Bargaining with the Strong: New Zealand and Australia’s Bilateral Trade Relations With the United States and the European Union

1999 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Solomon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Relations

Post-Brexit Global Trade Relations: The Death of TTIP?

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (S1) ◽  
pp. 39-44
Author(s):  
Amanda Lyons-Archambault
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Market Access ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Trade ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
Economic Output ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities

Prior to Britain's popular referendum on whether to remain a member of the European Union, parts of the public in Britain and other European states had already expressed a great range of emotions concerning on-going negotations between the European Union and the United States regarding the bi-lateral Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, more commonly referred to as “TTIP.” In February 2013, the European Commission optimistically projected that TTIP “would be the biggest bilateral trade-deal ever negotiated,” with the potential to “add 0.5% to the EU's annual economic output.” Most notably, TTIP seeks to streamline administrative rules and technical product standards in order to remove trade barriers, and aims to “achieve ambitious outcomes” across three broader areas—(a) market access, (b) regulatory issues and non-tariff barriers, and (c) rules, principles, and new modes of cooperation to address shared global trade challenges and opportunities.

Tariff-Based Disputes Continue to Characterize Trump Administration Trade Policies

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 751-759 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Policies ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Trump Administration

Over the summer of 2018, trade relations between the United States and many of its trading partners continued to be marked by tensions. The United States and China ratcheted up their use of tariffs against each other. The United States both received and initiated requests for consultation with various countries at the World Trade Organization (WTO) related to its earlier steel and aluminum tariffs and to tariffs imposed in response by other countries. President Trump has continued to pursue the possibility of further tariffs, including with respect to automobile and uranium imports. The United States also escalated trade tensions with Turkey through various measures, explicitly linking some of these measures to Turkey's detainment of an American pastor. Despite the broader theme of tensions, negotiations have proved productive between the United States and two of its major trading partners—the European Union and Mexico—paving a way for future settlements. With the European Union, the Trump administration has reached a tentative understanding and agreed not to impose new tariffs while the parties negotiate toward finalizing this understanding. As to Mexico, in late August 2018 the Trump administration announced that the two countries had reached agreement with respect to many issues underlying their ongoing North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations.

scholarly journals The Effects of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership on the European Union and Turkey

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pınar Bal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customs Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Policy Alternatives ◽  
Trade And Investment

The goal of this paper is to analyze the possible effects of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement aimed to be signed between the European Union and the United States by the end of 2015. The TTIP is expected to have important social, economic and political benefits for the European Union and the United States. In this respect, following a short description of the TTIP, the possible effects of this agreement on the European Union, the United States as well as on world trade will be described. The effects of such an agreement on Turkey will also be examined both with respect to Turkey’s already existing relations with the European Union and the United States. In parallel with these, the advantages and disadvantages of the existing Customs Union Agreement between Turkey and the European Union will be evaluated with respect to the TTIP. Based on this analysis, some policy alternatives for Turkey will be proposed that might help Turkey to overcome the current disadvantages that will result from the TTIP and that might strengthen its trade relations with both the European Union and the United States by transforming those disadvantages into advantages.

scholarly journals Access to Essential Facilities under the Commerce Act in the Light of Experience in Australia, the European Union and the United States

2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 231
Author(s):  
Valentine Korah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Effects ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Recent Developments

Drawing on recent developments in Australian, United Kingdom and United States jurisprudence, Professor Korah casts doubt on the approach recently taken by New Zealand courts in one of the most controversial areas of competition law: the access to its facilities that a corporation in a dominant position must give to its would-be competitors.  She argues that before imposing such obligations courts ought to be more sophisticated in assessing the economic effects of such obligations and especially the need to preserve an incentive to make the considerable investment required to create such facilities.  Professor Korah was the 1999 Chapman Tripp Fellow. This article is an edited version of a paper presented at the offices of Chapman Tripp during the tenure of the Fellowship.  

scholarly journals Overview of the Trade Relations Between the European Community/Union and the United States at the Threshold of Globalization and Post-globalization Era

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 27-42
Author(s):  
Rett R. Ludwikowski ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Main Part ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
Strategic Trade ◽  
The Us

The main goal of this article is to present to the European reader the implications of the unstable relationships between the United States and an integrated Europe. The article focuses on the trade relations between the US and Europe in the globalization era. It explains the meaning of some basic terms used by trade experts, such as globalization, regionalization, glocalization, and strategic trade. The author also tries to explore the reasons for the recent crisis of global trade. The main part of the paper reviews the major disputes between these two regions which resulted in postponing of the negotiations of the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. As we have observed in the introduction of the article, the relationships between the European Union and the United States have always been complicated and the article presents the main reasons for these disagreements. In a time of renewed Trans-Atlantic negotiations, pro-American sentiments in Europe grew stronger, and European experts on trade and politics emphasized that the US significantly increased support for the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI). Still, with comments repeated by President Trump many times that “Europe needs its own army”, the European media began warning the readers that the crisis in US-EU relations may soon return.

Partial Price-Fixing and Semi-Collusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 0003603X2110454
Author(s):  
Chris Noonan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Body ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Starting Price

Many cartels do not directly fix the price of products. Instead, the participants may agree on a starting price for negotiations or the price of a component of the overall price. Antitrust investigations reveal that cartel agreements are also often very imperfectly implemented. Antitrust law in the United States and the European Union has typically taken a robust approach to these practices even where economic analysis might be unable to show that such practices always or almost always harm consumer welfare. The decision of the New Zealand Supreme Court in Lodge Real Estate Ltd. v. Commerce Commission offers a New Zealand perspective on the concept of a price-fixing agreement and imperfect collusion. The Court, this article argues, reached the correct decision in Lodge. The decision, however, evidences a pragmatic judgment, rather than the confident deployment of economic learning or foreign case law within the statutory framework of the Commerce Act 1986. The language of sections 30 and 30A of the Act was borrowed from an Australian statute, which in turn had attempted to capture the state of United States price-fixing law in the 1970s. A more formalistic and pre-Chicago approach to antitrust is evident in the language, much of which was inspired by United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. The case also highlights some of the distinctive features of the competition law in New Zealand. The reluctance to develop to guide in the application of the general provisions of the Commerce Act and requiring a demonstration of an effect on price on the facts may mark a departure from the body of pricing case law in the United States and the European Union and risks undermining the per se prohibition of cartel conduct in the Commerce Act. Without the same depth and breadth of cartel case law, the adoption of a more flexible approach to anticompetitive agreements evident in some decisions in the United States and the European Union could have different effects in a smaller jurisdiction.

Middle Easts, old and new1

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Ghassan Salamé
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Middle East ◽  
North Africa ◽  
Arab World ◽  
The United States ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
The Us

This article is the text of an address given by Ghassan Salamé at the ‘Oil and Money’ Conference convened in London, UK, on 21 October 2009. In it, the author deals with what the ambiguous, amorphous, elastic and politically expedient term ‘Middle East’ has connoted historically and what it may or may not denote in political formulations of a given moment. In particular, American, European, Turkish, Iranian, Israeli and Arab views – and the serious implications of these – are examined with superb economy of style. Whether as part of the US-delimited region of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) or whether as affiliated to the European Union via a Mediterranean Union based on trade relations, the exclusion or inclusion in the Middle East is not a simple matter where regional players such as Iran and Turkey have historical extraterritorial ambitions which would, yet again, appear to be coming to the fore – even when such may threaten internal balances. The author argues that Israel's position is increasingly problematic due not only to Palestinian demographics, but also to its recent experience against Hezbollah which has mastered asymmetrical warfare at a time when the ability of the United States to defend its primary ally in the region has been cast into doubt. The states of the Arab World have proved ineffectual and certain of them are looking to ‘escape’ from the Middle East into Africa (Libya) or looking to formulate a new regional constellation in which Turkey and Iran will play leading roles (Syria).

Russian Federation and the United States of America: geostrategic directions to manage the Ukrainian crisis

2019 ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Attarid Awadh Abdulhameed
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Security ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Ukrainian Crisis ◽  
Zero Sum

Ukrainia Remains of huge importance to Russian Strategy because of its Strategic importance. For being a privileged Postion in new Eurasia, without its existence there would be no logical resons for eastward Expansion by European Powers.  As well as in Connection with the progress of Ukrainian is no less important for the USA (VSD, NDI, CIA, or pentagon) and the European Union with all organs, and this is announced by John Kerry. There has always ben Russian Fear and Fear of any move by NATO or USA in the area that it poses a threat to  Russians national Security and its independent role and in funence  on its forces especially the Navy Forces. There for, the Crisis manyement was not Zero sum game, there are gains and offset losses, but Russia does not accept this and want a Zero Sun game because the USA. And European exteance is a Foot hold in Regin Which Russian sees as a threat to its national security and want to monopolize control in the strategic Qirim.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT FRENCH FOREIGN POLICY ACTIVITY

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-79
Author(s):  
Nargiza Sodikova ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Modern Time ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
French Foreign Policy

Important aspects of French foreign policy and national interests in the modern time,France's position in international security and the specifics of foreign affairs with the United States and the European Union are revealed in this article

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document