No abstract

In response to growing contestation and politicisation of trade policy, policy makers have aimed to enhance the 'inclusiveness' of trade policy through the institutionalisation of deliberative forums in which civil society organisations participate. However, it is not clear whether these processes actually enhance inclusiveness. This article adds to our understanding of this question by, first, developing an analytical framework (the 'inclusiveness ladder') and, second, applying it to the civil society mechanisms (CSMs) of European Union (EU) free trade agreements. The unique feature of CSMs is their focus on ensuring that the actual implementation of trade agreement does not run counter to sustainable development principles. Specifically, our empirical research involves a mixed methods analysis of primary and secondary sources and a survey of civil society participants. We find that CS is largely included at the level of logistics and partly at the level of information sharing, whereas monitoring capacities remain limited and impact on policy-making is quasi-absent. Moreover, results suggest differences between business participants, who seem largely satisfied with the lower steps on the 'ladder', and non-governmental actors who insist on policy impact. Finally, we outline avenues for further research and reflect on policy implications.

In contributing to the debate on the European Union (EU)'s comprehensive approach to security, this article examines the structural-operational interface between trade and security. It hypothesizes that the challenge of comprehensive security to combine structural activities with operational measures is most pronounced in the trade-security interface. As the oldest, most integrated and most powerful external policy domain of the EU, trade policy has acquired a high degree of institutional autonomy, operates according to its own logic and standard procedures and has a distinct organizational esprit de corps. This inhibits the integration of the EU's trade policy into the more comprehensive security portfolio. To operationalize this hypothesis, the article empirically explores the coherence between EU trade and security discourses and the extent to which trade measures have been used for security policy ends, as envisaged in the 2003 European Security Strategy. The empirical analysis confirms the hypothesis that coherence between the trade and security areas is limited, and that this relates to the institutional insulation of the EU trade policy sphere. However, the findings reveal that external factors, such as international trade law and preferences of the trade partners, should also be considered to further explain the relatively limited coherence between EU trade and security.

is a post-doctoral researcher at the Centre for EU Studies. Her doctoral dissertation studied the EU's cooperation policies towards African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. During a two-year assignment at the United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs in New York, she continued working on trade and development issues as trade policy analyst. In 2016, she took up a position at the World Trade Organization in Geneva to work on SPS and TBT related issues. She also contributed to a study on the future relationship between the EU and ACP countries (post-Cotonou) during a consultancy for the European Commission (DG Devco). Before taking up the position at the United Nations, Lotte worked as a research coordinator for the Ghent University College and as a researcher for the KULeuven. She holds a master's degree in international politics and a master's degree in EU law, both from Ghent University. Diana Potjomkina is a PhD Fellow on the project GREMLIN: Global and REgional MuLtistakeholder Institutions. Her doctoral research focuses on multistakeholderism in the EU's trade policy and in global trade governance in general. Diana has acquired professional experience in the civil society sector, having worked as a project manager at the European Movement -Latvia and a researcher at the Latvian Institute of International Affairs. In addition, she served as an expert for three opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee. Diana holds master's degree (with distinction) in International Relations from Riga Stradins University in Riga, Latvia, and spent 9 months in the Washington, DC metropolitan area as a Fulbright Visiting Student Researcher at the George Mason University.

No abstract

Résumé Cet article examine les dynamiques menant à la première Convention de Lomé conclue entre la Communauté européenne (CE) et les anciennes colonies de ses États membres. En 1975, la CE et les pays dits ACP (pays d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique) arrivent à conclure un accord exhaustif de coopération commerciale et de développement, en dépit de l’eurosclérose et de la crise économique vécues à ce moment. Cet article vise à expliquer ce paradoxe apparent. En premier lieu nous examinons pourquoi Lomé a été perçu comme un accord révolutionnaire. À cette fin, nous élaborons quatre caractéristiques de l’accord : (1) sa large étendue géographique, (2) son envergure importante, (3) le développement de son régime commercial et (4) l’engagement de la part de la CE de forger un partenariat à part égale. Ensuite, nous analysons les raisons de la CE d’inclure ces caractéristiques distinctes dans la Convention. Basée sur une recherche dans les archives de l’UE et dans quelques collections privées, cette étude aboutit à la conclusion que cet accord “révolutionnaire” ne résulte pas d’idées ambitieuses au sujet de développement, sinon qu’il provient de relations historiques et de considérations pratiques. En majeure partie, Lomé I représente la continuité des politiques antérieures de la France et du Royaume-Uni vis-à-vis de leurs anciennes colonies et ce sont justement ces deux États membres de la CE qui contribuent largement à façonner le contenu et la nature de l’accord à travers des négociations intergouvernementales. Quoi qu’il en soit, en époque d’eurosclérose, il paraît utile d’affirmer la position de l’Europe en tant qu’acteur international ambitieux comme réponse à la crise interne de légitimité.