ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

In person icon The Geopolitical Turn in EU Trade Policy

China
European Union
Globalisation
USA
Trade
Policy Change
P134
Alasdair Young
Georgia Institute of Technology
Christian Freudlsperger
University of Zurich

In person icon Building: Colégio Almada Negreiros, Floor: 0, Room: CAN SE5

Thursday 09:00 - 10:30 WEST (20/06/2024)

Abstract

Increasing geo-politicisation has been the defining feature of the European Union’s trade policy in the past few years. The more aggressive trade policy of the Trump Administration, shortages of key supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s (retaliatory) weaponisation of energy supplies, and China’s bullying use of trade have caused European leaders to view interdependence as a source of vulnerability and leverage rather than as solely a source of prosperity. This change in perspective, codified in its 2021 Trade Policy Review and, particularly, its 2023 Economic Security Strategy, has prompted a flurry of policy initiatives. The papers on this panel take stock of these developments by considering a diverse array of policies. Garcia-Duran and Eliasson consider the likely effectiveness of the EU’s new Anti-Coercion Instrument, which was adopted to enable the EU to respond robustly if another party seeks to influence EU or EU member state policy through the coercive use of trade. Brown and Young analyse Europe’s offensive use of export controls to limit China’s access to cutting edge technology and defensive measures to limit the presence of Chinese companies in Europe’s critical telecommunications technology. Helt analyses the EU’s strategic use of trade and investment agreements and the Global Gateway to realise de-risking, de-coupling and diversification strategies, thereby reducing the EU’s vulnerability. Adriaensen and Postnikov consider the implications of the EU’s recent shift to using more coercive, unilateral measures to advance sustainable development goals for its traditional, more participatory, efforts to promote those goals through preferential trade agreements. These papers, therefore, both offensive defensive and defensive geopolitical ends and unilateral and bilateral means.

Title Details
The ultimate economic security instrument – or a dud? The EU Anti-Coercion Act’s usefulness in a geopolitical minefield View Paper Details
Who can you count on when the chips are down? Transatlantic cooperation when confronting China View Paper Details
What Does it Take to Weaponize Europe’s Trade Agreements? View Paper Details
Sustainable Development in EU PTAs and the Unilateral Turn in Trade: Competing Governance Modes Toward the Same Goal? View Paper Details
Geopoliticization of EU trade policy: Assessing the scope of EU renew assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific View Paper Details