EU-Asia Free Trade Agreements as tools for social norm/legislation transfer

Abstract

Article 21 of the Treaty of Lisbon mandates the European Union (EU) to foster its values (democracy, the rule of law, social rights, gender equality, etc.) in its external relations. The core concern of the EU’s multi-faceted relations with Asia is economic relations with rising markets. EU relations with the region have focused on the facilitation of trade and investment through the negotiation of free trade agreements (FTAs) with a number of Asian partners. EU FTAs are accompanied by a Political Cooperation Agreement (PCA), which links core EU values to trade through the ‘standard clause’, whereby under certain circumstances, human rights’ abuses can trigger a suspension of trade preferences. Using a qualitative case study methodology, and drawing on policy documents and interviews, this paper addresses the question of whether, and how, the EU can balance its internal legal obligations with its economic interests and its partners’ demands. The article provides a legal background of the EU’s obligations in terms of international value promotion. It then reviews EU trade policy strategies and reveals an absence of a concerted approach to the inclusion of values. The article investigates the sources of resistance to EU attempts at linking its trade policy with broader values including social rights with Asian partners. The analysis reveals that Asian resistance is centred on the legalistic approach of the EU rather than the values and suggests that a more effective norm export might be achieved through other means. The article concludes that the EU’s failure to push forward social issues in FTAs ultimately casts serious doubts about the EU’s international ‘actorness’ in the area of social rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The member states of the European Union are members of the ILO and signatory parties to most of the ILO conventions.

  2. 2.

    These differences in approach have stymied various attempts to include labour standards at the WTO level. Instead, at the 1996 WTO Singapore Ministerial meeting, it was agreed that the ILO, and not the WTO, was the appropriate forum for discussions of labour standards. Unlike the WTO, the ILO lacks an enforceable dispute settlement mechanism.

  3. 3.

    The European Parliament has also stressed that in the interest of consistency and coherence the EU-Canada Framework Agreement and Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) must also include the linkage, despite Canada’s aggressive opposition to this. At the time of writing, CETA’s conclusion has been announced but the documents have yet to be made public.

  4. 4.

    It is broadly interpreted that the clause will only be invoked in a case of a strong deterioration of the status quo at the time of the agreement. Singapore, for instance, still has the death penalty in the stature books, even though no execution has taken place since 2009.

  5. 5.

    As no cases have been brought forward yet, we cannot assess the level of commitment of the parties and how significant the issue of expert advice and peer pressure will be in enacting behavioural and policy change.

  6. 6.

    EU negotiators admit that they, and their counterparts, know from the outset of negotiations that the EU will have to ‘pay’ for the inclusion of social clauses and for the values ‘pasarelle clause’ by granting partners greater access to the EU’s agricultural market or accepting reduced EU market access to the partner and making concessions in other areas (various Interviews, Brussels, October 2013).

References

  1. Aggestam L (2008) Introduction: ethical power Europe? Int Aff 84(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allwood G, Guerrina R, MacRae H (2013) Unintended consequences of EU policies: reintegrating gender in European studies. Women's Stud Int Forum 39:1–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bain J, Masselot A (2013) Gender equality law and identity building for Europe. Canterbury Law Rev 18:99–120

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 14(5):703–742

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chaban N, Kelly S, Holland M (2015) Perceptions of ‘Normative Power Europe’ in the shadow of the Eurozone debt crisis: public perspectives on European integration from the Asia Pacific. The value of gender equality in the EU-Asian Trade Policy: an assessment of the EU’s ability to implement its own legal obligations. In: Björkdahl A, Chaban N, Leslie J, Masselot A (eds) Importing EU Norms? Conceptual framework and empirical findings. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, Cham Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London p 57–77

  6. Cuyvers L, Kerremans B (eds) (1998) The international social issue. Social dumping and social competition in the global economy. Intersentia ECONOMISCHE Wetenschappen, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  7. Elgström O (2007) Outsiders’ perceptions of the European Union in International Trade Negotiations. J Common Mark Stud 45(4):949–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eriksen EO (2006) The EU—a cosmopolitan polity? J Eur Public Policy 1(2):252–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. European Commission (2006) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 4 October 2006 “Global Europe: Competing in the world”. COM(2016) 567

  10. European Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC) (2011) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The role of civil society in the free trade agreement between the EU and India. REX/316 EESC-2011-1612, Brussels, 27.10.2011

  11. European Parliament (2011) European Parliament Resolution of 11 May 2011 on the State of Play in the EU-India Free Trade Agreement Negotiations, Strasbourg, N. P7_TA_PROV (2011) 0224

  12. Garcia M (2013) From idealism to realism: EU preferential trade agreement policy. J Contemp Eur Res 9(4):521–541

    Google Scholar 

  13. Garcia M, Masselot A (2015) The value of gender equality in the EU-Asian trade policy: an assessment of the EU’s ability to implement its own legal obligations. In: Björkdahl A, Chaban N, Leslie J, Masselot A (eds) Importing EU norms? Conceptual framework and empirical findings. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, Cham Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, p 191–209

  14. Hafner-Burton E (2005) Trading human rights: how preferential trade agreements influence government repression. Int Organ 59(3):593–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hyde-Price A (2006) Normative power Europe: a realist critique. J Eur Public Policy 13(2):217–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaber N (2004) Globalisation, labour standards and women’s rights: dilemmas of collective (in) action in an interdependent world. Fem Econ 10(1):3–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Khorana S, Garcia M (2013) European Union-India negotiations: one step forward, one step back. J Common Mark Stud 51(4):684–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kolben K (2006) The new politics of linkage: India’s opposition to the workers’ rights clause. Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 13:225–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Langan M (2012) Normative power Europe and the moral economy of Africa–EU ties. New Polit Econ 7(3):243–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lightfoot S, Burchell J (2005) The European Union at the world summit on sustainable development: normative power Europe in action. J Common Mark Stud 43(1):75–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Manners I (2002) Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms? J Common Mark Stud 40(2):235–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Manners I (2006) The European Union as a normative power: a response to Thomas Diez. Millennium J Int Stud 35(1):167–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Manners I (2008) The normative ethics of the European Union. Int Aff 84(1):45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Manners I, Whitman R (2003) The ‘difference engine’: constructing and representing the international identity of the European Union. J Eur Public Policy 10(3):380–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McGuire S, Lindeque J (2010) The diminishing returns to trade policy in the European Union. J Common Mark Stud 48(5):1329–1349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ohlin B (1956) Social aspects of european economic co-operation: report by a group of expert. Int Labour Rev 102

  27. Orbie J et al (2005) EU trade policy and a social clause: a question of competences? Polit Eur 3(17):159–187

    Google Scholar 

  28. Orbie J, Khorana S (2015) Normative versus market power Europe? The EU-India trade agreement. Asia Europe Journal. doi:10.1007/s10308-015-0427-9 z

  29. Schimmelfennig F (2001) The community trap: liberal norms, rhetorical actions, and the eastern enlargement of the European Union. Int Organ 55(1):47–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shen W (2015) ‘The EU’s Promotion of Human Rights: the case of Tibet’. In: Björkdahl A, Chaban N, Leslie J, Masselot A (eds) Importing EU norms? Conceptual framework and Empirical findings. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, Cham Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, p 231–246

  31. Spaak P-H (1956) Intergovernmental Committee on European Integration. The Brussels Report on the General Common Market (abridged, English translation of document commonly called the Spaak Report) [June 1956]. Available online: http://aei.pitt.edu/995/ Accessed 08 June 2014

  32. Van Roozendaal G (2002) Trade unions and global governance. The debate on a social clause. Continuum, London

    Google Scholar 

  33. Vogler J, Stephen H (2007) The European Union in global environmental governance: leadership in the making? Int Environ Agreements 7:389–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Whitman R (ed) (2011) Normative power Europe: empirical and theoretical perspectives. Palgrave, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  35. Youngs R (2004) Normative dynamics and strategic interests in the EU’s external identity. J Common Mark Stud 42(2):415–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

Cases

  1. C-270/97 Deutsche Post /Sievers & Schrage [2000] ECR I-929

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annick Masselot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garcia, M., Masselot, A. EU-Asia Free Trade Agreements as tools for social norm/legislation transfer. Asia Eur J 13, 241–252 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-015-0423-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • European Union
  • Fair Trade
  • World Trade Organisation
  • International Labour Organisation
  • Free Trade Agreement