EU GSP+ Reform: Will Brussels Finally Enforce Its Own Conditions on Pakistan?

The EU has tightened the rules governing GSP+ trade preferences, but Pakistan’s record raises a harder question: whether Brussels is prepared to suspend market access when a major beneficiary fails to demonstrate sustained compliance with human rights, labour and governance obligations.

The European Union has formally adopted revised rules for its Generalised Scheme of Preferences, strengthening the conditions attached to preferential market access for developing countries. The new framework will apply from 1 January 2027 and is intended to tighten monitoring, widen the list of international conventions, and make suspension of benefits easier in cases of serious violations.

On paper, the reform is significant. In practice, its credibility will depend on one question: whether Brussels is prepared to enforce the rules against countries whose access to the EU market has grown substantially while human rights concerns have persisted.

Pakistan is the clearest test case. It has been a GSP+ beneficiary since 1 January 2014, receiving mostly zero-duty access to the EU market on two thirds of product categories. According to the European Commission, Pakistan is the largest beneficiary of the EU’s GSP+ arrangement, and more than 85 per cent of its exports, including textiles and clothing, enter the EU duty and quota free. In 2024, more than 88 per cent of Pakistani exports eligible for tariff reductions entered the EU at preferential rates.

The economic value is substantial. European Commission trade data show that EU imports from Pakistan totalled approximately €68.9 billion between 2014 and 2024. The Commission’s 2025 trade page reports bilateral trade in goods of €12.2 billion and an EU trade deficit of €5.2 billion, implying EU imports from Pakistan of about €8.7 billion in 2025. Taken together, Pakistan has exported roughly €77.6 billion in goods to the EU since gaining GSP+ status. Not all of that figure can be identified from public EU data as having entered specifically under preferential GSP+ use, but the Commission’s own figures show that the vast majority of eligible Pakistani exports have benefited from preferential access.

That is why the revised GSP+ framework matters. The EU’s trade preferences are not intended to be a commercial reward without conditions. GSP was introduced by the European Community in 1971, following recommendations by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, as a way to help developing countries expand exports to industrialised markets. The later GSP+ arrangement added a political and legal bargain: deeper tariff preferences in exchange for ratification and effective implementation of core international conventions on human rights, labour rights, environmental protection and good governance.

Pakistan has received the economic side of that bargain. Whether it has met the compliance side remains contested.

Under the current system, GSP+ beneficiaries must implement 27 international conventions. The revised framework increases the number to 32, requires new applicants and beneficiaries to submit implementation plans, improves monitoring, and allows faster suspension where violations are grave. The Council of the EU says the new system is designed to reinforce sustainable development and good governance. The European Commission’s GSP+ explanation describes the arrangement as an incentive for countries to implement international conventions in return for zero duties on more than two thirds of tariff lines.

The problem is not the absence of rules. It is the repeated gap between formal commitments and conditions inside Pakistan.

EU institutions themselves have identified the areas of concern. During the 15th EU–Pakistan Joint Commission in December 2025, the EU and Pakistan reviewed implementation of the 27 GSP+ conventions. The EU welcomed some progress on the death penalty, anti-torture measures and the creation of a Commission on Minorities. But it also called for further reform on freedom of expression and media, enforced disappearances, judicial independence, freedom of religion or belief, minority rights, labour inspections, minimum wage enforcement and low trade-union membership. The same meeting discussed follow-up to the GSP+ monitoring mission held in Pakistan from 24 November to 3 December 2025 and Pakistan’s future reapplication under the new regulation.

The concerns are not new. The same categories have appeared repeatedly over the past decade: misuse of blasphemy laws, pressure on journalists and civil society, intimidation of activists, enforced disappearances, persecution of religious minorities, forced conversions and forced marriages, death-penalty cases, and restrictions on political opposition.

The imprisonment of former prime minister Imran Khan has added a further political-rights dimension. In 2024, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that Khan’s detention was arbitrary, including because it resulted from his exercise of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, political participation and association. In December 2025, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture raised concerns over reports of prolonged solitary confinement, highly restricted access to the outside world, poor detention conditions and denial of adequate medical attention.

The European Commission has already been asked directly whether Pakistan’s GSP+ status should be reviewed in light of the case. In a March 2026 answer to a parliamentary question, High Representative Kaja Kallas said the EU Delegation in Pakistan was monitoring Khan’s case and that broader human-rights engagement under GSP+ remained an important part of the bilateral relationship. She also said the forthcoming GSP monitoring report would incorporate findings from UN bodies, civil society and organisations such as Amnesty International, and would inform the EU’s decision on Pakistan’s future GSP+ status.

Beyond high-profile political cases, the broader rights picture remains serious. Amnesty International reported that enforced disappearances remained a significant concern in Pakistan, with the government’s own Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances recording 125 new cases in the first half of 2025, while noting that many cases were not reported or registered. Amnesty also recorded restrictions on activists, journalists and political figures, and reported that more than 100 PTI leaders and activists were convicted by anti-terrorism courts during the year in cases linked to the 9 May 2023 protests.

Religious-freedom concerns also remain central to the GSP+ debate. Human Rights Watch has described Pakistan’s blasphemy laws as discriminatory and said they have been used to target minorities, the poor and others through allegations that can lead to violence, prosecution and social exclusion. Blasphemy remains punishable by death in Pakistan, even though no execution for blasphemy has been carried out. In 2025, four people were sentenced to death in a blasphemy case involving alleged online content.

Forced conversion through marriage is another recurring concern, particularly affecting girls and young women from Christian and Hindu communities. UN experts raised concern over forced conversion through marriage in Pakistan in 2026, and EU human-rights engagement with Pakistan has repeatedly included women’s rights, minority rights and freedom of religion or belief.

This record raises a practical question for the EU. If a beneficiary country can receive tens of billions of euros in preferential market access over more than a decade while the same concerns recur across monitoring cycles, what level of non-compliance would actually trigger suspension?

The revised regulation may improve the legal architecture. It may make monitoring more systematic. It may require Pakistan and other beneficiaries to present clearer implementation plans. It may also give the Commission more room to act where abuses are grave or persistent.

But the decisive issue is political. Suspension of preferences would affect exporters, importers, supply chains and diplomatic relations. In Pakistan’s case, textiles and clothing dominate exports to the EU, and European buyers benefit from lower-cost supply. That creates a built-in reluctance to move from dialogue to penalties.

The risk is that the new GSP+ rules become another monitoring framework without enforcement. Pakistan’s case shows why that would be damaging for EU credibility. The bargain behind GSP+ is not only tariff access for development. It is tariff access in exchange for measurable implementation of international obligations.

If Brussels renews Pakistan’s access without demanding verifiable, time-bound reforms on blasphemy-law abuse, enforced disappearances, persecution of activists and minorities, forced conversions, death-penalty safeguards, media freedom, judicial independence and political rights, the revised regulation will look like a procedural upgrade rather than a genuine enforcement tool.

For Pakistan, the message should be direct: preferential access to the EU market is not an entitlement. For the EU, the test is whether it is willing to attach consequences to the standards it has set.

Source: eutoday.net, Gary Cartwright, May 23, 2026

"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde

Death Penalty News For a World without the Death Penalty