Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Less Than You Might Think: The Impact of WTO Rules on EU Policies

  • Chapter
The Influence of International Institutions on the EU

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics ((PSEUP))

Abstract

The World Trade Organization (WTO) makes a particularly appropriate case study for analysing how international institutions influence the European Union. The WTO is one of the most highly institutionalized international institutions in the world with wide-ranging and relatively intrusive obligations, which creates expectations that WTO rules should influence EU policy making significantly (see Chapter 1). The impact of WTO obligations on EU policy making, however, has been largely ignored by the literatures on the EU’s trade relations and on its internal policy-making. This chapter analyses whether, why and how EU policies have changed in response to WTO rules and rulings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M. and Snidal, D. (2000), ‘The Concept of Legalization’, International Organization, 54(3), 401–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackrill, R. and Kay, A. (2009), ‘Historical Learning in the Design of WTO Rules: The EC Sugar Case’, The World Economy, 32(5), 754–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer, T. (2003), Genes, Trade and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhala, R. (2001), International Trade Law: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn (New York: Lexis Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronkers, M. (2008), ‘From “Direct Effect” to “Muted Dialogue”: Recent Developments in the European Courts’ Case Law on the WTO and Beyond,’ Journal of International Economic Law, 11(4), 885–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brüntrup, M. (2007) ‘EBA and the EU Sugar Market Reform: Development Gift or Trojan Horse?’, in G. Faber and J. Orbie (eds), European Union Trade Politics and Development: ‘Everything But Arms’ Unravelled (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau, J.-C., Gohin, A., Guidé, L., Millet, G. (2008), ‘EU Sugar Reforms and their Impacts’, in D. Orden (ed.), The Future of Global Sugar Markets: Policies, Reforms and Impact, Discussion Paper 00829 (International Food Policy Research Institute).

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, M. L. and Howse, R. (2003), ‘A (Genetically Modified) Food Fight: Canada’s WTO Challenge to Europe’s Ban on GM Products’, Commentary 186 (Toronto: C. D. Howe Institute).

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, M. L. and Reinhardt, E. (2002), ‘Testing International Trade Law: Empirical Studies of GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement’, in D. L. M. Kennedy and J. D. Southwick (eds), The Political Economy of International Trade Law (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Buterbaugh, K. and Fulton, R. (2007), The WTO Primer: Tracing Trade’s Visible Hand through Case Studies (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnovitz, S. (2005), ‘An Analysis of Pascal Lamy’s Proposal on Collective Preferences’, Journal of International Economic Law, 8(2), 449–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission (1994), Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) Amending Regulations (EEC) Nos 1785/81 On the Common Organization of the Markets in the Sugar Sector and 1010/86 Laying Down General Rules for the Production Refund on Certain Sugar Products Used in the Chemical Industry COM (94) 439 final, 16 November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (1998), Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive Amending Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms COM (1998) 85 final, 23 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (1999), WTO Decision Regarding the EC Hormone Ban COM (1999) 81 final, 18 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (2001), Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Genetically Modified Food and Feed COM (2001) 425, 25 July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (2003), Reforming the European Union’s Sugary Policy: Summary of Impact Assessment Work SEC (2003) 1022, 23 September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (2004), Accomplishing a Sustainable Agricultural Model for Europe Through the Reformed CAP — Sugar Sector Reform COM (2004) 499 final, 14 July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (2005), Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Common Organisation of the Markets in the Sugar Sector COM (2005) 263 final, 22 June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (2010), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Freedom for Member States to Decide on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops COM (2010) 380 final, 13 July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council (1996), 1980th Council Meeting — Agriculture 18 March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dai, X. (2005), ‘Why Comply? The Domestic Constituency Mechanism’, International Organization, 59(2), 363–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damro, C. and Sbragia, A. M. (2003), ‘The New Framework of Transatlantic Economic Governance: Strategic Trade Management and Regulatory Conflict in a Multilateral Global Economy’, in M. Campanella and S. Eijffinger (eds), EU Economic Governance and Globalization (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).

    Google Scholar 

  • Daugbjerg, C. and Swinbank, A. (2008), ‘Curbing Agricultural Exceptionalism: The EU’s Response to External Challenge’, The World Economy, 31(5), 631–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devereaux, C., Lawrence, R. Z. and Watkins, M. D. (2006), Case Studies in US Trade Negotiation: Vol. 2: Resolving Disputes (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics).

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, G. W., Rocke, D. M. and Barsoom, P. N. (1996), ‘Is the Good News about Compliance Good News about Cooperation?’, International Organization, 50(3), 370–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C. L. (2003), Food Fights Over Free Trade: How International Institutions Promote Agricultural Trade Liberalization (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer (1998), ‘La securite des produits alimenaires’, EB Special, 120, 3 September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer (2006), ‘Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends’, Eurobarometer, 64.3, July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. (1981), Improving Compliance with International Law (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, J. and Posner, E. (2008), ‘Does Europe Believe in International Law?’, Wall Street Journal, 25 November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A. (1993), ‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanrahan, C. E. (2000), ‘The European Union’s Ban on Hormone-Treated Meat,’ RS20142, Congressional Research Service, updated 19 December.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, T. (2007), The Impact of the WTO: The Environment, Public Health and Sovereignty (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1992), ‘Compliance with International Commitments: Politics Within a Framework of Law’, American Society of International Law Proceedings, 86, 176–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kono, D. Y. (2007), ‘Making Anarchy Work: International Legal Institutions and Trade Cooperation’, The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 746–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. L. (2008), ‘Book Review: Xinyuan Dai, International Institutions and National Policies’ Review of International Organizations, 3, 201–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNiel, D. E. (1998), ‘The First Case Under the WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement: The European Union’s Hormone Ban’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 39, 89–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K. A. and Winham, G. (2002), ‘Let’s Not Escalate the “Frankenfood” War’, Christian Science Monitor, 20 December, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyer, J. (2005), ‘Domestic Limits of Supranational Law: Comparing Compliance with European and International Foodstuffs Regulations’, in M. Zürn and C. Joerges (eds), Law and Governance in Postnational Europe: Compliance beyond the Nation-State (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, G. (1983), ‘The European Community as a Threat to the System’, in W. R. Cline (ed.), Trade Policy in the 1980s (Institute of International Economics).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, M. A. (2003), ‘The Political Economy of Transatlantic Trade Disptutes’, in E.-U. Petersmann and M. A. Pollack (eds), Transatlantic Economic Disputes: The EU, the US and the WTO (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, M. A. and Shaffer, G. (2009), When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Princen, S. B. M. (2002), The California Effect in the Transatlantic Relationship, PhD Dissertation, University of Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Princen, S. B. M. (2004), ‘EC Compliance with WTO Law: The Interplay of Law and Politics’, European Journal of International Law, 15(3), 555–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, C. M. (2003), ‘The Europeanization of Public Policy’, in K. Featherstone and C. M. Radaelli (eds), The Politics of Europeanization (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Raustiala, K. and Slaughter, A.-M. (2002), ‘International Law, International Relations and Compliance’, in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B. A. Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, B. (2009), ‘Restructuring the EU-ACP Sugar Regime: Out of the Strong there Came Forth Sweetness’, Review of International Political Economy, iFirst, 1–25 DOI: 10.1080/09692290802529751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (1998), ‘Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Pystosanitary Trade Regulations’, Journal of International Economic Law, 377–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoppa, L. J. (1993), ‘Two-Level Games and Bargaining Outcomes: Why gaiatsu Succeeds in Japan in Some Cases but Not Others’, International Organization, 47(3), 353–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, B. A. (2010), ‘Treaty Compliance and Violation’, Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 273–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. M. (2000), ‘The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts’, International Organization, 54(1), 137–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C.O’N (2007), ‘Impossible Cases: Lessons from the First Decade of WTO Dispute Settlement’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 28(2), 309–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teese, C. F. (1982), ‘A View for the Dress Circle in the Theatre of Trade Disputes’, The World Economy, 5(1), 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNICE (1999), ‘UNICE Dismay at Escalation in Hormone Beef Dispute’, 11 May.

    Google Scholar 

  • US (2011), ‘Statement by the United States at the January 25, 2011 DSB Meeting’, http://geneva.usmission.gov/2011/01/26/january-25–2011-dsb, accessed 11 February 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • USIA (1999), ‘British Oppose, French/Germans Favor EU Beef Ban,’ European Opinion Alert, L-34–99, 21 May.

    Google Scholar 

  • USTR (2004), ‘European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS291, 292, and 293): Executive Summary of the First Submission of the United States’, 30 April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (1997), Barriers or Benefits? Regulation in Transatlantic Trade (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, N., Jackson, P., Russell, P. and Wilkinson, K. (2008), ‘Productivism, Post-Productivism and European Agricultural Reform: The Case of Sugar’, Sociologia Ruralis, 48(2), 118–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winham, G. R. (2009), ‘The GMO Panel: Applications of WTO Law to Trade in Agricultural Biotech Products’, Journal of European Integration, 31(3), 409–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M. (1983), ‘The European Community’s Trade Policy’, in R. Jenkins (ed.), Britain and the EEC (London: Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Würger, D. (2001–2), ‘The Never Ending Story: The Implementation Phase in the Dispute Between the EC and the United States on Hormone-Treated Beef’, Law and Policy in International Business, 33, 777–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, A. R. (2004), ‘The Incidental Fortress: The Single European Market and World Trade’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(2), 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, A. R. (2010), ‘Effective Multilateralism on Trial: EU Compliance with WTO Law’, in D. Bourantonis and S. Blavoukos (eds), The EU’s Presence in International Organisations (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, A. R. (2011), ‘Of Executive Preferences and Societal Constraints: The Domestic Politics of the Transatlantic GMO Dispute’, Review of International Political Economy, 18(4), 506–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Alasdair R. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Barcelona, Spain

    Oriol Costa (Lecturer in International Relations Autonomous) (Lecturer in International Relations Autonomous)

  2. University of Aarhus, Denmark

    Knud Erik Jørgensen (Professor of International Relations) (Professor of International Relations)

Copyright information

© 2012 Alasdair R. Young

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Young, A.R. (2012). Less Than You Might Think: The Impact of WTO Rules on EU Policies. In: Costa, O., Jørgensen, K.E. (eds) The Influence of International Institutions on the EU. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230369894_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation