The existing literature on the EU's participation in the agricultural negotiations of the Doha Round assumes that EU policy-makers develop autonomous preferences in favour of liberalising agricultural trade, thus going against the preferences of the agricultural sector. This article challenges this view and argues that WTO judicialisation—the strengthened enforcement of rules introduced with the creation of the WTO—affects the domestic politics of trade in WTO members. My key contention is that WTO judicialisation confronts societal interests and public authorities with legal vulnerability, and that this elicits a willingness to co-operate with other WTO members and thus pre-empt foreign challenges to domestic policies. Empirically, the article shows that negotiations centred on offsetting the potentially disruptive effects of foreign legal challenges to EU farm policies.
AggarwalV. and FogartyE. (2004) EU Trade Strategies: Between Regionalism and Globalism (New York: Palgrave MacMillan).
2.
Agra Europe (1999) ‘Paradoxes in EU stance on Millennium Round’, 16 July. Available online at: http://www.agra-net.com
3.
Agra Europe (2000) ‘WTO trade liberalisation not automatic’, No. 1886, 4 February.
4.
Agra Europe (2001) ‘CAP under pressure as new WTO Round launched’, No. 1978, 16 November.
5.
Agra Europe (2002) ‘Commission unveils WTO proposal on farm subsidies’, 20 December.
6.
Agra Europe (2002a) ‘EU farm leaders reject CAP reform’, No. 1993, 8 March.
7.
Agra Europe (2002b) ‘France leads chorus of CAP disapproval’, No. 2011, 12 July.
8.
Agra Europe (2003) ‘EU prepares WTO offensive as Cancun talks draw nearer’, No. 2063, 18 July.
9.
Agra Europe (2004) ‘World gives EU WTO offer a cautious welcome’, No. 2105, 14 May.
10.
Agra Europe (2005a) ‘WTO reaches deal to end export subsidies by 2013’, No. 2188, 23 December.
11.
Agra Europe (2005b) ‘EU rift on Doha talks revealed in ministers' letter’, 14 October.
12.
Agra Europe (2006) ‘EU offered WTO farm tariff cut of 48%’, No. 2218, 28 July.
13.
AhnlidA. (2005) ‘Setting the global trade agenda: The European Union and the launch of the Doha Round’, in ElgstromO. and JonssonC. (eds), The European Union Negotiations: Processes, Networks and Institutions (New York: Routledge), 130–147.
14.
AnaniaG. (2007) ‘Multilateral negotiations, regional integration processes and the CAP. What's ahead?’. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Queenstown, New Zealand, 13–16 February.
15.
AnaniaG. and BureauJ. C. (2005) ‘The negotiations on agriculture in the Doha Development Agenda Round: Current status and future prospects’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32:4, 539–574.
16.
AndersonK. and MartinW. (2005) ‘Agricultural trade reform and the Doha Development Agenda’, The World Economy, 28:9, 1301–1327.
17.
AndersonK.MartinW. and MensbruggheD. (2006) ‘Market and welfare implications of Doha reform scenarios’, in AndersonK. and MartinW. (eds), Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda (Washington, DC: The World Bank and Palgrave Macmillan), 333–401.
18.
ChaseK. (2003) ‘Economic interests and regional trading arrangements: The case of NAFTA’, International Organization, 57:1, 137–174.
19.
Commission of the European Communities (1999) Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament: The EU Approach to the Millennium Round, COM (99) 331 final, 08.07.
20.
Commission of the European Communities (2002) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy, COM(2002), 394 (Brussels: CEC).
21.
Commission of the European Communities (2005) Making Hong Kong a Success: Europe's Contribution, Brussels, 28 October.
22.
Commission of the European Communities (2007) 36th Financial Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, COM(2007) 562 final, Brussels, 3 October.
23.
Conceição-HeldtE. (2009) ‘Agricultural trade liberalization and the Doha Round: A two level game analysis of the EU negotiating position’. Paper presented at the Workshop ‘The EU in the World Economy’, ECPR Joint Sessions, Lisbon, 14–19 April.
24.
COPA-COGECA (2000) ‘COPA and COGECA's priorities for the Doha Round of WTO negotiations’, Brussels. Available online at: http://www.copa-cogeca.be
25.
