EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement Research Articles

Time to Preference: Early Preference Uptake under the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement

This study examines the uptake of trade preferences under the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement during their respective first 21 months of application. The research analyzes the impact of time on the preference utilization rate of EU imports from Canada and Korea and EU exports to the two countries. The findings shed light on how EU member states perform vis-à-vis each trade partner and whether certain product groups appear more successful than others in terms of using trade preferences. The study further analyzes the potential effects of learning how to use preferences over time. Finally, the study argues that firm-pair transaction level data is necessary for discerning more conclusive answers regarding why trade preferences are (not) used.</br>The results point to that lack of knowledge and awareness is the most plausible reason to a low use of trade preferences in the early days of an agreement. To increase preference utilization rates in the beginning as well as later during agreement implementation, continuous information campaigns appear to be essential, not least since importing and exporting firms change over time.

통상조약 내 연계형 노동조항의 불확정성과 국내법 심사

As a new phenomenon to be noted in international law, the interaction among sub-fields of international law is emerging. Among them, there is a link between trade and labour. This link is to prescribe labour provisions that guarantee labour rights in free trade agreements regulating trade. For such labour provisions, references are generally made to the International Labour Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (“ILO Declaration”). A clause that directs an explicit reference is inherently indeterminate to function effectively. Through the analysis of the Report of the Panel of Experts (“Panel Report”) on the case of violations of labour provisions in the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (“EU-Korea FTA”), this article examines whether the labour provisions that explicitly refer to soft international standards such as ILO Declaration can function as rules that can enforce international labour standards in trade treaties. The findings of analyzing the Panel Report in this case can be summarized as follows: First, the labour provision with an explicit reference functions as an effect indicator that gives legal binding force to the content of the norms in the referenced international document. Even if there is no direct legal binding force in the indicated international document, its content remains legally binding pursuant to the labour provision. The norms in the Compilation of Decisions of the International Labour Organization’s Committee on Freedom of Association (“Compilation of Decisions”) thus become concrete legal norms directly applicable to the facts in question. Second, the obligation to respect, promote, and realize the principle of freedom of association was inclusively categorized as an obligation of result. Therefore, the Panel of Experts examined whether the relevant laws of Korea and the actual applications were consistent with the results required by the standards in the Compilation of Decisions. The obligation of result is relatively easier to prove for the party claiming non-performance while the burden of proof is cumbersome for the party claiming performance. It is of great interest to see how broadly and deeply Article 13.4.3 of the EU-Korea FTA will affect Korea’s guarantee of labour rights in the future. This is because the logic of finding and applying the law presented in the process of resolving the normative uncertainty of Article 13.4.3 by the Panel of Experts’ in deciding this case formally encompasses the entire scope governed by the fundamental conventions of the ILO. However, it is not easy to predict how it will develop in the future. Whether the EU will request the establishment of an expert panel procedure will vary on a case-by-case basis, and it is unclear how the function of an expert panel without formal rules of procedure will be addressed in the revision of the EU-Korea FTA.

20 Ad Hoc Panel of Experts Constituted under Article 13.15 of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Report, 20 January 2021

20 Ad Hoc Panel of Experts Constituted under Article 13.15 of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Report, 20 January 2021

The EU-Korea Labour Dispute: A Critical Analysis of the EU’s Approach

On 4 July 2019, the EU formally requested the Panel of Experts to be convened under Article 13.15 of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The gist of the dispute revolved around Korea’s compliance with its labour rights obligations under the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) Chapter of the FTA. The Panel of Experts gave its decision on 20 January 2021, making several recommendations for Korea to amend its domestic legislation. As a result of the EU-Korea labour dispute, Korea ratified three International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions and made amendments to its Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA). While the dispute has yielded some successful results for the EU, this article examines shortcomings of the EU’s approach to promoting labour rights in its relations with Korea, and remaining challenges as regards Korea’s obligations under the TSD Chapter. European Union, external relations, labour rights, EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement, Trade and Sustainable Development, labour dispute, Panel of Experts, freedom of association, forced labour

