This chapter assesses the effects of intra-industry trade on lobbying in the EU. It includes the results of analysis of an original dataset of EU-based lobbying over several trade agreements. First, the chapter briefly discusses the nature of trade policy in the EU, and then surveys the literature on the politics of trade in Europe, with a focus on the state of our knowledge about the character of political coalitions and the involvement of industry associations and individual firms in the trade policymaking process. Second, the chapter discusses the role of intra-industry trade in the EU and presents an argument about the way that IIT has eroded the ability of European industry associations to lobby jointly over trade policy. Third, the chapter introduces the dataset used to assess the argument and discusses the quantitative analysis and results. The results support the theory developed in this book and demonstrate that IIT affects societal coalitions across diverse institutional contexts.

The impact of trade agreements is not gender neutral, as women and men play different roles and enjoy different opportunities in society, markets and the economy. In order to minimize the unintended discriminatory impact of these agreements on women, several countries have developed policy instruments with gender-related commitments. However, the nature and scope of these commitments vary considerably from one region to another. Moreover, while some countries have been at the forefront of including these provisions in their trade agreements, many others have lagged behind and have yet to take the first step in this direction. This chapter examines these dynamics. The first part of the chapter looks at the differences in gender-related provisions in different regions, using practical examples to illustrate differences and overlaps within these regions. The second part of the chapter zooms in on one of these regions, South America, as it has emerged as a frontrunner in drafting trade agreements with various types of gender commitments. This section offers reflections on the ways in which countries in South America have drafted gender provisions, the roles of women that these provisions have focused on, and the mainstreaming strategies that are unique to this region (such as the inclusion of stand-alone chapters and the creation of dedicated implementation mechanisms).

Special and differential treatment (SDT) has a long history in international trade negotiations. Born as a response to the development gap in the multilateral fora, S&DT has evolved as a set of substantive and procedural rules aimed at providing developing countries with broader policy space. Latin-American countries, which had fostered the creation and improvement of S&DT rules in the GATT-WTO, have faced different challenges in the negotiation of these provisions in their preferential trade agreements (PTAs). This chapter explores the scope of S&DT principles and operative clauses included in Latin-American trade agreements since the early 2000s. The main contributions of this chapter are, first, to present S&DT as a cross-cutting topic in PTAs; second, to bring to light the evolution of development-related policy space in trade agreements recently signed in the region; and third, to assess differences in the legal S&DT architecture across PTAs.

This chapter analyses Latin American trade policy trends from post-2008 to 2018 and offers in-depth case studies of Brazil and Mexico. At both aggregate and more detailed levels of analysis we document the significant rise in protectionism, and non-tariff measures (NTMs) in particular, in the decade following the 2008–2009 Global Financial Crisis. We focus on the preferential trade agreements (PTAs) that govern Mexico’s trade under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and Brazil’s trade in the context of the Southern Cone Common Market (MERCOSUR). We report two main findings regarding Latin American trade and commercial policy trends in the 21st century. First, PTAs – long considered as key trade and investment-creating conduits – are now emerging as venues within which NTMs (e.g., non-transparent interventions, import bans, licensing requirements, controls on safety standards) are simultaneously increasing. That is, members within the same scheme are deploying NTMs against each other. The good news is that membership in these PTAs has mitigated some intra-bloc protectionism, albeit against a backdrop of rising NTMs within these PTAs, nonetheless. Second, the rapid trade and investment integration of China into Latin America markets since 2002 has directly shaped trade policy patterns and responses in this region. In the end, neither Brazil nor Mexico has risen to the occasion in terms of generating a pro-growth trade strategy that delivers compelling distributional and productive returns. Some of these shortcomings are due to path dependence within each PTA, as policymakers in both countries have failed to update approaches that have clearly failed to deliver over time. Outside of these PTAs, the stale macroeconomic response of each country to dynamic and competitive challenges emanating from the global economy risks an extenuation of long-term patterns of political and economic underperformance.

Most recent preferential trade agreements (PTAs) include a full-fledged chapter devoted to the environment. These chapters typically incorporate specific commitments on various environmental issues, including endangered species, deforestation, and hazardous waste. Existing research has found that some of these commitments can be impactful, especially in developing countries. Yet, relatively few PTAs include detailed provisions on climate change. The first part of this chapter introduces a 2x2 typology of environmental provisions that are the most relevant for climate governance. This typology distinguishes positive and negative commitments as well as direct and diffused commitments. The second part builds on a data set of environmental provisions in 774 trade agreements to map the existing distribution of these four types of climate-relevant provisions. The third part zooms in on one important provision per type: restriction on fossil fuel subsidies, liberalisation of environmental good and services, climate exceptions related to investment protection, and exceptions allowing for carbon border adjustments. The fourth part makes specific suggestions to increase the degree of precision, obligation, and delegation for these four types of provisions. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the legal and political context necessary to have PTAs that take climate change more seriously.

