IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v14y2023is3p54-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The EU's strategic autonomy in times of politicisation of international trade: The future of commission accountability

Author

Listed:
  • Wolfgang Weiß

Abstract

Trade relations face unprecedented challenges, which has led to an increased politicisation and contestation of trade rules. In response, the EU has changed its trade policy under the motto ‘Open Strategic Autonomy’ towards a more assertive policy. The EU seeks to significantly expand its room of manoeuvre and to gain more autonomy by strengthening the enforcement of its trade rights and by ensuring more effectively, including unilaterally, a level playing field. This reorientation engenders several new or amended trade policy instruments, but meets with reservations as the renewed politicisation of EU trade policy will have internal consequences and raise demands for more democratic accountability of the European Commission. The new policy instruments will enlarge its leeway in trade policy. The future of the EU's multilateral, rule‐ instead of power‐oriented political stance becomes unclear, which might undermine its negotiation position in WTO reform and collide with the EU's respect for international law. The tensions of the EU's new hybrid approach with its international commitments even more fuel demands for increased accountability of the Commission as a safeguard against employing the new powers for protectionism and disrespect to international law. The contribution analyses the need for increased Commission accountability in the redirected trade policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Wolfgang Weiß, 2023. "The EU's strategic autonomy in times of politicisation of international trade: The future of commission accountability," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(S3), pages 54-64, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:14:y:2023:i:s3:p:54-64
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13147
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.13147?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alberto Alemanno, 2015. "The Regulatory Cooperation Chapter of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Institutional Structures and Democratic Consequences," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 625-640.
    2. Claude Barfield, 2001. "Free Trade, Sovereignty, Democracy: The Future of the World Trade Organization," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 52877, September.
    3. Guzman, Andrew T. & Landsidle, Jennifer, 2008. "The Myth of International Delegation," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt77j316zw, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    4. Joost Pauwelyn, 2019. "WTO Dispute Settlement Post 2019: What to Expect?," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 297-321.
    5. Hoekman, Bernard, 2018. "'Behind-the-Border' Regulatory Policies and Trade Agreements," East Asian Economic Review, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, vol. 22(3), pages 243-273, September.
    6. Kaiser, Karl, 1971. "Transnational Relations as a Threat to the Democratic Process," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 706-720, July.
    7. Oh, Seung-Youn, 2021. "China's Race to the Top: Regional and Global Implications of China's Industrial Policy," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 169-185, May.
    8. Malorie Schaus, 2021. "EU Trade Policy in Light of the New Industrial Strategy for Europe," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 56(3), pages 144-149, May.
    9. Dirk De Bièvre & Arlo Poletti, 2020. "Towards Explaining Varying Degrees of Politicization of EU Trade Agreement Negotiations," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 243-253.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johann Robert Basedow, 2022. "Why de‐judicialize? Explaining state preferences on judicialization in World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body and Investor‐to‐State Dispute Settlement reforms," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1362-1381, October.
    2. Roland Vaubel, 1986. "A public choice approach to international organization," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 39-57, January.
    3. Scharpf, Fritz W., 1996. "Demokratie in der transnationalen Politik," MPIfG Working Paper 96/3, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    4. Aukje van Loon, 2020. "The Selective Politicization of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 325-335.
    5. Thomas Risse‐kappen, 1996. "Exploring the Nature of the Beast: International Relations Theory and Comparative Policy Analysis Meet the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 53-80, March.
    6. Andrea C. Bianculli, 2020. "Politicization and Regional Integration in Latin America: Implications for EU–MERCOSUR Negotiations?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 254-265.
    7. Robert Z. Lawrence, 2008. "International Organisations: The Challenge of Aligning Mission, Means and Legitimacy," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(11), pages 1455-1470, November.
    8. Van den Bossche, Peter L.H., 2023. "Can the WTO Dispute Settlement System Be Revived?," Papers 1407, World Trade Institute.
    9. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Herrmann, Christoph, 2020. "Trade conflicts with side effects: Compensation for innocent bystanders when imposing punitive tariffs," Studien, Stiftung Familienunternehmen / Foundation for Family Businesses, number 250008, June.
    10. Heinz Hauser & Alexander Roitinger, 2002. "A Renegotiation Perspective on Transatlantic Trade Disputes," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2002 2002-09, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    11. Eleftherios Giovanis & Sacit Hadi Akdede, 2021. "Integration Policies in Spain and Sweden: Do They Matter for Migrants’ Economic Integration and Socio-Cultural Participation?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, October.
    12. Philippa Dee & Anne McNaughton, 2013. "Promoting Domestic Reforms through Regionalism," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Services Trade Reform Making Sense of It, chapter 14, pages 381-427, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Oręziak, Leokadia, 2015. "TTIP – Transatlantyckie Partnerstwo w sprawie Handlu i Inwestycji – źródłem zagrożeń dla gospodarki i społeczeństwa," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 2(4), pages 1-26, December.
    14. Dirk De Bièvre & Patricia Garcia-Duran & Leif Johan Eliasson & Oriol Costa, 2020. "Editorial: Politicization of EU Trade Policy Across Time and Space," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 239-242.
    15. Jens Steffek, 2008. "Public Accountability and the Public Sphere of International Governance," RECON Online Working Papers Series 3, RECON.
    16. Hua, Wei & Mitchell, Ronald K. & Mitchell, Benjamin T. & Mitchell, J. Robert & Israelsen, Trevor L., 2022. "Momentum for entrepreneurial internationalization: Friction at the interface between international and domestic institutions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(6).
    17. Baris Parkan, 2009. "On Multinational Corporations and the Provision of Positive Rights," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(1), pages 73-82, February.
    18. Steffek, Jens, 2014. "The democratic output legitimacy of international organizations," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2014-101, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    19. Jörg Broschek & Patricia M. Goff, 2022. "Explaining Sub‐Federal Variation in Trade Agreement Negotiations: The Case of CETA," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 801-820, May.
    20. Kimberly Ann. Elliott & Debayani Kar & J. David Richardson, 2004. "Assessing Globalization's Critics: "Talkers Are No Good Doers?"," NBER Chapters, in: Challenges to Globalization: Analyzing the Economics, pages 17-60, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:14:y:2023:i:s3:p:54-64. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.