος- επιμέλεια, Τσάκωνας, Παναγιώτης, εκ, Gutenberg

English/ French

Adam Abdou Hassan, (2013). L' Accord de Cotonou: une convention relative aux droits de l' Homme, Revue du Droit de l' Union européenne, n.1, p.85-119

Bellamy, Richard, Castiglione, Dario, ‘Democracy by Delegation? Who Represents Whom and How in European Governance’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 46, No 1, 2011, pp. 101-125

Bulmer, Simon J. (1993), ‘ The Governnace of the European Union: an new institutionalist approach’,in Journal of Public Policy, Oct-Dec, vol 13,no 4, pp351-380

Carbone, M. (2013. International development and the European's Union's external policies: changing contexts, problematic nexuses, contested partnerships, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol.26, No, 3, 483-496, http:// Dix.doi.org/10.1080/09557581.2013.820073

European Commission. Directorate - General for Development. The Accord de Cotonou: un nouveau partenariat UE- ACP en réponse au défis du Millenaire (2002)

29

European Commission, Directorate-general for International Cooperation and Development, Support for justice reform in ACP countries, Tools and Methods Series, Reference Document No 9, September 2010, retrieved from

http://bookshop.europa.eu/isbin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/EU-Bookshop-Site/en_

European Court Auditor, The Commission’s management of general budget support in ACP, Latin American and Asian Countries, Special report No11, 2010, http://bookshop.europa.eu/isbin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/EU-Bookshop-Site/en_

European Court of Auditors, the European Development Fund (EDF) Contribution to a Sustainable Road Network in Sub-Saharan Africa, Special report No17, 2012, retrieved from http://bookshop.europa.eu/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/EU-Bookshop-Site/fr_F

European Commission, Directorate- General for External Policies of the Union, The Implementation of the Joint Africa Strategy: Rebuilding Confidence and Commitments, DIRECTORATE B- POLICY DEPARTMENT, March 2014.

European Commission (March 2014). Financial Regulation, applicable to the general budget of the Union and its rules of application, Luxemburg publications. ISBN 978-92-79-34999-7

European Commission. Directorate - General for International Cooperation and Development- Tools and Methods Series, Reference Document No17,, Operating in situations of conflict and fragility, 2nd ed., retrieved from http://dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2841/872344

European Court of Auditors, Special Report, The Establishment of the European External Action Service, 2014, retrieved from http:// ex.publications.europa.eu/10.2865/20319 (epub)

European Parliament- Directorate - General for External Policies- POLICY DEPARTMENT, A Comparative Study of EU and U.S. Approaches to Human Rights in External Relations, 2014, http://do.publications.europa.eu/10.2861/69726.

European Parliament- Directorate - General for External Policies- POLICY DEPARTMENT, The Implementation of the Joint Africa Europe Strategy: Rebuilding Confidence and Commitments, 2014, retrieved from http://do.publications.europa.eu/10.2861/54455

European Think Tank Group ( 2014). Our Collective Interest. Why Europe’s problems need global solutions and global problems need European action, retrieved from www.ettg.eu

European Union, The Africa- EU Partnership: 2 UNIONS, 1 VISION, Summit Edition 2014, Luxemburg Publications Office of the European Union, 2014, ISBN 978-92-79-36787-8

Føllesdal, Andreas, (December 2010), ‘The Legitimacy Challenges for New Modes of Governance: Trustworthy Responsiveness, Government and Opposition, an International Journal of Comparative Politics, Volume 46, Issue 1, January 2011, pp 81–100

30

Gomes, Patrick I. Policy Arena, Reshaping an Asymmetrical Partnership: ACP-EU relations from an ACP perspective, Journal of International Development J.Int.Dev:25, 714-726 920130, published online in Whiley Online Library, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.2927

Hilpold, P.(2002). EU Development Cooperation at a Crossroads: The Cotonou Agreement of 23 June 2000 and the Principle of Good Governance, European Foreign Affairs Review, vol. 7, no. 2002, p. 53-72, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eclas/

Hody, Yenkong Ngangjoh, (2009). Regionalism in the WTO and the legal status of a development agenda in the EU/ACP Economic Partnership Agreement, Nordic Journal of International Law 2009,v.78, n.2, p. 225-248.

Ki- Zerbo, J. (2013). À quand l' Afrique? entretien avec René Holenstein, Édition d' en bas, Lausanne, Suisse

K . Ebalé, Raymond,( 2015). L’ Union européenne et les pays ACP : la fin d’ une illusion ? L’ Accord de Cotonou : bilan et perspectives à l’ horizon 2020, Paris : L’ Harmattan, 2015 ( Etude africaines, séries Politiques) – ISBN 978-2-343-04771-3

Kouassi Yao-Edmond ( 2014). Colonisations et société civile en Afrique, L’ Harmatta, ISBN 978-2-343-04787-4

Rosenau, James N; Czempiel, Ernst-Otto (1992), Governance without Government: order and change in world politics, Cambridge University Press. pp.3

Ruxandra Laura Bosica, (March 2014). The European Union- a ‘ Sui Generis’ International Diplomatic Actor: Challenges Posed to the International Diplomatic Law, Romanian Journal of European Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 1

Simon Duke, (2012). Now We Are One… A Rough Start for the EEAS, in EIPA scope, n.1, p.25-29, http://www.eipa.eu/files/repository/eipascope/20120710143832_SDU_Eipascope2012.pdf

Samdra Bartelt, ACO-EU Development Cooperation at a Crossroads? One Year after the Second Revision of the Cotonou Agreement, European Foreign Affairs Review 2012, v.17, n.1, May, p.{1}-25, retrieved from http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/document.php?, id=EERR2012001 Selin Ozoguz-Bolgi (February, 2013). Is the EU becoming a global Power After the Treaty Lisbon? Chapter Global Power Europe- Vol.1, pp 3-18

Söderbaum, F.(2013). The European Union as an actor in Africa: internal coherence and external legitimacy, The European Union in Africa: incoherent policies, asymmetrical partnership, declining relevance?, Manchester University Press, 2013.

Telό, Mario, ( February 2009), ‘ The European Union and Global Governance’, Routledge.

Telό, Mario;Frederik, Ponjaert, (March 2016), ‘ The EU’s Foreignh Policy: What kind of Power and Diplomatic Action?’, Routledge

7.3 SITES

31

http :// lra 4 dev . cor . europa . eu / portal / EN / Pages / welcome . aspx

http :// www . plateforme - ane . sn /- L - Accord - de - Cotonou -. html

http :// ceeac - eccas . org / index . php / fr /

http :// www . memoireonline . com /12/07/796/ m _ accord - cotonou - lutte - contre - la - pauvrete 0. html

http :// europa . eu / about - eu / institutions - bodies / eesc / index _ fr . htm

http :// www . eesc . europa . eu /? i = portal . fr . africa - caribbean - pacific

http :// www . europarl . europa . eu / meetdocs /2009_2014/ documents / deve / dv / jaes _ study _/ jaes _ study _ en . pdf

http :// www . africa - eu - partnership . org / about - us / how - it - works

https :// ec . europa . eu / europeaid / sites / devco / files / mission - statement - december - 2014_ en . pdf

https :// ec . europa . eu / europeaid / organisational - structure - dg - devco _ en

http :// www . eeas . europa . eu / index _ en . htm

http :// ec . europa . eu / commission /2014-2019/ mogherini _ en

http :// www . eeas . europa . eu / delegations / index _ en . htm

http :// www . europarl . europa . eu / portal / en

http :// www . consilium . europa . eu / en / splash /? requested =%2 feuropean - council %2 f

http://www.eib.org/

http://devcoftb.com/login

http://ec.europa.eu/policies/external_relations_foreign_affairs_en.htm

http://www.memoireonline.com/12/07/796/m_accord-cotonou-lutte-contre-la- pauvrete0.html

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/regions/african-caribbean-and-pacific-acp-region_en

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/joint-consultation-paper-post- cotonou_en_0.pdf

http://eeas.europa.eu/csdp/structures-instruments-agencies/index_en.htm

http://www.institutdelors.eu/media/euexternalaction-koenig-jdib-feb15.pdf?pdf=ok

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 229471/1535.pdf

http://ecdpm.org/talking-points/shaping-real-european-foreign-policy-challenges-ahead- federica-mogherini/

http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/ACP-DAY-06.06.2014-presentation-Geert- Laporte.pdf

32

http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PMR-13-Cotonou-Partnership-Agreement- Reflections-ACP-EU-relations-2007.pdf

http://ecdpm.org/publications/building-the-african-union-past-progress-future-prospects/

http://www.ettg.eu/

http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/publicacao_europaafrica_normal1.pdf

http://www.acp.int/

http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013-Conference-Report-FES-ECDPM-Africa-EU- Relations-Sustainable-Partnership-Future.pdf

http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PMR-19-Global-Changes-Emerging- Players-Evolving-ACP-EU-Relations-2011.pdf

http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/BN-34-Future-ACP-and-Cotonou- Agreement-Preparing-debate-2012.pdf

http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2014-European-Parliament-Political-Dialogue- Human-Rights-Article8-Cotonou-Agreement1.pdf

http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2007-evaluation-article-96-Cotonou- partnership-agreement.pdf

http://ecdpm.org/publications/african-perspectives-africa-europe-relations/

http://www.africa-eu.com/

http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/AUC-Bulletin-2014-Making-EU-Africa-Relations- Future-Proof.pdf

http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/Topic-Guide-ACP-EU-Relations-Beyond-2020- ECDPM-2014.pdf

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/acp/10_01/default_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/joint-consultation-paper-towards-new-partnership-between- european-union-and-african-caribbean-and_en

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/joint-consultation-paper-post- cotonou_en_0.pdf

http://blog.ub.ac.id/irfan11/files/2013/02/Governance-Theory-A-Cross-Disciplinary- Approach-oleh-Vassuda-C.pdf

http://www.mcrit.com/scenarios/visionsofeurope/documents/one%20Europe%20or %20Several/C%20Lord.pdf

http://www.sfb-governance.de/en/publikationen/working_papers/wp26/SFB-Governance- Working-Paper-26.pdf

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ The+European+governance+by+the+yardstick+of+the+Lisbon+Treaty%3A+what...-a0260873757

http://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PSPA108/rhodes.pdf

http://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-d-administration-publique-2003-1-page-203.htm

33

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COMNAT:JOIN_2015_0033_FIN

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/regions/african-caribbean-and-pacific-acp-region/cotonou- agreement_en 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EL/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015JC0033&from=EN

http://www.africappp.com/

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/default_en.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN?TXT/HTML/?uri=URISERV:I10109&from=EN

http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/en/about-us/partners http://europa.eu/documents/ comm/green_papers/pdf/com-96-583_en.pdf

http :// www . africa - eu - partnership . org / en / about - us / partners

http://ec.europa.eu/libraries/

http://www/apastyle.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

34