EU Trade Agreements Research Articles

Voluntary programs and emissions revisited: What is the effect of EU trade agreements with environmental provisions?

Voluntary programs and emissions revisited: What is the effect of EU trade agreements with environmental provisions?

UK’s Free Trade Agreements with Non-EU Countries: the Case of the Black Sea Region

With the end of the Brexit transition period and its final departure from the EU, the United Kingdom lost its access to the EU trade agreements that its economy had previously benefited from. Therefore, the UK has been determined to preserve the preferential trading terms with states and trading blocs that used to be covered during its membership in the EU, and introduced a number of Free Trade Agreements (FTA) to guarantee a smooth transition both for the UK and non-EU countries’ economies with which it has extensive trade. The objective is to analyze the signing of Free Trade Agreements between UK and non-EU countries, namely, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Turkey. The methodology is based on comparative case-by-case study. The results indicate that UK’s trade with the countries in Black Sea region (also quite affiliated with the EU) is going to gain more importance, which will broaden the opportunities for the UK become more involved in the economy of the region and, potentially, build stronger and independent political ties with the countries studied.

Labour Rights Protection and Its Enforcement under the USMCA: Insights from a Comparative Legal Analysis

AbstractChapter 23, exclusively dedicated to labor protection, has been widely described as one of the most distinctive features of the new US–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). This paper challenges the current narrative surrounding the USMCA by critically analysing Chapter 23 of the agreement, looking at the legal innovative design of its substantive commitments of labour protection and their enforceability. In light of this objective, a comparative analysis will be conducted. The provisions of Chapter 23 USMCA will be compared with labour provisions in previous US Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs), namely, the NAFTA side agreement on labour rights and the TPP. Second, a comparative analysis will be conducted comparing USMCA Chapter 23 with labour provisions in EU Trade Agreements negotiated with USMCA parties. The paper demonstrates that although the USMCA does not radically innovate from the level of substantive labour protection reached in recent US and EU PTAs, the enforcement mechanism in the USMCA is significantly strengthened, with controversial and innovative features.

Investment Court System Under EU Trade and Investment Agreements: Addressing Criticisms of ISDS and Creating New Challenges

The Investment Court System (‘ICS’) included in the European Union (‘EU’)’s recent investment and trade agreements provides for the creation of a permanent first instance tribunal (‘First Instance Tribunal’) and an appellate tribunal (‘Appeal Tribunal’) drawn from a pre-selected roster of tribunal members. The ICS imposes mandatory transparency of proceedings, as well as a strict code of conduct applicable to all tribunal members. The ICS is expected to address several long-standing criticisms levied against investor-State dispute settlement (‘ISDS’). At the same time, the ICS raises new challenges that must be resolved for its effective operation. These must be addressed first and foremost by the EU and those pioneering trading partners who have so far committed to the ICS; only once resolved will the ICS gain traction with ISDS stakeholders. EU Investment Court System, CETA, EU–Singapore Investment Protection Agreement, EU–Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, EU–Mexico Global Agreement, enforcement of ICS awards, ICSID Convention, New York Convention, ISDS

Characterising non-tariff trade policy

Since the 1960s, non-tariff measures (NTMs) have been continuously replacing tariffs as the core element of trade negotiations. In the 21st century, they take centre stage in all EU trade agreements with industrialised and emerging economies. By matching product codes to the rich data of NTM notifications to the World Trade Organization and merging information provided by the Temporary Trade Barriers Database, we provide a valuable open data source for trade policy analysis. Using data for 148 NTM-imposing economies for the period 1995-2019, we describe the evolution of NTMs across countries and sectors, with a special focus on NTMs implemented by the EU. The analysis of our data shows the merits and shortcomings of the WTO’s service in providing transparency of members’ trade policies.

Development of Environmental and Labour Provisions in Ftas

Trade-related issues such as market access and tariff elimination or reduction have been the main concerns of free trade agreements or FTAs since the early 2000s. With more attention recently given to the concept of sustainable development, however, a growing number of countries start to share a common understanding that global and concerted efforts for environmental and labour protection are crucial for sustainable growth. In this context more of the recent FTAs focus on non-trade concerns such as protection of the environment and workers. A leading example is the FTA between Korea and the EU. Ever since the Korea-EU FTA, the EU has included a chapter on “Trade and Sustainable Development” or “TSD” to extensively provide for environment and labour obligations in its bilateral trade agreements. Further, it is noteworthy that the U.S. and the EU have resorted to dispute settlement and enforcement mechanisms within their FTAs to ensure that their trade partners effectively implement environment and labour obligations at the domestic level. For instance, on December 17, 2018, the European Commission requested a consultation to Korea under the Korea-EU FTA on the grounds that the Korean government had not shown sufficient efforts in ratifying the remaining four of the eight fundamental ILO Conventions and thus acted inconsistently with the TSD Chapter of the same FTA. This is the first case that the EU has ever initiated a dispute settlement procedure under a TSD chapter. The Panel of Experts was composed on December 30, 2019, and the final report was recently published on January 25th, 2021. Against this background, for consideration by the Korean government this Brief discusses the emerging trends of environmental and labour provisions in U.S. and EU trade agreements (with a special emphasis on the USMCA), particularly focusing on the aspect of ‘enforceability’ of such obligations.

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.

Requesting Trade Sanctions? The European Parliament and the Generalized Scheme of Preferences

AbstractTrade policy is among the EU's major capabilities to promote fundamental rights in developing countries. Conditionality clauses thus accompany EU trade agreements and tariff preferences under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP). Yet while conditionality in trade agreements have come under the spotlight and the EP has stepped up its engagement in this area of decision‐making, the GSP has largely not been addressed in scholarly debate. This article fills this void in the literature by exploring the conditions under which the EP asks for trade sanctions on beneficiaries of the GSP. I argue that the EP invests political resources in a beneficiary when this country is salient under EU development cooperation. Hence, I observe a horizontal spill‐over effect whereby EP trade activities are driven by a country's salience in the area of development cooperation. However, this effect occurs only in the absence of security interests and the lack of development performance.

Forging their path in the Brussels bubble? Civil society resistance within the domestic advisory groups created under the EU trade agreements

Academic and policy interest in civil society participation in the European Union’s trade policy has been growing since the late 1990s. We analyse civil society’s engagement with the Domestic Advisory Groups (DAGs)—consultation mechanisms established by the European Commission at the implementation stage of its free trade agreements. While the Commission’s formal rationale for the DAGs is partnership with civil society, in fact this relationship involves a marked power and resistance dynamic. We focus on civil society’s agency and resistance, develop a conceptual framework laying out different possible types of resistance, and empirically demonstrate the wealth of both overt and subtle resistance practices employed by DAG members. Most of this resistance is (moderately) comprehensive and directed against the DAGs’ rationalities and technologies. While showing that DAGs are deeply contested, our study also provides a nuanced analysis of resistance with particular attention for divisions between business and non-business members.

Exporting protection: EU trade agreements, geographical indications, and gastronationalism

One of the main objectives of EU trade policy is to establish wider protection for its regional specialty foods, known as Geographical Indications (GIs). In spite of US opposition, the EU has successfully considered additional protection for its GIs a red line in recent trade agreements. A key piece to the puzzle of this success is that whereas the literature has typically treated trade and non-trade issues as a dichotomy, GI protection encompasses both trade and non-trade aspects. In the EU, trade agreements are negotiated by the Commission but require member state approval. Both Greece and Italy have threatened not to ratify CETA over insufficient GI protection, so GIs clearly matter. This article develops and tests a theory of GI protection using new data on GIs listed for protection in 11 recent EU trade agreements. It finds that EU trade agreements are more likely to protect GIs with higher sales values and from countries in the South of Europe, where GIs are highly salient because of gastronationalism. These findings illustrate how economic, cultural and political factors shape and enable EU policy exports through trade agreements.

Promoting sustainable development through trade? EU trade agreements and global value chains

AbstractSustainable development provisions have become an integral part of the European Union's (EU's) ‘new generation’ trade agreements. Yet, a growing number of empirical works show that their design varies significantly, even in the trade agreements signed with countries at similar (low) levels of development. We contend that this variation can be accounted for by discussing how the growing integration of the EU economy with specific developing countries across global value chains (GVCs) affects the domestic politics of regulatory export in the EU. European firms that operate within GVCs rely on imports of inputs produced in low-labor cost countries. These firms tend to oppose the export of those regulatory burdens that generate an increase in their imports' variable costs. The political mobilization of these actors weakens domestic coalitions supporting regulatory export strategies, which explains why the EU adopts a more lenient approach over the inclusion of sustainable development provisions in Preferential Trade Agreement negotiations with some developing countries.

CJEU Achmea Judgment and What Comes Next. Some Reflections on the Potential Implications of the CJEU Judgment (C-284/16)

In the judgment of 6.03.2018 (Achmea case, C-284/16), CJEU ruled that treaty clauses that allow investor from one of the Member States to bring proceedings against another Member State before an arbitraltribunal outside the EU judicial system are irreconcilable with Articles 267 and 344 TFEU when such tribunal may be called on to interpret or apply EU law. This principle is applicable to EU trade or investment agreements (FTAs and IIAs), since they are part of EU law, and to BITs, FTAs and IIAs, since they contain explicit or implicit referrals to municipal (EU) law. In intra-EU relations, such a conflict of norms must be solved according to customary international law codified in the VCLT. According to this law, TFEU would prevail as lex superior and, in the case of Poland and many other Member States, as lex posterior. In intra-EU relations, TFEU prevails ex proprio vigore, i.e. without the need to terminate intra-EU BITs. However, such termination is highly desirable, not only for reasons of clarity, but also because arbitral tribunals and extra-EU courts are not bounded by the ECJ’s ruling. In the case of agreements with non-Member States, the incompatibilities referred to in the Achmea judgment must be eliminated by renegotiation or formal termination (Article 307 (2) TFEU). In the case of the BITs, the latter seems to be the only practical solution.

Jordan bid to the Gulf Cooperation Council and Implications for the Expended GCC

In 2011, the Gulf Cooperation council (GCC) invited Jordan and Morocco to join the council. This research is geared to evaluate the potential benefits of joining the GCC for the case of Jordan. It is argued that Jordan’s inclusion to the block would strengthen the economy of the member states, increase trade and investment opportunities and improve peace in the region. GCC Membership to Jordan might possibly support its economy and larger investment flows from the Gulf countries. On the flipside, Jordan accession carries several potential benefits to the GCC. Jordan’s strength is linked with its close proximity to the GCC, cordial relationships with the US and the EU and free trade agreements with major economies. Moreover, Jordan inherits professional military. If Jordan is part of the GCC, it might consolidate the military power and augment security of the GCC. Since the Arab Spring, the peace of the Middle East remained volatile. Recent rift between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, war in Syria and Yemen further destabilized the security of the region. This has also undermined the future of the GCC. In these circumstances, the expansion of the GCC is realistic and Jordan case caries some merit. Keywords : GCC, Jordan, Economic Integration, Peace and Security JEL : E61, F36, F50, F53, F59 DOI: 10.7176/EJBM/12-6-14 Publication date: February 29 th 2020

Subsidies Regulation Beyond the WTO. Substance, Procedure and Policy Space in the ‘New Generation’ EU Trade Agreements

Subsidies Regulation Beyond the WTO. Substance, Procedure and Policy Space in the ‘New Generation’ EU Trade Agreements

Mixed competences and ‘second generation’ trade agreements: a consideration of EU disintegration

ABSTRACT This paper considers recent developments in EU trade policy in the context of the theoretical framework of ‘disintegration’. The events surrounding the conclusion of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada, as well as the CJEU’s opinion on the EU-Singapore free trade agreement, underscore the limits to centralized decision-making in trade policy for newer ‘second generation’ trade agreements. The argument is that recent political developments with EU trade agreements have complicated the possibility for further exclusive competence at the supranational level, and in doing so have indirectly illustrated some potential limits to further economic integration. This examination is helpful when considering if (or to what degree) the logic of European integration has been weakened in the aftermath of various crises, and whether the federal structure of EU governance is able to accommodate changes in the allocation of competences in trade policy.

Fundamental Rights in the EU’s External Trade Relations: From Promotion ‘Through’ Trade Agreements to Protection ‘In’ Trade Agreements

In the context of trade, the EU emerges as a singular global actor from a fundamental rights perspective: unlike other international actors, the EU’s external action is to be guided by interests as much as values. The Treaty of Lisbon does not erase the tension between market goals and respect of fundamental rights, it opens up the possibility for the EU to pursue fundamental rights both in and through trade. Yet for a very long time, the EU has been a global actor through trade: it has taken for granted an understanding of human rights in trade that sees them as a development issue for third countries. No more sophisticated conceptualisations have been explored, making the EU’s current approach heavily reliant on this legacy. The way fundamental rights are provided protection in the Post-Lisbon new generation EU trade agreements emerges as outdated and not fit for purpose. The aim of this paper is to urge new conceptualisations of the relationship between trade agreements and fundamental rights.

