The goals of TTIP derive from the results of a joint US-EU High Level Working Group (HLWG) on Jobs and Growth formed following a November 2011 Summit between the US and EU. Tasked to identify methods to grow trade and investment, the HLWG concluded that TTIP negotiations “should aim to achieve ambitious outcomes in three broad areas: a) market access; b) regulatory issues and non-tariff barriers; and c) rules, principles, and new modes of cooperation to address shared global trade challenges and opportunities.” The proposed benefits of TTIP, according to multiple commissioned studies, are quite substantial. According to the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, a US/EU TTIP agreement could generate a free trade area (FTA) of nearly 50% of the world’s economic productivity. If TTIP negotiations meet the objectives as identified by the HLWG, then this FTA would greatly surpass all other trade agreements the US is currently involved in or negotiating. One US congressional study proposes a combined TTIP trade and investment output of $4.7 trillion compared to $1.5 trillion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the largest current US FTA in effect.
The second goal of TTIP negotiations – reducing regulatory issues and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) – represents the most important, yet hardest part of the negotiations. As European Commissioner for Trade De Gucht commented in February 2014, it is “difficult technically and difficult politically,” and it is within this area of regulatory disputes and NTBs that sustainable development exists. Sustainable development is a broad term, but the European Council succinctly defined it within the presidential conclusions at Gothenburg, Sweden in June 2001: “to mee...
... middle of paper ...
... the regulatory and NTB issues of TTIP through either mutual recognition agreements (acceptance of a good or service based on a “tested-once” standard by each side) or harmonization (same standards for both EU and US), but this may not be feasible. While US Senators pressure US Trade officials to “resolve . . . unwarranted agricultural barriers as part of the FTA negotiations on both an individual and a systematic basis,” the EU Trade Representative is forced to mitigate criticisms by unequivocally stating that “no standard in Europe will be lowered because of this trade deal.” This tug-of-war between free trade and norms is described by Zaiki Laidi as “the liberalization of trade at odds with strong social, cultural, and identity issues,” and it is precisely the sustainable development norms of the EU that are being put to the test within the TTIP negotiations.
It has to do with eliminating barriers that are put in place to protect the producers in a country. The barriers that countries implement include tariffs and taxes, quotas, rules and regulations and government subsidies or tax breaks (pg 58). The primary goal of a trade agreement is to lower these barriers so that any international company involved in the agreement(s) can be competitive in another country that is also involved in the agreement(s). One of the key features of the TPP agreement is to eliminate tariffs and some of the other barriers in order to create new opportunities for workers and businesses and to also benefit
"North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. 23 Nov. 2011. .
After three years of debate NAFTA was established in 1994. Fears concerning NAFTA included job creation, loss and transfer, wages and infrastructure. (Ganster/Lorey 188-189) However, with the implementation of NAFTA the economy grew. Ganster and Lorey reveal that bilateral trade increased by $211.4 per year from 1989 to 2004. Commerce grew by 20 percent in the first six months of 1994. There were advantages and disadvantages of NAFTA, nevertheless, NAFTA “intensified the integration of the two economies rather than distancing them.” (Ganster/Lorey 190)
The North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA—was an important agreement signed between three countries—the U.S., Mexico and Canada. NAFTA played an important role between each of these countries’ relations with one another through imports and exports. Throughout the presidential elections throughout the years, NAFTA has been highly debated on whether or not it has helped benefit the economy of these countries or if it has caused a lot detrimental issues. NAFTA promised many benefits for these countries, but not all of their promises were carried through; many views across the political spectrum also have their indifferences about NAFTA.
The United States has for over two centuries been involved in the growing world economy. While the U.S. post revolutionary war sought to protect itself from outside influences has since the great depression and world war two looked to break trade restrictions. The United States role in the global economy has grown throughout the 20th century and as a result of several historical events has adopted positions of both benefactor and dependent. The United States trade policy has over time shifted from isolationist protectionism to a commitment to establishing world-wide free trade. Free trade enterprise has developed and grown through organizations such as the WTO and NAFTA. The U.S. in order to obtain its free trade desires has implemented a number of policies that can be examined for both their benefits and flaws. Several trade policies exist as options to the United States, among these fair trade and free trade policies dominate the world economic market. In order to achieve economic growth the United States has a duty to maintain a global trade policy that benefits both domestic workers and industry. While free trade gives opportunities to large industries and wealthy corporate investors the American worker suffers job instability and lower wages. However fair trade policies that protect America’s workers do not help foster wide economic growth. The United States must then engage in economic trade policies that both protect the United States founding principles and secure for tomorrow greater economic stability.
Gonzalez, Carmen G. "Institutionalizing Inequility: The WTO Agreement on Agriculture, Food Security and Developing Countries." Columbia Journal of Enviromental Law (2002): 431-487.
After the failed International Trade Organization, Rodrik discusses the Bretton Woods Agreement, the transition from the General Agreement on Tariffs and T...
Globalization has become one of the most influential forces in the twentieth century. International integration of world views, products, trade and ideas has caused a variety of states to blur the lines of their borders and be open to an international perspective. The merger of the Europeans Union, the ASEAN group in the Pacific and NAFTA in North America is reflective of the notion of globalized trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement was the largest free trade zone in the world at its conception and set an example for the future of liberalized trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement is coming into it's twentieth anniversary on January 1st, 2014. 1 NAFTA not only sought to enhance the trade of goods and services across the borders of Canada, US and Mexico but it fostered shared interest in investment, transportation, communication, border relations, as well as environmental and labour issues. The North American Free Trade Agreement was groundbreaking because it included Mexico in the arrangement.2 Mexico was a much poorer, culturally different and protective country in comparison to the likes of Canada and the United States. Many members of the U.S Congress were against the agreement because they did not want to enter into an agreement with a country that had an authoritarian regime, human rights violations and a flawed electoral system.3 Both Canadians and Americans alike, feared that Mexico's lower wages and lax human rights laws would generate massive job losses in their respected economies. Issues of sovereignty came into play throughout discussions of the North American Free Trade Agreement in Canada. Many found issue with the fact that bureaucrats and politicians from alien countries would be making deci...
The political force moved away from the painstakingly and time-consuming technique of multilateral tariff negotiations to smaller regional and bilateral provisions - the Regional Trade Agreement. In these arrangements; members accord preferential treatment , basically agreeing to liberalize the exchange of goods and services amongst each another giving regard to certain trade barriers. RTA is not the first-hand way of trade liberalization though. Initially, when multilateral trade discussions used to happen, two-sided and multiparty FTA”s filled the vacuum. There were restrictions from stringent and premeditated trade arrangements earlier, thus a lot of states are now moving towards freer trade for their own benefits.
Sustainability is a concept with a diverse array of meanings and definitions – a widely used glamorous, ambiguous, ambivalent and vague concept that is used by different stakeholder groups in various ways. Presumably to avoid noodling over a terminology or to avoid the confrontation with a definition, most widely the concept is broken down a planning process (c.f. e.g. Döring & Muraca, 2010). That is why most common sustainability is understood as sustainable development.1
The Rio+20 UN Summit on Sustainable Development which took place in Brazil in 2012, a prototype of unsuccessful collaboration between governments of different countries was very unsuccessful in its objective of sustainable development. is one of the many examples of the inability of different nations to decide on an agenda for Sustainable Development. The final conclusion negotiated “The Future We Want”, comprised of paragraphs of declarations and affirmations, was in fact just a plea for a better environment. Kumi Naidu, the executive director of Greenpeace International, stated that the conference was “A failure of epic proportions” and further added that the statement itself was “the longest suicide notes in history.
A policy of controlled development -"sustainable development"-was codified at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro. Momentum had been building since United Nations Conference on Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972. At Stockholm the outline for sustainable development was first drafted and presented to the world's leaders and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) was born. More than a dozen international conferences followed, culminating in the Rio Conference.
“Sustainable Development: At its heart, sustainable development is the simple idea of ensuring a good quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come. It is about living within the carrying capacity of the environment so that how we live, work and enjoy leisure activities, which do not harm or put undue pressures on the environment. It is about ensuring everyone has the opportunity to have a decent education, a quality environment that they take pride in, good health and a decent job (n.p, 2014)”
Toscano, J. (2003). Globalization and sustainable development. In B. H, & R. W, Achieving Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Governance Across Social Scales. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Sustainable development as a theory was first defined in the Brundtland report (also known as Our Common Future) in 1987. The report was the work of the United Nations...