The World Trade Organization and the European Union

Author(s):  
Jens Ladefoged Mortensen

In a time of trade wars, free trade skepticism, tech rivalry, and multipolar disorder, the European Union (EU) cannot evade its responsibilities the last defender of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Yet, it raises the question of whether the EU has power to defend the WTO. The EU is a multilateralist-oriented power of global magnitude. Unlike the United States, the EU is openly defending the WTO in the current crisis created by continued refusal to appointment WTO Appellate Body members. Like the United States, the EU is concerned with the illegitimate trade practices of China. Yet, the EU uses diplomatic pressure on China within the rules of the WTO. The EU is actively trying to rescue the rule-based trade system. Yet, it cannot do so alone. It needs support, not just form other WTO members but also from within Europe itself. The current crisis is in part rooted in the inability of the WTO members to update the WTO rulebook. The focus will be on the potential clash between a more assertive EU on sustainability and the absence of updated WTO rules on sustainable trade issues. This may force the EU to confront a deep-rooted policy dilemma. The question is whether the EU should continue to refrain from using its market power to promote sustainable trade in respect of the WTO. As the EU is about to ratify several bilateral trade agreements of commercial, geo-economic, and indeed geo-political importance, such as the EU–Mercosur or EU–Vietnam agreements, the rule-orientation of the EU faces growing domestic opposition as well as external contestation. Furthermore, the EU is modernizing its trade defense weaponry, the antidumping instrument, and has recently declared its intent to impose unilateral climate-related trade policy measures, the carbon-adjustment tariff, in the future. Thus, an incident such as the burning of the Amazon forest may force the EU to take a tougher stance on sustainability at the risk of bringing the EU on a collision course with the WTO itself, its rules, process, and member states. Consequently, the complex setup of the EU as a trade power could make it difficult to ratify WTO-compatible trade agreements in the future.

Author(s):  
Sophia Kalantzakos

Once a leader in the production and trading of rare earths, the United States relinquished the reins to China in the 1990s. The People’s Republic of China declared rare earths “protected and strategic materials” and proceeded to control production and processing, introduced export quotas, and sought to dominate the supply chain for crucial applications. It also made investments in mines worldwide. The 2010 crisis caused a parabolic rise in prices, leading the United States, the European Union, and Japan to file a complaint against China at the World Trade Organization, in 2012, and to launch trilateral cooperation workshops, starting in 2011, to promote recycling, substitution, and innovation. China lost its WTO appeal and removed the export quotas in May 2015. The market corrected itself, and it may seem today that China lost an initial battle; but closer examination indicates that it may not have lost the war.


2012 ◽  
pp. 228-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Alexánder González

Los grandes actores agrícolas (Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y los grandes países periféricos) evolucionan hacia una liberalización progresiva del comercio mundial. La ponderación que las políticas agrícolas establecen entre apertura y protección constituye el marco ideal para el estudio de la problemática emergencia de la libre circulación de productos agrícolas, pues ella puede caracterizar algunos impasses socio-políticos relacionados con la seguridad alimentaria. La tendencia hacia la liberalización puede explicar por qué para la comunidad internacional los acuerdos comerciales son uno de los medios empleados por algunos países para obtener la apertura de los mercados. ABSTRACT The big agricultural actors at a worldwide level (United States of America, the European Union, and a big group of peripheral countries) are evolving in a progressive liberalization of the world trade. The gricultural policies’ balance of liberalization and protection elements constitutes the ideal framework to analyze the problematic emergence of the free circulation of food. It can additionally characterize some socio-political impasses related to the food security. This tendency towards liberalization can explain why for the international community trade agreements are used by some countries so to get market openings.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 88
Author(s):  
Jean-Sylvain Ndo Ndong

The financial crisis of the late 2000s gave rise to protectionist hints which called into question the consensus on the liberalization of world trade since the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. This trend towards protectionism has taken on new magnitude with the arrival of Donald Trump as President of the United States of America. In fact, since the beginning of 2018, the American administration has carried out its threats by imposing customs duties on imports of the various products from China and the European Union. In retaliation, the countries concerned responded with restrictions on American exports to their territory. Also the rationality of the market economy, there is more and more opposed the power of emotions and impulses embodied by the populists at the head of which D. Trump, the American President. Globalization is therefore required to adapt its rules to survive. The purpose of this paper is to show that for a good adaptation of its rules, it is necessary to activate one of the most powerful levers of gains in international trade, the differentiation of products. This is a response to the exploitation of the diversification and heterogeneity of demand in terms of tastes and incomes. Because, by allowing the firm to differentiate its products to distinguish them from those of competitors, differentiation offers the opportunity to soften competition, increase profits and improve product quality.


1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amelia Porges

On 30 December 1994 in Geneva, the four major players in world trade -the United States, the European Union, Japan, andCanada - accepted the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement).The entry into force of the Agreement on 1 January 1995 brings both expanded and improved trade rules and greatly improved enforcement. We have entered a new era in international dispute settlement. This brief article discusses the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes in Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement, the negotiating process that led to it, and the implementation of the Understanding in the United States.


2008 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 941-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tullaya Boonsaeng ◽  
Stanley M. Fletcher ◽  
Carlos E. Carpio

This paper analyzes the European Union (EU) import demand for in-shell peanuts from three sources: the United States, China, and the rest of the world. We find that peanuts from different sources are differentiated by EU consumers. The expenditure elasticity is elastic for U.S. in-shell peanuts, which is associated with their higher quality. The conditional own price elasticities are more elastic for U.S. and Chinese in-shell peanuts. These findings have at least two implications. First, U.S. producers and exporters should direct efforts to ensure that in-shell peanuts exported to the EU are of the best possible quality, and, second, promotion efforts should stress the quality of U.S peanuts as an advertising tool.


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1850222
Author(s):  
John Olienyk ◽  
Robert J. Carbaugh

For decades, Boeing and Airbus have struggled for dominance in the large commercial aircraft market. In 2010 and 2011, the World Trade Organization ruled that each firm has received illegal subsidies from the governments of the United States and the European Union, which have enhanced their competitive positions. This paper considers the nature of these rulings and the future competitive environment in the global jetliner industry.


2019 ◽  
pp. 316-322
Author(s):  
M. HADDAD

The article is devoted to the study of foreign policy strategies of the main actors of the world politics, represented by the USA and the countries of the European Union, regarding the Middle East and the Syrian Arab Republic. The interest in this topic is explained by the particular attractiveness of the Middle East region for the above-mentioned actors, since it has significant economic and transport potential and a favorable geographical position, which opens up opportunities for establishing strong partnership trade and economic ties between the US and the EU on the one hand and Middle Eastern states on the other. At the same time, the Middle East, as a region of increased military-political and social tension, directly influences peace and security situation in the entire world, and because of that the most developed countries of the world seek to establish control over the internal politics in the Middle East and spread their influence on its territory. The author pays great attention to the study of factors that have contributed to the formation of certain US and EU foreign policy courses in respect of the entire Middle East and Syria in particular, and comes to the conclusion that all of them can conditionally be divided into several large groups that equally affect the development process strategies. Their comparison allowed us to establish that in general both the USA and the countries of the European Union have similar perspective goals and objectives, however, they use different methods and forms of implementing their strategies. This explains the difference in the results achieved: while the United States successfully implement their geopolitical aspirations and gradually strengthen their presence in the Middle East, the EU countries are faced with a number of problems that impede their participation in the current regional events. Nevertheless, despite the successes and failures, the importance of the Middle East region for both the United States and the EU is beyond doubt.


Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Mauro G. Carta ◽  
Matthias C. Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, and 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as a sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Biba

Abstract As the Sino-American Great Power competition continues to intensify, newly-elected US President Joe Biden's administration now seeks to enlist the support of its allies and partners around the world. As Europe's largest economy and a, if not the, leading voice within the European Union, Germany represents an important puzzle-piece for Biden. But Germany, at least under outgoing chancellor Angela Merkel, has been reluctant to take sides. It is against this backdrop that this article looks into Germany's past and present trilateral relationships with the US and China through the theoretical lens of the so-called strategic triangle approach. Applying this approach, the article seeks to trace and explain German behaviour, as well as to elucidate the opportunities and pitfalls that have come with it. The article demonstrates that Germany's recently gained position as a ‘pivot’ (two positive bilateral relationships) between the US and Chinese ‘wings’ (positive bilateral relations with Germany and negative bilateral relations with each other) is desirable from the perspective of the strategic triangle. At the same time, being pivot is also challenging and hard to maintain. Alternative options, such as entering a US–German ‘marriage’ directed against China, are also problematic. The article therefore concludes that Germany has tough decisions to take going forward.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document