Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T22:04:06.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transatlantic convergence of preferential trade agreements environmental clauses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2017

Jean-Frédéric Morin  and
Myriam Rochette
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The United States and the European Union include several environmental clauses in their respective preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Building on an exhaustive and fine-grained dataset of PTAs’ environmental clauses, this article makes two contributions. First, it shows that the United States and the European Union have initially favored different approaches to environmental protection in their PTAs. The United States’ concerns over regulatory sovereignty and level playing field have led to a legalistic and adversarial approach, while the European Union's concerns for policy coherence have led to a more procedural and cooperative approach. Second, this article provides evidence that European and American trade negotiators have gradually converged on a shared set of environmental norms. Although the United States and the European Union initially pursued different objectives, they learned from each other and drew similar lessons. As a result, recent American agreements have become more European-like, and European agreements have become more Americanized. This article concludes that U.S. and E.U. approaches, far from being incompatible, can usefully be combined and reinforce each other.

Keywords

preferential trade agreementstrade policyenvironmentissue-linkagepolicy diffusionpolicy convergencetransatlantic trade and investment partnershipenvironmental lawEuropean UnionUnited States
Type
Research Article
Information
Business and Politics , Volume 19 , Special Issue 4: The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) , December 2017 , pp. 621 - 658
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2017 and published under exclusive license to 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.)

References

Aggarwal, Vinod K. 2013. “US Free Trade Agreements and Linkages.” International Negotiations 18(1): 89–110.Google Scholar
Allee, Todd and Elsig, Manfred. 2016. Are the Contents of International Treaties Copied-and-Pasted? Evidence from Preferential Trade Agreements. World Trade Institute, Working Paper no 8.Google Scholar
Ida, Bastiaens and Postnikov, Evgeny. 2015. “Environmental provisions in E.U. & U.S. Trade Agreements and Regulatory Change in the Developing World.” 8th Annual Conference on the Political Economy of International Organizations.Google Scholar
Bourgeois, Jacques, Dawar, Kamala, and Evenett, Simon J.. 2007. A Comparative Analysis of Selected Provisions in Free Trade Agreements, DG Trade. (Accessed 7 August 2017) http://www.kamaladawar.com/userfiles/file/downloads/A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20of%20Selected%20FTAs.pdf.Google Scholar
Colyer, Dale. 2011. Green Trade Agreements. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union. 2006. “Review EU Sustainable Development Strategy.” (Accessed 7 August 2017) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2010917%202006%20INIT.Google Scholar
De Ville, Ferdi, Orbie, Jan, and den Putte, Lore Van. 2016. “Sustainable Development in TTIP: A Highest Common Denominator Compromise?” European Journal of Risk Regulation 2: 290–94.Google Scholar
Dür, Andreas, Baccini, Leonardo, and Elsig, Manfred. 2014. “The Design of International Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset.” Review of International Organizations 9(3): 353–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission. 2006. “Global Europe: Competing in the World.”Google Scholar
European Parliament. 2010. “Resolution of 25 November 2010 on Human Rights and Social and Environmental Standards in International Trade Agreements.” (Accessed 7 August 2017) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2010-434.Google Scholar
Gagné, Gilbert and Morin, Jean-Frédéric. 2006. “The Evolving American Policy on Investment Protection: Origins, Scope, and Prospects.” Journal of International Economic Law 9(2): 357–82.Google Scholar
Horn, Henrik, Mavroidis, Petros C., and Sapir, André. 2010. “Beyond the WTO? An Anatomy of E.U. and U.S. Preferential Trade Agreements.” The World Economy 33(11): 1,565–88.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, Gary Clyde, Charnovitz, Steve, and Kim, Jisun. 2009. Global Warming and the World Trading System. Washington, D.C.: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Jinnah, Sikina and Lindsay, Abby. 2016. “Diffusion through Issue Linkage: Environmental Norms in U.S. Trade Agreements.” Global Environmental Politics 16(3): 41–61.Google Scholar
Jinnah, Sikina and Morgera, Elisa. 2013. “Environmental Provisions in American and E.U. Free Trade Agreements: A Preliminary Comparison and Research Agenda.” Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 22(3): 324–39.Google Scholar
Jinnah, Sikina and Kennedy, Julia. 2011. “A New Era of Trade-Environment Politics: Learning from U.S. Leadership and its Consequences Abroad.” Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations XII(1): 95–109.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Mikael. 2015. “TTIP and the Environment: The Case of Chemicals Policy.” Global Affairs 1(1): 21–31.Google Scholar
Kelemen, R. Daniel. 2011. “Globalizing European Union Environmental Policy.” In Europe and the Management of Globalization, edited by Jacoby, Wade and Meunier, Sophie. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marín-Durán, Gracia and Morgera, Elisa. 2012. Environmental Integration in the EU's External Relations: Beyond Multilateral Dimensions. Oxford, United Kingdom: Hart.Google Scholar
Morin, Jean-Frédéric and Orsini, Amandine. 2014. “Policy Coherency and Regime Complexes: The Case of Genetic Resources.” Review of International Studies 40(2): 303–24.Google Scholar
Morin, Jean-Frédéric, Dür, Andreas, and Lechner, Lisa. 2017. Mapping the Trade and Environmental Nexus: Insight from a New Dataset. Global Environmental Politics. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Morin, Jean-Frédéric, Pauwelyn, Joost, and Hollway, James. 2017. The Trade Regime as a Complex Adaptive System: Exploration and Exploitation of Environmental Norms in Trade Agreements. Journal of International Economic Law 20(2): 365–90.Google Scholar
Mudgal, Shailendra et al. 2014. “ENVI Relevant Legislative Areas of the EU-US Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiations.” Study of the ENVI Committee, European Parliament. (Accessed 7 August 2017) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2014/536293/IPOL_STU%282014%29536293_EN.pdf.Google Scholar
Poletti, Arlo and Sicurelli, Daniela. 2015. “The European Union, Preferential Trade Agreements, and the International Regulation of Sustainable Biofuels.” Journal of Common Market Studies 1: 1–18.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Richard H. 1997. “Trade-Environment Negotiations in the EU, NAFTA, and WTO: Regional Trajectories of Rule Development.” American Journal of International Law 91(2): 231–67.Google Scholar
Strange, Michael. 2015. “Implication of TTIP for Transnational Social Movements and International NGOs.” In The Politics of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations: TTIP in a Globalized World, edited by Morin, Jean-Frédéric, Novotna, Tereza, Ponjaert, Frederik, and Telò, Mario. Farnham, United Kingdom: Ashgate.Google Scholar
United States. 2015. “Standing Up for the Environment: Trade for a Greener World.” (Accessed 7 August 2017) https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/reports-and-publications/2015/standing-environment-trade.Google Scholar
Vogel, David. 2012. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Alasdair and Peterson, John. 2013. “We Care About You, But…. The Politics of E.U. Trade Policy and Development.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26(3): 497–518.Google Scholar
Young, Alasdair. 2016. “Not Your Parents’ Trade Politics: The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiations.” Review of International Political Economy 23(3): 345–78.Google Scholar
Zvelc, Rok. 2012. “Environmental Integration in E.U. Trade Policy: The Generalized System of Preferences, Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments and Free Trade Agreements.” In The External Environmental Policy of the European Union, edited by Morgera, Elisa. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar