Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement Research Articles

Tariffs, NATO and Nord Stream: Is Trump the Problem to a Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement?

The EU and the U.S. are key trading partners for each other. However, there is still no transatlantic free trade agreement. Persistent threats from President Trump make the situation more complicated. On the surface, customs issues in particular play a role. In fact, it is about fundamental geopolitical and security issues – it’s about power in the international economy, energy and defense. This essay highlights the connections and solutions that exist to negotiate a transatlantic free trade agreement. It displays a zero-sum-view of U.S. President Trump.

Perspectives of the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement between the EU and the US after BREXIT

In this article, the author presents the legal nature and economic effects of Free Trade Agreements (FTA or RTS according to WTO terminology) on economies of members and third countries. The second aim was an evaluation of the economic effect of TAFTA (TTIP) on the United States and the European Union in the case of Brexit as well as some potential impact on third countries and alternative FTAs as counterweights to TTIP. To identify the mathematical and statistical relationships, I constructed correlation and regression models between dependent and independent variables. The dependent variables are GDP, independent variables of GDP per capita, unemployment, exports and imports, price index and investment, as well as the country’s participation in the free trade zone. To evaluate the independent variable (specifically the participation in the free trade zone), a “dummy variable” I used with values “0” during ten years prior the entrance intro free trade zone and “1” during ten years after the entrance of a particular country into the free trade zone. The general conclusions following from my study is that RTS allows many countries to negotiate and achieve much more preferential trade conditions than is possible at the multilateral level.

Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements : Lack of EU Leadership for Reforming Trade and Investment Law ?

Should the EU design transatlantic free trade agreements (FTAs) as a power-oriented “international law among states,” a “democratic law among peoples,” or as a “cosmopolitan law among individuals” as the legitimate “constituent powers” and “democratic principles” of all governance agents in the twenty-first century? Why are fundamental rights so important for reforming “disconnected UN/WTO governance,” so as to render multilevel protection of transnational public goods (PGs) more effective for the benefit of citizens? FTAs protecting the rights and remedies of citizens have been uniquely successful in European integration, for instance by limiting “governance failures” and “market failures” (e.g. through constitutional, competition, labor, social and environmental law, and judicial remedies). Yet, the EU neglects its “cosmopolitan foreign policy mandate” in FTA negotiations with non-European countries. European citizens criticize transatlantic FTAs for disregarding fundamental rights and judicial remedies inside the EU. Rather than exercising leadership as a “protector of citizens” in the necessary reforms of “disconnected UN/WTO governance” of transnational PGs by designing FTAs among democracies as “cosmopolitan international law,” the EU institutions prioritize bureaucratic self-interests in reducing legal, democratic, and judicial accountability vis-a-vis citizens in the trade policy area, thereby aggravating the EU’s legitimacy—and rule-of-law-crises.

TTIP/TAFTA Dispute Resolution System: Why a Move to Judges From Arbitrators Raises Concerns about the Treaty

The subject of this article is the current position of arbitration in the context of international dispute resolution mechanisms. The focus is on the emergence of projects to replace arbitration with international courts, in particular the European Commission's proposal to the United States of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, and which is known in the United States as TAFTA—the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement.

When the Sovereign Sleeps: Who Protects Fundamental Rights and Other Public Goodss in Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements?

EU law requires the EU to place ‘the individual at the heart of its activities’, to take ‘decisions as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen’, and protect citizens and their fundamental rights also in the external relations of the EU. Free trade agreements (FTAs) protecting rights and remedies of citizens have been uniquely successful in European integration for providing transnational public goods (PGs) like equal rights of citizens, rule of law, open markets promoting general consumer welfare, and empowerment of citizens to use their ‘republican virtues’ for enforcing trade and competition rules in national and European courts. In FTA negotiations with non-European countries, however, the EU disregards its ‘cosmopolitan foreign policy mandate’ and regulatory ‘consistency’ requirements by emulating intergovernmental power politics of non-European trading countries. Rather than protecting fundamental rights and judicial remedies in domestic courts in economic integration among transatlantic democracies, the EU’s transatlantic FTAs risk undermining fundamental rights and judicial remedies. Parliaments in the EU have not challenged the ‘disempowerment’ of citizens and ‘re-feudalization’ of EU trade policies through intergovernmental trade diplomacy. Citizens challenge interest group politics in transatlantic FTAs and the EU’s neglect for participatory and deliberative democracy and ‘subsidiarity’ in EU trade regulations of transnational ‘market failures’ and ‘governance failures’. The EU’s new ‘investment court provisions’ in recent FTAs (e.g. with Canada) risk ‘re-fragmenting’ international investment law; they are no model for reforming international investment law.

EU Constitutional Law as Restraint for EU Trade and Investment Agreements: The Example of CETA and Investor-State Dispute Settlement

The civil society protests against EU free trade agreements (FTAS) and investment arbitration reflect the failure of EU institutions to take “decisions as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen” (Article 1 TEU) and to protect the rights of citizens also in external market regulations (Articles 3, 21 TEU). The less EU institutions comply with the legal requirements (e.g. in Articles 2, 9–12 TEU) of protecting constitutional, representative, participatory and deliberate democracy also in external market regulations, the less parliamentary approval of secretly negotiated FTAS guarantees democratic legitimacy and consistency of FTAS with EU constitutional law. Fundamental rights limit all EU governance powers, including trade and investment policy powers of the EU. The disregard for fundamental rights and judicial remedies of citizens in FTAS concluded by the EU with third countries is neither necessary nor justifiable in terms of Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Transatlantic FTAS on multilevel market regulation and protection of public goods should be designed as ‘democratic law’, which citizens are entitled to invoke and enforce in domestic jurisdictions as integral parts of EU law.

The European Union’s ‘Cosmopolitan Foreign Policy Constitution’ and Its Disregard in Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements

The universal recognition of human rights promotes international ‘cosmopolitan law’ protecting rights and judicial remedies of citizens in ever more fields of international regulation. Yet, even though free trade agreements (FTAs) protecting rights and remedies of citizens have been uniquely successful in European integration, the European Union (EU)’s ‘cosmopolitan foreign policy mandate’ is increasingly disregarded in FTA negotiations with non-European countries. The EU’s transatlantic FTAs risk undermining fundamental rights and judicial remedies inside the EU. Citizens rightly challenge the interest group politics in designing transatlantic FTAs and the EU’s neglect for participatory and deliberative democracy in EU trade policies on regulating international markets.

Citizens and Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements: How to Reconcile American ‘Constitutional Nationalism’ with European ‘Multilevel Constitutionalism’?

Abstract The free trade agreements (FTAs) of the European Union (EU) aim at protecting transnational public goods (PGs) – such as a rules-based, transatlantic market – that could be progressively extended to other European and North-American FTA members and serve as a model for reforming worldwide trade rules and governance institutions. International law and governance can protect PGs more effectively if citizens are empowered as ‘democratic principals’ to hold multilevel governance institutions legally, democratically and judicially accountable for governance failures. The Lisbon Treaty established a ‘cosmopolitan foreign policy constitution’ requiring ‘protection of its citizens’, ‘strict observance of international law’ and rights-based market regulations also in the EU’s external relations. This contribution criticizes EU policies of disempowering citizens in FTAs and undermining their fundamental rights. Without respect for rule of law, the EU cannot overcome its crises of legitimacy and the distrust of citizens vis-à-vis intergovernmental EU regulations.

Libre comercio: tratados y nuevo orden. Un balance

The free trade is an ancient aspiration, that in essence was born with the economic science in the late eighteenth century, but that has only existed in partial and limited form in the last third of the nineteenth century and until ww1. The birth of the gatt comes after the failure of the Havana Conference and obeys the need of the world powers in the time of the commerce liberalization. It proposes the creation of free trade zones and customs unions as side mechanisms of global free trade. There are more than 400 free trade agreements and Mexico has signed 11 of them (with which it formalizes, but does not start, its economic opening) and also has taken part in two free trade transnational alliances (tpp and Pacific Alliance), which must be carefully analyzed. In the end it's thought around the Transpacific and Transatlantic free trade agreements and their possible influence on the global economy.

Citizens and Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements: How to Reconcile American 'Constitutional Nationalism' with European 'Multilevel Constitutionalism'?

Citizens and Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements: How to Reconcile American 'Constitutional Nationalism' with European 'Multilevel Constitutionalism'?

JIEL Debate: Transformative Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements?

JIEL Debate: Transformative Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements?

Transformative Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements without Rights and Remedies of Citizens?

Evaluations of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) among Canada and the European Union (EU) and of the ongoing EU–US negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) depend on their legal, economic, and political methodologies for multilevel governance of public goods (PGs) like a transatlantic market. In contrast to the American and European post-war leadership for democratic governance of PGs (as recalled in Section I), the CETA fails to adequately protect democratic governance, rights of citizens, and judicial remedies in transatlantic market regulation (Section II). TTIP negotiators likewise prioritize economic and utilitarian group interests in order to limit opposition to a successful completion of TTIP; this risks undermining ‘republican governance’ and rights of citizens as limitations on the longstanding governance failures in the Transatlantic Partnership since the 1990s (Section III). Rather than complying with the EU Treaty requirements to base external free trade agreements (FTAs) on the ‘constitutional values’ that successfully govern market regulation and competition throughout Europe, trade negotiators abuse their ‘executive monopoly’ over transatlantic negotiations so as to limit their own legal, democratic, and judicial accountability vis-a-vis citizens. Civil society and parliaments should resist such ‘disconnected Westphalian governance’ and insist that international treaties with ‘legislative functions’ for protecting transnational PGs must be governed democratically and protect transnational rights and remedies of citizens so as to enable the ‘democratic principals’ to hold governance agents and their limited ‘constituted powers’ more accountable for the ubiquity of ‘market failures’ and ‘governance failures’ that continue to distort transatlantic relations, rule of law, and consumer welfare.

New challenges, new alliances: union politicization in a post-NAFTA era

The ascendency of neoliberalism, anti-state ideologies, and increased corporate power has taken its toll on labor movements around the globe. Today, the proportion of unionized workers in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries is half what it was in the 1970s. I argue that unions are dealing with the crises presented by neoliberal economic integration by entering new political coalitions and nontraditional advocacy areas – particularly relating to immigration, environment, and trade – in an effort to increase their relevance, influence, and allies. I examine how the North American Free Trade Agreement helped politicize unions to move beyond traditional workplace-centered struggles and engage in broader and more diverse political struggles linked at the domestic and the transnational level. Union positions vis-à-vis immigrants have shifted dramatically from supporting draconian legislation to leading a broad-based movement for immigrants' rights. Key unions joined with environmental organizations to advocate for environmental and worker protections through a green economy and green jobs; unions continue their fair trade advocacy, fighting the Tran-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreements and investor–state enforcement mechanisms. In an interesting and important twist, unions' foray into these new arenas in part results directly from the privatization of governance practices, which has undermined democratic processes across the continent.

TTIP: transatlantic free trade at last?

In a radical departure from the transatlantic trade policy practised for several decades, the EU and the USA launched, in 2013, formal negotiations for a comprehensive bilateral Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Drawing on the author's previous professional experience in this area, the article examines two central questions in relation to this initiative. First, what has prompted EU and US political leaders, who have in the past generally prioritized the multilateral route for transatlantic trade and investment liberalization, to opt now for a wide-ranging bilateral transatlantic free trade agreement, an option that has been rejected several times since the early 1990s? Second, what are the chances for a successful outcome this time round, given that the difficulties inherent in the negotiation of a transatlantic FTA have not fundamentally changed in the interim, and given the widespread public opposition that the proposed agreement has aroused? The conclusion reached is that, as for previous abortive proposals for a transatlantic free trade agreement, the motivation is essentially geo-strategic; but that the trade policy challenges inherent in negotiating such an agreement remain as great as ever.

Трансатлантическое торгово-экономическое партнерство

The US and the EU are negotiating a comprehensive Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The main purposes of the agreement are to stimulate economic growth and employment, to facilitate trade and investment and raise competitiveness on both sides of the Atlantic. The US and EU are the biggest trade and investment partners for each other, as well as most important partners for a number of other countries. The Trans-Atlantic free trade agreement would not only facilitate bilateral cooperation, but has a potential to set up new, more advanced international trade and investment rules and practices. The agreement is aimed, among other point, at resolving some of the existing problems in bilateral relations, such as differences in regulatory practices, market access conditions, government procurement, intellectual property rights (IPR) and investor protection. However, some of these differences are deeply inherent in the regulatory systems and have become the reasons for numerous disputes. Despite the fact that the negotiations on TTIP are still in progress, it is already possible to identify and assess the underlying differences that would potentially hamper the creation of deep provisions in the future agreement. The paper aims at analyzing the most difficult areas of negotiations and giving predictions for the future provisions. Firstly, the paper gives an overview of the scope and structure of bilateral relations between the US and EU. Secondly, the authors give detailed analysis of the most important points of the negotiation’s agenda, making stress on the underlying differences in domestic regulation and assessing the depth of those differences. The conclusions are as follows. While some of the areas, such as tariffs, labor and environment, SMEs, state enterprises and others, are relatively easy to agree upon, as both economies are striving to achieve high standards, negotiations on other issues, such as government procurement, NTM regulation and IPR are less likely to achieve high standards.

Time for Tough Love in Transatlantic Relations

The furore that greeted news that negotiations were to start on a transatlantic free trade agreement revealed not only the potential importance of any putative deal, but also the tendency of Europeans to view international politics almost uniquely in economic terms. This neglect of security and broader geostrategic issues is short-sighted and dangerous. It is precisely the liberal world order in place since the Second World War that has allowed Europeans to develop their economic potential. Leaving it to the United States to preserve that order is an increasingly problematic strategy, with the US ever more reluctant to police the world in the way it once did. The US has, for many years, asked its partners to contribute more to the preservation of common security interests. Given the failure of these attempts to date, it might be time for Washington to resort to tougher tactics in an attempt to entice Europeans out of their geostrategic retirement.

The ‘TTIP-ing Point’: How the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Could Impact European Defence

The European Union and the United States are on the verge of agreeing to a transatlantic free trade agreement. The proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is aimed at boosting EU and US economic growth, but the negotiating partners have not excluded the defence sector from negotiations. Europe is at a tipping point regarding the rationale for its defence-industrial integration efforts. Any TTIP extending to the defence sector will raise questions about the nature of the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base, and, crucially, how it impacts the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Common Security and Defence Policy.

Transatlantic Free Trade: An Agenda for Jobs, Growth and Global Trade Leadership

This paper takes stock of the key arguments against a transatlantic free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. It concludes that these arguments are no longer convincing and that it is time to launch negotiations on a free trade agreement. There are two strong reasons for such an agreement. First, it would generate significant economic gains. An elimination of tariffs alone would generate gains sizeable enough to make the effort worthwhile. In combination with a reduction in non-tariff barriers and regulations that inhibit trade in services, the gains would be significantly higher than through any other trade agreement that could realistically be achieved in the medium-term future. Thus, those who argue that sclerotic growth in the West is a strong argument against launching transatlantic trade initiatives fail to understand the economic logic of trade agreements. The EU and the US remain the two largest economies in the world; freer trade between them would generate significant additional growth because they are already large economies. Second, a transatlantic free trade agreement would generate a new dynamic in the world trading system that would make many other countries change their current defensive attitudes towards multilateral liberalisation. It has been demonstrated in the past that significant preferential liberalisation has this effect on other countries. If other countries oppose significant liberalisation—or if they increase their own trade barriers—the best counter-strategy is to press ahead with other forms of liberalisation that increase the costs of the status quo. The Doha Round of trade negotiations has stalled for many years and no change in situation is in sight. In the event that there is liberalisation within the World Trade Organization in the near to medium-term future, it is likely

The deceptive allure of a Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement: A US perspective

The idea of a Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement enjoys strong support in both the United States and Europe. Our author takes a critical view of such an agreement in the light both of his overall assessment of the implications of regional trading pacts for the larger multilateral trading system and of issues raised by the particular details of a US-EU agreement.