EU Trade Agreements: To Mix or Not to Mix, That Is the Question

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Laura Puccio, P. Conconi, Cristina Herghelegiu
{"title":"EU Trade Agreements: To Mix or Not to Mix, That Is the Question","authors":"Laura Puccio, P. Conconi, Cristina Herghelegiu","doi":"10.54648/trad2021009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) can only act internationally on competences that have been transferred to it by its Member States. Trade agreements negotiated by the EU that include provisions outside its exclusive competences should be concluded as ‘mixed’. Mixed trade agreements must be ratified following not only the procedures set out in the EU treaties, but also the national ratification procedures of the Member States. As a result, national or even regional parliaments may block trade deals agreed between the EU and its trading partners after years of negotiations. Should the EU then avoid negotiating mixed trade agreements? We argue that the answer to this question depends crucially on the objectives of the EU when negotiating with its trading partners. If the EU is mostly driven by market-access motives, it should restrict the agreement to policy areas under its exclusive competence, thus insulating the trade deal from the legal and political risks of mixity. When instead its motives are mostly political, mixity is a ‘necessary evil’ to achieve non-trade objectives.\nTrade Agreements, European Unity, Competences, Ratification Procedures","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of World Trade","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2021009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The European Union (EU) can only act internationally on competences that have been transferred to it by its Member States. Trade agreements negotiated by the EU that include provisions outside its exclusive competences should be concluded as ‘mixed’. Mixed trade agreements must be ratified following not only the procedures set out in the EU treaties, but also the national ratification procedures of the Member States. As a result, national or even regional parliaments may block trade deals agreed between the EU and its trading partners after years of negotiations. Should the EU then avoid negotiating mixed trade agreements? We argue that the answer to this question depends crucially on the objectives of the EU when negotiating with its trading partners. If the EU is mostly driven by market-access motives, it should restrict the agreement to policy areas under its exclusive competence, thus insulating the trade deal from the legal and political risks of mixity. When instead its motives are mostly political, mixity is a ‘necessary evil’ to achieve non-trade objectives. Trade Agreements, European Unity, Competences, Ratification Procedures
欧盟贸易协定:混合还是不混合,这是一个问题
欧洲联盟(欧盟)只能根据其成员国移交给它的权限在国际上采取行动。欧盟谈判达成的包括其专属权限之外条款的贸易协议应被视为“混合”协议。混合贸易协定的批准不仅必须遵循欧盟条约规定的程序,还必须遵循成员国的国家批准程序。因此,国家甚至地区议会可能会阻止欧盟与其贸易伙伴经过多年谈判达成的贸易协议。那么欧盟应该避免谈判混合贸易协议吗?我们认为,这个问题的答案在很大程度上取决于欧盟与其贸易伙伴谈判时的目标。如果欧盟主要受市场准入动机的驱动,它应该将协议限制在其专属权限范围内的政策领域,从而使贸易协议免受法律和政治风险的影响。相反,当其动机大多是政治性的时,混合是实现非贸易目标的“必要邪恶”。贸易协定、欧洲统一、权限、批准程序
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Far and away the most thought-provoking and informative journal in its field, the Journal of World Trade sets the agenda for both scholarship and policy initiatives in this most critical area of international relations. It is the only journal which deals authoritatively with the most crucial issues affecting world trade today.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信