The EU Reinforces Trade Preferences: Human Rights and the GSP+ Revision

By CAP Liberté de Conscience and International Human Rights Committee May 2026

The Lever of the Market

On 22 May 2026, the Council of the European Union formally adopted the revised Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) regulation, granting the EU’s trade preferences to developing countries for another decade. The press release from the Council Presidency (Cyprus) frames the decision in the language of partnership and development. But the substance of the text lies elsewhere: in the conditions attached to that partnership, and in the mechanisms through which those conditions can be enforced.

The GSP is not merely a trade instrument. It is a lever. The EU offers reduced or zero tariffs to over 60 countries covering more than two billion people. In exchange, beneficiary countries must ratify and effectively implement a growing list of international conventions. The revision adopted on 22 May 2026 expands that list and sharpens the tools of enforcement. The question is whether this sharpening will translate into tangible pressure on regimes that violate human rights, or whether it will remain, like much of the EU’s external action, a carefully calibrated ambiguity.

The Document and Its Architecture

The revised GSP regulation maintains the three existing arrangements: Standard GSP, GSP+, and Everything But Arms (EBA). The Standard GSP grants partial or full removal of customs duties on two-thirds of all tariff lines to low and lower-middle-income countries. The GSP+ offers complete duty-free access for the same two-thirds of tariff lines to vulnerable countries, provided they ratify and effectively implement 27 international conventions related to human rights, labour rights, environmental protection, and good governance. The EBA grants duty- and quota-free access for all products except arms and ammunition to the world’s least developed countries (LDCs).

The revision, which will apply from 1 January 2027, introduces several structural changes. The number of conventions that GSP+ beneficiaries must ratify and implement increases from 27 to 32. The new conventions include the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and the ILO Labour Inspection Convention (No. 81). Current GSP+ beneficiaries — Bolivia, Cape Verde, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan — must submit a new application within two years after the entry into force of the new regulation, demonstrating compliance with the new requirements and including an action plan for effective implementation.

The Expansion of Conditionality

The most significant change concerns the scope of negative conditionality. Under the current regulation, temporary withdrawal of preferences is possible in cases of “serious and systematic violation of principles laid down in” the human and labour rights conventions listed in Part A of Annex VIII. The revised regulation extends this to include conventions on climate change, environmental protection, and good governance. The urgency procedure for rapid withdrawal of preferences in case of violations is maintained and, in principle, reinforced.

This expansion matters. It means that a country systematically violating environmental standards or governance principles could face the same trade consequences as a country systematically violating labour rights. The EU is treating sustainability as a single fabric, in which human rights, environmental protection, and governance are interwoven threads. The logic is coherent. The implementation will determine whether it is effective.

The Migration Clause

The revision introduces a new and contested element: a link between trade preferences and cooperation on the readmission of a beneficiary country’s own nationals illegally present in the EU. Article 18d of the revised regulation permits the temporary withdrawal of tariff preferences in case of “serious and systematic shortcomings related to the international obligation to readmit” those nationals. The Commission must engage in “enhanced engagement” with the beneficiary country for at least one year before acting, and must inform the Parliament and the Council of its decisions.

This clause was sharply contested during negotiations. The European Parliament initially opposed it, arguing that trade and migration should be kept separate. Several non-governmental organisations, in an open letter to the Council, called for the deletion of all references to readmission as a conditionality in the draft GSP reform. The final compromise includes guardrails: a longer evaluation procedure, mandatory engagement of at least 12 months, and a two-year delay for least developed countries in the application of the readmission conditionality. Parliament secured full access to documents in the procedure.

The inclusion of this clause raises questions about the coherence of EU external action. Linking trade preferences to migration control may dilute the human rights focus of the GSP and expose beneficiary countries to pressure unrelated to the conventions they are required to implement. It also creates a tension: the EU is simultaneously asking countries to respect human rights and to accept the return of their nationals, including potentially those who fled precisely because of human rights violations.

Monitoring and Transparency

The revised regulation strengthens monitoring mechanisms. The GSP+ monitoring cycle is extended from two to three years, aligning with the reporting cycles of major international conventions. The Commission must publish a detailed description of the monitoring process, including the involvement of various stakeholders. The “scoreboard” system — a list of issues to be addressed for each GSP+ beneficiary — remains in place, fed by information from beneficiary countries, international monitoring bodies, civil society, trade unions, enterprises, the European Parliament, and the Council.

The regulation also improves transparency around the withdrawal procedure. The Commission must carry out socio-economic impact assessments as part of the withdrawal process, ensuring that the withdrawal of preferences reflects country-specific circumstances. The set of indicators taken into consideration is broadened. The graduation thresholds — the share of imports in a specific sector beyond which a Standard GSP country temporarily loses preferences — are lowered by 10 percentage points, from 57% to 47%, focusing preferences on less competitive products and creating more opportunities for other beneficiaries, particularly LDCs.

A Record of Engagement on Pakistan

CAP Liberté de Conscience has long maintained that trade preferences must carry human rights obligations that are more than declaratory. This position has been shaped by sustained field-level engagement, particularly in partnership with the International Human Rights Committee (IHRC), on the situation of religious minorities in Pakistan — a country that has held GSP+ status since 2014.

In September 2024, CAP LC and IHRC submitted a comprehensive report to the 142nd Session of the UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR), documenting the alarming rise in violence and systemic persecution faced by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Pakistan. The report recorded four targeted murders in the first seven months of 2024 alone, 44 attacks on Ahmadi mosques in 2023, the desecration of 109 Ahmadi graves, and the denial of voting rights to Ahmadis since 1985 through a separate non-Muslim electoral register. The submission also highlighted the case of Mubarak Ahmad Sani, sentenced to life imprisonment for memorising the Quran and distributing religious texts — a case that exposed both judicial complicity and the vulnerability of the judiciary to extremist pressure. [^1]

In March 2026, CAP LC and IHRC jointly submitted a critical report to the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) for its 84th session, examining Pakistan’s compliance with the Convention Against Torture. The submission documented the custodial death of Dr. Tahir Mahmood, a 71-year-old Ahmadi arrested for offering Friday prayers, who died after being beaten in police custody and denied medical care. It recorded the lynching of Mr. Laiq Ahmad Cheema by a mob of approximately 800 individuals in April 2025, and a sustained pattern of targeted assassinations of Ahmadi civilians between March 2024 and May 2025. The report argued that Pakistan’s anti-Ahmadi legal framework — specifically the Second Amendment to the Constitution (1974) and Ordinance XX (1984) — institutionalises discrimination and facilitates an environment where torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment occur with impunity. [^2]

Following the CAT review, CAP LC and IHRC issued a joint response welcoming the Committee’s findings and stressing that torture must not be understood solely in terms of physical violence. For many Ahmadis, persecution manifests through sustained psychological suffering, intimidation, humiliation, threats of mob violence, arbitrary criminalisation, and constant fear created by discriminatory laws. The organisations called on the Government of Pakistan to fully implement the CAT recommendations and urged the international community to closely monitor compliance. [^3]

These submissions are not isolated interventions. They form part of a cumulative record, built over years, that documents the gap between Pakistan’s ratification of international conventions and its effective implementation. The GSP+ mechanism has provided a framework for raising these concerns within the EU’s trade policy, but the framework has not always produced decisive action. The revised regulation offers an opportunity to narrow that gap.

CAP LC and IHRC welcomes the Council’s decision of 22 May 2026 and the reinforcement of GSP+ conditionality as a step toward making trade preferences a more credible instrument for human rights protection. The expansion of the convention list from 27 to 32, the broadening of negative conditionality to include environmental and governance standards, and the strengthened monitoring mechanisms all contribute to a more robust framework.

Both organisations notes with particular interest the requirement that current GSP+ beneficiaries, including Pakistan, must submit a new application within two years, demonstrating compliance with the new requirements and including an action plan for effective implementation. This reappraisal offers a concrete opportunity to translate long-standing concerns into measurable benchmarks. Pakistan’s record on religious freedom, custodial abuse, and the persecution of the Ahmadiyya community — documented extensively by CAP LC and IHRC — should be central to the Commission’s evaluation of its reapplication.

The revised regulation’s treatment of sustainability as an integrated fabric — human rights, environmental protection, governance — reflects this understanding.

However, CAP LC and IHRC notes with concern the inclusion of the readmission conditionality. They has consistently held that asylum and refugee protection must not be subordinated to trade or migration management objectives. Linking trade preferences to readmission cooperation risks undermining the very human rights conventions the GSP is designed to promote, particularly when those seeking protection in the EU are fleeing persecution in GSP beneficiary countries. The EU must ensure that the readmission clause is not used to pressure countries into accepting the return of individuals who have a legitimate claim to international protection.

From Words to Action

The revised GSP regulation is a text of potential. It expands the list of conventions, broadens the scope of conditionality, and introduces new monitoring tools. But its effectiveness will depend on the Commission’s willingness to use the withdrawal procedure when violations are documented, and on the Parliament’s and Council’s willingness to hold the Commission accountable for inaction.

The history of the GSP offers both caution and precedent. The withdrawal of preferences from Cambodia in 2020, following serious and systematic violations of political rights under the ICCPR, demonstrated that the mechanism can be activated. The reappraisal of Pakistan’s GSP+ status, now required under the revised regulation, offers a similar test. CAP LC and IHRC have provided the documentation. The Commission has the mandate. The question is whether the review of Pakistan’s application will be an occasion for transforming words into acts — for using the lever that the EU has now chosen to reinforce.

The regulation applies from 1 January 2027. Between now and then, the Commission must prepare implementing guidelines, current GSP+ beneficiaries must submit reapplications, and the new monitoring cycle must be established. The EU has set the rules. The test will be whether it plays the game.

[^1]: CAP Liberté de Conscience, “Ahmadiyya Community in Pakistan Faces Alarming Persecution and Discrimination,” submission to the 142nd Session of the CCPR, September 2024. Available at: https://freedomofconscience.eu/ccpr-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights-142-session-pakistan/

[^2]: CAP Liberté de Conscience and International Human Rights Committee (IHRC), “Review of the State Report of Pakistan,” submission to the 84th Session of the UN Committee Against Torture, March 2026. Available at: https://freedomofconscience.eu/un-submission-pakistans-compliance-with-the-convention-against-torture-and-the-persecution-of-the-ahmadiyya-community/

[^3]: CAP Liberté de Conscience and International Human Rights Committee (IHRC), “Response to the UN Committee Against Torture Review of Pakistan,” 2026. Available at: https://freedomofconscience.eu/cap-lc-ihrc-response-to-the-un-committee-against-torture-review-of-pakistan/