EU-Logos

[INTERVIEW EN FRANCAIS DE L’EURODÉPUTÉ BERNARD GUETTA EN FIN D’ARTICLE]

« Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders[1]» wrote Albert Camus, winner of the Nobel prize for Literature in 1957. Indeed, death penalty is a barbaric and unjustifiable act which is physically and psychologically frightening. The individuals condemned to death can wait for years before their sentence is executed and the execution methods are awful : beheading, lethal injections, shooting or hanging[2]. In 2016 in the United States, about 3000 people condemned to death were waiting for their sentence[3]. Nowadays, no research studies can prove that death penalty deters citizens to commit a crime[4]. What is incomprehensible is that death penalty is a state assassination as it takes place in a legal framework. Moreover, death penalty can’t avoid mistakes, which leads innocent people to death.

  According to a recent survey in France, about 55% of French people are in favour of the death penalty[5]. However, it isn’t a surprise because death penalty in France has always been a controversial issue: in 2014, 45% of French people were in favour of a death penalty restoration. These figures are obviously dreadful, yet the abolition of death penalty in the European Union is protected by legal texts in the European law.

  First of all, the death penalty abolition is secured by the protocol No. 6 and No. 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is an international convention that protects human rights and freedom in Europe. This Convention was signed in 1950 by the Council of Europe[6], which is an international institution upholding European fundamental rights[7]. The protocol No. 13 stipulates « is banning the death penalty in all circumstances, including for crimes committed in times of war and imminent threat of war. No derogation or reservation is allowed to Protocol No. 13[8] ». Although the Council of Europe is distinct from the European Union, all of the EU Member States signed this convention, which is mandatory since the Lisbon Treaty in 2009[9].

  In the European Union, each new Member State candidate has to abolish death penalty. Indeed, it is a requirement for the EU accession[10]. Moreover, in 2007, the European institutions endorsed the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is legally binding for the EU Member States since the Lisbon Treaty in 2009[11]. That is to say, all of the EU Member States have to respect these fundamental rights otherwise they can be penalized. The article 2 stipulates « No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed[12] », and the article 19 specifies « No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment[13] ». Indeed, the European Union bans death penalty on its territory, but also prohibits extraditions of people who risks to be sentenced to death.

  Thus, the Member States are protected both by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, which both abolish death penalty in Europe. The compliance with these legal texts is guaranteed by two different courts : the European Court of Human Rights for the first one and the Court of Justice of the European Union for the second one[14]. On the one hand, the European Court of Human Rights relies on the European Convention on Human Rights, convention drafted by the European Council composed by 47 States, among them also Russia and Turkey. On the other hand, the Court of Justice of the European Union attends to cases concerning the European Law, which is composed by all the European treaties ratified by the EU and its Member States like the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights or the Lisbon Treaty[15]. Although the European Court on Human Rights is not an EU institution, the two European courts have maintained strong relationships and influenced each other. Indeed, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights draws on the European Convention and case law of the European Court on Human Rights. As the Member of the European Parliament Bernard Guetta said « We can call it a ripple effect. […] there is obviously an influence because all EU member states are members of the Council of Europe and come under the European Court of Human Rights. They cannot ignore the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights ».  For example, the European Court on Human Rights has enforced a jurisprudence which bans extraditions of people who risks being abused or sentenced to death in the country of destination since 1989[16]. According to Soering v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 7 July 1989), the European Court « ruled that extraditing a man accused of murder to the United States, where he could face the death penalty, would violate the prohibition of torture […][17] ». Thus, this case could influence the article 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.  

  The European Union appears as a strong bastion of the death penalty abolition. However, it is not the same case at the EU’s borders, even if the EU has influenced its neighbouring countries in order to ban death sentences. In Europe, every country banned death penalty from their laws, only Russia and Belarus haven’t. Indeed, in 2018, 4 people were executed in Belarus and 2 other people sentenced to death[18]. As for Russia, the government ruled in 1996 a moratorium on death penalty, that is to say Russia doesn’t exercise the death sentence, but it isn’t abolished in law[19]. This moratorium was decided because it is a requirement to integrate the Council of Europe, whose Russia has been a member since 1996.