The Common Commercial Policy after Opinion 2/15: No Simple Way to Make Life Easier for Free Trade Agreements in the EU

On 16 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) delivered a long-awaited opinion on the legal nature of the free trade agreement between the EU and Singapore (Opinion 2/15). This decision was highly anticipated as it was expected to clarify uncertainties of several aspects of the EU Common Commercial Policy (CCP) which has broadened in scope after the Lisbon Treaty. The CJEU’s conclusion on the division of competences and its possible impacts on the CCP immediately sparked a debate within the Union’s institutions about its future direction. In particular, the architecture of EU free trade agreements, the dominant tool of the CCP at the beginning of the 21st century, is now under scrutiny. Trade deals without investment provisions could potentially simplify many steps which now burden the treaty-making process. This paper discusses Opinion 2/15 and its significance for the future development of the CCP. It explores and analyses the implications for shaping the post-Lisbon CCP with regard to two specific areas: investment protection and sustainable development. The paper concludes that a new architecture for EU trade agreements could be further improved as there is a potential to preserve the CCP as both an operational and ambitious trade policy. In this respect, comprehensive FTAs encompassing trade, investment and sustainability deserve a second thought in the EU. Keywords: Common Commercial Policy, free trade agreement, competence, investment protection, sustainable development. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution − Non-Commercial − No Derivatives 4.0 International License. Suggested citation: O Svoboda, ‘The Common Commercial Policy after Opinion 2/15: No Simple Way to Make Life Easier for Free Trade Agreements in the EU’ (2019) 15 CYELP 189.

European Affiliations or National Interests? Analyses of Voting Patterns on Trade Policy in European Parliament

AbstractThis article examines the determinants of voting patterns within the European Parliament for EU trade legislations including EU trade agreements. Given that trade is a very sensitive issue for particular Member States, our question is to verify whether members of European Parliament (MEP) tend to vote in line with their political affiliation or national identity prevails in voting for trade-related issues. Our results from EU trade agreements with Korea and Columbia/Peru show that MEPs tend to vote with others in their political groups in trade legislations and their voting pattern is not very different from the overall voting pattern observed in other policy areas. This trend is confirmed by both the comparison of intra-voting cohesion index and the empirical test based on the probit model. Country-specific variables do not explain well the voting behavior of MEPs in trade issues. However, it is noteworthy that some MEPs voted in line with their national interests in case of EU-Korea FTA.

Approaching Judgment Day: The Influence of Brexit on the EU Pharmaceutical Framework

Though the plans for Brexit keep changing daily at the time of writing of this article, it seems useful to identify and discuss the differences between various types of EU trade agreements with third countries as possible models for a future EU–UK relationship, whatever the outcome. At some point after all the political drama, civil servants and negotiators will need to get down to business and find practical solutions for the new situation. This article examines the impact of such a transition on the integrated EU pharmaceutical industry. First, a state of play chapter details the EU and UK legislation regarding Brexit, possible future agreements and an overview of the pharmaceutical regulatory framework. The focus of the analysis itself is the level of participation in the European Medicine Association on the basis of a European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Norway), a Bilateral Agreement (Switzerland), and a Free Trade Agreement (Canada). Within this framework, key regulatory complications of the EU pharmaceutical framework (Market Authorization, Research & Development and Safety Monitoring) are investigated. Finally, the article demonstrates some of the dilemmas and diverging demands of the EU and UK as new trading partners in the pharmaceutical sector.

The Consequence of a Permanent Customs Union

A customs union with the EU would come with significant costs to the UK’s economic, trade and foreign policies. Such an arrangement would also fail, by itself, to eliminate trade friction with the EU. To do so would also require alignment with the Single Market rules for goods. A customs union would also come with significant risk to UK consumers who would likely lack effective representation in new EU trade agreements. There would be a high chance that their interests would be subsumed to those of EU producers, and UK producers’ defensive interests would not be represented. Furthermore, if the UK were required to follow the EU’s trade defence policies, UK consumers would be left vulnerable to price rises to protect EU manufacturers, while British manufacturers would not necessarily be defended.