欧盟贸易谈判中的欧洲议会和民间社会:一场不稳定接触的不为人知的故事

I. Mancini
{"title":"欧盟贸易谈判中的欧洲议会和民间社会:一场不稳定接触的不为人知的故事","authors":"I. Mancini","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article calls into question the picture that is often uncritically depicted around the European Parliament (EP) and civil society as newly empowered actors and consistent advocates of citizens’ interests in EU trade negotiations. The contribution of the article is twofold. First, it provides a comparative and empirical account of the mobilization of the EP and civil society across the negotiations of the new generation EU trade agreements. It shows that a common thread has been an erratic engagement, along the lines of politicization: the EP has only been vocal in response to civil society mobilization; and civil society mobilization in turn has been inconsistent, even though some contested issues were common to all trade negotiations. Second, the article sheds light on improvements in democratic treaty-making practices that emerged as a result of the mobilization of the EP and civil society. While drawing some lessons on EU trade law-making going forward, the article calls for a more modest appraisal of the legacy of these newly emerged democratic practices.\nEU trade negotiations, international treaty-making, European Parliament, civil society, mobilization, CETA, TTIP, EU-Singapore FTA, EU-Japan EPA","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The European Parliament and Civil Society in EU Trade Negotiations: The Untold Story of an Erratic Engagement\",\"authors\":\"I. Mancini\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/eerr2022021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article calls into question the picture that is often uncritically depicted around the European Parliament (EP) and civil society as newly empowered actors and consistent advocates of citizens’ interests in EU trade negotiations. The contribution of the article is twofold. First, it provides a comparative and empirical account of the mobilization of the EP and civil society across the negotiations of the new generation EU trade agreements. It shows that a common thread has been an erratic engagement, along the lines of politicization: the EP has only been vocal in response to civil society mobilization; and civil society mobilization in turn has been inconsistent, even though some contested issues were common to all trade negotiations. Second, the article sheds light on improvements in democratic treaty-making practices that emerged as a result of the mobilization of the EP and civil society. While drawing some lessons on EU trade law-making going forward, the article calls for a more modest appraisal of the legacy of these newly emerged democratic practices.\\nEU trade negotiations, international treaty-making, European Parliament, civil society, mobilization, CETA, TTIP, EU-Singapore FTA, EU-Japan EPA\",\"PeriodicalId\":84710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European foreign affairs review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European foreign affairs review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European foreign affairs review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章对欧洲议会和民间社会在欧盟贸易谈判中经常被不加批判地描述为新的赋权行动者和公民利益的一贯倡导者的情况提出了质疑。这篇文章的贡献是双重的。首先,它对欧洲议会和民间社会在新一代欧盟贸易协定谈判中的动员情况进行了比较和实证说明。它表明,一个共同的线索是不稳定的参与,沿着政治化的路线:欧洲议会只是对民间社会动员发声;民间社会的动员也不一致,尽管一些有争议的问题在所有贸易谈判中都很常见。其次,这篇文章阐明了由于欧洲议会和民间社会的动员而出现的民主条约制定做法的改进。文章在吸取了欧盟未来贸易法制定的一些教训的同时,呼吁对这些新出现的民主做法的遗产进行更温和的评估。欧盟贸易谈判、国际条约制定、欧洲议会、民间社会、动员、CETA、TTIP、欧盟-新加坡自由贸易协定、欧盟-日本EPA
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The European Parliament and Civil Society in EU Trade Negotiations: The Untold Story of an Erratic Engagement
The article calls into question the picture that is often uncritically depicted around the European Parliament (EP) and civil society as newly empowered actors and consistent advocates of citizens’ interests in EU trade negotiations. The contribution of the article is twofold. First, it provides a comparative and empirical account of the mobilization of the EP and civil society across the negotiations of the new generation EU trade agreements. It shows that a common thread has been an erratic engagement, along the lines of politicization: the EP has only been vocal in response to civil society mobilization; and civil society mobilization in turn has been inconsistent, even though some contested issues were common to all trade negotiations. Second, the article sheds light on improvements in democratic treaty-making practices that emerged as a result of the mobilization of the EP and civil society. While drawing some lessons on EU trade law-making going forward, the article calls for a more modest appraisal of the legacy of these newly emerged democratic practices. EU trade negotiations, international treaty-making, European Parliament, civil society, mobilization, CETA, TTIP, EU-Singapore FTA, EU-Japan EPA
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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