  In Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, the death penalty is not abolished, however, they don’t exercise it. For example, 10 people were sentenced to death in Morocco in 2018, but the last execution of a death sentence was in 1993[20]. Similarly, in Algeria, 27 people were sentenced to death in 2017 but the last execution was in 1993 too[21]. In Libya and Egypt, the death penalty is always enforced. Indeed, in Egypt, 43 people were executed in 2018, whereas in 2017, the country numbered 35 executions. Hundreds of people were sentenced to death in Egypt in 2018 because every worker of these tribunals is serving members of the military. In fact, since the election of Abdel Fattah al Sissi, current president of Egypt and former soldier, 2000 death sentences have been pronounced in the country whereas mostly of confessions has been obtained by force and torture[22]. In September 2018, Abdel Halim Gabreel, aged 80 years old, and 20 other people were sentenced to death because they were accused of killing 13 policemen in a police station in 2013. At the trial, Abdel Halim Gabreel was condemned because of two declarations on oath, whereas the two witnesses denied to be perpetrators of these two statements[23].

  Concerning Turkey, the death penalty was abolished in 2004 in order to begin the process of accession to the European Union[24]. However, death sentence was questioned again in 2016 in the wake of the military coup, which failed in Ankara. After reinforcing its powers with a referendum, the president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said he was in favour of a restoration of death penalty[25]. Although this statement took place after a violent repression and a political purge in the public administration and the army, it was not possible for Turkey to reinstate death penalty[26]. Indeed, death sentence abolition has been enshrined in the Turkish Constitution. Moreover, Turkey has been a member of the Council of Europe which ban death penalty. Nowadays, despite the desire of Turkish president, the death sentence is abolished in Turkey.

  Thus, the death penalty is still performed by some EU neighbouring countries, even if the cases of death sentence decreased in the world, because a lot of States implemented the moratorium. As a result, the European Union has built a real worldwide framework against death penalty and to protect human rights since the late 20th century. First of all, the European Council adopted the EU guidelines on death penalty in 1998[27], which is one of the most important document in the European Union in order to fight death sentence in Third Countries. These EU guidelines, which were updated in 2001, 2008 and 2013, set up short and long term goals and provide concrete actions that the EU should undertake. First, this text stipulates : « The European Union has a strong and unequivocal opposition to the death penalty in all times and in all circumstances[28] ».  According to these guidelines, the EU have to encourage countries to ratify international agreements which condemn death penalty. Thus, Moldavia abolished death penalty from its constitution in 2006 and ratified the protocol Nu. 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the wake of its commitment in the action plan EU-Moldavia signed in 2004[29].

  Although the EU’s policy respects death penalty in Third Countries, the EU has promoted death penalty abolition or at least promoted for a moratorium. The EU uses demarches, public declarations and its position in regional and international organizations in order to express countries to ban death penalty[30]. Indeed, the EU has a role of permanent observer at the United Nations and defends ardently the death sentence abolition, like in 2012 where the EU led a strong campaign for a resolution on a death penalty moratorium[31]. The EU also uses individual instruments, which are applied in specific cases.

  In June 2012, the EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy was adopted by the Council of the European Union. This text sets out principles, objectives and priorities in order to enhance « the effectiveness and consistency of the EU human rights policy as a whole »[32]. As a result, a first action plan on human rights was implemented based on the EU strategic Framework. Thus, the EU highlighted its will to promote and protect human rights. In 2015, a new action plan was adopted for the period 2015-2019[33]. This plan included an objective (Nu.15), which was banned torture, ill-treatment and death penalty[34]. Nowadays, a third action plan was adopted by the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs in march 2020 for the period 2020-2024. It takes new issues like new technologies into account and includes a measure in order to «act by qualified majority voting[35] on issues falling under the Action Plan » for the Council of the European Union[36].

  Moreover, in its trade policy, the EU bans trade in goods, which can be used for torture or executions like for example barbiturate agents which are used in lethal injections. This prohibition caused a shortage of lethal injections materials in 2014 in the United States[37]. The EU also launched the Alliance for Torture-Free Trade with Argentina and Mongolia in 2017 in order to ban materials used in torture and executions. At last, from 2008 to 2016, the EU funded 22 million euros to projects from civil societies organizations supporting the fight against death[38]

  The EU has a strong worldwide framework in order to fight against death penalty and to protect human rights. However, the EU has not a decisional power, in particular at the United Nations. « It has an influence that is not everything, which is not decisional. The proof, there are still countries which apply the death penalty and which sometimes apply it with absolutely suffocating frequency », said Bernard Guetta. Thus, its real power is its impact on its neighbours, especially on the death penalty and human rights issue. The main influence is undoubtedly in Europe because of the European neighbourhood policy and the process of accession to the European Union, which does not tolerate death penalty.

  The European Neighbourhood policy (ENP) is composed of bilateral agreements between the EU and neighbouring countries ensuring peace and stability at the EU’s borders. Thus, this policy relies on three pillars : economic cooperation, rule of Law and human rights[39]. Those principles are fundamental and the European economic assistance is proportional to the progress made by States. Each action plan defined between the EU and its partner State includes a chapter on human rights[40]. This chapter sets goals that the partner country has to achieve on the human rights issue.

  Moreover, the EU introduced a provision related to « the human rights » in these bilateral agreements[41]. There are two types of provisions. The first one states that  « the relations between the parties, as well as the provisions of the agreement itself, are based on respect for human rights and democratic principles which inspire their internal and international policies and constitute an essential element of this agreement[42] ». The second one argues that « The relations between the parties, as well as all the provisions of this Agreement, are based on respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which inspires their internal and international policies and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement [43]».

  In order to respect the human rights provision, those bilateral agreements include another provision which is called « non-execution[44] ». If the partner State overrides the human rights provision, the EU can either take « appropriate measures » or revoke immediately the agreement[45].

    Bilateral agreements are reinforced with regional organizations, the Eastern Partnership and the Union for the Mediterranean[46]. The Eastern Partnership, which gathers Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldavia and Ukraine, was launched in 2009. A parliament, called Euronest, was set up in 2011 in order to monitor the implementation of the partnership. It is composed by a Committee on Political Affairs, Human Rights and Democracy, which issues recommendations and resolutions[47]. Above all, it is a place of exchange where representatives of the EU and of the Eastern Partnership countries get together. However, Belarus does not participate in the parliament because of its repeating violations of human rights. As a result, the EU has implemented with Belarus the annual EU-Belarus Human Rights Dialogue, which is a forum for discussion on human rights and death penalty[48]. Moreover, the EU, with the Council of Europe, developed in 2014 the ‘Programmatic Cooperation Framework’ (PCF), which was renamed in June 2017: The Partnership for Good Governance (PGG). This program aims to bring countries of the Eastern Partnership « closer to the standards of the Council of Europe and the European Union in the fields of human rights, democracy and the rule of law »[49]. From 2015 to 2018, the EU with the Council of Europe released 36 million euros to fund this initiative[50].

  The Union for the Mediterranean is composed by the EU and 15 Mediterranean countries like Albania, Egypt or Morocco[51]. This regional partnership also implemented a parliament, in which a Committee on Political Affairs, Human Rights and Democracy was created[52].

  The outcome of the European Neighbourhood policy has been different according to regions. Although in Europe it seems to be positive, the reality is more qualified in northern Africa and in the Middle East. Despite some improvements on human rights and death penalty issue like in Jordan[53], a lot of countries still execute the death penalty. Most of them ratified international agreements thanks to the EU, however they overridden them[54]. In spite of the human rights provision, the current Egyptian government continues to lead people to death and no measures have been taken by the EU. The regional situation contributes to preventing improvements on human rights. Indeed, the events of 11 September 2001, the Arab Springs or the war in Syria and in Libya have destabilized the region and governments prefer to implement security policies instead of improving human rights conditions[55]. Bernard Guetta also underlines that public opinion is generally in favour of death penalty in this region. This is probably linked to the insecurity of the region. Moreover, it appears that the EU prioritized economic integration and stability in the region with some Mediterranean countries rather than the improvement of human rights conditions[56].  The MEP Bernard Guetta emphasized the importance of Egypt: « […] we need Egypt as hateful as its president be. It is about ensuring the security of the Middle East ».

In Europe, the most EU’s effective tool is the process of accession. Indeed, the latter bans death penalty. « It is during the accession process that the European Union is best placed to impose its social, environmental, political standards […] » said Bernard Guetta. Thus, many European countries, which want to integrate the EU, comply with EU standards on human rights. For example, most of the Balkan countries support the EU indictments against death penalty at the United Nations[57]. Indeed, Albania applied for the process of EU accession in 2009, and was officially recognized as a candidate in 2014[58]. Similarly, Serbia banned the death penalty in 2002, before becoming a member of the Council of Europe in 2003 and a candidate to the European Union in 2011.

The EU is the figurehead of the death penalty abolition in the world. It has implemented many policies against death penalty at world and regional level. However, although the EU has a worldwide influence, its scope remains limited and the EU may face pragmatism. For example, at the regional level, the EU sometimes focuses on stability rather than human rights conditions like in Egypt. The only cases where this influence is clear concern neighbouring states wishing to join the EU. Yet, the EU is not alone in this struggle in Europe. The EU works with the Council of Europe, which has realized a huge effort to fight against death penalty.

Interview in french of Bernard Guetta, Member of the European Parliament:

(Monsieur le Député Bernard Guetta est membre du groupe parlementaire Renew. Il est actuellement Vice-président de la sous-commission “Droits de l’Homme”, ainsi que membre de la commission “Affaires étrangères” et membre de la délégation à la commission de coopération parlementaire UE-Russie).

  Pour commencer, est-ce qu’avoir deux juridictions différentes en Europe qui protègent la peine de mort peut être contre-productif ? Est-ce qu’elles n’empiètent pas l’une sur l’autre ?

  Je pense que vous vous posez un faux problème. La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a à s’occuper fondamentalement du respect des traités. En ce sens, c’est une sorte de « tribunal administratif » de l’Union européenne. La Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme est tout à fait différente. Elle est là pour faire respecter les engagements pris par les pays membres du Conseil de l’Europe. On a donc deux institutions différentes, et l’une et l’autre sont nécessaires.

  Est-ce que la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme a eu une influence sur la Charte des Droits Fondamentaux de l’Union européenne, notamment sur la question des extraditions ?

  Alors la jurisprudence, c’est à l’intérieur d’un même système judiciaire. Là, le paradoxe, c’est qu’il y a une jurisprudence par contamination. Nous pouvons appelons ça un effet d’entraînement. Mais oui vous avez raison, il y a évidemment une influence car tous les pays membres de l’UE sont membres du Conseil de l’Europe et relèvent de la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme. Ils ne peuvent pas ignorer les arrêts de la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme. Il est tout à fait normal que ces arrêts s’inscrivent dans le corpus réglementaire de l’Union européenne, de facto ou de jure.

  Avec l’ensemble des moyens mis en place afin de lutter contre la peine de mort, est-ce que l’Union européenne représente une force normative sur la scène internationale ?

  Elle a une influence qui ne fait pas tout, qui n’est pas décisionnelle. La preuve, il reste des pays qui appliquent la peine de mort et qui parfois l’appliquent avec une fréquence absolument suffocante. Mais oui, l’Union européenne est composée de 27 pays riches, car même les pays les plus pauvres de l’UE sont des pays riches par rapport à d’autres pays du monde. Un ensemble de pays aussi puissants respectant les droits de l’Homme, mais aussi un minimum de mesures environnementales et sociales, a forcément une influence. Il s’agit d’une influence culturelle, économique et politique.

  En plus l’Union européenne s’est affirmée comme le seul bloc d’un tel poids qui mette l’interdiction de la peine de mort dans ses objectifs prioritaires. Ni les Etats-Unis, ni la Russie, ni la Chine ne le font. Nous sommes seuls à le faire et je pense que cela a un poids. D’autant que cela s’inscrit dans une évolution des mentalités à travers le monde qui fait que la peine de mort est de moins en moins acceptée. Mais ne sous-estimons pas le fait que ces choses-là vont et viennent, et que ça peut revenir dans les opinions publiques. Il suffit qu’il y ait des peurs. Imaginons que les attentats terroristes se multiplient par rapport à aujourd’hui, on peut craindre que dans l’Union européenne, les opinions réclament le retour de la peine de mort. Prenez l’exemple de l’immense malaise des détenus djihadistes, dont certains sont de nationalité européenne. On ne veut pas les récupérer, parce qu’on ne veut pas les mettre dans nos prisons pour des raisons qui se comprennent, et qui se défendent. Mais, ils encourent la peine de mort dans les pays où ils sont. On négocie donc pour que la peine de mort ne leur soit pas appliquée. Il s’agit d’un sujet compliqué.

  Comment expliquer la différence d’impact qu’ont les politiques européennes en matière de lutte contre la peine de mort entre le Moyen-Orient, l’Afrique du Nord et l’Europe ? Et pourquoi, malgré les résolutions du Parlement qui appelle la Commission européenne et le Conseil européen à agir, l’UE ne modifie pas les accords bilatéraux conclus avec les pays qui pratiquent encore la peine de mort comme l’Egypte ?

  L’évolution des opinions est plus profonde sur le continent européen qu’elle ne l’est au Proche-Orient pour l’instant. Ça bougera je pense. Je pense que si la Russie a suspendu les exécutions capitales, c’est principalement parce que son opinion publique y était devenue défavorable. Ce n’est pas uniquement pour cela, il y a aussi un coup politique et diplomatique.

  Pour la Biélorussie, ça tient énormément à la personnalité de Monsieur Loukachenko. Contrairement à Monsieur Loukachenko, Monsieur Poutine a vécu en Allemagne en tant qu’espion pour le KGB. Il connaît l’Occident même s’il n’est pas véritablement un démocrate. Les assassinats ne lui font, peut-être, pas peur mais la peine de mort c’est autre chose, c’est à froid. Monsieur Poutine s’en fiche des assassinats alors que les opposants politiques le préoccupent beaucoup plus. Monsieur Loukachenko vient de la campagne, il était un ancien directeur d’un kolkhoze. Il fait partie de ces secteurs de l’opinion qui traditionnellement sont moins hostiles à la peine de mort que les milieux urbains. C’est vrai dans tous les pays. Donc ce n’est pas véritablement surprenant, il pense certainement que c’est un trait culturel de son électorat.

  Maintenant l’Egypte, qui bat tous les records, est entre les mains d’un dictateur. Voilà tout simplement un homme qui torture et exécute à tour de bras, parce que c’est un dictateur sanguinaire qui ne croit qu’à la violence et à la force. Alors maintenant les pays européens ont besoin de l’Egypte, pour de nombreuses raisons mais pas seulement économiques. En effet, dans les équilibres régionaux, nous avons besoin de l’Egypte, aussi détestable que soit son président. Il s’agit d’assurer la sécurité du Proche-Orient. L’Egypte est l’un des Etats qui fait front aux mouvements djihadistes. Rompre avec lui à cause de la peine de mort, peu de gouvernements européens y seraient disposés, voire même aucun. Ils ferment donc les yeux sur les exactions de ce régime. Nous continuons à commercer avec Monsieur Al-Sissi malgré les abominations de ce dictateur. Les ennemis de nos ennemis sont nos amis.

  Enfin, pour terminer, est-ce que le processus d’adhésion à l’Union européenne est le meilleur outil dont dispose l’UE contre la peine de mort en Europe ?

  Bien sûr, vous avez totalement raison. C’est au cours du processus d’adhésion, que l’Union européenne est la mieux placée pour imposer ses standards sociaux, environnementaux, politiques, etc… Après cela devient plus compliqué. On peut prendre l’exemple de Monsieur Orbán en Hongrie. Une fois qu’un pays est Membre de l’Union européenne, pour le sanctionner il faut l’unanimité. On ne peut pas demander à Monsieur Orbán de sanctionner Monsieur Orbán. Du moins tant que les institutions et les traités n’auront pas été modifiés. Donc nous sommes un peu désarmés.  


[1] Albert Camus, Réflexions sur la guillotine, 1957.

[2] Amnesty International, Nota Bene, « Comprendre la peine de mort avec Nota Bene », amnesty.org, 2016.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Amnesty International, « La peine de mort n’est pas dissuasive », amnesty.org, 2006.

[5] Bruce Teinturier, Mathieu Gallard et Laurène Boisson, « Fractures françaises 2020 », Ipsos/Sopra Steria pour Le Monde, la Fondation Jean Jaurès et l’Institut Montaigne, septembre 2020.

[6] Nowadays, it is composed by 47 Member States.

[7] « Qu’est-ce que le Conseil de l’Europe ? », Toute l’Europe, 7 juillet 2020.

[8] Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, coe.int.

[9] « La Convention et la Cour européennes des droits de l’Homme (CEDH) », Toute l’Europe, 1 février 2020.

[10] « Les textes internationaux relatifs à la peine de mort », France Diplomatie.

[11] Ibid.

[12] EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Aurélie Delfosse, « La peine de mort et l’Union européenne : le débat continue … », eu-logos athena, 21 juillet 2015.

[15] « Deux juridictions bien distinctes », Le Monde diplomatique, page 22, janvier 2018.

[16] « Fiche thématique – Expulsions et extraditions », European Court of Human Rights, July 2013.

[17]Council of Europe, « The ECHR and the death penalty : a timeline », coe.int.

[18] Amnesty International, « Rapport mondial, Condamnations à mort et exécutions 2018 », amnesty.org, 2019.

[19] « La Russie s’éloigne de la peine de mort », Le Monde, 19 novembre 2009.

[20] « Rapport mondial, Condamnations à mort et exécutions 2018 », op.cit.

[21]Amnesty International, « Peine de mort. La Tunisie, l’Algérie, et le Maroc et le Sahara occidental doivent abolir la peine capitale en droit », amnesty.org, 12 avril 2018.

[22]« Rapport mondial, Condamnations à mort et exécutions 2018 », op.cit.

[23] Ibid.

[24] « Erdogan prêt au rétablissement de la peine de mort en Turquie », Le Monde, 18 mars 2017.

[25] Ibid.

[26]Ariane Bonzon, « Rétablir la peine de mort en Turquie ? Compliqué, très compliqué, en vérité », Slate, 5 novembre 2016.

[27] European Parliament, « The death penalty and the EU’s fight against it », europarl.europa.eu.

[28] Ibid.

[29]Amnesty International, « La Moldavie abolit la peine de mort », amnesty.org, 5 juillet 2006.

[30] Rudolf Hnidka, « European perspective and legal framework of death penalty », November 2016.

[31] Aurélie Delfosse, op.cit.

[32] Rudolf Hnidka, op.cit. and « EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy », ec.europarl.eu.

[33] Ibid.

[34] « The death penalty and the EU’s fight against it », op.cit.

[35] « A qualified majority (QM) is the number of votes required in the Council for a decision to be adopted when issues are being debated on the basis of Article 16 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 238 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union », eur-lex.europa.eu.

[36] European Commission, « Human Rights and Democracy: striving for dignity and equality around the world », Press realease, ec.europa.eu, 25 March 2020.

[37] « The death penalty and the EU’s fight against it », op.cit.

[38] Ibid.

[39] European Commission, « The European Neighbourhood Policy », ec.europa.eu.

[40] Danièle Lochak, « Les droits de l’homme dans les accords d’association et de coopération conclus par l’Union européenne »,g

[41] Ibid.

[42] Marine Gourvès, « La question de la protection des droits de l’homme dans les rapports euro-méditerranéens », mémoire, Poitiers, septembre 2008.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] European Commission, « The European Neighbourhood Policy », op.cit.

[47] Ibid.

[48] European Consilium, « EU relations with Belarus », consilium.europa.eu.

[49] Conseil de l’Europe, « EAP-PCF », coe.int.

[50] Ibid.

[51] European Commission, « The European Neighbourhood Policy », op.cit.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Marine Gourvès, op.cit.

[54] Danièle Lochak, op.cit.

[55] Marine Gourvès, op.cit.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Laurent Beauguitte, « L’ONU contre la peine de mort : la puissance normative de l’UE en question », openedition.org, 2012.

[58] Lucie Cazat, « La question de l’élargissement de l’UE à l’Albanie et la Macédoine du Nord », EU-Logos Athena, 26 juin 2019.

L’article Death penalty in neighbouring countries: « What is the EU doing ? » est apparu en premier sur Le portail de référence pour l'espace de liberté, sécurité et justice.

Author :
Print