Common Commercial Policy Research Articles

The Procedural Framework of the Proposal for a Regulation on Foreign Subsidies Viewed from a Common Commercial Policy Perspective

The European Commission’s proposal for a regulation on foreign subsidies provides a novel instrument for regulating economic activities which are facilitated by foreign subsidies, and which potentially distort competition in the internal market. Since the Draft Regulation will only apply to subsidies granted by third States, it will form part of the European Union’s trade policy instruments. The article compares select procedural provisions of the Draft Regulation with the procedural rules contained in the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation, the main instrument the Commission has used to date to address economic activity in the internal market subsidized by third States.

Analysis of the China-EU Comprehensive Agreement on Investment from Perspectives of EU Competences and Decision-Making Procedures

The China-EU Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) based on the current world economic situation and demands of economic development of both sides, lasted for 7 years of negotiation with 35 rounds of reports, finally reached an agreement in principle on the CAI. The analysis of the competences and legislative procedure of CAI reveals the EU values and the exclusive European competences in the field of common commercial policy. Also, by analyzing the legislative process of the agreement, it is possible to see the division of power within the EU institutions, the rigor of the EU decision-making and the future of the agreement.

Failing forward in the Common Commercial Policy? Deep trade and the perennial question of EU competence

ABSTRACT The European Union’s (EU) Common Commercial Policy (CCP) is more fragile than the label ‘exclusive competence’ suggests. Ratification conflicts have increased since the 1980s and have further intensified in recent years. Simultaneously, the EU’s trade competence witnessed a progressive expansion in consecutive treaty reforms. In recourse to the ‘failing forward’ (Jones et al., 2016) argument, this paper argues that recurring failure and progressive integration have been equally constitutive elements in the CCP’s historical development. The substantive expansion of the international ‘deep trade’ agenda repeatedly laid bare the gaps in and fuelled intergovernmental conflict over the scope of the EU’s competences. Over time, these instabilities acted as a catalyst of integration, supporting supranational entrepreneurs’ quest for – and member state governments’ acceptance of – further yet ever-incomplete delegation. The paper thus demonstrates that, under certain conditions, the failing forward argument is applicable even to the EU’s historical core of regulatory market-making.

Article 47 of the Charter in the Opinion Procedure: Some Reflections Following Opinion 1/17

The emphasis on Article 47 of the Charter in Opinion 1/17, as a separate ground in the compatibility review, has a constitutional dimension. Once again, as in Achmea, the specific characteristics of the EU legal order, especially with regard to the affirmation and development of the rule of law, are analysed in the investment protection legal framework. However, Article 47 has a specific role and function in the EU legal order, establishing the guarantees for a composite judicial system at the basis of the principle of autonomy. Preserving the specific function of Article 47 in the balance between effectiveness, procedural protection, and national autonomy in the EU legal order is also of utmost importance in the current rule of law crisis. This paper affirms that external relations are outside the scope of Article 47 of the Charter. This does not however mean that the principle of judicial protection and the right of access to an independent tribunal have only an internal EU law dimension. The Union’s contribution to the development of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and to the establishment of permanent investment courts confirms that promoting the rule of law is part of the Union’s external action. The Court of Justice could assess the CETA’s compatibility with the right of access to an independent tribunal without having recourse to Article 47 of the Charter, on the ground either of the principle of autonomy or of the compatibility with the substantive provisions of the common commercial policy. This paper argues that while judicial protection as part of the autonomy claim could meet some conceptual limits, promoting judicial protection as part of the common commercial policy could reinforce the perception that the Union is a credible and influential actor in international trade and in international procedural law.

When Integration by Stealth Meets Public Security: The EU Foreign Direct Investment Screening Regulation

The EU FDI Screening Regulation (the Regulation) is an interesting application of the ‘integration by stealth’ theory to the sphere of investment screening. The Regulation leads to integration in the sense that, for the first time, the Commission is granted a role in the process of investment screening within the EU. However, Commission involvement comes at the cost of simultaneously strengthening the hands of the Member State screening authorities, leading to a suboptimal policy outcome whereby neither the Commission nor the Member States may have at their disposal the necessary tools to screen investments quickly and thoroughly, as is required to maintain an open investment environment. The shortcomings of the Regulation are likely to trigger calls for further reform. To develop this argument, this article (1) legally examines the main features of the Regulation and (2) explores the interplay of the Regulation with EU free movement rules. The article explains how the Regulation is likely to contribute to an uptake in national screening decisions, but not to a concomitant increase in enforcement opportunities for the Commission or the Court of Justice of the EU. This creates an enforcement gap, which may put pressure on the existing free movement framework and may risk encouraging Member States to develop a national as opposed to a common EU conception of public security and order. European Union law, European integration, foreign direct investment screening, free movement of capital, freedom of establishment, investment liberalization, functionalism, neo-functionalism, Court of Justice of the European Union, common commercial policy, rule of law, judicial protection, enforcement

Úloha Evropského parlamentu při prosazování lidských práv ve společné obchodní politice

The Common commercial policy of the European Union has been changing its nature after the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty as the protection of human rights is today its important dimension. There are several reasons for this development and the expanding role of the European Parliament is undoubtedly one of them. This article aims to assess and demonstrate the European Parliament’s role on the basis of several specific case-studies in the area of negotiations of free trade agreements, the Generalised System of Preferences, and the debate on responsible business conduct of multinational enterprises. It comes to the conclusion that the European Parliament has become an influential actor in the Common commercial policy advocating for the use of trade instruments to promote human rights abroad.

„Handlowe aspekty własności intelektualnej” jako część Wspólnej Polityki Handlowej – konsekwencje dla bezpośredniej skuteczności TRIPS

Przedmiot badań: Nieustanny rozwój technologiczny sprawia, że znaczenie własności inte­lektualnej rośnie, a ochrona prawna m.in. wynalazków nabiera ogromnego znaczenia, zwłasz­cza dla państw, których gospodarki oparte są na innowacyjności. Na przestrzeni lat Wspólna Polityka Handlowa Unii Europejskiej podlegała zmianom traktatowym, co skutkowało m.in. ewolucją jej zakresu przedmiotowego. Również charakter kompetencji Wspólnot Europejskich, a następnie Unii Europejskiej w tym zakresie zmieniał się. Jednym z najistotniejszych, a zara­zem powodującym najwięcej kontrowersji jest kwestia skutku bezpośredniego TRIPS w pań­stwach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej. Istotność tego zagadnienia wynika z postanowień TRIPS, które gwarantują minimalny zakres ochrony praw własności intelektualnej. Cel badawczy: Autor zmierza do ustalenia, jakim zakresem kompetencji dysponuje Unia Euro­pejska w odniesieniu do TRIPS. Artykuł ma na celu odpowiedzenie na pytanie – jak ewolucja Wspólnej Polityki Handlowej Unii Europejskiej wpłynęła na stosowanie TRIPS w państwach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej.
 Metoda badawcza: W artykule wykorzystano głównie metody: formalno-dogmatyczną oraz hi­storyczno-prawną. W zakresie badania orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości posłużono się metodą empiryczno-prawną.1
 Wyniki: Charakter kompetencji Wspólnot Europejskich, a następnie Unii Europejskiej w odnie­sieniu do Wspólnej Polityki Handlowej zmieniał się wraz ze zmianami postanowień traktatów. Od dnia wejścia w życie Traktatu z Lizbony (1.12.2009 r.) Wspólna Polityka Handlowa wchodzi w zakres jej kompetencji wyłącznych oraz obejmuje handlowe aspekty własności intelektualnej. Orzecznictwo Trybunału Sprawiedliwości potwierdziło, że TRIPS w całości objęty jest kompe­tencją UE, z czego mogłoby wynikać, że dla oceny skutku bezpośredniego jego postanowień miarodajne są – wbrew kontrowersjom w uprzednim stanie prawnym, gdy TRIPS miał charakter tzw. umowy mieszanej – unijne reguły skutku bezpośredniego. Z drugiej strony, Trybunał nie zdecydował się na zakwestionowanie dotychczasowego orzecznictwa w tym zakresie, co może prowadzić do wniosku, że odmowa skutku bezpośredniego TRIPS pozostaje w mocy. Niemniej problem stracił na znaczeniu praktycznym, bowiem postanowienia TRIPS zostały (po zakończeniu okresów przejściowych) recypowane do prawa krajowego państw członkowskich.

Considering EU External Relations after Brexit: Introduction

This special issue of Europe and the World: A law review consists of selected articles that were presented at a workshop on External Relations in the post-Brexit EU, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow in October 2018. The workshop was generously funded by the James Madison Charitable Trust and the New Professors Fund of the University of Strathclyde. The purpose of the workshop was to consider the multifaceted dimensions of Brexit on the European Union’s external relations, and in particular to consider how interdisciplinary perspectives can enrich our understanding of the law underpinning the subject. This includes the EU’s externally facing institutional frameworks; law and policy on foreign, security and defence policies; trade and the Common Commercial Policy; and bilateral agreements with third countries or regions. The workshop was held around the mid-point in time from the referendum of June 2016 until the eventual departure of the UK on 31 January 2020 (although the final departure date and exit arrangements were unknown at the time). As such, the workshop contributors based their analyses on what the future impact of Brexit might be. Drawing on the extensive scholarship on EU external relations that has blossomed over previous decades, the authors of this special issue have been able to comprehensively analyse what future EU external relations might look like.

EU Trade Agreements and Non-Trade Policy Objectives

The EU’s common commercial policy is used as an instrument to realize its values in EU trading partners, reflected in the inclusion of sustainable trade and development chapters in EU preferential trade agreements (PTAs). In this paper we ask if including non-trade provisions (NTPs) in EU PTAs has a systematic positive effect on non-trade outcomes in partner countries. We analyze the relationship between bilateral trade flows, the coverage of NTPs in EU PTAs and the performance of EU partner countries on several non-trade outcome variables using synthetic control methods. We find no robust evidence of a causal effect of including NTPs in EU PTAs on indicators of non-trade outcomes.

ВОПРОС О СИСТЕМЕ РАЗРЕШЕНИЯ СПОРОВ В НОВЫХ ИНВЕСТИЦИОННЫХ СОГЛАШЕНИЯХ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СОЮЗА

The system of resolving international investment disputes has been subjected to intense criticism from the professional and lay public in recent decades. The lack of transparency, predictability, coherence of arbitration awards and legitimacy of the investment arbitration system has led to an increase in efforts to reform the existing system. The European Union is not only one of the most vocal critics of the current system, but also one of its most active reformers. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the European Union has acquired exclusive competence in the realm of foreign direct investment as part of the common commercial policy. From that moment on, the European Commission began negotiating free trade agreements, many of which also include investment chapters. The most important ones are the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement concluded between the European Union and Canada (2016), Agreement on Investment between the European Union and Singapore (2018), Agreement on Investment between the European Union and Vietnam (2019), as well as the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment between the European Union and People’s Republic of China, which has been agreed in principle at the end of 2020, even though the agreement has not yet been formally signed. In these treaties the European Union seeks to push for reform steps leading to the adjustment of the system for resolving international investment disputes in that they introduce a new system of investment courts that will gradually lead to the establishment of the multilateral investment court with the option of appeal at an appellate instance. This would undoubtedly increase the credibility, legitimacy and transparency of the entire system of internatnional investment dispute settlement. This paper aims to summarize, on the basis of an analysis of the relevant provisions of the trade and investment agreements concluded by the European Union over the last decade, the practical progress made by the European Union in reforming the international investment dispute settlement system. Since none of these treaties has become fully effective yet due to the lacking ratification of all EU member states, it will take several more years before we see full practical implementation of the discussed provisions.

KONKURENCYJNOŚĆ ROLNICTWA POLSKIEGO W KONTEKŚCIE GLOBALIZACJI I INTEGRACJI GOSPODARCZEJ - POTENCJAŁ I POZYCJA KONKURENCYJNA

The aim of the research presented in this paper is to assess the competitive potential of Polish agriculture (potential competitiveness) and the competitive position of the Polish agri-food sector on the Single European Market (SEM) with reference to the global context. The conducted research has proven that Polish agriculture, while having significant production potential (potential competitiveness) on a European scale, is at the same time characterized by the significant structural deficiencies of this potential, which may adversely affect he competitive position of Polish agriculture in the future. Poland’s inclusion in the SEM area and the adoption of the rules of the Common Commercial Policy resulted in the creation and diversion of trade in agri-food products, and the comparative advantages achieved on the SEM became a source of favorable export specialization, allowing for relatively good use of the currently existing potential of agriculture and the food industry. This has resulted in the relatively good competitive position of the Polish agri-food sector on the SEM. However, in the long term, the ability to maintain or improve competitiveness in the future will be determined by competitive potential. The Polish agri-food sector has significant potential to increase exports and strengthen its competitive position (also on non-EU markets), provided that strong foundations for the sector are built, including an improvement in competitive potential.

Article 47 of the Charter in the Opinion Procedure: Some Reflections Following Opinion 1/17

The emphasis on Article 47 of the Charter in Opinion 1/17, as a separate ground in the compatibility review, has a constitutional dimension. Once again, as in Achmea, the specific characteristics of the EU legal order, especially with regard to the affirmation and development of the rule of law, are analysed in the investment protection legal framework. However, Article 47 has a specific role and function in the EU legal order, establishing the guarantees for a composite judicial system at the basis of the principle of autonomy. Preserving the specific function of Article 47 in the balance between effectiveness, procedural protection, and national autonomy in the EU legal order is also of utmost importance in the current rule of law crisis. This paper affirms that external relations are outside the scope of Article 47 of the Charter. This does not however mean that the principle of judicial protection and the right of access to an independent tribunal have only an internal EU law dimension. The Union’s contribution to the development of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and to the establishment of permanent investment courts confirms that promoting the rule of law is part of the Union’s external action. The Court of Justice could assess the CETA’s compatibility with the right of access to an independent tribunal without having recourse to Article 47 of the Charter, on the ground either of the principle of autonomy or of the compatibility with the substantive provisions of the common commercial policy. This paper argues that while judicial protection as part of the autonomy claim could meet some conceptual limits, promoting judicial protection as part of the common commercial policy could reinforce the perception that the Union is a credible and influential actor in international trade and in international procedural law.

With trade comes responsibility: the external reach of the EU’s fundamental rights obligations

ABSTRACT Based on International Human Rights Law and EU law, this article endorses a ‘functional’ paradigm of EU’s fundamental rights obligations, exploring whether such obligations extend beyond the EU’s external borders and which positive obligations, if any, they entail. The article argues that the EU’s fundamental rights obligations are founded in a non-territorial standard, as they attach to all ‘functions’ exercised by EU institutions, regardless of their internal or external scope. The paper then addresses the implications of such paradigm for the EU’s human rights obligations in the context of its Common Commercial Policy, focusing in particular on trade agreements, investment protection agreements and on the EU’s duty to regulate corporate actors.

Minerales y diamantes de conflicto: mecanismo de control y diligencia debida en tiempos de ODS

el presente estudio analiza exhaustivamente los mecanismos legales elegidos por la Unión Europea para combatir el fenómeno de los minerales y diamantes de conflicto y las violaciones de derechos humanos que le acompañan. Estas importantes normativas marcan la política comercial común actual en estos sectores, lo que afecta directamente a las relaciones privadas internacionales y al comercio internacional; de ahí, la importancia del estudio que desde estos parámetros se presenta con un carácter pionero y abierto. Se presta especial atención al encaje en los ODS y se realiza, además, una prospección de soluciones jurídicas y de implementación que ayuden a esta lucha.Recepción: 06 mayo 2020Aceptación: 02 junio 2020Publicación en línea: 30 septiembre 2020

Libre circulación de inversiones en la Unión Europea en tiempos de COVID-19

Las inversiones extranjeras han fluido como nunca durante las últimas décadas, en el marco de una aceptación generalizada de sus beneficios. Esta situación, sin embargo, comienza a alterarse de forma acelerada en múltiples lugares del planeta. La presencia de un entorno geoestratégico más complejo y la aproximación crítica de muchos Estados hacia la globalización y lo que ella significa, está consolidando una visión más cautelosa hacia la libre circulación de inversiones extranjeras que, entre otros efectos, se plasma en la elaboración de normativas más restrictivas. La Unión Europea es un espacio económicamente integrado, muy abierto a las inversiones extranjeras y dotado además, de una política comercial común—todavía en construcción— que incluye a aquellas no es ajena a estos movimientos. Un espacio en el que, sin embargo, es igualmente patente el aumento del recurso a los mecanismos de screening de las inversiones extranjeras, constituyendo un síntoma adicional del momento de cambio que vive el Derecho de las inversiones internacionales, en un contexto de creciente cautela respecto de ellas.

Romania and the Beginning of CMEA Controversies over a Common Trade Policy Towards the EEC, 1969–1972

This article examines Romania’s opposition to the attempts of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) in the early 1970s to adopt a common trade policy towards the European Economic Community (EEC). The article covers the period between 1969, when the CMEA embarked on negotiations regarding the deepening of the intra-bloc cooperation and integration, and 1 January 1973, which is the date marking the end of the derogations that the Eastern European states received with regard to the implementation of the EEC’s Common Commercial Policy. The article focuses on Romania’s reasons and tactics of opposition, but it also outlines its views with regard to the EEC, in general, and the CMEA-EEC relations, in particular. Corroborated by findings involving studies in other Eastern European archives, this article will help to create a better understanding of the CMEA debates on integration, on the CMEA-EEC relations, in general, and on Romania’s opposition to the CMEA’s intended common policy towards the EEC, in particular.

Assessing the EU Framework Regulation for the Screening of Foreign Direct Investment—What Is the Effect on Chinese Investors?

Abstract An increase of Chinese investment into the territory of the European Union has raised EU regulators’ concerns regarding the public security of the EU. As a result, the new Framework Regulation 2019/452 establishing a framework for the screening of FDI into the EU was adopted as a legal instrument aimed at their control, applicable from 11 October 2020. Adopted within the scope of Common Commercial Policy of the EU, the Framework Regulation, however, might not become an effective legal measure, as its application by Member States both in light of the freedom of movement of capital and the relevant CJEU jurisprudence raises significant legal questions. This article broadly discusses the newly introduced cooperation mechanism between Member States and the European Commission, as well as the relevant effect of the Framework Regulation upon Chinese investment and the pending negotiations of the EU-China BIT.

Brexit and its Consequences: The Termination and Renegotiation of EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements Due to (Fundamental) Change of Circumstances

The United Kingdom officially left the European Union (EU) in January 2020. While the nature of its future relations with the rest of the EU Members is unclear, it is by now certain that the UK will cease to be part of several agreements concluded by the EU in the areas common commercial policy. This is the case for Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) concluded between the EU and its Members with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. This paper studies the consequences of Brexit on these EPAs. It explores whether, and to what extent, ACP countries may invoke fundamental change of circumstances to seek termination of their respective EPAs because Brexit was an event that they could not have contemplated when negotiating these agreements. Likewise, could the threat of termination provide any leverage to ACP countries to induce renegotiation of the terms of EPAs considering frustration of their legitimate expectations?

EU in Global Affairs: Constrained Ambition in an Unpredictable World?

The European Union (EU) has a number of different powers in its toolbox. One of these policies lies at the core of the EU’s external competences – the common commercial policy (CCP) or common trade policy. This enables the EU to ‘speak as one voice’ in multilateral bodies and with third parties. The CCP, which has become stronger over the years, has developed into one of the bloc’s key international projection levers. However, the EU’s place and role in globalization are today being shaken chiefly by three major political factors: the rise of new powers, the United States (US)’ neo-mercantilist policies, and political divisions within the EU. Together, these three external and internal factors may be hastening a crisis for the EU. This raises the question: to what extent can the bloc influence its own destiny during this stormy period? European union, international actor, common commercial policy, global trade, internal divisions, neomercantilism, diffusion of power

European Union’s Banking Diplomacy Law: A Legal Fragment of EU’s Foreign Affairs

This article takes the move from the recognition that the law of EU external relations is fragmentary. EU foreign affairs are conducted through a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), a Common Commercial Policy, and other competences with external implications. This article is dedicated to one of such competences, whose external side has been hitherto largely underexplored: the monetary policy of Member States whose currency is the Euro. With a view of offering a first assessment of this ‘banking diplomacy’ law, the article outlines the main legal features of the external aspects of Banking Union (BU) and their interactions with other external relations competences. It does so by following four themes: investment, external representation, prudential supervision, and resolution. Banking Union, External Relations Law, Diplomacy, European Union, Banking Law, Single Supervisory Mechanism, Single Resolution Mechanism, Investment Law