The European Union's Policy Towards Mercosur: Responsive Not Strategic by Gomez Arana Arantza

Author:Gomez Arana Arantza [Arantza, Gomez Arana]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: International Relations, European, Caribbean & Latin American, Comparative Politics, Political Science, World, General
ISBN: 9780719096945
Google: QG-5DwAAQBAJ
Goodreads: 30688418
Publisher: Manchester University Press
Published: 2017-02-14T00:00:00+00:00

The EU–Mercosur agreement in comparison to other agreements between the EU and third countries

The legal base of the agreements sets the rules for policy- and decision-making (see Chapter 2). Room for manoeuvre is left for those actors who offer agreements, however, for instance, in terms of what is offered by each side at the outset, and what might be offered after the agreement has been made. The relative level of precision in agreements can therefore be analysed, and reasons given for the differences between agreements in this regard. According to Smith:

The extent of the network of partners illustrates the influence of law on the EU's external relations: a great deal of what the EU does in international relations is to develop relations that are based on law, that is, on legal agreements. But power is not absent, and the Community can wield its instruments for political purposes. The decision to conclude an agreement with a third country or regional grouping is, in the first place, political. (Smith 2003: 55)

All third-generation agreements with Latin America have in common the ‘political conditionality regarding democracy, the environment, and human rights, by means of the so-called democracy clause, and they could be renegotiated with total flexibility, as set out in the so-called ‘evolutive clauses’ (Ribeiro Hoffmann 2004: 5). Space is left within that framework for issues to be developed further by the evolutive clause.

Ribeiro Hoffmann (2004) makes clear distinctions between formal (empty) and substantial legal commitments. Agreements with the ACP group, the Central and Eastern European countries and former Soviet and Mediterranean countries contained from the beginning ‘specific legal commitments concerning topics such as trade, competition, etc’ (Ribeiro Hoffmann 2004: 8). That is not the case in agreements with Latin America. Some of these were substantiated later, as is the case of Mercosur, Chile, and Mexico; others, such as the agreement with the Andean Community, remained formal and without substantial commitments (Ribeiro Hoffmann, 2004). These agreements were ‘filled’ later, either by the conclusion of a new agreement, as in the one with Chile of 2002 and the Mercosur one, or directly in the same agreement, as in the case of Mexico, with the incorporation of Decision 2/2000, which promoted the liberalization of trade in goods, and Decision 2/20001, about the liberalization of trade in services and FDI (Ribeiro Hoffmann 2004). Table 5.1 shows the differences between EU agreements with different Latin America countries/regions quite clearly.

Table 5.1  EU agreements with third countries/regions and their legal commitment

Countries/regions Type of agreement Legal commitments

Trade Treatment of foreign firms Capital movements Financial protocol

Latin American countries

Andean Community 1993 Cooperation No No No No

CACM 1993 Cooperation No No No No

Argentina 1990 Cooperation No No No No

Uruguay 1991 Cooperation No No No No

Brazil 1992 Cooperation No No No No

Paraguay 1992 Cooperation No No No No

Mercosur 1995 Cooperation No No No No

Chile 1991, 1996 Cooperation No No No No

Chile 2002 Association FTA goods and services Yes Yes No

Mercosur, under negotiation since 1999 Association FTA goods and services Probably yes Probably yes Probably no

Mexico

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.