Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:41:38.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Enhancement of the European Parliament’s Monitoring for Better Coherence between Trade Policy and NTPOs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2023

Miriam Manchin
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano
Laura Puccio
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Aydin B. Yildirim
Affiliation:
Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
Get access

Summary

Since the Treaty of Lisbon, trade policy has become an explicit part of, and integrated into, the general framework of the EU’s external policy but must also be in conformity with internal policies. Thus, trade policy is subject to a requirement of multiple coherence. Beyond constitutional obligations, other drivers work for the inclusion of non-genuine commercial policy objectives in trade policy, such as the orientation of contemporary trade politics towards the behind-the-border issues of national regulation, so that trade policy became closely intertwined with domestic regulatory policy. Therefore the actors primarily responsible for legislation, i.e. parliaments, advocate for their extended participation in determining trade policy, and rightly so for reasons of transparency, control and political inclusiveness. Parliaments thus become actors of respect for and positive consideration of non-commercial policy objectives in trade policy, which also applies to the European Parliament (EP). Hence, an institutional design of policy formulation cycles and decision-making in EU trade policy that strives for better coherence of trade concerns with non-trade policy objectives (NTPOs) must focus on strengthening the influence of the EP and improving its participatory rights in decision-making and its control and monitoring mechanisms. Consequently, this chapter derives proposals for improving EP´s monitoring mechanisms for the benefit of NTPOs in trade policy from an analysis of weaknesses in the negotiation and implementation stage of trade policy.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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.)

References

Asteriti, A. 2017. “Art. 21 TEU and the EU’s Common Commercial Policy,” European Yearbook of International Economic Law (8): 111137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L. 2014. “The European Parliament’s Role in Relation to Human Rights in Trade and Investment Agreements,” Study for Policy Department for External Relations, European Parliament, 13 February, www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/433751/EXPO-JOIN_ET(2014)433751_EN.pdfGoogle Scholar
Beke, L., D’Hollander, D., Hachez, N. and Pérez de las Heras, B. 2014. “Report on the Integration of Human Rights in EU Development and Trade Policies,” www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/86030/FP7%20report.pdf.Google Scholar
Bilal, S. and Hoekman, B. 2019. “Introduction: EU Trade and External Policy in Troubled Waters.” In Bilal, S. and Hoekman, B. (Eds.), Perspectives on the Soft Power of EU Trade Policy. London: CEPR Press, pp. 915.Google Scholar
Borchert, I., Conconi, P., Di Ubaldo, M. and Herghelegiu, C. 2020. “The Pursuit of Non-Trade Policy Objectives in EU Trade Policy,” EUI Working Papers, RSCAS 2020/26.Google Scholar
Committee on International Trade. 2011. “Minutes: Meeting of 12 July 2011, from 15.00 to 18.00, and 13 July 2011, from 9.00 to 12.30 and from 15.00 to 18.30 Brussels (INTA_PV(2011)0712_1),” www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/inta/pv/873/873646/873646en.pdf.Google Scholar
Committee on International Trade. 2014. “Minutes: Meeting of 3 September 2014, Brussels (INTA_PV(2014)09-03-1),” www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/envi/pv/1034/1034592/1034592en.pdf.Google Scholar
Coremans, E. and Meissner, K. L. 2018. “Putting Power into Practice: Administrative and Political Capacity Building in the European Parliament’s Committee for International Trade,” Public Administration 96(3): 561577.Google Scholar
Cremona, M. 2017. “A Quiet Revolution – The Changing Nature of the EU’s Common Commercial Policy.” In Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C., Terhechte, J. P. and Ziegler, A. (Eds.), European Yearbook of International Economic Law. Cham: Springer, pp. 321.Google Scholar
Cremona, M. 2018. “Shaping EU Trade Policy Post-Lisbon: Opinion 2/15 of 16 May 2017,” EUConst 14(2): 231259.Google Scholar
Da Conceição-Heldt, E. 2013. “Do Agents ‘Run Amok’? A Comparison of Agency Slack in the EU and US Trade Policy in the Doha Round,” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 15(1): 2136.Google Scholar
Dawson, M. 2020. “Fundamental Rights in European Union Policy-making: The Effects and Advantages of Institutional Diversity,” Human Rights Law Review 20(1): 5073.Google Scholar
De Witte, B. 2011. “The EU and the International Legal Order: The Case of Human Rights.” In Evans, M. and Koutrakos, P. (Eds.), Beyond the Established Legal Orders: Policy Interconnections between the EU and the Rest of the World. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 127148.Google Scholar
Dordi, C. and Forganni, A. 2013. “The Comitology Reform in the EU: Potential Effects on Trade Defence Instruments,” Journal of World Trade 47(2): 359390.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2015. Trade for All. Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy. COM(2015) 497 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2019. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Implementation of Free Trade Agreements: 1 January 2018–31 December 2018 (COM(2019) 455 final). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Parliament (EP). 2014. “European Parliament Resolution of 13 March 2014 on the Implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon with Respect to the European Parliament (2013/2130(INI)),” 13 March, www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2014-0249&language=EN&ring=A7-2014-0120.Google Scholar
European Parliament (EP). 2017. “European Parliament Resolution of 26 October 2017 Containing Parliament’s Recommendation to the Council on the Proposed Negotiating Mandate for Trade Negotiations with New Zealand (2017/2193(INI)),” 26 October, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017IP0420 www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-parliamentary2017-0420_EN.html.Google Scholar
European Parliament (EP). 2019. “European Parliament Resolution of 12 March 2019 Regarding the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the EU and Viet Nam on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (2018/0272M(NLE)),” 12 March, www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0141_EN.pdf.Google Scholar
Framework Agreement. 2010. “Framework Agreement on Relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission,” 20 November, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:304:0047:0062:EN:PDF.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. 2018. “‘Behind-the-Border’ Regulatory Policies and Trade Agreements,” East Asian Economic Review 22(3): 243273.Google Scholar
Hoffmeister, F. 1998. Menschenrechts- und Demokratieklauseln in den vertraglichen Außenbeziehungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Jančić, D. 2017. “TTIP and Legislative-Executive Relations in EU Trade Policy,” West European Politics 40(1): 202221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaremba, U. 2020. “Non-Economic Values and Objectives in EU Trade Policy: Different Models of Externalization and Enforcement.” In Weiß, W. and Furculita, C. (Eds.), Global Politics and EU Trade Policy: Facing the Challenges to a Multilateral Approach. Berlin: Springer Nature, pp. 163184.Google Scholar
Kerremans, B., Adriaensen, J., Colli, F. and Coremans, E. 2019. Parliamentary Scrutiny of Trade Policies across the Western World. Brussels: European Parliament, 25 March, www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/603477/EXPO_STU(2019)603477_EN.pdf.Google Scholar
Mancini, I. 2020. “Fundamental Rights in the Institutional Architecture of EU Trade Agreements,” EUTIP Working Paper 04/2020.Google Scholar
Marx, A., Lein, B. and Brando, N. 2016. “The Protection of Labour Rights in Trade Agreements. The Case of the EU–Colombia Agreement,” Journal of World Trade 50(4): 587610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, K. L. 2016. “Democratizing EU External Relations: The European Parliament’s Informal Role in SWIFT, ACTA and TTIP,” European Foreign Affairs Review 21(2): 269288.Google Scholar
Meissner, K. L. and McKenzie, L. 2017. “Human Rights Conditionality in European Union Trade Negotiations: the Case of the EU–Singapore FTA,” Journal of Common Market Studies 55(4): 832849.Google Scholar
Milner, H. and Moravcsik, A. 2009. Power, Interdependence, and Nonstate Actors in World Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Ibold, T. 2019. “Die externe Dimension der EU-Politiken.” In Hatje, A. and Müller-Graff, P.-C. (Eds.), XXVIII. FIDE-Kongress vom 23. Mai bis 26. Mai 2018 in Estoril: die deutschen Landesberichte, Europarecht Supplement 1/2019. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 79179.Google Scholar
Office des professions du Québec. 2018. “Content of CETA and Comments on the Draft Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) for the Architectural Profession, April 2018,” www.opq.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/documents/Commissaire/CommProjARMCanEuArch2018_va.pdf.Google Scholar
Ott, A. 2016. “The European Parliament’s Role in EU Treaty-Making,” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 23(6): 10091039.Google Scholar
Passos, R. 2016. “The External Powers of the European Parliament.” In Eeckhout, P. and López-Escudero, M. (Eds.), The European Union’s External Action in Times of Crisis. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 85128.Google Scholar
Passos, R. 2017. “Some Issues Related to the Provisional Application of International Agreements and the Institutional Balance.” In Czuczai, J. and Naert, F. (Eds.), The EU as a Global Actor: Bridging Legal Theory and Practice. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers Nijhoff, pp. 380393.Google Scholar
Petersmann, E.-U. 2017. “Democratic Legitimacy of the CETA and TTIP Agreements?” In Rensman, T. (Ed.), Mega-Regional Trade Agreements. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 3759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puccio, L. and Harte, R. 2019. “The European Parliament’s Role in Monitoring the Implementation of EU Trade Policy.” In Costa, O. (Ed.), The European Parliament in Times of EU Crises. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 378412.Google Scholar
Rosén, G. 2018. “The European Parliament.” In Khorana, S. and García, M. (Eds.), Handbook on the EU and International Trade. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 117134.Google Scholar
Schütze, R. 2014. Foreign Affairs and the EU Constitution: Selected Essays. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Van den Putte, L., De Ville, F. and Orbie, J. 2014. “The European Parliament’s New Role in Trade Policy: Turning Power into Impact,” CEPS Special Report No. 89 / May.Google Scholar
Van der Loo, G. 2019. “National Parliaments and Mixed Agreements: Exploring the Legal Bumps in a Rocky Relationship.” In Santos Vara, J. and Rodríguez Sánchez-Tabernero, S. (Eds.), The Democratisation of EU International Relations through EU Law. London: Routledge, pp. 210256.Google Scholar
Van der Mei, A. P. 2016. “EU External Relations and Internal Inter-Institutional Conflicts: The Battlefield of Article 218 TFEU,” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 23(6): 10511076.Google Scholar
Weiß, W. 2017. “Die entwicklungspolitische Dimension der EU Handelspolitik.” In Felbermayr, G. J., Göler, D., Herrmann, C. and Kalina, A. (Eds.), Multilateralismus und Regionalismus in der EU-Handelspolitik. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 301338.Google Scholar
Weiß, W. 2018. “Delegation to Treaty Bodies in EU Agreements: Constitutional Constraints and Proposals for Strengthening the European Parliament,” European Constitutional Law Review 14(3): 532566.Google Scholar
Weiß, W. 2021. “The European Parliament’s Role in the Operation of Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Control and Executive-Legislative Balance in External Action.” In Fromage, D. and Herranz-Surrallés, A. (Eds.), Executive–Legislative (Im)balance in the European Union. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 209225.Google Scholar
Weiß, W. and Furculita, C. 2021. “The EU in Search for Stronger Enforcement Rules: Assessing the Proposed Amendments to Trade Enforcement Regulation 654/2014,” Journal of International Economic Law 23(4): 865884.Google Scholar
Wessel, R. A. and Takács, T. 2017. “Constitutional Aspects of the EU’s Global Actorness: Increased Exclusivity in Trade and Investment and the Role of the European Parliament,” European Business Law Review 28(2): 103117.Google Scholar
Willems, A., Jinaru, A. and Moroni, A. 2019. “Accountability in Antidumping: The Silent Death of Lisbon,” Global Trade and Customs Journal 14(6): 268277.Google Scholar
Yildirim, A., Basedow, R., Fiorini, M. and Hoekman, B. 2021. “EU Trade and Non-Trade Objectives: New Survey Evidence on Policy Design and Effectiveness,” Journal of Common Market Studies 59(3): 556568.Google Scholar
Young, A. R. and Peterson, J. 2006. “The EU and the New Trade Politics,” Journal of European Public Policy 13(6): 795814.Google Scholar
Zamfir, I. 2019. “Human Rights in EU Trade Agreements: The Human Rights Clause and its Application,” EPRS Briefing PE 637.975.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×