The EU, Asia and the Governance of Global Trade
The EU, Asia and the Governance of Global Trade
复制标题
欧盟、亚洲和全球贸易治理
DOI：
10.1057/9780230378704_24
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Michael H. Smith
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Michael H. Smith
本章探讨了欧亚贸易与为规范全球贸易体系而出现的治理机制之间的关系。本章首先概述了当代全球贸易治理中存在的问题以及这一过程中涉及的机构和利益。然后，本文继续探讨欧亚关系如何反映更普遍的趋势，并确定欧亚贸易关系中可以辨别的利益和立场范围。在此背景下，本文认为，市场开放与现代化之间的利益冲突是理解欧亚贸易关系的关键，而且这种利益冲突与两个地区之间“贸易力量”的变化相互作用，从而产生谈判和相互理解的问题。然后，在对欧盟与亚洲贸易关系三个层面的研究中，我们对这一论点进行了研究：多边（主要是在世贸组织内）、区域间（在亚欧会议和欧盟-东盟关系内）和双边（欧盟与其主要贸易伙伴如中国、印度和日本之间，以及欧盟与其已签订双边自由贸易协定的其他国家之间）。本章的主要结论是，欧盟与亚洲的贸易关系反映出日益增长的趋势。防御性和双边主义，这与之前至少在口头上承诺开放和多边主义不同。这可能会对全球贸易治理的发展产生负面影响，并促进基于差异化和排斥政治而不是多边解决方案追求“竞争性相互依存”。
This chapter explores the relationship between EU-Asia trade and the mechanisms of governance that have emerged to regulate the global trading system.The chapter begins with a general review of the problems attending the governance of global trade in the contemporary period, and of the institutions and interests involved in the process. It then proceeds to look at the ways in which the EU-Asia relationship reflects the more general tendencies, and identifies the range of interests and positions that can be discerned in EU-Asia trade relations. It argues in this context that a clash of interests between market-opening and modernisation is key to understanding the EU-Asia trade relationship, and also that this interacts with shifts in ‘trade power’ between the two regions in such a way as to produce problems of negotiation and mutual understanding. This argument is then pursued in a study of three levels of EU-Asia trade relations: the multilateral (primarily within the WTO), the inter-regional (within the Asia-Europe Meeting and the EU-ASEAN relationship) and the bilateral (both between the EU and its major trading partners such as China, India and Japan, and between the EU and those other countries with which it has pursued bilateral free trade agreements).The key conclusion of the chapter is that the EU’s trade relations with Asia reflect an increasing tendency towards defensiveness and bilateralism, as opposed to previous periods in which there was at least a rhetorical commitment to openness and multilateralism. This is likely to have negative implications for the development of global governance in trade, and to promote the pursuit of ‘competitive interdependence’ based on a politics of differentiation and exclusion rather than multilateral solutions.