EU Policy on Economic Partnership Agreements: Trade… and Aid?

  • Ole Elgström
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series book series (PSIR)

Abstract

The empirical focus of this chapter is the internal negotiation processes within the European Union (EU) in its efforts to conclude Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with 79 developing countries. I seek to explain two different policy outcomes: the agreements on an EU negotiation mandate in 2002 and on the Union’s final negotiation offer in 2007. EPAs are negotiated with six regional groupings of Third World countries (Central Africa, West Africa, Southern Africa Development Community, East and Southern Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific) and are considered a novel form of cooperation with developing countries (Holland, 2002). The EPA talks are formally defined as trade negotiations and actual negotiations are handled by Directorate General (DG) Trade, guided by a Council negotiation directive.

Keywords

European Union Member State Free Trade Trade Negotiation European Union Policy 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Works cited

Books and articles

  1. Babarinde, O. (1994) The Lomé Conventions and Development. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  2. Babarinde, O. and Faber, G. (2004) ‘From Lomé to Cotonou: Business as Usual?’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 9: 27–47.Google Scholar
  3. Crawford, G. (1998) ‘Human Right and Democracy in European Development Policy’, in M. Lister (ed.) European Union Development Policy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Dür, A. (2006) ‘Assessing the EU’s Role in International Trade Negotiations’, European Political Science, 5: 362–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elgström, O. (2005a) ‘Consolidating “Unobjectionable” Norms: Negotiating Norm Spread in the European Union’, in O. Elgström and C. Jönsson (eds) European Union Negotiations. London and New York: Routledge, pp.29–44.Google Scholar
  6. Elgström, O. (2005b) ‘The Cotonou Agreement. Asymmetric Negotiations and the Impact of Norms’, in O. Elgström and C. Jönsson (eds) European Union Negotiations. London & New York: Routledge, pp.183–99.Google Scholar
  7. Evans, P.B., Jacobson, H.K. and Putnam, R.D. (eds) (1993) Double-Edged Diplomacy — International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Grilli, E.Z. (1993) The European Community and the Developing Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Holland, M. (2002) The European Union and the Third World. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  10. Lister, M. (1997) The European Union and the South. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lister, M. (1998) ‘Europe’s New Development Policy’, in M. Lister (ed.) European Union Development Policy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Meunier, S. (2005) Trading Voices. The European Union in International Commercial Negotiations. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Putnam, R. (1988) ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games’, International Organization, 42: 427–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ravenhill, J. (1992) ‘When Weakness is Strength’, in I.W. Zartman (ed.) Europe and Africa. The New Phase. Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  15. Schimmelfennig, F. (2003) The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe. Rules and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tallberg, J. (2004) ‘The Power of the Presidency: Brokerage, Efficiency and Distribution in EU Negotiations’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(5): 999–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Young, A.R. (2007) ‘Trade Politics Ain’t What It Used to Be: The European Union in the Doha Round’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4): 789–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Official documents and other sources

  1. ACP (2005) ACP Council of Ministers Declaration of the 81st Session, held in Brussels 21–22 June.Google Scholar
  2. Commission (2002a) Draft Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION authorizing the Commission to negotiate Economic Partnership Agreements with the ACP countries and regions, Brussels, 9 April.Google Scholar
  3. Commission (2002b) EU Mandate for Trade Negotiations with African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries, Brussels, 17 June.Google Scholar
  4. Commission (2005) Note for the Attention of Delegations in ACP Countries. Subject: Recent UK Statements on EPAs, Brussels, 11 April.Google Scholar
  5. Council (2002) EU Council of Ministers Directives for the Negotiation of Economic Partnership Agreements with ACP Countries and Regions.Google Scholar
  6. DTI and DFID (2005) Economic Partnership Agreements: Making EPAs Deliver for Development, Department of Trade and Department for International Development, 22 March; www.dti.gov.uk.
  7. European Research Office (2002) The ACP Guidelines and the EU Negotiating Mandate: A Comparison, September 2002.Google Scholar
  8. Financial Times (2006) ‘UK Urges EU to Ease Trade Laws for Poor Nations’, by Alan Beattie, 15 October.Google Scholar
  9. Mandelson, P. (2005) Statement to the Development Committee of the European Parliament by Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, Brussels, 17 March.Google Scholar
  10. Mandelson, P. (2007a) ‘Economic Partnership Agreements: Tackling the Myths’, in l’Express Dimanche, 10 June, http://www.lexpress.mu.
  11. Mandelson, P. (2007b) Comments at the INTA Committee, European Parliament, 22 October, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2007/october/tradoc_136542.pdf.
  12. The Guardian (1995) ‘Blaming Brussels’, by Jeffery, S., 19 May.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ole Elgström 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ole Elgström

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations