Intergovernmental policy makes transnational politics?Footnote

This article is part of a wider project that has been funded with support from the European Union Erasmus+(Jean Monnet Chair Award 2012–3121 and Jean Monnet Center of Excellence Award 2014–1842). It reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained herein. I am grateful to Aarij Abbas, Simeon Bruce, Ha Young (Henry) Choi, Joshua Jacobs, Meghan Lowther, Jon Schmid and Daniel Yoon for their research assistance and to the government officials and interest groups representatives who took time out of their busy schedules to discuss these matters with me. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the ‘Transnational Relations and the Transatlantic Relationship Workshop’, at Georgetown University, 4–5 February 2016; the International Studies Association’s 57th Annual Convention in Atlanta, GA, 16–19 March 2016; the 23rd International Conference of Europeanists, Philadelphia, PA, 14–16 April 2016; and to the ‘21st Century Trade Politics: TTIP as a Test Case?’ Jean Monnet Workshop, Georgia Institute of Technology, 29–30 April 2016. I am grateful to the participants—particularly Na-Kyung (Haillie) Lee, Sophie Meunier, Abraham Newman, Mark Pollack, Christilla Roederer-Rynning and Gabriel Siles-Brügge—for their comments. I would also like to thank the three anonymous referees for their extremely rigorous, but constructive comments and Adam Lerner for his editing. I claim sole ownership of all errors and omissions.

The unusually transnational politics of TTIP

References

• AAF and CRA [European Starch Industry Association and Corn Refiners Association] (2012) ‘Comments in response to the federal register notice of September 28, 2012, ‘Promoting US EC regulatory compatibility: request for comments’, (USTR-2012-0028), 31 October
   Google Scholar
• AAFA [American Apparel and Footwear Association] and EURATEX (2014) ‘Letter to Michael Fromand and Karel De Gucht’, (10 March)
   Google Scholar
• AAPC and ACEA [American Automobile Producers Council and European Automobile Manufacturers Association] (2012) ‘AAPC and ACEA joint submission in support of automotive regulatory harmonization in a European Union-United States Trade and investment agreement’, 7 December
   Google Scholar
• AAFA, EBCA (European Branded Clothing Alliance) and USFIA [United States Fashion Industry Association] (2014) ‘Joint Position Paper on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’, <http://www.ebca-europe.org/?file=files/userdata/download/TTIP-joint-position-paper-AAFA-USFIA-EBCA.pdf>, accessed 26 February 2015
   Google Scholar
• ACC-CEFIC [American Chemical Council-European Chemical Industry Council] (2012) ‘CEFIC-ACC response to EU and US call of 7 September 2012 for input on regulatory issues for possible future trade agreement’, <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/december/tradoc_154100.pdf>, accessed 4 May 2015
   Google Scholar
• AFL-CIO (2016) ‘Trans-Pacific partnership free trade agreement (TPP)’, <http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP>, accessed 19 May 2016
   Google Scholar
• AFL-CIO and ETUC (2014) ‘TTIP Must Work for the People, or It Won’t Work at All’, 10 July
   Google Scholar
• AFL-CIO et al. (2014) ‘Concerning the Trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership,’ <http://www.greenbusinessnetwork.org/take-policy-action/item/986-concerning-the-trans-atlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership.html>, Accessed 17 August 2014
   Google Scholar
• AFME et al. [Association for Financial Markets in Europe] (2015) ‘EU/US trade associations joint statement on 9th round of TTIP negotiations,’ April. <http://www.sifma.org/newsroom/2015/sifma,_eu/us_trade_associations_joint_statement_on_9th_round_of_ttip_negotiations/>
   Google Scholar
• AITEC et al (2017) ‘EU-Japan deal: trading away our rights’, 11 September. <https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/welcome-to-jefta_e_a4.pdf>, Accessed 5 October 2017
   Google Scholar
• American Beekeeping Federation et al (2013) ‘Letter to USTR Ron Kirk’, 4 March
   Google Scholar
• Ayers, JM (2002) ‘Transnational political processes and contention against the global economy’ in J Smith, and H Johnston (eds) Globalization and resistance: transnational dimensions of social movements ( Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield), 191–205
   Google Scholar
• Bartley, T (2007) ‘Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: the rise of transnational private regulation of labour and environmental conditions’, American Journal of Sociology, 113:2, 297–351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BEUC [European Consumer Organisation] (2016) ‘CETA fails the consumer crash test: BEUC position on the EU–Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement’. Available at: <<www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2016-045_lau_ceta_position_paper.pdf>>, accessed 24 May 2017
   Google Scholar
• Bignami, F and S Charnovitz (2001) ‘Transatlantic Civil Society Dialogues’, in MA Pollack and GC Shaffer (eds) Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy (Rowman & Littlefield), 255–284
   Google Scholar
• BIO [Biotechnology Industry Association] and EuropaBio (2012) ‘EU-US high level working group on jobs and growth: response to consultation by EuropaBio and BIO.’ <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/cfm/doclib_section.cfm?sec=575&link_types=&dis=20&sta=121&en=140&page=7&langId=EN>, accessed 29 March 2018.
   Google Scholar
• BRT, TABD, ERT [Business Roundtable, Transatlantic Business Dialogue, European Roundtable] (2012) ‘Re: USTR-2012-0028 - EU and US call for input on regulatory issues for possible future trade agreement’, 31 October
   Google Scholar
• Commission and Canada (2008) ‘Assessing the Costs and Benefits of a Closer EU-Canada Economic Partnership: A Joint Study by the European Commission and the Government of Canada’, <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2008/october/tradoc_141032.pdf>, Accessed 6 October 2017
   Google Scholar
• Copa-Cogeca (2014) ‘Copa and Cogeca presidents underline challenges and opportunities to be had from EU/US free trade deal in high level meetings with lawmakers in Washington’, 2 July
   Google Scholar
• Coen, D (2009) ‘Business Lobbying in the European Union’, in D Coen and J Richardson (eds) Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press ), 145–168
   Google Scholar
• Coen, D, and J Richardson (2009) ‘Learning to lobby the European union: 20 years of change’, in D Coen and J Richardson (eds) Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 3–15
   Google Scholar
• De Ville, F, and G Siles-Brügge (2016) TTIP: The truth about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. (Cambridge: Polity)
   Google Scholar
• De Ville, F and G Siles-Brügge (2017) ‘Why TTIP is a game-changer and its critics have a point’, Journal of European Public Policy, 24:10, 1491–1505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ECPA and CLA [European Crop Protection Association and CropLife America] (2014) ‘Proposal on US-EU regulatory cooperation,’ 7 March
   Google Scholar
• EFPIA and PhRMA [European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America] (2012) ‘Re: request for public comments on promoting US EC regulatory compatibility,’ 31 Oct
   Google Scholar
• Eliasson, LJ, and Garcia-Duran, P (2018) ‘TTIP negotiations: interest groups, anti-TTIP civil society campaigns and public opinion’ Journal of Transatlantic Studies. doi: 10.1080/14794012.2018.1450069
   Google Scholar
• ETUC [European Trade Union Confederation] (2009) ‘Transatlantic economic council meeting with co-chairs,’ 27 October. <https://www.etuc.org/speeches/transatlantic-economic-council-meeting-co-chairs#.VvvjaU0UVDw>, accessed 30 March 2016
   Google Scholar
• ETUC & CLC [European Trade Union Congress & Canadian Labour Congress] (2016) ‘ETUC and CLC statement on CETA: more democracy for a fair and progressive trade agenda’, 28 October. <www.etuc.org/press/etuc-and-clc-statement-ceta-more-democracy-fair-and-progressivetrade-agenda#.WSXBkk0kupo>, accessed 24 May 2017
   Google Scholar
• FT View (2016) ‘Japan shows the world how to strike trade deals’, Financial Times, 6 December
   Google Scholar
• Keck, ME, and K Sikkink (1998) Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Knauss, J, and D Trubek (2001) ‘The Transatlantic Labour Dialogue: Minimal Action in a Weak Structure’, in MA Pollack and GC Shaffer (eds) Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield), 235–254
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos, C and T Fukui (2013) ‘EU-US Economic Linkages: The Role of Multinational and Intra-Firm Trade’, Chief Economist Note, (2), Directorate General for Trade, European Commission
   Google Scholar
• Lester, S and I Barbee (2013) ‘The challenge of cooperation: regulatory trade barriers in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership’, Journal of International Economic Law, 16: 847–867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowi, T (1964) ‘American business, public policy, and political theory’, World Politics, 16:4, 677–715
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malmström, C (2015) ‘EU-Japan FTA: crafting an ambitious deal’, speech at Keidanren, 29 May
   Google Scholar
• Netherlands (2015) ‘Negotiations on TTIP’, <https://www.government.nl/topics/ttip/contents/negotiations-ttip>, Accessed 20 May 2016
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, J, and AR Young (2007) ‘Trade and transatlantic relations’, in S Meunier and K McNamara (eds) Making History: European Integration and Institutional Change at Fifty: The State of the European Union, Vol 8 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 283–298
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, J et al (2005) ‘Review of the framework for relations between the European Union and the United States: an independent study,’ Tender Official Journal 2004/S 83-070340
   Google Scholar
• Pollack, MA (2005) ‘The new transatlantic agenda at ten: reflections on an experiment in international governance’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 43:5, 899–919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack, MA, and G Shaffer (2001) ‘Transatlantic governance in historical and theoretical perspective’, in MA Pollack and GC Shaffer (eds) Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield), 3–42
   Google Scholar
• Risse-Kappen, T (1995) ‘Bringing transnational relations back in: introduction’, in T Risse-Kappen (ed.), Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions (Cambridge University Press)10.1017/CBO9780511598760
   Google Scholar
• Seattle to Brussels Network (2017) ‘Secretive EU-Japan trade deal to be finalized away from public eye,’ 21 March. <http://www.s2bnetwork.org/statement-eu-japan/>. Accessed 24 March 2017
   Google Scholar
• Sell, SK and A Prakash (2004) ‘Using ideas strategically: the contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights’, International Studies Quarterly, 48: 143–175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman, R and J Eliasson (2006) ‘Trade disputes and non-state actors: new institutional arrangements and the privatisation of commercial diplomacy’, World Economy, 29: 473–489
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sierra, C (2013) The transatlantic free trade agreement: what’s at stake for communities and the environment (Washington, DC: Sierra Club)
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J (2002) ‘Globalizing Resistance: The Battle of Seattle and the Future of Social Movements’, in J Smith and H Johnston (eds) Globalization and Resistance: Transnational Dimensions of Social Movements (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield), 207–227
   Google Scholar
• Strange, M (2015a) ‘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’, International Journal of Public Administration, 38: 884–894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strange, M (2015b) ‘Implications of TTIP for transnational social movements and international NGOs’ in J-F Morin, T Novotná, F Ponjaert and M Telò (eds) The Politics of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations: TTIP in a Globalized World (Farnham: Ashgate), 81–90
   Google Scholar
• Suzuki, H (2017) ‘The new politics of trade: EU-Japan’, Journal of European Integration, 39:7, 875–889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TACD [Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue] (2013a) ‘Resolution on the approach to food and nutrition related issues in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership’, DOC NO: FOOD 34/13, October
   Google Scholar
• TACD (2013b) ‘Resolution on trade rules and financial regulation’, DOC NO: FINANCE 04/13, Oct
   Google Scholar
• TACD (2015) ‘Resolution on regulatory cooperation in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership’, Trade 17/15, April
   Google Scholar
• Tarrow, S (2002) ‘From lumping to splitting: specifying globalization and resistance’, in J Smith and H Johnston (eds) Globalization and Resistance: Transnational Dimensions of Social Movements (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield), 229–249
   Google Scholar
• Tarrow, S (2005) The New Transnational Activism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, D (2012) The politics of precaution: regulating health, safety, and environmental risks in europe and the united states (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)10.1515/9781400842568
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, JB (2011) ‘The real pattern of precaution’ in JB Wiener, MD Rogers, JK Hammitt and PH Sand (eds) The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe (Washington, DC: RFF Press), 519–565
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, JQ (1980) The politics of regulation (New York, NY: Basic Books)
   Google Scholar
• Young, AR (2009) ‘Confounding conventional wisdom: political not principled differences in the transatlantic regulatory relationship’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11:4, 666–689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, AR (2016) ‘Not your parents’ trade politics: The transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations’, Review of International Political Economy, 23:3, 345–378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, AR (2018) The new politics of trade: lessons from TTIP (Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing)
   Google Scholar