Suchergebnisse

1. Chapter 1: Introduction. Why Look At Trade And Rhetoric? -- 2. Chapter 2: Previous Attempts at Transatlantic Trade Agreements, and the Rationale for Launching the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiations -- 3. Chapter 3: Theory and Method -- 4. Chapter 4: The Campaign Against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership -- 5. Chapter 5: Supporters' Rhetoric in the Public Duel -- 6. Chapter 6: What Underlies the Rhetoric in the Public Rhetorical Duel? -- 7. Chapter 7: Why Opponents Prevailed, and lessons from Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiations

Trade policy constitutes a significant part of the European Union's (EU) foreign policy. The EU's emphasis on global trade liberalization in the 21st century is most evident through its ever increasing number of modern, deep, bilateral trade agreements. However, aspects of EU trade policy and bilateral agreements are hotly contested. We examine this by comparing the rhetoric employed by European civil society organizations from 2013 through 2020. While the focus of contestation and the rhetorical strategy remained fairly consistent, the effects of contestation (politicization, institutionalization of new processes) changed, largely due to the presence or absence of negotiations on a deep trade agreement with an economic and political equal perceived to have greater bargaining power. This study contributes to the literature on norm contestation and politicization by providing empirical evidence that mere contestation is insufficient for politicization, and by showing show that perceived bargaining strength influences trade politicization.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was intended to create jobs and boost the economies on both sides of the Atlantic. However, constituency support was difficult to garnish, and negotiations were frozen in late 2016, leaving their conclusion in doubt. What led to this stage? Why has an agreement been elusive? Using an array of indicators this paper argues that a major reason was the extensive and professionally structured public mobilization campaign conducted by European civil society organizations (CSOs). This shifted public opinion across Europe, which in turn impacted policy. Our research contributes to the literatures on trade, lobbying, and transatlantic relations, with relevance beyond TTIP. The paper discusses how generalized and diffused interests and public opinion are impacting an area of public policy (trade) traditionally influenced predominantly by lobbying from narrowly focused interests.

The European Union's trade strategy since 2006 has been justified on the assumption that deep and comprehensive bilateral trade agreements are at worst complementary to and at best promote multilateral negotiations. Drawing from the literature on the impact of the multilateral regime on the formation and objective of bilateral or regional agreements this article challenges the EU's position. While the European Commission claims that the WTO+ and WTO-X nature of the agreements determine the compatibility of bilateral and multilateral trade approaches, we argue that their complementarity is also impacted by what is happening at multilateral level. To this effect we introduce a new variable focusing on the level of difficulties in multilateral negotiations. While multilateral negotiations can spur new bilateral agreements as a strategy of promoting agreement at the multilateral level, bilateral agreements may instead become substitutes for multilateral agreements when the difficulties of achieving the latter become too severe. An empirical assessment indicates that the stalemate in the Doha Development Round post-2008 coincided with a shift in EU bilateral trade policy away from negotiations with emerging economies, to an intensified focus on large developed countries; agreements with the latter offered the EU the best alternatives to, and substitutes for, a multilateral agreement. JEL codes: F13; L81; O24: P33: Q17

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations have become the center of debate in EU trade policy, where the European Commission and civil society organizations are key actors. This paper argues that a key reason why TTIP has become so controversial has to do with the nature of the arguments used by each side. The main arguments in favor of TTIP emphasize the economic and geostrategic benefits. The main criticisms of TTIP focus on its alleged negative impact on product safety and public policies. Identifying the foundational assumption(s) behind these arguments, we show that this debate is special because opponents and supporters' premises emerge from assumptions based on different perspectives: while opponents assume that the EU will succumb to neoliberal American preferences, supporters focus on the US-EU combined market power vis-à-vis third countries. Since these assumptions do not necessarily contradict each other, the debate is less whether benefits outweigh costs and more whether such costs are probable, leaving the supporters with a defensive position. This is an important distinction in explaining why opponents dominate the public debate. Our findings also indicate, however, that opponents' thesis has been successful because the US is the partner; such public mobilization is less probable on other trade agreements.

Negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) commenced in 2013, and soon became the most controversial bilateral trade agreement negotiations ever attempted by the European Union (EU). When trying to understand the escalating debate over the proposed agreement, most analyses have highlighted opposition to the deal, especially from civil society organizations. However, a full understanding of the debate surrounding TTIP requires analysis of supporters' responses, as these changed in response to strategies used by opponents of the agreement. This article uses a novel approach in trade policy scholarship¿rhetorical analysis¿to focus on the European Commission Trade Directorate's response to contestation over TTIP. Drawing on work on the 'rhetoric of reaction', this article identifies the rhetorical strategies used by EU trade commissioners from 2013 to 2016. It outlines the evolution of the rhetoric and accompanying changes in process and policy, providing insights on the impact of TTIP politicization on the guiding principles of the EU's trade policy.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations have become the centre of debate in EU trade policy, where the European Commission and civil society organizations are key actors. This article argues that a key reason why TTIP has become so controversial has to do with the nature of the arguments used by each side. The main arguments in favour of TTIP emphasize the economic and geostrategic benefits (.)

This paper looks at the TTIP from a trade policy perspective. It argues that while TTIP is an unprecedented bilateral agreement, it does not constitute a Polanyian moment. TTIP is unprecedented in both EU and international trade policy terms because it offers an alternative to WTO multilateralism. Never before has bilateralism offered such a 'best alternative to no agreement' (BATNA) to members of the core decision-making body of the WTO negotiating arm, making TTIP an unprecedented geopolitical game-changer. The anti-TTIP campaign, however, has not been driven either by geopolitical or trade liberalization concerns but by fears about EU bargaining power. By strategically focusing on the potential impact on public policy and safety standards, normative arguments promulgated by opponents to TTIP reflect concerns with perceived threats to the EU status quo, and a willingness to preserve the same. The US is presented (implicitly) as more powerful than the EU, and therefore perceived as able to impose its preferences which are considered too neo-liberal.

Several studies have sought to explain the politicization of European Union's (EU) trade policy during negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA). This article contributes to the literature on the politicization of trade by assessing how politicization is addressed by those tasked with the content and implementation of trade policy, namely the European Commission (hereafter Commission). We identify the origin and definition of managed globalization (MG), and thereafter identify, through a qualitative content analysis of EU Trade Commissioners' speeches from 2013 to late 2017, how the doctrine re-emerged as the leitmotif of EU trade policy. The Commission's initial response to civil society organizations' contestation over TTIP and CETA was to insist on the economic benefits of the agreements. As contestation intensified, we find indirect references to MG, as the Commission focused on clarifying that upholding European values was equally important to market access in EU trade policy. Then, from late 2016 until late 2017, the Commission's messaging was directed primarily at populist fears of trade and globalization; emphasizing that protectionism was unnecessary, and that globalization could be controlled, culminating in the emergence of explicit references to MG. The article expands on existing research on MG by identifying trade politicization as a factor that prompted a modification and expansion of the MG doctrine and its use, while also discussing some accompanying policy changes.

Several studies have sought to explain the politicization of European Union's (EU) trade policy during negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA). This article contributes to the literature on the politicization of trade by assessing how politicization is addressed by those tasked with the content and implementation of trade policy, namely the European Commission (hereafter Commission). We identify the origin and definition of managed globalization (MG), and thereafter identify, through a qualitative content analysis of EU Trade Commissioners' speeches from 2013 to late 2017, how the doctrine re-emerged as the leitmotif of EU trade policy. The Commission's initial response to civil society organizations' contestation over TTIP and CETA was to insist on the economic benefits of the agreements. As contestation intensified, we find indirect references to MG, as the Commission focused on clarifying that upholding European values was equally important to market access in EU trade policy. Then, from late 2016 until late 2017, the Commission's messaging was directed primarily at populist fears of trade and globalization; emphasizing that protectionism was unnecessary, and that globalization could be controlled, culminating in the emergence of explicit references to MG. The article expands on existing research on MG by identifying trade politicization as a factor that prompted a modification and expansion of the MG doctrine and its use, while also discussing some accompanying policy changes.