TTIP and legislative‒executive relations in EU trade policy

References

• Alemanno, Alberto (2015). ‘The Regulatory Cooperation Chapter of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Institutional Structures and Democratic Consequences’, Journal of International Economic Law, 18:3, 625–40.10.1093/jiel/jgv026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin, Matthew (2006). ‘EU Trade Politics — Heaven or Hell?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:6, 926–42.10.1080/13501760600838698
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronckers, Marco (2013). ‘Is Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Superior to Litigation before Domestic Courts? An EU View on Bilateral Trade Agreements’, Journal of International Economic Law, 18:3, 655–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bungenberg, Marc (2010). ‘Going Global? The EU Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon’, European Yearbook of International Economic Law, 1, 123–51.
   Google Scholar
• Buonanno, Laurie, Natalia Cuglesan, and Keith Henderson, eds. (2015). The New and Changing Transatlanticism: Politics and Policy Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Burghardt, Günter (2015). ‘The EU/US Transatlantic Relationship: The Indispensable Partnership’, Special Issue ‘Trade Policy between Law, Diplomacy and Scholarship’’, European Yearbook of International Economic Law, 6, 193–226.10.1007/978-3-319-15690-3
   Google Scholar
• Capling, Ann, and Patrick Low (2010). ‘The Domestic Politics of Trade Policy-Making: State and Non-State Actor Interactions and Forum Choice’, in Ann Capling and Patrick Low (eds.), Governments, Non-State Actors and Trade Policy-Making: Negotiating Preferentially or Multilaterally. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 4–28.10.1017/CBO9780511687082
   Google Scholar
• Carter, Ralph G., and James M. Scott (2009). Choosing to Lead: Understanding Congressional Foreign Policy Entrepreneurs. Durham: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822390909
   Google Scholar
• da Conceição-Heldt, Eugénia (2013). ‘‘Do Agents “Run Amok”? a Comparison of Agency Slack in the EU and US Trade Policy in the Doha round’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 15:1, 21–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dashwood, Alan (2010). ‘Mixity in the Era of the Treaty of Lisbon’, in Christophe Hillion and Panos Koutrakos (eds.), Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and Its Member States in the World. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 351–66.
   Google Scholar
• De Bièvre, Dirk, and Andreas Dür (2005). ‘Constituency Interests and Delegation in European and American Trade Policy’, Comparative Political Studies, 38:10, 1271–296.10.1177/0010414005277578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos, Angelos (2010). ‘The Effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the Principles and Objectives of the Common Commercial Policy’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 15:2, 153–70.
   Google Scholar
• Dür, Andreas, and Manfred Elsig (2011). ‘Principals, Agents, and the European Union’s Foreign Economic Policies’, Journal of European Public Policy, 18:3, 323–38.10.1080/13501763.2011.551066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eeckhout, Piet (2011). EU External Relations Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199606634.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Elgström, Ole, and Magdalena F. Larsén (2010). ‘Free to Trade? Commission Autonomy in the Economic Partnership Agreement Negotiations’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17:2, 205–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabry, Elvire (2015). ‘France: A Hotbed of Opposition to the TTIP?’, Notre Europe Policy Paper No. 136.
   Google Scholar
• Fahey, Elaine (2013). ‘Law and Governance as Checks and Balances in Transatlantic Security: Rights, Redress and Remedies in EU-US Passenger Name Records and the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program’, Yearbook of European Law, 32, 368–88.10.1093/yel/yet012
   Google Scholar
• Fergusson, Ian F. (2015). ‘Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy’, CRS Report No. RL33743.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, Anthony L. (2015). ‘Guest Editorial–A Vital Partnership: US-EU Relations Are Increasingly Significant in Global Affairs’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 20:3, 311–14.
   Google Scholar
• Gattermann, Katjana, Anna-Lena Högenauer, and Ariella Huff (2013). ‘National Parliaments after Lisbon: Towards Mainstreaming of EU Affairs?’, OPAL Online Paper No. 13/2013.
   Google Scholar
• Gstöhl, Sieglinde, and Dominik Hanf (2014). ‘The EU’s Post-Lisbon Free Trade Agreements: Commercial Interests in a Changing Constitutional Context’, European Law Journal, 20:6, 733–48.10.1111/eulj.2014.20.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiscox, Michael J. (2002). ‘Commerce Coalitions, and Factor Mobility: Evidence from Congressional Votes on Trade Legislation’, American Political Science Review, 96:3, 593–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jančić, Davor (2015). ‘Transatlantic Regulatory Interdependence, Law and Governance: The Evolving Roles of the EU and US Legislatures’, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 17, 334–59.10.1017/cel.2015.16
   Google Scholar
• Jančić, Davor (2016). ‘The Role of the European Parliament and the US Congress in Shaping Transatlantic Relations: TTIP, NSA Surveillance and CIA Renditions’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 54:4, 896–912.10.1111/jcms.v54.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krajewski, Markus (2005). ‘External Trade Law and the Constitution Treaty: Towards a Federal and More Democratic Common Commercial Policy?’, Common Market Law Review, 42:1, 91–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krajewski, Markus (2013). ‘New Functions and New Powers for the European Parliament: Assessing the Changes of the Common Commercial Policy from the Perspective of Democratic Legitimacy’, European Yearbook of International Economic Law, 4, 67–85.
   Google Scholar
• Lester, Simon, and Inu Barbee (2013). ‘The Challenge of Cooperation: Regulatory Trade Barriers in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’, Journal of International Economic Law, 16:4, 847–67.10.1093/jiel/jgt026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohmann, Susanne and Sharyn O’Halloran (1994). ‘Divided Government and U.S. Trade Policy: Theory and Evidence’, International Organization, 48:4, 595–632.10.1017/S0020818300028320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansfield, Edward D., and Helen V. Milner (2012). Votes, Vetoes, and the Political Economy of International Trade Agreements. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maresceau, Marc (2010). ‘A Typology of Bilateral Mixed Agreements’, in Christophe Hillion and Panos Koutrakos (eds.), Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and Its Member States in the World. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 11–29.
   Google Scholar
• Maurer, Andreas (2005). ‘Study for the European Parliament DG for External Policies of the Union, “The Role of Parliaments in Scrutinising and Influencing Trade Policy: A Comparative Analysis”’ European Parliament, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Meunier, Sophie (2005). Trading Voices: The European Union in International Commercial Negotiations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meunier, Sophie, and Kalypso Nicolaïdis (2006). ‘The European Union as a Conflicted Trade Power’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:6, 906–25.10.1080/13501760600838623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meuwese, Anne (2015). ‘Constitutional Aspects of Regulatory Coherence in TTIP: An EU Perspective’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 78:4, 153–74.
   Google Scholar
• Milner, Helen V., and Benjamin Judkins (2004). ‘Partisanship, Trade Policy, and Globalization: Is There a Left-Right Divide on Trade Policy?’, International Studies Quarterly, 48:1, 95–120.10.1111/isqu.2004.48.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milner, Helen V., and Dustin H. Tingley (2011). ‘Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic Policy’, International Organization, 65:1, 37–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passos, Ricardo (2010). ‘Mixed Agreements from the Perspective of the European Parliament’, in Christophe Hillion and Panos Koutrakos (eds.), Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and Its Member States in the World. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 269–94.
   Google Scholar
• Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (2015). ‘Transformative Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements without Rights and Remedies of Citizens?’, Journal of International Economic Law, 18:3, 2015, 579–607.10.1093/jiel/jgv030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack, Mark, and Gregory Shaffer, eds. (2001). Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Raunio, Tapio (2014). ‘Legislatures and Foreign Policy’, in Shane Martin, Thomas Saalfeld and Kaare W. Strøm (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 549–50.
   Google Scholar
• Raunio, Tapio, and Wolfgang Wagner (2016). ‘Towards Parliamentarization of Foreign and Security Policy?’, West European Politics, doi: 10.1080/01402382.2016.1240411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sbragia, Alberta (2010). ‘The EU, the US, and Trade Policy: Competitive Interdependence in the Management of Globalization’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17:3, 368–82.10.1080/13501761003662016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schütze, Robert (2014). Foreign Affairs and the EU Constitution: Selected Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139794756
   Google Scholar
• Servent, Ariadna R. (2014). ‘The Role of the European Parliament in International Negotiations after Lisbon’, Journal of European Public Policy, 21:4, 568–86.10.1080/13501763.2014.886614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streinz, Rudolf (2015). ‘Disputes on TTIP: Does the Agreement Need the Consent of the German Parliament?’, Special Issue ‘Trade Policy between Law, Diplomacy and Scholarship’’, European Yearbook of International Economic Law, 6, 271–95.10.1007/978-3-319-15690-3
   Google Scholar
• Telò, Mario (2015). ‘Transatlantic Partnership and Global Governance from the EU’s Perspective’, in Jean-Frédéric Morin, Tereza Novotná, Frederik Ponjaert and Mario Telò (eds.), The Politics of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations: TTIP in a Globalized World. Farnham: Ashgate, 27–44.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, David, and Johan Swinnen, eds. (2011). Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation. the Shifting Roles of the EU, the US and California. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, Wolfgang, Anna Herranz-Surrallés, Juliet Kaarbo, and Falk Ostermann (2016). ‘The Party Politics of Legislative-Executive Relations in Security and Defence Policy’, West European Politics, doi: 10.1080/01402382.2016.1240413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolcock, Stephen (2012). European Union Economic Diplomacy: The Role of the EU in External Economic Relations. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Woolcock, Stephen (2014). ‘EU Policy on Preferential Trade Agreements in the 2000s: A Reorientation towards Commercial Aims’, European Law Journal, 20:6, 718–32.10.1111/eulj.2014.20.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, Alasdair R., and John Peterson (2006). ‘The EU and the New Trade Politics’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:6, 795–814.10.1080/13501760600837104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanon, Flavia (2010). ‘EU Foreign Policy Cooperation: A Challenge for National Parliaments?’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 15:1, 19–38.
   Google Scholar