Democratic legitimacy in common commercial policy of European Union – evolution of European Parliament’s role

Małgorzata Czermińska

doi:10.35765/hp.2279

Published : 2022-09-29

Vol. 13 No. 44 (2022)

Democratic legitimacy in common commercial policy of European Union – evolution of European Parliament’s role

Małgorzata Czermińska

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6935-1031

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35765/hp.2279

Section: Thematic Articles

Abstract

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: This article aims to present the principles of decision-making, distribution of competences regarding the common commercial policy (CCP), with attention given to the evolution of European Parliament’s (EP) role and to identify actions taken by the EP in relation to the CCP.

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: Due to the Member States’ delegation of powers to the supranational level and decision-making procedures, allegations that there is no democratic legitimacy in the European Union are of particular relevance to the CCP. In this context, special importance is given to the role of the European Parliament and powers vested in it, especially over the past years. The article employs an analytical and descriptive method.

THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The first part presented decision-making principles for the EU’s common commercial policy. Next, the evolution of the European Parliament’s role in the shaping of the CCP was discussed. Finally, the last part gives attention to the EP’s actions in practice and attempts to assess what was a decisive factor behind the Parliament’s specific position.

RESEARCH RESULTS: The Treaty of Lisbon increased the formal powers of the European Parliament with regard to the CCP, but at the same time, diminished the role of Member States’ national parliaments (which was due to the fact that the CCP coverage was extended and the scope of the EU’s exclusive competences was broadened). The research conducted has revealed that the EP is more and more often taking advantage of its position in the shaping of the EU commercial policy.

CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Due to the fact that the role of the European Parliament in the decision-making process has increased, the issue of a democracy deficit in the shaping of the CCP, which was raised in the pre-Lisbon Treaty period, is currently becoming less formally legitimate.

Keywords

Common Commercial Policy ; European Parliament ; European Union ; Trade Agreements

Details

References

Indicators

Authors

Download files

PDF

Zasady cytowania

Altmetric indicators

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-ND licence that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are asked to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). We advise to use any of the following reserach society portals:

References

Ambroziak, Ł.,& Błaszczuk-Zawiła, M. (2012). Porozumienie rolne Unia Europejska – Maroko. Potencjalne skutki dla Polski. Unia Europejska.pl, 2 (213), 16–25.

Brok, E. (2010). Die neue Macht des Europäischen Parlaments nach ‚Lissabon’ im Bereich der gemeinsamen Handelspolitik. Integra-tion, 3, 209–223.

Brown, C.M.(2011). The European Union and Regional Trade Agreements: A Case Study of the EU-South Korea FTA. In Ch. Hermann, & J.P. Terhechte (Eds.), European yearbook of inter-national economic law (pp. 297–308). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-14432-5_12.

Chalmers, D., Davies, G. & Monti, G. (2010). European Union law: cases and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chang, M., & Hodson, D., (2019). Reforming the European Parlia-ment’s Monetary and Economic Dialogues: Creating Accounta-bility Through a Euro Area Oversight Subcommittee. In O. Costa (Ed.), The European Parliament in Times of EU Crisis. European Ad-ministrative Governance (pp. 343–364). London: Palgrave. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-97391-3_16.

Council Decision of 16 September 2010 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part

(2011/265/EU). OJ L, 127, (14.05.2011), 1–3.

Council on Hemispheric Affairs (2013). Human Rights Considera-tion in EU-Columbia Trade Agreement. http://www.coha.org/human-rights-considerations-in-the-e-u-colombia-trade-agreement/

Costa, O., & Brack, N. (2013). The Role of the European Parliament in Europe’s Integration and Parliamentarization Process. In O. Cos-ta, S. Stavridis, & C. Dri (Eds.), Parliamentary Dimensions of Re-gionalization (pp. 45–69). Londres: Palgrave. DOI: 10.1057/9781137322746_3.

Czermińska, M. (2019). Wspólna polityka handlowa Unii Europejskiej. Znaczenie dla ochrony jednolitego rynku wewnętrznego i międzynarodowego bezpieczeństwa ekonomicznego. Toruń: Adam Marszałek.

Dehousse, R. (1995). Constitutional Reform in the European Com-munity: Are there Alternatives to the Majoritarian Avenue? West European Politics, 18(3), 118–136. DOI: 10.1080/01402389508425094.

Deutscher Bundestag (2002). Schlussbericht der Enquette – Kommis-sion, Globalisierung der Weltwirtschaft-Herausforderungen und Antworten. Drucksache 14/19200.

Devuyst, Y. (2013). European Union Law and Practice in the Negoti-ation and Conclusion of International Trade Agreements. Journal of International Business and Law, 12(2), 259–316.

Dretzka, E., & Mildner, S.-A. (2010). Anything But SWIFT: Why Data Sharing is Still a Problem for the EU. AICGS (American Institute For Contemporary German Studies), 35, https://www.aicgs.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/issuebrief35.pdf

Eeckhout, P. (2011). EU External Relations Law. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199606634.001.0001.

Euractiv (2012). Goodbye ACTA: EU Parliament rejects anti-piracy Treaty. https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/goodbye-acta-eu -parliament-rejects-anti-piracy-treaty/

European Parliament. (2008). Resolution of 8 May 2008 on trade and economic relations with the Association of South East Asian Na-tions (ASEAN) (2007/2265(INI)). OJ C, 271E (12.11.2009), 38–44.

European Parliament. (2012). Resolution of 13 June 2012 on the EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru. P7_TA (2012)0249. Brussels.

European Parliament. (2017). Resolution on the Commission dele-gated regulation of 11 January 2017 amending Annex III to Reg-ulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences. (C(2016)8996 – 2017/2511(DEA).

European Parliament, News. (2021). MEPs refuse any agreement with China whilst sanctions are in place. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/pl/press-room/20210517IPR04123/meps-refuse-any-agreement- with-china-whilst-sanctions-are-in-place

Feliu, L., & Serra, F. (2015).The European Union as a ‘normative power’ and the normative voice of the European Parliament. In S. Stavridis S., & D. Irrera. (Eds.), The European Parliament and its In-ternational Relations (pp. 15–33). London–New York: Routlege Taylor &Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315713984

Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parlia-ment and the European Commission. OJ L, 304 (20.11.2010), 47–62.

Hilf, M.,& Schorkopf, F. (1999). Das Europäische Parlament in den Au-ßenbeziehungen der Europäischen Union. In J. Drexl, K.F. Kreuzer, D.H. Scheuing, & U. Sieber (Eds.), Europäische Demokratie (pp. 185–195). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

Hix, S., & Lord, C. (1997). Political Parties in the European Union, Lon-don, Macmillan Press, coll. “The European Union Series”. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25560-3

Hix, S., Noury, A. & Roland, G. (2005). Power to the parties: cohesion and competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001. British Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 209–234. DOI: ps://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123405000128.

Interinstitutional Agreements, Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission. OJ C, 117 E, (18.05. 2006),47–62.

Keukeleire, S., & MacNaughtan, J. (2008). The Foreign Policy of the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-137-02576-0.

Kleimann, D. (2011). Taking Stock: EU Common Commercial Policy in the Lisbon Era. CEPS (Centre for European Policy Studies) Work-ing Document, 345, 1–32.

Krajewski, M. (2006). Das institutionelle Gleichgewicht in den aus-wärtigen Beziehungen. In Ch. Hermann, H.G. Krenzler, & R. Streinz (Eds.), Die Außenwirtschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union nach dem Verfassungsvertrag (pp.63–84). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Kuciński, J., & Wołpiuk, W. (2012). Zasady ustroju politycznego pań-stwa w Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z 1997 roku. Warsza-wa: Wolters Kluwer Business.

Meunier, S. (2003). Trade Policy and Political Legitimacy in the Eu-ropean Union Comparative European Politics, 1 (1), 67–90.

Meunier, S., & Nicolaidis, C. (2005). The European Union as a trade power. In C. Hill, & M. Smith (Eds.), International Relations and the European Union (pp.906–925). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Müller, G., & Wulf, J. R., (2019). Rivalität mit System? Zehn Jahre institutioneller Wettbewerb zwischen Europäischem Parlament und Europäischem Rat. Integration, 42(4), 262–279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/0720-5120-2019-4

Pacek, A.C., & Radcliff, B. (2003). Voter participation and par-ty-group fortunes in European Parliament elections, 1979–1999: a cross-national analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 91–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3219887.

Petersmann, E.U. (2005). Welthandelsrecht als Freiheits- und Ver-fassungsordnung. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 65, 543–585.

Plottka, J., & Müller, M. (2020). Enhancing The EU‘s Democratic Le-gitimacy. Short and Long-Term Avenues to Reinforce Parliamentary and Participative Democracy at the EU Level. Institut für Eu-ropӓische Politik FES.

Piris, J.-C. (1994). After Maastricht, are the Community Institutions more Efficacious, More Democratic and More Transparent? Eu-ropean Law Review, 19(5), 449–487.

Pollack, M.A. (1997). Delegation, agency and agenda setting in the European Community. International Organisation, 51(1), 99–134. DOI: 10.1162/002081897550311.

van den Putte, L., De Ville, F. & Orbie, J. (2015). The European Par-liament as an international actor in trade: from power to impact. In Stavridis S. & D. Irrera (Eds.), The European Parliament and its International Relations (pp. 52–69). Abingdon: Routledge.

Raworth, P. (1994). A Timid Step Forwards: Maastricht and the De-mocratisation of the European Community. European Law Review, 19, 16–33.

Rezolucja Parlamentu Europejskiego z dnia 5 maja 2010 r. w sprawie zalecenia Komisji dla Rady w sprawie upoważnienia do rozpo-częcia negocjacji między Unią Europejską a Stanami Zjednoczo-nymi Ameryki dotyczących umowy służącej udostępnianiu De-partamentowi Skarbu Stanów Zjednoczonych danych z komunikatów finansowych w celu walki z terroryzmem i finansowaniem go, 2011/C 81 E/11. OJ C, 81 E (15.03.2011), 66–70 .

Richardson, L. (2012). The Post-Lisbon Role of the European Parlia-ment in the EU’s Common Commercial Policy: Implications for Bilateral Trade Negotiations. EU Diplomacy Paper, 5, 1–6.

Risse, T. (2014). No demos? Identities and Public Spheres in the Euro Crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(6), 1207–1215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12189.

Rittberger, B. (2003). The Creation and Empowerment of the Euro-pean Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(2), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00419.

Saganek, P. (2010). Nowe reguły dotyczące podziału kompetencji między Unię Europejską a państwa członkowskie w świetle trak-tatu z Lizbony. Przegląd Sejmowy, 4(99), 83–106.

Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? New York: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198295457. 001.0001.

Sozański, J. (2007). Porozumienia międzynarodowe Wspólnot i Unii Europejskiej w świetle norm aquis communitare oraz Konstytucji dla Europy. Toruń: TNOiK Dom Organizatora.

Thym, D. (2008). Parliamentary Involvement in European Interna-tional Relations, Walter Hallstein-Institut für Europäisches Ver-fassungsrecht Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. WHI – Paper, 5, 201–232.

Traktat z Lizbony zmieniający Traktat o Unii Europejskiej i Traktat ustanawiający Wspólnotę Europejską. OJ C, 306 (17.12.2007), 1–271.

Woolcock, S. (2010). EU Trade and Investment Policymaking after the Lisbon Treaty. Intereconomics, 45 (1), 22–25.

Young, A.R. (2011). The Rise (and Fall?) of the EU’s Performance in the Multilateral Trading System. Journal of European Integration, 33 (6), 715–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2011.606695

Total abstract views : 107

PDF Downloads : 133

Małgorzata Czermińska

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6935-1031

Affiliation

Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego Poland

Bio Statement (e.g., department and rank)

Doktor habilitowany nauk ekonomicznych, jest absolwentką Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie (obecnie Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny), gdzie studiowała na Wydziale Ekonomiki Produkcji, kierunek: Międzynarodowe stosunki gospodarcze; specjalność: Handel zagraniczny.

W latach 2000 - 2002 pełniła funkcję dziekana Wydziału Stosunków Międzynarodowych Krakowskiej Szkoły Wyższej (obecnie Krakowska Akademia), a od października 2002 r. pełni funkcję prodziekana Prawa, Administracji i Stosunków Międzynarodowych. Zainteresowania naukowe obejmują międzynarodową politykę handlową, w szczególności wspólną politykę handlową i celną Unii Europejskiej, funkcjonowanie wspólnego rynku UE.