Environmental Instruments in Trade Agreements: Pushing the Limits of the Dialogue Approach

  • Evgeny Postnikov
Part of the The European Union in International Affairs book series (EUIA)


The EU has spearheaded the signing of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) with multiple countries across the developing world. These agreements play an important role in the toolkit of EU external environmental governance instruments by including environmental standards requiring trading partners to maintain proper levels of environmental protection. This chapter offers a much needed assessment of the effectiveness of environmental standards in EU PTAs. It traces the evolution of the EU’s approach towards environmental provisions, focusing on their governance mechanisms, and further examines their implementation in EU PTA partners, assessing the governments’ and civil society’s involvement in this process and pointing at the deficiencies of the EU’s approach, such as their limited scope and soft enforcement.


  1. Aspinwall, Mark. 2009. NAFTA-Ization: Regionalization and Domestic Political Adjustment in the North American Economic Area. Journal of Common Market Studies 47 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastiaens, Ida, and Evgeny Postnikov. 2017. Greening Up: The Effects of Environmental Standards in EU and US Trade Agreements. Environmental Politics. 26 (5): 847–869.Google Scholar
  3. Carruthers, David. 2001. Environmental Politics in Chile: Legacies of Dictatorship and Democracy. Third World Quarterly 22 (3): 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao, Xun, and Aseem Prakash. 2012. Trade Competition and Environmental Regulations: Domestic Political Constraints and Issue Visibility. The Journal of Politics 74 (1): 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Copeland, Brian, and M. Scott Taylor. 1995. Trade and Transboundary Pollution. The American Economic Review 85 (4): 716–737.Google Scholar
  6. Council of the European Union. 2006. Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (US SDS)—Renewed Strategy, Brussels, June 9. Accessed 23 Apr 2017.
  7. Damro, Chad. 2012. Market Power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 19 (5): 682–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2015. Market Power Europe and New EU Trade Policies. In Global Governance Through Trade: EU Policies and Approaches, ed. Jan Wouters, Axel Marx, Dylan Geraets, and Bregt Natens, 19–42. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Bièvre, Dirk, and Andreas Dür. 2007. Inclusion Without Influence? NGOs in European Trade Policy. Journal of Public Policy 27 (1): 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Ville, Ferdi, and Jan Orbie. 2011. The European Union’s Trade Policy Response to the Crisis: Paradigm Lost or Reinforced? European Integration Online Papers (EIoP) 15(2). Accessed 23 Apr 2017.
  11. DW. 2015. TTIP: Free Trade at the Expense of the Environment? Deutsche Welle, May 2. Accessed 23 Apr 2017.
  12. European Parliament. 2010. Human Rights, Social and Environmental Standards in International Trade Agreements. 2009/2219 (INI). Accessed 23 Apr 2017.
  13. GAO [Government Accountability Office]. 2009. Report on the Activities of the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate During the 111th Congress. Report 112-11. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  14. Greenpeace. 2016. Greenpeace Calls on Ministers to Reject CETA and Put People and Planet First. Accessed 23 Apr 2017.
  15. Jinnah, Sikina, and Abby Lindsay. 2016. Diffusion Through Issue Linkage: Environmental Norms in U.S. Trade Agreements. Global Environmental Politics 16 (3): 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lenschow, Andrea. 2015. Environmental Policy: Contending Dynamics of Policy Change. In Policy-Making in the European Union, ed. Helen Wallace, Mark A. Pollack, and Alasdair R. Young, 243–319. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Manners, Ian. 2002. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mathiesen, Karl. 2014. “What Does the Biggest Free Trade Deal in History Mean for the Environment?” The Guardian, March 15. Accessed 23 Apr 2017.
  19. Milner, Helen, and Edward D. Mansfield. 2012. Votes, Vetoes, and the Political Economy of International Trade Agreements. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Orbie, Jan, and Olufemi Babarinde. 2008. The Social Dimension of Globalization and EU Development Policy: Promoting Core Labor Standards and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of European Integration 30 (3): 459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Postnikov, Evgeny. 2014. The Design of Social Standards in EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements. In Handbook of the International Political Economy of Trade, ed. David A. Deese, 531–549. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Reyes-Mendy, Francisca. 2009. Lessons, Challenges and Opportunities Ten Years after the Signing of the Canada- Chile Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (CCAEC). Paper Presented at IPSA World Congress of Political Science, Santiago, Chile, July 12–16.Google Scholar
  23. Sbragia, Alberta. 2010. The EU, the US, and Trade Policy: Competitive Interdependence in the Management of Globalization. Journal of European Public Policy 17 (3): 368–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Woolcock, Stephen. 2015. Trade Policy: Policy-Making After the Treaty of Lisbon. In Policy-Making in the European Union, ed. Helen Wallace, Mark A. Pollack, and Alasdair R. Young, 388–406. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. World Bank. 2015. World Bank National Accounts Data, and OECD National Accounts Data Files. Accessed 23 Apr 2017.
  26. WWF. 2001. Environment & Trade in the European Union’s Inter-regional Agreements. Accessed 23 Apr 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evgeny Postnikov
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social and Political Sciences, University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations