Abstract
Pressures have grown on European policy-makers to ensure that geo-economic interests do not come at the cost of the environment and workers’ rights. In light of increased public salience of EU trade deals with third countries, this chapter explores how the EU satisfies sustainability demands in trade agreements and how geopolitical considerations impact the design of specific clauses in recent trade deals with five Asian countries. We argue that while the relative impact of the international level on the design of sustainability clauses is not observable, the EU template allows for potential interactions between the sustainability dimensions of EU and US agreements. This chapter is divided into three parts. The first part provides an overview of the distinct characteristics of so-called Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters in EU trade agreements. We show how the EU’s ‘soft approach’ in the TSD chapters functions in particular contrast to the ‘hard approach’ followed in US trade agreements. In the second section, we explore how far geo-political considerations (‘cooperation’ and ‘competition’ scenarios) in the international sphere are able to explain the soft design of the EU TSD chapters. We come to the conclusion that internal EU dynamics (interests, ideas and institutions) are more likely to set the logic of TSD chapters. In the third section, we compare five TSD chapters in EU trade agreements with Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan and Indonesia, finding further evidence for the EU’s continued use of a more or less coherent template, with some provisions adapted to Asian partner countries’ preferences.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
It should be mentioned that we have added three specific agreements regarding the ‘law of the sea’ to the environmental category. This was done as all TSD chapters mention ‘fisheries’ in the category of environmental protection, even if they are not specifically mentioned by DG Trade.
- 2.
‘A precautionary principle enables decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high’ (Bourguignon 2015).
- 3.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the EU’s FTAs are accompanied by political framework agreements with the partner country (e.g. Partnership and Cooperation Agreement [PCA]). The PCA includes a so-called essential elements clause, allowing for the suspension of an agreement if serious human rights violations occur in a third country (cf. Meissner & McKenzie, in this volume; see also Meissner & McKenzie, 2017). However, in the EU, sanctions have been regarded as ‘“the nuclear option”, i.e. something to be deployed only rarely and reluctantly’ (Campling et al., 2016, p. 361).
- 4.
United States–Viet Nam Plan for the Enhancement of Trade and Labour Relations, signed 4 February 2016 (not yet in force) cl VII(1).
- 5.
The dispute settlement mechanism in the currently negotiated agreement with Indonesia has not yet been published and can therefore only be partly analysed.
- 6.
See EESC members visit Japan to talk trade and sustainable development with authorities and civil society organizations (06/02/2020). https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/news-media/news/eesc-members-visit-japan-talk-trade-and-sustainable-development-authorities-and-civil-society-organisations, https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/how-do-eu-free-trade-agreements-protect-workers/.
- 7.
Indonesia’s Dispute Mechanism has not been drafted yet and can therefore not be included in the analysis at this stage.
- 8.
There is complete closure—in law and in practice—of civic space. An atmosphere of fear and violence prevails, where state and powerful non-state actors are routinely allowed to imprison, seriously injure and kill people with impunity for attempting to exercise their rights to associate, peacefully assemble, and express themselves.
- 9.
Obstructed—‘Civic space is heavily contested by power holders, who impose a combination of legal and practical constraints on the full enjoyment of fundamental rights. Although civil society organizations exist, state authorities undermine them, including through the use of illegal surveillance, bureaucratic harassment, and demeaning public statements…’.
- 10.
Narrowed—‘Whilst the state allows individuals and civil society organizations to exercise their rights to freedom of association, peaceful assembly, and expression, violations of these rights also take place…’.
References
Adriaensen, J.‚ & Postnikov, E. (2022). Geo-economic motives and the negotiation of free trade agreements: Introduction. In J. Adriaensen & E. Postnikov (Eds.), A geo-economic turn in trade policy? EU trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific.
Alston, P. (2006). ‘Core labour standards’ and the transformation of the international labour rights regime. In Social issues, globalisation and international institutions (pp. 1–87). Brill Nijhoff.
Bach, D., & Newman, L. (2007). The European regulatory state and global public policy: Micro-institutions, macro-influence. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(6), 827–846.
Bastiaens, I., & Postnikov, E. (2017). Greening up: The effects of environmental standards in EU and US trade agreements. Environmental Politics, 26(5), 847–869.
Bourguignon, D. (2015). The precautionary principle: Definitions, applications and governance. European Parliament, Think Tank. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_IDA%282015%29573876.
Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels effect how the European Union rules the world. Oxford University Press.
Campling, L., Harrison, J., Richardson, B., & Smith, A. (2016). Working beyond the border? A new research agenda for the evaluation of labour standards EU trade agreements. International Labour Review, 155(3), 357–382.
Charnovitz, S. (1992). Environmental and labour standards in trade. World Economy, 15(3), 335–356.
Civicus. (2019). State of civil society report. https://www.civicus.org/index.php/state-of-civil-society-report-2019. Accessed 11.10.2019.
Congressional Research Service. (2019, August 23). Labor enforcement issues in U.S. FTAs. IF10972 · VERSION 6 · UPDATED. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10972.pdf. Accessed 11.10.2019.
De Ville, F., Orbie, J., & Van den Putte, L. (2016). In-depth analysis: TTIP and labour standards. European Parliament.
DG Trade. (2019). Sustainable development. https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/policy-making/sustainable-development/.
Elsuwege, P. (2020). The nexus between common commercial policy and human rights: Implications of the Lisbon Treaty. In G. Van der Loo & M. Hahn (Eds.), The law and practice of the common commercial policy: The first 10 years after the Treaty of Lisbon. Brill/Martinus Nijhoff.
European Commission. (2021, February 18). Policy review—An open, sustainable and assertive trade policy. COM(221)66. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/february/tradoc_159438.pdf.
Gady, F. (2014). EU/U.S. approaches to data privacy and the “Brussels effect”: A comparative analysis. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 12–23. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/43773645.
Garcia, M., & Masselot, A. (2015). EU-Asia free trade agreements as tools for social norm/legislation transfer. Asia Europe Journal, 13, 241–252.
Gyanchandani, V. (2018). Soft vs hard governance for labour and environmental commitments in trade agreements: Comparing the US and EU approaches.
Harrison, J., Barbu, M., Campling, L., Richardson, B., & Smith, A. (2019). Governing labour standards through free trade agreements: Limits of the European Union's trade and sustainable development chapters. JCMS: Journal of common market studies, 57(2), 260–277.
Hennessy, A., & Winanti, P. (2022). EU-Indonesia trade relations. In J. Adriaensen & E. Postnikov (Eds.), A geo-economic turn in trade policy? EU trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific.
Hilpert, H. G.‚ & Park, S. (2022). The EU-South Korea FTA: A model example for foreign trade policy relations? In J. Adriaensen amp; E. Postnikov (Eds.), A geo-economic turn in trade policy? EU trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific.
Hoang, H. H. (2016). Normative power Europe through trade: Vietnamese perceptions. International Relations, 30(2), 176–205.
Hoang, H. H.‚ & Garcia, M. (2022). The Vietnam-European union free trade agreement: Victim of changing times? In J. Adriaensen & E. Postnikov (Eds.), A geo-economic turn in trade policy? EU trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific.
Horn, H., Mavroidis, P. C., & Sapir, A. (2010). ‘Beyond the WTO? An anatomy of the EU and US preferential trade agreements. The World Economy, 33(11), 1565–1588.
Howse, R. (2021). Putting American workers first for once: Biden’s trade policy. Trade and Sustainability Review, 1(2), 28–35.
Huberman, M. (2012). Odd couple: International trade and labor standards in history. Yale University Press.
ILO. (2020). Ratification by country. International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11001:0::NO:::.
India. (2001). Statement by the Honourable Murasoli Maran. Minister of Commerce and Industry. World Trade Organization, Ministerial Conference, Doha WT/MIN(01)/ST/10.
Indonesia. (1996). Statement by H.E. Mr. Tungky Ariwibowo. Minister of Industry and Trade. World Trade Organization, Ministerial Conference, Singapore WT/MIN(96)/ST/22.
Jinnah, S., & Morgera, E. (2013). Environmental provisions in American and EU free trade agreements: A preliminary comparison and research agenda. Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law, 22(3), 324–339.
Kelemen, R. D., & Vogel, D. (2010). Trading places: The role of the United States and the European Union in international environmental politics. Comparative Political Studies, 43(4), 427–456.
Kerremans, B., & Gistelinck, M. (2009). 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.
Malaysia. (1996). Statement by the Honourable Dato’ Seri Rafidah Aziz. Minister of International Trade and Industry. World Trade Organization, Ministerial Conference, Singapore, WT/MIN(96)/ST/64.
Manners, I. (2009). The social dimension of EU trade policies: Reflections from a normative power perspective. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(5), 785–802.
Martens, D., den Putte, L. V., Oehri, M., & Orbie, J. (2018). Mapping variation of civil society involvement in EU trade agreements: A CSI index. European Foreign Affairs Review, 23(1), 41–62.
Marx, A., Ebert, F., & Hachez, N. (2017). Dispute settlement for labour provisions in EU free trade agreements: Rethinking current approaches. Politics and Governance, 5(4), 49–59.
Mcneill, J. (2020). Exporting environmental objectives or erecting trade barriers in recent EU free trade agreements. Australian & New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 12(1), 40–53.
McKenzie, L., & Meissner, K. L. (2017). Human rights conditionality in European Union trade negotiations: The case of the EU–Singapore FTA. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(4), 832–849.
McKenzie, L., & Meissner, K. L. (2022). EU-Singapore negotiations: Overlapping negotiations, conflicting interests? In J. Adriaensen & E. Postnikov (Eds.), A Geo-Economic turn in trade policy? EU trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific.
Morgera, E. (Ed.). (2012). The external environmental policy of the European Union: EU and international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Morin, J. F.‚ & Cartwright, M. (2022). Intellectual property rights: EU and US initiatives in the Asia-Pacific: Competition, coordination or duplication? In J. Adriaensen & E. Postnikov (Eds.), A geo-economic turn in trade policy? EU trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific.
Morin, J. F., & Rochette, M. (2017). Transatlantic convergence of preferential trade agreements environmental clauses. Business and Politics, 19(4), 621–658.
Morin, J. F., & Jinnah, S. (2018). The untapped potential of preferential trade agreements for climate governance. Environmental Politics, 27(3), 541–565.
Morin, J. F., Dür, A., & Lechner, L. (2018). Mapping the trade and environment nexus: Insights from a new data set. Global Environmental Politics, 18(1), 122–139.
Oehri, M. (2015). Comparing US and EU labour governance ‘near and far’—Hierarchy vs network? Journal of European Public Policy, 22(5), 731–749.
Oehri, M. (2017). US and EU external labor governance: Workers’ rights promotion in trade agreements and in practice. Springer.
Orbie, J. (2011). Promoting labour standards through trade: Normative power or regulatory state Europe? In Normative power Europe (pp. 161–184). Palgrave Macmillan.
Poletti, A., & Sicurelli, D. (2016). The European union, preferential trade agreements and the inter-national regulation of sustainable biofuels. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(2), 249–266.
Postnikov, E., & Bastiaens, I. (2014). Does dialogue work? The effectiveness of labor standards in EU preferential trade agreements. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(6), 923–940.
Postnikov, E. (2020). Social standards in EU and US trade agreements. Routledge.
Sicurelli, D. (2015). The EU as a norm promoter through trade: The perceptions of Vietnamese elites. Asia Europe Journal, 13(1), 23–39.
Tham, J. C., & Ewing, K. D. (2016). Labour clauses in the TPP and TTIP: A comparison without a difference? Melbourne Journal of International Law, 17(2), 1–35.
Vogel, D. (1995). Trading up: Consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy. Harvard University Press.
Young, A. R., & Peterson, J. (2014). Parochial global Europe: 21st century trade politics. Oxford University Press.
Young, A. (2015). Liberalizing trade, not exporting rules: The limits to regulatory co-ordination in the EU’s ‘new generation’ preferential trade agreements. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(9), 1253–1275.
Young, A. (2022). Product regulations: You can drive my car, otherwise let it be. In J. Adriaensen & E. Postnikov (Eds.), A geo-economic turn in trade policy? EU trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the editors for careful editing and insightful suggestions that have informed different parts of our analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Annex
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nessel, C., Orbie, J. (2022). Sustainable Development in EU–Asia Trade Relations. In: Adriaensen, J., Postnikov, E. (eds) A Geo-Economic Turn in Trade Policy?. The European Union in International Affairs. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81281-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81281-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-81280-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-81281-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)