Non-Execution Clause

720 Words3 Pages

National sovereignty versus legislative powers of the EU
What is also noteworthy is that national and cultural sovereignty with the contracting country prevails for the importance of protecting human rights. Obviously, countries do not appreciate that pressure to comply with these clauses is coming through external relations. In other words, that such a dominant figure like the EU, is making itself capable of putting pressure on domestic authorities to revise its legal order or change it. And with that said, it is obvious that the EU is in need of a stricter policy which will lead to more compliance and fluentness. In connection with the notion of national and cultural sovereignty, legislative powers of the EU are closely related. Does the …show more content…

Coercive measures seem not be used.
In several agreements there also exists the so called, last clause. The last clause is most often called the non-execution clause. This means that it is allowed to take appropriate measures (for example suspending the agreement) if there is a breach on behalf of either party to that specific agreement.
It seems as if the EU does not react if there are mere (not major) human rights violations is countries, only if there are grave and massive human rights violations. That undermines the conditionality policy substantially. How is it possible to apply such a policy when the effectiveness of conditionality provisions is so poor? This question can be answered in the following way. The EU is not a human rights supranational body on an international level and it has no superior powers to regulate and control domestic matters in third countries. This is especially related to the fact that human rights, as will be noted several times in this paper, are often not effective. In contrast, if there are is a political crisis in the country the EU makes arrangements with more progress. Hence, even though it is not successful in its measures against countries which violate human rights standards, EU still has a duty to respond. It is obliged to, both under international law and under EU law, not to be a part of any violations of human rights or democratic principles in third