Commission, DG Commerce, “Strategic Plan 2016-2020” (2016) called July 19, 2019. Routledge – CRC Press eBooks are available via VitalSource. VitalSource Bookshelf® free app allows you to access your e-books anytime and anywhere. This book is aimed at researchers, post-studies, trade policy makers, political scientists allied with labour movements, and informed activists. While the rules of work in trade agreements are now plentiful around the world, the United States and the EU remain the main proponents of the link, but their models of protection are regularly contrasted in academic literature, and these models have been tracked to varying degrees by other countries. The following two sections outline these two models and are critically evaluated. The extent of the criticism levelle against the TSD chapters is illustrated by the many responses the Commission has received to its informal consultations, including the letter from Klaus Muller, Director General of the Federal Association of Consumer Centres, to Sandra Gallina, Deputy Director General of DG Commerce (November 9, 2017). See also the European Commission`s own characterisation within the Commission, “Trade and Sustainable Development Chapter (TSD) in EU Free Trade Agreements” (2017) Non-Paper of the Commission Services, 2 , to be opened on 19 July 2019. With respect to institutional oversight, all chapters include the creation of a single committee made up of officials from both parties who will oversee the implementation of the chapter. This is accompanied by a civil society mechanism (MSC) that brings together representatives of businesses, trade unions, NGOs and (occasionally) universities in national advisory groups and facilitates international dialogue between these parties through a civil society forum.
The dispute resolution procedure for the other chapters of the agreement, which authorizes a complaint that could result in the suspension of trade preferences with respect to the other party, is not available (i.e., there is no sanctioning power). On the contrary, complaints are handled by a panel of experts who are tasked with communicating their results only in a manner consistent with the institutional framework defined in each agreement24. Unlike the EU, the United States has made no effort to wrap up labour provisions as part of a more comprehensive approach to managing the dimensions of “sustainable development” of trade relations. Work and environmental issues are addressed in separate chapters. The effects of this difference are most evident in the monitoring and notification processes put in place by both agreements. While the EU model provides for the obligation to monitor and verify the impact of the agreement on sustainable development (including work), the US model focuses on communicating information on relevant work issues within the parties. The U.S. model therefore focuses on labour issues in the national systems of its trading partners. On the other hand, the EU model focuses – at least in theory – on entering the trade agreement in order to determine the impact of the new trade relations themselves on workers` conditions, with wider social and environmental consequences as soon as the trade agreement comes into force. Proponents of labour rules on both sides of the Atlantic have largely acknowledged the inadequacy of EU and US models.