Integrating regulatory cooperation into the EU system

2001 ◽  
pp. 404-429
Author(s):  
Gerhard Lohan
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals Making transnational markets: the institutional politics behind the TTIP

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bartl Marija
Keyword(s):  
Market Integration ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Struggle ◽  
Institutional Dynamics ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
Regulatory Culture ◽  
The Eu

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) may not bear fruit in its current incarnation, but it certainly teaches us crucial lessons regarding the institutional dynamics of market integration beyond the state. I argue that the TTIP’s so-called ‘regulatory cooperation’, in principle a mere mechanism for ‘discussion’ and ‘exchange’ between regulators, would have had a profound impact on the regulatory culture across the Atlantic. I make this argument in three interrelated steps. First, building on insights from constitutional law and political science, I outline an analytical framework for the study of rule-making institutions beyond the state. Second, I analyse the TTIP through the lens of this framework, illustrating the mechanisms through which its model for regulatory cooperation could reform the regulatory culture in the EU. Third, I argue that this change in the EU regulatory culture would have been neither an accident, nor a result of a US-led hegemonic project. Instead, the TTIP’s regulatory cooperation is a part of the EU’s internal political struggle, intended ultimately to re-balance not only powers between the legislative and the executive in the EU, but also within the EU’s executive branch itself.

TTIP Regulatory Cooperation

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-268
Author(s):  
Alexia Herwig
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Technical Barriers To Trade ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Detailed Explanation ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Regulatory Measures ◽  
Regulatory Coordination ◽  
Phytosanitary Measures ◽  
The Eu

The leaked TTIP documents reveal that the EU and US are discussing the introduction of a detailed set of procedural requirements for the adoption of regulatory measures. Default provisions are set forth in the chapter on regulatory cooperation, applicable to goods and services. More specific provisions are being negotiated in the chapters on technical barriers to trade and on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. If they conflict with the regulatory cooperation chapter, they prevail.This article analyses the regulatory cooperation chapter insofar as it pertains to trade in goods but to the exclusion of SPS matters and anything provided in the TBT chapter itself. The questions this article examines are to what extent the TTIP proposals expand upon the obligations the two parties have already taken on under WTO law and to what extent the resulting regulatory coordination is consistent withWTO law. It will be shown that the US proposals on procedure may constrain substantive regulatory discretion beyond what applies under the GATT and TBT Agreement of the WTO. It will alsobe shown that the needs to conduct trade impact assessments and a detailed explanation of the necessity of measures anticipate a legal challenge to necessity and will provide information of much use to complainants in meeting their burden of proof.

scholarly journals TRANSATLANTIC INTEGRATION AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES COMPETITIVENESS PROBLEMS

2016 ◽  
pp. 249-257
Author(s):  
A. A. Sidorov
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
The Usa ◽  
History Of ◽  
Tariff Liberalization ◽  
General Business ◽  
The Eu

Factors and possible consequences of transatlantic integration are elaborated in the article. An overview of the history of transatlantic cooperation is provided. The author highlights the paramount goal of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - strengthening the positions of its parties in the world economy against the backdrop of global competition. Stalemate in Doha round of WTO trade negotiations as well as depressed state of the European economy also contributed to transatlantic integration. Validity of the EU Commission conclusion on TTIP benefits is examined. Results of TTIP econometric modelling are critically assessed. Problems of the EU-US non-tariff liberalization are analyzed. Efficiency of the EU and US labor markets is compared. Low competitiveness of the EU in comparison to the USA and underlying risks for TTIP economic growth and employment are outlined. High unemployment, difficulties of manufacturing (including high-tech industries thereof) recovery, adverse general business situation in the EU are among such risks. Various modes of regulatory cooperation and possibility of their adoption in TTIP are considered. Harmonization, erga omnes mutual recognition of regulations, bilateral mutual recognition of regulations, mutual recognition of conformity testing are distinguished. Possible implications of the modes of regulatory cooperation on TTIP members competitiveness, competition with emerging economies and global standard setting are examined. Conflict of TTIP goals and motivations is revealed. The existence of economic factors of transatlantic integration as well as overestimation of TTIP benefits (primarily for the EU economy) is concluded.

scholarly journals (Possible) impact of CETA on creation of law

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-132
Author(s):  
Ondrej Blažo
Keyword(s):  
Future Development ◽  
Trade Barriers ◽  
Focal Points ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
Phytosanitary Measures ◽  
The Eu

The paper brings an analysis, and possible solutions, regarding “threats” to regulatory sovereignty of the parties to the CETA. Hence technical trade barriers, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, regulatory cooperation, liberalization of services and protection of investors are focal points for estimating future development of legal regime in both the EU and Canada. The analysis assesses only “possible” impact of the CETA because it will be subject to ratification and the outcome of this process is insecure.

scholarly journals What Does Ceta Bring to Organic Production?

Pannoniana ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 285-292
Author(s):  
Bojan Stipešević
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Organic Production ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Pure Race ◽  
Selection For ◽  
The One ◽  
High Set ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Even though eco-production is based on principles brought by IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements), the standards which were brought in by the national and supranational governments may differentiate in parts of regulation. The mutual recognition/equivalence of eco-standards of the EU (»EU-eco« label, based on regulation of the European Commission EZ 834/2007: 139-and EZ 889/2008: 173-256, and other regulations derived from them) and Canada (»Canada organic« label, based on valid Canadian eco-standards, regulation CAN/CGSB-32.310-2015: 53 and CAN/CGSB-32.311-2015: 75) has been present for multiple years and has been re-evaluated and confirmed in 2015 as a successful practice in the increase of access to an expanded market for producers, increase of selection for consumers and lightening the regulatory cooperation. Before mutual recognition exported eco-product from Canada to the EU (and vice-versa) had to go through recertification, which created additional expenses for exporting eco-producers (10 thousand dollars per year, on average). This process mostly resulted in an increased price of eco-products for the end consumer. In some areas the Canadian eco-regulation is stricter than the EU one, while in other it is vice versa. Some markings can mislead the consumer, especially the one who does not read the product declaration where such misgivings are clearly visible and marked. The greatest challenge for eco-production in the EU is the increase in demand for eco-products with such a speed that EU farmers cannot satisfy it, which inevitably leads to an increase of import from non-EU countries. Therefore, the help of EU governments is essential in the form of support for farmers who decide to transition into eco-production. Certain estimates say that the CETA could mean a loss of a great number of producers (estimating that it could be several thousand workplaces in agriculture across the EU). A similar agreement between the US and Mexico already led to a loss of workplace for 2 million people in Mexico in the midst of inability to compete with the industrial production of the US. The greatest fear present in eco-production is that the international agricultural businesses can force national and supranational governments to lower standards by using lawsuits, which can consequentially result in lower standards in eco-production on both sides of the Atlantic and influence the environment. It is not based on the scientific/expert arguments which governs the ecological agriculture, but a pure race for profit. Therefore, it can be expected that, once again, »greed overcomes reason«. Nevertheless, the high set »bar« of eco-production »from both sides of the pond« is the best »defence« against the fear that CETA will bring any novelties into the life of eco-producers.

Conclusions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Griller ◽  
Walter Obwexer ◽  
Erich Vranes
Keyword(s):  
International Economic ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Economic Governance ◽  
Considerable Time ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
International Economic Law ◽  
Regional Agreements ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
The Eu

This chapter synopsizes principal conclusions presented in this book. It stresses that mega-regional agreements risk further augmenting the fragmentation of international economic law and undermining the WTO negotiating forum. Regarding regulatory cooperation, it questions whether non-binding initiatives as those envisioned under CETA and TTIP will succeed and argues that efforts to reduce the vagueness of investment disciplines and thereby to protect domestic policy spaces are questionable. It also stresses that the controversial division of competences between the EU and its Member States greatly impedes their capability to act in international relations. It submits furthermore that citizens are increasingly anxious that they may not be able to democratically influence the process of international economic governance, which makes them feel progressively estranged also from European integration. This chapter concludes that international trade and investment agreements will, for a considerable time, not be discussed, negotiated, and concluded, in the same manner again.

scholarly journals Recent Preferential Trade Agreements’ Disciplines for Tackling Regulatory Divergence in Services: How Far beyond GATS?

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Gari
Keyword(s):  
Market Integration ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Preferential Trade Agreements ◽  
Preferential Trade ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Implementation Costs ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe paper reviews the disciplines for tackling regulatory divergence in services included in 23 PTAs entered into by China, the EU, Japan, and the USA. It identifies a remarkable expansion in the number and extent of disciplines on regulatory transparency, regulatory coherence, and regulatory cooperation compared with GATS, which, subject to adequate implementation, will allow these agreements to deliver a degree of market integration well beyond what could be achieved simply by removing market access restrictions and discriminatory measures from the rule book. However, the paper calls for some restraint when estimating the potential impact of these disciplines, mainly because of the soft language used for phrasing some of them and the anticipated high implementation costs, particularly for countries with unsophisticated domestic legal systems.

Two Continents, Divided by Deep Philosophical Waters?

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Farrand
Keyword(s):  
Geographical Origin ◽  
Trade Regulation ◽  
Interesting Insight ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
Different Dimensions ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
The Eu

The May 2016 leak of draft texts produced within the context of the on–going Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations has provided an interesting insight into the positions of the EU and US with regard to different dimensions of regulatory cooperation, with some chapters being complete or near completion (as other articles in this mini–symposium discuss), and others still in a more rudimentary format. One such field of regulation, covered in the leaked ‘Tactical State of Play’ document, covers geographical indicators (hereafter GIs). However, this coverage is very brief, stating that ‘discussions focused on the preparation of an intersessional discussion prior to the next round’. GIs, marks identifying the geographical origin, and by extension (so the argument goes) quality of goods, have continued to be a source of consternation in international trade regulation, with states unable to see eye–to–eye on how they should be protected, if at all.

scholarly journals Regulatory Convergence through the Back Door: TTIP's Regulatory Cooperation and the Future of Precaution in Europe

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 969-992
Author(s):  
Marija Bartl
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
Back Door ◽  
The Right ◽  
Regulatory Convergence ◽  
The Eu

This paper analyzes the possible impact of TTIP's so-called regulatory cooperation on the implementation of the precautionary principle in the EU. The European Commission argues that regulatory cooperation will not impinge on the application of the precautionary principle because, first, it does not change the legislative framework of precautionary legislation and, second, the right to regulate will be safeguarded by the TTIPs horizontal chapters. On the contrary, I argue in this paper, that these guarantees are insufficient. Given the methodological and institutional constraints presented by the TTIP's institutional design, in the long run, regulatory cooperation will undermine the precautionary approach to regulation in the EU.

scholarly journals The EU and China in International Negotiations on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights – Cooperation and Challenges

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 20-42
Author(s):  
Suju Kang
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
International Negotiations ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Multilateral Negotiations ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In the multilateral forum of the WTO, trade-related intellectual property issues constitute one of the reasons for the dilemma in Doha negotiations. It is interesting to note, however, an increasing convergence between the EU and China’s policies in supporting the improvement of international intellectual property (IP) protection, and these two actors have even formed an alliance to promote stronger protection for the geographical indications. In order to understand the EU’s and China’s standpoint in international IP regulatory cooperation, it is necessary to examine their interaction and proposals in the WTO framework. This examination will provide insight into the issues on which these two major actors are readily able to reach agreement. It will also reveal the issues on which their differences still remain or have gradually narrowed to facilitate a rapprochement of views; accordingly, this paper reviews cooperation between the EU and China in multilateral negotiations on genetic resources and protection of geographical indications. The study will further examine the challenges leading to obstruction of the Doha negotiations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document