Politics and Governance Open Access Journal | ISSN: 2183-2463
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Politics and Governance Open Access Journal | ISSN: 2183-2463 Volume 8, Issue 1 (2020) PoliticizationPoliticization ofof EUEU TradeTrade PolicyPolicy acrossacross TimeTime andand SpaceSpace Editors Dirk De Bièvre, Oriol Costa, Leif Johan Eliasson and Patricia Garcia-Duran Politics and Governance, 2020, Volume 8, Issue 1 Politicization of EU Trade Policy across Time and Space Published by Cogitatio Press Rua Fialho de Almeida 14, 2º Esq., 1070-129 Lisbon Portugal Academic Editors Dirk De Bièvre (University of Antwerp, Belgium) Oriol Costa (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain/IBEI, Spain) Leif Johan Eliasson (East Stroudsburg University, USA) Patricia Garcia-Duran (University of Barcelona, Spain) Available online at: www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance This issue is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). Articles may be reproduced provided that credit is given to the original andPolitics and Governance is acknowledged as the original venue of publication. Table of Contents Editorial: Politicization of EU Trade Policy Across Time and Space Dirk De Bièvre, Patricia Garcia-Duran, Leif Johan Eliasson and Oriol Costa 239–242 Towards Explaining Varying Degrees of Politicization of EU Trade Agreement Negotiations Dirk De Bièvre and Arlo Poletti 243–253 Politicization and Regional Integration in Latin America: Implications for EU–MERCOSUR Negotiations? Andrea C. Bianculli 254–265 Politicization ‘Reversed’: EU Free Trade Negotiations with West Africa and the Caribbean Anke Moerland and Clara Weinhardt 266–276 National Autonomy or Transnational Solidarity? Using Multiple Geographic Frames to Politicize EU Trade Policy Gabriel Siles-Brügge and Michael Strange 277–289 Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization Patricia Garcia-Duran, Leif Johan Eliasson and Oriol Costa 290–300 Huddle Up! Exploring Domestic Coalition Formation Dynamics in the Differentiated Politicization of TTIP Niels Gheyle 301–311 Missing in Action? France and the Politicization of Trade and Investment Agreements Sophie Meunier and Christilla Roederer-Rynning 312–324 The Selective Politicization of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations Aukje van Loon 325–335 ‘Authority Shifts’ in Global Governance: Intersecting Politicizations and the Reform of Investor–State Arbitration Anna Herranz-Surrallés 336–347 Slow Rise of Trade Politicisation in the UK and Brexit María García 348–359 Politics and Governance (ISSN: 2183–2463) 2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 239–242 DOI: 10.17645/pag.v8i1.3055 Editorial Editorial: Politicization of EU Trade Policy Across Time and Space Dirk De Bièvre 1, Patricia Garcia-Duran 2, Leif Johan Eliasson 3,* and Oriol Costa 4 1 Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium; E-Mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Economic History, Institutions and Policy and World Economy, University of Barcelona, 09034 Barcelona, Spain; E-Mail: [email protected] 3 Department of Political Science and Economics, East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, PA 18301, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 4 Faculty of Political Science and Sociology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain; E-Mail: [email protected] * Corresponding author Submitted: 24 March 2020 | Published: 31 March 2020 Abstract This editorial provides an introduction to the thematic issue “Politicization of EU Trade Policy Across Time and Space.” The academic editors place the issue in the context of the current literature, introduce the contributions, and discuss how the articles, individually and jointly, add to the state of the art. Keywords European Union; institutions; politicization; trade negotiations; trade policy Issue This editorial is part of the issue “Politicization of EU Trade Policy across Time and Space” edited by Dirk De Bièvre (Uni- versity of Antwerp, Belgium), Oriol Costa (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain/IBEI, Spain), Leif Johan Eliasson (East Stroudsburg University, USA) and Patricia Garcia-Duran (University of Barcelona, Spain). © 2020 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu- tion 4.0 International License (CC BY). Since the global financial crisis, political populism has bying activities of civil society organizations’ (CSOs), the risen throughout Europe and North America, and the emphasis on regulation in new-generation trade agree- global trade governance regime is regularly maligned by ments, and Europeans’ perceptions of the US (Laursen & the Trump administration. As a standard bearer for mul- Roederer-Rynning, 2017). tilateralism, the European Union (EU) is now focusing The contributors to this thematic issue unpack the primarily on bilateral trade negotiations, arguing that concept of politicization in its different forms and man- a widening net of agreements elevate bilateral achieve- ifestations. They explore variation in politicization across ments to the multilateral level. During this time, its trade different EU trade negotiations, trace the evolution of policy has also become increasingly politicized. This be- politicization over time, and gauge the reasons for vary- came particularly evident during the EU’s negotiations ing degrees and manifestations of trade politicization with the United States (US) on the Transatlantic Trade across EU Member States. Rather than treating politiciza- and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and in the later stages tion as a singular resultant of a particular negotiation, or of the negotiations with Canada on the Comprehensive as a fixed cause for change in negotiating behaviour, we Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The issues raised conceive of politicization as a process, in which different and proposals made during these negotiations became negotiations interact, that evolves over time, and that highly salient for a large number of actors, with opin- takes a different form at different levels across Member ions increasingly polarized. Scholars studying the nego- States. Politicization is not only the result of action—the tiations directed their attention toward the outside lob- outcome—but can also be the context in which actors en- Politics and Governance, 2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 239–242 239 gage and take decisions. In particular, the contributions and Michael Strange (2020) look at CSOs’ activism and look into, and compare, the politicization of EU trade framing during trade negotiations. They show that there negotiations within advanced industrialized countries as is a consistency between how CSOs discussed and ad- well as within Latin-American, African, and Caribbean dressed issues in TTIP and what they had done during trading partners. They examine when and how we can the campaign against the General Agreement on Trade expect politicization, analyse the framing of communica- on Services, during the Doha round negotiations. In both tion used by the European Commission and CSOs, exam- cases, CSOs wanted to construct a transnational network ine the politicization of specific issues, and assess varia- of activists, and, accordingly, built a transnational frame tion in politicization across Member States through care- for a transnational campaign. The need for transnational fully selected case studies. solidarity meant that their collective action frames did In their contribution, De Bièvre and Poletti (2020) not rest on establishing a polarizing fault-line between look at differentiated trade politicization across EU bi- political activity at the domestic (local and national) and lateral trade negotiations. They argue that in order to supranational levels. understand why there was politicization over TTIP (and Patricia Garcia-Duran, Leif Johan Eliasson, and Oriol CETA), one must weigh the relative explanatory force one Costa (2020) examine political leaders’ responses to can accord to parliamentary control over trade policy, politicization over TTIP (and CETA) and its aftermath by the depth and comprehensiveness of the trade agree- examining the rhetorical response from the European ment, and the relative economic size of the trading part- Commission, while also presenting some of the ways pol- ner. Since these explanations fail to account for the icy changed as a result of politicization. Using a quali- lack of politicization over parallel or similar EU negoti- tative analysis of the European Commission’s speeches, ations, they argue that they can more usefully be con- they show that the Commission responded to politiciza- sidered structural background conditions upon which to tion by using a rhetorical counter-strategy, grounded in build explanations grounded in agency enacted by in- a pre-existing doctrine of so-called ‘managed globaliza- terest groups. They therefore sketch several avenues, tion,’ initially coined at the turn of the century. Whereas flowing from interest group and public opinion research, initially elements of the managed globalization doctrine for investigating interest groups’ identification of latent were used to lessen polarization, but without touting the issues that can be made salient by tapping into, and doctrine, the Commission’s communication from 2016 then mobilizing, public opinion through framing and out- onward was explicitly framed using the language of ‘man- side lobbying. aged globalization.’ Andrea Bianculli’s (2020) article looks at politi- The next set of four contributions dig deeper into cization in negotiating partners’ countries