Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The European Parliament as the Human Rights Gatekeeper of the Union?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Armenian Massacres of 1915–1916 a Hundred Years Later

Part of the book series: Studies in the History of Law and Justice ((SHLJ,volume 15))

  • 441 Accesses

Abstract

The question that is addressed in this paper relates to the relevance that the choice made by the Turkish Government not to recognise the Armenian Genocide may have with regard to Turkey’s accession to the European Union. On the one hand, the European Parliament considers this to be a key issue, as is confirmed by many resolutions passed over time. On the other hand, in the light of a strictly literal interpretation of the Copenhagen criteria, the European Council and the European Commission have ruled out that the refusal expressed by Turkey to recognise those facts could negatively affect the accession process. The purpose of this paper is to prove that the European Parliament has introduced a new ad hoc criterion to be imposed on Turkey because of the gravity of the Armenian genocide, and to provide a further element that may confirm the theory of the development par autoconstitution of the European Union legal system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The European Council has quite often stressed the importance it attaches to the enlargement of the European Union. Over time, there were statements such as: “Enlargement is both a political necessity and a historic opportunity for Europe [because] it will ensure the stability and security of the continent and will thus offer [ …] new prospects for economic growth and general well-being” (Madrid European Council, 15 and 16 December 1995 – Presidency Conclusions, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/mad1_it.htm#enlarge (accessed 10 August 2017); “Extending the European integration model to encompass the whole of the continent is a pledge of future stability and prosperity” (Luxembourg European Council, 12 and 13 December 1997 – Presidency Conclusions, http://www.europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-97-24_en.pdf (accessed 10 August 2017); “The European Council reaffirms the historic significance of the European Union enlargement process and the political priority which it attaches to the success of that process” (Nice European Council, 7–10 December 2000 – Presidency Conclusions, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/nice1_en.htm#II (accessed 10 August 2017).

  2. 2.

    Copenhagen European Council, 21 and 22 June 1993 – Presidency Conclusions, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/conclusions/pdf-1993-2003/presidency-conclusions_-copenhagen-european-council_-21-and-22-june-1993/ (accessed 10 August 2017).

  3. 3.

    Pursuant to Article 49 TEU, “(1) any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members. (2) The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account. The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”.

  4. 4.

    Nascimbene (1992).

  5. 5.

    Smith (2003). On the enlargement, see Sadurski (2012); Lang (2010); Kochenov (2008); Rizzo (2006); Bifulco (2005); Sanna (2005); Nelli and Feroci (2005); Micheletta (2005); Rizzo (2004); Sinagra (2004); Bonini (2003); Kellerman et al. (2001); Jovanovic (1998).

  6. 6.

    On the relationship between the European Union and Turkey, see Baracani (2008); Yildiz and Müller (2008); Cerruti (2007); Zijal (2006).

  7. 7.

    That is because the Turkish government has not agreed on the implementation of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement (Council Decision No 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, in OJ 217 of 29 December 1964, p. 3685) with regard to Cyprus. The Ankara Agreement was followed by an Additional Protocol signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved, and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/1972 of the Council of 19 December 1972 concluding the additional protocol and the financial protocol signed on 23 November 1970 and annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and relating to the measures to be taken for their implementation. On the long negotiations between Turkey and the European Union, see European Commission, Turkey 2015 Report, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2015/20151110_report_turkey.pdf (accessed 10 August 2017); http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/detailed-country-information/turkey/index_en.htm (accessed 10 August 2017); Panebianco (2005); Kuneralp (2001).

  8. 8.

    Byman (2016); Nigro (2016); Salomoni (2016); Picone (2015); Santoro (2015).

  9. 9.

    On the cultural issues related to Turkey’s accession, see Susuzlu (2009); Calchi Novati (2001). On the concept of Europe, see Ferraris (2001); Chabod (1959, 2011).

  10. 10.

    Recitals E and G and paras. 1, 2 and 4 of the European Parliament resolution of 18 June 1987 on a political solution to the Armenian question, in OJ C 190 of 20 July 1987, p. 119. Under para. 4, the reluctance of Turkish government to apply the principles of international law in its disputes with Greece, the maintenance of Turkish occupation forces in Cyprus, the denial of the existence of the Kurdish question, the lack of true parliamentary democracy, and the failure to respect individual and collective freedoms, especially freedom of religion, are identified as insurmountable obstacles to Turkey’s accession.

  11. 11.

    Para. 6 of the above-mentioned resolution. Under paras. 10 and 11, the EP expressed its concern with regard to the difficulties experienced by the Armenian minority in Iran and the Soviet Union.

  12. 12.

    Para. 8 of the European Parliament resolution of 28 September 2005 on the opening of negotiations with Turkey, http://www.europarl.europa.eu (accessed 10 August 2017).

  13. 13.

    Ibidem, para. 10.

  14. 14.

    Ibidem, para. 5.

  15. 15.

    Para. 2 of the European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2006 on Turkey’s progress towards accession, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ (accessed 10 August 2017).

  16. 16.

    Ibidem, para. 56.

  17. 17.

    Para. 77 of the European Parliament resolution of 12 March 2015 on the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in 2013 and European Union’s policy on the matter, http://www.europarl.europa.eu (accessed 10 August 2017).

  18. 18.

    Para. 5 of the European Parliament resolution of 15 April 2015 on the centenary of the Armenian Genocide, http://www.europarl.europa.eu (accessed 10 August 2017).

  19. 19.

    Helsinki European Council, 10 and 11 December 1999 - Presidency Conclusions, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/hel1_it.htm (accessed 10 August 2017).

  20. 20.

    Copenhagen European Council, 12 and 13 December 2002 – Presidency Conclusions, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/conclusions/pdf-1993-2003/presidency-conclusions_copenhagen-european-council_-12-and-13-december-2002/ (accessed 10 August 2017).

  21. 21.

    Brussels European Council, 16 and 17 December 2004 – Presidency Conclusions, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/83201.pdf (accessed 10 August 2017).

  22. 22.

    Written Question E-012658/11 Mario Borghezio (EFD) to the Commission. Failure to recognise the Armenian genocide, OJ C 66 E of March 7 March 2013, p. 119, Written Question E-2038/03 by Miquel Mayoli Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Turkey and the denial of the Armenian genocide, OJ C 51 E of 26 February 2004, p. 184, Written Question P-3186/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission, OJ C 151 E, 22 May 2001, p. 87. On the topic, see also Written Question E-0229/01 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission. Turkey's application for EU membership, OJ C 187 of 3 July 2001, p. 203.

  23. 23.

    See Council Regulation (EC) No 2500/2001 of 17 December 2001 concerning pre-accession financial assistance for Turkey and amending Regulations (EEC) No 3906/89, (EC) No 1267/1999, (EC) No 1268/1999 and (EC) No 555/2000, OJ L 342 of 27 December 2001, p. 1, Council Regulation (EC) No 390/2001 of 26 February 2001 on assistance to Turkey in the framework of the pre-accession strategy, and in particular on the establishment of an Accession Partnership, OJ L 58 of 28 February 2001, p. 1, Council Decision 2001/235/EC of 8 March 2001 on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey, OJ L 85 of 24 March 2001, p. 13.

  24. 24.

    See, among others, Case 4/69 Lütticke [1971] ECR 326, paras. 10–11. On the topic, see Craig (2012); Heukels and McDonnell (1997); Venturini (1980).

  25. 25.

    In light of the reform introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, and pursuant to Article 13(1) TEU, the European Council is an EU institution but, at the time when the case was brought before the Court of First Instance, it was not considered as part of the institutional framework (see Article 7 of the Treaty establishing the European Community).

  26. 26.

    EP resolutions are not legally binding, thus the other EU institutions are not obligated to comply with them. However, they are a means to direct the political action of the EU since they can have a political impact on the position of other institutions and, above all, support the action of the European Commission (see, Strozzi and Mastroianni 2013). On the effects of EP resolutions, see Case 230/81 Luxembourg v European Parliament [1983] ECR 258.

  27. 27.

    Case T-346/03 Krikorian [2003] ECR II-6040.

  28. 28.

    Case C-18/04 P Krikorian [2004] not published in the ECR.

  29. 29.

    See European Parliament legislative resolution of 1 December 2011 on the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ (accessed 10 August 2017).

  30. 30.

    See Puglia (2014).

  31. 31.

    Recital C of the European Parliamentary Assembly resolution on the centennial of the Armenian genocide, OJ C 315 of 23 September 2015, p. 23. The Euronest Parliamentary Assembly was established in Brussels in 2011 as a meeting place between the EU and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine within the Eastern partnership. Both members of the EP and representatives of the parliaments of the six countries involved take part in its activities. On this topic, see the Constituent Act of the Parliamentary Assembly Euronest, OJ C 198 of 6 July 2011, p. 4.

  32. 32.

    Essen European Council, 9 and 10 December 2004 – Presidency Conclusions, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/ess1_en.htm#ext (accessed 10 August 2017).

  33. 33.

    European Commission, Turkey – Negotiating Framework, 3 October 2005, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/turkey/st20002_05_tr_framedoc_en.pdf (accessed 10 August 2017).

  34. 34.

    On this point it should be considered that the EP too has called for a normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia: see paragraph 8 of the European Parliament resolution of 14 April 2016 on the 2015 Report on Turkey, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-0133+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN (accessed 10 August 2017) and para. 49 of the European Parliament resolution of 10 June 2015 on the 2014 Commission Progress Report on Turkey, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0228+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN (accessed 10 August 2017).

  35. 35.

    Raspadori (2007).

  36. 36.

    One should remember that, without prejudice to the functions of political control that it already carried out, the EP was given the power to reject the Community budget with the Treaty of Brussels of 22 July 1975. With regard to the EP powers at the time, see Pocar (1981). On the role of the EP, see Delledonne (2014); Fasonea and Lupo (2012); Fabbrini (2011); Piroddi (2011); Raspadori (2009); Mangiameli (2008); Pinelli (2005); Ninatti (2004); Dìez Parra (2002); Garabello (1998).

  37. 37.

    See Picchio Forlati (1999).

  38. 38.

    See Cortese (2014).

  39. 39.

    Draft Treaty establishing the European Union, OJ C 77 of 19 March 1984, p. 33.

References

  • Baracani E (2008) Unione europea e democrazia in Turchia. Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli

    Google Scholar 

  • Bifulco D (2005) Com’è difficile dirsi ‘europei’ … Spunti di riflessione circa l’art. 49 del Trattato UE e l’allargamento dell’Unione europea agli Stati dell’Europa centro-orientale. Rassegna di diritto pubblico europeo 4:11–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonini M (2003) La costruzione della ‘nuova’ Europa: l’impatto dell’allargamento a est sulla cornice giuridica dell’Unione e della Comunità europea. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario 13:271–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Byman D (2016) ISIS goes global. Foreign Affairs 95:76–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Calchi Novati G (2001) Un candidato controverso e la forza della Storia. In: Novati GC, Di Casola MA (eds) L’Europa e i ruoli della Turchia. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerruti T (2007) L’apertura dei negoziati di adesione all’Unione europea della Turchia e della Croazia. Quaderni costituzionali 27:93–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabod F (1959) Storia dell’idea di Europa. Laterza, Bari-Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabod F (2011) Idea d’Europa e civiltà moderna. Sette saggi inediti. Carocci editore, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortese B (2014) À la recherche d’un parcours d’autoconstitution de l’ordre juridique interindividuel européen: essay d’une lecture pluraliste 50 ans après van Gend en Loos et Costa c. ENEL. In: Cortese B (ed) Studi in onore di Laura Picchio Forlati. G. Giappichelli editore, Torino, pp 301–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2012) EU administrative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dìez Parra I (2002) Il Parlamento europeo nel trattato di Nizza. Il diritto dell’Unione europea 7:368–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Delledonne G (2014) Elezione del Parlamento europeo e politicizzazione dell’Unione di nuovo al vaglio del Bundesverfassungsgericht. Quaderni costituzionali 3:690–693

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraris LV (2001) La geografia e i valori dell’Europa di fronte all’allargamento. In: Novati GC, Di Casola MA (eds) L’Europa e i ruoli della Turchia. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 103–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasone C, Lupo N (2012) Il Parlamento europeo alla luce delle novità introdotte nel Trattato di Lisbona e nel suo regolamento interno. Studi sull’integrazione europea 7:329–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabbrini F (2011) La composizione del Parlamento europeo dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico 3:787–802

    Google Scholar 

  • Garabello R (1998) I nuovi poteri del Parlamento europeo nel quadro delle riforme istituzionali apportate dal Trattato di Amsterdam. La comunità internazionale 53:271–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Heukels T, McDonnell A (eds) (1997) The action for damages in community law. Wolters Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic MN (1998) ‘Festina lente’: prospettive e limiti dell’allargamento ad Est dell’Unione europea. La comunità internazionale 53:529–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellerman AE, de Zwaan JW, Czuczai J (2001) EU enlargement: The constitutional impact at EU and national level. Springer, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov D (2008) EU enlargement and the failure of conditionality: pre-accession conditionality in the fields of democracy and the rule of law. Wolters Kluwer, Aalphenaan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuneralp S (2001) Joining the European Union: a process underway. In: Novati GC, Di Casola MA (eds) L’Europa e i ruoli della Turchia. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 65–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang A (2010) La politica di allargamento dell’Unione europea. Studi sull’integrazione europea 5:477–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli S (2008) Il ruolo del Parlamento europeo e il principio della democrazia rappresentativa. Teoria del diritto e dello Stato 1(3):491–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Micheletta L (2005) Ex pluribus… 25 e più: l’allargamento dell’Unione europea in una prospettiva storica. La comunità internazionale 60:245–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimbene B (1992) La procedura di adesione all’Unione europea. In: Ganino M, Venturini G (eds) L’Europa di domani: verso l’allargamento dell’Unione. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 9–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelli Feroci F (2005) L’Unione europea: tra la crisi del Trattato costituzionale e i dilemmi dell’allargamento. La comunità internazionale 60:597–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigro R (2016) La risoluzione del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite n. 2249 (2015) e la legittimità dell’uso della forza contro l’ISIS in base al diritto internazionale. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 10:137–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Ninatti S (2004) Le attribuzioni del Parlamento europeo nel trattato costituzionale. Quaderni costituzionali 24:870–874

    Google Scholar 

  • Panebianco S (2005) L’allargamento dell’Unione al Mediterraneo. In: Scartezzini R, Milanese JO (eds) L’allargamento dell’UE nello scenario geopolitico europeo. Franco Angeli, Milano, pp 128–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Picchio Forlati L (1999) Il diritto dell’Unione europea fra dimensione internazionale e transnazionalità. Jus 1999:461–473

    Google Scholar 

  • Picone P (2015) Unilateralismo e guerra contro l’ISIS. Rivista di diritto internazionale 98:5–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinelli C (2005) Ruolo e poteri del Parlamento europeo secondo il Trattato costituzionale europeo. Il diritto dell’Unione europea 10:171–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Piroddi P (2011) Il Parlamento europeo nel Trattato di Lisbona tra democrazia rappresentativa e democrazia partecipativa. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario 21:801–837

    Google Scholar 

  • Pocar F (1981) Parlamento europeo. In: Enciclopedia del diritto, vol. XXXI. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 864–866

    Google Scholar 

  • Puglia M (2014) Commento all’art. 49 TUE. In: Tizzano A (ed) Trattati dell’Unione europea. Giuffrè, Milano, p 337

    Google Scholar 

  • Raspadori F (2007) La politica estera dell’Unione europea: istituzioni e strumenti di pace. Morlacchi, Perugia, p 122

    Google Scholar 

  • Raspadori F (2009) Il deficit di rappresentatività del Parlamento europeo: limiti e soluzioni. Studi sull’integrazione europea 4:121–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo A (2004) L’allargamento ad Est dell’Unione europea: Problematiche del Trattato di adesione. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo A (2006) Elementi di approfondimento e sviluppo del diritto comunitario e dell’Unione europea nel processo di allargamento. Studi sull’integrazione europea 1:281–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadurski W (2012) Constitutionalism and the enlargement of Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salomoni F (2016) Turchia, migrazioni e crisi siriana. Il Mulino 483:173–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanna C (2005) L’allargamento dell’Unione europea, la libera circolazione delle persone e la cooperazione nel settore della giustizia e affari interni. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 41:282–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro D (2015) La Turchia, cuscinetto tra profughi siriani e ‘Fortezza Europa’. Limes 6:173–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinagra A (2004) Allargamento dell’Unione europea e cooperazione giuridica internazionale. Rivista di studi politici internazionali 71:403–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith KE (2003) The evolution and application of EU membership conditionality. In: Cremona M (ed) The enlargement of the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 106–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Strozzi G, Mastroianni R (2013) Diritto dell’Unione europea. Parte istituzionale. G. Giappichelli editore, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Susuzlu S (2009) The identity clash of the European Union and Turkey. A cultural approach. VDM Verlag, Saarbrücken

    Google Scholar 

  • Venturini G (1980) La responsabilità extracontrattuale delle Comunità europee. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz K, Müller M (2008) The European Union and Turkish accession. Pluto Press, Human Rights and the Kurds. London-Ann Arbour

    Google Scholar 

  • Zijal U (2006) L’ingresso della Turchia nell’Unione europea. Rivista della cooperazione giuridica internazionale 8:167–171

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Alessandro Rosanò

Authors
  1. Alessandro Rosanò
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Rosanò .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University LUISS-Guido Carli, Rome, Italy

    Flavia Lattanzi

  2. University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy

    Emanuela Pistoia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rosanò, A. (2018). The European Parliament as the Human Rights Gatekeeper of the Union?. In: Lattanzi, F., Pistoia, E. (eds) The Armenian Massacres of 1915–1916 a Hundred Years Later. Studies in the History of Law and Justice, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78169-3_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78169-3_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78168-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78169-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation