Power in Global Trade Governance: Is the EU a Unitary Actor, a Tool for Dominance, or a Site of Contestation? GATS and the TTIP Negotiations

REFERENCES

• Adriaensen, J., & González-Garibay, M. (2013). The illusion of choice: The European Union and the trade-labor linkage. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 542–559.
   Google Scholar
• Alons, G. (2013). European external trade policy: The role of ideas in German preference formation. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 501–520.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, D., & Bossuyt, F. (2013). The European Union as a conveniently-conflicted counter-hegemon through trade. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 560–577.
   Google Scholar
• Bartle, I. (2006). Political participation and market citizenship in a global economy: The European Union in comparative perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 29, 415–436.
   Google Scholar
• Bieler, A. (2008). Labour and the struggle over the future European model of capitalism: British and Swedish trade unions and their positions on EMU and European co-operation. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 10, 84–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbone, M., & Orbie, J. (2014). Beyond economic partnership agreements: The European Union and the trade–development nexus. Contemporary Politics, 20(1), 1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaban, N., Elgström, O., Kelly, S., & Suet Yi, L. (2013). Images of the EU beyond its borders: Issue-specific and regional perceptions of European Union power and leadership. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(3), 433–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Da Conceição, E. (2010). Who controls whom? Dynamics of power delegation and agency losses in EU trade politics. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(4), 1107–1126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damro, C. (2007). EU delegation and agency in international trade negotiations: A cautionary comparison. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 883–903.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damro, C. (2012). Market power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(5), 682–699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Ville, F. (2013). The promise of critical historical institutionalism for EU trade policy analysis. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 618–632.
   Google Scholar
• Dinan, D. (2004). Europe recast: A history of European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Dür, A. (2007). EU trade policy as protection for exporters: The agreements with Mexico and Chile. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 833–855.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dür, A. (2008). Bringing economic interests back into the study of EU trade policy-making. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 10, 27–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dür, A., & Zimmerman, H. (2007). Introduction: The EU in international trade negotiations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 771–787.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgström, O. (2007). Outsiders’ perceptions of the European Union in international trade negotiations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 949–967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsig, M. (2007). The EU’s choice of regulatory venues for trade negotiations: A Tale of agency power? Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 927–948.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FoEE. (2013). Trading away our future? October. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.foeeurope.org
   Google Scholar
• Ford, L. (2013). EU trade governance and policy: A critical perspective. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 578–596.
   Google Scholar
• García, M. (2013). From idealism to realism? EU preferential trade agreement policy. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 521–541.
   Google Scholar
• Gehring, T., Oberthür, S., & Mühleck, M. (2013). European Union actorness in international institutions: Why the EU is recognized as an actor in some international institutions, but not in others. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(5), 849–865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heron, T. (2014). Trading in development: Norms and institutions in the making/unmaking of European Union–African, Caribbean and Pacific trade and development cooperation. Contemporary Politics, 20(1), 10–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilary, J. (2013). The transatlantic trade and investment partnership—A charter for deregulation, an attack on jobs, an end to democracy. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.waronwant.org
   Google Scholar
• Hoekman, B., & Kostecki, M. (2008). The political economy of the world trading system: The WTO and beyond (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holden, P. (2014). Tensions in the discourse and practice of the European Union’s aid for trade. Contemporary Politics, 20(1), 90–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, P. (2006). Trade and ‘domestic’ policies: The European mix. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 815–831.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurje, F., & Lavenex, S. (2014). Trade agreements as venues for ‘market power Europe’? The case of immigration policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), 320–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerremans, B., & Orbie, J. (2013). Towards engaged pluralism in the study of European trade politics. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 659–674.
   Google Scholar
• Khorana, S., & Garcia, M. (2013). European Union–India trade negotiations: One step forward, one back? Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(4), 684–700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler-Kock, B. (2010). Civil society and EU democracy: ‘Astroturf’ representation? Journal of European Public Policy, 17(1), 100–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leblond, P. (2008). The fog of integration: Reassessing the role of economic interests in European integration. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 10, 9–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manners, I. (2011). The European Union’s normative power. In R. Whitman (Ed.), Normative power Europe: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 226–277). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Meunier, S. (2007). Managing globalization? The EU in international trade negotiations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 905–926.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meunier, S., & Nicolaïdis, K. (2006). The European Union as a conflicted trade power. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 906–925.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rumford, C. (2003). European civil society or transnational social space? European Journal of Social Theory, 6(1), 25–43.
   Google Scholar
• Sadeh, T., & Howarth, D. (2008). Economic interests and the European Union: A catalyst for European integration or a hindrance? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 10, 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sbragia, A. (2010). The EU, the US, and trade policy: Competitive interdependence in the management of globalization. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(3), 368–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharpf, F. (2010). The asymmetry of European integration, or why the EU cannot be a ‘social market economy’. Socio-Economic Review, 8(2), 211–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senti, R. (2002). The role of the EU as an economic actor within the WTO. European Foreign Affairs Review, 7(1), 111–117.
   Google Scholar
• Siles-Brügge, G. (2013). The power of economic ideas: A constructivist political economy of EU trade policy. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 597–617.
   Google Scholar
• Smismans, S. (2003). European civil society: Shaped by discourses and institutional interests. European Law Journal, 9(4), 473–495.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. (2008). All access points are not created equal: Explaining the fate of diffuse interests in the EU. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 10, 64–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strange, M. (2013). A European identity in global campaigning? Activist groups and the ‘Seattle to Brussels’ (S2B) network. Geopolitics, 18(3), 612–632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strange, M. (2014). Writing global trade governance: Discourse and the WTO. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• S2B Network. (2011). S2B GATS and democracy. Retrieved March 25, 2015 from http://www.s2bnetwork.org
   Google Scholar
• S2B Network. (2013). A brave new transatlantic partnership. October. Retrieved March 25, 2015 from http://www.s2bnetwork.org
   Google Scholar
• Verdun, A. (2008). Policy-making and integration in the European Union: Do economic interest groups matter? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 10, 129–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (2006). The WTO—Crisis and the governance of global trade. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Young, A. (2007). Trade politics ain’t what it used to be: The European Union in the Doha round. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 789–811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, A., & Peterson, J. (2006). The EU and the new trade politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 795–814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, A., & Peterson, J. (2013). ‘We care about you, but …’: The politics of EU trade policy and development. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(3), 497–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, H. (2007). Realist power Europe? The EU in the negotiations about China’s and Russia’s WTO accession. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 813–832.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar