Comparación de distintas técnicas de undersampling para entrenar un clasificador base

EU PTAs were traditionally generally reserved for incoming and prospective members as well as certain states within the broader European neighbourhood. Since the late 1990s, however, the EU has successfully concluded bilateral and, less commonly, interregional PTAs with a range of partners across the globe. Rather than use a rigid template for PTAs a flexible approach is adopted and each agreement implements different trade liberalization schedules and regulations for the conduction of trade. Similarly the political clauses contained in each agreement differ depending upon the partner. Since the mid 2000s, however, all EU PTAs must adhere to certain criteria. They must aim at substantial market opening and include deep provisions on a broad range of trade issues which equal or go beyond WTO commitments (EC, 2006b). In general EU PTAs can be roughly divided into three broad categories.

1. Agreements with countries that are candidates for or that could potentially become candidates for accession into the EU.

2. Agreements with other bordering or near-bordering countries.

3. Agreements with distant countries or regional groups.

The first category of PTAs listed in Table 2.2 refers to those agreements involving potential future members of the EU itself.⁴⁰ In 1994 the European Economic Area

40 This table excludes the accession agreements completed between the EU and the 16 countries which have expanded the membership of the EU from 12 to 28 Member States. These countries are

85

(EEA) was established to replace the previous FTAs between the EU and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. During the 1990s the EU also formed Customs Unions (CUs) with Andorra, Turkey and San Marino and an FTA with the Faroe Islands.

The EU has completed preferential agreements with the Balkan countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and FYR Macedonia.⁴¹ Negotiations have recently commenced with Kosovo. The agreements with these countries are referred to as Stabilization and Association Agreements (SAAs) and they include specific provisions related to domestic political and economic reforms which the EU demands must be implemented before a country can be considered for EU membership.

Table 2.2: EU PTAs with potential future members

Partner Nature of

Faroe Islands FTA 01-01-1997 Replaced 1991 agreement

FYR Macedonia SAA 01-05-2004

Kosovo SAA N/A Negotiations commenced

28-10-2013

Source: EC, Overview of Regional Trade Agreements 2014. CU = Customs Union, FTA = Free Trade Agreement, SAA = Stabilization and Association Agreement.

Table 2.3 below lists PTAs which exist between the EU and other bordering or near-bordering countries. Since the late 1990s the EU has concluded comprehensive three Austria, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania.

41 The EU-Bosnia and Herzegovina SAA is currently suspended.

86

pillar AAs with several countries in the Euro-Mediterranean area which replaced earlier more basic cooperation agreements. These agreements are intended to link these countries to the EU in terms of political and economic cooperation without offering the prospect of future EU membership. In addition to improving economic cooperation the EU is primarily concerned with promoting political reform and economic development in these countries in order to increase stability in the Mediterranean region due to its geographic proximity. As Woolcock (2007: 3) states

‘by assisting economic development the Euro-Med process was intended to check large scale outward migration from the region and provide the economic basis for political stability thus tackling the potential causes of fundamentalism and instability in the region.’

Table 2.3: EU PTAs with other bordering or near-bordering countries Partner Nature of

Agreement

Date of Entry into Force

Comments

Algeria AA 01-09-2005 Part of Euro-Med

Process

Lebanon AA 01-06-2006 Part of Euro-Med

Process

Morocco AA 01-03-2000 Part of Euro-Med

Process

Tunisia AA 01-08-1998 Part of Euro-Med

Process

Source: EC, Overview of Regional Trade Agreements, 2014. AA= Association Agreement.

Unlike the partners of SAAs, however, those of AAs are not expected to subscribe to the full EU acquis communautaire, the accumulated body of EU law. These

87

associated countries receive duty free access to the EU for manufactured goods while preferential treatment is granted to exports of agricultural products. The EU did negotiate and conclude an AA with Syria in 2004; however, this was never signed and ratified. As such the earlier cooperation agreement continues to govern economic relations between Syria and the EU.⁴² The EU has also negotiated and concluded an AA with Ukraine. This was initialed in mid-2012 and was due to be officially signed in late 2013 prior to the outbreak of the current Ukrainian political crisis. The agreement was finally signed in March 2014. Negotiations towards AAs are also at an advanced stage with Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova. It is unclear if and when these states may be considered for EU membership. Table 2.4 below lists EU PTAs with distant countries and regional groups while Table 2.5 lists such PTAs which are currently under negotiation or consideration.

Table 2.4: EU PTAs with distant countries and regional groups Partner Nature of

South Korea FTA 01-07-2011 FTA has only been provisionally applied

Central America

AA 01-08-2013 Interregional Agreement

Colombia and Peru

MPA 01-03-2013 Multiparty Agreement which it is hoped

will eventually expand to include the other members of the Andean Community

Canada FTA Pending

Singapore FTA Pending FTA was initialed on 20-09-2013.

