Book contents
- Coherence of the European Union Trade Policy with Its Non-Trade Objectives
- Coherence of the European Union Trade Policy with Its Non-Trade Objectives
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 European Union Trade Policy and Non-Trade Issues
- 2 The European Union
- 3 Export Credit Agencies
- 4 The Effects of Non-Trade Provisions in Trade Agreements on Bilateral FDI
- 5 How EU Trade and Cooperation Policies Stimulated China to Go Green
- 6 The Role of Domestic Factors in the EU’s Governance of Labour Standards through Trade
- 7 EU Trade Agreements and Non-Trade Policy Objectives
- 8 Trade, the G20 and the EU
- 9 Enhancement of the European Parliament’s Monitoring for Better Coherence between Trade Policy and NTPOs
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
1 - European Union Trade Policy and Non-Trade Issues
What Do We Know and Where Do We Go from Here?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 October 2023
Book contents
- Coherence of the European Union Trade Policy with Its Non-Trade Objectives
- Coherence of the European Union Trade Policy with Its Non-Trade Objectives
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 European Union Trade Policy and Non-Trade Issues
- 2 The European Union
- 3 Export Credit Agencies
- 4 The Effects of Non-Trade Provisions in Trade Agreements on Bilateral FDI
- 5 How EU Trade and Cooperation Policies Stimulated China to Go Green
- 6 The Role of Domestic Factors in the EU’s Governance of Labour Standards through Trade
- 7 EU Trade Agreements and Non-Trade Policy Objectives
- 8 Trade, the G20 and the EU
- 9 Enhancement of the European Parliament’s Monitoring for Better Coherence between Trade Policy and NTPOs
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter reviews the existing data and literature on the European Union’s use of trade policies to pursue non-trade policy objectives (NTPOs), such as labor rights and environmental commitments, and proposes avenues for future research. It starts by reviewing the state of the art on the institutional design of NTPOs in EU trade agreements and gives an account of EU commitments to NTPOs vis-à-vis its trade partners over time. It then examines the political economy of the EU’s pursuit of objectives beyond trade and reviews novel data on EU stakeholder preferences over NTPOs. It subsequently argues that additional research is needed to focus on the implementation of measures that involve NTPOs. Researchers would benefit from exploring how (and to what extent) stakeholders effect the pathways that link implementation of non-trade policies to trade policies and the extent to which compliance with NTPOs in the past influences stakeholders’ political mobilization in future trade agreements and policies.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Coherence of the European Union Trade Policy with Its Non-Trade ObjectivesWorld Trade Forum, pp. 16 - 33Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Barbu, M., Campling, L., Smith, A., Harrison, J., and Richardson, B. 2018. The Trade–Labour Nexus: Global Value Chains and Labour Provisions in European Union Free Trade Agreements. Global Labour Journal, 9(3): 258–280. https://doi.org/10.15173/glj.v9i3.3354Google Scholar
Bastiaens, I., and Postnikov, E. 2017. Greening Up: The Effects of Environmental Standards in EU and US Trade Agreements. Environmental Politics, 26(5): 847–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1338213Google Scholar
Bluth, C. 2018. A Safety Net to Foster Support for Trade and Globalisation. Global Economic Dynamics, Bertelsmann Stiftung. www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did/a-safety-net-to-foster-support-for-trade-and-globalisation/Google Scholar
Bouwen, P. 2002. Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: The Logic of Access. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(3): 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cezar, R. F. 2020. Change and Continuity from NAFTA to NAFTA: Policy Feedbacks and the Design of Labor Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements. Seminar Paper at PEIO. www.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/2021/papers/PEIOo21_paper_52.pdfGoogle Scholar
De Ville, F., and Siles-Brügge, G. 2017. Why TTIP Is a Game-Changer and Its Critics Have a Point. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(10): 1491–1505.Google Scholar
DeSombre, E. 2000. Domestic Sources of International Environmental Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dür, A., and De Bièvre, D. 2007. Inclusion without Influence? NGOs in European Trade Policy. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1): 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckhardt, J. 2015. Business Lobbying and Trade Governance: The Case of EU–China Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Eliasson, L. J., and Garcia-Duran, P. 2018. TTIP Negotiations: Interest Groups, Anti-TTIP Civil Society Campaigns and Public Opinion. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 16(2): 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FIDH. 2013. Open Letter. Vietnam and Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: NGOs Urge the EU to Carry Out a Human Rights Impact Assessment. Press Release. www.fidh.org/en/asia/vietnam/open-letter-vietnam-and-free-trade-agreement-negotiationsngos-urge-the-eu-13221Google Scholar
Fiorini, M., Hoekman, B., Ralaison, N., and Yildirim, A. 2019. The RESPECT Survey Instrument. EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2019/59. http://respect.eui.eu/publications/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, T. 2010. The Second Conquest: The EU Free Trade Agreement with Colombia and Peru. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute.Google Scholar
Harrison, J., Barbu, M., Campling, L., Richardson, B., and Smith, A. 2019. Governing Labour Standards through Free Trade Agreements: Limits of the European Union’s Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters. Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(2): 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12715.Google Scholar
Hirsch, M. 2017. Identity Matters: The Enforcement of Global Human Rights Treaties by European Union’s Trade Instruments. In International Economic Law and Human Rights, ed. Biukovic, L. and Potter, P.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lechner, L. 2016. The Domestic Battle over the Design of Non-Trade Issues in Preferential Trade Agreements. Review of International Political Economy, 23(5): 840–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechner, L. 2018. Good for Some, Bad for Others: US Investors and Non-Trade Issues in Preferential Trade Agreements. Review of International Organizations, 13(2): 162–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechner, L. 2019. The Trend to More and Stricter Non-Trade Issues in Preferential Trade Agreements. In The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade Governance, ed. Elsig, M., Hahn, M., and Spilker, G.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meunier, S., and Nicolaidis, K. 2006. The European Union as a Conflicted Trade Power. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6): 906–925.Google Scholar
Morin, J.-F., Dür, A., and Lechner, L. 2018. Mapping the Trade and Environment Nexus: Insights from a New Data Set. Global Environmental Politics, 18(1): 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00447Google Scholar
Poletti, A., and Sicurelli, D. 2016. The European Union, Preferential Trade Agreements, and the International Regulation of Sustainable Biofuels. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(2): 249–266.Google Scholar
Poletti, A., and Sicurelli, D. 2018. The Political Economy of Normative Trade Power Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletti, A., Sicurelli, D., and Yildirim, A. 2020. Promoting Sustainable Development through Trade? EU Trade Agreements and Global Value Chains. Italian Political Science Review, 51, 339–354.Google Scholar
Pollack, M. A., and Shaffer, G. C. 2009. When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Postnikov, E. 2019. Unravelling the Puzzle of Social Standards’ Design in EU and US Trade Agreements. New Political Economy, 24(2): 181–196.Google Scholar
Raess, D., and Sari, D. 2016. LABPTA: Labour Provisions in Trade Agreements (LABPTA): Introducing a New Dataset. Working Paper. https://snis.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2014_Raess_Working-Paper.pdf. https://snis.ch/projects/a-social-clause-through-the-back-door-labor-provisions-in-preferential-trade-agreements/Google Scholar
Raess, D., Dür, A., and Sari, D. 2018. Protecting Labor Rights in Preferential Trade Agreements: The Role of Trade Unions, Left Governments and Skilled Labor. Review of International Organizations, 13: 143–162.Google Scholar
Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rose, M. 2020, May 10. French, Dutch Join Forces to Urge EU to Show Teeth on Trade. Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-trade-france-netherlands/french-dutch-join-forces-to-urge-eu-to-show-teeth-on-trade-idUSKBN22M0CHGoogle Scholar
Van den Hoven, A. 2006. European Union Regulatory Capitalism and Multilateral Trade Negotiations. In Values and Principles in European Foreign Policy, ed. Lucarelli, S. and Manners, I.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van den Putte, L. 2015. EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and the Surprising Rise of Labour Provisions. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 31(3): 263–283. www.kluwerlawonline.com/api/Product/CitationPDFURL?file=Journals%5CIJCL%5CIJCL2015015.pdfGoogle Scholar
Van den Putte, L., and Orbie, J. 2015. EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and the Surprising Rise of Labour Provisions. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 31(3): 263–283.Google Scholar
Vogel, D. 1995. Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woll, C. 2009. Who Captures Whom? Trade Policy Lobbying in the European Union. In Lobbying in the European Union, ed. Coen, D. and Richardson, J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yildirim, A. 2017. Firms’ Integration into Value Chains and Compliance with Adverse WTO Panel Rulings. World Trade Review, 17(1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Yildirim, A., Fiorini, M., Hoekman, B., and Basedow, R. 2020. Non-Trade Objectives and EU Trade Policy: Looking beyond Trade Agreements., Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(3): 556–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13100.Google Scholar
Young, A. 2015. Liberalizing Trade, not Exporting Rules: The Limits to Regulatory Co-ordination in the EU’s “New Generation” Preferential Trade Agreements. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(9): 1253–1275.Google Scholar
Young, A. 2016. Not Your Parents’ Trade Politics: The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiations. Review of International Political Economy, 23(3): 345–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, A., and Peterson, J. 2014. Parochial Global Europe: 21st Century Trade Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar