Trade agreements; European Union; China; International political economy; EU external relations; Trump administration; trade diplomacy; unilateralism, bilateralism; interregionalism, multilateralism
Abstract :
[en] The European Union (EU) has a number of different powers in its toolbox. One of these policies lies at the core of the EU’s external competences – the common commercial policy (CCP) or common trade policy. This enables the EU to ‘speak as one voice’ in multilateral bodies and with third parties. The CCP, which has become stronger over the years, has developed into one of the bloc’s key international projection levers. However, the EU’s place and role in globalization are today being shaken chiefly by three major political factors: the rise of new powers, the United States (US)’ neo-mercantilist policies, and political divisions within the EU. Together, these three external and internal factors may be hastening a crisis for the EU. This raises the question: to what extent can the bloc influence its own destiny during this stormy period?
Disciplines :
Political science, public administration & international relations
Author, co-author :
Santander, Sébastian ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de science politique > Relations internationales
Vlassis, Antonios ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de science politique > Département de science politique
Language :
English
Title :
EU in Global Affairs: Constrained Ambition in an Unpredictable World?
International forum comprising the governments and central banks of nineteen countries (South Africa, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, South Korea, United States, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, United Kingdom, Russia, Turkey) and the EU, and representing 85% of global GDP, 2/3 of the world's population, 75% of global trade, 80% of global investment and 92% of global expenditure on R&D.
The group includes Germany, Canada, United States, France, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom. The EU has been associated with the G7's work since 1977. This group represents 40% of global GDP and 10% of the world's population.
H. Ojanen, The EU's Power in Inter-Organisational Relations 231 (London, Palgrave Macmillan 2018).
S. Santander, L'Union européenne, l'interrégionalisme et les puissances émergentes: le cas du partenariat 'eurobrésilien', 39 Politique européenne 106-135 (2013).
I. T. Berend, The Contemporary Crisis of the European Union: Prospects for the Future 170 (London, Routledge 2017).
Cf. C. Bretherton & J. Vogler, The European Union as a Global Actor 273 (Routledge 2006);
F. Petiteville, La politique internationale de l'Union européenne 280 (Paris, Les Presses Sciences Po 2006);
M. Telò & F. Ponjaert, The EU's Foreign Policy. What Kind of Power and Diplomatic Action? 248 (Ashgate 2013);
La Unión Europea en las Relaciones Internacionales 443 (E. Barbé ed., Madrid, Tecnos 2014);
S. Keukeleire & T. Delreux, The Foreign Policy of the European Union 408 (New York, Palgrave Macmillan 2014);
M. Smit, S. Keukeleire & S. Vanhoonaker, The Diplomatic System of the European Union 310 (Routledge 2016).
J. Orbie, The European Union's Role in World Trade: Harnessing Globalisation?, in Europe's Global Role 35-66 (J. Orbie ed., Ashgate 2008);
P. A. Messerlin & P. Boulanger, La politique commercial, in L'Union européenne 289-300 (R. Dehousse ed., La documentation française 2014);
S. Meunier & K. Nicolaïdis, The European Union as a Trade Power, in International Relations and the European Union 209-234 (C. Hill, M. Smith & S. Vanhoonaker eds, 3d ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press 2017).
L. Cohen-Tanugi, The European Union's International Normative Influence: A Constrained Ambition?, Ifri 56 (2002);
Z. Laïdi, Norm Over Force. The Enigma of European Power 179 (Palgrave Macmillan 2008);
B. Hettne & F. Söderbaum, Civilian Power or Soft Imperialism? EU as a Global Actor and the Role of Interregionalism, 10(4) Eur. Foreign Aff. Rev. 535-552 (2005);
S. Santander, Le régionalisme sudaméricain, l'Union européenne et les États-Unis 280 (Éditions de l'Université de Bruxelles 2008).
A. Vlassis, Partenariats transrégionaux, technologies numériques et culture: de la convergence numérique aux divergences normatives, in Génération TAFTA. Les nouveaux partenariats de la mondialisation 211-223 (C Deblock & J. Lebullenger, PUR 2018).
S. Woolcock European Union Economic Diplomacy the Role of the EU in External Economic Relations 220 (Routledge 2012);
F. Petiteville, Les négociations multilatérales à l'OMC: l'épuisement d'un modèle, in Négociations internationales 345-371 (F. Petiteville & D. Placidi-Frot eds, Presses de Sciences Po 2013);
D. Colgan, D. Jeff & R. O. Keohane, The Liberal Order Is Rigged, Foreign Aff. 36-45 (May/June 2017).
T. Renard, Partnerships for Effective Multilateralism? Assessing the Compatibility Between EU Bilateralism, (Inter-)Regionalism and Multilateralism, 29(1) Cambridge Rev. Int'l Aff. 18-35 (2015);
M. Telò, L'Union européenne face à la multiplication des interconnexions commerciales interrégionales et à leurs implications politiques, in Deblock & Lebullenger, supra n. 10, at 37-54.
European Commission, A Global Actor in Search of a Strategy: European Union Foreign Policy Between Multilateralism and Bilateralism, Directorate-Gen. Res. & Innovation 63 (2014);
R. Bendini, The Future of the EU Trade Policy, European Parliament PE 549.054, 28 (July 2015).
Group bringing together fifteen Caribbean countries: the CARICOM countries and Dominican Republic.
Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador.
The Southern African Development Community comprises Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Eswatini (formerly Swaziland).
Council of the EU, Trade with Australia and New Zealand: Negotiating Directives Made Public, Council of the European Union (25 June 2018), https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/06/25/trade-with-australia-and-new-zealand-negotiating-directives-made-public/ (accessed 20 June 2019).
Council of the EU, EU-Indonesia Free Trade Agreement: Negotiations to Start, Council of the European Union (18 July 2016), https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/07/18/euindonesia-free-trade-agreement/ (accessed 20 June 2019).
S. Santander, Latinoamerica y la Unión Europea. Sus vínculos para un nuevo despertar, 19(1) Foreign Aff. Latinoamérica 59-66 (2019).
In contrast with most Latin American countries, Mexico elected (2018) a centre-left president, although it seems unlikely this will affect negotiations with the EU.
European Commission, EU-Chile Trade Talks: Commission Releases Its Proposals and Reports About Progress, European Commission (6 Feb. 2018), http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id= 1793 (accessed 20 June 2019).
European Commission: New EU-Mexico Agreement. The Agreement in Principle, European Commission 18 p (23 Apr. 2018).
Mercosur includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Venezuela is the fifth member of Mercosur. However, it was suspended from the bloc in 2017. The country has also never been part of the trade negotiations between the EU and Mercosur.
European Commission, Key Elements of the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement, European Commission (28 June 2019).
European Commission, Trade, Growth and World Affairs. Trade Policy as a Core Component of the EU's 2020 Strategy, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels COM(2010) 612 final (2010), 22 p.
European Commission: Trade for All. Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy, European Union, 40 p (2015).
Agreements aimed at lowering the tariff and non-tariff barriers.
European Commission, State of the EU 2017 - Trade Package, European Union (14 Sept. 2017).
F. De Ville & G. Siles-Brügge, The Impact of Brexit on EU Trade Policy, 7(3) Pol. & Governance 7-18 (2019).
C. Malmström, Transforming Trade (Humboldt University, Berlin 15 Oct. 2018), https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/october/tradoc_157443.pdf (accessed 8 Nov. 2019).
S. Santander, The EU and the Shifts of Power in the International Order: Challenges and Responses, 19(1) Eur. Foreign Aff. Rev. 65-81 (2014);
M. Rewizorski, The European Union and the BRICS. Complex Relations in the Era of Global Governance 192 (New York, Springer 2015).
G. G. Müller, J. Wouters, J.-C. Defraigne, S. Santander & K. Raube, The EU-Latin American Strategic Partnership: State of Play and Ways Forward, European Parliament: Directorate-General for External Relations, PE 578.028, 89 (July 2017);
L. Chen, China, Africa Trade Volumes Rises 14% to 170b, China Daily (29 Aug. 2018).
W. A. Callahan, China's 'Asia Dream': The Belt Road Initiative and the New Regional Order, 1(3) Asian J. Comp. Pol. 226-243 (2016);
P. Braga & K. Sangar, Strategy Amidst Ambiguity: The Belt and Road and China's Foreign Policy Approach to Eurasia, 1 J. Cross-Reg. Dialogues (2019).
A. Vlassis, Le projet du partenariat transpacifique: vers une restructuration des échelles de coopération régionale et internationale ?, in Concurrences régionales dans un monde multipolaire émergent 285-298 (S. Santander ed., Peter Lang, 2016).
F. de Ville, T.T.I.P.: The Truth About the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 192 (Cambridge, Polity Press 2016).
European Commission, EU-China - A Strategic Outlook, European Commission and HR/VP contribution to the European Council, 6 (12 Mar. 2019).
European Commission, Report from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on Trade and Investment Barriers 1 January 2018-31 December 2018 6 (Brussels 2019).
European Commission, Elements for a New EU Strategy on China, JOIN(2016) 30 final, 6 (Brussels 2016).
J. Solal-Arquet & D. Tersen, Trump et l'avenir de la politique commerciale européenne, 1 Politique étrangère 85-97 (2017).
R. McDougall, Crisis in the WTO. Restoring the WTO Dispute Settlement Function, 194 CIGI Papers 28 (Oct. 2018).
L. Doncel, Cuenta atrás para evitar el fin del gran juez del comercio mundial (El País 24 June 2019).
C. Maza, Exiled by Trump, Steve Bannon Could Be About to Rise Again in Europe, Newsweek (25 May 2019).
Santander, supra n. 19, at 62-63.
While a majority of MEPs refused to give the negotiation mandate to the Commission, another majority afterwards was opposed to definitively abandoning the talks.
On the Parliament's powers see A. Ripoll Servent, The Role of the European Parliament in International Negotiations After Lisbon, 21(4) J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 568-586 (2014).
Albania, North Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia.
See European Commission, supra n. 36.
See European Parliament, China, the 16+1 Format and the EU, European Parliament, PE 625.173, 3 (Sept. 2018).
Regarding the European political groups and trade agreements, see also A. Vlassis, The European Parliament as an Actor in the Global Governance of Culture: From Voice to Influence?, in Culture, Sociétés et Numérique 13-46 (M. Rioux, D. Tchéhouali & F. Verdugo eds, Montréal, Editions IEIM 2017).
Authors' research results based on Vote Watch Europe data.
See S. Santander, Can Regional Blocs (Still) Talk with Each Other? The Euro-Mercosur Relationship, 2/33 (459), World Affairs 83-92 (2016).
Open Letter, 340+ Organisations Call on the EU to Immediately Halt Trade Negotiations with Brazil, Friends of the Earth of Europe (17 June 2019), http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/eu-us_trade_deal/2019/joint-letter-brazil-eu-mercosur.pdf (accessed 29 June 2019).
