Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-04T22:44:09.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pursuit of Non-Trade Policy Objectives in EU Trade Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2021

Ingo Borchert ,
Paola Conconi ,
Mattia Di Ubaldo Open the ORCID record for Mattia Di Ubaldo [Opens in a new window]  and
Cristina Herghelegiu
Ingo Borchert
Affiliation:
University of Sussex, UK
Paola Conconi*
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles (ECARES), Bruxelles1050, Belgium CEPR, CESifo CEP, London
Mattia Di Ubaldo
Affiliation:
University of Sussex, UK
Cristina Herghelegiu
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles (ECARES), Bruxelles1050, Belgium
*
*Corresponding author: Email: pconconi@ulb.ac.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The European Union (EU) often conditions preferential access to its market on compliance with Non-Trade Policy Objectives (NTPOs), including human rights and labor and environmental standards. In this paper, we first systematically document the coverage of NTPOs across the main tools of EU trade policy: its (association and non-association) trade agreements and Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) programs. We then discuss the extent to which the EU can use these tools as a ‘carrot-and-stick’ mechanism to promote NTPOs in trading partners. We argue that, within trade agreements, the EU has limited scope to extend or restrict tariff preferences to ‘reward good behavior’ or ‘punish bad behavior’ on NTPOs, partly because multilateral rules require members to eliminate tariffs on substantially all trade. By contrast, GSP preferences are granted on a unilateral basis, and can thus more easily be extended or limited, depending on compliance with NTPOs. Our analysis also suggests that the commercial interests of the EU inhibit the full pursuit of NTPOs in its trade agreements and GSP programs.

Keywords

F13F50GSPJ80K32K38Trade preferencestrade agreementsGSPconditionalitynon-trade policy objectives
Type
Original Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , December 2021 , pp. 623 - 647
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We are grateful to Lisa Lechner for providing us with the data on legalization scores. We are indebted to Petros Mavroidis, Laura Puccio, André Sapir, Alan Winters (Editor), and two anonymous referees for their very useful comments and suggestions. The project leading to this paper received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 770680 (RESPECT).

References

Abbott, K.W., Keohane, R.O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M., and Snidal, D. (2000) ‘The Concept of Legalization’, International Organization 54, 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WTR (2004) ‘European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries’, Appellate Body, WT/DS246/AB/R, DSR 2004: III, 925.Google Scholar
Bandara, J.S. and Naranpanawa, A. (2015) ‘Garment Industry in Sri Lanka and the Removal of GSP Plus by EU’, The World Economy 38, 1438–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L. (2003) ‘The WTO Enabling Clause and Positive Conditionality in the European Community's GSP Program’, Journal of International Economic Law 6, 507–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L. (2007) ‘The WTO Legality of the EU's GSP+ Arrangement’, Journal of International Economic Law 10, 869–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L. (2008) ‘The Application of Human Rights Conditionality in the EU's Bilateral Trade Agreements and Other Trade Arrangements with Third Countries’, In-depth analysis, European Parliament.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. (2013) ‘Human Rights and Sustainable Development Obligations in EU Free Trade Agreements’, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 24/2012.Google Scholar
Beke, L., d'Hollander, D., Hachez, N., and Pérez De Las Heras, B. (2014) ‘The Integration of Human Rights in EU Development and Trade Policies’, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, Leuven.Google Scholar
Beke, L. and Hachez, N. (2015) ‘The EU GSP: A Preference for Human Rights and Good Governance? The Case of Myanmar’, in Global Governance through Trade: EU Policies and Approaches. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronckers, M. and Gruni, G. (2019) ‘Taking the Enforcement of Labour Standards in the EU's Free Trade Agreements Seriously’, Common Market Law Review 56, 1591–1622.Google Scholar
Conconi, P. and Perroni, C. (2002) ‘Issue Linkage and Issue Tie-In in Multilateral Negotiations’, Journal of International Economics 57, 423–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2017) ‘Mid-Term Evaluation of the EU's Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) ’, 21 September 2017. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2020a) ‘Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/550’, Official Journal of the European Union, L 127/1.Google Scholar
European Commission (2020b) ‘Joint Staff Working Document Report on EU Enhanced Engagement with Three Everything but Arms Beneficiary Countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia and Myanmar’, accompanying the document ‘Joint Report to the European Parliament and the Council Report on the Generalised Scheme of Preferences Covering the Period 2018–2019’, SWD/2020/19 final.Google Scholar
European Council. (2012) ‘Guidelines on Implementation and Evaluation of Restrictive Measures (Sanctions) in the Framework of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy’, Doc. 11205/12.Google Scholar
European Union (1990) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 3835/90’, Official Journal of the European Union L 368/11.Google Scholar
European Union (1991) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 3900/90’, Official Journal of the European Union L370/126.Google Scholar
European Union (1994) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 3281/94’, Official Journal of the European Union L348/1.Google Scholar
European Union (1998) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98’, Official Journal of the European Union L32357/1.Google Scholar
European Union (2005) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 980/2005’, Official Journal of the European Union L169/1.Google Scholar
European Union (2006) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 1933/2006’, Official Journal of the European Union L 405/35.Google Scholar
European Union (2008) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 938/2008’, Official Journal of the European Union L334/90.Google Scholar
European Union (2009) ‘Council Decision (EC) No 2009/454’, Official Journal of the European Union L149/78.Google Scholar
European Union (2010) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 143/2010’, Official Journal of the European Union L45/1.Google Scholar
European Union (2012) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 978/2012’, Official Journal of the European Union L303/1.Google Scholar
European Union (2013a) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 155/2013’, Official Journal of the European Union L 48/5.Google Scholar
European Union (2013b) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 607/2013’, Official Journal of the European Union L 181/13.Google Scholar
European Union (2014a) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 1015/2014’, Official Journal of the European Union L 283/20.Google Scholar
European Union (2014b) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2014’, Official Journal of the European Union L 1/1.Google Scholar
European Union (2014c) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 1386/2014’, Official Journal of the European Union L 369/33.Google Scholar
European Union (2015) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 2015/1979’, Official Journal of the European Union L 289/3.Google Scholar
European Union (2016) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 2016/79’, Official Journal of the European Union L 17/1.Google Scholar
European Union (2017) ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 2017/836’, Official Journal of the European Union L 125/1.Google Scholar
Gnutzmann, H. and Gnutzmann-Mkrtchyan, A.. (2017) ‘The Trade Effect of GSP Removal: Evidence from Belarus’, BEROC Working Paper No. 44.Google Scholar
Grossman, G.M. and Sykes, A.O. (2005) ‘A Preference for Development: the Law and Economics of GSP’, World Trade Review 4, 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hachez, N. (2015) ‘“Essential Elements” Clauses in EU Trade Agreements: Making Trade Work in a Way that Helps Human Rights?’, Working Paper No. 158.Google Scholar
Harrison, J., Barbu, M., Campling, L., Richardson, B., and Smith, A. (2019) ‘Governing Labour Standards through Free Trade Agreements: Limits of the European Union's Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 57, 260–277.Google Scholar
Hofmann, C., Osnago, A., and Ruta, M.. (2017) ‘Horizontal Depth: A New Database on the Content of Preferential Trade Agreements’, Policy Research Working Paper Series 7981, The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, H., Mavroidis, P.C., and Sapir, A. (2010) ‘Beyond the WTO? An Anatomy of EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements’, The World Economy 33, 1565–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayasinghe, V. (2015) ‘The Legality of the European Union's Special Incentive Arrangement’, Journal of International Economic Law 18, 555–575.Google Scholar
Kishore, P. (2017) ‘A Critical Analysis of Conditionalities in the Generalized System of Preferences’, Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 54, 98–133.Google Scholar
Koch, S. (2015) ‘A Typology of Political Conditionality Beyond Aid: Conceptual Horizons Based on Lessons from the European Union’, World Development 75, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechner, L. (2016) ‘The Domestic Battle Over the Design of Non-Trade Issues in Preferential Trade Agreements’, Review of International Political Economy 23, 840–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limão, N. (2005) ‘Trade Policy, Cross-Border Externalities and Lobbies: Do Linked Agreements Enforce More Cooperative Outcomes?’, Journal of International Economics 67, 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limão, N. (2007) ‘Are Preferential Trade Agreements with Non-Trade Objectives a Stumbling Block for Multilateral Liberalization?’, The Review of Economic Studies 74, 821–855.Google Scholar
Marx, A., Ebert, F., Hachez, N., and Wouters, J. (2016) Dispute Settlement in the Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters of EU Trade Agreements. Leuven: Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies.Google Scholar
Mattoo, A., Rocha, N., and Ruta, M. (2020) Handbook of Deep Trade Agreements. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavroidis, P.C. (2016) The Regulation of International Trade: GATT, Vol. 1. Cambridge, CA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McKenzie, L. and Meissner, K.L. (2020) ‘Overlapping Negotiations, Conflicting Interests? EU–Singapore Negotiations’, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2020/67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, K.L. and Mckenzie, L. (2018) ‘The Paradox of Human Rights Conditionality in EU Trade Policy: When Strategic Interests Drive Policy Outcomes’, Journal of European Public Policy 26, 1273–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrissey, O. (2005) ‘Alternatives to Conditionality in Policy-Based Lending’, in Koeberle, S., Silarszky, P., and Verheyen, G. (eds.), Conditionality Revisited: Concepts, Experiences, and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: World Bank, 237-247.Google Scholar
Orbie, J. and Tortell, L. (2009) ‘New GSP+ Beneficiaries: Tickling the Box or Truly Consistent with ILO Findings’, The European Foreign Affairs Review 14, 663–681.Google Scholar
Ornelas, E. (2016) ‘Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries’, in K. Bagwell and R. Staiger (eds.), Handbook of Commercial Policy, Vol. 1. North Holland: Elsevier, 369–432.Google Scholar
Poletti, A. and Sicurelli, D. (2018) The Political Economy of Normative Trade Power Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portela, C. (2018) Enforcing Respect for Labour Standards with Targeted Sanctions. Singapore: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.Google Scholar
Portela, C. and Orbie, J. (2014) ‘Sanctions under the EU Generalised System of Preferences and Foreign Policy: Coherence by Accident?’, Contemporary Politics 20, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, A. (1998) ‘The Political Economy of EC Regionalism’, European Economic Review 42, 717–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNCTAD (1968) ‘Resolution 21(II) on Preferential or Free Entry of Exports of Manufactures and Semi-Manufactures of Developing Countries to the Developed Countries.Google Scholar
Van Elsuwege, P. and Chamon, M.. (2019) ‘The Meaning of “Association” under EU law: A Study on the Law and Practice of EU Association Agreements’, European Parliament.Google Scholar
Velluti, S. (2016) ‘The Promotion and Integration of Human Rights in EU External Trade Relations’, Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 32, 41–68.Google Scholar
Zamfir, I. (2018) ‘Human Rights in EU Trade Policy: Unilateral Measures Applied by the EU’, Briefing, European Parliament Research Service.Google Scholar
Zhou, W. and Cuyvers, L. (2011) ‘Linking International Trade and Labour Standards: The Effectiveness of Sanctions under the European Union's GSP’, Journal of World Trade 45, 63–85.Google Scholar