EU Free Trade Agreements as an Instrument of Promoting the Rule of Law in Third Countries: A Framework Paper

Rabinovych, Maryna

doi:10.1007/8165_2019_31

Maryna Rabinovych²⁷

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 10))

812 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

This contribution explores the EU FTAs as an instrument of promoting the rule of law to third states. The background to this research is formed by the trend towards the rise of normative contestation globally and EU-wide; the EU’s shift to the “deep” bi- and plurilateral trade liberalization agenda following the deadlock of the WTO Doha Round and its ongoing efforts to strengthen the coherence of its external action. First, the paper refers to the rule of law as a fundamental value of the EU and operationalizes it. Next, it explores the foundational (“framework”) foreign policy and legal prerequisites behind the EU’s promotion of the rule of law through FTAs (the interplay between economic and normative objectives in the EU external action, the nature of EU power in external trade relations, its bargaining power in trade negotiations, legal basis and scope of FTAs that can be instrumentalised by the EU to promote values). Finally, the paper uses the example of administrative cooperation and public procurement chapters of three categories of EU FTAs (SAAs with Western Balkans, AAs with Eastern Neighbours and EU-CARIFORUM EPA) to illustrate the rule of law promotion potential of the EU FTAs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 139.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Duncombe and Dunne (2018), pp. 25–26; Hooghe and Marks (2016), pp. 2–4.
2.
Duncombe and Dunne (2018), pp. 28–29.
3.
See, for instance: Cianetti et al. (2018) and Sheppele and Pech (2018).
4.
Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union. OJ 2012 C326, Article 2 [TEU or TEU(L)].
5.
Pech (2012/2013), p. 7.
6.
Ibid, pp. 14–21.
7.
TEU, Article 21(3).
8.
For the purposes of this paper, the notion “Free Trade Agreement” refers to any reciprocal agreement between the EU and a third state or a group of states that includes a trade-liberalization component.
9.
Commission’s Communication “Global Europe: Competing in the World”, COM(2006)567 final.
10.
Araujo (2016), p. 2.
11.
Ibid, p. 4.
12.
A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy “Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe”, https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en/global-strategy-foreign-and-security-policy-european-union (last accessed 8 February 2019).
13.
Larik (2016), p. 220.
14.
Hallstein (1979), pp. 51–53.
15.
Ibid.
16.
Pech (2009), pp. 22–47.
17.
CJEU, Case 294/83 Partiécologiste “Les Verts” v European Parliament, ECLI:EU:C:1986:166, para 23.
18.
Ibid.
19.
Ibid.
20.
Ibid.
21.
Treaty on European Union. OJ 1992 C191, Preamble.
22.
Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts. OJ 1997 C 340, Articles 6(1), 49 and 11(1).
23.
TEU, Article 21(2)(b).
24.
Commission’s Communication “A New EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law”, COM(2014) 158 final/2.
25.
European Commission for Democracy through Law (2016) Rule of Law Checklist. Study No 711/2013, https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2016)007-e (last accessed 8 February 2019).
26.
TEU, Article 21(1).
27.
European Commission for Democracy through Law (2016), pp. 11–14.
28.
Dicey (1985), p. 202.
29.
Ibid.
30.
Ibid.
31.
Ibid.
32.
Ibid, pp. 15–17.
33.
Ibid, p. 11.
34.
Ibid, p. 20.
35.
Ibid, p. 11.
36.
Ibid, p. 20.
37.
Ibid. See also: Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (1994) Recommendation No R (94) 12 on the independence, efficiency and role of judges.
38.
Bovens (2007), p. 182.
39.
Busuioc (2013), p. 32.
40.
Ibid.
41.
Ibid.
42.
Karageorgou (2014), p. 2.
43.
Council and European Parliament Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and the Commission documents. OJ 2001 L 45.
44.
CJEU, Case C-417/99 Commission v. Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2001:445, para. 40.
45.
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. OJ 2012 C326, Article 296 (TFEU).
46.
TEU, Articles 2 and 3(2).
47.
European Commission for Democracy through Law (2016), p. 18.
48.
Ibid, p. 18.
49.
Ibid, p. 18.
50.
Ibid, p. 12.
51.
Larik (2016), p. 5.
52.
TEU, Article 21(2)(e).
53.
A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy “Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe”.
54.
Biscop (2016), p. 1.
55.
A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy “Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe”.
56.
Juncos (2017), p. 5.
57.
Ibid.
58.
Hachez (2015), p. 18.
59.
UN General Assembly Resolution “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1.
60.
TEU, Article 21(2)(d).
61.
Manners (2002).
62.
Ibid, p. 242.
63.
Ibid.
64.
Aggestam (2013), p. 464.
65.
Haukkala (2011), p. 47.
66.
Damro (2012).
67.
Meunier and Nicolaïdis (2006).
68.
European Commission (2018) The EU’s position in world trade in figures, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20180703STO07132/the-eu-s-position-in-world-trade-in-figures-infographic (last accessed 8 February 2019).
69.
Damro (2012), p. 687.
70.
Meunier and Nicolaïdis (2006).
71.
Freyburg et al. (2011).
72.
Tussie and Saguier (2013), p. 3.
73.
Ibid, p. 14.
74.
Hirschmann (1980), p. 25.
75.
Lamprecht (2014), p. 47.
76.
Ibid.
77.
European Commission (2018) Trade and Development in a Nutshell, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/development/ (last accessed 8 February 2018).
78.
Clapham (1996), p. 101.
79.
For the criticism of externally funded legal reforms, see: Erbeznik (2011).
80.
On the challenges of EU external democratization efforts in authoritarian regimes, see: Risse and Babayan (2015).
81.
Wetzel (2015).
82.
European Commission (2018) Trade and Development in a Nutshell, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/development/ (last accessed 8 February 2018).
83.
European Commission’s and High Representative’s Joint Communication “Elements for a New EU Strategy for China”, JOIN(2016) 30 final.
84.
See, for instance: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part. OJ 2017 L11, Preamble.
85.
Araujo (2014), pp. 279–280.
86.
Schimelfennig and Sedelmeier (2004), p. 669.
87.
Petrov et al. (2015), pp. 1–4.
88.
While this paper focuses on these three groups of agreements, further EU FTAs can be strategically used by the EU to promote the rule of law, provided that it possesses the necessary bargaining power.
89.
For an overview of the EU’s democratization efforts in the Western Balkans over the period from 1994 to 2010, see: Grimm and Mathis (2017).
90.
Petrov et al. (2015), pp. 1–4.
91.
Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989. OJ 1991 L 229, Article 5.
92.
For the reasons behind the trade liberalization-only focus of the other EU EPAs with ACP countries, see: Gammage (2017), pp. 158–178.
93.
TFEU, Articles 206 and 207.
94.
TFEU, Article 206.
95.
Kube (2016), p. 15.
96.
CJEU, Opinion 2/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376.
97.
Ibid, para 142.
98.
Kube (2016), p. 29.
99.
TFEU, Article 3(2).
100.
EUR-LEX (n.d). International Agreements and the EU’s External Competences, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Aai0034 (last accessed 09 February 2019).
101.
Ibid.
102.
For an in-detail discussion regarding the “split” legal basis of the EU-Ukraine AA, see: Van der Loo (2016), pp. 166–175.
103.
See, for instance: Stabilization and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part. OJ L 2009 107/66, (EU-Albania SAA); Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part. OJ 2014 L 161/3 (EU-Ukraine AA).
104.
TFEU, Article 208.
105.
Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States of the other part. OJ 2008 L 289/173 (CEPA).
106.
Araujo (2014), p. 279.
107.
On the “junctures” between law, trade and development and the “augmented” Washington Consensus: Rodrik (2006), p. 978.
108.
See, for instance: EU-Albania SAA, Chapter IV; EU-Ukraine AA, Chapter 7; CEPA, Chapter 5, Section 5.
109.
Ibid.
110.
See, for instance: EU-Ukraine AA, Article 148, Article 50.
111.
Rabinovych (2017).
112.
EU-Ukraine AA, Article 286.
113.
Hofmann (2008), p. 662.
114.
Torma (2011), p. 149.
115.
Torma (2011), pp. 148–156.
116.
Lavenex (2015), pp. 842–845.
117.
Lavenex (2015), pp. 836–838.
118.
See, for instance: Stabilization and Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Kosovo, of the other part. Official Journal of the European Union L 71, 16.3.2016, Article 48(4) (EU-Kosovo SAA); EU-Ukraine AA, Article 37; CEPA, Article 20.
119.
Ibid.
120.
EU-Ukraine AA, Article 37(3); CEPA, Article 20(3)(b).
121.
EU-Kosovo SAA, Article 104; EU-Ukraine AA, Article 36; CEPA, Article 20(1).
122.
EU-Kosovo SAA, Article 136(4), sentence 2; EU-Ukraine AA, Article 37(4)(a); CEPA, Article 20(5).
123.
EU-Ukraine AA, Article 37(2); CEPA, Art. 20(2).
124.
See: EU-Kosovo SAA, Protocol IV; EU-Ukraine AA, Protocol II; CEPA, Protocol II.
125.
EU-Kosovo SAA, Protocol IV, Article 2(1); EU-Ukraine AA, Protocol II, Article 2(1); CEPA, Protocol II. Article 2(1).
126.
EU-Kosovo SAA, Protocol IV, Article 2(1).
127.
EU-Kosovo SAA, Protocol IV, Article 3(1); EU-Ukraine AA, Protocol II, Article 3(1); CEPA, Protocol II. Article 3(1).
128.
Ibid.
129.
EU-Kosovo SAA, Protocol IV, Article 9; EU-Ukraine AA, Protocol II, Article 9; CEPA, Protocol II. Article 9.
130.
EU-Kosovo SAA, Protocol IV, Article 7; EU-Ukraine AA, Protocol II, Article 7; CEPA, Protocol II. Article 7.
131.
EU-Ukraine AA, Part IV, Chapter 5; Association Agreement between the European Union and the Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part. OJ 2014 L260, Part IV, Chapter 5 (EU-Moldova AA); Association Agreement between the European Union and the Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part. OJ 2014 L 261/4, Part IV, Chapter 5 (EU-Georgia AA).
132.
World Trade Organization (2017) Trade Facilitation, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/tradfa_e.htm (last accessed 10 February 2019).
133.
See, for instance: EU-Moldova AA, Article 192.
134.
European Commission (2018) EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, Chapter 4, Article 4(1)(2), http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/september/tradoc_157349.pdf (last accessed 10 February 2019).
135.
Heinemann (2007), p. 262.
136.
See, for instance: EU-Moldova AA, Article 193(1).
137.
Ibid, Article 193(1), Article 194(a).
138.
Ibid, Article 194(a), Article 193(2)(e).
139.
Ibid, Article 193(1)(b), Article 193(2)(g).
140.
Ibid, Article 193(2)(c).
141.
Ibid, Articles 194–195; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. OJ 2012 C326, Article 47, 44.
142.
EU-Moldova AA, Article 193(1).
143.
Ibid, Article 197.
144.
Ibid, Article 201.
145.
Ibid, Article 193(1)(h).
146.
Rabinovych (2017).
147.
European Commission (n.d) Public Procurement, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/public-procurement_en (last accessed 10 February 2019).
148.
Commission’s Communication “Making Public Procurement work in and for Europe”, COM (2017)572 final.
149.
Araujo (2016), p. 4.
150.
Commission’s Communication “Making Public Procurement work in and for Europe”, COM (2017)572 final, pp. 5 and 10.
151.
Ibid.
152.
European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement and repealing Directive 2014/18/EC. OJ 2014 L94.
153.
Ibid, p. 1 of the Preamble.
154.
European Commission (n.d) Public Procurement, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/public-procurement_en (last accessed 10 February 2019).
155.
WTO (2014) Revised Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/rev-gpr-94_01_e.htm (last accessed 10 February 2019).
156.
EU-Albania SAA, Article 70, Article 74.
157.
See: European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement and repealing Directive 2014/18/EC. OJ 2014 L94, Preamble (pp. 1, 2, 45, 52, 58, 59, 61, 107), Section 2, Article 76 etc.; European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts. OJ 2014 L94, Preamble (pp. 4, 6, 33, 53, 61), Article 3, Article 15 etc.; Council Directive 89/665/EEC on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts. OJ 1989 L 395.
158.
Council Directive 89/665/EEC.
159.
Ibid, Article 7.
160.
Ibid, Article 2(8).
161.
Van der Loo (2016), p. 304.
162.
Petrov et al. (2015).
163.
See, for instance: EU-Ukraine AA, Article 151(2)(5)(8)(11)(12).
164.
EU-Ukraine AA, Article 151(15).
165.
Van der Loo (2016), p. 308.
166.
EU-Ukraine AA, Article 154(2).
167.
Ibid, Article 154(4).
168.
Ibid, Article 153.
169.
Van der Loo (2016), p. 308.
170.
European Commission (n.d) Economic Partnership Agreements, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/development/economic-partnerships/ (last accessed 11 February 2019).
171.
For the reasons behind the trade liberalization-only focus of the other EU EPAs with ACP countries, see: Gammage (2017), pp. 158–178.
172.
CEPA, Article 165.
173.
GPA, Article 5.
174.
Ibid.
175.
CEPA, Article 182.
176.
CEPA, Articles 167–182. For the comparative analysis of GPA, UNCITRAL and CEPA public procurement rules.

