Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:08:24.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - New and Old Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2019

Edited by
Manfred Elsig ,
Michael Hahn  and
Gabriele Spilker
Manfred Elsig
Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
Michael Hahn
Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
Gabriele Spilker
Affiliation:
Universität Salzburg
Get access

Summary

In recent years, the negotiation of various trade agreements, such as the TPP, TTIP and CETA, has been accompanied by a large public backlash. Are we observing a paradigm shift in public perception of world trade or just temporary shifts in public support for the global economic order that oscillate around a more or less steady level? This chapter provides an overview of the major determinants of support for or opposition against PTAs and discusses how much room to maneuver policy makers have in designing such agreements. Furthermore, we discuss what policy makers can do to increase support for such agreements. We thereby focus on framing strategies and provide an analysis of which types of arguments are conducive to increase support for PTAs and how individuals process such information. This allows us to construct different future scenarios for policy makers to better align the negotiation and design of future trade agreements with the demand of their constituencies.

Keywords

preferential trade agreementssupportcontestationcitizencorporate political activitylobbyinganti-globalizationprotectionismEuropean Uniondigital tradeelectronic commerceWTOpreferential trade agreementsBig Datadata flowsrules of originNAFTAWTOtrade protectionWTOAppellate Bodydevelopmentintellectual propertyChinaanti-dumpingsubsidies
Type
Chapter
Information
The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade Governance
World Trade Forum
 , pp. 15 - 154
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Baker, A. 2003. “Why Is Trade Reform so Popular in Latin America? A Consumption-Based Theory of Trade Policy Preferences,” World Politics 55(3):423–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, A. 2005. “Who Wants to Globalize? Consumer Tastes and Labor Markets in a Theory of Trade Policy Beliefs,” American Journal of Political Science 49(4):924–38.Google Scholar
Baker, A. 2009. The Market and the Masses in Latin America: Policy Reform and Consumption in Liberalizing Economies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, E., and Napier, M., 2008. “Why Are Women More Protectionist than Men?” Working Paper, www.researchgate.net/publication/228803622_Why_Are_Women_More_Protectionist_Than_Men, accessed on 25 September 2017.Google Scholar
Bechtel, M., Bernauer, T, and Meyer, R. 2012. “Green Determinants of Protectionism: How Environmental Attitudes Shape Different Facets of Trade Policy Preferences,” Review of International Political Economy 19(5):837–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, T., and Nguyen, Q. 2015. “Free Trade and/or Environmental Protection?” Global Environmental Politics 15(4):105–29.Google Scholar
Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2016. “Attitudes to Global Trade and TTIP in Germany and the United States,” Bertelsmann Foundation, www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/publications/publication/did/attitudes-to-global-trade-and-ttip-in-germany-and-the-united-states/, accessed on 29 January 2018.Google Scholar
Burgoon, B., and Hiscox, M. 2004. “The Mysterious Case of Female Protectionism: Gender Bias in Attitudes toward International Trade.” Working Paper: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Burgoon, B., and Hiscox, M. J.. 2008. The Gender Divide over International Trade: Why Do Men and Women Have Different Views about Openness to the World Economy? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
CBS News/ New York Times Poll (CBS/NYT). 2016. “Before the Conventions: Insights into Trump and Clinton Voters,” (survey dates 22–24 February), www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/CBS_NYT_July_2016.pdf, accessed on 15 February 2017.Google Scholar
Cline, W. R. 1999. “Trade and Income Distribution: The Debate and New Evidence,” Working Paper 99-7, Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
CNN. 2016. “Edison Research National Exit Poll (Edison),” 23 November (survey date November 8), www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls, accessed on 15 February 2017.Google Scholar
Dollar, D., and Kraay, A.. 2002. “Spreading the Wealth,” Foreign Affairs 81(1): 120–33.Google Scholar
Dür, A., Baccini, L., and Elsig, M.. 2014. “The Design of International Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset,” The Review of International Organizations 9(3):53–375.Google Scholar
Dür, A., and Elsig, M.. 2015. Trade Cooperation. The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S. D., Maestas, C., Hearn, E., and Urbanski, P.. 2010. “Trade Policy Preferences and Concern About Your Job,” Paper presented at 2010 MPSA Annual Meeting, http://myweb.fsu.edu/eoh08/EMHU2010.html, accessed on 18 September 2011.Google Scholar
Fordham, B. O., and Kleinberg, K. B.. 2012. “How Can Economic Interests Influence Support for Free Trade?” International Organization 66(2):311–28.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J. K. 2002. “A Perfect Crime: Global Inequality,” Daedalus 131(1):11–25.Google Scholar
Guisinger, A. 2009. “Determining Trade Policy: Do Voters Hold Politicians Accountable?” International Organization 63(3):533–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guisinger, A. 2016. “Information, Gender, and Differences in Individual Preferences for Trade,” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 37(4):538–61.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, J., and Hiscox, M. J.. 2006. “Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes toward International Trade,” International Organization 60(2):469–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, J. C., Ehrlich, S. D., and Peinhardt, C.. 2005. “Government Spending and Public Support for Trade in the OECD: An Empirical Test of the Embedded Liberalism Thesis,” International Organization 59(2):473–94.Google Scholar
Hays, J. C. 2009. Globalization and the New Politics of Embedded Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Hicks, R., Milner, H. V., and Tingley, D.. 2014. “Trade Policy, Economic Interests and Party Politics in a Developing Country: The Political Economy of CAFTA,” International Studies Quarterly 58:106–17.Google Scholar
Hiscox, M. J. 2006. “Through a Glass and Darkly: Attitudes Toward International Trade and the Curious Effects of Issue Framing,” International Organization 60(3):755–80.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., and Puranen, B. et al. (eds.) 2014. World Values Survey: Round Three - Country-Pooled Datafile Version. Madrid: JD Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R., and Flanagan, S. C.. 1987. “Value Change in Industrial Societies,” American Political Science Review 81(4):1289–319.Google Scholar
Irwin, D. A. 1994. “The Political Economy of Free Trade,” Journal of Law and Economics 37: 75–108.Google Scholar
ISSP Research Group. 1998. “International Social Survey Programme: National Identity I – ISSP 1995,” Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.Google Scholar
ISSP Research Group. 2012. “International Social Survey Programme: National Identity II – ISSP 2003,” Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.Google Scholar
ISSP Research Group. 2015. “International Social Survey Programme: National Identity III – ISSP 2013,” Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.Google Scholar
Jesuit, D., and Smeeding, T.. 2002. “Poverty and Income Distribution,” Working Paper No. 293, Luxembourg Income Study, www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/293.pdf, accessed on 15 November 2017.Google Scholar
Jones, B. 2016. “Support for Free Trade Agreements Rebounds Modestly, But Wide Partisan Differences Remain,” Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-wide-partisan-differences-remain/, accessed on 15 January 2018.Google Scholar
Jones, B. 2017. Support for Trade Agreements Rebounds Modestly, but Wide Partisan Differences Remain. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-wide-partisan-differences-remain/.Google Scholar
Kaltenthaler, K., Geleeny, R. D., and Ceccoli, S. J.. 2004. “Explaining Citizen Support for Trade Liberalization,” International Studies Quarterly 48(4):829–51.Google Scholar
Kaltenthaler, K., and Miller, W.. 2013. “Social Psychology and Public Support for Trade Liberalization,” International Studies Quarterly 57(4):784–90.Google Scholar
Kocher, M. A., and Minushkin, S.. 2007. “Trade and Investment Policy Preferences and Public Opinion in Mexico,” Office of International Academic Affairs (CIDE), Nr. 134, http://cide.edu/publicaciones/status/dts/DTEI%20134.pdf, accessed on 18 September 2011.Google Scholar
Leamer, E. 1984. Sources of International Comparative Advantage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, A., and McCubbins, M. D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. D., and Mutz, D. C.. 2009. “Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety,” International Organization 63(3):425–57.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. D., Mutz, D. C., and Silver, L. R.. 2015. “Men, Women, Trade, and Free Markets,” International Studies Quarterly 59(2):303–15.Google Scholar
Margalit, Y. 2011. “Costly Jobs: Trade-related Layoffs, Government Compensation, and Voting in US Elections,” American Political Science Review 105(1):166–88.Google Scholar
Margalit, Y. 2012. “Lost in Globalization: International Economic Integration and the Sources of Popular Discontent,” International Studies Quarterly 56(3):484–500.Google Scholar
Mayda, A. M., and Rodrik, D.. 2005. “Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist than Others?” European Economic Review 49(6):1393–430.Google Scholar
Mutz, D., and Kim, E.. 2017. “The Impact of In-group Favoritism on Trade Preferences,” International Organization 71(4):827–50.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Q. 2017. “Mind the Gap: Rising Income Inequality and Individual Trade Policy Preferences,” European Journal of Political Economy 50:92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Q. 2018. “Taking a Step Back: Economic Performance and Salience of International Trade Issues,” International Journal of Public Opinion. DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edx024.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Q., and Bernauer, T.. 2018. “Does Social Trust Affect Public Support for International Trade? Insights from an Experiment in Vietnam,” Political Studies. DOI: 10.1177/0032321718773560.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, K., and Sinnott, R.. 2001. “The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence,” Paper presented at the Brookings Trade Policy Forum, www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/2/2306/papers/o’rourke.pdf, accessed on 17 July 2017.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2006. “Free Trade Agreements Get a Mixed Review,” Pew Research Center Poll, 19 December. (survey dates December 6–10), www.people-press.org/2006/12/19/free-trade-agreements-get-a-mixed-review/, accessed on 15 February 2017.Google Scholar
Rho, S., and Tomz, M.. 2017. “Why Don’t Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest?” International Organization 71(S1):85–108.Google Scholar
Rickard, S. J. 2015. “Compensating the Losers: An Examination of Congressional Votes on Trade Adjustment Assistance,” International Interactions 41(1):46–60.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. 1998. “Has Globalization Gone Too Far?” Challenge 41(2):81–94.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. 2011. The Globalization Paradox: Why Global Markets, States, and Democracy Can’t Coexist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saval, N. 2017. “Globalisation: The Rise and Fall of an Idea that Swept the World,” The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/globalisation-the-rise-and-fall-of-an-idea-that-swept-the-world, accessed on 15 September 2017.Google Scholar
Schaffer, L., and Spilker, G.. 2014. “Ego- vs. Sociotropic: Using Survey Experiments to Understand Individuals’ Trade Preferences,” NCCR Trade Working Paper No.2013/08.Google Scholar
Schaffer, L., and Spilker, G.. 2016. “Adding Another Level Individual Responses to Globalization and Government Welfare Policies,” Political Science Research and Methods 4(2):399–426.Google Scholar
Scheve, K. F., and Slaughter, M. J.. 2001. “What Determines Individual Trade Policy Preferences?” Journal of International Economics 54(2):267–92.Google Scholar
Singh, J. P. 2017. Sweet Talk: Paternalism and Collective Action in North-South Trade Relations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Sirota, D. 2006. “Caught on Tape: Tom Friedman’s Shocking Admission,” Huffington Post, 25 July, www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/caught-on-tape-tom-friedm_b_25789.html, accessed on 29 January 2018.Google Scholar
Spilker, G., Schaffer, L., and Bernauer, T.. 2012. “Does Social Capital Increase Public Support for Economic Globalisation?” European Journal of Political Research 51(6):756–84.Google Scholar
Spilker, G., Bernauer, T., and Umaña, V.. 2016a. “Selecting Partner Countries for Preferential Trade Agreements: Experimental Evidence from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Vietnam,” International Studies Quarterly 60(4):706–18.Google Scholar
Spilker, G., Nguyen, Q., and Bernauer, T.. 2016b. “The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in the Public Spotlight,” Paper presented at 6th Annual General Conference of the European Political Science Association (EPSA), 23–25 June 2016, Brussels.Google Scholar
Spilker, G., Bernauer, T., and Umaña, V.. 2018. “What Kind of Trade Liberalization Agreements Do People in Developing Countries Want?” International Interactions 44(3):510–36.Google Scholar
Stolper, W. F., and Samuelson, P. A.. 1941. “Protection and Real Wages,” Review of Economic Studies 9(2):58–73.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. W. 2015. “The Electoral Salience of Trade Policy: Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Welfare and Complexity,” International Interactions 41(4):84–109.Google Scholar
Uslaner, E. M. 2003. “Trust as an Alternative to Risk,” Paper presented at the Conference on Trust and the Management of Technological Risk: Implications for Business and Society, University of Zurich, Zurich. 17–20 September.Google Scholar
Weck-Hannemann, H. 1990. “Protectionism in Direct Democracy,” Journal of International Theoretical Economics 146(3):389–418.Google Scholar

References

Aguinis, H. 2011. “Organizational Responsibility: Doing Good and Doing Well,” In: Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 855–79.Google Scholar
Altenberg, P. 2017. “Protectionism in the 21st Century and Trade Barriers Faced by Firms,” In: ICC, 2017 Rethinking Trade and Finance. Paris: International Chamber of Commerce.Google Scholar
Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T. M., and Louviere, J. J.. 2003. “What Will Consumers Pay for Social Product Features?” Journal of Business Ethics 42(3):281–304.Google Scholar
Baker, A. 2005. “Who Wants to Globalize? Consumer Tastes and Labor Markets in a Theory of Trade Policy Beliefs,” American Journal of Political Science 49(4):924–38.Google Scholar
Baron, D. P. 1995. “Integrated Strategy: Market and Nonmarket Components,” California Management Review 37(2):47–65.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. 2016. Manufacturing Discontent: The Rise to Power of Anti-TTIP Groups, ECIPE Occasional Paper 2/2016. Brussels: European Centre for International Political Economy.Google Scholar
BBC. 2017. “The End of Globalisation,” Business Daily Podcast, www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p056dl6g, accessed on 3 July 2017.Google Scholar
Belk, R., Devinney, T., and Eckhardt, G.. 2005. “Consumer Ethics Across Cultures,” Consumption Markets & Culture 8(3):275–89.Google Scholar
Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B., and Schott, P. K.. 2009. “Importers, Exporters and Multinationals: A Portrait of Firms in the US that Trade Goods,” In Dunne, T., Jensen, J. B., and Roberts, M. (Eds) Producer Dynamics: New Evidence from Micro Data. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 513–52.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, J. N. 1989. Protectionism (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bombardini, M., and Trebbi, F.. 2012. “Competition and Political Organization: Together or Alone in Lobbying for Trade Policy?” Journal of International Economics 87(1):18–26.Google Scholar
Brenton, P., and Pelkmans, J.. 1999. Global Trade and European Workers. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Brook, D.A. 2005. “Meta-Strategic Lobbying: The 1998 Steel Imports Case,” Business and Politics 7(1):1–24.Google Scholar
CEC. 2008. Standard Eurobarometer 68. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/eb/eb68/eb68_en.htm, accessed on 18 May 2017.Google Scholar
CEC. 2010. International Trade Report. Special Eurobarometer Report 357. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_357_en.pdf, accessed on 18 May 2017.Google Scholar
CEC. 2012. Standard Eurobarometer 78, Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/eb/eb78/eb78_first_en.pdf, accessed on 16 October 2018.Google Scholar
CEC. 2016. Standard Eurobarometer 86. Brussels: European Commission. http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2137_86_2_STD86_ENG, accessed 18 May 2017.Google Scholar
Clarke, J., and Newman, J. 2017. “People in this Country Have Had Enough of Experts: Brexit and the Paradoxes of Populism,” Critical Policy Studies 11(1):101–16.Google Scholar
Cline, W. R. 1997. Trade and Income Distribution. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Cuervo-Cazurrra, A., Mudambi, R., and Pedersen, T.. 2017. “Globalization: Rising Skepticism,” Global Strategy Journal 7(2):155–8.Google Scholar
Curran, L., and Eckhardt, J.. 2017. “Smoke Screen? The Globalization of Production, Transnational Lobbying and the International Political Economy of Plain Tobacco Packaging,” Review of International Political Economy 24(1):87–118.Google Scholar
Curran, L., and Eckhardt, J.. 2018. “Strategic Responses of Trade Dependent Firms to Rising Trade Protectionism,” Paper presented at Würzburg International Business Forum’s International Business Conference. May.Google Scholar
Curran, L., and Ng, L.. 2018. “Running Out of Steam on Emerging Markets? The Limits of MNE Firm-Specific Advantages in China,” Multinational Business Review 26(3):207–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/.Google Scholar
De Backer, K., and Flaig, D.. 2017. “The Future of Global Value Chains: Business as Usual or ‘A New Normal’?,” OECD Science Technology and Innovation Policy Papers No. 41. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
De Backer, K., et al. 2016. “Reshoring: Myth or Reality?,” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 27. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
De Bièvre, D., and Eckhardt, J.. 2011. “Interest Groups and EU Anti-dumping Policy,” Journal of European Public Policy 18(3):339–60.Google Scholar
De Ville, F., and Siles-Brugge, G.. 2015. “The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Role of Computable General Equilibrium Modelling: An Exercise in ‘Managing Fictional Expectations,” New Political Economy 20(5):653–78.Google Scholar
Denslow, D., and Fullerton, T. M.. 1996. “Consumer Attitudes toward Trade Liberalization,” Applied Economic Letters 3:179–82.Google Scholar
Destler, I. M., Odell, J. S., and Elliott, K. A.. 1987. Anti-Protection: Changing Forces in United States Trade Politics. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Dowd, K. 2017. “A Trade Policy for a Brexited Britain,” IEA Discussion Paper No.85. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Dür, A. 2010. Protection for Exporters: Power and Discrimination in Transatlantic Trade Relations, 1930–2010. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, J. 2011. “Firm Lobbying and EU Trade Policymaking: Reflections on the Anti-dumping Case against Chinese and Vietnamese Shoes (2005–2011),” Journal of World Trade 45(5):965–91.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, J. 2013. “EU Unilateral Trade Policy‐Making: What Role for Import‐Dependent Firms?” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 51(6): 989–1005.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, J. 2015. Business Lobbying and Trade Governance: The Case of EU-China Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, J., and de Bièvre, D.. 2015. “Boomerangs over Lac Leman: Transnational Lobbying and Foreign Venue Shopping in WTO Dispute Settlement,” World Trade Review 14(3):507–30.Google Scholar
Egels-Zandén, N. 2014. “Revisiting Supplier Compliance with MNC Codes of Conduct: Recoupling Policy and Practice at Chinese Toy Suppliers,” Journal of Business Ethics 119(1):59–75.Google Scholar
Egels-Zandén, N., and Lindholm, H.. 2015. “Do Codes of Conduct Improve Worker Rights in Supply Chains? A study of Fair Wear Foundation,” Journal of Cleaner Production 107:31–40.Google Scholar
Evenett, S. J. 2014. “The Global Trade Disorder,” The 16th GTA Report. CEPR 63.Google Scholar
Evenett, S. J., and Fritz, J.. 2015. “The Tide Turns? Trade, Protectionism, and Slowing Global Growth,” Global Trade Alert Report no. 18. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
Evenett, S. J., and Fritz, J.. 2016. “Global Trade Plateaus,” Global Trade Alert Report no. 19. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
Evenett, S. J., and Fritz, J.. 2017. “Will Awe Trump Rules?” Global Trade Alert Report no. 21 London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
Farrand, B. 2015. “Lobbying and Lawmaking in the European Union: The Development of Copyright Law and the Rejection of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 35(3):487–514.Google Scholar
Financial Times. 2018. “What Would a No-deal Brexit Mean for Your Finances?” 3 August 2018, available at: www.ft.com/content/d89459d2-9023-11e8-b639-7680cedcc421.Google Scholar
FN. 2017. Choisir La France. Paris: Front National.Google Scholar
Ghemawat, P. 2011. “The Cosmopolitan Corporation,” Harvard Business Review May 2011:92–99.Google Scholar
Gibbon, P., and Ponte, S.. 2005. Trading Down: Africa, Value Chains and the Global Economy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, M. J. 1997. “Lobbying as a Private Good with Intra-industry Trade,” International Studies Quarterly 41(3):455–74.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. J., and Heath, O.. 2016. “The 2016 Referendum, Brexit and the Left Behind: An Aggregate‐level Analysis of the Result,” The Political Quarterly 87(3):323–32.Google Scholar
Haddad, M-P. 2017. “Revivez ‘Le Grand Débat’ avec les 11 Candidats,” Présidentielle 2017, RTL. 04/04/2017, www.rtl.fr/actu/politique/en-direct-election-presidentielle-2017-le-grand-debat-7787946201, accessed on 15 May 2017.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, J., and Hiscox, M. J.. 2006. “Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade,” International Organization 60(2):469–98.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., and Schuler, D.. 2004. “Corporate Political Activity: A Review and Research Agenda,” Journal of Management 30(6):837–57.Google Scholar
HMSO. 2017. The United Kingdom’s Exit from and New Partnership with the European Union, London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Horner, R., and Nadvi, K.. 2018. “Global Value Chains and the Rise of the Global South: Unpacking 21st Century Polycentric Trade,” Global Networks 18(2):207–37.Google Scholar
Irwin, D. A. 1996. Against the Tide: An Intellectual History of Free Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kasahara, H., and Lapham, B.. 2013. “Productivity and the Decision to Import and Export: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of International Economics 89(2):297–316.Google Scholar
Kobrin, S. J. 2017. “Bricks and Mortar in a Borderless World: Globalization, the Backlash, and the Multinational Enterprise,” Global Strategy Journal 7(2):159–71.Google Scholar
Kolk, A., and Curran, L.. 2017. “Contesting a Place in the Sun: On Ideologies in Foreign Markets and Liabilities of Origin,” Journal of Business Ethics 142(4):697–717.Google Scholar
Korski, D. 2016. “Why We Lost the Brexit Vote,” Politico, 20 October 2016, www.politico.eu/article/why-we-lost-the-brexit-vote-former-uk-prime-minister-david-cameron/, accessed on 20 October 2016.Google Scholar
Lawton, T., Lindeque, J., and McGuire, S.. 2009. “Multilateralism and the Multinational Enterprise,” Business and Politics 11(2):1–26.Google Scholar
Lindeque, J. P., and McGuire, S. M.. 2010. “Non-market Capabilities and the Prosecution of Trade Remedy Cases in the United States,” Journal of World Trade 44(4):903–30.Google Scholar
Locke, R. M. 2013. “Lead Essay: Can Global Brands Create Just Supply Chains?” Boston Review, May/June.Google Scholar
Locke, R.M., Amanguel, M., and Mangla, A.. 2009. “Virtue Out of Necessity: Compliance, Commitment, and the Improvement of Labor Standards,” Politics & Society 37(3):319–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, R. M., Rissing, B., and Timea, P.. 2013. “Complements or Substitutes? Private Codes, State Regulation and the Enforcement of Labour Standards in Global Supply Chains,” British Journal of Industrial Relations 51(3):519–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund-Thomsen, P., and Lindgreen, A.. 2014. “Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Value Chains: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?” Journal of Business Ethics 123(1):11–22.Google Scholar
Madeira, M. A. 2016. “New Trade, New Politics: Intra-industry Trade and Domestic Political Coalitions,” Review of International Political Economy 23(4):677–711.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. D., and Mutz, D. C.. 2009. “Support for Free Trade: Self-interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-group Anxiety,” International Organization 63(3):425–57.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. D., and Mutz, D. C.. 2013. “US versus Them: Mass Attitudes toward Offshore Outsourcing,” World Politics 65(4):571–608.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. D., Mutz, D. C., and Silver, L. R.. 2015. “Men, Women, Trade, and Free Markets,” International Studies Quarterly 59(2):303–15.Google Scholar
Marks, S. 2016. “Canadian Minister: EU Talks Have Failed,” Politico, 21 October 2016, www.politico.eu/article/canadian-minister-says-eu-trade-talks-have-failed/, accessed on 16 May 2017.Google Scholar
Martin, H.-P., and Schumann, H.. 1997. The Global Trap: Globalization and the Assault on Prosperity and Democracy. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
May, T. 2017. “PM Theresa May’s Brexit Speech,” Lancester House, London, 17 January 2017, www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech, accessed on 20 January 2017.Google Scholar
Mayda, A. M. 2008. “Why Are People More Pro-trade Than Pro-migration?,” Economics Letters 101(3):160–3.Google Scholar
Mayda, A. M., and Rodrik, D.. 2005. “Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist Than Others?,” European Economic Review 49(6):1393–430.Google Scholar
Nadvi, K., and Raj-Reichert, G.. 2015. “Governing Health and Safety at Lower Tiers of the Computer Industry Global Value Chain,” Regulation & Governance 9(3):243–58.Google Scholar
The New York Times. 1992, “The 1992 Campaign; Transcript of 2d TV Debate Between Bush, Clinton and Perot,” 16 October 1992, www.nytimes.com/1992/10/16/us/the-1992-campaign-transcript-of-2d-tv-debate-between-bush-clinton-and-perot.html?pagewanted=all.Google Scholar
The New York Times. 2018, “Mr. Trump’s Tariffs Will Not Bring Back Manufacturing Jobs,” 23 January 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/opinion/trumps-tariffs-manufacturing-jobs.html.Google Scholar
Osgood, I. 2017. “Industrial Fragmentation over Trade: The Role of Variation in Global Engagement,” International Studies Quarterly 61(3):642–59.Google Scholar
Rashish, P. S. 2017. US Trade Policy in the Age of Trump: What Role for Europe in the ‘New Nationalism’? Brussels: European Policy Centre.Google Scholar
Riisgaard, L., and Hammer, N.. 2011. “Prospects for Labour in Global Value Chains: Labour Standards in the Cut Flower and Banana Industries,” British Journal of Industrial Relations 49(1):168–90.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. 2017. “Populism and the Economics of Globalization,” CEPR Discussion Paper DP12119, London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
Rugman, A., and Verbeke, A.. 1989. “Trade Policy and Global Corporate Strategy,” Journal of Global Marketing 2 (3):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V. A. 2017. “Britain-out and Trump-in: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis of the British Referendum on the EU and the US Presidential Election,” Review of International Political Economy 24(2):248–69.Google Scholar
Schnietz, K. E., and Nieman, T.. 1999. “Politics Matter: The 1997 Derailment of Fast-Track Trade Authority,” Business and Politics 1(2):233–51.Google Scholar
Schrempf-Stirling, J., and Guido Palazzo, G.. 2016. “Upstream Corporate Social Responsibility: The Evolution from Contract Responsibility to Full Producer Responsibility,” Business & Society 55(4):491–527.Google Scholar
Schuler, D. A., and Rehbein, K.. 2011. “Determinants of Access to Legislative and Executive Branch Officials: Business Firms and Trade Policymaking in the U.S.,” Business and Politics 13 (3):1–30.Google Scholar
Solis, M. 2013. “Business Advocacy in Asian PTAs: A Model of Selective Corporate Lobbying with Evidence from Japan,” Business and Politics 15(1):87–116.Google Scholar
Taplin, I. M. 2014. “Who Is to Blame? A Re-examination of Fast Fashion after the 2013 Factory Disaster in Bangladesh,” Critical Perspectives on International Business 10(1/2):72–83.Google Scholar
Thacker, S. C. 2000. “Private Sector Trade Politics in Mexico,” Business and Politics 2 (2):161–87.Google Scholar
VanGrasstek, C. 2016. “What Will Happen to U.S. Trade Policy When Trump Runs the Zoo?,” ECIPE Occasional Paper, 03/2016. Brussels: European Centre for International Political Economy.Google Scholar
Walley, C. J. 2017. “Trump’s Election and the ‘White Working Class’: What We Missed,” American Ethnologist 44(2):231–6.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2002. “Globalization, Growth and Poverty,” Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Yildirim, A. B., Chatagnier, J. T., Poletti, A., and De Bièvre, D.. 2018. “The Internationalization of Production and the Politics of Compliance in WTO Disputes,” The Review of International Organizations 13(1):49–75.Google Scholar

References

Aaronson, S. 2015. “Why Trade Agreements Are Not Setting Information Free: The Lost History and Reinvigorated Debate over Cross-Border Data Flows, Human Rights and National Security,” World Trade Review 14(4):671–700.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. 2015. “Protection of Non-Trade Values in WTO Appellate Body Jurisprudence: Exceptions, Economic Arguments, and Eluding Questions,” Journal of International Economic Law 18: 383–405.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y. 2000. “From Consumers to Users,” Federal Communications Law Journal 52: 561–79.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y. 2011. “Growth-oriented Law for the Networked Information Economy: Emphasizing Freedom to Operate Over Power to Appropriate,” In: Kauffman Taskforce on Law, Innovation and Growth (Ed.), Rules for Growth: Promoting Innovation and Growth through Legal Reform. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Foundation, pp. 313–42.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. J. and Bayley, R. M.. 2016. “Privacy Protection in the Era of ‘Big Data’: Regulatory Challenges and Social Assessments,” In: van der Sloot, B., Broeders, D., and Schrijvers, E. (Eds.), Exploring the Boundaries of Big Data. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, pp. 205–27.Google Scholar
Bughin, J. et al. 2016. Digital Europe: Pushing the Frontier, Capturing the Benefits. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar
Burri, M. 1997. EC Electronic Communications and Competition Law. London: Cameron May.Google Scholar
Burri, M. 2009. “Trade versus Culture in the Digital Environment: An Old Conflict in Need of a New Definition,” Journal of International Economic Law 12: 17–62.Google Scholar
Burri, M. 2015a. “The International Economic Law Framework for Digital Trade,” Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht 135: 10–72.Google Scholar
Burri, M. 2015b. “The EU, the WTO and Cultural Diversity,” In: Psychogiopoulou, E. (Ed.), Cultural Governance and the European Union: Protecting and Promoting Cultural Diversity in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 195–204.Google Scholar
Burri, M. 2015c. Public Service Broadcasting 3.0: Legal Design for the Digital Present. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burri, M. 2017a. “The Regulation of Data Flows in Trade Agreements,” Georgetown Journal of International Law 48:408–48.Google Scholar
Burri, M. 2017b. “The Governance of Data and Data Flows in Trade Agreements: The Pitfalls of Legal Adaptation,” UC Davies Law Review 51:65–132.Google Scholar
Burri, M. and Cottier, T. (Eds.) 2012. Trade Governance in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burri, M. and Schär, R. 2016. “The Reform of the EU Data Protection Framework: Outlining Key Changes and Assessing Their Fitness for a Data-Driven Economy,” Journal of Information Policy 6:479–511.Google Scholar
Chander, A. 2012. “Facebookistan,” North Carolina Law Review 90:1807–42.Google Scholar
Chander, A. 2014. “How Law Made Silicon Valley,” Emory Law Journal 63:639–94.Google Scholar
Chander, A. 2016. “National Data Governance in a Global Economy,” UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper 495.Google Scholar
Chander, A. and Lê, U.P.. 2013, “Free Speech,” UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper 351:1–51.Google Scholar
Chander, A. and Lê, U.P.. 2015. “Data Nationalism,” Emory Law Journal 64: 677–739.Google Scholar
Castro, D. and McQuinn, A.. 2015. Cross-border Data Flows Enable Growth in All Industries. Washington, DC: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. and Van Alstyne, M.. 2015. “Permissionless Innovation,” Communications of the ACM 58: 24–6.Google Scholar
Cho, S. and Kelly, C. R.. 2013. “Are World Trading Rules Passé?,” Virginia Journal of International Law 53: 623–66.Google Scholar
Cimino, C., Hufbauer, G. C. and Schott, J. J.. 2014. “A Proposed Code to Discipline Local Content Requirements,” Peterson Institute of International Economics Policy Brief 4.Google Scholar
Copenhagen Economics. 2010. Expanding the Information Technology Agreement (ITA): Economic and Trade Impacts, Final Report for the European Commission.Google Scholar
Dittmar, J. E. 2011. “Information Technology and Economic Change: The Impact of the Printing Press,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126: 1133–72.Google Scholar
Drake, W. J. 2016. “Background Paper for the Workshop on Data Localization and Barriers to Transborder Data Flows,” September 14–15, 2016, World Economic Forum, Geneva.Google Scholar
The Economist. 2017. “The World’s Most Valuable Resource Is No Longer Oil, but Data,” print edition, May 6, 2017.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2015. A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM (2015) 192 final, May 6, 2015.Google Scholar
European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA). 2014. Privacy and Data Protection by Design – from Policy to Engineering. Brussels: ENISA.Google Scholar
Ezrachi, A. and Stucke, M. E.. 2016. Virtual Competition: The Promise and Perils of the Algorithm-driven Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fefer, R. et al. 2017. Digital Trade and US Trade Policy. Congressional Research Service, CRS Report R44565.Google Scholar
Flew, T. 2014. New Media: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Floridi, L. 2014. The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gao, H. 2012. “Googling for the Trade−Human Rights Nexus in China: Can the WTO Help?” In: Burri, M. and Cottier, T. (Eds.), Trade Governance in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–75.Google Scholar
Gasser, U. 2015. “Perspectives on the Future of Digital Privacy,” Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht 135:335–448.Google Scholar
Gasser, U. 2016. “Recoding Privacy Law: Reflections on the Future Relationship Among Law, Technology, and Privacy,” Harvard Law Review 130: 61–70.Google Scholar
Gasser, U. and Palfrey, J.. 2012, “Fostering Innovation and Trade in the Global Information Society: The Different Facets and Roles of Interoperability,” In: Burri, M. and Cottier, T. (Eds.), Trade Governance in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–53.Google Scholar
Grimmelmann, J. 2016. Internet Law. Oregon City, OR: Semaphore Press.Google Scholar
Henke, N. et al. 2016. The Age of Analytics: Competing in a Data-Driven World. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar
Hestermeyer, H. P. and Nielsen, L.. 2014. “The Legality of Local Content Measures under WTO Law,” Journal of World Trade 48: 553–92.Google Scholar
Human Rights Council. 2011. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, A/HRC/17/27, May 16, 2011.Google Scholar
Jovanovic, B. and Rousseau, P. L.. 2005. “General Purpose Technologies,” In: Aghion, P. and Durlauf, S. N. (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1182–1224.Google Scholar
Kauffman Taskforce on Law, Innovation and Growth. 2011. Rules for Growth: Promoting Innovation and Growth through Legal Reform. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Foundation.Google Scholar
Kommerskollegium. 2012. Everybody Is in Services: The Impact of Servicifcation in Manufacturing on Trade and Trade Policy. Stockholm: National Board of Trade.Google Scholar
Kommerskollegium. 2015. No Transfer, No Production: Report on Cross-border Data Transfers, Global Value Chains, and the Production of Goods. Stockholm: Swedish Board of Trade.Google Scholar
Kommerskollegium. 2016. Trade Regulation in a 3D Printed World. Stockholm: Swedish National Board of Trade.Google Scholar
Kuner, C. 2011. “Regulation of Transborder Data Flows under Data Protection and Privacy Law: Past, Present and Future,” OECD Digital Economy Paper 187.Google Scholar
Lanz, R. and Maurer, A.. 2015. “Services and Global Value Chains – Some Evidence on Servicification of Manufacturing and Services Networks,” WTO Working Paper ERSD 3.Google Scholar
Manyika, J. et al. 2011. Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar
Manyika, J. 2013. Disruptive Technologies: Advances That Will Transform Life, Business, and the Global Economy. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar
Manyika, J. 2016. Digital Globalization: The New Era of Global Flows. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar
Mayer-Schönberger, V. and Cukier, K.. 2013. Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. New York: Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Meltzer, J. P. 2016. “Maximizing the Opportunities of the Internet for International Trade,” E15 Expert Group on the Digital Economy – Policy Options Paper. Geneva: ICTSD.Google Scholar
OECD. 2015. Emerging Policy Issues: Localisation Barriers to Trade, TAD/TC/WP(2014)17/FINAL, May 12, 2015.Google Scholar
OECD, WTO and World Bank Group. 2014. Global Value Chains: Challenges, Opportunities, and Implications for Policy. Report prepared for submission to the G20 Trade Ministers Meeting Sydney, July 19, 2014.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. 3rd ed. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Schwab, K. 2017. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. New York: Portfolio.Google Scholar
Schwartz, P. M. 2013. “The EU-US Privacy Collision: A Turn to Institutions and Procedures,” Harvard Law Review 126: 1966–2009.Google Scholar
Schwartz, P. M. and Solove, D. J.. 2014. “Reconciling Personal Information in the United States and European Union,” California Law Review 102: 877–916.Google Scholar
Shapiro, C. and Varian, H.R.. 1999. Information Rules. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Solove, D. J. 2006. “A Taxonomy of Privacy,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154: 477–560.Google Scholar
Tuthill, L. and Roy, M.. 2012. “GATS Classification Issues for Information and Communication Technology Services,” In: Burri, M. and Cottier, T. (Eds.), Trade Governance in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 157–78.Google Scholar
Torrey, Z. 2018, “TPP 2.0: The Deal without the US: What’s New about the CPTPP and What Do the Changes Mean?” The Diplomat, February 3, 2018, available at: https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/tpp-2-0-the-deal-without-the-us/.Google Scholar
United States International Trade Commission (USITC). 2013. Digital Trade in the US and Global Economies, Part 1, Investigation No 332–531. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
United States International Trade Commission (USITC). 2014. Digital Trade in the US and Global Economies, Part 2, Investigation No 332–540. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
US President’s Advisory Council on Science and Technology. 2014. Big Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
van Oranje-Nassau, C. et al. 2008. Responding to Convergence, Prepared for the Dutch Independent Telecommunications and Post Regulator. Oxford: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Weber, R. H. and Burri, M.. 2012. Classification of Services in the Digital Economy. Bern: Stämpfli.Google Scholar
Werbach, K. 2002. “A Layered Model for Internet Policy,” Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law 1: 37–67.Google Scholar
Whitt, R. S. 2013. “A Deference to Protocol: Fashioning a Three-dimensional Public Policy Framework for the Internet Age,” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 31: 689–768.Google Scholar
Whitt, R. S. and Schultze, S.. 2009. “The New ‘Emergence Economics’ of Innovation and Growth, and What It Means for Communications Policy,” Journal of Telecommunication and High Technology Law 7:217–315.Google Scholar
WTO. 1996. Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products, WT/MIN(96)/16.Google Scholar
WTO. 1997. European Communities and Their Member States, Schedule of Specific Commitments, Trade in Services, Supplement 3, GATS/SC/31/Suppl. 3.Google Scholar
WTO. 2003. Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, Submission by the European Communities WT/GC/W/497.Google Scholar
WTO. 2006. Communication from the European Communities and Its Member States, Draft consolidated GATS Schedule, S/C/W/273.Google Scholar
WTO. 2010. Council for Trade in Services, Audiovisual Services, Background Note by the Secretariat, S/C/W/310.Google Scholar
WTO. 2011. Communication from the European Union and the United States: Contribution to the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, S/C/W/338.Google Scholar
WTO. 2012. 15 Years of the Information Technology Agreement: Trade, Innovation and Global Production Networks. Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
Wu, T. 1999. “Application-Centered Internet Analysis,” Virginia Law Review 85: 1163–204.Google Scholar
Wunsch-Vincent, S. 2003. “The Digital Trade Agenda of the US: Parallel Tracks of Bilateral, Regional and Multilateral Liberalization,” Aussenwirtschaft 1: 7–46.Google Scholar
Wunsch-Vincent, S. and Hold, A.. 2012. “Towards Coherent Rules for Digital Trade: Building on Efforts in Multilateral versus Preferential Trade Negotiations,” In: Burri, M. and Cottier, T. (Eds.), Trade Governance in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 179–221.Google Scholar
Yu, P. K. 2014. “Trade Agreement Cats and Digital Technology Mouse,” In: Mercurio, B. and Kuei-Jung, N. (Eds.), Science and Technology in International Economic Law: Balancing Competing Interests. Abington: Routledge, pp. 185–211.Google Scholar
Zittrain, J. L. 2008. The Future of the Internet – and How to Stop It. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Zittrain, J. L. et al. 2017. “The Shifting Landscape of Global Internet Censorship,” Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2017-4.Google Scholar

References

Cadot, O. and de Melo, J.. 2007. “Why OECD Countries Should Reform Rules of Origin,” Manuscript, University of Lausanne.Google Scholar
Cadot, O., de Melo, J., Estevadeordal, A., Suwa-Eisenman, A. and Tumurchudur, B.. 2002. “Assessing the Effect of NAFTA’s Rules of Origin,” In: Laboratoire d’Economie Appliquee, INRA, Research Unit Working Papers.Google Scholar
Conconi, P., Garcia-Santana, M., Puccio, L., and Venturini, R.. 2016. “From Final Goods to Inputs: The Protectionish Effect of Rules of Origin,” CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP11084, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2726564.Google Scholar
Estevadeordal, A. and Suominen, K.. 2003. “Rules of Origin in the World Trading System,” Paper Prepared for the Seminar on Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO. Geneva, 14 November.Google Scholar
Estevadeordal, A., Suominen, K., Harris, J. and Shearer, M.. 2009. Bridging Regional Trade Agreements in the Americas: Special Report on Integration and Trade. IDB Publications, Interamerican Development Bank, no 255.Google Scholar
Falvey, R. and Reed, G.. 1998. “Economic Effects of Rules of Origin,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 134(2):209–29.Google Scholar
Ju, J. and Krishna, K.. 2005. “Firm Behaviour and Market Access in a Free Trade Area with Rules of Origin,” Canadian Journal of Economics 38(1):290–308.Google Scholar
Krishna, K. 2005. “Understanding Rules of Origin,” NBER Working Paper 11150.Google Scholar
Krishna, K. and Krueger, A.. 1995. “Implementing Free Trade Areas: Rules of Origin and Hidden Protection,” In: Deardorff, A., Levinsohn, J. and Stern, R. (Eds.), New Directions in Trade Theory. University of Michigan Press, pp. 149–87.Google Scholar
Moroz, A. 2017. “Navigating the Maze: Canada, Rules of Origin and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (and Two Tales of Supply Chains),” In: Van Assche, A., Wolfe, R. and Tapp, S. (Eds.), Redesigning Canadian Trade Policies for New Global Realities. Montreal, Canada: IRPP.Google Scholar

References

Acheson, D. 1969. Present at the Creation, My Years in the State Department. New York: W. Norton.Google Scholar
Alford, R. P. 2006. “Reflections on US – Zeroing: A Study in Judicial Overreaching by the WTO Appellate Body,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 45:196–220.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. D. and Müller, A. C.. 2017. “The Revised WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA): Key Design Features and Significance for Global Trade and Development,” WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2017-04.Google Scholar
Bacchus, J. 2017. “The Case for a WTO Climate Waiver,” Centre for International Governance Innovation. Special Report published November 2, 2017. www.cigionline.org/publications/case-wto-climate-waiverGoogle Scholar
Bacchus, J. 2018. “The Content of a WTO Climate Waiver,” Centre for International Governance Innovation. CIGI Papers No. 204 published December 4, 2018. www.cigionline.org/publications/content-wto-climate-waiverGoogle Scholar
Bellmann, C. 2014. “The Bali Agreement: Implications for Development and the WTO,” International Development Policy [Online], 5.2. http://journals.openedition.org/poldev/1744, last accessed November 12, 2018.Google Scholar
Bungenberg, M., Hahn, M., Herrmann, C. and Müller-Ibold, T.. (Eds.) 2018. The Future of Trade Defence Instruments: Global Policy Trends and Legal Challenges. European Yearbook of International Economic Law. Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
China’s Position Paper on WTO Reform, published November 29, 2018.Google Scholar
Condon, B. J. and Sinha, T.. 2014. “The Role of International Economic Law in Addressing Climate Change,” In: Connecting to Global Markets – Challenges and Opportunities: Case Studies Presented by WTO Chair-holders. Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
Davey, W. J. 2009. “The Limits of Judicial Processes,” In: Bethlehem, D., McRae, D., Neufeld, R. and Van Damme, I. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of International Trade Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 460–80.Google Scholar
Dawar, K. 2017. “The Government Procurement Agreement, the Most-Favored Nation Principle, and Regional Trade Agreements,” In: Georgopoulos, A., Hoekman, B. and Mavroidis, P. C. (Eds.), The Internationalization of Government Procurement Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–39.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2018. COM(2018) 561 final. 36th Annual Reports from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the EU’s Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities, July 31, 2018. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2018:0561:FIN:EN:PDF, last accessed December 8, 2018.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2018. L 181/39-83. Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/1013 of July 17, 2018 imposing provisional safeguard measures with regard to imports of certain steel products, July 18, 2018. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R1013&from=EN, last accessed October 23, 2018.Google Scholar
EU Statement at the Heads of Delegations meeting by European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström 2018. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 11th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), December 13, 2017. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/december/tradoc_156464.pdf, last accessed October 1, 2018.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2018. 2018/C111/10. Notice of initiation of a safeguard investigation concerning imports of steel products of March 26, 2018. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOC_2018_111_R_0010&from=EN, last accessed December 8, 2018.Google Scholar
European Parliament. 2018. EU Regulation No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 25, 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/978/oj, last accessed December 6, 2018.Google Scholar
European Parliament’s Resolution of November 29, 2018 on WTO: The Way forward. 2018. 2018/2084(INI). www.consilium.europa.eu/media/37247/buenos_aires_leaders_declaration.pdf, last accessed December 8, 2018.Google Scholar
GATT Doc. L/4903. 1979. Differential and more favourable treatment – Reciprocity and fuller participation of developing countries, Decision of November 28, 1979. www.wto.org/gatt_docs/English/SULPDF/90970166.pdf, last accessed November 27, 2018.Google Scholar
GATT MIN.DEC. 1986. Ministerial Declaration on the Uruguay Round of September 20, 1986, www.wto.org/gatt_docs/English/SULPDF/91240152.pdf, last accessed November 26, 2018.Google Scholar
G20. 2018. G20 Leaders’ declaration: Building consensus for fair and sustainable development. Buenos Aires, December 1, 2018, https://g20.org/sites/default/files/buenos_aires_leaders_declaration.pdf.Google Scholar
Häberli, C. 2016. “WTO Rules Can Prevent Change Mitigation for Agriculture,” Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), Fifth Biennial Global Conference Working Paper No. 2016/06.Google Scholar
Hahn, M. 2019. “We’ll Always Have Geneva: The Existential Crisis of the US-led Multilateral Trading System and the EU Reactions”, In: Govaere, I. and Garben, S. (Eds.), The Interface Between EU and International Law – Contemporary Reflections, Hart Publishing, pp. 269–92.Google Scholar
Hahn, M. 2018. “The Multilateral an EU Legal Framework on TDIs: An Introduction,” In: Bungenberg, M., Hahn, M., Herrmann, C. and Müller-Ibold, T. (Eds.), The Future of Trade Defence Instruments: Global Policy Trends and Legal Challenges. European Yearbook of International Economic Law. Switzerland: Springer, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
Hahn, M. and Holzer, K.. 2016. “Special Agreement and Energy: Filling the Gaps,” In: Matsushita, M. and Schoenbaum, T. J. (Eds.), Emerging Issues in Sustainable Development: International Trade Law and Policy Relating to Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment. Tokyo: Springer, pp. 259–77.Google Scholar
Howse, R. 2016. “The World Trade Organization 20 Years On: Global Governance by Judiciary,” The European Journal of International Law 27(1):9–77.Google Scholar
ICTSD. 2018. “Achieving Progress in Multilateral Trade Negotiations on Agriculture,” WTO: Paths Forward. Policy Brief. September 2018, Geneva: ICTSD.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. H. 1998. The World Trade Organization. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
Kaszubska, K. 2016. “Deconstructing India’s Position on the Trade in Services Agreement,” ORF Issue Brief No. 146, www.orfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ORF-IssueBrief_146_Kaszubska.pdf, last accessed November 27, 2018.Google Scholar
Matsushita, M., Schoenbaum, T. J., Mavroidis, P. C. and Hahn, M.. 2017. The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. and Janow, M.. 2017. “Free Markets, State Involvement, and the WTO: Chinese State-Owned Enterprises in the Ring,” World Trade Review 16(4):571–81.Google Scholar
Morin, J.-F., Pauwelyn, J. and Holloway, J.. 2017. “The Trade Regime as a Complex Adaptive System: Exploration and Exploitation of Environmental Norms in Trade Agreements,” Journal of International Economic Law 20(2):365–90.Google Scholar
Payosova, T., Hufbauer, G. C. and Schott, J. J.. 2018. “The Dispute Settlement Crisis in the World Trade Organization: Causes and Cures,” Peterson Policy Brief, March 2018.Google Scholar
Piérola, F. 2014. The Challenge of Safeguards in the WTO. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ptashkina, M. 2018. “Facilitation 2.0: E-Commerce and Trade in the Digital Age,” RTA Exchange. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). www.ictsd.org/sites/default/files/research/rta_exchange_-_ptashkina_-_facilitation_2.0_-_e-commerce_-_ptashkina_0.pdf, last accessed December 1, 2018.Google Scholar
Shaffer, G. C., Elsig, M. and Pollack, Mark A.. 2018. “U.S. Threats to the WTO Appellate Body,” UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 1.Google Scholar
Sutherland, P., Bhagwati, J., Botchwey, K., FitzGerald, N., Hamada, K., Jackson, J.H., Lafer, C. and de Montbrial, T.. 2004. “The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium,” Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi, Geneva: World Trade Organization.Google Scholar
TN/RL/GEN/188. World Trade Organization. 2017. Communication from the European Union on Improving Disciplines on Subsidies Notification of May 30, 2017.Google Scholar
USTR. 2018a. Joint Statement on Trilateral Meeting of the Trade Ministers of the United States, Japan, and the European Union. May 31, 2018. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/may/joint-statement-trilateral-meeting, last accessed December 3, 2018.Google Scholar
USTR. 2018b. Joint Statement on Trilateral Meeting of the Trade Ministers of the United States, Japan, and the European Union. September 25, 2018. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/september/joint-statement-trilateral, last accessed December 3, 2018.Google Scholar
USTR. 2018c. 2017 Report to Congress on the China’s WTO Compliance. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/China%202017%20WTO%20Report.pdf, last accessed December 4, 2018.Google Scholar
USTR. 2018d. Findings of the investigation into China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 of March 22, 2018. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Section%20301%20FINAL.PDF, last accessed December 8, 2018.Google Scholar
USTR. 2018e. Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program Office, March 2018, https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/reports-and-publications/2018/2018-trade-policy-agenda-and-2017, last accessed October 17, 2018.Google Scholar
Van den Bossche, P. and Zdouc, W.. 2017. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, R. H. 2015. “Digital Trade and E-Commerce: Challenges and Opportunities of the Asia-Pacific Regionalism,” Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy 10(2):321–48.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization. 2017. 20 Years of the Information Technology Agreement: Boosting Trade, Innovation and Digital Connectivity. Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
WT/AB/27. Appellate Body Annual Report for 2016, May 16, 2017, www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/ab_an_rep_e.htm, accessed on October 17, 2018.Google Scholar
WT/AB/WP/1. Appellate Body. Working Procedures for Appellate Review, February 15, 1996.Google Scholar
WT/AB/WP/6. Appellate Body. Working Procedures for Appellate Review, August 16, 2010.Google Scholar
WT/DSB/M/412, restricted: Dispute Settlement Body, April 27, 2018, Minutes of Meeting, WTO Doc., 1 August 2018 (18-4575), China – Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (DS542).Google Scholar
WT/DSB/W/609. Appellate Body Appointments. Proposal by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, China; Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Switzerland, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Turkey, Uruguay and Viet Nam, dated November 9, 2017.Google Scholar
WT/DS24/18. US Communication of the June 12, 2006. United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (“Zeroing”). June 16, 2006.Google Scholar
WT/DS121/9. Appellate Body Report. Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, adopted January 12, 2000.Google Scholar
WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258, WT/DS259. Appellate Body Report. United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, adopted December 10, 2003.Google Scholar
WT/DS246/16/Add.3. Appellate Body Report. European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, adopted April 20, 2004.Google Scholar
WT/DS296/AB/R. Appellate Body Report. United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea, adopted July 20, 2005.Google Scholar
WT/DS294/46. Panel Report. United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing), adopted May 9, 2006.Google Scholar
WT/DS294/46. Appellate Body Report. United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing), adopted May 9, 2006.Google Scholar
WT/DS427/R. Panel Report. China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States, adopted September 25, 2013.Google Scholar
WT/DS397/25. Appellate Body Report. European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China - Recourse to article 21.5 of the DSU by China, adopted February 12, 2016.Google Scholar
WT/DS453/AB/R. Appellate Body Report. Argentina – Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services, adopted May 9, 2016.Google Scholar
WT/DS473/AB/R, Appellate Body Report. European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/17/Add.4, adopted October 26, 2016.Google Scholar
WT/DS542/1, IP/D/38. China – Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Request for Consultations by the United States, dated March 23, 2018.Google Scholar
WT/DS542/2. China – Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Request to Join Consultation. Communication from Japan, dated April 3, 2018.Google Scholar
WT/DS542/3. China – Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Request to Join Consultations. Communication from the European Union, dated April 4, 2018.Google Scholar
WT/L/641. Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement. Decision adopted on December 6, 2005, dated December 8, 2005.Google Scholar
WT/MIN(13)/DEC. World Trade Organization. Bali Ministerial Declaration adopted on December 7, 2013, dated December 11, 2013.Google Scholar
WT/MIN(15)/45 - WT/L/980, 2015. World Trade Organization. Ministerial Decision of December 19, 2015, on Export Competition, dated December 21, 2015.Google Scholar
Wu, M. 2017. “Digital Trade-Related Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: Existing Models and Lessons for the Multilateral Trade System,” RTA Exchange. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RTA-Exchange-Digital-Trade-Mark-Wu-Final.pdf, last accessed December 1, 2018.Google Scholar
Zhou, W. 2018a. “Appellate Body Report on EU – Biodiesel: The Future of China’s State Capitalism under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement,” World Trade Review 17(4):609–33.Google Scholar
Zhou, W. 2018b. “EU – Price Comparison Methodologies (DS516): Challenging the Non-Market Economy Methodology in Light of the Negotiating History of Article 15 of China’s WTO Accession Protocol,” Journal of World Trade 52(3):505–533.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×