From “Trade and Sustainability” to “Trade for Sustainability” in EU External Trade Policy

  • Karolina ZurekEmail author


This chapter examines the efforts of the EU to promote sustainability within the framework of the Union’s free trade agreements. The chapter first describes how sustainability issues have been managed within EU external trade policy. The author recounts how the EU is striving to meet social and environmental challenges by focusing on the implementation of and compliance with the sustainability provisions of the EU’s free trade agreements with international partners. Here, Zurek investigates both substantive and procedural aspects of the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters and discusses the proposed reform on stronger implementation recently presented by the European Commission. Against the backdrop of an ongoing and growing discussion of the scope of the EU’s authority and competence in external trade policy, Zurek considers two aspects of the European Court of Justice’s opinion on the Singapore agreement. First, the Court confirms that the TSD chapter falls under the EU’s exclusive competence. Second, the Court confirms that a breach of the commitments concerning sustainable development in the free trade agreement should be regarded as a breach of the Vienna Convention and can thus be sanctioned.


  1. Bartels, L. (2013). Human Rights and Sustainable Development Obligations in EU Free Trade Agreements. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 40(4), 297–314.Google Scholar
  2. Brunnée, J. (2006). Enforcement Mechanisms in International Law and International Environmental Law. In U. Beyerlin, P. T. Stoll, & R. Wolfrum (Eds.), Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements. A Dialogue Between Practitioners and Academia. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  3. Chayes, A., & Handler Chayes, A. (1998). The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cremona, M. (2017). A Quiet Revolution: The Common Commercial Policy Six Years After the Treaty of Lisbon. Stockholm: Swedish Institute of European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  5. Cremona, M. (2018). Shaping EU Trade Policy Post-Lisbon: Opinion 2/15 of 16 May 2017. European Constitutional Law Review, 14, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Downs, G. W. (1998). Enforcement and the Evolution of Cooperation. Michigan Journal of International Law, 19, 319–344.Google Scholar
  7. Downs, G. W., Rocke, D. M., & Barsoom, P. N. (1996). Is the Good News About Compliance Good News About Cooperation? International Organisation, 50(3), 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebert, F. C., & Posthuma, A. (2011). Labour Provisions in Trade Arrangements: Current Trends and Perspectives. Geneva: ILO/IILS.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2015a). Guidelines on the Analysis of Human Rights Impacts in Impact Assessments of Trade-related Policy Initiatives. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
  10. European Commission. (2015b). Trade for All: Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
  11. European Commission. (2016). Handbook for Trade and Sustainability Impact Assessment. 2nd edition. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
  12. European Commission. (2017, July 11). Non-paper of the Commission Services on “Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) Chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)”. WK 8022/2017 INIT. Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2017a, November 9). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Implementation of Free Trade Agreements, 1 January 2016–31 December 2016, COM(2017) 654 final.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2017b, November 13). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic Committee and the Committee of the Regions Achieving Prosperity through Trade and Investment. Updating the 2007 Joint EU Strategy on Aid for Trade, COM(2017) 667 final.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2018, February 26). Non-paper of the Commission services on “Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)”. WK 2419/2018 INIT. Brussels.Google Scholar
  16. George, C. (2014). Environmental and Regional Trade Agreements. Emerging Trends and Policy Drivers. OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers 2014/02. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
  17. Harrison, J., Campling, L., Richardson, B., & Smith, A. (2016). Can Labour Provisions Work Beyond Border? Evaluating the Effects of EU Free Trade Agreements. International Labour Review, 155(3), 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. International Labour Organisation. (2016). Assessment of Labour Provisions in Trade and Investment Agreements. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  19. Joint statement. (2013, July 8). Staying Engaged: A Sustainability Compact for Continuous Improvements in Labour Rights and Factory Safety in the Ready-Made Garment and Knitwear Industry in Bangladesh. Geneva. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
  20. Kleimann, D. (2017). Reading Opinion 2/15: Standards of Analysis, the Court’s Discretion and the Legal View of the Advocate General. EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2017/23. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
  21. Lavranos, N. (2017). Mixed Exclusivity: The CJEU’s Opinion on the EU-Singapore FTA. European Investment Law and Arbitration Review, 2, 3–34.Google Scholar
  22. National Board of Trade Sweden. (2016). Implementation and Enforcement of Sustainable Development Provisions in Free Trade Agreements – Options for Improvement. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
  23. National Board of Trade Sweden. (2017). Trade and Social Sustainability. An Overview and Analysis. 2017: 2. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
  24. National Board of Trade Sweden. (2018). Possible Tools for Strengthened Implementation of Sustainable Development Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
  25. Van der Loo, G. (2017). The Court’s Opinion on the EU-Singapore FTA: Throwing off the Shackles of Mixity? CEPS Policy Insights. 17. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
  26. Young, A. R. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Board of Trade in SwedenStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations