Suchergebnisse

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.

[spa] La Unión Europea se encuentra actualmente inmersa en un proceso de cambio de su sistema de gobernanza económica. Este artículo analiza por qué los Estados miembros están siendo capaces de cooperar en temas que en los años 1990s eran tabú en la arena comunitaria. En base a una metodología cualitativa y un marco teórico nutrido por los enfoques neofuncionalista e intergubernamental, concluimos que los acuerdos sobre gobernanza económica a los que se está llegando en la actualidad responden más a la necesidad que a la voluntad de hacer avanzar la integración. ; [eng] The EU's system of economic governance is currently undergoing significant change. This article analyses why member states are able to work together in areas in which, in the 1990s, cooperation would have been impossible. Applying a qualitative methodology and a theoretical framework based on neofunctionalist and intergovernmental approaches, we conclude that the agreements on economic governance that are being reached today respond more to the need than to the will to advance towards integration.

The objective of this paper is to ascertain whether the EU is seeking policy convergence with its neighbours in the area of trade by means of EU regulations. For each trade- related topic, we carried out a content analysis of the available official documents to identify the model of relations that has been established between the EU and four neighbouring countries (Morocco, Algeria, Ukraine and Georgia). The findings indicate that Europeanization is the EU strategy in most cases. However, adaptation to European regulations is only a long-term aim. When international regulations exist in a specific area, the EU usually demands the internationalization of a country¿s regulations as a first step. When there are no international regulations, the convergence process is established on the basis of bilaterally developed norms. EU strategy also varies depending on the country. Its relations with Algeria are the most particular. We conclude that the EU is promoting policy convergence with its neighbours in the area of trade mainly on the basis of international and bilaterally-developed regulations.

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 (.)