Advanced

Free to Trade? Commission Autonomy in Economic Partnership Agreement Negotiations

Elgström, Ole LU and Frennhoff Larsén, Magdalena (2010) In Journal of European Public Policy 17(2). p.205-223
Abstract
In this article, we suggest that the degree of (dis)unity - both between the member states (MS) in the Council and within the Commission - is a key factor in affecting the balance between Commission autonomy and MS control in international trade negotiations. We shed empirical light on this issue, and on the relative influence of MS and the Commission in general, through a case study of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. We suggest that the differing preferences and priorities among MS and the relative cohesiveness of the Commission provided the Commission with quite a high degree of autonomy during all phases of the EPA negotiations.... (More)
In this article, we suggest that the degree of (dis)unity - both between the member states (MS) in the Council and within the Commission - is a key factor in affecting the balance between Commission autonomy and MS control in international trade negotiations. We shed empirical light on this issue, and on the relative influence of MS and the Commission in general, through a case study of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. We suggest that the differing preferences and priorities among MS and the relative cohesiveness of the Commission provided the Commission with quite a high degree of autonomy during all phases of the EPA negotiations. The informational and procedural advantages given by its institutional position as sole negotiator also contributed to the significant autonomy of the Commission. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
cohesiveness, ACP countries, Commission autonomy, EPA negotiations, member state control, trade negotiations
in
Journal of European Public Policy
volume
17
issue
2
pages
205 - 223
publisher
Taylor & Francis
external identifiers
  • wos:000275196200003
  • scopus:77649207568
ISSN
1350-1763
DOI
10.1080/13501760903561674
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
965c237b-fbca-4335-b5d1-be0efa9fb4d6 (old id 1579145)
date added to LUP
2010-03-22 14:05:44
date last changed
2018-05-29 09:53:56
@article{965c237b-fbca-4335-b5d1-be0efa9fb4d6,
  abstract     = {In this article, we suggest that the degree of (dis)unity - both between the member states (MS) in the Council and within the Commission - is a key factor in affecting the balance between Commission autonomy and MS control in international trade negotiations. We shed empirical light on this issue, and on the relative influence of MS and the Commission in general, through a case study of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. We suggest that the differing preferences and priorities among MS and the relative cohesiveness of the Commission provided the Commission with quite a high degree of autonomy during all phases of the EPA negotiations. The informational and procedural advantages given by its institutional position as sole negotiator also contributed to the significant autonomy of the Commission.},
  author       = {Elgström, Ole and Frennhoff Larsén, Magdalena},
  issn         = {1350-1763},
  keyword      = {cohesiveness,ACP countries,Commission autonomy,EPA negotiations,member state control,trade negotiations},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {205--223},
  publisher    = {Taylor & Francis},
  series       = {Journal of European Public Policy},
  title        = {Free to Trade? Commission Autonomy in Economic Partnership Agreement Negotiations},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501760903561674},
  volume       = {17},
  year         = {2010},
}