COPA-COGECA (2001a) ‘COPA and COGECA working for a successful outcome to the WTO ministerial in Doha’, 9 November.
26.
COPA-COGECA (2001b) ‘COPA and COGECA fully behind the European Union's position at the Doha talks’, 11 November.
27.
COPA-COGECA (2005) ‘European farmers: WTO agreement is incomplete and one-sided’. Press release, CDP(05)99-1-SM, Hong Kong, 18 December.
28.
COPA-COGECA (2006) ‘European farm leaders meet with Commissioner Mandelson to demand: No more EU concessions in WTO’, 18 July.
29.
DaugbjergC. and SwinbankA. (2007) ‘The politics of CAP reform: Trade negotiations, institutional settings and blame avoidance’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 45:1, 1–22.
30.
DaugbjergC. and SwinbankA. (2009) ‘Ideational change in the WTO and its impact on EU agricultural policy institutions and CAP’, Journal of European Integration, 31:3, 311–327.
31.
DavisC. (2004) ‘International institutions and issue linkage: Building support for agricultural trade liberalization’, American Political Science Review, 98:1, 153–168.
32.
DavisC. (2005) ‘Setting the negotiation table: Forum shopping and the selection of institutions for trade disputes’. Working Paper, Department of Politics, Princeton University, 3 February. Available online at: http://www.princeton.edu/~cldavis/files/institutional_selection.pdf
33.
De BièvreD (2006) ‘The EU regulatory trade agenda and the quest for WTO enforcement’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:6, 847–862.
34.
De BièvreD. and DürA. (2005) ‘Constituency interests and delegation in European and American trade policy’, Comparative Political Studies, 38:1, 1271–1296.
35.
DürA. (2007) ‘Protection for exporters: Foreign discrimination and US trade liberalization’, International Studies Quarterly, 51:2, 457–480.
36.
DürA. (2008) ‘Bringing economic interests back into the study of EU trade policy-making’, British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 10:1, 27–45.
37.
ElliottK. A. (2006) Delivering on Doha: Farm Trade and the Poor (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics).
38.
ElsigM. (2007) ‘The EU's choice of regulatory venues for trade negotiations: A tale of agency power’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 45:4, 927–948.
39.
FalkeA. (2005) ‘EU–USA trade relations in the Doha Development Round: Market access versus a post-modern trade policy agenda’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 10:3, 339–357.
40.
FischlerF. (2003) ‘The new, reformed agricultural policy, final press conference after the decision of the Council on agriculture’, Luxembourg, 26 June, Speech 03/326.
41.
FriedenJ. (1991) ‘Invested interests: The politics of national economic policies in a world of global finance’, International Organization, 45:4, 425–451.
42.
GoldsteinJ.KahlerM.KeohaneR. and SlaughterA. M. (2000) ‘Introduction: Legalization and world politics’, International Organization, 54:3, 385–399.
43.
GoldsteinJ. and MartinL. (2000) ‘Legalization, trade liberalization and domestic politics: A cautionary note’, International Organization, 54:3, 603–632.
44.
GoldsteinJ. L. and SteinbergR. H. (2008) ‘Negotiate or litigate? Effects of WTO judicial delegation on US trade politics’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 71, 257–282.
45.
HartC. E. and BeghinJ. C. (2006) ‘Rethinking agricultural domestic support under the World Trade Organization’, in AndersonK. and MartinW. (eds), Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda (Washington, DC: The World Bank and Palgrave Macmillan), 221–244.
46.
HertelW. T. and KeeneyR. (2006) ‘What is at stake: The relative importance of import barriers, export subsidies and domestic support’, in AndersonK. and MartinW. (eds), Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda (Washington, DC: The World Bank and Palgrave Macmillan), 37–62.
47.
HoekmanB.HornH. and MavroidisP. C. (2008) ‘Winners and losers in the panel stage of the WTO dispute settlement system’. Working Paper, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Stockholm.
48.
HoekmanB. and MesserlinP. (2006) ‘Removing the exception of agricultural export subsidies’, in AndersonK. and MartinW. (eds), Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda (Washington, DC: The World Bank and Palgrave Macmillan), 195–220.
49.
HolmesP.RolloJ. and YoungA. R. (2003) ‘Emerging trends in WTO dispute settlement: Back to the GATT?’ World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3133, September.
50.
HudecR. E. (2000) ‘Broadening the scope of remedies in the WTO dispute settlement’, in WeissF. (ed.), Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals (London: Cameron), 369–400.
51.
JeanS.LabordeD. and MartinW. (2006) ‘Consequences of alternative formulas for agricultural tariff cuts’, in AndersonK. and MartinW. (eds), Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda (Washington, DC: The World Bank and Palgrave Macmillan), 81–116.
52.
KerremansB. (2004) ‘What went wrong in Cancun? A principal-agent view on the EU's rationale towards the Doha Development Round’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 9:3, 363–393.
53.
KutasG. (2006) ‘EU negotiating room in domestic support after the 2003 CAP reform and enlargement’. Working Paper, Institute for International Trade Negotiations, May.
54.
MandelsonP. (2005) ‘Doha Round negotiations and the Commission mandate’. Statement to the General Affairs Council, Luxembourg, 18 October.
55.
MilnerH. V. (1988) Resisting Protectionism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
56.
MoravcsikA. (1994) ‘Why the European Community strengthens the state: Domestic politics and international institutions’. Centre for European Studies Working Paper Series 52 (Cambridge: Centre for European Studies).
57.
OECD (2004) Analysis of the 2003 CAP Reform (Paris: OECD).
58.
OECD (2007) Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation Highlights (Paris: OECD Publications).
59.
PorterfieldM. (2006) ‘US farm subsidies and the expiration of the peace clause’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 27:4, 1002–1042.
60.
PotterC. and BurneyJ. (2002) ‘Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO: Legitimate non-trade concerns or disguised protectionism?’, Journal of Rural Studies, 18:1, 35–47.
61.
PutnamR. D. (1988) ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two level games’, International Organization, 42:3, 427–460.
62.
ReinhardtE. (2001) ‘Adjudication without enforcement in GATT disputes’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45:2, 174–195.
63.
RogowskiR. (1989) Commerce and Coalitions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
64.
RosendorffB. P. (2005) ‘Stability and rigidity: Politics and the design of the WTO's dispute resolution procedure’, American Political Science Review, 99:3, 389–400.
65.
SkogstadG. (1998) ‘Ideas, paradigms and institutions: Agricultural exceptionalism in the European Union and the United States’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 11:4, 463–490.
66.
SteinbergR. H. and JoslingT. E. (2003) ‘When the peace ends: The vulnerability of EC and US agricultural subsidies to WTO legal challenge’, Journal of International Economic Law, 6:2, 369–417.
67.
SwinbankA. (1999) ‘EU agriculture, Agenda 2000 and the WTO commitments’, The World Economy, 22:1, 42–54.
68.
SwinbankA. (2005) ‘Developments in the Doha Round and WTO dispute settlement: Some implications for EU agricultural policy’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32:4, 551–561.
69.
SwinbankA. and DaugbjergC. (2006) ‘The 2003 CAP reform: Accommodating WTO pressures’, Comparative European Politics, 4:1, 47–64.
70.
SwinbankA. and TranterR. (2005) ‘Decoupling EU farm support: Does the new single payment scheme fit within the green box’, The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 6:1, 47–61.
71.
SwinnenJ. (2008) ‘The political economy of the Fischler reforms of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy: The perfect storm?’, in SwinnenJ. (ed.), The Perfect Storm: The Political Economy of the Fischler Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (Brussels: CEPS), 135–166.
72.
Van den HovenA. (2004) ‘Assuming leadership in multilateral economic institutions: The EU's development round discourse and strategy’, West European Politics, 27:2, 256–283.
73.
Van den HovenA. (2006) ‘European Union regulatory capitalism and multilateral trade negotiations’, in LucarelliS. and MannersI. (eds), Values and Principles in European Foreign Policy (London: Routledge), 185–200.
74.
WTO (2004) Doha Work Programme: Decision Adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, WT/L/579, Geneva, 2 August.
75.
ZanglB. (2008) ‘Judicialization matters! A comparison of dispute settlement under GATT and the WTO’, International Studies Quarterly, 52:4, 825–854.