CARIFORUM EPA Pending Interregional PTA

Source: EC, Overview of FTA and other negotiations, 2014. TDCA = Trade, Development, and Cooperation Agreement, EPPCCA =Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement, EPA = Economic Partnership Agreement, MPA = Multiparty Agreement

42 EU economic cooperation with Syria has, however, been suspended since 2011 due to the ongoing political crisis.

88

The logic underpinning EU PTAs with counties in Tables 2.2 and 2.3 is more or less obvious. Of particular interest, however, are those agreements concluded between the EU and other countries located in geographically distant locations. For sure these next generation PTAs are primarily driven by commercial considerations which have become more prominent given the slowdown in WTO negotiations and the resultant scramble for preferential agreements which has taken place during the past decade in particular.

Table 2.5: EU PTAs under negotiation or consideration Partner Nature of

Proposed Agreement

Comments

Mercosur AA Negotiations commenced in 1999 and are ongoing

GCC FTA Negotiations commenced in 1991 and are ongoing

ACP EPA Groups

EPA An interregional approach was adopted in 2003.

Several states have signed interim agreements.

Negotiations are ongoing

ASEAN FTA Negotiations commenced in 2007. In 2009 it was

decided to adopt a bilateral approach.

Andean Community

FTA MPA concluded with Colombia and Peru in 2010

which it is hoped will eventually expand to include the other members of the Andean Community

India FTA Negotiations commenced in 2007 and are ongoing

Malaysia FTA Negotiations commenced in 2010 and are ongoing

Vietnam FTA Negotiations commenced in 2010 and are ongoing

Japan FTA Negotiations commenced in 2013 and are ongoing

Thailand FTA Negotiations commenced in 2013 and are ongoing

USA TTIP Negotiations commenced in 2013 and are ongoing

China PCA Negotiating modalities yet to be agreed

Source: EC, Overview of FTAs and other trade negotiations, 2014.

The EU has concluded PTAs with South Africa (2000), Mexico (2000), Chile (2003/2005), South Korea (2010), Peru (2010), Colombia (2011), the Central American States (2011), CARIFORUM (2008), Canada (2013, Pending Implementation), and Singapore (2013, Pending Implementation). Many of these agreements also include political dialogue and cooperation chapters. This is despite

89

the fact that none of these countries have any foreseeable prospect of EU membership nor are located in the EU neighbourhood. The inclusion of such non-economic provisions in PTAs is indicative of EU normative and foreign policy objectives being pursued through trade policy as was discussed earlier in this chapter. Where possible the EU has tried to achieve both economic and political goals through agreements. In the current era of increased competitiveness, however, the EU has come under pressure to focus more on commercial considerations especially where disagreements over political clauses have hindered the conclusion of agreement. This also applies to the issue of sticking with an interregional approach in order to promote regional integration when bilateralism holds the potential to more rapidly achieve economic objectives.

The EU has also completed an interregional Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the CARIFORUM group of states. Following the conclusion of the Cotonou Agreement the EU launched interregional PTA negotiations with seven individual groups of ACP countries.⁴³ The majority of these countries are former colonies of EU Member States and these agreements have a historical and developmental rationale. Special and differential treatment (SDT) is accorded to these partners in comparison to those in other categories and, in addition, the EU grants unilateral preferential treatment under the GSP and EBA initiatives. The new aim, however, is to eventually supersede such schemes with reciprocally negotiated interregional trade agreements. According to the EU Commission, an interregional approach has been adopted with the ACP countries in order to promote the integration of these economies as a step towards economic development and eventual integration with the global economy at large (EC, 2010d). The shift from unilateral preferences to the negotiations of reciprocal agreements with the ACP countries is, however, a further example of the relegation of EU ideational and normative concerns in comparison to more realist oriented material considerations (Garcia, 2013). Heron and Siles-Brügge (2012) find that the provisions aimed at services and investment liberalization in the EPAs for example, are identical to those included in the EU’s supposedly more commercially oriented trade agreements.

43 The Cotonou Agreement (2000) is a treaty between the EU and the African, Caribbean, and Pacific Group of States (ACP). The stated aim of the agreement is the reduction and eventual eradication of poverty, the promotion of sustainable development, and the gradual integration of ACP countries into the world economy.

90

In terms of interregionalism the empirical analysis of EU PTAs in this section has highlighted the fact that the EU has concluded very few agreements with its interregional partners. Only two interregional PTAs have been concluded to date – the AA between the EU and Central America and the EPA between the EU and CARIFORUM.⁴⁴ Negotiations have also taken place between the EU and Mercosur, ASEAN, the CAN, the GCC, and the six other groups of ACP countries. To date these have proven unsuccessful, however, and the EU has increasingly opted for a bilateral approach with the members of certain interregional partners.

2.5 Variation between multilateralism, interregionalism, and bilateralism