Advertisement

The European Parliament in External Agreements

  • Adrienne HéritierEmail author
  • Katharina L. Meissner
  • Catherine Moury
  • Magnus G. Schoeller
Chapter
Part of the European Administrative Governance book series (EAGOV)

Abstract

This chapter examines the EP’s informal empowerment in the highly politicized area of EU trade agreements. In trade policy, the Lisbon Treaty granted the EP a major new right of ratification of international agreements falling under the common commercial policy. We analyse how the EP managed to significantly widen its powers beyond the final approval of trade agreements to an informal involvement in the shaping of these agreements. As this chapter shows, the EP used the strategies of sanctioning, delaying and unilateral action in order to obtain new informal institutional powers that went further than the Lisbon Treaty.

Keywords

Common commercial policy European Parliament Empowerment Informal rules Trade agreement 

References

  1. Akhtar, S. I., & Jones, V. C. (2014). Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Negotiations (Congressional Research Service CRS Report 7-5700). Washington.Google Scholar
  2. Armanoviča, M., & Bendini, R. (2014). The Role of the EP in Shaping the EU’s Trade Policy After the Entry into Force of the Treaty of Lisbon. In-Depth Analysis for the DG Expo, Brussels. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/briefing_note/join/2014/522336/EXPO-JOIN_SP%282014%29522336_EN.pdf. Accessed 19 Sept 2017.
  3. Bendrath, R. (2010). New SWIFT/TFTP Agreement Still Has Massive Weaknesses. http://bendrath.blogspot.fr/2010/06/new-swift-tftp-agreement-still-has.html. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
  4. Crespy, A., & Parks, L. (2017). The Connection Between Parliamentary and Extra-Parliamentary Opposition in the EU: From ACTA to the Financial Crisis. Journal of European Integration, 39(4), 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crisp, J. (2014). EU Ombudsman Demands More TTIP Transparency. http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-industry/eu-ombudsman-demands-more-ttip-transparency-303831. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
  6. Curtin, D. (2013). Official Secrets and the Negotiation of International Agreements: Is the EU Executive Unbound? Common Market Law Review, 50(2), 423–458.Google Scholar
  7. Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2014). Public Opinion and Interest Group Influence: How Citizen Groups Derailed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(8), 1199–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ECJ. (2013). Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) in Case T-301/10. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=135225&occ=first&dir=&cid=169783. Accessed 10 Mar 2015.
  9. Eckes, C., Fahey, E., & Kanetake, M. (2012). International, European and U.S. Perspectives on the Negotiation and Adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). International Trade Law Journal, 20(2), 20–44.Google Scholar
  10. EP. (2009a). European Parliament Resolution of 17 September 2009 on the Envisaged International Agreement to Make Available to the United States Treasury Department Financial Payment Messaging Data to Prevent and Combat Terrorism and Terrorist Financing. P7_TA(2009)0016. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2009-0016&language=EN. Accessed 19 Sept 2017.
  11. EP. (2009b). European Parliament Resolution of 14 January 2009 on Public Access to European Parliament, Council and Commission Documents (Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52009IP0022. Accessed 4 Oct 2016.
  12. EP. (2010). European Parliament Resolution of 10 March 2010 on the Transparency and State of Play of the ACTA Negotiations. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-0058+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. Accessed 23 Feb 2015.
  13. EP. (2013). European Parliament Resolution of 23 October 2013 on the Suspension of the TFTP Agreement as a Result of US National Security Agency Surveillance. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2013-0449&language=EN. Accessed 30 Mar 2015.
  14. EP. (2015a). European Parliament Resolution of 8 July 2015 Containing the European Parliament’s Recommendations to the European Commission on the Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0252+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. Accessed 4 Oct 2016.
  15. EP. (2015b). All MEPs to Have Access to All Confidential TTIP Documents. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=IM-PRESS&reference=20151202IPR05759&language=EN&format=XML. Accessed 4 Oct 2016.
  16. European Commission. (2012). Transparency of ACTA Negotiations. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-99_en.htm. Accessed 23 Feb 2015.
  17. European Commission. (2014a). Trade: Countries and Regions: Singapore. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/singapore/. Accessed 26 Feb 2015.
  18. European Commission. (2014b). Communication to the Commission Concerning Transparency in TTIP Negotiations, C(2014) 9052 Final, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2014/EN/3-2014-9052-EN-1-1.PDF. Accessed 19 Sept 2017.
  19. Fitzpatrick, C. A. (2011). Uzbekistan: European Parliament Rejects Textile Tariff Reduction. Eurasianet. http://www.eurasianet.org/node/64710. Accessed 7 Mar 2015.
  20. Geist, M. (2010). The Trouble with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). SAIS Review of International Affairs, 30(2), 137–147.Google Scholar
  21. Halfteck, G. (2008). Legislative Threats. Stanford Law Review, 61(3), 629–710.Google Scholar
  22. INTA. (2013). Meeting EP Committee: International Trade. http://www.europa-nu.nl/9353000/1/j9tvgajcor7dxyk_j9vvioaf0kku7zz/vj82654sciqy?ctx=vh7ykazlgmjz&tab=1. Accessed 26 Feb 2015.
  23. Interview 1. (2015, February 2). European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  24. Interview 2. (2015, February 2). European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  25. Interview 3. (2015, February 9). European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  26. Interview 4. (2015, February 10). Council of the European Union. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  27. Interview 5. (2015, February 11). European Parliament. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  28. Interview 6. (2015, February 12). European Parliament. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  29. Interview 7. (2015, February 12). European Parliament. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  30. Interview 8. (2015, February 26). European Parliament. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  31. Interview 9. (2015, February 27). European Parliament. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  32. Interview 10. (2015, February 27). European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  33. Interview 11. (2015, February 27). European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  34. Interview 12. (2015, February 22). European Parliament (ex-member). Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  35. Jacobs, F., & Corbett, R. (1990). The European Parliament (1st ed.). Essex: Longman Group UK.Google Scholar
  36. Kohler, M. (2014). European Governance and the European Parliament: From Talking Shop to Legislative Powerhouse. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(3), 600–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lauenroth, A. (2014). Public Protests Changed the Game: The European Parliament and ACTA. In D. Kietz & N. von Ondarza (Eds.), Strengthened, Sidelined, and Caught in Compromise: The 7th European Parliament from a German Perspective (SWP Working Paper of the EU Integration Division 2014/1). Berlin.Google Scholar
  38. Márton, P. (2017). Explaining the CETA Outcome: Searching for Legitimacy in All the Wrong Places. Paper Presented at the UACES 47th Annual Conference, 4–6 September, Krakow.Google Scholar
  39. Monar, J. (2010). The Rejection of the EU-US SWIFT Interim Agreement by the European Parliament: A Historic Vote and Its Implications. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(2), 143–151.Google Scholar
  40. Ombudsman. (2014). Decision of the European Ombudsman Closing Her Own-initiative Inquiry OI/10/2014/RA Concerning the European Commission. http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/58668/html.bookmark. Accessed 4 Oct 2016.
  41. Ombudsman (2015). Decision of the European Ombudsman Closing the Inquiry into Complaint 119/2015/PHP on the European Commission’s Handling of a Request for Public Access to Documents Related to TTIP. http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/61261/html.bookmark. Accessed 4 Oct 2016.
  42. Ripoll Servent, A. (2014). The Role of the European Parliament in International Negotiations After Lisbon. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(4), 568–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ripoll Servent, A., & MacKenzie, A. (2013). Is the EP Still a Data Protection Champion: The Case of SWIFT. In S. Léonard & C. Kaunert (Eds.), European Security Governance and the European Neighbourhood After the Lisbon Treaty (pp. 30–47). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Rittberger, B., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2006). Explaining the constitutionalization of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(8), 1148–1167.Google Scholar
  45. Rosén, G. (2016a). A Match Made in Heaven? Explaining Patterns of Cooperation Between the Commission and the European Parliament. Journal of European Integration, 38(4), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosén, G. (2016b). The Impact of Norms on Political Decision-Making: How to Account for the European Parliament’s Empowerment in EU External Trade Policy. Journal of European Public Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1227357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Santos Vara, J. (2013). The Role of the European Parliament in the Conclusion of the Transatlantic Agreements on the Transfer of Personal Data After Lisbon (CLEER Working Papers, 3). Centre for the Law of EU External Relations, The Hague.Google Scholar
  48. Schmidt, S. K. (2018). The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process: The Shadow of Case Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van den Putte, L., De Ville, F., Orbie, J. (2014). The European Parliament’s New Role in Trade Policy: Turning Power into Impact (CEPS Special Report, 89). Brussels.Google Scholar
  50. Webb, D. (2015). The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). House of Commons Library Standard Note. UK Parliament Report, United Kingdom. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN06688/the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-ttip. Accessed 10 Mar 2015.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrienne Héritier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katharina L. Meissner
    • 2
  • Catherine Moury
    • 3
  • Magnus G. Schoeller
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Political and Social Sciences and Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced StudiesEuropean University InstituteSan Domenico di Fiesole, FlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Centre for European Integration Research, IPWUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Universidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Centre for European Integration Research, IPWUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations