Search results

This article assesses the social dimension of EU trade policy. First, the essence of the 'trade and labour debate' is recalled. Then, the EU's practice of promoting decent work conditions through unilateral (GSP), bilateral or regional trade instruments is explored. EU support for corporate social responsibility is touched upon briefly. It is demonstrated that the EU essentially relies on its GSP to pursue objectives of decent work, whereas the social provisions of EU preferential agreements seem to be included as objectives to be achieved rather than as legal commitments to be enforced.

Over the past decades the European Parliament (EP) has achieved a prominent position in the European Union's decision-making process. Although EP consent has been a requirement for the final approval of EU trade agreements since the Treaty of Lisbon, its role in the process of negotiating these agreements remains unclear. In order to illustrate this context with a case study, we will investigate the ongoing trade negotiations between the EU and the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), which have started in 1999 and were temporarily suspended between 2004 and 2010. The degree of autonomy parliamentarians have to deviate from the European Commission's position is verified, as well as their information clearance level and the degree of political polarization associated with this agreement. Therefore, this research intends to assess how parliamentarians seek to influence trade agreements while the negotiations are still in course, thus strengthening the parliamentarization of EU trade policies.

This book explores how the European Union designs its trade policy to face the most recent challenges and to influence global policy issues. It provides with an interdisciplinary perspective, by combining legal, political, and economic approaches. It studies a broad set of trade instruments that are used by the EU in its trade policy, such as: trade agreements, multilateral initiatives, unilateral trade policies, as well as, internal market tools. Therefore, the contributions to this volume present the EU's Trade Policy through different lenses providing a complex view of it.

China's rapid rise and unique economic system, and the United States' increasingly disruptive trade policy, threaten the global rules-based trade and economic system. The European Union has so far been comparatively spared from the US-China trade war, but must nevertheless safeguard its critical interests by adopting an independent, proactive stance. The EU does not currently have to make a general choice between China or the US, and like many other jurisdictions around the world it should aim to defend its continuing ability to not make such a general choice, even as this stance will generate tensions with both. The April 2019 China-EU summit illustrated the credibility of this approach, and the objectives stated in the summit conclusions should be delivered.The EU, even more than the US or China, has a strategic interest in preserving the global rules-based order embodied by the World Trade Organisation. It must steer WTO reform, working closely with aligned third countries such as Japan. The EU should expand its outreach beyond its immediate negotiating counterparts in both the US and China, and work in particular to ensure its (EU- and member-state level) leading officials better understand China. While strengthening its instruments to address new challenges, such as the screening of foreign direct investment for security purposes, the EU must also resist the temptations of protectionism and economic nationalism. In support of these objectives, the EU should prepare for difficult decisions, which might involve revising some of its red lines in international trade negotiations. Conversely, the EU should stand firm on principles such as refusing one-sided agreements and rejecting abusive recourse to national security arguments in trade policies.

In Standardizing the World, Francesco Duina and Crina Viju-Miljusevic have gathered a group of leading experts to present an unprecedented assessment of the EU's efforts to standardize a wide array of economic, political, and social aspects of life through its trade agreements across the globe. Drawing on economic sociology and constructivist strands in international political economy, ten leading scholars from across the world offer as many chapters on EU agreements with all major trading partners and cover efforts in social and labor rights, the environment, investments, rule of law and anti-corruption, agriculture and food quality, services, public procurement, sustainable development, and more.

The EU bilateral trade strategy since 2006, including the TTIP, has been justified by the European Commission on the bases that deep and comprehensive trade agreements are compatible with efficient multilateralism. The Commission argument is the following: in a context marked by International supply-chains, preferential agreements that allow for progress on what has been achieved at the multilateral level (topics WTO +) and in areas not already covered by the WTO (items WTO- X) may be considered as a stepping stone, not a stumbling block for multilateral liberalization. In other words, EU recent bilateral negotiations and agreements should be seen at worst as complementary to multilateral negotiations and at best as promoters.

Since the argumentative turn in EU studies, research has shown that civil society activists can challenge frames promoted by EU institutions and incumbent groups, and influence public opinion in the EU. However, most studies of civil society mobilisation on EU issues have focused on the vertical framing of issues from Brussels to national capitals, rarely analysing mobilisation beyond Brussels. This article builds upon ongoing research on Spanish civil society activism on the TTIP (Bouza & Oleart, 2018) and framing EU issues on Twitter (Bouza & Tuñón, 2018), contributing to the study of the role of national activists in the horizontal translation of EU-wide mobilisation to national publics. We argue that national actors play an influential role in the discursive struggle to define 'Europe' and the EU in the (national) public spheres (Díez Medrano, 2003). Building on our previous analysis of national activism on TTIP in Spain, we analyse whether activists have engaged in a process of frame bridging (Snow et al., 1986), in order to expand the mobilisation against TTIP towards new issues and constituencies relating to the broader trade strategy of the EU. The present research addresses the role of the Spanish anti- TTIP social movement in the emergence, circulation and bridging of critical frames on the TTIP negotiations in the Spanish Twitter sphere. The article combines quantitative and qualitative methods –network analysis and framing analysis– in order to analyse the role of the @NoAlTTIP network in the building and diffusion of frames challenging the EU institutions discourse on trade in the Spanish context.

Since the argumentative turn in EU studies, research has shown that civil society activists can challenge frames promoted by EU institutions and incumbent groups, and influence public opinion in the EU. However, most studies of civil society mobilisation on EU issues have focused on the vertical framing of issues from Brussels to national capitals, rarely analysing mobilisation beyond Brussels. This article builds upon ongoing research on Spanish civil society activism on the TTIP (Bouza & Oleart, 2018) and framing EU issues on Twitter (Bouza & Tuñón, 2018), contributing to the study of the role of national activists in the horizontal translation of EU-wide mobilisation to national publics. We argue that national actors play an influential role in the discursive struggle to define 'Europe' and the EU in the (national) public spheres (Díez Medrano, 2003). Building on our previous analysis of national activism on TTIP in Spain, we analyse whether activists have engaged in a process of frame bridging (Snow et al., 1986), in order to expand the mobilisation against TTIP towards new issues and constituencies relating to the broader trade strategy of the EU. The present research addresses the role of the Spanish anti- TTIP social movement in the emergence, circulation and bridging of critical frames on the TTIP negotiations in the Spanish Twitter sphere. The article combines quantitative and qualitative methods –network analysis and framing analysis– in order to analyse the role of the @NoAlTTIP network in the building and diffusion of frames challenging the EU institutions discourse on trade in the Spanish context ; This article is part of two projects funded by the European Agency for Education, Culture and Audiovisual (EACEA) of the European Commission, Jean Monnet (Erasmus +): Jean Monnet Module EUCOPOL (reference: 587167-EPP-1-2017-1-ES-EPPJMO-MODULE); and Jean Monnet Network OPENEUDEBATE (reference: 600465-EPP-1-2018-1-ES-EPPJMONETWORK). This article is also part of another project (FAKENEWS) funded by the Spanish Research Agency, from the Science, Innovation and Universities department (Reference: RTI2018-097709-B-I00).

Studies of EU trade policy-making often suggest that delegation of trade authority from the national to the European level strengthened the autonomy of public actors in formulating trade policies. Little empirical research, however, has been undertaken to corroborate this contention. To improve on this situation, I carry out two case studies of the EU's participation in the multilateral trade negotiations known as the Kennedy Round (1964 -67) and the Doha Development Agenda (2001 onwards). The analysis reveals that in both cases the EU's negotiating position was largely in line with the demands voiced by economic interests. Although this finding is no proof of economic interests actually determining EU trade policies, it casts some doubt on the autonomy thesis. I also discuss some factors that indicate that interest group influence may be the most plausible explanation for the finding. Adapted from the source document.