Chemicals: Pioneering Ambitions with External Effects
The European Union has evolved as relatively ambitious driver of internal and external chemicals policy. It has been an active participant in international negotiations, oftentimes advocating comparatively ambitious multilateral chemicals treaties. Strong domestic EU chemicals policy provides a solid baseline for the Union’s international engagement, generating a unified common position and activities. The EU’s large global chemicals market share and the high degree of globalisation of the chemicals industry lend the EU a certain degree of leverage to alter non-EU countries’ utility calculations. This can lead to increased receptiveness of certain countries to engage in dialogue and capacity building provided by the EU. Yet, the international policy context and positions of other major players such as the USA and China have conditioned the EU’s effectiveness.
- Allanou, Remi, Bjorn G. Hansen, and Yvonne Van Der Bilt. 2003a. Public Availability of Data on EU High Production Volume Chemicals—Part 1. Chimica Oggi (Chemistry Today) 21 (6): 91–95.Google Scholar
- ———. 2003b. Public Availability of Data on EU High Production Volume Chemicals—Part 2. Chimica Oggi (Chemistry Today) 21 (7): 59–64.Google Scholar
- Biedenkopf, Katja. 2013. Assessing Possibilities for Enhanced EU-South Korea Cooperation on Chemicals Regulation. In EU-Korea Relations in a Changing World, ed. Axel Marx, Jan Wouters, Woosik Moon, Yeongseop Rhee, Sunhee Park, and Matthieu Burnay, 167–193. Leuven and Seoul: Joint Project by the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, KU Leuven and the Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
- ———. 2016. The EU in Global Chemicals Governance. In The European Union’s Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective. Beyond the “Actorness and Power” Debate, ed. Ingo Peters, 61–79. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Cefic. 2012. The European Chemical Industry in Worldwide Perspective. Facts and Figures. Brussels: The European Chemical Council.Google Scholar
- Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie, and Janet Welsh Brown. 2014. Global Environmental Politics. Vol. 6. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Chemical Watch. 2011. Asian Economies Set Pace on Chemicals Management. Monthly Briefing July/August 2011: 25–26.Google Scholar
- ———. 2013. REACH Passes Second Registration Deadline. https://chemicalwatch.com/15073/reach-passes-second-registration-deadline. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.
- ———. 2016a. EU-South Korea Data Trading Systems Launch. https://chemicalwatch.com/48068/eu-south-korea-data-trading-systems-launch. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.
- ———. 2016b. TTIP Negotiations ‘Useful’ on Priority Chemicals, Says Commission. https://chemicalwatch.com/45997/ttip-negotiations-useful-on-priority-chemicals-says-commission. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.
- Delreux, Tom. 2011. The EU as International Environmental Negotiator. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- European Commission. 2013. Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. COM(2013) 100 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
- ———. 2014. Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. COM(2014) 109 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
- ———. 2015. Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. COM(2015) 139 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
- ———. 2016. Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. COM(2016) 268 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
- Fallström Mujkic, Pia. 2012. Chemicals Legislation Changing in Asia. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Newsletter 3: 12–13.Google Scholar
- Hagen, Paul E., and Michael P. Walls. 2005. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Natural Resources and Environment 19 (4): 49–52.Google Scholar
- Karlaganis, Georg, Renato Marioni, Ivo Sieber, and Andreas Weber. 2001. The Elaboration of the ‘Stockholm Convention’ on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs): A Negotiation Process Fraught with Obstacles and Opportunities. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 8 (3): 216–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Karlsson, Mikael. 2010. The Precautionary Principle in EU and US Chemicals Policy: A Comparison of Industrial Chemicals Legislation. In Regulating Chemical Risks. European and Global Challenges, ed. Johan Eriksson, Michael Gilek, and Christina Rudén, 239–266. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Krueger, Jonathan, and Henrik Selin. 2002. Governance for Sound Chemicals Management: The Need for a More Comprehensive Global Strategy. Global Governance 8 (3): 323–342.Google Scholar
- Liefferink, Duncan, and Rüdiger K. W. Wurzel. 2016. Environmental Leaders and Pioneers: Agents of Change? Journal of European Public Policy, Online First, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1161657.
- Schomaker, Astrid, and Christina de Avila. 2009. REACH: Towards the Safer Management of Chemicals. Chemistry International 31 (4): 15–18.Google Scholar
- Schwarzman, Megan R., and Michael P. Wilson. 2009. Reshaping Chemicals Policy on Two Sides of the Atlantic. In Handling Global Challenges. Managing Biodiversity and Biosafety in a Global World. EU, US, California and Comparative Perspectives, ed. Jo Swinnen, David Vogel, Axel Marx, Heddy Riss, and Jan Wouters, 306–326. Leuven: Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies.Google Scholar
- Selin, Henrik. 2010. Global Governance of Hazardous Chemicals. Challenges of Multilevel Management. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar