• Myriam Oehri
Part of the The European Union in International Affairs book series (EUIA)


The book’s concluding chapter summarizes the study’s main findings and emphasizes the bearing they have on policy. Oehri not only discusses the political implications of US and EU external labor governance but also provides detailed recommendations for the USA and the EU to improve their courses of action when promoting workers’ rights worldwide, also in light of the ongoing negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), other trade arrangements, and alternative practices. In addition to implications for policy makers and practitioners, the chapter furthermore illustrates the book’s theoretical implications and highlights its bearings on international labor studies, political science, and social science more broadly. Oehri finally offers concrete recommendations for future research informing the trade-labor nexus.


  1. Aaronson, S. A., & Zimmerman, J. M. (2008). Trade imbalance: The struggle to weigh human rights concerns in trade policymaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M., & Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Börzel, T. A. (2010). European governance: Negotiation and competition in the shadow of hierarchy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(2), 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Church Albertson, P., & Compa, L. (2015). Labour rights and trade agreements in the Americas. In A. Blacket & A. Trebilcock (Eds.), Research handbook on transnational labour law (pp. 474–493). Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corell, E., & Betsill, M. M. (2001). A comparative look at NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: Desertification and climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Búrca, G., Keohane, R. O., & Sabel, C. (2014). Global experimentalist governance. British Journal of Political Science, 44, 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Ville, F., & Siles-Brügge, G. (2016). TTIP: The truth about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Cambridge and Malden: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Ville, F., Orbie, J., & Van den Putte, L. (2016). TTIP and labour standards Study for the EMPL Committee. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  9. Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., & Garrett, G. (2007). The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dür, A., & De Bièvre, D. (2007). Interest group influence on policymaking in Europe and the United States. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1), 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebert, F. C. (2016). Labour provisions in EU trade agreements: What potential for channeling labour standards-related capacity building? International Labour Review, 155(3), 407–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ebert, F. C., & Posthuma, A. (2011). Labour provisions in trade arrangements: Current trends and perspectives. ILO Discussion Paper No. 205, Geneva.Google Scholar
  13. Elliott, K. A., & Freeman, R. B. (2003). Can labor standards improve under globalization?. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  14. European Parliament. (2012). Resolution on the EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru, P7_TA-PROV (2012) 0249, June 13.Google Scholar
  15. European Trade Union Confederation & American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (2007). Trans-Atlantic cooperation for a just and sustainable global economy, available at (accessed November 2014).
  16. Grynberg, R., & Qalo, V. (2006). Labour standards in US and EU preferential trade agreements. Journal of World Trade, 40(4), 619–653.Google Scholar
  17. Haass, R. N. (1998). Introduction. In R. N. Haass (Ed.), Economic sanctions and American diplomacy (pp. 1–9). New York: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
  18. Haass, R. N., & O’Sullivan, M. L. (2000). Introduction. In R. N. Haass & M. L. O’Sullivan (Ed.), Honey and vinegar: Incentives, sanctions, and foreign policy (pp. 1–11). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  19. International Labor Organization. (2013). Social dimensions of free trade agreements. IILS Studies on Growth with Equity, Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  20. International Labor Organization. (2016). Assessment of labour provisions in trade and investment agreements. Studies on Growth with Equity, Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  21. Kagan, R. (2002). Power and weakness. Policy Review, June and July, 3–28.Google Scholar
  22. Kerremans, B., & Martins Gistelinck, M. (2009a). 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.Google Scholar
  23. Kerremans, B., & Orbie, J. (2013). Conclusion: Towards engaged pluralism in the study of European trade politics. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 659–674.Google Scholar
  24. Kim, M. (2012). Ex ante due diligence: Formation of PTAs and protection of labor rights. International Studies Quarterly, 56(4), 704–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lavenex, S., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). EU rules beyond borders: Theorizing external governance in European politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), 791–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Locke, R. M. (2013). The promise and limits of private power: Promoting labor standards in a global economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marx, A., & Soares, J. (2015). Does integrating labour provisions in free trade agreements make a difference? An explanatory analysis of freedom of association and collective bargaining rights in 13 EU trade partners. In J. Wouters, A. Marx, D. Geraets, & B. Natens (Eds.), Global governance through trade: EU policies and approaches (pp. 158–181). Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meardi, G., & Marginson, P. (2013). Global labour governance: Potential and limits of an emerging perspective. Paper prepared for the 2013 Work, Employment and Society Conference, Warwick, available at (accessed January 2015).
  29. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mosley, L., & Uno, S. (2007). Racing to the bottom or climbing to the top? Economic globalization and collective labor rights. Comparative Political Studies, 40(8), 923–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nye, J. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nye, J. (2004). The decline of America’s soft power. Foreign Affairs, 83(3), 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oehri, M. (2016). Labor rights promotion in the absence of conditionality? A comparative study of how the EU and the US engage China and India. Paper presented at the workshop “From rule-takers to rule-makers: Emerging powers in the regulation of international trade”, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  34. Orbie, J., Martens, D., & Van den Putte, L. (2016). Civil society meetings in European Union trade agreements: Features, purposes, and evaluation. Centre for the Law of EU External Relations Paper No. 3, The Hague.Google Scholar
  35. Peels, R., & Fino, M. (2015). Pushed out the door, back in through the window: The role of the ILO in EU and US trade agreements in facilitating the decent work agenda. Global Labour Journal, 6(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Polaski, S. (2004). Protecting labor rights through trade agreements: An analytical guide. Journal of International Law and Policy, 10(13), 13–25.Google Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2008). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. European Law Journal, 14(3), 271–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalism in the EU: Common ground and persistent differences. Regulation and Governance, 6(3), 410–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schrank, A. (2013). From disguised protectionism to rewarding regulation: The impact of trade-related labor standards in the Dominican Republic. Regulation & Governance, 7(3), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tömmel, I. (2009). Modes of governance and the institutional structure of the European Union. In I. Tömmel & A. Verdun (Eds.), Innovative governance in the European Union (pp. 9–26). Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. United States Government Accountability Office. (2015). Free trade agreements: U.S. partners are addressing labor commitments, but more monitoring and enforcement are needed. In V. Hanson (Ed.), U.S. free trade agreements: Enforcement of labor provisions with partner countries (pp. 1–75). New York: Novinka.Google Scholar
  43. Van den Putte, L. (2015). Involving civil society in social clauses and the decent work agenda. Global Labour Journal, 6(2), 221–235.Google Scholar
  44. Van Roozendaal, G. (2015). The diffusion of labour standards: The case of the US and Guatemala. Politics and Governance, 3(2), 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vogt, J. (2015a). The evolution of labor rights and trade: A transatlantic comparison and lessons for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Journal of International Economic Law, 18, 827–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vogt, J. (2015b). A little less conversation: The EU and the (non) application of labour conditionality in the generalized system of preferences (GSP). The International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 31(3), 285–304.Google Scholar
  47. Washington Office on Latin America. (2009). DR-CAFTA and workers’ rights: Moving from paper to practice. available at (accessed February 2014).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Myriam Oehri
    • 1
  1. 1.Global Studies InstituteUniversity of GenevaGenèveSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations