Conference Agenda

There has been a proliferation of studies of the EU’s ‘geoeconomic turn’. These more or less take for granted that the EU’s trade policy orientation has fundamentally shifted under the von der Leyen Commission Presidency, from an emphasis on multilateralism and open markets to greater unilateralism and selective protectionism. This paper argues not that there has not been such a shift, but rather that we should understand it as fundamentally performative – in two senses. First, theorising the phenomenon within the academy has done a lot to bring the referent object into effect: theory is constitutive of the perceived reality. Second, and while not claiming that geopolitical concerns are irrelevant in EU foreign economic policymaking, the paper homes in on the EU’s new unilateral trade policy instruments to argue that being seen to act in a ‘geoeconomic way’ for an external (trade policy rivals) and internal audience (Member States/the European Parliament) is secondary to the actual practice of geoeconomics. The instruments themselves are broadly dissuasive and defensive, with some reluctance within the European Commission to put them into effect. What is new about the ‘geoeconomic turn’ is not so much the focus on geopolitical concerns, which was there before, but the desire to brand these measures explicitly as such. The paper concludes with a call for EU Studies to more critically interrogate the (self-)narration of European integration.

This paper rests on the assumption that the EU has sustained hegemonic structural power in the European political economy. Its unique mix of supranationalism with enduring intergovernmentalism has forged a unique form of ‘regional hegemony’. It is argued that there has been an intrinsically liberal quality to this, given its multilevel, flexible, pluralist and consensual mode of operation, and the fact that the core dynamic of integration has been the construction of the Single Market.

As widely noted, a series of events have moved the regional and global political economy in a more geoeconomic (less neoliberal) framework. This paper focuses on how the EU’s response to some key changes (Brexit, the Trump effect and systemic rivalry with China) have affected the EU’s hegemony in Europe. Embedded in a mid-level constructivist ontology, it offers a framing analysis and policy analysis of some key recent EU initiatives made in response to these challenges. As such, it hopes to contribute to our understanding of the impact of the response to geoeconomic pressures on the supranational-intergovernmental balance, relations with non-member European states and the liberal character of the EU system.

Whilst significant for New Zealand, and its exporters, the free trade agreement between the EU and New Zealand impact assessment suggested no economic impact on the EU. Nonetheless, the EU pursued the agreement and hails it as a significant success. Its significance lies not in potential economic gains, but in innovations in the text of the agreement and its potential implications. This is the first EU agreement to contain a legally binding trade and sustainable development chapter, and to elevate the Paris Agreement to the status of an ‘essential element’ of the agreement, a breach of which could lead to fast-tracked suspensions of the trade agreement. This encapsulates EU ambitions to be a global leader on climate change and the green transition, something that gains greater significance in light of President Trump’s second term in office and his withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement. The trade agreement with New Zealand also serves to extend EU ties with Pacific states, and to weave closer economic relations with CPTPP states, most of which already have free trade agreements with the EU. CPTPP has emerged and presents itself as a bastion of a rules-based order, in reaction to China’s rise, Russia’s aggression, and US retreat from international norms and rules-based organisations. This ambition links the EU to CPTPP states, despite disagreements on specific trade and economic rules and regulations. An agreement with New Zealand an important symbolic statement in support of a liberal rules-based economic order; demonstrates an intention to forge economic alliances with ‘like-minded’ partners wherever they might be. New Zealand’s push for legally binding trade and sustainability chapters has also afforded the EU the opportunity to present itself as a green leader. This paper relies on qualitative textual analysis of speeches and preparatory documents justifying the agreement, as well as interviews with key officials involved in the agreement to unpack the symbolic rationale underpinning the agreement and to interrogate its potential effect beyond symbolic performance.