Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2017 pp 411–436Cite as

Bilateral Developments in EU Trade Policy Seven Years After Lisbon: A Look into the Spaghetti-Bowl à la Bruxelloise (2010–2016)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 8))

Abstract

The author reviews the EU’s bilateral free trade agenda since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. He shows that the number of partner countries has grown significantly, nowadays covering all major regions of the world. The review covers neighbourhood countries, emerging economies, G-7 partners, ASEAN and ACP countries, as well as Latin American countries plus Australia and New Zealand. Afterwards, he describes the major trends in a typical EU FTA on trade in goods, services, investment protection, public procurement, IPRs, competition and sustainable development. In his conclusion, the author argues that EU trade policy has become increasingly politicised over the past 7 years and is regularly dealt with nowadays at the level of Heads of States and Governments.

The views expressed are personal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bhagwati (1995).

  2. 2.

    European Commission, Trade, Growth and World Affairs – Trade Policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 strategy, COM (2010) 612 final, 9 November 2010, p. 9.

  3. 3.

    European Commission, Trade, Growth and Jobs, Commission contribution to the European Council, 7–8 February 2013, p. 2.

  4. 4.

    Hoffmeister (2016a).

  5. 5.

    Literal translation: “Like at home”. At the same time, “Comme Chez Soi” is supposedly the most distinguished Gourmet restaurant in the city of Brussels.

  6. 6.

    OJ 2012 L 241/4.

  7. 7.

    Council Decision 2013/94/EU of 26 March 2012, OJ 2013 L 54/4.

  8. 8.

    European Commission, EU and Turkey announce modernisation of Customs Union, Press release, 12 May 2015.

  9. 9.

    The Regulation was prolonged in 2005 and 2011. See the last Regulation (EU) No 1336/2011, OJ 2011 L 347/1.

  10. 10.

    Council Decision (EU) 2016/342 of 12 February 2016 on the conclusion of the SAA with Kosovo, OJ 2016 L 71/1.

  11. 11.

    Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, OJ 2012 L 303/1.

  12. 12.

    OJ 2014 L 261/4.

  13. 13.

    For more details see Wiegand and Schulz (2015), pp. 321–326.

  14. 14.

    OJ 2014 L 161/3.

  15. 15.

    Council Decision 2014/691/EU of 29 September 2014, OJ 2014 L 289/1.

  16. 16.

    See European Commission, EU-Ukraine-Russia Trilateral Talks – State of play, Press release, 5 August 2015.

  17. 17.

    COM (2010) 612 final, p. 4.

  18. 18.

    Regulation (EU) No 511/2011, OJ 2011 L 145/19.

  19. 19.

    OJ 2011 L 127/6.

  20. 20.

    European Commission, Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement, COM (2015) 139 final, 26 March 2015, p. 5.

  21. 21.

    See Hoffmeister (2015a), p. 59.

  22. 22.

    Panel Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Import of Goods, WT/DS438/R, adopted 22 August 2015; Appellate Body Report, WT/DS438/AB/R, adopted 15 January 2015.

  23. 23.

    Panel Report, EU – Anti-Dumping Measures Affecting the Imports of Bio-Diesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/R, adopted 29 March 2016; Appellate Body Report, WT/DS473/AB/R, adopted 6 October 2016.

  24. 24.

    The 6th HED took place 18 October 2016 in Brussels, see European Commission, Press release IP-16-3441, 18 October 2016.

  25. 25.

    European Commission, Trade for All – Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy, COM (2015) 497 final, chapter 5.2.2.

  26. 26.

    Consolidated CETA text of 26 September 2014, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  27. 27.

    COM (2016) 444, 5 July 2016.

  28. 28.

    COM (2016) 443, 5 July 2016.

  29. 29.

    COM (2016) 444, p. 4.

  30. 30.

    German Constitutional Court, cases 2 BvR 1368/16, 2 BvR 1444/16, 2 BvR 1823/16, 2 BvR 1482/16 and 2 BvE 3/16, Judgment 13 October 2016.

  31. 31.

    Parlement wallon, Session 2016–2017, Document 606 (2016–2017) – Project to motion déposé en conclusion du débat sur les projets de Traité CETA et de Déclaration interprétatitve du traité.

  32. 32.

    See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2016/10/18/ (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  33. 33.

    Declaration No. 37 to the Council decision of 28 October 2016 on signature of CETA, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13463-2016-REV-1/fr/pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  34. 34.

    Declaration No. 37, point A.

  35. 35.

    Declaration No. 37, point B, first and second subparagraph.

  36. 36.

    Declaration No. 37, point B, third subparagraph.

  37. 37.

    Declaration No. 37, point C.

  38. 38.

    Declaration No. 37, point D.

  39. 39.

    Article 1(a), (b) and (c), third indent of the Council decision on provisional application.

  40. 40.

    Article 1(c), first indent of the Council decision on provisional application.

  41. 41.

    Article 1(c), second indent of the Council decision on provisional application.

  42. 42.

    Article 1(d) of the Council decision on provisional application.

  43. 43.

    Council Document 13,541/16, 27 October 2016.

  44. 44.

    Resolution of the Wallonian Parliament of 14 October 2016, Document 606 (2016–2017), preamble point J.

  45. 45.

    Declaration No. 38 to the Council decision of 28 October 2016 on signature of CETA, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13463-2016-REV-1/fr/pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  46. 46.

    Resolution of the Wallonian Parliament of 14 October 2016, Document 606 (2016–2017), preamble point F.

  47. 47.

    Treier and Wernicke (2015), p. 338.

  48. 48.

    In detail Pitschas (2015), p. 141.

  49. 49.

    For more detail see Hoffmeister (2015b), p. 34.

  50. 50.

    The Barroso II Commission took the decision of principle during its penultimate meeting in October 2014 under the pressure of the then Trade Commissioner De Gucht. The Juncker Commission confirmed that decision in May 2015 and the request was presented to the Court at the end of September 2015. The Court handed down its opinion 2/15 in May 2017.

  51. 51.

    The Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé, Decision of the Contracting Parties of 9 December 1994, L/7604, 19 December 1994 (the “Lomé Waiver”); and The Fourth ACP-EC Convention of Lomé, Extension of Waiver, Decision of the WTO General Council of 14 October 1996, WT/L/186, 18 October 1996.

  52. 52.

    For more detail see Zimmermann (2009), p. 1 et seq.

  53. 53.

    OJ 2008 L 289/3.

  54. 54.

    Singh RH et al., Monitoring the Implementation & Results of the CARIFORUM – EU EPA Agreement, September 2013, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/october/tradoc_152825.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  55. 55.

    OJ 2009 L 272/2.

  56. 56.

    Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007, OJ 2007 L 348/1.

  57. 57.

    Amending Regulation (EU) No 527/2013, OJ 2013 L 165/59.

  58. 58.

    For more details see Hoffmeister (2013), p. 396 et seq.

  59. 59.

    Article 3(2) of the Council Decision 2012/734/EU of 25 June 2012, OJ 2012 L 346/1.

  60. 60.

    See http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/regions/central-america/ (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  61. 61.

    European Commission, Trade for All – Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy, COM (2015) 497 final, chapter 5.2.2.

  62. 62.

    European Commission, Global Europe: competing in the world, COM (2006) 567 final, 4 October 2006, p. 11 et seq.

  63. 63.

    See for example Resolution of the Wallonian Parliament of 14 October 2016, Document 606 (2016–2017), preamble point O.

  64. 64.

    Joint Interpretative Instrument on CETA between Canada and the European Union and its Member States, point 4: “(a) The European Union and its Member States and Canada affirm and recognise the right of governments, at all levels, to provide and support the provision of services that they consider public services including in areas such as public health and education, social services and housing and the collection, purification and distribution of water. (b) CETA does not prevent governments from defining and regulating the provision of these services in the public interest. CETA will not require governments to privatise any services nor prevent governments from expanding the range of services they supply to the public. (c) CETA will not prevent governments from providing public services previously supplied by private service suppliers or from bringing back under public control services that governments had chosen to privatise. CETA does not mean that contracting a public service to private providers makes it irreversibly part of the commercial sector.”

  65. 65.

    See for example Reinisch (2010), pp. 99–112.

  66. 66.

    See European Commission, Commission proposes new Investment Court System for TTIP and other EU trade and investment negotiations, Press release IP-15-5651.

  67. 67.

    For the EU standard clauses see Hoffmeister and Alexandru (2014).

  68. 68.

    See an overview at Gaffney and Akcay (2015).

  69. 69.

    Commission draft text on investment in TTIP, September 2015, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/september/tradoc_153807.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017). For a first discussion of the proposal see Schill (2016).

  70. 70.

    Article 8.29 of the CETA Agreement.

  71. 71.

    See Hoffmeister (2016b).

  72. 72.

    WTO, GPA/W/313 of 16 December 2010 – Decision on the Outcome of Negotiations under Article XXIV.7 of the Agreement on Government Procurement. The protocol entered into force in spring 2014.

  73. 73.

    Prieß (2015), p. 110.

  74. 74.

    Article 58 et seq. Directive 2004/17/EC, OJ 2004 L 134/1.

  75. 75.

    See Hoffmeister (2016c), p. 82 et seq.

  76. 76.

    See Prieß (2015), p. 144.

  77. 77.

    The Text of 2012 is available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=689 (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  78. 78.

    Hoffmeister (2013), p. 399.

  79. 79.

    See also Drexl et al. (2014).

  80. 80.

    See Drexl (2004).

  81. 81.

    OJ 2014 L 161/3.

  82. 82.

    Croce and Stakheyeva (2014), p. 28.

  83. 83.

    OJ 2011 L 127/6.

  84. 84.

    Cotonou Agreement, OJ 2000 L 317/3.

  85. 85.

    Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, OJ 2008 L 289/3.

  86. 86.

    The text is available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=691 (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  87. 87.

    The text is available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437 (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  88. 88.

    Hoffmeister (2012), p. 257.

  89. 89.

    For details on the EU reaction in the Russia-Ukraine conflict see Hoffmeister (2016d), pp. 281–284.

  90. 90.

    COM 2010 (522) final, 7 October 2010.

  91. 91.

    See https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news12_e/good_02feb12_e.htm (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  92. 92.

    Resolution of the European Parliament of 8 July 2015 concerning TTIP, A8-0175/2015.

References

  • Bhagwati J (1995) U.S. trade policy: the infatuation with FTAs. Columbia University Department of economics discussion paper series no. 726

    Google Scholar 

  • Croce R, Stakheyeva H (2014) Competition law and state aid reform in light of the EU-Ukraine association agreement and its impact on business in Ukraine. Eur Compet Law Rev 35:23–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexl J, Ruse-Khan HG, Nadde-Phlix S (2014) EU bilateral agreements and intellectual property: for better or worse?. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexl J (2004) International competition policy after Cancún: pacing a Singapore issue on the WTO development Agenda. World Compet 27:419–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaffney JP, Akcay Z (2015) European bilateral approaches. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hindelang S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law and EU law. C.H. Beck, München, pp 186–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2016a) Bilaterale Entwicklungen in der EU-Handelspolitik in den ersten fünf Jahren nach Lissabon – ein Blick in die Spaghettischüssel à la bruxelloise (2010–2014). In: Bungenberg M, Herrmann C (eds) Die Gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union – Fünf Jahre nach Lissabon – quo vadis? Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 190–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2016b) The contribution of EU bilateral investment agreements to the development of international investment law. In: Hindelang S, Krajewski M (eds) Shifting paradigms in investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 357–376

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2016c) The EU procurement regime for third-country bidders – setting the cursor between openness and reciprocity. In: Kalimo H, Jansson M (eds) European economic law in times of crisis. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 76–88

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2016d) The practice of the European Union with respect to the territorial integrity of and border disputes between states. In: d’Argent P (ed) Droit des frontières internationales – the law of international borders, Paris, pp 277–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2015a) Die Verhandlungsagenda und -führung zwischen Stillstand und Modernisierung. In: Ehlers D, Pitschas C, Wolffgang HM (eds) Die WTO nach Bali – Chancen und Risiken. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt, pp 51–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2015b) Wider die German Angst – Ein Plädoyer für die Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft. Archiv des Völkerrechts 53(1):47–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F, Alexandru G (2014) A first glimpse of light on the emerging invisible EU model BIT. J World Invest Trade 15:379–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2013) Aktuelle Rechtsfragen in der Praxis der europäischen Außenhandelspolitik. Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 16(4):385–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2012) Der Beitrag der EU zur Entwicklung des besonderen Völkerrechts. Europarecht-Beiheft 2:247–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitschas C (2015) Transatlantic trade and investment Partnership und regulatorische Konvergenz. In: Ehlers D, Pitschas C, Wolffgang HM (eds) Die WTO nach Bali – Chancen und Risiken. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt, pp 152–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieß HJ (2015) Neuerungen des Agreement on Government Procurement. In: Ehlers D, Pitschas C, Wolffgang HM (eds) Die WTO nach Bali – Chancen und Risiken. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt, pp 105–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2010) The division of powers between the EU and its member states “after Lisbon”. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hindelang S (eds) Internationaler Investitionsschutz und Europarecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 99–111

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2016) The European Commission’s Proposal of an “Investment Court System” for TTIP: Stepping Stone or Stumbling Block for Multilateralizing International Investment Law?. ASIL 20(9)

    Google Scholar 

  • Treier V, Wernicke S (2015) Die transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft, Trojanisches Pferd oder steiniger Weg zum Olymp? Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 26(9):334–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegand G, Schulz E (2015) The EU and its Eastern Partnership: political association and economic integration in a rough neighbourhood. In: Herrmann C, Simma B, Streinz R (eds) Trade policy between law, diplomacy and scholarship. Liber amicorum in memoriam Horst G. Krenzler. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 321–359

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann A (2009) Die neuen Wirtschaftspartnerschaftsabkommen der EU – WTO-Konformität versus Entwicklungsorientierung? Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 20(1):1–6

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Commission, DG Trade, Brussels, Belgium

    Frank Hoffmeister

Authors
  1. Frank Hoffmeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Hoffmeister .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom

    Christian Tams

  4. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  5. Faculty of Law and Criminal Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hoffmeister, F. (2017). Bilateral Developments in EU Trade Policy Seven Years After Lisbon: A Look into the Spaghetti-Bowl à la Bruxelloise (2010–2016). In: Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C., Terhechte, J., Ziegler, A. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2017. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58832-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58832-2_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58831-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58832-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation