欧盟委员会在“全民贸易”中关于可持续发展的讨论:一个争论的视角

Shuxiao Kuang
{"title":"欧盟委员会在“全民贸易”中关于可持续发展的讨论:一个争论的视角","authors":"Shuxiao Kuang","doi":"10.54648/eerr2021019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations triggered unprecedented contestation over the European Union’s (EU’s) domestic policy space for sustainable development. Whilst extant studies reveal the conflicts between norms and institutions of EU trade politics on sustainable development, and highlight the significance of sustainability in countering neoliberalism, they seldom analyse the incremental steps toward sustainable development achieved by the contestation of TTIP. This article addresses that gap by drawing on an analytical framework that regards political discourse as argumentation for action, which is both constrained and enabled by institutional context (I. Fairclough & N. Fairclough, Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students (Routledge, 2012a).). Based on a textual analysis of policy documents on ‘Trade for All’, there are two significant findings: (1) the public contestation on TTIP triggered the European Commission’s (the Commission) practical arguments on sustainable development in ‘Trade for All’ trade strategy; (2) the Commission adapted its original proposal of measures on sustainable development in light of other actors’ criticisms in the implementation of ‘Trade for All’. Taken more broadly, this innovative analytical framework, and my empirical findings, will make a contribution to a research agenda which clarifies obstacles and opportunities for alternative, counter-hegemonic trade policies.\nEuropean Commission, Sustainable Development, TTIP, Trade, Political Discourse, Practical Argument","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The European Commission’s Discourses on Sustainable Development in ‘Trade for All’: An Argumentative Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Shuxiao Kuang\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/eerr2021019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations triggered unprecedented contestation over the European Union’s (EU’s) domestic policy space for sustainable development. Whilst extant studies reveal the conflicts between norms and institutions of EU trade politics on sustainable development, and highlight the significance of sustainability in countering neoliberalism, they seldom analyse the incremental steps toward sustainable development achieved by the contestation of TTIP. This article addresses that gap by drawing on an analytical framework that regards political discourse as argumentation for action, which is both constrained and enabled by institutional context (I. Fairclough & N. Fairclough, Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students (Routledge, 2012a).). Based on a textual analysis of policy documents on ‘Trade for All’, there are two significant findings: (1) the public contestation on TTIP triggered the European Commission’s (the Commission) practical arguments on sustainable development in ‘Trade for All’ trade strategy; (2) the Commission adapted its original proposal of measures on sustainable development in light of other actors’ criticisms in the implementation of ‘Trade for All’. Taken more broadly, this innovative analytical framework, and my empirical findings, will make a contribution to a research agenda which clarifies obstacles and opportunities for alternative, counter-hegemonic trade policies.\\nEuropean Commission, Sustainable Development, TTIP, Trade, Political Discourse, Practical Argument\",\"PeriodicalId\":84710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European foreign affairs review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European foreign affairs review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2021019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European foreign affairs review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2021019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

跨大西洋贸易与投资伙伴关系(TTIP)谈判引发了对欧盟(EU)国内可持续发展政策空间的前所未有的争论。虽然现有的研究揭示了欧盟贸易政治在可持续发展方面的规范和制度之间的冲突,并强调了可持续性在对抗新自由主义方面的重要性,但它们很少分析TTIP之争实现的可持续发展的渐进步骤。本文通过借鉴一个分析框架来解决这一差距,该框架将政治话语视为行动的论据,这既受到制度背景的约束,也受到制度背景的推动(I. Fairclough & N. Fairclough,政治话语分析:高级学生的方法(Routledge, 2012a))。基于对“全民贸易”政策文件的文本分析,有两个重要发现:(1)公众对TTIP的争论引发了欧盟委员会(European Commission)在“全民贸易”贸易战略中关于可持续发展的实践论证;(2)委员会根据其他行为者在实施“人人享有贸易”方面的批评,修改了其关于可持续发展措施的原始提案。从更广泛的角度来看,这一创新的分析框架以及我的实证研究结果,将为研究议程做出贡献,澄清替代性反霸权贸易政策的障碍和机遇。欧盟委员会,可持续发展,TTIP,贸易,政治话语,实践论证
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
The European Commission’s Discourses on Sustainable Development in ‘Trade for All’: An Argumentative Perspective
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations triggered unprecedented contestation over the European Union’s (EU’s) domestic policy space for sustainable development. Whilst extant studies reveal the conflicts between norms and institutions of EU trade politics on sustainable development, and highlight the significance of sustainability in countering neoliberalism, they seldom analyse the incremental steps toward sustainable development achieved by the contestation of TTIP. This article addresses that gap by drawing on an analytical framework that regards political discourse as argumentation for action, which is both constrained and enabled by institutional context (I. Fairclough & N. Fairclough, Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students (Routledge, 2012a).). Based on a textual analysis of policy documents on ‘Trade for All’, there are two significant findings: (1) the public contestation on TTIP triggered the European Commission’s (the Commission) practical arguments on sustainable development in ‘Trade for All’ trade strategy; (2) the Commission adapted its original proposal of measures on sustainable development in light of other actors’ criticisms in the implementation of ‘Trade for All’. Taken more broadly, this innovative analytical framework, and my empirical findings, will make a contribution to a research agenda which clarifies obstacles and opportunities for alternative, counter-hegemonic trade policies. European Commission, Sustainable Development, TTIP, Trade, Political Discourse, Practical Argument
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
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Fast and Furious? A Quick Digest of a Plan for the Accelerated Integration of Candidate Countries into the EU The EU’s Vaccine Diplomacy in the WHO The Compatibility of the ISDS Mechanism under the Energy Charter Treaty With the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order European Defence Union ASAP: The Act in Support of Ammunition Production and the development of EU defence capabilities in response to the war in Ukraine Who is really affected by European Union terrorist sanctions? A Critical Study on ‘Proximity’ in EU Case Law
×
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