Main Article Content
The member States of Mercosur are currently negotiating a Trade Agreement with the EU, as part of the process towards a comprehensive bi-regional Association Agreement. In 2016, the EU and Mercosur members exchanged offers, followed by a negotiation round. The next round will be held in October 2017; while awaiting for political developments, it is worth anticipating some challenges to come, especially from a legal perspective. Both actors have a multilayered system for decision-making, requiring the consensus of a multiplicity of governmental actors and thus enabling them to convey. Furthermore, current dialogues consider a broad range of issues, which were also covered by different EU’s agreements with other trading partners. These agreements received critiques from the civil society, which are worth to reflect upon, considering that the trade agreement is due to impact the general negotiation for the bi-regional Association Agreement. The paper develops this reflection from a twofold perspective: that of the institutional nature of EU and Mercosur and that of the democratic deficit in the overall negotiation process.
Bungenberg, M. and Herrmann, C. (eds.) (2003). Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon. The Hague.
Cabrol C. (2011). El Parlamento del Mercosur: su limitado rol en el marco de una estructura institucional intergubernamental. Lupa Empresarial, 14.
Cellerino, C. (2015). EU common commercial policy in context: opportunities and challenges of a changing landscape. Diritto del commercio internationale, 3, 783-807.
Chaire Mercosur de Sciences Po (2005). Annual report 2005.
Chin Hong, D. (2010). The EU Model for a Taiwan- China Free Trade Agreement. Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs, 26, 35-55.
De Wet, E. (2006). The emergence of international and regional value systems as manifestation of the emerging international constitutional legal order. Leiden Journal of International Law, 19, 611-632.
Devuyst, Y. (2013). European Union Law and Practice in the Negotiation and Conclusion of International Trade Agreements. Journal of International Business and Law, XII, 259-316.
Ensinck, O. (2008). La integración regional: los desafíos institucionales del mercosur, in Graglia, E. (eds.), Políticas municipales para el desarrollo local y regional ii. Córdoba: Universidad Católica de Córdoba.
EU Commission (2006). Global Europe: competing in the world, com(2006)567.
EU Commission (2015). Trade for all. Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy.
EU Commission (2017), Report from the xxviii thround of negotiations Of the Trade Part of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Mercosur Brussels, 3-7 July 2017.
Gomez Lehay, P. (2015). The interregional association agreement between the European Union and Mercosur: is the timing right? (Bruges Political Research Papers 46/2015).
Hinojosa, L. (2009). EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement: Potential impacts on rural livelihoods and gender (with focus on bio-fuels feedstock expansion). Sustainability, 1, 1120-1143.
Koutrakos P. (2008). Legal basis and delimitation of competencies, in Cremona, M. and De Witte, B. (eds.), EU Foreign Relations Law, Constitutional Fundamentals (pp. 171-98). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pauwelyn, J., Wessel, R. A. and Wouters, J. (2012). When Structures Become Shackles: Stagnation and Dynamics in International Lawmaking (KU Leuven Working Paper 97).
Robles Jr, A. C. (2008). EU fta Negotiations with sadc and Mercosur: integration into the world economy or market access for EU firms? Third World Quarterly, 29, 187-191.
Robles Jr., A. C. (2008). The EU and asean: Learning from the Failed EU-Mercosur fta Negotiations asean. Economic Bulletin, 7, 334-344.
Schmidt, J. P. (2014). Mercosur. Max Plank Encyclopedia of international law, vii, 110-117.