한-EU FTA 노동조항 관련 분쟁의 법적 쟁점

This article analyses the recent report of the Panel of Experts with respect to the dispute between the European Union (EU) and the Republic of Korea (Korea) regarding the implementation of Article 13.4.3 of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Firstly, it looks into the procedural issue, namely the legal admissibility of the EU’s complaint based on a trade-labour link requirement under Article 13.2.1. Specifically, it perceives the debate between the two disputing parties over this issue as a ‘framing battle’, i.e. ‘trade dispute’ vs ‘labour dispute’, which led the Panel to consider it unnecessary for the EU to establish the trade-labour link condition. Secondly, this article delves into the issue of the content and scope of the obligations in respect of the principle of freedom of association in the context of Article 13.4.3. In particular, it examines the reasoning of the Panel that read into the text of Article 13.4.3 within the context of the case law of the supervisory bodies in the International Labour Organization (ILO) on freedom of association as well as the whole text of the ILO Nos 87 and 98. While the article is critical of said legal reasoning, it is necessarily critical of the final cinclusion reached by the panel. Thirdly, this article explores the findings of the Panel on the compatibility with the applicable law of the concerned provisions and/or practices of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act in turn. After taking a brief note of the Panel’s decision on the obligation to make sustained and continued efforts towards ratifying the fundamental Conventions, this article concludes with some suggestions for the Korean government in order to address potential issues that may arise in the future.

Trust and Support for Comprehensive Trade Agreements in the European Parliament

Abstract Comprehensive Trade Agreements (CTAs) constitute a new generation of free trade agreements, which challenge traditional models of trade preferences. To understand preferences toward CTAs I present a new predictor, trust in government, that explains support for CTAs in the European Parliament. I develop a unified framework that includes economic and noneconomic factors to explain trade preferences, and analyze support for three recent CTAs: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement with Canada (CETA), and the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Using an original dataset on trade voting and a multilevel model, I show that higher levels of citizens’ trust in government make Members of the European Parliament more likely to vote in favor of CTAs. My research offers a novel theoretical argument and insights on the connection between public trust and elite position-taking.

The Use of Preferences under the EU - Korea FTA

Purpose - This paper describes the use of trade preferences under the EU-Korea free trade agreement (FTA) and empirically examines potential reasons...

Ratification of C87 and C98: A means of regression?

8 | International Union Rights | 26/3 TOWARDS UNIVERSAL RATIFICATION OF C87 AND 98 Ratification of C87 and C98: A means of regression? Ratification of the non-ratified ILO conventions has been the most unachievable goal in the Republic of Korea for the last decades. The country has yet to ratify the Conventions 87 and 98 on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, as well as Conventions 29 and 105 on forced labour. Whenever the ILO or UN recommended Korea to ratify the international labour standards, consecutive governments have repeatedly promised to consider the possibility to do so. Sometimes the government voluntarily pledged to consider the ratification when it ran for the UN Human Rights Council. Even though the government has chaired the Council, the promise was never fulfilled. The major obstacle to ratification, the government suggested, is the existing law of South Korea – a view that is shared by the international community. Indeed, the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) of the ILO has repeatedly pointed out the domestic laws, institutions and practices which run counter to the fundamental principle. These contain a wide variety of violations; prohibition of union membership for the unemployed, the dismissed and various types of workers who are misclassified as independent contractors. The discretional power given to the administrative agency for screening the validity of the union establishment report during the process of certification is another major violation of the principle. The recurrent arrest and imprisonment of union leaders and members for union activity including strike is a typical breach of fundamental labour rights. Article 314 of the Criminal Law is a notorious provision frequently used to penalise striking workers and leaders of trade unions. It is common practice that the prosecutors declare a strike illegal even before the workers go into a collective action. This is due to the law in which it is almost impossible for a strike to be recognised as legitimate. Addressing the freedom of association complaint filed in 1995 (Case No 1865, Complaint date: 14-DEC-95), the CFA pointed out all the violations above mentioned and delivered various recommendations to the government. However, consecutive governments kept ignoring the recommendations, which made the case the second longest pending case. However, we have to remember that the government joined in the adoption of the ILO Declaration of the Fundamental Principle and Right at Work, 1998 under which the government has an obligation to respect, promote and realise freedom of association. Non-ratification provoked an international dispute This long-standing negligence led to a dispute under Chapter 13 (Trade and Sustainable Development) of the Korea-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA). This is the first case in which the EU has triggered the dispute settlement mechanism under the Trade and Sustainable Development Chapter of an FTA. According to Article 13.4, Korea commits to make continued and sustained efforts towards ratifying the fundamental ILO Conventions. At the same time Korea commits to meet the obligations deriving from membership of the ILO and the ILO 1998 Declaration. The European Commission stated in its official letter sent on December 18, 2018: ‘more than seven years after the entry into force of the EU-Korea FTA, Korea has still not ratified the aforementioned four fundamental ILO Conventions. Thus, Korea appears to have acted inconsistently with Article 13.4 paragraph 3 last sentence of the EU-Korea FTA’. The EU also specified articles of the Trade Union and Labour Relation Adjustment Act (TULRAA) that appeared to be inconsistent with Korea’s obligations. The parties spent 90 days for the formal consultation to resolve the dispute but failed. Once again, the European Commission moved to the next step based on the Article 13.15 and requested the Korean government to convene a Panel of Experts to examine the issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed through the consultation. Here, I would like remind readers that the current administration listed the ratification of the non-ratified fundamental conventions in its own 100-point agenda, published on the 100th day of its inauguration; these 100 policy tasks are intended to be implemented during its five-year term (by 2022). What made the EU find the effort to...

Regulatory Network Calibration in the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement

The European Union (EU) and South Korea (Korea) created the world’s biggest free trade deal since 1994 in 2011. It was not only the biggest in terms of economic size, it was also the most ambitious one that the EU has ever negotiated. The EU-Korea free trade agreement (EU-Korea FTA) is ambitious in the sense that it tackles not only the tariff barriers but also the non-tariff ones to reach full liberalization in trade. This article aims to weigh the European normative power via this interesting trade deal, the EU-Korea FTA. It takes a normative perspective to examine the concretization of the EU normative power with measurable standards, and tries to discern the impacts of the European values and norms on Korean reforms in trade. The article will focus on the regulatory network built up by the two sides in order to enforce and monitor the provisions especially on non-tariff barriers(NTBs) issues, and it concludes with the finding that the degree of normativity that the EU norms possess in Korean market is moderate, with strong rhetorical commitment, slow formal adoption, and unremarkable behavioural compliance. Certain European values have indeed been transformed into concrete regulations in the FTA, such as IPRs regulation, sustainable development, etc. However, for the implementation of the agreement to be effective, it takes not only government’s endeavour to enforce regulatory framework, but also more communication and cooperation on the social level to create this normative legitimacy for the Korean society to take in the European norms and values. It is believed that continuous dialogues through the regulatory network on different layers of the society would still be necessary on fostering and strengthening the bilateral relationship between the EU and Korea.

The Hydra revisited: expectations and perceptions of the impact of the EU-Korea free trade agreement

On 1 July 2011, a free trade agreement was provisionally implemented between the EU and South Korea. At the time, there were clear expectations within the EU business community in Seoul about the likely impact of the deal, including an increase in EU exports, the dismantling of tariff and existing non-tariff barriers (NTBs), the possible emergence of new NTBs, the further development of mechanisms for discussion and problem-solving mechanisms, and a shift in Koreans’ perceptions of all imported EU goods as luxury items. Interviews conducted with expatriate executives, diplomats and trade officials in Seoul in 2015 revealed the extent to which these expectations have been fulfilled and also highlighted the importance of broad economic and social trends in the strong performance of EU exports since 2011. These included the maturing of the Korean economy and the growing need for high-end industrial goods, and the Koreans’ increasing purchasing power and the concomitant desire to engage in displays of wealth. In addition to contributing to the general academic debate on the impact of free trade agreements (FTAs) and adding specific colour to the case of the EU-Korea FTA, this research will play an important role in shaping responses to the shifting economic, social and cultural trends that will impact the future outcomes of this key trade deal between the EU and Korea. It will also inform the EC’s discussions with current and future free trade agreement partners and its analysis of the various factors influencing the actual and perceived success or failure of those deals.

EU–Korea relations in a changing world project: main results and recommendations

The paper provides an overview of the most important results of a project on EU–Korea economic and regulatory relations funded by the European Commission. The paper first outlines the emergence and development of EU–Korea relations. In the second part, the paper presents the main findings clustered in three thematic areas. A first thematic area focuses on a discussion of the EU–Korea Free Trade Agreement. The second cluster analyzes EU–Korea cooperation on regulatory policies with a main focus on cooperation in the policy areas of security (arms trade and control), chemical regulation, environmental regulation, education, development cooperation and industrial policy. The third part focuses on EU–Korea cooperation concerning regional and international issues. In the third part, the paper presents the main recommendations which were formulated on the basis of the project.

Trade in Goods Under the EU–Korea FTA: Market Access and Regulatory Measures

This chapter deals with the rules on trade in goods in the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. It is organized, as follows. First, the rules on market access, that is, the EU-Korea FTA provisions related to import measures applicable at the border, will be delineated and analyzed. Subsequently, aspects of one of the most innovative parts of the agreement will be examined in detail: the section containing rules on domestic regulation, in particular, on technical regulations and standards. This paper shows two sides of the EU–Korea FTA. On the one hand, it is a very traditional trade agreement, largely based on existing WTO provisions. This is particularly the case in those parts of the agreement concerning border measures. On the other hand, in particular, concerning the sector-specific rules on technical barriers to trade, the agreement is quite innovative and breaks new grounds, with respect to the regulation of domestic instruments.Moreover, the Agreement is, to a large extent, a ‘living instrument’. Many of the remaining lacunae in the field of domestic regulation must be dealt with in the future, through cooperation and consultations within the different committees and working groups. This is the Agreement’s approach to tackle its endogenous incompleteness, which is inherent in any trade agreement. From this angle, the EU–Korea FTA may not only be understood as a static body of rules, but also as a framework for collaboration that helps to find prompt and appropriate responses to changes in real-world conditions, thus facilitating trade relations between the parties in the long run.

The EU–Korea Free Trade Agreement: Origin Declaration and Approved Exporter Status

When it comes to proof of origin, the EU-Korea free trade agreement is a new generation agreement. The system of origin certification by a competent authority is replaced by a system of self-certification while in previous free trade agreements both systems coexisted. Under this free trade agreement, consignments of EUR 6000 or more can only be granted preferential treatment where the origin declaration is made out by an approved exporter. Exporters wishing their goods to benefit from preferential treatment must obtain approved exporter status through an application process. Without such approval, an exporter cannot make out a valid origin declaration and preferential treatment cannot be granted on importation. The purpose of this article is to explain the self-certification process under the EU-Korea free trade agreement and related topics, including the origin declaration and its validity, the verification of the origin declarations and the consequences for importers when the presented origin declaration is invalid or incorrect. The article focuses mostly on the EU perspective. The articles referenced to herein are contained in the Protocol of Origin.

Reshaping the EU’s FTA Policy in a Globalizing Economy: The Case of the EU-Korea FTA

On 3 October 2006, the European Union (EU) initiated a new generation Free Trade Agreement (FTA) policy in Global Europe: Competing in the World. Market potential and protection level were set out as the key economic criteria for new FTA partners. Based on these criteria, South Korea emerges as one of the EU's priorities. The EU-Korea FTA, signed on 6 October 2010, is the first of a new generation of FTAs. The Agreement is very comprehensive with regard to trade liberalization in a number of fields, including services, investment, competition, enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs), government procurement, sustainable development, cultural cooperation, and so on. Many of these policy areas are still not well regulated by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Under the Lisbon Treaty, EU trade policy shall be conducted in the context of the principles and objectives of EU foreign policy. Leveraging trade and foreign policy is expected to strengthen the EU's position in negotiating new FTAs. This article takes the EU-Korea FTA as a case study to examine the following core issues: the historical background of the EU's trade policy, legal basis and decision-making procedure of the new generation FTA, the main contents and special features of the EU-Korea FTA, and the impacts of the EU-Korea FTA on the WTO and third countries. For the future development of EU's FTA policy, this article also proposes an open regionalism approach to make the FTA compatible with the WTO.

The EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Making of a "Deep" Free Trade Agreement

Korea a dynamic newly-industrialized economy, and the EU, the largest economic block have negotiated an FTA. It came in force on July 1, 2011. Before the FTA was formed, the two were important trading partners of each other. Korea has enjoyed a trade surplus in merchandise trade vis-à-vis the EU. An overwhelmingly large proportion of EU-Korea trade is in manufacturing products. The EU took has had a surplus in trade in services vis-à-vis Korea. The FTA protocol has specified lowering of tariffs and NTBs in a phased manner over a transition period. The FTA had sector-focused negations. Technological standards and environmental considerations are a part of the FTA protocol. It has a comprehensive coverage and in trade economics parlance known as a “deep” regional integration arrangement. The impact of the FTA on the two partner economies would be positive but small. The empirical analyses predictably concluded that of the two, the FTA will benefit Korean economy relatively more in terms of welfare gains, while the EU economy will only gain modestly. An important fact that will influence the welfare gains is that the magnitude of the EU trade with Korea; it is only 2 percent to 2.5 percent of total extra-EU trade. Sectoral impact of the FTA will be important for both the EU and Korea and this article elucidates which sectors will benefit more than others. To protect domestic producers and markets from sudden surge in imports, there is a provision of a bilateral safeguard clause in the FTA.

Resisting Protectionism after the Crisis: Strategic Economic Discourse and the EU–Korea Free Trade Agreement

In 2006 the European Commission announced its Global Europe strategy, which proposed pursuing a series of ambitious Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) premised on exchanging the EU's remaining ‘pockets of protection’ for market access. The first of these agreements was signed with South Korea in October 2010. This article asks how the Commission's Directorate-General (DG) for Trade could successfully conclude this agreement in the aftermath of the Financial Crisis. Given a strong mobilisation of protectionists with access to policy-makers, this liberal policy outcome cannot be explained purely in terms of institutional insulation, as in much of the literature on EU trade policy, nor be simply ‘read off’ from the material interests of societal actors. This article, therefore, develops a constructivist framework which broadens our understanding of the power of strategically invoked economic discourses. By developing a novel analytical strategy to determine the intentional invocation of such discourses, it is able to show how DG Trade constructed an ideational imperative for liberalisation in Global Europe, enabling it to overcome opposition to the EU–Korea FTA. Beyond its contribution to constructivist scholarship, this article draws attention to the neglected dimension of ideas in trade policy and highlights the continued purchase of neoliberalism after the crisis.

Making Friends with the Hydra European Expectations of the EU–Korea Free Trade Agreement

In October 2009 the European Commission (EC) and South Korea initialled a free trade agreement (FTA); this article seeks to determine to what extent the expectations of the EU business community in Seoul regarding the impact of the FTA are aligned with the motivations and benefits identified in the academic literature. We conclude that there is considerable overlap in terms of the anticipated economic, political and diplomatic benefits such as an increase in trade and investment, the implementation and enforcement of international commercial regulations, and the enhancement of the European Union's (EU's) position and profile in Korea and within the region. Additionally, interviews with the EU business community revealed that their main expectation of the FTA was that it would herald the development of a 'relationship of intent', enhance mutual understanding and provide new tools to resolve the problems they faced in the Korean market.