Abstract
The book’s introduction draws attention to the increasing trend of linking labor standards to trade policy. In order to systematically examine how the USA and the EU promote workers’ rights in trade agreements and in practice, Oehri offers an innovative theoretical framework, which is informed by the external governance literature. The suggested ideal types of external labor governance, comprising sanction-based enforcement mechanisms as well as cooperative dialog and assistance, enable to comparatively assess US and EU labor standards promotion in third states. In “International Promotion of Labor Standards” Oehri furthermore introduces the methodological approach consisting of a qualitative comparative case study design and highlights why Mexico, Morocco, and the Dominican Republic are target states highly promising for an assessment from an external labor governance perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Normally, PTAs are starting points for FTAs. Despite the difference between PTAs and FTAs, the terms are often used interchangeably, and this will be adopted in the context of this study.
- 2.
- 3.
For exceptions on the USA, see, for instance, Compa (1995); Finbow (2006); Kay (2011); Nolan García (2011a, 2011b); and International Labor Organization (2013, 2016); for exceptions on the EU, see, for instance, Bartels (2005); Van den Putte (2015); and International Labor Organization (2013, 2016).
- 4.
For exceptions, see, for instance, Behrens and Janusch (2012).
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
For an exception, see Kahn-Nisser’s (2014) study on the effects of EU and ILO labor rights monitoring in the EU accession countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
- 8.
The justification for highlighting governance through hierarchy and governance through network is a result of the research focus on institutional governance in which the actors involved are assumed to interact in a conscious and projected manner with each other. In a market mode of governance, defined as the third governance mode (Lavenex & Schimmelfennig, 2009, pp. 799–800), however, forms of coordination occur unintendedly (Czada, 2007, p. 68) and spontaneously (Hayek, 1973, p. 115; Williamson, 1996, p. 145); the interaction stereotypically evolves in a self-interested, non-cooperative, and unconstrained fashion (Powell, 1990, p. 302).
- 9.
One could claim that in PTAs, in which international or even the governance receivers’ domestic labor provisions are protected and enforced rather than those of the governance providers, there is no rule extension and therefore no hierarchical governance mode. However, it is argued here that as long as an agreement allows for reaction to violations of labor standards of any kind, one can certainly speak of labor governance through hierarchy.
- 10.
In EU external governance, such coordination often takes place in bilateral or regional Joint or Association Councils and Committees as well as specific subcommittees that are established between the EU and the third parties in trade and/or association agreements (Lavenex & Schimmelfennig, 2009, p. 798). In the context of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), for instance, jointly agreed Action Plans are usually used to set the EU’s and its partner country’s objectives and agenda (Lavenex, 2008, p. 944; Lavenex & Schimmelfennig, 2009, p. 798; see also Van Hüllen, 2012).
- 11.
Civil society actors can also play a pivotal role in the context of political and judicial enforcement, namely in initiating proceedings (Abbott et al., 2000, p. 416). The potential openness for actors other than state, governmental, and arbitral actors in the context of the enforcement of labor rights does not make it more network-based. Rather, such an access creates new opportunities for civil society (Keohane, Moravcsik, & Slaughter, 2000, p. 485) and therefore makes it even more hierarchical.
- 12.
The distinction between rule selection, adoption, and application, as suggested by Lavenex and Schimmelfennig (2009), has been questioned as corresponding to “a hierarchical understanding of implementation” and therefore overlooking “complex inter-organizational co-operation” (Wunderlich, 2012, p. 1428).
- 13.
The EU and the USA might have engaged in labor rights activities and affected labor conditions in third states even before an agreement was concluded (see also Kim, 2012). This analysis, however, is interested in the texts of the agreements (de jure) and the engagement in the post-agreements period (de facto) only.
- 14.
Given that some agreements have been in effect longer than others, the former will likely have realized more activities with regard to labor standards enforcement and promotion. The amount of and expenses for such activities, however, are less of interest to this study than whether hierarchical and network-based interaction to support labor rights have been carried out per se. This can be legitimized as many and/or expensive initiatives do not necessarily lead to better protection of workers’ rights than few and/or cheap activities. Indeed, labor rights such as safety and health in the workplace – also referred to as “cash standards” – might be protected easily and with little money by, for instance, providing fire extinguishers or escape doors in manufactories (Elliott & Freeman, 2003, p. 13).
- 15.
These are the Forced Labor Convention (No. 29), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention (No. 87), the Equal Remuneration Convention (No. 100), the Abolition of Forced Labor Convention (No. 105), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (No. 111), the Minimum Age Convention (No. 138) (Minimum age specified: 15 years), and the Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention (No. 182).
- 16.
See also the report published in 2004 by the US Department of Labor (USDOL) on Laws Governing Exploitative Child Labor in Morocco, available on the USDOL website at http://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/pdf/childlaborreport.pdf (accessed December 2013).
- 17.
These are the Forced Labor Convention (No. 29), the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98), the Equal Remuneration Convention (No. 100), the Abolition of Forced Labor Convention (No. 105), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (No. 111), the Minimum Age Convention (No. 138) (Minimum age specified: 15 years), and the Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention (No. 182).
- 18.
2005 Labor Rights Report on Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua by the USDOL, available on the USDOL website at http://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/pdf/DRLaborRights.pdf (accessed December 2013).
- 19.
These are the Forced Labor Convention (No. 29), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention (No. 87), the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98), the Equal Remuneration Convention (No. 100), the Abolition of Forced Labor Convention (No. 105), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (No. 111), the Minimum Age Convention (No. 138) (Minimum age specified: 14 years), and the Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention (No. 182).
- 20.
Information available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO:::; on the HRW website at https://www.hrw.org/publications; and on the ITUC website at http://survey.ituc-csi.org/?lang=en (accessed March 2016).
- 21.
Information available on the ITUC website at http://survey.ituc-csi.org/ITUC-Global-Rights-Index.html?lang=en (accessed March 2016).
- 22.
Information available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/ipec/Informationresources/WCMS_211599/lang–en/index.htm (accessed March 2016).
- 23.
Information available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO::: (accessed March 2016).
- 24.
Information available on the Global Slavery Index website at http://www.globalslaveryindex.org (accessed March 2016).
- 25.
Information available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO::: (accessed March 2016).
- 26.
Information available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO::: and on the ITUC website at http://survey.ituc-csi.org/?lang=en (accessed March 2016).
- 27.
Information available on the ITUC website at http://survey.ituc-csi.org/ITUC-Global-Rights-Index.html?lang=en (accessed March 2016).
- 28.
Information available on the Global Slavery Index website at http://www.globalslaveryindex.org (accessed March 2016).
- 29.
Information available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO::: (accessed March 2016).
- 30.
Information available on the HRW websites at https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/morocco1012ForUpload_2_0.pdf and https://www.hrw.org/publications (accessed March 2016).
- 31.
Information available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO::: (accessed March 2016).
- 32.
ILO CEACR observation of 2013, available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO::: (accessed March 2016).
- 33.
Information available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO::: (accessed March 2016).
- 34.
Information available on the ITUC website at http://survey.ituc-csi.org/ITUC-Global-Rights-Index.html?lang=en (accessed March 2016).
- 35.
Information available on the Global Slavery Index website at http://www.globalslaveryindex.org (accessed March 2016).
- 36.
Information available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO::: (accessed March 2016).
- 37.
Information available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO::: and on the ITUC website at http://survey.ituc-csi.org/?lang=en (accessed March 2016).
- 38.
See HRW report of 2004, available at http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/07/12/test-inequality and ILO CEACR observation of 2015, available at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO::: (accessed March 2016).
- 39.
Information available on the ILO website at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20010:0::NO::: (accessed March 2016).
- 40.
Interviewees were selected according to their expertise and experience as well as based on recommendations from former interviewees, also referred to as snowball sampling (Lynch, 2013, p. 41). With some of the interviewees more than one conversation was held (counted only as one interview). Some information was provided by the interviewees in a written manner. This is indicated in the text as “personal communication.”
References
Aaronson, S. A., & Zimmerman, J. M. (2008). Trade imbalance: The struggle to weigh human rights concerns in trade policymaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M., & Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), 401–419.
Adriaensen, J., & González-Garibay, M. (2013). The illusion of choice: The European Union and the trade-labor linkage. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 542–559.
Aspinwall, M. (2013). Side effects: Mexican governance under NAFTA’s labor and environmental agreements. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Baccini, L., Dür, A., Elsig, M., & Milewicz, K. (2011). The design of preferential trade agreements: A new dataset in the making. WTO Staff Working Paper, Economic Research and Statistics Division, Geneva: World Trade Organization.
Bach, D., & Newman, A. L. (2007). The European regulatory state and global public policy: Micro-institutions, macro-influence. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(6), 827–846
Bartels, L. (2005). Human rights conditionality in the EU’s international agreements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bartow, A. M. (1990). The rights of workers in Mexico. Comparative Labor Law Journal, 11, 182–202.
Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Befort, S. E., & Cornett, V. E. (1996). Beyond the rhetoric of the NAFTA treaty debate: A comparative analysis of labor and employment law in Mexico and the United States. Comparative Labor Law Journal, 17, 269–313.
Behrens, M., & Janusch, H. (2012). Great “normative power:” The European and American trade approaches with Chile and Mexico. European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(3), 367–386.
Benz, A., Breitmeier, H., Schimank, U., & Simonis, G. (2011). Vorwort. In G. Simonis & H. Elbers (Eds.), Externe EU-Governance (pp. 11–12). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bernier, B. L. (2003). Sugar cane slavery: Bateyes in the Dominican Republic. New England Journal of International and Comparative Law, 9(1), 17–45.
Blatter, J., & Haverland, M. (2012). Designing case studies: Explanatory approaches in small-N research. Research Methods Series. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blatter, J., Janning, F., & Wagemann, C. (2007). Qualitative Politikanalyse: Eine Einführung in Forschungsansätze und Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Börzel, T. A. (2010). European governance: Negotiation and competition in the shadow of hierarchy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(2), 191–219.
Bossuyt, F. (2009). The social dimension of the new generation of EU free trade agreements with Asia and Latin America: Ambitious continuation for the sake of policy coherence. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(5), 703–722.
Bronstein, A. (2009). International and comparative labour law: Current challenges. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan/Geneva: International Labour Organization.
Buchanan, R., & Chaparro, R. (2008). International institutions and transnational advocacy: The case of the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation. CLPE Research Paper Series No. 22, 4(5), 1–37.
Burgoon, B. (2009). The distinct politics of the European Union’s “fair trade” linkage to labour standards. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(5), 643–661.
Cammett, M., & Pripstein Posusney, M. (2010). Labor standards and labor market flexibility in the Middle East: Free trade and freer unions? Studies in Comparative International Development, 45(2), 250–279.
Campling, L., Harrison, J., Richardson, B., & Smith, A. (2016). Working beyond the border? A new research agenda for the evaluation of labour standards in EU trade agreements. International Labour Review, 155(3), 357–382.
Chase, C., Yanovich, A., Crawford, J.-A., & Ugaz, P. (2013). Mapping of dispute settlement mechanisms in regional trade agreements: Innovative or variations on a theme? Staff Working Paper ERSD, July, Geneva: World Trade Organization.
Christiansen, T., Petito, F., & Tonra, B. (2000). Fuzzy politics around fuzzy borders: The European Union’s “near abroad.” Cooperation and Conflict, 35(4), 389–415.
Compa, L. (1995). The first NAFTA labor cases: A new international labor rights regime takes shape. U.S.-Mexico Law Journal, 3, 159–181.
Czada, R. (2007). Markt. In A. Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schimank, & G. Simonis (Eds.), Handbuch Governance: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder (pp. 68–81). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Dawar, K. (2008). Assessing labour and environmental regimes in regional trading agreements. Working Paper No. 55(8), Society of International Economic Law.
De Ville, F., & Siles-Brügge, G. (2016). TTIP: The truth about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Cambridge and Malden: Policy Press.
Deacon, B. (2007). Global social policy and governance. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC: Sage.
Doumbia-Henry, C., & Gravel, E. (2006). Free trade agreements and labour rights: Recent developments. International Labour Review, 145(3), 185–206.
Drezner, D. (2007). All politics is global: Explaining international regulatory regimes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dür, A., Baccini, L., & Elsig, M. (2014). The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset. Review of International Organizations, 9(3), 353–375.
Ebert, F. C., & Posthuma, A. (2011). Labour provisions in trade arrangements: Current trends and perspectives. ILO Discussion Paper No. 205, Geneva.
Elliott, K. A. (2004). Labor standards, development, and CAFTA. International Economics Policy Briefs No. PB04-2, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics and the Center for Global Development.
Elliott, K. A., & Freeman, R. B. (2003). Can labor standards improve under globalization?. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Evans, G., & Newnham, J. (1998). The penguin dictionary of international relations, available at http://www.himalayancrossings.com/pdf/course/resource/penguin_dictionary.pdf (accessed May 2014).
Finbow, R. G. (2006). The limits of regionalism: NAFTA’s labour accord. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Frundt, H. J. (1998). Trade conditions and labor rights: U.S. initiatives, Dominican and Central American responses. Gainesville, FL: Florida University Press.
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.
Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
González-Garibay, M. (2009). The trade-labour linkage from the eyes of the developing countries: A euphemism for protectionist practices. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(5), 763–784.
Grynberg, R., & Qalo, V. (2006). Labour standards in US and EU preferential trade agreements. Journal of World Trade, 40(4), 619–653.
Haass, R. N. (1998). Introduction. In R. N. Haass (Ed.), Economic sanctions and American diplomacy (pp. 1–9). New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
Haass, R. N., & O’Sullivan, M. L. (2000). Introduction. In R. N. Haass & M. L. O’Sullivan (Ed.), Honey and vinegar: Incentives, sanctions, and foreign policy (pp. 1–11). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Hafner-Burton, E. (2009). Forced to be good: Why trade agreements boost human rights. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hassel, A. (2008). The evolution of a global labour governance regime. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 21(2), 231–251.
Hayek, F. A. (1973). Law, legislation and liberty, volume 1: Rules and order. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hendrickx, F., Marx, A., Rayp, G., & Wouters, J. (2016). The architecture of global labor governance. International Labour Review, 155(3), 339–355.
Horn, H., Mavroidis, P. C., & Sapir, A. (2010). Beyond the WTO? An anatomy of EU and US preferential trade agreements. The World Economy, 33(1), 1565–1588.
International Labor Organization. (2013). Social dimensions of free trade agreements. IILS Studies on Growth with Equity, Geneva: ILO.
International Labor Organization. (2016). Assessment of labour provisions in trade and investment agreements. Studies on Growth with Equity, Geneva: ILO.
Kahn-Nisser, S. (2014). External governance, convention ratification and monitoring: The EU, the ILO and labour standards in EU accession countries. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 20(4), 383–398.
Kay, T. (2011). NAFTA and the politics of labor transnationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kenner, J. (2011). Labour clauses in EU preferential trade agreements: An analysis of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. In K. W. Bagwell & P. C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Preferential trade agreements: A law and economics analysis (pp. 180–209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., & Slaughter, A.-M. (2000). Legalized dispute resolution: Interstate and transnational. International Organization, 54(3), 457–488.
Kerremans, B., & Martins Gistelinck, M. (2009a). Interest aggregation, political parties, labour standards and trade: Differences in the US and EU approaches to the inclusion of labour standards in international trade agreements. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(5), 683–701.
Kerremans, B., & Martins Gistelinck, M. (2009b). Labour rights in EPAs: Can the EU-CARIFORUM EPA be a guide?. In G. Faber & J. Orbie (Eds.), Beyond market access for economic development: EU-Africa relations in transition (pp. 304–321). London and New York: Routledge.
Kim, M. (2012). Ex ante due diligence: Formation of PTAs and protection of labor rights. International Studies Quarterly, 56(4), 704–719.
Kissack, R. (2009). How to lose friends and alienate people? Uploading European labour standards into the ILO. Journal of European Social Policy, 19(2), 104–107.
Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2009). Hierarchy, networks, or market: How does the EU shape environmental policy adoptions within and beyond its borders? Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), 873–894.
Lavenex, S. (2004). EU external governance in “wider Europe”. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 680–700.
Lavenex, S. (2008). A governance perspective on the European neighborhood policy: Integration beyond conditionality? Journal of European Public Policy, 15(6), 938–955.
Lavenex, S. (2014). The power of functionalist extension: How EU rules travel. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(6), 885–903.
Lavenex, S., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). EU rules beyond borders: Theorizing external governance in European politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), 791–812.
Lavenex, S., Lehmkuhl, D., & Wichmann, N. (2009). Modes of external governance: A cross-national and cross-sectoral comparison. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), 813–833.
Lazo Grandi, P. (2009). Trade agreements and their relation to labour standards. Issue Paper No. 3, Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.
Lipset, S. M. (1996). American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword. New York and London: W.W. Norton.
Lynch, J. F. (2013). Aligning sampling strategies with analytic goals. In L. Mosley (Ed.), Interview research in political science (pp. 31–44). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms?. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.
Manners, I. (2008). The normative ethics of the European Union. International Affairs, 84(1), 45–60.
Manners, I. (2009). The social dimension of EU trade policies: Reflections from a normative power perspective. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14, 785–803.
Marx, A., Wouters, J., Rayp, G., & Beke, L. (Eds.) (2015). Global governance of labour rights: Assessing the effectiveness of transnational public and private policy initiatives. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Mayer, F. (1998). Interpreting NAFTA: The science and art of political analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
Meardi, G., & Marginson, P. (2013). Global labour governance: Potential and limits of an emerging perspective. Paper prepared for the 2013 Work, Employment and Society Conference, Warwick, available at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/research/irru/publications/recentconf/glg-wes.pdf (accessed January 2015).
Meléndez-Ortiz, R. (2009). Foreword. In P. Lazo Grandi (Ed.), Trade agreements and their relation to labour standards (pp. v–vi). Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper No. 3.
Milner, H. V. (1997). Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Murillo, M. V., & Schrank, A. (2005). With a little help from my friends: Partisan politics, transnational alliances, and labor rights in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 38(8), 971–999.
Nolan García, K. A. (2010). Enforcement by design: The legalization of labor rights mechanisms in US trade policy. México, DF: Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas.
Nolan García, K. A. (2011a). The evolution of United States-Mexico labor cooperation (1994–2009): Achievements and challenges. Politics & Policy, 39(1), 91–117.
Nolan García, K. A. (2011b). Transnational advocates and labor rights enforcement in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Latin American Politics and Society, 53(2), 29–60.
Nye, J. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153–171.
Oehri, M. (2015a). Comparing US and EU labour governance “near and far:” Hierarchy vs. network?. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(5), 731–749.
Oehri, M. (2015b). EU and US governance of labor provisions in the Dominican Republic: De jure and de facto. Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations, 89, 93–112.
Orbie, J. (2011). Promoting labour standards through trade: Normative power or regulatory state Europe?. In R. G. Whitman (Ed.), Normative power Europe: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 160–183). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1996). Trade, employment and labour standards: A study of core workers’ rights and international trade. Paris: OECD.
Payne, A. (2000). Globalization and modes of regionalist governance. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance (pp. 201–218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Polaski, S. (2004). Protecting labor rights through trade agreements: An analytical guide. Journal of International Law and Policy, 10(13), 13–25.
Porges, A. (2011). Dispute settlement. In J. Chauffour & J. Maur (Eds.), Preferential trade agreement policies for development: A handbook (pp. 467–501). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Postnikov, E. (2013). Lobbying for good: Social standards in EU and U.S. trade agreements. Paper prepared for the European Union Studies Association Biennial Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.
Risse, T., & Ropp, S. C. (2014). Introduction and overview. In T. Risse, S. C. Ropp, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The persistent power of human rights: From commitment to compliance (pp. 3–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosell, S. A. E. A. (1992). Governing in an information society. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
Rosenau, J. N. (1992). Governance, order, and change in world politics. In J. N. Rosenau & E.-O. Czempiel (Eds.), Governance without government: Order and change in world politics (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenau, J. N. (1995). Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance, 1(1), 13–43.
Sari, D., & Kucera, D. (2011). Measuring progress towards the application of freedom of association and collective bargaining rights: A tabular presentation of the findings of the ILO supervisory system. Working Paper No. 99, Geneva: Policy Integration Department International Labour Office.
Sbragia, A. (2011). The EU, the US, and trade policy: Competitive interdependence in the management of globalization. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(3), 368–382.
Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (2004). Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 661–679.
Schimmelfennig, F., & Wagner, W. (2004). Preface: External governance in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 657–660.
Schrank, A. (2013). From disguised protectionism to rewarding regulation: The impact of trade-related labor standards in the Dominican Republic. Regulation & Governance, 7(3), 299–320.
Stallings, B. (2010). Globalization and labor in four developing regions: An institutional approach. Studies in Comparative International Development, 45(2), 127–150.
Tömmel, I. (2009). Modes of governance and the institutional structure of the European Union. In I. Tömmel & A. Verdun (Eds.), Innovative governance in the European Union (pp. 9–26). Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Van den Putte, L. (2015). Involving civil society in social clauses and the decent work agenda. Global Labour Journal, 6(2), 221–235.
Van den Putte, L., Bossuyt, F., Orbie, J., & De Ville, F. (2013). Social norms in EU bilateral trade agreements: A comparative overview, Centre for the Law of EU External Relations Working Paper No. 4, The Hague.
Van Hüllen, V. (2012). Europeanisation through cooperation? EU democracy promotion in Morocco and Tunisia. West European Politics, 35(1), 117–134.
Vandenberghe, J. (2008). On carrots and sticks: The social dimension of EU trade policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 13, 561–581.
Weiss, M. S. (2003). Two steps forward, one step back - or vice versa: Labor rights under free trade agreements from NAFTA, through Jordan, via Chile, to Latin America, and beyond. University of San Francisco Law Review, 37, 689–756.
Weiss, T. G. (2000). Governance, good governance and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges. Third World Quarterly, 21(5), 795–814.
Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wunderlich, D. (2012). The limits of external governance: Implementing EU external migration policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(9), 1414–1433.
Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC: Sage.
Farrell, M. (2005). EU external relations: Exporting the EU model of governance? European Foreign Affairs Review, 10(4), 451–462.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Oehri, M. (2017). Introduction: International Promotion of Labor Standards. In: US and EU External Labor Governance. The European Union in International Affairs. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49301-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49301-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49300-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-49301-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)