Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The European Union as an Actor in International Trade Relations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Global Power Europe - Vol. 2

Part of the book series: Global Power Shift ((GLOBAL))

Abstract

Trade is arguably the EU’s most highly centralised policy domain. It therefore represents a crucial case study for characterising the Union as an international actor. To this end, this chapter analyses the EU’s trade policy with regards to objectives, instruments, style, and decision-making procedures. Drawing on a variety of examples, including the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations with developing countries, the chapter finds that in the field of trade, the EU acts more along the lines of a great power than a civilian or normative power.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    Nearly a decade later, the Commission reaffirms this point at the WTO: “against the background of our substantial role in the global trading system, the basic objective of our trade policy has always been to support sustainable development at home and abroad…” (WTO 2009a, p. 6).

  2. 2.

    A Commission official admits that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations with several Latin American countries were launched on the basis of “the perceived diplomatic need to develop the overall EU relationship with Latin America” (Baldwin 2006, p. 938).

  3. 3.

    The arduous FTA negotiations with South Korea provide a recent example.

  4. 4.

    In 2006, the EU accounted for 27.3 % of global services exports and 24.0 % of imports (WTO 2009b, p. 11).

  5. 5.

    In 2006, the EU accounted for 40.7 % of global inward FDI stock and 51.5 % of global outward stock. (WTO 2009b, p. 12)

  6. 6.

    Other countries granting GSP preferences are Australia, Belarus, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States of America (UNCTAD 2012).

  7. 7.

    In international trade parlance, these agreements are also called ‘second-, third- or fourth generation’ agreements. Agreements focusing primarily on tariff elimination are called ‘first generation’ agreements.

  8. 8.

    This is merely a general characterisation, which does not claim to apply to all of the EU’s trade agreements.

  9. 9.

    As a comparison, the US had 11 FTAs in force with 17 countries as of November 2011 (International Trade Administration 2012).

  10. 10.

    The remaining four trading partners are the US, China, Russia, Japan and Australia.

  11. 11.

    A plurilateral treaty is a treaty between a limited number of states with a particular interest in the subject of the treaty (Aust 2000, p. 112).The main difference between a plurilateral and other multilateral treaties, according to article 20(2) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, is that under a plurilateral treaty a reservation requires acceptance by all the parties.

  12. 12.

    The TRPM mandates that the four member states with the largest shares of world trade (the EU, the United States, Japan and China) be reviewed every 2 years, the next 16 be reviewed every 4 years, and others be reviewed every 6 years (WTO 2012c).

  13. 13.

    In the period 1995–2004, the EU was defendant in 15 % and plaintiff in 17 % of all disputes (McCormick 2007, p. 97).

  14. 14.

    35 out of 85 cases were brought forward against China, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, India, Chile, Pakistan and the Philippines.

  15. 15.

    In principle, developing countries are free to withdraw from the WTO, but the loss of MFN rights constitutes a strong deterrent (Brown and Stern 2005, p. 1)

  16. 16.

    The number cited is for 2011 and includes all function groups.

  17. 17.

    The ACP group consists of 48 sub-Saharan African states, 16 states in the Caribbean, and 15 states in the Pacific. Cuba has not signed the Cotonou Agreement, and does not participate in the EPA process.

  18. 18.

    The East African group included the LDCs Uganda and Tanzania, and non-LDC Kenya, for instance.

  19. 19.

    These issues include sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures, intellectual property rights, public procurement, competition policy, investment, trade and environment, trade and labour standards, consumer policy regulation and consumer health protection, standardization and certification, and food security (WTO 2009b, p. 28).

  20. 20.

    Admittedly, Stiglitz also stated that EPAs were not as bad as comparable US agreements.

  21. 21.

    Compare art. 218(2) TFEU

  22. 22.

    See art. 218(6) TFEU.

  23. 23.

    Surveys demonstrated that the CSD is regarded as more useful by the private sector than by civil society organisations (Dür and Bievre 2007, p. 88).

References

  • ACP Council of Ministers (2006). Decision on the EPAs. ACP/25/006/06.

    Google Scholar 

  • ACP Council of Ministers (2007). Ministerial Declaration. ACP/25/013/07.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, V. K., & Fogarty, E. A. (2004). Explaining trends in EU interregionalism. In V. K. Aggarwal & E. A. Fogarty (Eds.), EU trade strategies: between regionalism and globalism (pp. 207–240). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antkiewicz, A., & Bessma, M. (2009). Pursuing geopolitical stability through interregional trade: the EU’s motives for negotiating with the gulf cooperation council. Journal of European Integration, 31(2), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aust, A. (2000). Modern treaty law and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, M. (2006). EU trade politics—heaven or hell? Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 926–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilal, S. (1998). Political economy Considerations on the supply of trade protection in regional integration agreements. Journal of Common Market Studies, 36(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackhurst, R. (1998). The capacity of the WTO to fulfill its mandate. In A. Krueger (Ed.), The WTO as an International Organization (pp. 31–58). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bora, B., Cernat, L., & Turrini, A. (2002). Duty and quota-free access for LDCs: further evidence from CGE modelling. Geneva: UNCTAD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a global actor (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. G., & Stern, R. M. (2005). Concepts of Fairness in the Global Trading System. RSIE Discussion Papers, 544(November 25).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. G., & Stern, R. M. (2010a). Fairness in the WTO Trading System. http://ipc.umich.edu/working-papers/pdfs/ipc-109-brown-stern-fairness-wto-trading-system.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2011.

  • Brown, A. G., & Stern, R. M. (2010b). Free trade agreements and governance of the global trading system. http://ipc.umich.edu/working-papers/pdfs/ipc-113-brown-stern-free-trade-agreements-governance-global-trading-system.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2011.

  • Busch, M., & Reinhardt, E. (2003). Developing countries and the GATT/WTO dispute settlement. Journal of World Trade, 37(4), 719–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission, E. (2004). Trade policy in the Prodi commission: an assessment. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2006). Council conclusions following the commission’s communication “Global Europe: Competing in the World. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowell & Moring (2005). Interim evaluation of the European union’s trade barrier regulation (TBR). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/october/tradoc_125451.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2012.

  • DEFRA and HM Treasury (2005). A vision for the common agricultural policy. http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/vision.htm. Accessed 5 June 2010.

  • Defraigne, P. (2002). New Regionalism and Global Economic Governance. United Nations University CRIS Working Paper, W-2002(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos, A. (2010). The effects of the Lisbon treaty on the principles and objectives of the common commercial policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15, 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duchêne, F. (1973). The European community and the uncertainties of interdependence. In M. Kohnstamm & W. Hager (Eds.), A Nation Writ Large? Foreign-policy problems before the European community. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dür, A., & Bievre, D. D. (2007). Inclusion without Influence? NGOs in European Trade Policy. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1), 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Council (2001). Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union. Laeken.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (1996). The global challenge of International trade: a market-access strategy for the European union.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2003). Reviving the DDA negotiations—The EU Perspective.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2006). Global Europe: some questions and answers. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2007). Global Europe: a stronger partnership to deliver market access for European exporters. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2008). Staff figures. http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/about/figures/index_en.htm. Accessed 5 September 2008.

  • European Commission (2010a). DG Trade Mission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/about/mission/. Accessed 22 September 2010.

  • European Commission (2010b). Report on progress achieved on the Global Europe strategy, 2006–2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010c). Trade, growth and world affairs: trade policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 Strategy.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011a). EC regional trade agreements. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/december/tradoc_111588.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2011.

  • European Commission (2011b). The European Union Trade Policy 2011. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/february/tradoc_142372.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2011.

  • European Commission (2011c). Generalised system of preferences. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/wider-agenda/development/generalised-system-of-preferences/. Accessed 28 December 2011.

  • European Commission (2012a). Delegation Switzerland: Internal Organisation. http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/switzerland/about_us/internal_organisation/index_de.htm. Accessed 10 February 2012.

  • European Commission (2012b). Delegation to the WTO: Internal Organisation. http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/wto/about_us/internal_organisation/index_en.htm. Accessed 8 February 2012.

  • European Commission (2012c). Organigramme Delegation Geneva. http://www.delgva.ec.europa.eu/en/pdf/Organigramme-Blue-Book.pdf. Accessed 8 February 2012.

  • Evenett, S. J. (2007). Trade policy: time for a rethink? In A. Sapir (Ed.), Fragmented power: Europe and the global economy (pp. 61–93). Brussels: Bruegel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1973). The European Community: a superpower in the making (PRIO studies). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garibay, M. G. (2009). The trade-labour linkage from the eyes of the developing countries: A euphemism for protectionist practices? European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(5), 763–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach, K. (2006). Does business really run EU trade policy? Observations about EU trade policy lobbying. Politics, 26(3), 176–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghana News Agency (2008). Nobel economist Stiglitz criticises EPA. http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=146532. Accessed 6 February 2012.

  • Gilpin, R., & Gilpin, J. M. (2002). The challenge of global capitalism: The world economy in the 21st century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, L. (2000). Ruling the world: power politics and the rise of supranational institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes-Renshaw, F., & Wallace, H. (1996). The council of ministers. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A. O. (1980). National power and the structure of foreign trade (Exp ed. ed.). Berkley: California U P

    Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S. (2005). The political system of the European union (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S., & Hoyland, B. (2011). The political system of the European Union (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hocking, B. (2004). Changing the terms of trade policy making: from the “club” to the “multistakeholder” model. World Trade Review, 3(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Trade Administration (2012). U.S. Free Trade Agreements. http://export.gov/FTA/index.asp. Accessed 4 January 2012.

  • Johnson, M. (1998). European Community Trade Policy and the 113 Committee. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerremans, B. (2004). What went wrong in Cancun? A principal-agent view on the EU’s rationale towards the Doha development round. European Foreign Affairs Review, 9(3), 363–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerremans, B., & Orbie, J. (2009). The social dimension of European union trade policies. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(5), 629–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keukeleire, S., & MacNaughtan, J. (2008). The foreign policy of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, M. F. (2006). The EU as an International Trade Negotiator—A case study of negotiations between the EU and South Africa. Paper prepared for EUSA workshop, 3 July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. (2004). Understanding the WTO dispute settlement system. In B. Hocking & S. McGuire (Eds.), Trade politics (pp. 120–132). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. (2009a). Bringing an elephant into the room: small African State diplomacy in the WTO. In A. F. Cooper & T. M. Shaw (Eds.), The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience (pp. 195–206). London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. C. (2009b). Trade Relations between the European Union and Sub-Saharan Africa under the Cotonou Agreement: Repartitioning and Economically Recolonising the Continent? In R. Southall & H. Melber (Eds.), A New Scramble for Africa? Imperialism, Investment and Development (pp. 83–110). Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms ? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, J. (2007). The European superpower. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meunier, S. (2003). Trade policy and political legitimacy in the European Union. Comparative European Politics, 1, 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meunier, S. (2005). Trading voices: the European Union in international commercial negotiations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meunier, S. (2007). Managing globalization? The EU in international trade negotiations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 905–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meunier, S., & Nicolaidis, K. (2005). The European Union as a trade power. In C. Hill & M. Smith (Eds.), International relations and the European Union (pp. 247–269). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mission of Switzerland to the UN in Geneva (2011). List of permanent mission in Geneva. Accessed 23 January 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, D. A. (2009). The CARIFORUM-EU economic partnership agreement: impediment or development opportunity for CARICOM SIDS? In A. F. Cooper & T. M. Shaw (Eds.), The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience (pp. 160–178). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shaughnessy, T. (2006). The European Union—A responsible trading partner? In H. Mayer & H. Vogt (Eds.), A Responsible Europe? Ethical foundations of EU external relations (pp. 159–180). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochieng, C., & Sharman, T. (2004). Trade traps: Why EU-ACP economic partnership agreements pose a threat to Africa’s development. London: ActionAid International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbie, J. (2008). The European Union’s Role in world trade: harnessing globalisation. In J. Orbie (Ed.), Europe’s global role: external policies of the European Union (pp. 35–66). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, S., & Hewitt, A. (2002). The New European trade preferences: does “everything but arms” (EBA) help the poor? Development Policy Review, 20, 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raza, W. (2007). EU trade politics: pursuit of neo-mercantilism in different fora? In W. Blaas & J. Becker (Eds.), Strategic arena switching in international trade negotiations (pp. 67–96). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sbragia, A. (2010). The EU, the US, and trade policy: competitive interdependence in the management of globalization. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(3), 368–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäuble, W. (2012). Rede anlässlich der Verleihung des Internationalen Karlspreises zu Aachen am 17. Mai 2012. http://www.karlspreis.de/fileadmin/dokumente/reden2012/Rede_Dr_Schaeuble.pdf. Accessed 12 February 2012.

  • Schweller, R. L. (1999). Realism and the present great power system: Growth and positional conflict over scarce resources. In E. Kapstein & M. Mastanduno (Eds.), Unipolar politics: realism and state strategies after the cold war (pp. 28–67). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, G. (2005). Power, governance, and the WTO: a comparative institutional approach. In M. N. Barnett & R. Duvall (Eds.), Power in global governance (pp. 130–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, G. (2006). What’s new in EU trade dispute settlement? Judicialization, public-private networks and the WTO legal order. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 832–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. (2006). The European Union and international political economy: trade, aid and monetary policy. In K. E. Jørgensen, M. A. Pollack, & B. Rosamond (Eds.), Handbook of European Union politics (pp. 527–545). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, C. (2005). Evaluation of EC Trade Defence Instruments. Final Report, Prepared by Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP(December).

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD (2012). About GSP. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=2309&lang=1. Accessed 25 December 2011.

  • Van Den Hoven, A. (2006). European Union regulatory capitalism and multilateral trade negotiations. In S. Lucarelli & I. Manners (Eds.), Values and principles in European Union foreign policy (pp. 185–200). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hoven, A. (2007). Bureaucratic competition in EU trade policy: EBA as a case of competing two-level-games? In G. Faber & J. Orbie (Eds.), EU trade politics and development: everything but arms unravelled. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, R. (2004). The WTO: crisis and the governance of global trade. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock, S. (2000). Trade Policy. In H. Wallace, M. A. Pollack, & W. Wallace (Eds.), Policy-making in the European Union (pp. 377–400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock, S. (2007). European Union policy towards free trade agreements. ECIPE Working Paper, 03, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock, S. (2009). The potential impact of the Lisbon treaty on European Union external trade policy. European Foreign Policy Working Paper, 1(February), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock, S. (2010). Trade policy: A further shift towards Brussels. In H. Wallace, M. A. Pollack, & A. R. Young (Eds.), Policy-making in the European Union (pp. 381–400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2011). World Economic Outlook Database. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/index.aspx. Accessed 20 December 2011.

  • WTO (2007). Trade Policy Review: European Communities. Report by the Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2009a). Trade Policy Review European Communities: Record of the Meeting. Report by the Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2009b). Trade Policy Review: European Communities. Report by the Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2011). Plurilaterals: of minority interest. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm10_e.htm. Accessed 23 December 2011.

  • WTO (2012a). Anti-dumping. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/ad_init_rep_member_e.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2012.

  • WTO (2012b). Disputes by country/territory. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_e.htm. Accessed 15 January 2012.

  • WTO (2012c). Overseeing national trade policies: the TPRM. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_int_e.htm. Accessed 24 January 2012.

  • Young, A. R. (2006). Punching its weight? The EU’s use of WTO dispute resolution. In O. Elgström & M. Smith (Eds.), The European Union’s roles in international politics: concepts and analysis (pp. 180–207). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, W., & Jensen, T. V. (2005). Tariff preferences, WTO negotiations and LDCs: The case of the “everything but arms” inititative. The World Economy, 28(3), 375–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Narzissenweg 2, 38108, Braunschweig, Germany

    Christian Burckhardt

Authors
  1. Christian Burckhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Burckhardt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , European Union Center, University of Miami, Memorial Drive 1000, Coral Gables, 33146, Florida, USA

    Astrid Boening

  2. Center for Global Studies, Institute for Political Science, Bonn University, Walter-Flex Str. 3, Bonn, 53113, Germany

    Jan-Frederik Kremer

  3. , Chair for International Politcs, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, Bochum, 44780, Germany

    Aukje van Loon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Burckhardt, C. (2013). The European Union as an Actor in International Trade Relations. In: Boening, A., Kremer, JF., van Loon, A. (eds) Global Power Europe - Vol. 2. Global Power Shift. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32416-1_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation