EU Aid Conditionality in ACP Countries: Explaining Inconsistency in EU Sanctions Practice

Abstract

The EU is often criticised for using negative conditionality only in poor, strategically less important countries in the ACP region. However, whether and why there is inconsistency within the group of ACP countries has not been properly investigated. Therefore, this article investigates the reasons for the EU’s non-application of Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement in five countries that can be considered typical cases where negative conditionality is generally imposed, namely countries that experienced flawed elections over the last ten years: Ethiopia, Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya and Chad. On the one hand, the study confirms previous findings that security interests tend to trump the EU’s efforts to promote democratisation. On the other hand, the article adds that democratisation might not only conflict with the EU’s interests, but also with its objective to promote development and poverty reduction.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.