Abstract
The paper explores the descriptive and normative intersection of Data Protection rights and Regulatory Cooperation chapters in the new generation of EU Trade Agreements. While the EU has repeatedly refused to consider data protection as part of trade negotiations, it has sought deeper institutionalised forms of regulatory cooperation. The question then arises as to what extent data protection rights would come across with these mechanisms and the consequences on their protection. In a context of global trade requiring data to flow freely, regulatory cooperation has been advanced as a way to deal with regulatory divergences in data. How should the EU deal with global demands pooling data flows and regulatory cooperation? The paper finds that data protection emerges as a very much cross-cutting issue liable to be affected by Regulatory Cooperation activities. It is argued that the EU should acknowledge this state of play whereby data protection cannot be isolated or only elusively addressed. Instead, mechanisms should be secured so as to ensure that data protection, as a fundamental right, is not undermined, and is embedded and enhanced in the regulatory cooperation chapters.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This goes beyond the scope of the chapter, however.
- 2.
Walter Berka, ‘CETA, TTIP, TiSA, and Data Protection’ in Stefan Griller, Walter Obwexer and Erich Vranes (eds), Mega-Regional Trade Agreements: CETA, TTIP, and TiSA: New Orientations for EU External Economic Relations (OUP 2017).
- 3.
UNCTAD, ‘Data protection regulations and international data flows: Implications for trade and development’ (2016) United Nations 36.
- 4.
See e.g. John Eger, ‘Emerging Restrictions on Transnational Data Flows: Privacy Protection or Non-Tariff Trade Barriers?’ (1978) 10 Law and Policy in International Business 1055.
- 5.
Lee A Bygrave, Data Protection Law: Approaching Its Rationale, Logic and Limits (Kluwer Law International 2002).
- 6.
Thomas Cottier, Professor Emeritus of European and International Economic Law at the University of Bern, ‘The future of regulatory cooperation’ (Presentation at II LAwTTIP Joint Conference ‘Rights, Values and Trade: Is an Agreement between EU and US Still Possible?’ Bologna, 12 April 2018).
- 7.
Junji Nakagawa, ‘Regulatory Co-operation and Regulatory Coherence through Mega-FTAs: Possibilities and Challenges’ in Julien Chaisse and Tsai-Yu Lin (eds), International economic law and governance: Essays in honour of Mitsuo Matsushita (OUP 2016) p. 410.
- 8.
OECD, International Regulatory Co-operation Addressing Global Challenges (OECD Publishing 2013), see more detailed table at pp. 23-25.
- 9.
OECD supra note 8.
- 10.
Andreas Dür and Manfred Elsig (eds), ‘Preface’, Trade Cooperation (CUP 2015) p. 7.
- 11.
Eyal Benvenisti and George W Downs, Between Fragmentation and Democracy: The Role of National and International Courts (CUP 2017).
- 12.
Thomas Cottier supra note 6.
- 13.
Mira Burri, ‘The Governance of Data and Data Flows in Trade Agreements: The Pitfalls of Legal Adaptation’ (2017) 51 UC Davis law review 1, pp. 65-132.
- 14.
See respectively: UN Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files UN (DOC.E/CN.4/1990/72 of 14 December 1990) <https://undocs.org/E/CN.4/1990/72>; Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (OECD 1980); the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Privacy Framework, the Council of Europe Convention 1085 and the European Union General Data Protection Regulation.
- 15.
Christopher Kuner, Transborder Data Flows and Data Privacy Law (OUP 2013) p. 10.
- 16.
Next to national legislation, as of January 2013, around 10 (more or less) binding bilateral agreements and instruments to govern transborder data flows were in place, as well as a series of private sector instruments, such as contractual clauses, as well as non-binding codes of practices. See Appendix Data Protection and Privacy Law Instruments Regulating Transborder Data Flows (as of January 2013) in Christopher Kuner, Transborder Data Flows and Data Privacy Law (OUP 2013). Among the instruments and amendments identified by Kuner, it is possible to count 6 dating the 90s, and all the rest from the turn of the century, in particular, 9 in 2011; 4 in 2010; 2 in 2009; 7 in 2008; 2 in 2007; 1 in 2006; 3 in 2005; 4 in 2004; 3 in 2003, 1 in 2002, 4 in 2001 and 2 in 2000. Countries not having legislation fully in force: Barbados, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa.
- 17.
Kuner supra note 15 at 26 and UCTAD 2016 supra note 3.
For instance, unlike the EU, the US and Asia have a more self-regulatory approach. In particular, the US is highly defiant of regulating privacy and mostly relies on the private sector, as opposed to the EU where a more prominent role is given to government regulation and regulatory agencies.
- 18.
Kuner supra note 15 at 22-23.
- 19.
See eg. Satya Nadella Microsoft CEO, in Daniel Hurst, ‘Japan Calls for Global Consensus on Data Governance’ (2 February 2019) <https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/japan-calls-for-global-consensus-on-data-governance/> and Peter Fleischer, Global Privacy Counsel, ‘Call for global privacy standards’ (14 September 2007) <https://publicpolicy.googleblog.com/2007/09/call-for-global-privacy-standards.html>.
- 20.
Cécile de Terwangne, ‘Is a Global Data Protection Regulatory Model Possible?’ in Serge Gutwirth and others (eds), Reinventing Data Protection? (Springer Netherlands 2009).
- 21.
Reeve Bull and others, ‘New Approaches to International Regulatory Cooperation: the Challenge of TTIP, TPP, and Mega-Regional Trade Agreements’ (2015) 78 Law and Contemporary Problems p. 1; Tamara Takacs, ‘Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation in Trade’ in Elaine Fahey, Deirdre Curtin (eds), A Transatlantic Community of Law: Legal Perspectives on the Relationship between the EU and US Legal Orders (CUP 2014).
- 22.
Christopher Kuner and others, ‘The Global Data Protection Implications of “Brexit”’ (2016) 6 International Data Privacy Law p. 167.
- 23.
Luisa Marin, ‘Personal data is not bananas’ Presentation at II LAwTTIP Joint Conference ‘Rights, Values and Trade: Is an Agreement between EU and US Still Possible?’ Bologna, 12 April 2018.
- 24.
Paul M Schwartz, ‘Global Data Privacy: The EU Way’ (2019) 94 New York University Law Review (forthcoming) p. 4.
- 25.
European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Exchanging and Protecting Personal Data in a Globalised World’ (2017) COM(2017) 7 final <https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=41157>.
- 26.
Burri supra note 13.
- 27.
Article 8 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/391.
- 28.
European Commission press release ‘Towards a more dynamic transatlantic area of growth and investment’ (29 October 2013) <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-867_en.htm>.
- 29.
See spokesperson for the Commission “The TTIP is not the right forum to discuss privacy standards. The EU is not going to lower its own standards nor is it going to try to change the US’ standards. Data privacy is outside of the scope of this negotiation. Separate discussions with the US are taking place on Safe Harbour – a streamlined process for US companies to comply with EU rules on the protection of personal data – and an agreement on the use of data by law enforcement authorities” in ‘European Commission: EU-US data flow discussions separate from TTIP negotiations’ (25 March 2015) <https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2015/march/european-commission-eu-us-data-flow-discussions-separate-from-ttip-negotiations/>.
- 30.
See report of the 12th negotiating round. The reports of the following rounds similarly reflect the lack of discussion on the issue. European Commission, ‘The Twelfth Round of Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)’ <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/march/tradoc_154391.pdf>. See also Estelle Masse, ‘The TTIP leaks: what does it mean for your digital rights?’ (12 May 2016) <https://www.accessnow.org/ttip-leaks-mean-digital-rights/>.
- 31.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 of 12 July 2016 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (notified under document C(2016) 4176) <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2016.207.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2016%3A207%3AFULL>.
- 32.
See 15th and 18th negotiating rounds. European Commission, ‘Report of the 15th EU-Japan FTA/EPA negotiating round Brussels, 29 February - 4 March 2016’ <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/march/tradoc_154368.pdf>; European Commission, ‘Report of the 18th EU-Japan FTA/EPA negotiating round Tokyo, Week of 3 April 2017’ <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/april/tradoc_155506.pdf>.
- 33.
See 15th negotiating round, ibid.
- 34.
See European Commission press release, ‘The European Union and Japan agreed to create the world’s largest area of safe data flows’ (17 July 2018) <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4501_en.htm>.
- 35.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/419 of 23 January 2019 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by Japan under the Act on the Protection of Personal Information OJ L 76.
- 36.
European Commission press release supra note 34.
- 37.
European Commission, ‘Exchanging and Protecting Personal Data in a Globalised World’, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COM(2017) 7 final, p. 9.
- 38.
Gabriel Felbermayr, ‘The EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement and the revitalisation of the international economic liberal order’ (Real Instituto Elcano, 21 February 2019) <http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_en/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_es/zonas_es/asia-pacifico/ari22-2019 -felbermayr-eu-japan-economic-partnership-agreement-revitalisation-international-economic-liberal-order>.
- 39.
Paul Schwartz, ‘Global Data Privacy: The EU Way’ (2019) 94 New York University Law Review (forthcoming).
- 40.
Chapter 23 CETA.
- 41.
The same approach has been replicated in the most recent proposal for horizontal provisions on cross-border data flows and for personal data protection to be included in future FTAs, which is nevertheless not discussed here for reasons of space. See Horizontal provisions for cross-border data flows and for personal data protection (in EU trade and investment agreements) <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/may/tradoc_156884.pdf>.
- 42.
For EU-US Regulatory Cooperation in privacy, see Gregory Shaffer, ‘Globalization and Social Protection: The Impact of EU and International Rules in the Ratcheting up of U.S. Data Privacy Standards’ (2000) 25 Yale Journal of International Law p. 1.
- 43.
Commission, ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World’ COM (2006) 567 final <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0567&from=EN>.
- 44.
Ibid 9.
- 45.
European Commission, ‘Commission staff working document - The external dimension of the single market review - Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A single market for 21st century Europe’ (2007) <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52007SC1519:EN:HTML>.
- 46.
European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the External Dimension of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs: Reporting on market access and setting the framework for more effective international regulatory cooperation’ (2008) COM(2008) 874 final, <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52008DC0874&from=EN>.
- 47.
See Council of the European Union, ‘Recommendation from the Commission to the Council in order to authorize the Commission to open negotiations for an Economic Integration Agreement with Canada’ (Brussels, 24 April 2009) <http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9036-2009-EXT-2/en/pdf>; Council of the European Union, ‘Directives for the negotiation on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the European Union and the United States of America’ (Brussels, 17 June 2013) <http://data.Consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf>; Council of the European Union, ‘Directives for the negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement with Japan’ (Brussels, 29 November 2012) <https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/23934/st15864-ad01re02dc01en12.pdf>.
- 48.
European Commission, ‘EU-U.S.: Call for proposals for regulatory cooperation activities’ <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/march/tradoc_157722.Final%20(002).pdf>.
- 49.
Commission, ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World’ COM (2006) 567 final <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0567&from=EN>, 7.
- 50.
European Commission, Commission staff working document supra note 45.
- 51.
European Commission, Communication on the External Dimension of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs supra note 46.
- 52.
Where these fall under the scope of regulatory cooperation mechanisms envisaged.
- 53.
Marise Cremona, ‘Guest Editorial: Negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)’ (2015) 52 CMLR p. 351.
- 54.
See UK’s proposal for a beyond adequacy decision and ongoing regulatory cooperation in HM Government, ‘The exchange and protection of personal data: A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PAPER’ (2018) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/639853/The_exchange_and_protection_of_personal_data.pdf>.
- 55.
Article 21.1 CETA.
- 56.
Article 18.3(1) EUJEPA.
- 57.
Article 18.18(1) EUJEPA.
- 58.
See eg. Articles 18.1(2), (3), (4), (5); and Article 18.12(6).
- 59.
TTIP - EU proposal for Chapter: Regulatory Cooperation, tabled for discussion with the US and made public on 21 March 2016, <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/march/tradoc_154377.pdf>, thereinafter TTIP - EU proposal for Chapter: Regulatory Cooperation (2016). The scope of applicability of Regulatory Cooperation is extended beyond “specific or sectoral provisions concerning goods and services” towards “any other areas or sectors” covered by the Agreement that “has or is likely to have a significant impact on trade or investment between the Parties”. Data protection issues could arguably fall under the “other areas or sectors” where regulators of both Parties could find such common interest. At the same time, it is also specified that regulatory measures which relate to services outside the applicable scope of the sections on liberalisation of investment and cross-border supply of services would not form part of the applicable scope of the Chapter. Since services such as data processing, data storage and similar do fall under the services chapter proposed by the EU, it is unclear to what extent data protection would be excluded by the scope of applicability for regulatory cooperation; and whether it could be discussed as a consequence of negotiations of the terms upon which the above mentioned services could be offered.
- 60.
Article 6-8 TTIP - EU proposal for Chapter: Regulatory Cooperation (2016).
- 61.
Joana Mendes, ‘Participation in a new regulatory paradigm: collaboration and constraint in TTIP’s regulatory cooperation’ (2016) IILJ Working Paper 2016/5 (MegaReg Series) p. 22.
- 62.
Marija Bartl and Kristina Irion, ‘The Japan EU Economic Partnership Agreement: Flows of Personal Data to the Land of the Rising Sun’ (2017) <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3099390>, 10.
- 63.
Ibid.
- 64.
Art.x1(1)(a) TTIP - EU proposal for Chapter: Regulatory Cooperation (2016).
- 65.
Art.x1(1)(b) ibid.
- 66.
Ibid.
- 67.
Article 21.3(a) CETA.
- 68.
21.3(c) CETA; see TTIP “pursue increased compatibility of regulatory approaches” Art.x1(1)(d).
- 69.
Art.x1(1)(d) TTIP - EU proposal for Chapter: Regulatory Cooperation (2016).
- 70.
Art.18.1(1)(1)(a) EUJEPA.
- 71.
Art.18.1(2)(h) EUJEPA.
- 72.
Marija Bartl and Elaine Fahey, ‘A postnational marketplace: negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’ in Elaine Fahey and Deirdre Curtin (eds), A Transatlantic Community of Law: Legal Perspectives on the Relationship between the EU and US legal orders (CUP 2014).
- 73.
Joseph Corkin, ‘Who, then, in [European] law, is my neighbour? Limiting the argument from external effects’ in Samo Bardutzky and Elaine Fahey, Framing the Subjects and Objects of Contemporary EU Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2017).
- 74.
For reasons of space, this section focuses on the expertise of the actors that constitute the bodies created under the chapters and does not consider external participatory mechanisms.
- 75.
Bartl and Irion supra note 61 at 10-11.
- 76.
Ibid.
- 77.
See Joint Committee on Human Rights, ‘Human Rights Protections in International Agreements’ (Seventeenth Report of Session 2017–19) and Marija Bartl, ‘TTIP’s Regulatory Cooperation And The Politics Of ‘Learning’ (2015), <https://www.socialeurope.eu/ttips-regulatory-cooperation-and-the-politics-of-learning>.
- 78.
Article 21.6 CETA and Article 18.14 EUJEPA.
- 79.
Article 21.6(3) CETA.
- 80.
Article 22.3(3)(c) EUJEPA and Article 16 EU’s proposal for legal text on “Regulatory Cooperation” in TTIP, tabled for discussion with the US in the negotiating round of 20-24 April 2015 and made public on 4 May 2015, <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/april/tradoc_153403.pdf>.
- 81.
Article X.2(1) EU Proposal for Institutional, General and Final Provisions, tabled for discussion with the US in the negotiating round of 11-15 July 2016 and made public on 14 July 2016, <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/july/tradoc_154802.pdf>.
- 82.
Bartl and Irion supra note 62.
- 83.
Article 8.27(4) CETA.
- 84.
Article 26.2(5) CETA.
- 85.
How should data protection rights be embedded in regulatory cooperation chapters for them not to be jeopardised and be protected instead? How to formulate fundamental rights protection in regulatory cooperation chapters? Can we consider fundamental rights in regulatory cooperation at all, without the latter undermining the former? These questions are the more challenging and compelling in the light of the nature of fundamental rights and their non-negotiability. This is however beyond the scope of the chapter.
References
Bartl M (2015) TTIP’s Regulatory Cooperation And The Politics Of ‘Learning. Available at: https://www.socialeurope.eu/ttips-regulatory-cooperation-and-the-politics-of-learning
Bartl M and Fahey E (2014) A postnational marketplace: negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. In: Fahey E and Curtin D(eds) A Transatlantic Community of Law: Legal Perspectives on the Relationship between the EU and US legal orders, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 210-234
Bartl M and Irion K (2017) The Japan EU Economic Partnership Agreement: Flows of Personal Data to the Land of the Rising Sun. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3099390
Benvenisti E and W Downs G W (2017) Between Fragmentation and Democracy: The Role of National and International Courts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Berka W (2017) CETA, TTIP, TiSA, and Data Protection. In: Griller S, Obwexer W and Vranes E(eds) Mega-Regional Trade Agreements: CETA, TTIP, and TiSA: New Orientations for EU External Economic Relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford., pp. 175-187
Bull R and others (2015) New Approaches to International Regulatory Cooperation: the Challenge of TTIP, TPP, and Mega-Regional Trade Agreements, 78 Law and Contemporary Problems, pp. 1-29
Burri M (2017) The Governance of Data and Data Flows in Trade Agreements: The Pitfalls of Legal Adaptation, 51 UC Davis law review, pp. 65-132
Bygrave L A (2002) Data Protection Law: Approaching Its Rationale, Logic and Limits, Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Corkin J (2017) Who, then, in [European] law, is my neighbour? Limiting the argument from external effects. In: Bardutzky S and Fahey E (eds) Framing the Subjects and Objects of Contemporary EU Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 72–102
Cremona M 2015) Guest Editorial: Negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), 52 CMLR pp. 351-362
Dür A and Elsig M (2015) Preface. In: Dür A and Elsig M (eds) Trade Cooperation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. xxii-xxiii
Eger J (1987) Emerging Restrictions on Transnational Data Flows: Privacy Protection or Non-Tariff Trade Barriers?, 10 Law and Policy in International Business, pp. 1055-1073
Felbermayr G (2019) The EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement and the revitalisation of the international economic liberal order. Available via http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_en/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_es/zonas_es/asia-pacifico/ari22-2019-felbermayr-eu-japan-economic-partnership-agreement-revitalisation-international-economic-liberal-order
Fleischer P (2007) Call for global privacy standards <https://publicpolicy.googleblog.com/2007/09/call-for-global-privacy-standards.html>
Hurst D (2019) Japan Calls for Global Consensus on Data Governance. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/japan-calls-for-global-consensus-on-data-governance/
Kuner C (2013) Transborder Data Flows and Data Privacy Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kuner C and others (2016) The Global Data Protection Implications of “Brexit”, 6 International Data Privacy Law p. 167-169
Marin L (2018) Personal data is not bananas’ Presentation at II LAwTTIP Joint Conference ‘Rights, Values and Trade: Is an Agreement between EU and US Still Possible?’, Bologna, 12 April 2018
Mendes J (2016) Participation in a new regulatory paradigm: collaboration and constraint in TTIP’s regulatory cooperation, IILJ Working Paper 2016/5. Available at: https://wp.nyu.edu/megareg/wp-content/uploads/sites/3134/2016/06/Mendes_IILJ-2016_5-MegaReg.pdf
Nakagawa J (2016) Regulatory Co-operation and Regulatory Coherence through Mega-FTAs: Possibilities and Challenges. In: Chaisse J and Lin T-Y (eds) International economic law and governance: Essays in honour of Mitsuo Matsushita, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 392-411
OECD (2013) International Regulatory Co-operation Addressing Global Challenges, OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/env/international-regulatory-co-operation-9789264200463-en.htm
Schwartz P M (2019) Global Data Privacy: The EU Way, 94 New York University Law Review, pp. 4-35
Shaffer G (2000) Globalization and Social Protection: The Impact of EU and International Rules in the Ratcheting up of U.S. Data Privacy Standards, 25 Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 1-88
Takacs T (2014) Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation in Trade. In: Fahey E, Curtin D (eds), A Transatlantic Community of Law: Legal Perspectives on the Relationship between the EU and US Legal Orders, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 158-185
UNCTAD (2016) Data protection regulations and international data flows: Implications for trade and development United Nations, New York and Geneva. Available at: https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary /dtlstict2016d1_en.pdf
Terwangne de C (2009) Is a Global Data Protection Regulatory Model Possible?. In: Gutwirth S and others (eds), Reinventing Data Protection?, Springer Netherlands, pp. 175-189
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mancini, I. (2020). Deepening Trade and Fundamental Rights? Harnessing Data Protection Rights in the Regulatory Cooperation Chapters of EU Trade Agreements. In: Weiß, W., Furculita, C. (eds) Global Politics and EU Trade Policy. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34588-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34588-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34587-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34588-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)