The chapter explores the question of how different domestic and international law approaches to regulating the international transfer of personal data deal with cybersecurity threats. It examines the 2016 EU General Data Protection Regulation, the 2021 UK National Security and Investment Act, and the 2018 United States, Mexico and Canada Agreement, as representing distinct approaches for regulating international data transfers, namely data protection legislation, investment screening legislation, and digital trade agreements. The analysis demonstrates that a lack of uniformity in terms of what constitutes an adequate level and design of data protection mechanisms has left the issue of how to distinguish between acceptable and non-acceptable data-transfer restrictions largely unresolved.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows can lead to more opportunities for women in the job market but may also exacerbate gender disparities. While gender mainstreaming in trade agreements has been extensively discussed over the past few years, demonstrating the need for reform, the discussion on gender mainstreaming in investment treaties is incipient, although extremely interesting. The inclusion of gender provisions in investment treaties is one of the pillars for a successful strategy to overcome gender inequality. It needs to be addressed along with gender policies by multinational enterprises (MNEs) leading the foreign investment process. This chapter aims to address the role of women as levers of change and the opportunity for MNEs to be the drivers of this change. To this end, it reviews the recent evolution of gender provisions in investment agreements and demonstrates how FDI can foment much-needed change by providing examples of actions and policies by MNEs in the Americas towards promoting more opportunities for women.

With the narrowing space between international trade and domestic policy, the topic of women’s empowerment1 is increasingly becoming part of mainstream discussions in global governance circles. Indeed, renewed attention is now being paid to how international trade policies may impact gender equality.2 Recently, multiple studies have demonstrated that trade policy is not gender-neutral.3 Trade policies create both ‘losers’ and ‘winners’, as they benefit some and leave others behind.4 The distributional outcomes of trade can vary between women and men, since they play different roles in society, markets, and the economy, and they enjoy different opportunities.5 Hence, if trade policies are designed without taking into account their impact on gender powers and opportunities, these policies can magnify the existing gender gaps.6

A gender-responsive trade policy can lift obstacles faced by women in trade through, for instance, financial and non-financial incentives, or by providing access to trade-related infrastructure, especially in rural areas. Trade policies can create new opportunities for women entrepreneurs and female farmers, and for women to enter the workforce, in export sectors. In light of these opportunities, the chapter seeks to explore how capabilities for women can be expanded and enforced in global trade. Among other things, the research will delve into the ability of trade agreements to contribute to gender equality. Specifically, the chapter analyses these issues from the institutional aspect of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its role in designing gender-inclusive trade policies and monitoring such policies through the Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM).

China, the EU and the United States are the world’s largest traders, and many of the tensions in the trading system arise in the relations among them. Our premise is that reforming WTO is a necessary condition for the organization to be a more salient forum for the three large economies to address trade tensions, and that agreement among these three trade powers in turn is necessary to resolve the problems of the WTO. After a brief discussion of the global challenges that ought to be on the WTO agenda and of the systemic context, we discuss both how China understands WTO reform and how the other two leading powers see the China problem in the WTO. We consider how the three see transparency, plurilateral negotiations, economic development differences, fisheries and industrial subsidies, WTO working practices, and dispute settlement. We conclude by considering the implications of our analysis for fostering cooperation between the three major trade powers in the WTO.

China, the EU and the United States are the world’s largest traders, and many of the tensions in the trading system arise in the relations among them. Our premise is that reforming WTO is a necessary condition for the organization to be a more salient forum for the three large economies to address trade tensions, and that agreement among these three trade powers in turn is necessary to resolve the problems of the WTO. After a brief discussion of the global challenges that ought to be on the WTO agenda and of the systemic context, we discuss both how China understands WTO reform and how the other two leading powers see the China problem in the WTO. We consider how the three see transparency, plurilateral negotiations, economic development differences, fisheries and industrial subsidies, WTO working practices, and dispute settlement. We conclude by considering the implications of our analysis for fostering cooperation between the three major trade powers in the WTO.