Tr ansatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Consigned to Oblivion or Waiting for a Second Chance?

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the U.S. and the EU could have become a milestone of the 2010s transforming the current global governance system and the strategic balance of power as well as having a direct impact on the economy and trade. Nevertheless, the negotiations launched in 2013 reached a stalemate and were effectively frozen in January 2017. Although assessments of the new mega bloc’s impact on the U.S. and the EU economies diverged, such a development seems all the more unexpected given that most researchers and politicians advocating the initiative emphasized its geopolitical significance for the West in the face of China’s rise. A question inevitably arises: what can account for the freeze of negotiations? Was it the result of Donald Trump’s election, who was a vocal critic of his predecessor’s legacy during his election campaign? Or are there underlying objective reasons? In order to shed light on the issue it is necessary to analyse the differences that emerged during the fifteen rounds of negotiations as well as to examine the most recent developments in transatlantic trade and economic relations. Trump’s foreign policy sought to advance U.S. national interests in such a way that resulted in weakening multilateral elimination of tariff s for industrial goods and for an agreement on conformity assessment. However, negotiations of the former agreement did not start a year after the Joint Statement had been adopted; there were three meetings of the Executive Working Group focusing on regulatory issues. Apparently, an agreement similar to TTIP in scope is unlikely to be concluded in the near future. It also becomes evident that the parties’ divergent goals and interests at the negotiations rather than subjective factors, such as Donald Trump’s approach, are the main reason for that. Continuing dialogue between the U.S. and the EU on specific issues, e.g. regulation, seems a more viable scenario. Keywords: U.S., EU, trade negotiations, TTIP, transatlantic trade, globalisation, global governance, economic diplomacy, industrial goods, conformity assessment, regulation, tariff and non-tariff barriers.institutions: in 2018 the EU and a number of states became targets of U.S. aluminium and steel tariff s purportedly imposed to protect national security. These unilateral measures turned into leverage ahead of negotiations. In June 2018 the U.S. and the EU issued a Joint Statement: the parties agreed to ‘work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods.’ In April 2019 the Council of the European Union adopted two decisions authorising the opening of negotiations of an agreement with the United States of America on the elimination of tariff s for industrial goods and for an agreement on conformity assessment. However, negotiations of the former agreement did not start a year after the Joint Statement had been adopted; there were three meetings of the Executive Working Group focusing on regulatory issues. Apparently, an agreement similar to TTIP in scope is unlikely to be concluded in the near future. It also becomes evident that the parties’ divergent goals and interests at the negotiations rather than subjective factors, such as Donald Trump’s approach, are the main reason for that. Continuing dialogue between the U.S. and the EU on specific issues, e.g. regulation, seems a more viable scenario.

U.S., EU, trade negotiations, TTIP, transatlantic trade, globalisation, global governance, economic diplomacy, industrial goods, conformity assessment, regulation, tariff and non-tariff barriers.

1. Grebelsky A.V. 2017. Konets epokhi? Sud’ba investitsionnogo arbitrazha v svete popytok sozdaniya sistemy Investitsionnogo suda ES [The end of an epoch? The future of investment arbitration amid attempts to establish the EU Investment Court System]. In Muranov A.I., Zimenkova O.N., Kostin A.A. (eds.). V.A. Kabatov, S.N. Lebedev: In Memoriam. Sbornik vospominaniy, statei, inykh materialov [V.A. Kabatov, S.N. Lebedev: In Memoriam. A collection of me moirs, articles and other materials]. Moscow, Statut Publ., pp. 476–502. (In Russ.)

2. Gromyko Al.A. 2018. Raskolotyi Zapad: posledstviya dlya Evroatlantiki [The West divided: Consequences for Euro-Atlantic]. Sovremennaya Evropa, no. 4, pp. 5–16. DOI: 10.15211/soveurope420180516. (In Russ.)

3. Zonova T.V., Raynkhardt R.O. 2017. ‘Dilemma Kissindzhera’ v peregovorakh po Transatlanticheskomu torgovomu i investitsionnomu partnerstvu: istoriya i sovremennost’ [‘Kissinger dilemma’ in Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations: History and current state of aff airs]. Polis. Politicheskiye issledovaniya, no. 2, pp. 170–182. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2017.02.12. (In Russ.)

4. Kondratieva N.B. 2017a. O sud’be Transatlanticheskogo torgovogo i investitsionnogo partnerstva ES–SShA [The fate of the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership EU-USA]. Sovremennaya Evropa, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 138–143. DOI: 10.15211/soveurope120173844. (In Russ.)

5. Kondratieva N.B. 2017b. Transatlanticheskoye partnerstvo ES–SShA: perspektivy [The EU-US Transatlatic Partnership: Prospects]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 5–13. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-8-5-13. (In Russ.)

6. Kuznetsov D.A. 2017. Transregionalizm vo vneshnei politike SShA: sravnitel’nyi analiz geopolitiki proektov TTP i TTIP [Transregionalism in US foreign policy: Comparative analysis of TPP and TTIP geopolitics]. Sravnitel’naya politika, no. 2, pp. 73–81. DOI: 10.18611/2221-3279-2017-8-2-73-81. (In Russ.)

7. Mamedova A.O. 2017. Amerikano-britanskie otnosheniya i peregovory o TTIP [U.S.-UK relations and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta, no. 2, pp. 208–225. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2017-2-53-208-225. (In Russ.)

8. Pechatnov V.O. 2019. SShA v mirovoi politike [The U.S. in world politics]. In Pechatnov V.O., Strel’tsov D.V. (eds.). Strany i regiony v mirovoi politike: Uchebnik dlya vuzov: V 2 t. T. 1. Strany Evropy i Ameriki [Countries and regions in world politics: A coursebook for higher education institutions: 2 vols. Vol. 1. Countries of Europe and the Americas]. Moscow, Aspekt Press Publ., pp. 18–55. (In Russ.)

9. Portanskiy A.P. 2019. SShA–Evropa: soyuznicheskie otnosheniya pod ugrozoi [US-Europe: Allied relations under threat]. Sovremennaya Evropa, no. 6, pp. 30–39. DOI: 10.15211/soveurope620193039. (In Russ.)

10. Salamatov V.Yu. 2016. Megaregional’nye torgovye soglasheniya [Megaregional trade agreements]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 17–27. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2016-60-9-17-27. (In Russ.)

11. Sidorov A.A. 2016. Transatlanticheskaya integratsiya i problemy konkurentosposobnosti razvitykh stran [Transatlantic integration and developed countries’ competitiveness problems]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 249–257. (In Russ.)

12. Kheyfets B. 2016. Novye ekonomicheskiye megapartnerstva i globalnaya ekonomika [New economic mega-partnerships and the global economy]. Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn’, no. 3. Available at: https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/material/1456 (accessed: 04.05.2020). (In Russ.)

13. Shavkunov V.M., Romanyuk D.A. 2015. Transatlanticheskoye torgovoye i investitsionnoye partnerstvo: spaseniye Evropy ili vtoraya Atlantida? [Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: The salvation of Europe or the second Atlantis?]. Ekonomicheskiye nauki, vol. 122, no. 1, pp. 107–126. (In Russ.)

14. Bromund T.R., Beaumont-Smith G. 2020. Ten principles for U.S. trade negotiations with the European Union. The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, no. 3480. Available at: https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/ten-principles-ustrade-negotiations-the-european-union (accessed: 15.06.2020).

15. Bromund T.R., Coff ey L., Riley B. 2014. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): Economic benefi ts and potential risks. The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, no. 2952. Available at: http://report.heritage.org/bg2952 (accessed: 04.05.2020).

16. Capaldo J. 2014. The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: European disintegration, unemployment and instability. Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper, no. 14-03. Available at: https://sites.tufts.edu/gdae/files/2019/10/14-03CapaldoTTIP.pdf (accessed: 04.05.2020).

17. Cramér P. 2020. Brexit, Trumpism and the structure of international trade regulation. In Babakardjieva Engelbrekt A. et al. (eds.). The European Union in a changing world order? Cham, Palgrave Macmillan.

18. DeVille F., Siles-Brügge G. 2016. T.T.I.P.: The truth about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Cambridge, Malden, Polity Press.

19. DeVille F., Siles-Brügge G. 2017. Why TTIP is a game-changer and its critics have a point. Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 24, iss. 10, pp. 1491–1505. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1254273.

20. Eliasson L.J. 2014. Problems, progress and prognosis in trade and investment negotiations: The transatlantic free trade and investment partnership. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 119–139. DOI: 10.1080/14794012.2014.900956.

21. Eliasson L.J., Garcia-Duran Huet P. 2018. TTIP negotiations: Interest groups, anti-TTIP civil society campaigns and public opinion. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 101–116. DOI: 10.1080/14794012.2018.1450069.

22. Fahey E. 2018. Conclusions. In Fahey E. (ed.). Institutionalisation beyond the nation state. Transatlantic relations: Data, privacy and trade law. Cham, Springer International, pp. 259–263.

23. Felbermayr G., Heid B., Lehwald S. 2013. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): Who benefi ts from a free trade deal? GED Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh.

24. Finbow R.G. 2018. Can transatlantic trade relations be institutionalised after Trump? Prospects for EU-US trade governance in the era of antiglobalist populism. In Fahey E. (ed.). Institutionalisation beyond the nation state. Transatlantic relations: Data, privacy and trade law. Cham, Springer International, pp. 187–211.

25. Francois J. et al. 2013. Reducing Transatlantic barriers to trade and investment: An economic assessment. Final report for the European Commission. London, Centre for Economic and Research Policy. Available at: https://voxeu.org/content/reducing-transatlantic-barriers-trade-and-investment-economicassessment (accessed: 04.05.2020).

26. Francois J. et al. 2016. TTIP and the EU member states. The World Trade Institute. Bern. Available at: http://www.wti.org/research/publications/934/ttipand-the-eu-member-states/ (accessed: 04.05.2020).

27. Garcia M. 2018. Building global governance one treaty at a time? A comparison of the US and EU approaches to preferential trade agreements and the challenge of TTIP. In Fahey E. (ed.). Institutionalisation beyond the nation state. Transatlantic relations: Data, privacy and trade law. Cham, Springer International, pp. 213–242.

28. Hayes E. 2015. TTIP: Transatlantic free trade at last? Global Aff airs, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 113–120.

29. Hufbauer G.C., Cimino-Isaacs C. 2015. How will TPP and TTIP change the WTO system? Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1–18. DOI: 10.1093/jiel/jgv036.

30. Stiglitz J., Hersh A. 2015. The Trans-Pacifi c free-trade charade. Project Syndicate. Available at: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/transpacific-partnership-charade-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-and-adam-s--hersh-2015-10 (accessed: 04.03.2020).

31. Van Ham P. 2013. The geopolitics of TTIP. Clingendael Policy Brief. No. 23. Available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/The%20Geopolitics%20of%20TTIP%20-%20Clingendael%20Policy%20Brief.pdf (accessed: 04.05.2020).

32. Young A.R. 2017. Intergovernmental policy makes transnational politics? The unusually transnational politics of TTIP. Cambridge Review of International Aff airs, vol. 30, no. 5–6, pp. 527–548. DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2018.1455639.