Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tackling Technical Barriers to Trade in EU ‘New Generation’ FTAs: An Example of Open or Conflicting Regionalism?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Global Politics and EU Trade Policy

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((Spec. Issue))

Abstract

This chapter analyses WTO-plus TBT provisions in ‘new generation’ EUFTAs in order to understand how the used approaches converge towards the multilateral system: whether they support and complement the existing rules, or instead contribute to regulatory fragmentation, which negatively impacts countries outside the preferential area. In a broader perspective, it inquires into the practical implementation of the EU’s strategic intentions to advance the multilateral agenda and to prioritize global inclusivity of rules, which is depicted as one of its main priorities in trade policy. The chapter first reflects on what could be the criteria for ‘open’ and ‘conflicting’ regionalism in case of TBT, which constitutes its theoretical underpinning, and then frames the TBT liberalisation provisions of ‘new generation’ FTAs.

My gratitude goes to Prof. Dr. Christoph Herrmann and Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß for their valuable comments. The usual disclaimer applies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    UNCTAD and The World Bank, The Unseen Impact of Non-Tariff Measures: Insights from a New Database, 2017. <http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/ditc-tab-MC11-UNCTAD-NTMs.pdf>, p. 6.

  2. 2.

    Billy A. Melo Araujo, The EU Deep Trade Agenda: Law and Policy (Oxford University Press 2016) p. 16.

  3. 3.

    Richard Baldwin, Multilateralising 21stcentury regionalism (OECD 2014). <https://www.oecd.org/tad/events/ OECD-gft-2014-multilateralising-21st-century-regionalism-baldwin-paper.pdf>.

  4. 4.

    Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2012] OJ C 326/13.

  5. 5.

    European Commission Communication of 14 Oct. 2015, ‘Trade for All’, COM(2015) 497, p. 29.

  6. 6.

    See definition of ‘WTO-plus’ provisions in: Henrik Horn, Petros Mavroidis, André Sapir, ‘Beyond the WTO? An Anatomy of EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements’ (2010) 33 (11) The World Economy, pp. 1565–1588.

  7. 7.

    See, e.g., Jagdish Bhgawati, The World Trading System at Risk (Princeton University Press 1991).

  8. 8.

    Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagaria, ‘Preferential Trading Areas and Multilateralism: Strangers, Friends or Foes’ in Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagaria (eds), The Economics of Preferential Trade Agreements (AEI Press 1998).

  9. 9.

    WTO, World Trade Report 2011: The WTO and preferential trade agreements: From coexistence to coherence (2011) p. 52.

  10. 10.

    Ibid., p. 114.

  11. 11.

    Jacob Viner, The Customs Union Issue (Oxford University Press 1950).

  12. 12.

    Roberta Piermartini and Michèle Budetta, ‘A mapping of regional rules on technical barriers to trade’ in Antoni Estevadeordal (eds), Regional Rules in the Global Trading system (Cambridge University Press 2009).

  13. 13.

    OECD, International Regulatory Co-operation and Trade. Understanding the Trade Costs of Regulatory Divergence and the Remedies (OECD Publishing 2017) p. 42. The examples of such recognition could include EU and Trans-Tasman MRA between Australia and New Zealand. Both imply a high level of integration and trust in each others’ systems.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., p. 41.

  15. 15.

    Richard Baldwin (2014), supra note 3 p. 26.

  16. 16.

    Maggie Xiaoyang Chen, Aaditya Mattoo, ‘Regionalism in standards: good or bad for trade?’ (2008) 41 (3) Canadian Journal of Economics, p. 838, 840.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., p. 860.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., p. 840.

  19. 19.

    See, e.g., on ‘deep’ and ‘shallow’ integration, Robert Z. Lawrence, Regionalism, Multilateralism and Deeper Integration (Brookings Institutions Press 1996) p. 17; on ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ integration, Jan Tinbergen, International Economic Integration (Macmillan 1954) p. 4.

  20. 20.

    See WTO, TBT’, Second Triennial Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Annex 4: Decision of the Committee on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations with Relation to art. 2, 5 and annex 3 of the Agreement,” G/TBT/9, Nov. 13, 2000; On the ‘subsequent agreement’ see Appellate Body Report (ABR), United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R, 2012, paras. 371-372.

  21. 21.

    Panagiotis Delimatsis, ‘Global standard-setting 2.0: How the WTO spotlights ISO and impacts the Transnational standard-setting process’ (2018) 28 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, p. 273, 281 footnote 31; Walter Mattli and Tim Büthe, ‘Setting International Standards. Technological Rationality or the Primacy of Power?’ (2003) 56 World Politics, p. 1, 23.

  22. 22.

    See Simon Lester, Bryan Mercurio and Arwel Davies, World Trade Law. Texts, Materials and Commentary., (Third Edition, Hart Publishing, 2018) p. 194; On interpretation of the WTO TBT Committee Decision as a subsequent agreement, see ABR in US-Tuna II, para. 372.

  23. 23.

    ABR, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/AB/R, 2002, para. 249.

  24. 24.

    See Lorand Bartels, ‘The Legality of the EC Mutual recognition Clause under WTO Law’ (2005) 8 (3) Journal of International Economic Law, pp. 691–720; Joel Trachtman, ‘Embedded Mutual Recognition at the WTO’ (2007) 14 (5) Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 780-799; James H. Mathis, ‘Mutual Recognition Agreements - Transatlantic Parties and the Limits to Non-Tariff Barriers Regionalism in the WTO (1998) 32 (6) Journal of World Trade, pp. 5-31.

  25. 25.

    Joel Trachtman, “Embedding Mutual Recognition at the WTO”, 2006. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=923903 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.923903, p. 16.

  26. 26.

    For more details of this analysis, see Lorand Bartels (2005), supra note 24 p. 696.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., pp. 698-699.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., pp. 701, 709.

  29. 29.

    See, e.g., Bartels (2005), supra note 24 pp. 705-706.

  30. 30.

    ABR, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R / WT/DS395/AB/R / WT/DS398/AB/R, 2012 para. 307.

  31. 31.

    ABR, China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, 2010 paras. 231-233. In this case, the AB found that Article XX was in fact applicable to violations under the China’s Accession Protocol, but only because of a direct reference to the WTO Agreement within the text of the allegedly violated provision. The AB concluded that such reference also incorporates the relevant exceptions (paras. 223, 228). 

  32. 32.

    See Trachtman (2006), supra note 27 p. 16; See also James H. Mathis, ‘Regional Trade Agreements and Domestic Regulation: What Reach for “Other Restrictive Regulations of Commerce”’ in Lorand Bartels and Federico Ortino (eds), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System (Oxford University Press 2006) p. 79, 96.

  33. 33.

    ABR, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, WT/DS34/AB/R, 1999, para. 58; For references to this line of argumentation, see, e.g., Bartels (2005), supra note 24 p. 712.

  34. 34.

    Nicolas Lokhard and Andrew D. Mitchell, ‘Regional trade agreements under GATT 1994: an exception and its limits’ in: Andrew D. Mitchel, Challenges and Prospects for the WTO (Cameron May, 2005) p. 217, 236.

  35. 35.

    Panel Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, WT/DS34/R, 1999, as modified by ABR WT/DS34/AB/R, para. 9.120.

  36. 36.

    Lokhard and Mitchell (2005), supra note 34.

  37. 37.

    Joost Pauwelyn, ‘The Puzzle of WTO Safeguards and Regional Trade Agreements’ (2004) 7 (1) Journal of International Economic Law, p. 109, 132.

  38. 38.

    Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea, WT/DS202/R, 2002, as modified by ABR WT/DS202/AB/, para. 7.148.

  39. 39.

    For the former, see Bartels (2005), supra note 24 and for the latter, James H. Mathis, ‘Mutual Recognition Agreements - Transatlantic Parties and the Limits to Non-Tariff Barriers Regionalism in the WTO’ (1998) 32 (6) Journal of World Trade, pp. 5-31.

  40. 40.

    European Commission Communication ‘Global Europe: competing in the world’, COM(2006) 567 final, 4 October 2006.

  41. 41.

    This approach corresponds to the logic of 2016 EC report on FTAs implementation <https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2017/EN/COM-2017-654-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF>.

  42. 42.

    Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, L 127, 14 May 2011, p. 6-1344.

  43. 43.

    EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, signed on behalf of the EU on 15 October 2018, OJ L 267, 25.10.2018, p. 1–2.

  44. 44.

    EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement: Agreed text as of January 2016 <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/ index.cfm?id=1437>.

  45. 45.

    Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, the European Union and its Member States, OJ L 11, 14.1.2017, p. 23–1079.

  46. 46.

    EU-Japan trade agreement finalised as of 08 December 2017 <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index. cfm?id=1684>. Despite that EU-Japan is called ‘EPA’, its scope is rather similar to the EU ‘new generation’ FTAs.

  47. 47.

    Regulation (EC) 1025/2012 on European standardization [2012] OJ L 316/12, Art. 1.9.

  48. 48.

    USTR, 2018National Trade Estimate Report Foreign Trade Barriers <https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/2018%20National%20Trade%20Estimate%20Report.pdf> pp. 157-158.

  49. 49.

    Primarily, it relates to the UNECE, in the framework of which the global regulations of auto vehicles are being developed, but also, to ISO and IEC. On concerns regarding the EU domination at ISO and IEC, see, e.g.: Andrea B. Villarreal, International Standardization and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (Cambridge University Press 2018) p. 228; United States International Trade Commission, The Effects of Greater Economic Integration Within the European Community on the United States: First Follow-up Report, USITC Publication 2268, Investigation No. 332-267, 1990, p. 6-38. It is different with regard to ITU, which incorporates a different power dynamics.

  50. 50.

    Joanne Scott, ‘Exterritorialy and territorial extension of EU law’ (2014) 62 (1) American Journal of Comparative Law, Available at SSRN: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2276433> p. 116.

  51. 51.

    See, e.g., Chapter 7 (para. 1) of the EU-Japan EPA; Annex 2-B (Article 2, paras. 1, 2) of the EU-Korea FTA.

  52. 52.

    See, e.g., Annex 2-C (Art. 3(a)(iii); Art. 4(1)) of the EU-Korea FTA.

  53. 53.

    The status of the agreements and the list of their contracting parties is available at <https://www.unece.org/ trans/main/wp29/wp29regs.html>; <https://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29glob_stts.html>.

  54. 54.

    Evaluation of the EU-Japan EPA, report by the European Commission’s DG Trade <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/ doclib/docs/2017/july/tradoc_155720.pdf> p. 2; Presentation of Fernando Perreu de Pinnick from DG Trade titled ‘The EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Motor Vehicles and Parts’, prepared for the Seminar ‘EU-Korea FTA. Putting the FTA into Practice’, held on 20 June 2011 in Seoul, South Korea <http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/south_korea/documents/eu_south_korea/fta_booklet_final_en.pdf>.

  55. 55.

    See more at Iulianna Romanchyshyna, ‘The post-TTIP transatlantic cooperation on trade: stepping-up conformity assessment’, Blog of the European Journal of International Law (EJILTalk!) <https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-post-ttip-transatlantic-cooperation-on-trade-stepping-up-conformity-assessment/#more-16939>.

  56. 56.

    Article 2.1 of Annex 2-B of the EU-Vietnam FTA.

  57. 57.

    Boris Rigod, ‘TBT-Plus Rules in Preferential Trade Agreements’ (2013) 40 (3) Legal Issues of Economic Integration, pp. 247, 268.

  58. 58.

    Article 4.9 of the EU-Korea FTA.

References

  • Araujo B A M (2016) The EU Deep Trade Agenda: Law and Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin R (2014) Multilateralising 21st century regionalism, OECD, Paris. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/tad/events/OECD-gft-2014-multilateralising-21st-century-regionalism-baldwin-paper.pdf

  • Bartels L (2005) The Legality of the EC Mutual recognition Clause under WTO Law, 8 Journal of International Economic Law, pp. 691–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhgawati J (1991) The World Trading System at Risk, Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhagwati J and Panagaria A (1998) Preferential Trading Areas and Multilateralism: Strangers, Friends or Foes. In: Bhagwati J and Panagaria A (eds) The Economics of Preferential Trade Agreements, AEI Press, Washington, pp. 47-111

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen M X, Mattoo A (2008) Regionalism in standards: good or bad for trade? 41 Canadian Journal of Economics, pp. 838-863

    Google Scholar 

  • Delimatsis P (2018) Global standard-setting 2.0: How the WTO spotlights ISO and impacts the Transnational standard-setting process, 28 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, pp. 273-326

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn H, Mavroidis P, Sapir A (2010) Beyond the WTO? An Anatomy of EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements, 33 The World Economy, pp. 1565–1588

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence R Z (1996) Regionalism, Multilateralism and Deeper Integration, Brookings Institutions Press, Washington D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester S, Mercurio B and Davies A (2018) World Trade Law. Texts, Materials and Commentary, Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lokhard N and Mitchell A D (2005) Regional trade agreements under GATT 1994: an exception and its limits. In: Mitchel A D (ed) Challenges and Prospects for the WTO, Cameron May, London, pp. 217-240

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathis J H (1998) Mutual Recognition Agreements - Transatlantic Parties and the Limits to Non-Tariff Barriers Regionalism in the WTO, 32 Journal of World Trade, pp. 5-31

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathis J H (2006) Regional Trade Agreements and Domestic Regulation: What Reach for “Other Restrictive Regulations of Commerce”. In: Bartels L and Ortino F (eds) Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 79-108

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattli W and Büthe T (2003) Setting International Standards. Technological Rationality or the Primacy of Power?, 56 World Politics, pp. 1-42

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2017) International Regulatory Co-operation and Trade. Understanding the Trade Costs of Regulatory Divergence and the Remedies, Paris, OECD Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2004) The Puzzle of WTO Safeguards and regional Trade Agreements, 7 Journal of International Economic Law, pp. 109-142

    Google Scholar 

  • Piermartini R and Budetta M (2009) A mapping of regional rules on technical barriers to trade. In: Estevadeordal A (eds) Regional Rules in the Global Trading system, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 250-315

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigod B (2013) TBT-Plus Rules in Preferential Trade Agreements, 40 Legal Issues of Economic Integration, pp. 247-270

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanchyshyna I (2019) The post-TTIP transatlantic cooperation on trade: stepping-up conformity assessment’, Blog of the European Journal of International Law (EJILTalk!), Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-post-ttip-transatlantic-cooperation-on-trade-stepping-up-conformity-assessment/#more-16939

  • Tinbergen J (1954) International Economic Integration, Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott J (2014) Exterritorialy and territorial extension of EU law, 62 American Journal of Comparative Law, pp. 87–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Trachtman J (2006) Embedding Mutual Recognition at the WTO. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=923903 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.923903

  • Trachtman J (2007) Embedded Mutual Recognition at the WTO, 14 Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 780-799

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD and The World Bank (2017) The Unseen Impact of Non-Tariff Measures: Insights from a New Database. Available at: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/ditc-tab-MC11-UNCTAD-NTMs.pdf

  • USTR (2018) National Trade Estimate Report Foreign Trade Barriers. Available at: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/2018%20National%20Trade%20Estimate%20Report.pdf

  • Villarreal A B (2018) International Standardization and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Viner J (1950) The Customs Union Issue, Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2011) World Trade Report 2011: The WTO and preferential trade agreements: From coexistence to coherence. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report11_e.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Passau, Passau, Germany

    Iulianna Romanchyshyna

Authors
  1. Iulianna Romanchyshyna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iulianna Romanchyshyna .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer, Speyer, Germany

    Wolfgang Weiß  & Cornelia Furculita  & 

Annex

Annex

Table 1 International orientation in TBT provisions of EU FTAs
Full size table
Table 2 Sectoral provisions on TBT in EU FTAs
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Romanchyshyna, I. (2020). Tackling Technical Barriers to Trade in EU ‘New Generation’ FTAs: An Example of Open or Conflicting Regionalism?. In: Weiß, W., Furculita, C. (eds) Global Politics and EU Trade Policy. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34588-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34588-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34587-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34588-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation