Robert Basedow

Bio: Robert Basedow is an academic researcher from London School of Economics and Political Science. The author has contributed to research in topics: European union & Commercial policy. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 4 publications receiving 7 citations.

EU Trade and Non-trade Objectives: New Survey Evidence on Policy Design and Effectiveness

Abstract: EU 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.

The WTO and the Rise of Plurilateralism—What Lessons can we Learn from the European Union’s Experience with Differentiated Integration?

Abstract: The de facto failure of the Doha Round has shaken the confidence in multilateral trade negotiations and governance. Policy-makers increasingly turn to plurilateralism—in the form of Plurilateral and Critical Mass Agreements—as a new strategy for global trade governance. The World Trade Organization (WTO) may develop into a ‘club of clubs’. The rise of plurilateralism creates opportunities and risks. Plurilateralism may reinvigorate world trade and modernise the WTO. But it may also fragment the global trade regime and disenfranchise countries. The article advances two arguments. First, the turn to plurilateralism is timely and promises to be welfare-enhancing as trade liberalization evolves from negative integration through tariff cuts to positive integration through rule convergence. Plurilateralism is often better suited to govern rule convergence. The article builds on the theory of club goods to underpin this claim. Second, the turn to plurilateralism nonetheless requires a carefully crafted governance approach to succeed. The article thus evaluates the rich experience of the European Union with so-called ‘differentiated integration’ to inform the policy debate in the WTO. It highlights that inter alia transparency, trust and institutional embedding are key to ensure that the WTO and her members benefit from the rise of plurilateralism.

The EU's International Investment Policy ten years on: the Policy-Making Implications of Unintended Competence Transfers

Abstract: In 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon empowered the EU to pursue an international investment policy and to conclude international investment agreements The EU's first steps in this policy domain have attracted considerable public attention Analysts depict competing societal interests as the main forces shaping EU policy in this domain This article scrutinizes this widespread perception It argues that competence struggles between the European Institutions and Member States, which still echo broad Member State opposition against the initial decision to empower the EU in this domain during the drafting of the Lisbon Treaty, play a similarly important role in shaping EU international investment policy This article enhances our understanding of EU policy-making in a highly salient policy domain and theoretically contributes to research on European Integration in that it shows that it matters for policy-making ‘how’ the EU received an underlying competence

Business Lobbying in International Investment Policy-Making in Europe

Abstract: Does European business lobby in international investment policy and notably for the conclusion of international investment agreements? The chapter argues that business is little involved in this policy domain due to limited perceived welfare effects. Theories of public choice and bureaucratic politics may better account for policy outcomes. The chapter verifies these hypotheses in case studies of international investment policy-making in Germany and the European Union. Finally, the chapter raises the question of whether the exceptional, vocal involvement of European business in the debates on investment regulation under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) might be the result of policy-maker influence on the business community. The findings imply that policy-makers may be freer in reforming their approach to international investment policy and international investment agreements than assumed.

Enhancement of the European Parliament's Monitoring for Better Coherence between Trade Policy and Non-Trade Policy Objectives (Ntpos)

Abstract: Since the Treaty of Lisbon, trade policy has become an explicit part of the EU's external policy and integrated into the general framework of the EU´s external policy, but must also be in conformity with internal policies. Thus, trade policy is subject to a requirement of multiple coherence. Beyond constitutional obligations, other drivers work for the inclusion of non-genuine commercial policy objectives in trade policy, such as the orientation of contemporary trade politics towards the behind the border issues of national regulation, so that trade policy became closely intertwined with domestic regulatory policy. Therefore the actors primarily responsible for legislation, i.e. parliaments, advocate for their extended participation in determining trade policy, and rightly so for reasons of transparency, control and political inclusiveness. Parliaments thus become actors of respect for and positive consideration of non-commercial policy objectives in trade policy, which applies as well to the European Parliament (EP). Hence, an institutional design of policy formulation cycles and decision-making in EU trade policy that strives for better coherence of trade concerns with NTPOs must focus on strengthening the influence of the EP and improve its participatory rights in decision-making and its control and monitoring mechanisms. Consequently, the present paper derives proposals for improving EP´s monitoring mechanisms for the benefit of non-trade policy objectives (NTPOs) in trade policy from an analysis of weaknesses in the negotiation and implementation stage of trade policy.

Adjudicating Disputes Along China’s New Silk Road: Towards Unity, Diversity or Fragmentation of International Law?

Abstract: This article analyses dispute resolution in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) from the perspective of the debate on unity, diversity and fragmentation of international law. This article presents a critical perspective that although the BRI preaches unity through greater economic (and social) integration, it currently increases fragmentation by failing to offer a unified dispute resolution mechanism. The analysis considers how some of the major procedural issues perceived in the BRI—at the time of transnational dispute management—are being addressed. Approaching this from the perspective of diversity in international law provides a novel method to consider BRI adjudication, and (potentially) a concrete target (of unity) to aim towards for strengthening the BRI as a genuine transnational law-making process. However, the consequences of increased fragmentation in BRI dispute resolution are many, including multiplications of disputes in different forums (with different procedures, case law and legal remedies) which, in the long term, will bring deep fragmentation among BRI countries and become an impediment to the BRI’s success. Finally, this article asks whether unity in BRI dispute resolution is a realistic target, considering the Chinese State’s (perceived) preference for maintaining flexibility in relation to the initiative, and highlights the long-term consequences for international lawyers of the fragmentation in BRI dispute resolution.

The Pursuit of Non-Trade Policy Objectives in EU Trade Policy

Abstract: The European Union (EU) often conditions preferential access to its market upon compliance by its trading partners with Non-Trade Policy Objectives (NTPOs), including human rights and labor and environmental standards. We systematically document the coverage of NTPOs in EU trade agreements and in its Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). We then examine the extent to which trade agreements and GSP programs can be used to promote NTPOs. Preferential trade agreements are negotiated under multilateral rules, which require members to eliminate all tariffs reciprocally. As a result, once a trade agreement enters into force, the EU cannot easily restrict or extend access to its market so as to “punish bad behavior” or “reward good behavior” on NTPOs by its trading partners. By contrast, GSP preferences are granted on a unilateral basis, so they can be limited or extended, depending on compliance with NTPOs. EU GSP programs can thus provide a carrot-and-stick mechanism to promote NTPOs in partner countries.