Suchergebnisse

1.Introduction -- 2. Theorizing cooperation in international trade and the WTO DSM -- 3. Explaining patterns of WTO member behavior at the WTO dispute settlement -- 4. Firms, coalitions, and WTO disputes: Domestic private actors in the WTO -- 5. Conclusions.

This article builds a conceptual framework to help explain the political behavior of multinational corporations (MNCs). I build on three streams of literature, i.e. heterogenous firms, global value chains, and governance, and provide an overarching framework to help understand firms' political activities undertaken across value chain networks. I put forward a model that outlines MNCs' coordination of political mobilization using their affiliates and subsidiaries in different jurisdictions and demonstrate models of governance they have at their disposal to reach political goals. I argue that the spread of global value chains allows firms to develop legal links with enterprises across borders through which they orchestrate political activity or delegate policy goals. The degree of flexibility between MNCs and associated firms determine the model of governance they undertake with corporations in their network. They engage in such costly coordination either to obtain legal standing in foreign jurisdictions or to cultivate a sort of critical mass that goes after a policy objective. I demonstrate the plausibility of my propositions with anecdotal evidence and identify future lines of research.

The dispute settlement compliance dataset (DISCOD) outlines the implementing measures enacted by World Trade Organization (WTO) Members in response to adverse WTO dispute settlement rulings between 1995- 2016. The dataset provides information of WTO disputes and corresponding legislation that were reported to bring forth compliance. Over 150 legislations were tracked, collected from official sources, WTO (and Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)) documents, WTO Member legislatures, as well as secondary sources. The xml. sheet includes several additional variables coded for further analysis and the word document outlines additional details regarding excluded disputes in which the defendants were exonerated, as well as "horizontal" disputes that involved several sectors.

AbstractFrom the technical analyses of wide ranges of scholars to the public discourse backlashes against globalization, there is a huge volume of work historicizing, quantifying, and problematizing the complex role of multinational corporations (MNCs) in international trade. The body of literature is so large that most readers rely on disciplinary boundaries to narrow the catalog, causing them to miss out on important synergies across fields. By bringing the work of historians, lawyers, and political scientists working on MNCs and international trade into conversation, we offer an expanded perspective. Our collective contribution highlights the political dimensions of MNCs within the frameworks of global economic governance, in which corporations seek to influence trade policies amid rising protectionism and coordinate their activities within industry associations while regulators struggle to hold MNC parent companies accountable to international human rights violations across their value chains. Especially in this moment of re-evaluation — and possible de-globalization following the shock of COVID-19 — our multidisciplinary analysis explains how MNCs exerted political power over trade regimes in the past, by what means they seek to shape regulatory frameworks in the present, and what the possible futures might be for big business operations in a more or less global economy.

First published online: 01 October 2020 ; From the technical analyses of wide ranges of scholars to the public discourse backlashes against globalization, there is a huge volume of work historicizing, quantifying, and problematizing the complex role of multinational corporations (MNCs) in international trade. The body of literature is so large that most readers rely on disciplinary boundaries to narrow the catalog, causing them to miss out on important synergies across fields. By bringing the work of historians, lawyers, and political scientists working on MNCs and international trade into conversation, we offer an expanded perspective. Our collective contribution highlights the political dimensions of MNCs within the frameworks of global economic governance, in which corporations seek to influence trade policies amid rising protectionism and coordinate their activities within industry associations while regulators struggle to hold MNC parent companies accountable to international human rights violations across their value chains. Especially in this moment of re-evaluation — and possible de-globalization following the shock of COVID-19 — our multidisciplinary analysis explains how MNCs exerted political power over trade regimes in the past, by what means they seek to shape regulatory frameworks in the present, and what the possible futures might be for big business operations in a more or less global economy. ; This article was published Open Access with the support from the EUI Library through the CRUI - CUP Transformative Agreement (2020-2022)

"Bringing together leading experts in trade law and policy, this volume investigates the coherence between the European Union's trade policy and its non-trade objectives. With a range of illustrative case studies and an interdisciplinary approach, it offers accessible, in-depth analysis of key issues from legal, political, and economic perspectives"--

Bringing together leading experts in trade law and policy, this volume investigates the coherence between the European Union's trade policy and its non-trade objectives. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, it highlights previously unaddressed dimensions of EU policy objectives and outcomes. With a range of illustrative case studies, the contributions offer in-depth analysis while making key issues and policy conclusions accessible to readers without specialist training. Pushing the frontiers of research on trade, investment, and non-trade issues, the volume advances debates concerning the reform of the international trade regime and the EU's adoption of a new trade policy. Bolstered by a diverse range of contributors and perspectives, this expansive collection recognises the achievements of the current EU trade policy, assesses its limits, and puts forth actionable recommendations for how it may be improved

Bringing together leading experts in trade law and policy, this volume investigates the coherence between the European Union's trade policy and its non-trade objectives. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, it highlights previously unaddressed dimensions of EU policy objectives and outcomes. With a range of illustrative case studies, the contributions offer in-depth analysis while making key issues and policy conclusions accessible to readers without specialist training. Pushing the frontiers of research on trade, investment, and non-trade issues, the volume advances debates concerning the reform of the international trade regime and the EU's adoption of a new trade policy. Bolstered by a diverse range of contributors and perspectives, this expansive collection recognises the achievements of the current EU trade policy, assesses its limits, and puts forth actionable recommendations for how it may be improved.

AbstractSustainable development provisions have become an integral part of the European Union's (EU's) 'new generation' trade agreements. Yet, a growing number of empirical works show that their design varies significantly, even in the trade agreements signed with countries at similar (low) levels of development. We contend that this variation can be accounted for by discussing how the growing integration of the EU economy with specific developing countries across global value chains (GVCs) affects the domestic politics of regulatory export in the EU. European firms that operate within GVCs rely on imports of inputs produced in low-labor cost countries. These firms tend to oppose the export of those regulatory burdens that generate an increase in their imports' variable costs. The political mobilization of these actors weakens domestic coalitions supporting regulatory export strategies, which explains why the EU adopts a more lenient approach over the inclusion of sustainable development provisions in Preferential Trade Agreement negotiations with some developing countries.

Many countries, including China, European member states, the European Union, India and the United States have put in place measures to restrict exports of medical products as part of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective is to allocate domestic supplies to national healthcare systems and citizens. These policies break supply chains that rely on sourcing of inputs from different countries, reduce access to critically needed supplies and foster excessive price spikes and volatility, and generate foreign policy tensions. Experience with widespread use of export restrictions by food exporting countries in times of market disruption and supply shortages suggests a priority for the G20 should be to work with industry to put in place systems to enhance access to information on production capacity, investments to boost supplies and address supply chain bottlenecks affecting production and trade in essential medical supplies. ; Supported by the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 770680 (RESPECT).

AbstractEU trade policy increasingly focuses on the achievement of non‐trade policy objectives (NTPOs) such as the promotion of human rights or environmental protection, motivating research on the political economy determinants and effectiveness of linking trade policy and NTPOs. This research reports selected findings from a new expert survey of stakeholder perceptions of trade–NTPO linkages. These suggest that the views of EU institutions align with those of civil society organizations more than with business, but also reveal significant differences in the perceived effectiveness of trade–NTPO linkage strategies. Many stakeholder groups believe that policy instruments other than trade agreements are more effective tools to pursue NTPOs. These findings suggest that further research on EU trade policy and non‐trade issues should consider the broader range of external policy tools available to the EU in pursuit of NTPOs and the determinants of differences in preferences for alternative policy instruments.