Subnational mobilization and political countermovement in EU trade policy in Belgium, Germany and Spain
Info
Auteurs-es
- Maria Helena Guimarães (PT) Universidade do Minho
- Michelle Egan (US) American University, Washington DC
Résumé
Si les gouvernements infranationaux dans les systèmes fédéraux sont souvent traités comme des juridictions politiques potentiellement autonomes, les gouvernements centraux détiennent traditionnellement une autorité exclusive en matière de politique commerciale. Pourtant, la portée croissante des accords commerciaux qui empiètent sur les politiques de régulation nationales, y compris les marchés publics, les services de santé ou la protection des investisseurs, a conduit les entités infranationales à exiger de plus en plus avoir un mot à dire dans leur négociation et ratification. Des inquiétudes concernant l’impact sur leurs compétences, ainsi que des arguments selon lesquels certains accords menacent les normes et valeurs européennes, ont déclenché de nouvelles formes de conflits entre les entités nationales et infranationales. En nous appuyant sur le concept de double mouvement de Polanyi, nous montrons comment la politique commerciale de l’UE a favorisé un contre-mouvement politique dans lequel les juridictions infranationales déploient des stratégies pour se protéger des effets de la libéralisation des échanges et pour défendre leur autorité décentralisée. Nous abordons l'opposition infranationale aux accords CETA et TTIP en utilisant trois cas dissemblables —la Belgique, l'Allemagne et l'Espagne— pour illustrer divers modèles d’opposition à la libéralisation du commerce de l'UE —dès des efforts ex ante pour façonner les résultats des négociations commerciales jusqu'à l'opposition ex post exerçant un droit de veto. L’article soutient que l’attribution des pouvoirs constitutionnels et la politique partidaire dans chacun de ces pays influencent leurs différentes stratégies d’opposition, et souligne un paradoxe: les efforts de l’UE pour parler d’une “seule voix” génèrent des effets de contestation au niveau infranational qui ont créé des tensions à plusieurs niveaux autour de l’établissement d’une plus grande autonomie sociale et d’un plus grand contrôle sur les processus du marché.
Mots-clés
Téléchargements
Comment citer
Licence
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International.
Copyright
Es condición para la publicación que el autor o autores ceda(n) a la Revista, en exclusiva, los derechos de reproducción. Paix et Sécurité Internationales es una revista que proporciona un acceso abierto inmediato a su contenido totalmente gratuito para lectores como para los investigadores que pretendan publicar en ella, ya que no se realizan cobros por concepto de envío, procesamiento ni publicación. Los usuarios podrán leer, descargar, copiar, distribuir, imprimir, buscar o enlazar el texto completo de los artículos publicados, o utilizarlos para cualquier otro propósito, dentro de la legalidad vigente. Y podrán hacerlo sin coste alguno, y sin necesitad de solicitar permiso al editor a al autor. Todo ello de acuerdo con la definición de acceso abierto de la Iniciativa Acceso Abierto de Budapest.
Références
ALDECOA, F. and KEATING, M., Paradiplomacy in Action: The Foreign Relations of Subnational Governments, Frank Cass & Co, London, 1999.
BLOCK, F., “Polanyi’s double movement and the reconstruction of critical theory”, Revue Interventions Économiques. Papers in Political Economy, No. 38, 2008, pp. 1-7.
BOLLEN Y., DE VILLE, F. and GHEYLE, N., “From Nada to Namur: National Parliaments’ Involvement in EU Trade Politics and the Case of Belgium” in BROSCHEK, J. and GOFF, P. (eds.), The multilevel politics of trade, University of Toronto Press, 2020.
BROSCHEK, J., “Why federalism matters: policy feedback, institutional variation and the politics of trade policymaking in Canada and Germany”, New Political Economy, 2024, pp. 1-14.
BROSCHEK, J., “The federalization of trade politics in Switzerland, Germany and Austria”, Regional & Federal Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2023, pp. 91-112.
BROSCHEK, J. and FREUDLSPERGER, C., “Regional involvement in EU trade policy: what remains after politicization”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2023, pp. 131-156.
BROSCHEK, J. and GOFF, P. (eds.), The multilevel politics of trade, University of Toronto Press, 2020.
BROSCHEK, J. and GOFF, P., “Federalism and International Trade Policy: The Canadian Provinces in Comparative Perspective”, IRPP INSIGHT, 2018.
BROSCHEK, J. and GOFF, P., “The Multilevel Politics of Trade”, Discussion Paper presented at the Balsillie School of International Affairs/Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, October 2016.
BUONANNO, L. A., “The new trade deals and the mobilisation of civil society organizations: comparing EU and US responses”, Journal of European Integration, Vol. 39, No. 7, 2017, pp. 795-809.
CABRAS, L., “Explaining the politicization of EU trade agreement negotiations over the past 30 years”, Italian Political Science Review, 2024, pp. 1-16.
COLINO, C., “La acción internacional de las comunidades autónomas y su participación en la política exterior española”, Documento de Trabajo 10, Observatorio de Política Exterior española, Fundación Alternativas, 2007.
CONCEIÇÃO-HELDT, E., “Contested EU trade governance: transparency conundrums in TTIP negotiations”, Comparative European Politics, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019, pp. 215-232.
CONCEIÇÃO-HELDT, E. and MEUNIER, S. (eds), Speaking With a Single Voice: The EU as an effective actor in global governance?, Routledge, 2017.
CORNAGO, N., “On the normalization of sub‐state diplomacy”, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 5, No. 1-2, 2010, pp. 11-36.
CORNAGO, N. and ALDECOA, F., “On the feasibility if plurinational diplomacy: reflections from Spain”, WISc Conference, Ljubliana, Slovenia, 2008.
DE BIÈVRE, D., “The Paradox of Weakness in European Trade Policy: Contestations and Resilience in CETA and TTIP Negotiations”, The International Spectator, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2018, pp. 70-85.
DE BIÈVRE, D., GSTÖHL, S. and VAN OMMERENET, E., “Overcoming ‘Frankenfoods’ and ‘Secret Courts’: The Resilience of EU Trade Policy”, College of Europe Policy Brief, May 2019.
DE BIÈVRE, D. and POLETTI, A., “Towards Explaining Varying Degrees of politicization of EU Trade Agreement Negotiations”, Politics and Governance, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2020, pp. 243-253.
DE VILLE, F. and SILES-BRÜGGE, G., TTIP: the truth about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, Polity Press, 2016.
DUCHACEK, I., “The International Dimension of Subnational Self-Government”, Publius, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1984, pp. 5-31.
DUCOURTIEUX, C. and STROOBANTS, J.-P., “Le rejet wallon du traité commercial CETA avec le Canada plonge l'UE dans le désarroi”, Le Monde, 24 October 2016, accessed February 2024.
EGAN, M. and GUIMARÃES, M. H., “Trade contestation and regional politics: The case of Belgium and Germany”, Frontiers in Political Science, 2022, pp. 1-15.
EGAN, M. and GUIMARÃES, M. H., “The dynamics of federalism, subnational markets and trade policy-making in Canada and the US”, Regional & Federal Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2018, pp. 459-478.
EGAN, M. and NICOLA, F., “The Values-based Trade Agenda”, Journal of Legislation & Public Policy, Vol. 25, 2023, pp. 427-500.
ELIASSON, L. J. and GARCIA-DURAN, P., “The Saga Continues: contestation of EU trade policy”, Global Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 4-5, 2020, pp. 433-450.
FOSSUM, J. E. and JACHTENFUCHS M., “Federal challenges and challenges to federalism. Insights from the EU and federal states”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2017, pp. 467-485.
FREUDLSPERGER, C., Trade policy in multilevel government: Organizing openness, Oxford University Press, 2020.
GOODWIN, G., “Rethinking the double movement: expanding the frontiers of Polanyian analysis in the Global South”, Development and change, Vol. 49, No. 5, 2018, pp. 1268-1290.
HURRELMANN, A. and WENDLER, F., “How does politicisation affect the ratification of mixed EU trade agreements? The case of CETA“, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2023, pp. 157-181.
JACKSON, T., “Paradiplomacy and political geography: The geopolitics of substate regional diplomacy”, Geography Compass, 2018, pp. 1-11.
KERSSCHOT, M., KERREMANS, B. and DE BIÈVRE, D., “Principals and transceivers: regional authorities in EU trade negotiations”, Political Research Exchange, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2020, pp. 1-20.
MORATA, F., “Spanish Regions and the 1993 Challenge”, Institut de Ciències Politiques I Socials, Working Paper 34, 1991.
PAQUIN, S., “Trade paradiplomacy and the politics of international economic law: the inclusion of Quebec and the exclusion of Wallonia in the CETA negotiations”, New Political Economy, Vol. 27, 2021, pp. 597-609.
POLANYI, K., The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Farrar & Rinehart, New York, 1944.
SALA, G., “Federalism Without Adjectives in Spain”, Publius, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2014, pp. 109-134.
SAMANIEGO BORDIU, G., “Las competencias del Estado y de las Comunidades Autónomas en materia de comercio exterior en relación con la CEE”, Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, Vol. 9, No. 25, 1989, pp. 115-134.
SANJAUME-CALVET, M. and PANEQUE, A., “Shared or Self-rule? Regional Legislative Initiatives in Multi-level Spain, 1979-2021”, South European Society and Politics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2023, pp. 75-100.
SILES-BRÜGGE, G., “Transatlantic Investor Protection as a Threat to Democracy: The Potency and Limits of an Emotive Frame”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 5-6, 2017, pp. 464-88.
SILES-BRÜGGE, G., “The power of economic ideas: A constructivist political economy of EU trade policy”, Journal of Contemporary European Research, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2013, pp. 597-617.
SCHMIDT, V. A., “Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’”, Political Studies, Vol. 61, No. 1, 2013, pp. 2-22.
SUSE, A. and WOUTERS, J., “The provisional application of the EUs mixed trade and investment agreements”, in BOSSE-PLATIÈRE, I. and RAPOPORT, C., The Conclusion and Implementation of EU Free Trade Agreements, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019, pp. 176-202.
TATHAM, M., “The rise of regional influence in the EU – from soft policy lobbying to hard vetoing”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2018, pp. 672-686.
VAN LOON A., “The Selective Politicization of Transatlantic Trade Negotiation”, Politics and Governance, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2020, pp. 325-335.
VEGA, J. A., “La transparencia y el control democrático en la nueva generación de acuerdos comerciales: la UE ante el CETA y el TTIP”, Revista da Escola Galega de Administración Pública, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2017, pp. 9-78.
WOLFF, S., “Paradiplomacy: Scope, opportunities and challenges”, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 10, 2007, pp. 141-150.
WOUTERS, J. and RAUBE, K., “Rebels with a Cause? Parliaments and EU Trade Policy After the Treaty of Lisbon”, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies and the Institute for International Law, Working Paper 194, 2017.
WRUUCK, P., “Coping with mixed feelings. What future for European trade policy?”, EU Monitor European Integration, Deutsche Bank Research, January 2017.
YOUNG, A. “Two Wrongs Make a Right? The Politicization of Trade Policy and European Trade Strategy”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 26, No. 12, 2019, pp. 1883-1899.
YOUNG, A., “Not your parents’ trade politics: The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations”, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2016, pp. 345-378.