Abstract
European institutions have repeatedly represented the EU as an actor that can use the attractiveness of its market to promote human rights internationally. From this perspective, EU trade sanctions represent a hard power tool to push the government of states accused of major human rights violations to abide by international law. In its reaction to the Rohingya crisis in 2018, despite the European Parliament’s call for the lifting of Myanmar’s trade preferences, the Council of the EU stated that it would rather tackle the problem by taking a “constructive approach” based on dialogue. We provide a political-economy explanation of this choice, making a plausible case that the political pressures from European importers and exporters, not to jeopardise trade relations with Myanmar, prevailed over the demands of European protectionist groups and NGOs advocating a tougher position. The firms interested in maintaining preferential trade relations with Myanmar were primarily motivated by a desire to avoid a disruption of trade and investment links within global value chains (GVCs) so that they could continue competing with Chinese enterprises.
Subject
Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science
Reference67 articles.
1. Amador, J., & di Mauro, F. (2015). The age of global value chains: Maps and policy issues. Centre for Economic Policy Research.
2. Amnesty International. (2017, September 27). Myanmar: UN Security Council must impose arms embargo [Press release]. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/09/myanmar-un-security-council-must-impose-arms-embargo
3. Anderer, C., Dür, A., & Lechner, L. (2020). Trade policy in a “GVC world”: Multinational corporations and trade liberalization. Business and Politics, 22(4), 639–666.
4. Arianayagam, S. M., & Sidhu, J. S. (2013). Modern slavery: State-induced forced labour in Myanmar (Burma) and reactions from the international community. MJIR|Malaysian Journal of International Relations, 1(1), 80–97.
5. Baccini, L., Pinto, P., & Weymouth, S. (2017). The distributional consequences of preferential trade liberalization: Firm-level evidence. International Organization, 71(2), 373–395.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献