References

Aggestam E (2013) Global norms and European power. In: Jorgensen E et al (eds) Routledge handbook on the European Union and international institutions. Palgrave McMillan, Basingstoke
Google Scholar
Araujo B (2014) The EU’s deep trade agenda: stumbling block or stepping stone towards multilateral liberalization? In: Herrmann C, Krajewski M, Terhechte J (eds) European yearbook of international economic law 2014. Springer, Berlin
Google Scholar
Araujo B (2016) The EU deep trade agenda: law and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Biscop S (2016) The EU global strategy: Realpolitik with European characteristics. Egmont Institute Security Policy Brief 75
Google Scholar
Bovens M (2007) Public accountability. In: Ferlie E et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Busuioc E (2013) European agencies: law and practices of accountability. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Cianetti L, Dawson J, Hanley S (2018) Rethinking “democratic backsliding” in Central and Eastern Europe: looking beyond Hungary and Poland. East Eur Polit 34(3):243–256
Article Google Scholar
Clapham C (1996) Africa and the international system: the politics of state survival. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Damro C (2012) Market power Europe. J Eur Public Policy 19(5):682–699
Article Google Scholar
Dicey A (1985) Introduction to the study of the law of the Constitution, 10th edn. Springer, Berlin
Google Scholar
Duncombe C, Dunne T (2018) After liberal world order. Int Aff 94:25–42
Article Google Scholar
Erbeznik K (2011) Money can’t buy you law: the effects of foreign aid on the rule of law in developing countries. Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 18:873–900
Article Google Scholar
Freyburg T, Lavenex S, Schimmelfennig F, Skripka T, Wetzel A (2011) Democracy promotion through functional cooperation? The case of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Democratization 18(4):1026–1054
Article Google Scholar
Gammage C (2017) North-South regional trade agreements as legal regimes. A critical assessment of the EU-SADC Economic Partnership Agreement. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Google Scholar
Grimm S, Mathis O (2017) Democratization via aid? The European Union’s democracy promotion in the Western Balkans 1994–2010. Eur Union Polit 19(1)
Article Google Scholar
Hachez N (2015) “Essential Elements” clauses in EU trade agreements: making trade work in a way that helps human rights. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies No 158. https://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/publications/working_papers/2015/158hachez. Last accessed 8 Feb 2019
Hallstein W (1979) Die Europäische Gemeinschaft. ECON, Munich
Google Scholar
Haukkala H (2011) The European Union as regional normative hegemon: the case of European Neighbourhood Policy. In: Whitman R (ed) Normative power Europe: empirical and theoretical perspectives. Springer, Berlin, pp 1601–1622
Google Scholar
Heinemann A (2007) International antitrust and intellectual property. In: Heath C, Sanders A (eds) Intellectual property and free trade agreements. Bloomsbury, Oxford, pp 261–283
Google Scholar
Hirschmann A (1980) National power and the structure of foreign trade. University of California Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Hofmann CH (2008) Mapping the European administrative space. West Eur Polit 31(4):662–676
Article Google Scholar
Hooghe L, Marks G (2016) Europe’s crises and political contestation. Paper presented at the Conference, “Theory Meets Crisis”, pp 2–4, Robert Schuman Center, EUI. http://www.euengage.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Hooghe-Marks-Europes-Crises-and-Political-Contestation.pdf. Last accessed 8 Feb 2019
Juncos A (2017) Resilience as a new European foreign policy paradigm: a pragmatist turn? Eur Secur 26(1):1–18
Article Google Scholar
Karageorgou V (2014) Transparency as an evolving principle of EU law: regulative contours and implications. Rights2Info. https://www.right2info.org/resources/publications/eu-karageorgou-vasiliki-transparency-principle-as-an-evolving-principle-of-eu-law. Last accessed 8 Feb 2019
Kube V (2016) The European Union’s external human rights commitment: what is the legal value of Art. 21 TEU? EUI Law 2016/10. http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/40426. Last accessed 8 Feb 2019
Lamprecht J (2014) Bargaining power in multilateral trade negotiations: Canada and Japan in the Uruguay Round and Doha Development Agenda. London School of Economics. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/903/1/Lamprecht_Bargaining_power_multilateral_trade_negotiations.pdf. Last accessed 8 Feb 2019
Larik L (2016) Foreign policy objectives in European constitutional law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Lavenex S (2015) The external face of differentiated integration: third country participation in EU sectoral bodies. J Eur Public Policy 22(6):836–853
Article Google Scholar
Manners I (2002) Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms? J Common Mark Stud 40(2):235–258
Article Google Scholar
Meunier S, Nicolaïdis K (2006) The European Union as a conflicted trade power. J Eur Public Policy 13(6):906–925
Article Google Scholar
Pech L (2009) The rule of law as a constitutional principle of the European Union. Jean Monnet Working Paper Series 4, pp 22–47. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1463242. Last accessed 8 Feb 2019
Pech L (2012/2013) Rule of law as a guiding principle of the European Union’s external action. CLEER Working Papers 2012/2013. https://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/2102012_33322cleer2012-3web.pdf. Last accessed 8 Feb 2019
Petrov R, Van der Loo G, Van Elsuwege P (2015) The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement: a new instrument of integration without membership. Kyiv-Mohyla Law Polit J (1):1–15
Google Scholar
Rabinovych M (2017) The rule of law promotion through trade in the “Associated Neighbourhood”. Polish Yearb Int Law. XXXVII:71–101
Google Scholar
Risse T, Babayan N (2015) Democracy promotion and the challenge of illiberal regional powers: introduction to the special issue. Democratization 22:381–399
Article Google Scholar
Rodrik D (2006) Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? A review of the World Bank’s economic growth in the 1990s: learning from a decade of reform. J Econ Lit XLIV:973–987
Article Google Scholar
Schimelfennig F, Sedelmeier U (2004) Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. J Eur Public Policy 11(4):669–687
Article Google Scholar
Sheppele K, Pech L (2018) What is rule of law backsliding? Verfassungsblog. https://verfassungsblog.de/what-is-rule-of-law-backsliding/. Last accessed 8 Feb 2019
Torma A (2011) The European Administrative Space (EAS). Eur Integr Stud 9(1):149–161
Google Scholar
Tussie D, Saguier M (2013) The sweep of asymmetric trade negotiations: introduction and overview. In: Bilal S et al (eds) Asymmetric trade negotiations. Ashgate, Farnham
Google Scholar
Van der Loo G (2016) The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and deep and comprehensive free trade area: a new legal instrument for integration without membership. Brill, Nijhof
Google Scholar
Wetzel A (2015) The substance of EU democracy promotion: introduction and conceptual framework. In: Wetzel A, Orbie J (eds) The substance of EU democracy promotion: concepts and cases. Palgrave McMillan, London
Chapter Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Maryna Rabinovych

Authors

Maryna Rabinovych
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryna Rabinovych .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
Marc Bungenberg
Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
Markus Krajewski
School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Christian J. Tams
Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany
Jörg Philipp Terhechte
Faculty of Law and Criminal Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rabinovych, M. (2019). EU Free Trade Agreements as an Instrument of Promoting the Rule of Law in Third Countries: A Framework Paper. In: Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C.J., Terhechte, J.P., Ziegler, A.R. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2019. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2019_31

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2019_31
Published: 17 September 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22484-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22485-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics