Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The European Union and Regional Trade Agreements

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2010

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 1))

Abstract

The European Community currently has 24 regional trade agreements (RTAs) in force, a further eight agreed but not yet in force and eleven under negotiation.1 Many of these agreements are with regional groupings of countries and so the number of countries covered by EC RTAs is already considerable and likely to grow.2 They range from customs union agreements with neighbouring micro-States in Europe such as San Marino or Andorra, to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with the candidate State Croatia, the development-oriented Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the Cariforum States and the free trade agreement with Mexico. They differ both in their ambition and coverage and in the degree to which the trade provisions are embedded in other non-trade and non-economic provisions. Although relatively few currently include substantial commitments in respect of services, a number of projected agreements will include services and the extension of some existing RTA commitments to services is also under negotiation.

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

Access this chapter

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    By RTA we mean here agreements that would require notification under either Article XXIV GATT or Article V GATS, therefore excluding agreements such as the current Partnership and Cooperation Agreements with the countries of the former Soviet Union, the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement with the Andean Community and its members, and the Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development with India. The term RTA has been used to cover EC agreements both with a regional grouping of States and with a single State, for simplicity and reflecting the regional nature of the EC itself as a partner.

  2. 2.

    If we include RTAs in force and those signed but not yet in force, the EU has RTAs with over 100 States. The Secretariat Report of the most recent WTO Trade Policy Review on the European Communities observed, “The EC’s extensive network of RTAs, together with the large number of countries eligible for unilateral preferences, has confined the application of its exclusively MFN tariff to nine WTO Members, which accounted for some 30% of its total merchandise imports in 2005”. WT/TPR/S/177/Rev.1, 15 May 2007, Summary Observations, para 9.

  3. 3.

    This does not include the ten RTAs concluded since 1990 which have since been overtaken by accession to the EU itself.

  4. 4.

    See for example Matsushita/Lee, Proliferation of Free Trade Agreements and Some Systemic Issues – In Relation to the WTO Disciplines and Development Perspectives, The Law and Development Review 1 (2008) 1; Sapir, Trade Regionalism in Europe: Towards an Integrated Approach, Journal of Common Market Studies 38 (2000), p. 151.

  5. 5.

    “Global Europe: Competing in the World: A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Job Strategy”, communication by DG Trade, 4 October 2006.

  6. 6.

    See generally, World Bank Policy Research Report on Trade Blocs, 2000: http://www.worldbank.org/research/trade/trade_blocs.htm; Schiff/Winters, Regional Integration and Development, 2003; Bartels/Ortino (eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, 2006.

  7. 7.

    GAERC conclusions 13 November 2006.

  8. 8.

    For a thorough comparative study of all the EC’s bilateral agreements, see Maresceau, Bilateral Agreements concluded by the European Community, Recueil des cours de l’Academie de droit international. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 309 (2006), pp. 125–451.

  9. 9.

    ECJ Opinion 1/94 [1994], ECR I-5267, especially paras 53, 71.

  10. 10.

    The GATS establishes four modes of supply of services; mode 1 entails the cross-border provision of services without commercial presence or the movement of either provider or recipient; GATS OJ 1994 L 336/191, Art. 1.

  11. 11.

    ECJ Opinion 1/75 [1975], ECR 1355.

  12. 12.

    Art. 133(6) EC. For a discussion of the amendments to Art. 133 brought about by the Treaty of Nice see Krenzler/Pitschas, Progress or Stagnation? The Common Commercial Policy after Nice, EFA Rev. 6 (2001), p. 291; Cremona, A Policy of Bits and Pieces? The Common Commercial Policy After Nice Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 4 (2001) p. 61; Herrmann, Common Commercial Policy after Nice: Sisyphus would have done a better job, 39 CMLRev (2002) p. 7. For the implications of Article 133(6), see case C-13/07 Commission v Council, pending, on the accession of Vietnam to the WTO, opinion of AG Kokott, 26 March 2009.

  13. 13.

    Arts. 3(1)(c) and 207(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In cases of exclusive competence only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts; Member States may only do so where empowered by the Union or in implementation of Union acts: Art. 2(1) TFEU.

  14. 14.

    Art. 310 EC provides that “The Community may conclude with one or more States or international organizations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedures”. These agreements must be concluded unanimously by the Council and require the assent of the European Parliament: Art. 300(2) and (3) EC.

  15. 15.

    Case 12/86 Demirel [1987] ECR 3719.

  16. 16.

    See for example Council Decision 94/578/EC of 18 July 1994 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of India on Partnership and Development OJ L 223, 27.8.1994, p. 23.

  17. 17.

    Art. 181a EC applies to economic, financial and technical cooperation with third countries.

  18. 18.

    Art. 308 EC applies where action is necessary to achieve, in the course of the operation of the common market, an objective of the EC Treaty and the Treaty has not elsewhere provided the necessary powers; action is taken by the Council acting unanimously on a Commission proposal and after consultation of the European Parliament.

  19. 19.

    See for example Council Decision 98/504/EC of 29 June 1998 concerning the conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the EC and Mexico OJ L 226, 13.8.1998, p. 24, which is based on Art. 57(2), 66 and 113 EC (under current numbering Arts. 47(2), 55 and 133).

  20. 20.

    Examples would include the Interim Agreements with Albania (OJ 2006 L 239), Montenegro (OJ 2007 L 345) and Bosnia–Herzegovina (OJ 2008 L 169) pending the coming into force of the SAAs with these countries.

  21. 21.

    For an example see Council Decision 2002/979/EC of 18 November 2002 on the signature and provisional application of certain provisions of an Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part OJ L 352, 30.12.2002, p. 1. This provided for the provisional application of the trade, procurement, competition and some cooperation provisions of the (mixed) association agreement. The full agreement came into force in 2005: Council Decision 2005/269/EC of 28 February 2005 OJ L 84, 2.4.2005, p. 19.

  22. 22.

    Ankara Agreement, OJ 1973 C 113/2, Art. 28. Turkey became a candidate state in December 1999 and negotiations were opened in October 2005.

  23. 23.

    It should be made clear that these agreements, concluded with the EC, are quite separate from the treaties of accession which are concluded between the acceding State(s) and all existing Member States: see Article 49 TEU.

  24. 24.

    On the reorientation into pre-accession instruments of the Europe Association Agreements with the states of central and eastern Europe, see Inglis, The Europe Agreements compared in the light of their pre-accession reorientation, CMLRev. 37 (2000) p. 1173; Maresceau, Pre-Accession, in: Cremona (ed.), The Enlargement of the European Union, 2003.

  25. 25.

    SAAs are Association agreements concluded as mixed agreements by both the EC and its Member States. SAAs with Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are in force; SAAs have been concluded with Albania, Montenegro and Bosnia–Herzegovina and Interim Trade Agreements are in force; an SAA and Interim Agreement with Serbia have been signed but are not yet in force.

  26. 26.

    Commission Communication on the Western Balkans and European Integration COM(2003) 285, 21 May 2003; Thessaloniki Agenda, External Relations Council 16 June 2003, European Council Conclusions, Thessaloniki 19–20 June 2003, and EU–Western Balkans Summit Declaration, Thessaloniki, 21 June 2003; Commission Communication “The Western Balkans on the road to the EU: consolidating stability and raising prosperity”, COM (2006) 27, 27 Jan 2006.

  27. 27.

    Council Regulation 1085/2006/EC of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) OJ L 210, 31/07/2006 p. 82.

  28. 28.

    A Memorandum of Understanding on Trade Facilitation and Liberalisation between the countries of the Western Balkans was signed on 27 June 2001 and in 2007 a reformed CEFTA (Central and Eastern European FTA) came into force.

  29. 29.

    OJ 1973 C 113/2.

  30. 30.

    Cf. Case 12/86 Demirel [1987] ECR 3719.

  31. 31.

    See for example C-192/89 Sevince [1990] ECR I-3461; C-228/06 Soysal, 19 February 2009. For a recent full discussion see Peers, EU Migration Law and Association Agreements, in: Martenczuk/Van Thiel (eds.), Justice, Liberty, Security: New Challenges for EU External Relations, 2008.

  32. 32.

    Decision No 1/95 of the EC–Turkey Association Council, OJ 1996 L 35/1, came into force 1 January 1996.

  33. 33.

    OJ 1972 L 300/189.

  34. 34.

    The agreements were signed in 1999 and concluded in 2002: Council Decision 2002/309/EC OJ 2002 L 114.

  35. 35.

    The agreement was concluded by both the EC and the EU with two separate decisions: Council Decision 2008/146/EC OJ L53 of 27/02/2008, p. 1 and Council Decision 2008/149/JHA OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 50.

  36. 36.

    OJ 2006 L 90/36.

  37. 37.

    OJ L 90 of 28/03/2006, p. 22.

  38. 38.

    OJ L 90 of 28/03/2006, p. 1.

  39. 39.

    OJ L 46 of 17/02/2009, p. 6.

  40. 40.

    OJ L 385 of 29/12/2004, p. 28.

  41. 41.

    Euro–Med Agreement with Palestinian Authority OJ 1997 L187/3; Tunisia OJ 1998 L97/1; Morocco OJ 2000 L70/1; Israel OJ 2000 L147/3; Jordan OJ 2002 L129/3; Egypt OJ 2004 L304/39; Algeria OJ 2005 L265/2; Lebanon OJ 2006 L143/2. The agreement with Syria was signed in October 2004, its conclusion is dependent on compliance with UNSCR 1559 and at present the 1977 Cooperation Agreement is still in force. See further Edwards/Philippart, The Euro–Mediterranean Partnership: Fragmentation and Reconstruction, EFA Rev 2 (1997), p. 465; Philippart, The Euro–Mediterranean Partnership: A Critical Evaluation of an Ambitious Scheme, EFA Rev 8 (2003), p. 201; Pardo/Zemer, Towards a New Euro–Mediterranean Neighbourhood Space, EFA Rev 10 (2005), p. 39.

  42. 42.

    See for example Euro–Med Agreement with Morocco, Article 52; Euro–Med Agreement with Lebanon, Article 49.

  43. 43.

    See Euro–Med Agreement with Lebanon, Articles 68 and 69.

  44. 44.

    Morocco and Tunisia had already concluded association agreements in 1969: OJ [1969] L 197; OJ [1969] L 198; English version OJ [1973] L 239. Association agreements were then concluded with a number of Mediterranean non-member states during the 1970s: both the Mashreq (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria) and the Maghreb (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia). For a discussion, see Pace, The Mediterranean Policy of the EU: From the Treaties to Euro–Mediterranean Partnership, in: Xuereb/Pace (eds.), Economic and Legal Reform in Malta, 1995; Martines, The Cooperation Agreements with the Maghreb Countries, 1994.

  45. 45.

    Barcelona Conference Declaration and Work Programme 27–28 November 1995, Bull EU 11-1995. The Declaration envisages a new Euro–Mediterranean partnership with three dimensions: a structured political and security partnership; an economic and financial partnership based on the introduction of a FTA by 2010, economic cooperation, and increased financial assistance from the EU; and partnership with a social, cultural and human dimension.

  46. 46.

    For a detailed analysis of the ENP and the EU’s relations with individual ENP partners and other neighbours, see Blockmans/Lazowski, The European Union and Its Neighbours: A Legal Appraisal of the EU’s Policies of Stabilisation, Partnership and Integration, 2006. See also Cremona, The European Neighbourhood Policy: More than a Partnership? in: Cremona (ed.), Developments in EU External Relations Law, 2008.

  47. 47.

    Joint declaration of the Paris summit for the Mediterranean, Paris, 13 July 2008, doc. 11887/08 (Presse 213); Final Statement of Union of the Mediterranean Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Marseille, 3–4 November 2008.

  48. 48.

    The programme of Europe Agreements concluded with the central and eastern European states might be regarded as the first such attempt. Indeed, the decision to launch the Euro-Mediterranean policy, taken at Essen in December 1994, was linked to the pre-accession strategy being developed for CEESs: the European Council stated that “the European Union, recognising the need for balance in its relations with all its neighbours, is also developing a programme to establish a Euro–Mediterranean Partnership …”.

  49. 49.

    Ukraine PCA OJ 1998 L49/1; Moldova PCA OJ 1998 L181/1; Armenia PCA OJ 1999 L239/3; Azerbaijan PCA OJ 1999 L246/3; Georgia PCA OJ 1999 L205/3; Russia PCA: OJ 1997 L 327/1; Kazakhstan PCA OJ 1999 L 196/3; Kyrgyzstan PCA OJ 1999 L 196/48; Uzbekistan PCA OJ 1999 L 229/3. The Turkmenistan PCA was signed in 1998 but is not yet in force: COM(97) 693. The Tajikistan PCA was signed in 2004 but is not yet in force: COM (2004) 521. The Belarus PCA was signed in 1995 but formal conclusion is suspended as a result of the political situation and lack of democracy: COM (95) 44; see also Council Common Position 2006/276/CFSP on Belarus OJ [2006] L101/5, amended by Common Position 2006/362/CFSP OJ [2006] L134/45 and renewed by Common Position 2007/173/CFSP OJ [2007] L79/40. See also Commission non-paper, “What the European Union could bring to Belarus”, 21/11/2006.

  50. 50.

    These agreements, as they come into force, replace the EEC–USSR Trade and Economic and Commercial Cooperation Agreement of December 1989, OJ [1990] L68/1. This is essentially an MFN agreement with respect to tariffs, with a Joint Committee as a basis for trade discussions; it still survives as it is applied bilaterally with the successor states of the former Soviet Union until replaced by a new agreement (PCA or Interim Agreement). See further Hillion, Partnership and Cooperation Agreements between the EU and the New Independent States of the Ex-Soviet Union, EFA Rev 3 (1998), p. 399.

  51. 51.

    For example, compare EC–Ukraine PCA Art 4 and EC–Armenia PCA, Art 4.

  52. 52.

    The difference in wording here between PCAs could be significant. In case C-265/03 Simutenkov, Art 23(1) of the EC–Russia PCA which provides that the parties “shall ensure” non-discriminatory treatment was held by the Court of Justice to be directly effective. The Court had no difficulty in holding that, despite references to implementation, Article 23(1) “has direct effect, with the result that individuals to whom that provision applies are entitled to rely on it before the courts of the Member States” (para 29). In contrast, Article 24 of the PCA with Ukraine provides that the parties “shall endeavour to ensure” non-discriminatory treatment, a phrase which may well fall short of an unconditional prohibition. The PCAs with Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan follow the Ukraine PCA wording.

  53. 53.

    EU–Russia Common Spaces Progress Report, March 2007. See also Commission Communication, Review of EU–Russia relations, COM(2008) 740, 5 November 2008.

  54. 54.

    Conclusions of the European Council, 21–22 June 2007. See also Joint Progress Report by the Council and the European Commission to the European Council on the implementation of the EU Central Asia Strategy, 24 June 2008.

  55. 55.

    Council Regulation 980/2005/EC applying a scheme of generalized tariff preferences, OJ [2005] L169/1.

  56. 56.

    At present only Kyrgyzstan is a WTO member.

  57. 57.

    Commission Communication on the Eastern Partnership, COM (2008) 823, p. 3 December 2008; European Council conclusion and Declaration on the Eastern Partnership, 20 March 2009. A Joint Declaration with the Eastern partners is envisaged at a launching summit on 7 May 2009. Although the ENP remains as a framing policy structure, the launch in 2008–2009 of both the Union for the Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership demonstrate the need for differentiation between the two regional groupings covered by the ENP.

  58. 58.

    Commission Communication on the Eastern Partnership, COM (2008) 823, p. 3.

  59. 59.

    Commission Communication on Strengthening the ENP, COM (2006) 726, at p. 5. See further Commission non-paper on ENP – A Path Towards Further Economic Integration, available on http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/strengthening_en.htm.

  60. 60.

    GAER Council Conclusions of 22 January 2007. See further Emerson, The Prospect of Deep Free Trade between the EU and Ukraine, 2006; Hillion, Mapping out the New Contractual Relations between the European Union and its Neighbours: Learning from the EU–Ukraine “Enhanced Agreement”, EFA Rev 12 (2007), p. 169; Hillion, A New Framework for the Relations between the Union and its East European Neighbours, in: Cremona/Meloni (eds), The European Neighbourhood Policy: A Framework for Modernization? EUI Working Papers LAW 2007/21.

  61. 61.

    Armenia, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine are already WTO members.

  62. 62.

    This FTA was signed in 1999 and came into force in 2005: Council Decision 2004/441/EC of 26 April 2004 concerning the conclusion of the Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, on the other part OJ 2004 L 127/109. It will not be further discussed here as South Africa has joined the negotiations for an EPA as part of the SACD group.

  63. 63.

    Council Decision 2005/269/EC of 28 February 2005 on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part OJ L 84, 2.4.2005, p. 19.

  64. 64.

    Council Decision 2002/979/EC of 18 November 2002 on the signature and provisional application of certain provisions of an Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part OJ L 352, 30.12.2002, p. 1.

  65. 65.

    All GATS service modes are covered but some sectors are excluded, including financial, audio-visual, maritime cabotage and some air transport services. However there are separate provisions on telecommunications, maritime transport and financial services.

  66. 66.

    Council Decision 2000/658/EC of 28 September 2000 concerning the conclusion of the Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United Mexican States, of the other part OJ 2000 L 276/44.

  67. 67.

    Decision no 2/2000 of the EC/Mexico Joint Council of 23 March 2000.

  68. 68.

    See statement of Commissioner Lamy, 3 June 2000, available on http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/countries/mexico/ftapr_en.htm.

  69. 69.

    EPAs are being negotiated with the Caribbean, West Africa, Central Africa, Eastern and Southern Africa, the SADC and the Pacific. For the EU’s perspective on the EPAs see the Explanatory Memorandum to the Commission’s draft mandate of 9 April 2002, available on http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_112023.pdf.

  70. 70.

    Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago.

  71. 71.

    See for example Council Decision 2009/152/EC of 20 November 2008 on the signature and provisional application of the interim agreement with a view to an Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Central Africa Party, of the other part, OJ 2009 L 57/1. The interim agreements do not necessarily include all countries in the respective regions; for example, the interim agreement with Central Africa covers only Cameroon, with the other seven states of the region remaining under the GSP.

  72. 72.

    Council Regulation 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements, OJ 2007 L 348/1. 36 of the 78 ACP States are covered by this Regulation at present; its operation will be extended as other ACP states conclude EPAs or interim EPAs with the EC. For those not covered by this Regulation, the GSP Regulation will apply, thus for LDCs there is duty free access to the EU for all exports under the “Everything But Arms” (EBA) policy. South Africa remains covered by its bilateral FTA: see above note 62.

  73. 73.

    See for example Schiff/Winters, Regional Integration and Development, 2003; Schiff/Winters, Regionalism and Development. The Implications of World Bank Research for ACP and Latin American Countries, Journal of World Trade 36 (2002) 3, p. 479. On WTO law and development, see further Moon, The WTO-Minus Strategy: Development and human rights under WTO law, (March 2008) University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series 2008, Working Paper 10, available at http://law.bepress.com/unswwps/flrps08/art10.

  74. 74.

    See Desta, EC-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements and the Question of WTO Compatibility: An Experiment in North–South Regional Integration Agreements? Common Market Law Rev. 43 (2006), p. 1343; Perez, Are Economic Partnership Agreements a First-Best Option for the ACP Countries? Journal of World Trade 40 (2006) 6, p. 999; Van Hoestenberghe/Roelfsema, Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and groups of ACP countries: Will they promote development?, UNU-CRIS Occasional Papers, 0-2006-27; Thallinger, From Apology to Utopia: EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements Oscillating Between WTO Conformity and Sustainability, European Foreign Affairs Rev. 12 (2007), p. 499.

  75. 75.

    For the argument that trade and development can be mutually supportive, see for example the Commission Communication, Trade and Development: assisting developing countries reap the benefits of open trade, COM (2002) 513. See also Pascal Lamy, WTO Director General, calling in the Emile Noel Lecture at the New York University Law School, 30 October 2006, for a new “Geneva Consensus”, available at http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl45_e.htm.

  76. 76.

    Commission Mandelson, speech at a seminar on European Partnership Agreements, European Parliament, 17 April 2008, available at http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/mandelson/speeches_articles/sppm200_en.htm.

    See also the Kigali Declaration on development-friendly EPAs, adopted by the ACP–EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Kigali, Rwanda from 19 to 22 November 2007.

  77. 77.

    European Commission, DG Trade, “An Overview of the Interim Agreements”, available on http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/january/tradoc_142188.pdf.

  78. 78.

    The overlapping nature of regional integration arrangements in Africa has in some cases made for complexity and the EPA groups do not always coincide with existing RIAs; for example, of the 15 members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), seven are negotiating an EPA as the SADC group, while the other eight are negotiating in either the Central Africa or the Eastern/Southern Africa EPA groups.

  79. 79.

    Rossi, EU Regional Trade Agreements’ Role in the Prevention of Conflict and in Increasing Intra-regional and Global Security and Stability: An Economic Perspective, in: Kronenberger/Wouters (eds.), The European Union and Conflict Prevention: Policy and Legal Aspects, 2004, p. 173 and p. 179.

  80. 80.

    Ibid. p. 179.

  81. 81.

    Article 72 of the CARIFORUM EPA. These core labour standards are further elaborated, in accordance with ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights of Work of 1998, referred to in the text, in ILO Conventions concerning freedom of association, the elimination of forced labour, the abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in the work place.

  82. 82.

    Article 73 of the CARIFORUM EPA.

  83. 83.

    Article 191–193 of the CARIFORUM EPA.

  84. 84.

    Sauvé/Ward, Services and Investment in the EC-CARIFORUM EPA: Innovation in Rule-Design and Implications for Africa, in: Faber/Orbie (eds.), Beyond Market Access for Economic Development: EU–Africa Relations in Transition, 2009.

  85. 85.

    See Article 71 of the CARIFORUM EPA; it is not clear to what extent the rights given to investors in bilateral BITS may, by virtue of this clause, prevail over the investor behaviour obligations laid down in Article 72 (thanks to Angelos Dimopoulos for this point).

  86. 86.

    Detailed examination of each EPA is needed to ascertain the extent to which each party’s commitment exceed those under GATS; Sauvé and Ward conclude that the CARIFORUM EPA “represents a significant improvement on the current GATS commitments of both the CARIFORUM states as well as EC Members”; op.cit. note 84, at p. 5.

  87. 87.

    “Global Europe: Competing in the World: A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Job Strategy”, communication by DG Trade, 4 October 2006.

  88. 88.

    Sauvé and Ward, op.cit. note 84, p. 19.

  89. 89.

    Commission Communication “The European Union and Iraq: A Framework for Engagement” COM (2004) 417, 9 June 2004; Commission Communication “Recommendations for renewed European Union engagement with Iraq” COM (2006) 283 final, 7 June 2006.

  90. 90.

    EC–India Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development OJ 1994 L 223/23.

  91. 91.

    Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation between the European Economic Community and the People’s Republic of China OJ 1985 L 250/2; Agreement between the European Community and China on cooperation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters OJ 2004 L 375.19.

  92. 92.

    Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the member countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei-Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) OJ 1980 L 144/2. There is also a framework for dialogue and regulatory cooperation with ASEAN, the Trans-Regional EU–ASEAN Trade Initiative (TREATI).

  93. 93.

    Inter-regional framework cooperation agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Southern Common Market and its Party States, of the other part OJ 1999 L 112/65.

  94. 94.

    Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of a Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Andean Community and its member countries, the Republics of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, of the other part COM (2003) 695 final.

  95. 95.

    The Central American Region (Panama, Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua) has a Framework Cooperation Agreement with the EC (OJ 1999 L 63/39); a Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement is not yet in force (COM (2003) 677).

  96. 96.

    The Gulf Cooperation Council (United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, Qatar and Kuwait) has a non-preferential Cooperation Agreement with the EC (1989 OJ 1989 L 54/3).

  97. 97.

    “Global Europe: Competing in the World: A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Job Strategy”, communication by DG Trade, 4 October 2006.

  98. 98.

    Schneider, The EU–Mercosur Free Trade Agreement: The Implications for Trade in Agriculture, CEPS Policy Brief No.107, June 2006.

  99. 99.

    Rossi, op.cit. note 79 at p. 187.

  100. 100.

    Desta, EC-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements and the Question of WTO Compatibility: An Experiment in North–South Regional Integration Agreements? Common Market Law Review 43 (2006), p. 1343.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European University Institute, Via Boccaccio 121, 50133, Florence, Italy

    Marise Cremona

Authors
  1. Marise Cremona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marise Cremona .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chair for Constitutional and Administrative Law European Law, European and International Economic Law, Passau University, D-94030, Passau, Germany

    Christoph Herrmann LL.M

  2. Department of European Law, Hamburg University, Schlüterstraβe 28, 20146, Hamburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte (Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty of Law) (Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty of Law)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cremona, M. (2010). The European Union and Regional Trade Agreements. In: Herrmann, C., Terhechte, J.P. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2010. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78883-6_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation