聋人的对话?关于欧盟与WTO服务自由化的矛盾论述

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS British Journal of Politics & International Relations Pub Date : 2013-04-29 DOI:10.1111/1467-856X.12018
Amandine Crespy
{"title":"聋人的对话?关于欧盟与WTO服务自由化的矛盾论述","authors":"Amandine Crespy","doi":"10.1111/1467-856X.12018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>The role of the European Union (EU) in services liberalisation—and the impact thereof on the provision of services of general interest—has been highly contentious both globally and in the EU. Besides other policy issues, services liberalisation contributes to make the EU a ‘conflicted trade power’ (Meunier and Nicolaïdis 2006).</li>\n \n <li>The study of conflicting discourses and, in particular, the EU's responsiveness to criticism towards the conduct of its trade policy can help to understand the legitimacy issues the EU has to face better than approaches focused on negotiating positions shaped.</li>\n \n <li>The study finds that the EU's trade policy is characterised by continuity in spite of the a) potentially various ideological profiles of EU Trade Commissioners b) in the face of contention by civil society, c) external events such as the global financial crisis and the EU debt crisis.</li>\n \n <li>However, specific institutional settings can prompt political responsiveness from the Commission in a greater extent. In the European arena, unlike in the more loosely structured global arena, the existence of a parliamentary debate and formal as well as informal contacts with organised civil society (NGOs, interest groups and unions) constrain the EU Commission to more discursive responsiveness and provides for better accountability.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>This article examines interactions between two conflicting discourses over the EU, public services and negotiations during the WTO Doha Round (2001–2012): on the one hand, the discourse of the anti-GATS transnational advocacy network, and on the other, that of the two EU Trade Commissioners. Conducting a frame analysis in a discursive institutionalist perspective, the eventfulness of political interactions is found to be more important than Commissioners’ personal views, but differentiated institutional settings are even more crucial: the presence of a parliamentary arena in the EU arena, in particular, constrains Commissioners to engage with the discourse put forward by its critics; whereas in the global arena they tend to stick to their own framing of services liberalisation as a win-win process. The stalling of the Doha Round and the rise of the debt crisis have brought about new ways of framing threats related to the EU's trade policy.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51479,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","volume":"16 1","pages":"168-187"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12018","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Dialogue of the Deaf? Conflicting Discourses over the EU and Services Liberalisation in the WTO\",\"authors\":\"Amandine Crespy\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-856X.12018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>\\n </p><ul>\\n \\n <li>The role of the European Union (EU) in services liberalisation—and the impact thereof on the provision of services of general interest—has been highly contentious both globally and in the EU. Besides other policy issues, services liberalisation contributes to make the EU a ‘conflicted trade power’ (Meunier and Nicolaïdis 2006).</li>\\n \\n <li>The study of conflicting discourses and, in particular, the EU's responsiveness to criticism towards the conduct of its trade policy can help to understand the legitimacy issues the EU has to face better than approaches focused on negotiating positions shaped.</li>\\n \\n <li>The study finds that the EU's trade policy is characterised by continuity in spite of the a) potentially various ideological profiles of EU Trade Commissioners b) in the face of contention by civil society, c) external events such as the global financial crisis and the EU debt crisis.</li>\\n \\n <li>However, specific institutional settings can prompt political responsiveness from the Commission in a greater extent. In the European arena, unlike in the more loosely structured global arena, the existence of a parliamentary debate and formal as well as informal contacts with organised civil society (NGOs, interest groups and unions) constrain the EU Commission to more discursive responsiveness and provides for better accountability.</li>\\n </ul>\\n <p>This article examines interactions between two conflicting discourses over the EU, public services and negotiations during the WTO Doha Round (2001–2012): on the one hand, the discourse of the anti-GATS transnational advocacy network, and on the other, that of the two EU Trade Commissioners. Conducting a frame analysis in a discursive institutionalist perspective, the eventfulness of political interactions is found to be more important than Commissioners’ personal views, but differentiated institutional settings are even more crucial: the presence of a parliamentary arena in the EU arena, in particular, constrains Commissioners to engage with the discourse put forward by its critics; whereas in the global arena they tend to stick to their own framing of services liberalisation as a win-win process. The stalling of the Doha Round and the rise of the debt crisis have brought about new ways of framing threats related to the EU's trade policy.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Politics & International Relations\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"168-187\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12018\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Politics & International Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12018\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12018","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

欧盟(EU)在服务业自由化中所扮演的角色及其对服务提供的影响在全球和欧盟内部都是极具争议的。除了其他政策问题,服务自由化有助于使欧盟成为一个“冲突的贸易大国”(Meunier和Nicolaïdis 2006)。对冲突话语的研究,特别是对欧盟对其贸易政策行为的批评的回应,可以帮助我们更好地理解欧盟必须面对的合法性问题,而不是专注于谈判立场形成的方法。研究发现,欧盟的贸易政策具有连续性的特点,尽管a)欧盟贸易专员的潜在不同的意识形态轮廓b)面对民间社会的争论,c)外部事件,如全球金融危机和欧盟债务危机。但是,具体的体制环境可以在更大程度上促使委员会作出政治反应。在欧洲的舞台上,与结构松散的全球舞台不同,议会辩论的存在以及与有组织的民间社会(非政府组织、利益集团和工会)的正式和非正式接触,限制了欧盟委员会更多的话语回应,并提供了更好的问责制。本文考察了世贸组织多哈回合(2001-2012)期间关于欧盟、公共服务和谈判的两种相互冲突的话语之间的相互作用:一方面是反gats跨国倡导网络的话语,另一方面是两位欧盟贸易专员的话语。从话语制度主义的角度进行框架分析,发现政治互动的多事性比委员们的个人观点更重要,但不同的制度设置更为关键:特别是欧盟舞台上议会舞台的存在,限制了委员们参与批评者提出的话语;然而在全球舞台上,他们倾向于坚持自己的服务自由化框架,认为这是一个双赢的过程。多哈回合谈判(Doha Round)的停滞和债务危机的加剧,为与欧盟贸易政策相关的威胁提供了新的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Dialogue of the Deaf? Conflicting Discourses over the EU and Services Liberalisation in the WTO

  • The role of the European Union (EU) in services liberalisation—and the impact thereof on the provision of services of general interest—has been highly contentious both globally and in the EU. Besides other policy issues, services liberalisation contributes to make the EU a ‘conflicted trade power’ (Meunier and Nicolaïdis 2006).
  • The study of conflicting discourses and, in particular, the EU's responsiveness to criticism towards the conduct of its trade policy can help to understand the legitimacy issues the EU has to face better than approaches focused on negotiating positions shaped.
  • The study finds that the EU's trade policy is characterised by continuity in spite of the a) potentially various ideological profiles of EU Trade Commissioners b) in the face of contention by civil society, c) external events such as the global financial crisis and the EU debt crisis.
  • However, specific institutional settings can prompt political responsiveness from the Commission in a greater extent. In the European arena, unlike in the more loosely structured global arena, the existence of a parliamentary debate and formal as well as informal contacts with organised civil society (NGOs, interest groups and unions) constrain the EU Commission to more discursive responsiveness and provides for better accountability.

This article examines interactions between two conflicting discourses over the EU, public services and negotiations during the WTO Doha Round (2001–2012): on the one hand, the discourse of the anti-GATS transnational advocacy network, and on the other, that of the two EU Trade Commissioners. Conducting a frame analysis in a discursive institutionalist perspective, the eventfulness of political interactions is found to be more important than Commissioners’ personal views, but differentiated institutional settings are even more crucial: the presence of a parliamentary arena in the EU arena, in particular, constrains Commissioners to engage with the discourse put forward by its critics; whereas in the global arena they tend to stick to their own framing of services liberalisation as a win-win process. The stalling of the Doha Round and the rise of the debt crisis have brought about new ways of framing threats related to the EU's trade policy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: BJPIR provides an outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain Founded in 1999, BJPIR is now based in the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham. It is a major refereed journal published by Blackwell Publishing under the auspices of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom. BJPIR is committed to acting as a broadly-based outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain. A fully refereed journal, it publishes topical, scholarly work on significant debates in British scholarship and on all major political issues affecting Britain"s relationship to Europe and the world.
期刊最新文献
Crisis politics of dehumanisation during COVID-19: A framework for mapping the social processes through which dehumanisation undermines human dignity. Britain's COVID-19 battle: The role of political leaders in shaping the responses to the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccine apartheid and the failure of global cooperation. Alcohol policy, multi-level governance and corporate political strategy: The campaign for Scotland's minimum unit pricing in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. 'The Pope's own hand outstretched': Holy See diplomacy as a hybrid mode of diplomatic agency.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1