Advertisement

Civil Society Meetings in EU Free Trade Agreements: The Purposes Unravelled

Chapter

Abstract

In the last decade the EU has embarked on a series of deep and comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Each of these agreements includes a chapter on trade and sustainable development, encompassing labour (and environmental) provisions. Against the background of increased liberalization and rising attention paid to sustainable development, EU FTAs set up civil society mechanisms to advance the implementation of these commitments. While civil society meetings have become increasingly important in practice, the assessment of their success differs widely among actors. While some see it as a ‘fig leaf’ or ‘talking shop’, others are more optimistic about its potential to empower marginalised groups within EU trading partners. Evaluations will continue to diverge as long as the exact purposes of the civil society meetings have not been clarified. This chapter is a first attempt to uncover the purposes behind them. By combining a content analysis on the legal texts and political discourse we identify four analytically distinct purposes: instrumental (gathering support for the FTA), functional (monitoring and information gathering on the implementation), deliberative (promoting democratic governance) and policy influence (advising the governments). We do not aim to prioritise one purpose over another. However, we do argue that the primordial purpose of the mechanisms should depend on the domestic setting of the trade partner country and on the matureness of the mechanism.

References

  1. Altintzis Y (2013) Civil society engagement and linkages in EU trade policy. In: Takacs T, Ott A, Dimopoulos A (eds) Linking trade and non-commercial interests: the EU as a global role model? vol vol 4. Centre for the Law of EU External Relations, The Hague, pp 27–34Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong K (2002) Rediscovering civil society: the European Union and the white paper on governance. Eur Law J 8(1):102–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgoon B (2009) The distinct politics of the European Union’s ‘Fair Trade’ linkage to labour standards. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 14(5):643–661Google Scholar
  4. Coffey (2014) Evaluation of DG TRADE’s Civil Society Dialogue in order to assess its effectiveness, efficiency and relevance. Publication Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  5. Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor (2008) Towards a global social contract: labour rights for legal empowerment of the poor. In: Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor & UNDP (eds) Making the law work for everyone: working group reports, vol 2, pp 129–194Google Scholar
  6. Compa L (2001) NAFTA’s labour side agreement and international labour solidarity. In: Waterman P, Wills J (eds) Place, space and the new labour internationalisms. Blackwell Publishers, Hoboken, pp 147–163Google Scholar
  7. Council of the EU (2012) Summary record of the meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA), Brussels, 25–26 Apr 2012Google Scholar
  8. De Gucht K (2012) EU-Columbia and Peru trade agreement. In: Public Hearing of the Committee on International Trade at the European Parliament, Brussels, 29 Feb 2012Google Scholar
  9. De Schutter O (2002) Europe in search of its civil society. Eur Law J 8(2):198–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Ville F, Siles-Brugge G (2015) TTIP: the truth about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  11. Del Felice C (2014) Power in discursive practices, the case of the stop EPAs campaign. Eur J Int Relat 20(1):145–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EESC (2012) Civil society in action – monitoring sustainable development and wider FTA implementation: lessons to be drawn from the EU experience, Abstract, Session on 26 Sept 2012Google Scholar
  13. EESC (2015) Summary of the discussion held during the joint meeting of the European and Central American civil society advisory groups. http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/en_joint-advisory-groups-document_28-may-2015_final-version.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2017
  14. European Commission (2006) Global Europe: competing in the world, COM(2006)567. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2010) Trade, growth and world affairs: trade policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 strategy, COM(2010)612. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2012a) Meeting with the EU Domestic Advisory Group (DAG) under the EU-Korea free trade agreement. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/october/tradoc_150007.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2017
  17. European Commission (2012b) The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe’s engagement with Civil Society in external relations, COM(2012)492. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission (2015) Trade for all: towards a more responsible trade and investment policy, COM(2015)497. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. European NGO (2014) Interview on Civil Society Meeting in EU FTA, Interviewer: Van den Putte L. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. European Parliament (2012) Debate on EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru, 22 May 2012, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  21. Ford L (2013) EU trade governance and policy: a critical perspective. J Contemp Eur Res 9(3):578–596Google Scholar
  22. Friedrich D (2008) Democratic aspiration meets political reality: participation of organized civil society in selected European policy processes. In: Steffek J, Kissling C, Nanz P (eds) Civil society participation in European and global governance: a cure for the democratic deficit? Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 140–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hopewell K (2015) Multilateral trade governance as social field: global civil society and the WTO. Rev Int Polit Econ 22(6):1128–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horn H, Mavroidis P, Sapir A (2010) Beyond the WTO? An anatomy of EU and US preferential trade agreements, vol 7. The World EconomyGoogle Scholar
  25. IILS (2013/Revised ed 2015) Social dimensions of free trade agreements. ILO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenkins T (2014) Discussion points by Tom Jenkins, Chief adviser at the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). In: EMPL/INTA hearing on employment and social aspects of TTIP. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  27. Kohler-Koch B, Quittkat C (2013) De-mystification of participatory democracy: EU-governance and civil society. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malmström C (2015) The way ahead for the EU-Cariforum Economic Partnership AgreementGoogle Scholar
  29. Meunier S (2003) Trade policy and political legitimacy in the European Union. Comp Eur Polit 1(1):67–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meunier S, Nicolaïdis K (2006) The European Union as a conflicted trade power. J Eur Publ Policy 13(6):906–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nolan García K (2011) The evolution of United States-Mexico Labor Cooperation (1994–2009): achievements and challenges. Polit Policy 39(1)Google Scholar
  32. OECD (2012) Decent work and empowerment for pro-poor growth. http://www.oecd.org/dac/povertyreduction/50157792.pdf. Accessed 29 Sept 2016
  33. Oehri M (2014) Comparing US and EU labour governance ‘near and far’ – hierarchy vs network? J Eur Publ Policy 22(5):731–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orbie J, Tortell L (2009) The new GSP+ beneficiaries: ticking the box or truly consistent with ILO findings? Eur Foreign Aff Rev 15(5):663–681Google Scholar
  35. Orbie J, Van Roozendaal G (2017) Labour standards and trade: the need for innovation of instruments and methods. Politics Gov 6(3)Google Scholar
  36. Peels R (2012) Facing the paradigm of non-state actor involvement: the EU-Andean region negotiation process. Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  37. Peruvian NGO (2015) Interview on Civil Society Meeting in EU FTA, Interviewer: Van den Putte LGoogle Scholar
  38. Pierson P (1996) The path to European integration a historical institutionalist analysis. Comp Pol Stud 29(2):123–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Postnikov E, Bastiaens I (2014) Does dialogue work? The effectiveness of labor standards in EU preferential trade agreements. J Eur Publ Policy 21(6):923–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scholte JA (2001) Civil society and democracy in global governance. In: Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation Working Paper No. 65/01. University of Warwick, CoventryGoogle Scholar
  41. Scholte JA (2004) Civil society and democratically accountable global governance. Gov Oppos 39(2):211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Siles-Brügge G (2011) Resisting protectionism after the crisis: strategic economic discourse and the EU-Korea free trade agreement. New Polit Econ 16(5):627–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slob A, Smakman F (2007) A voice, not a vote. Evaluation of the Civil Society Dialogue at DG Trade. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2007/march/tradoc_133527.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2016Google Scholar
  44. Smismans S (2003) European civil society: shaped by discourses and institutional interests. Eur Law J 9(4):473–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spalding RJ (2008) Civil society engagement in trade negotiations: CAFTA opposition movements in El Salvador. Latin Am Polit Soc 49(4):85–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tempest M (2015) Rights abuses revealed in EU free-trade candidate Malaysia. http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/rights-abuses-revealed-eu-free-trade-candidate-malaysia-318965. Accessed 29 Sept 2016
  47. Ulmer K (2015) Trade embedded development models. Int J Comp Lab Law Ind Relat 31(3):305–329Google Scholar
  48. Van den Putte L (2015) What social face of the new European Union trade agreements? Transcripts, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  49. Van den Putte L, De Ville F, Orbie J (2014) The European Parliament’s new role in trade policy: turning power into impact. In: Van den Putte L, Orbie J (eds) (2015) EU bilateral trade agreements and the surprising rise of labour provisions. Int J Comp Lab Law Ind Relat 31(3):263–284Google Scholar
  50. Van den Putte L, Orbie J (2015) EU bilateral trade agreements and the surprising rise of labour provisions. Int J Comp Lab Law Ind Relat 31(3):263–283Google Scholar
  51. Velluti S (2016) Human rights conditionality in the EU GSP scheme: ‘a focus on those in need or a need to refocus?’. In: Ferreira N, Kostakopoulou D (eds) The human face of the European Union: is EU law and policy humane enough? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 342–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vogt JS (2014) Trade and investment arrangements and labor rights. In: Blecher L, Kaymar Stafford N, Bellamy GC (eds) Corporate responsibility for human rights impacts: new expectations and paradigms. ABA Book Publishing, pp 121–176Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Orbie
    • 1
  • Lore Van den Putte
    • 1
  • Deborah Martens
    • 1
  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations