EU Trade Policy Reaction to the BIC: From Accommodation to Entrenchment

  • Patricia Garcia-Duran
  • Montserrat Millet
  • Jan Orbie
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the The European Union in International Affairs book series (EUIA)

Abstract

The authors offer an analysis of the EU’s response to the transformation of the international trade regime that became patently clear at the 2003 Cancún Summit of the World Trade Organisation, where emerging powers challenged an EU–US pre-agreement on agriculture. The failure of Cancún marked the end of a governance system dominated by Western powers and highlighted the emergence of Brazil, India and China (the so-called BIC) as trade powers. On the bases of the analytical framework of the volume, the chapter explores the EU trade policy reaction to this context of growing multipolarity in terms of accommodation and entrenchment and puts forward an interpretation of the results.

Keywords

World Trade Organization Veto Player Bilateral Agreement Bilateral Negotiation Multilateral Negotiation 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Morgan, W. (2008). The common agricultural policy and its reform: The problem of reconciling budget and trade concerns. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56, 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin, R., & Evenett, S. (2011). Why world leaders must resist the false promise of another Doha delay. CEPR’s Policy Portal. VoxEU.org eBook.
  3. Bergsten, C. F., & Schott, J. J. (1997). A preliminary evaluation of NAFTA. Testimony before the subcommittee on trade ways and means committee of the United States House of representatives, Washington, DC, September 11, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. Bhagwati, J. (2008). Termites in the trading system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackhurst, R., & Hartridge, D. (2004). Improving the capacity of WTO institutions to fulfil their mandate. Journal of International Economic Law, 7(3), 705–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohn, T. H. (2002). Governing global trade: International institutions in conflict and convergence. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Conceiçáo-Heldt, E. (2013). The clash of negotiations: The impact of outside options on multilateral trade negotiations. International Negotiation, 18, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daugbjerg, C., & Swinbank, A. (2007). The politics of CAP reform: Trade negotiations, institutional settings and blame avoidance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daugbjerg, C., & Swinbank, A. (2009). Ideational change in the WTO and its impacts on EU agricultural policy institutions and the CAP. Journal of European Integration, 31(3), 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehlermann, C.-D., & Ehring, L. (2005). Is the consensus practice of the World Trade Organization adequate for making, revising and implementing rules on international trade? Journal of International Economic Law, 8(1), 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evenett, S. J. (2003). The failure of the WTO Ministerial meeting in Cancún: Implications for future research. CESifo Forum, 3, 11–17.Google Scholar
  12. Footer, M. E. (2010). The WTO as a living instrument. In T. Cottier & M. Elsig (Eds.), Governing the World Trade Organization. Past, present and beyond Doha (pp. 217–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Garcia-Duran, P., & Millet, M. (2014). The determinants of CAP reform: Learning from the European financial crisis and CAP 2013. UB Economics Working Paper E14/315. 1–20.Google Scholar
  14. Garcia-Duran, P., Kienzle, B., & Millet, M. (2014). Revisiting European influence: The case of agricultural trade negotiations. Journal of World Trade, 48(5), 1057–1076.Google Scholar
  15. Hamanaka, S. (2014). Trans-Pacific partnership versus regional comprehensive economic partnership: Control of membership and agenda setting. Asian Development Bank Working Paper 146, Series on Regional Economic Integration. 1–30.Google Scholar
  16. Hufbauer, G., Jung, E., Miner, S., Moran, T., & Schott J. (2015). From drift to deals: Advancing the WTO Agenda. Peterson Institute Report to ICC World Trade Agenda. 1–60.Google Scholar
  17. Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press): Princeton.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, J. H. (1969). The world trade and the law of GATT. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
  19. Keohane R. O., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (2001). Between centralization and fragmentation: The club model of multilateral cooperation and problems of democratic legitimacy. Kennedy School of Government Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP01-004. 1–25.Google Scholar
  20. Lamy, P. (2004). Europe and the future of economic governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mansfield, E. D., & Reinhardt, E. (2003). Multilateral determinants of regionalism: The effects of GATT/WTO on the formation of preferential trading arrangements. International Organization, 57(4), 829–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meunier, S. (2007). Managing globalization? The EU in international trade negotiations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 905–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Narlikar, A. (2010). New powers in the club: The challenges of global trade governance. International Affairs, 86(3), 717–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Narlikar, A. (2011a). Adapting to new power balances: Institutional reform in the WTO. In T. Cottier & M. Elsig (Eds.), Governing the World Trade Organization: Past, present and beyond Doha (pp. 111–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Narlikar, A. (2011b). The ministerial process and power dynamics in the World Trade Organization: Understanding failure from Seattle to Cancún. New Political Economy, 9(3), 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Narlikar, A. (2012). Collective agency, systemic consequences: Bargaining coalitions in the WTO. In A. Narlikar, M. Daunton, & R. M. Stern (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on the World Trade Organization (pp. 184–209). Croydon: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Narlikar, A., & Tussie, D. (2004). The G20 at the Cancún ministerial: Developing countries and their evolving coalitions in the WTO. The World Economy, 27, 947–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poletti, A., Bièvre, D., & Chatagnier, J. T. (2015). Cooperation in the shadow of WTO law: Why litigate when you can negotiate. World Trade Review, 14(S1), S33–S58.Google Scholar
  29. Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions and change: Embedded liberalism in postwar economic order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schott, J. J., & Watal, J. (2000). Decision-making in the WTO. Peterson Institute for International Economics Policy Brief, March, PB00-2.Google Scholar
  31. Schwab, S. C. (2011). After Doha: Why the negotiations are doomed and what we should do about it. Foreign Affairs, May–June Issue.Google Scholar
  32. Steinberg, R. H. (2002). In the shadow of law or power? Consensus-based bargaining and outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization, 56(2), 339–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Subramanian, A., & Kessler, M. (2013). The hyperglobalization of trade and its future. Peterson Institute for International Economics Working Paper, 13, 1–66.Google Scholar
  34. Van den Bossche, P., & Alexovicová, I. (2005). Effective global economic governance by the World Trade Organization. Journal of International Economic Law, 8(3), 667–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ville, F., & Orbie, J. (2011). The European Union’s trade policy response to the crisis: Paradigm lost or reinforced? European Integration online Papers, 15(2), 1–22.Google Scholar
  36. Woolcock, S. (2012). European Union economic diplomacy: The role of the EU in external economic relations. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  37. Young, A. R. (2011). The rise (and fall?) of the EU’s performance in the multilateral trading system. European Integration, 33(6), 715–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Garcia-Duran
    • 1
  • Montserrat Millet
    • 1
  • Jan Orbie
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Economic History, Institutions, Policy and World EconomyUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations