The European Union as an Actor in International Trade Relations

Chapter
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

Trade is arguably the EU’s most highly centralised policy domain. It therefore represents a crucial case study for characterising the Union as an international actor. To this end, this chapter analyses the EU’s trade policy with regards to objectives, instruments, style, and decision-making procedures. Drawing on a variety of examples, including the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations with developing countries, the chapter finds that in the field of trade, the EU acts more along the lines of a great power than a civilian or normative power.

Keywords

European Union World Trade Organisation Trade Policy Free Trade Agreement Dispute Settlement Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. ACP Council of Ministers (2006). Decision on the EPAs. ACP/25/006/06.Google Scholar
  2. ACP Council of Ministers (2007). Ministerial Declaration. ACP/25/013/07.Google Scholar
  3. Aggarwal, V. K., & Fogarty, E. A. (2004). Explaining trends in EU interregionalism. In V. K. Aggarwal & E. A. Fogarty (Eds.), EU trade strategies: between regionalism and globalism (pp. 207–240). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Antkiewicz, A., & Bessma, M. (2009). Pursuing geopolitical stability through interregional trade: the EU’s motives for negotiating with the gulf cooperation council. Journal of European Integration, 31(2), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aust, A. (2000). Modern treaty law and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baldwin, M. (2006). EU trade politics—heaven or hell? Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 926–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bilal, S. (1998). Political economy Considerations on the supply of trade protection in regional integration agreements. Journal of Common Market Studies, 36(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blackhurst, R. (1998). The capacity of the WTO to fulfill its mandate. In A. Krueger (Ed.), The WTO as an International Organization (pp. 31–58). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bora, B., Cernat, L., & Turrini, A. (2002). Duty and quota-free access for LDCs: further evidence from CGE modelling. Geneva: UNCTAD.Google Scholar
  10. Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a global actor (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, A. G., & Stern, R. M. (2005). Concepts of Fairness in the Global Trading System. RSIE Discussion Papers, 544(November 25).Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A. G., & Stern, R. M. (2010a). Fairness in the WTO Trading System. http://ipc.umich.edu/working-papers/pdfs/ipc-109-brown-stern-fairness-wto-trading-system.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2011.
  13. Brown, A. G., & Stern, R. M. (2010b). Free trade agreements and governance of the global trading system. http://ipc.umich.edu/working-papers/pdfs/ipc-113-brown-stern-free-trade-agreements-governance-global-trading-system.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2011.
  14. Busch, M., & Reinhardt, E. (2003). Developing countries and the GATT/WTO dispute settlement. Journal of World Trade, 37(4), 719–735.Google Scholar
  15. Commission, E. (2004). Trade policy in the Prodi commission: an assessment. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  16. Council of the European Union (2006). Council conclusions following the commission’s communication “Global Europe: Competing in the World. Brussels.Google Scholar
  17. Crowell & Moring (2005). Interim evaluation of the European union’s trade barrier regulation (TBR). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/october/tradoc_125451.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2012.
  18. DEFRA and HM Treasury (2005). A vision for the common agricultural policy. http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/vision.htm. Accessed 5 June 2010.
  19. Defraigne, P. (2002). New Regionalism and Global Economic Governance. United Nations University CRIS Working Paper, W-2002(2)Google Scholar
  20. Dimopoulos, A. (2010). The effects of the Lisbon treaty on the principles and objectives of the common commercial policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15, 153–170.Google Scholar
  21. Duchêne, F. (1973). The European community and the uncertainties of interdependence. In M. Kohnstamm & W. Hager (Eds.), A Nation Writ Large? Foreign-policy problems before the European community. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Dür, A., & Bievre, D. D. (2007). Inclusion without Influence? NGOs in European Trade Policy. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1), 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. European Council (2001). Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union. Laeken.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission (1996). The global challenge of International trade: a market-access strategy for the European union.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission (2003). Reviving the DDA negotiations—The EU Perspective.Google Scholar
  26. European Commission (2006). Global Europe: some questions and answers. Brussels.Google Scholar
  27. European Commission (2007). Global Europe: a stronger partnership to deliver market access for European exporters. Brussels.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission (2008). Staff figures. http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/about/figures/index_en.htm. Accessed 5 September 2008.
  29. European Commission (2010a). DG Trade Mission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/about/mission/. Accessed 22 September 2010.
  30. European Commission (2010b). Report on progress achieved on the Global Europe strategy, 2006–2010.Google Scholar
  31. European Commission (2010c). Trade, growth and world affairs: trade policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 Strategy.Google Scholar
  32. European Commission (2011a). EC regional trade agreements. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/december/tradoc_111588.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2011.
