In-depth, data-led reports and briefings on European policy, institutions, and geopolitics. Each piece is sourced, methodologically transparent, and designed to inform decision-makers and readers with clear findings, concise context, and relevant datasets, including downloadable papers, backgrounders, and evidence-based analysis.
EU Today’s Research Desk has released a legal analysis of Pakistan’s compliance with the EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+), the trade instrument that grants tariff-free access to most EU tariff lines for eligible developing countries in exchange for upholding 27 international conventions on human rights, labour standards, environmental protection and good governance.
Prepared in collaboration with the European Facilitation Platform and authored by Gary Cartwright, the paper concludes that the evidential threshold for launching temporary withdrawal proceedings has been met. It is aimed at policymakers and parliamentarians and is grounded primarily in official EU and international sources. A companion documentary with on-the-record perspectives from Brussels and Geneva is available here:
The study explains how GSP+ is intended to function: not merely as a market-access incentive, but as a conditional framework in which preferences are linked to demonstrable implementation of international commitments.
Pakistan has been a principal beneficiary since 2014. The white paper assesses performance across the four pillars that underpin eligibility, placing emphasis on enforcement outcomes rather than formal ratification. Former European Commissioner Ján Figeľ characterises GSP+ as “a strong instrument” that should be “exemplarily used for the benefit of the people” and for Europe’s stated aims on human dignity.
Evidence is presented thematically. On human rights, the paper collates material on the continued use of blasphemy provisions, incidents of mob violence, constraints on civil society and reports of enforced disappearances. On labour, it notes persistent child and bonded labour in certain sectors, limits on freedom of association and inspection capacity gaps affecting core ILO standards.
Governance findings include pressures on judicial independence and restrictions on expression, association and assembly. Environmental performance is considered against obligations under key multilateral agreements, with attention to air and water quality, hazardous-waste controls and biodiversity.
The institutional context is set out in detail. The current GSP+ framework runs to 2027 and the European Commission has discretion to open an investigation where there is evidence of “serious and systematic” non-compliance. The procedure involves initiation by the Commission, a six-month review window, and—if warranted—a delegated act proposing temporary withdrawal, subject to parliamentary and Council scrutiny.
Precedents involving Sri Lanka, Belarus and Cambodia illustrate proportionality, scope and sequencing. Methodologically, the paper consolidates treaty-body observations and Commission monitoring into a comparative matrix that benchmarks Pakistan’s performance across ratification, enforcement, institutional engagement and measurable outcomes.
Parliament’s record on the blasphemy issue is also material. The European Parliament addressed Pakistan’s blasphemy laws in a resolution on 27 November 2014, condemning abuses, underlining that GSP+ is conditional on implementing the 27 conventions, and stating that preferences may be withdrawn if commitments are not met; it urged strict monitoring of compliance.
Most significantly, on 29 April 2021 Parliament adopted a resolution on the blasphemy laws in Pakistan—focused in particular on the case of Shagufta Kausar and Shafqat Emmanuel—calling on the Commission and the EEAS to immediately review Pakistan’s GSP+ status in light of persistent misuse of blasphemy provisions. Despite these calls, the Commission maintained Pakistan’s access under the current framework. It is this gap between parliamentary concern and executive practice that the white paper seeks to address through a process-led application of the legal test.
The film complements the analysis with on-the-record stakeholder views. Willy Fautré of Human Rights Without Frontiers argues that previous institutional assessments placed undue weight on intentions rather than verified enforcement: “It’s not a matter of awareness-raising. It’s a matter of action.”
He also flags a risk—now part of parliamentary questioning—that EU support to Pakistan’s education sector may, in practice, reach seminaries associated with intolerance. While the Commission distinguishes system support from curricular content, the concern is whether such distinctions are meaningful if funding enables institutions whose practices run counter to GSP+ objectives.
Timing is a further consideration. Pakistan remains a large beneficiary of tariff-free access, and EU institutions retain a graduated toolbox, including targeted measures where market disturbance or specific compliance failures are identified. The white paper situates any prospective action within that toolbox, noting that partial withdrawal, defined review points and clear re-entry criteria can preserve leverage while setting concrete expectations for progress.
The Research Desk’s recommendation is that the Commission consider initiating Article 15 proceedings for temporary withdrawal—partial or full—on grounds of serious and systematic non-compliance, with restoration of preferences tied to verifiable improvements. Taken together, the white paper and documentary provide a structured, evidence-based contribution to ongoing deliberations in Brussels and national capitals on the future of Pakistan’s treatment under GSP+.