  33. European Commission (2011b). The European Union Trade Policy 2011. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/february/tradoc_142372.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2011.
  34. European Commission (2011c). Generalised system of preferences. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/wider-agenda/development/generalised-system-of-preferences/. Accessed 28 December 2011.
  35. European Commission (2012a). Delegation Switzerland: Internal Organisation. http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/switzerland/about_us/internal_organisation/index_de.htm. Accessed 10 February 2012.
  36. European Commission (2012b). Delegation to the WTO: Internal Organisation. http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/wto/about_us/internal_organisation/index_en.htm. Accessed 8 February 2012.
  37. European Commission (2012c). Organigramme Delegation Geneva. http://www.delgva.ec.europa.eu/en/pdf/Organigramme-Blue-Book.pdf. Accessed 8 February 2012.
  38. Evenett, S. J. (2007). Trade policy: time for a rethink? In A. Sapir (Ed.), Fragmented power: Europe and the global economy (pp. 61–93). Brussels: Bruegel.Google Scholar
  39. Galtung, J. (1973). The European Community: a superpower in the making (PRIO studies). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  40. Garibay, M. G. (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.Google Scholar
  41. Gerlach, K. (2006). Does business really run EU trade policy? Observations about EU trade policy lobbying. Politics, 26(3), 176–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ghana News Agency (2008). Nobel economist Stiglitz criticises EPA. http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=146532. Accessed 6 February 2012.
  43. Gilpin, R., & Gilpin, J. M. (2002). The challenge of global capitalism: The world economy in the 21st century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Gruber, L. (2000). Ruling the world: power politics and the rise of supranational institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Hayes-Renshaw, F., & Wallace, H. (1996). The council of ministers. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Hirschman, A. O. (1980). National power and the structure of foreign trade (Exp ed. ed.). Berkley: California U PGoogle Scholar
  47. Hix, S. (2005). The political system of the European union (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  48. Hix, S., & Hoyland, B. (2011). The political system of the European Union (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  49. Hocking, B. (2004). Changing the terms of trade policy making: from the “club” to the “multistakeholder” model. World Trade Review, 3(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. International Trade Administration (2012). U.S. Free Trade Agreements. http://export.gov/FTA/index.asp. Accessed 4 January 2012.
  51. Johnson, M. (1998). European Community Trade Policy and the 113 Committee. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  52. Kerremans, B. (2004). What went wrong in Cancun? A principal-agent view on the EU’s rationale towards the Doha development round. European Foreign Affairs Review, 9(3), 363–393.Google Scholar
  53. Kerremans, B., & Orbie, J. (2009). The social dimension of European union trade policies. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(5), 629–641.Google Scholar
  54. Keukeleire, S., & MacNaughtan, J. (2008). The foreign policy of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Larsen, M. F. (2006). The EU as an International Trade Negotiator—A case study of negotiations between the EU and South Africa. Paper prepared for EUSA workshop, 3 July.Google Scholar
  56. Lee, D. (2004). Understanding the WTO dispute settlement system. In B. Hocking & S. McGuire (Eds.), Trade politics (pp. 120–132). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Lee, D. (2009a). Bringing an elephant into the room: small African State diplomacy in the WTO. In A. F. Cooper & T. M. Shaw (Eds.), The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience (pp. 195–206). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  58. Lee, M. C. (2009b). Trade Relations between the European Union and Sub-Saharan Africa under the Cotonou Agreement: Repartitioning and Economically Recolonising the Continent? In R. Southall & H. Melber (Eds.), A New Scramble for Africa? Imperialism, Investment and Development (pp. 83–110). Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.Google Scholar
  59. Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms ? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McCormick, J. (2007). The European superpower. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  61. Meunier, S. (2003). Trade policy and political legitimacy in the European Union. Comparative European Politics, 1, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meunier, S. (2005). Trading voices: the European Union in international commercial negotiations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Meunier, S. (2007). Managing globalization? The EU in international trade negotiations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 905–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Meunier, S., & Nicolaidis, K. (2005). The European Union as a trade power. In C. Hill & M. Smith (Eds.), International relations and the European Union (pp. 247–269). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Mission of Switzerland to the UN in Geneva (2011). List of permanent mission in Geneva. Accessed 23 January 2012.Google Scholar
  66. Mohammed, D. A. (2009). The CARIFORUM-EU economic partnership agreement: impediment or development opportunity for CARICOM SIDS? In A. F. Cooper & T. M. Shaw (Eds.), The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience (pp. 160–178). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  67. O’Shaughnessy, T. (2006). The European Union—A responsible trading partner? In H. Mayer & H. Vogt (Eds.), A Responsible Europe? Ethical foundations of EU external relations (pp. 159–180). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  68. Ochieng, C., & Sharman, T. (2004). Trade traps: Why EU-ACP economic partnership agreements pose a threat to Africa’s development. London: ActionAid International.Google Scholar
  69. Orbie, J. (2008). The European Union’s Role in world trade: harnessing globalisation. In J. Orbie (Ed.), Europe’s global role: external policies of the European Union (pp. 35–66). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  70. Page, S., & Hewitt, A. (2002). The New European trade preferences: does “everything but arms” (EBA) help the poor? Development Policy Review, 20, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Raza, W. (2007). EU trade politics: pursuit of neo-mercantilism in different fora? In W. Blaas & J. Becker (Eds.), Strategic arena switching in international trade negotiations (pp. 67–96). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  72. Sbragia, A. (2010). The EU, the US, and trade policy: competitive interdependence in the management of globalization. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(3), 368–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schäuble, W. (2012). Rede anlässlich der Verleihung des Internationalen Karlspreises zu Aachen am 17. Mai 2012. http://www.karlspreis.de/fileadmin/dokumente/reden2012/Rede_Dr_Schaeuble.pdf. Accessed 12 February 2012.
  74. Schweller, R. L. (1999). Realism and the present great power system: Growth and positional conflict over scarce resources. In E. Kapstein & M. Mastanduno (Eds.), Unipolar politics: realism and state strategies after the cold war (pp. 28–67). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Shaffer, G. (2005). Power, governance, and the WTO: a comparative institutional approach. In M. N. Barnett & R. Duvall (Eds.), Power in global governance (pp. 130–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Shaffer, G. (2006). What’s new in EU trade dispute settlement? Judicialization, public-private networks and the WTO legal order. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 832–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Smith, M. (2006). The European Union and international political economy: trade, aid and monetary policy. In K. E. Jørgensen, M. A. Pollack, & B. Rosamond (Eds.), Handbook of European Union politics (pp. 527–545). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stevenson, C. (2005). Evaluation of EC Trade Defence Instruments. Final Report, Prepared by Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP(December).Google Scholar
  79. UNCTAD (2012). About GSP. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=2309&lang=1. Accessed 25 December 2011.
  80. Van Den Hoven, A. (2006). European Union regulatory capitalism and multilateral trade negotiations. In S. Lucarelli & I. Manners (Eds.), Values and principles in European Union foreign policy (pp. 185–200). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Van den Hoven, A. (2007). Bureaucratic competition in EU trade policy: EBA as a case of competing two-level-games? In G. Faber & J. Orbie (Eds.), EU trade politics and development: everything but arms unravelled. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Wilkinson, R. (2004). The WTO: crisis and the governance of global trade. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Woolcock, S. (2000). Trade Policy. In H. Wallace, M. A. Pollack, & W. Wallace (Eds.), Policy-making in the European Union (pp. 377–400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Woolcock, S. (2007). European Union policy towards free trade agreements. ECIPE Working Paper, 03, 1–15.Google Scholar
  85. Woolcock, S. (2009). The potential impact of the Lisbon treaty on European Union external trade policy. European Foreign Policy Working Paper, 1(February), 1–12.Google Scholar
  86. Woolcock, S. (2010). Trade policy: A further shift towards Brussels. In H. Wallace, M. A. Pollack, & A. R. Young (Eds.), Policy-making in the European Union (pp. 381–400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  87. World Bank (2011). World Economic Outlook Database. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/index.aspx. Accessed 20 December 2011.
  88. WTO (2007). Trade Policy Review: European Communities. Report by the Secretariat.Google Scholar
  89. WTO (2009a). Trade Policy Review European Communities: Record of the Meeting. Report by the Secretariat.Google Scholar
  90. WTO (2009b). Trade Policy Review: European Communities. Report by the Secretariat.Google Scholar
  91. WTO (2011). Plurilaterals: of minority interest. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm10_e.htm. Accessed 23 December 2011.
  92. WTO (2012a). Anti-dumping. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/ad_init_rep_member_e.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2012.
  93. WTO (2012b). Disputes by country/territory. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_e.htm. Accessed 15 January 2012.
  94. WTO (2012c). Overseeing national trade policies: the TPRM. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_int_e.htm. Accessed 24 January 2012.
  95. Young, A. R. (2006). Punching its weight? The EU’s use of WTO dispute resolution. In O. Elgström & M. Smith (Eds.), The European Union’s roles in international politics: concepts and analysis (pp. 180–207). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  96. Yu, W., & Jensen, T. V. (2005). Tariff preferences, WTO negotiations and LDCs: The case of the “everything but arms” inititative. The World Economy, 28(3), 375–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations