RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      EU 통상정책에 있어 여론의 역할과 EU 기관의 대응 = 범대서양무역·투자협정(TTIP)의 사례를 통한 분석

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      This study examines how public opinions are reflected on EU’s trade policy and sheds light on EU’s trade policy decision making process. For this purpose, this study reviews Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The TTIP has been facing many oppositions from civil societies in the EU and its support has been declining in most of the EU Member States. In this context, this study examines why the support for this trade deal lost its momentum and how the European institutions, particularly, European Commission reacted to this changing landscape inside the EU.
      Main reasons for the opposition are concerns about the regulatory convergence towards US standards and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) which is scheduled to be part of the TTIP. Non-governmental organizations have been very successful in their lobbying to the European institutions, in organizing massive demonstrations and petition campaigns to the public institutions.
      The European Commission attempted to persuade opposing public opinions in the early period of the TTIP negotiations. However, it changed its position toward accepting the opposing opinions, as it seemed increasingly impossible to acquire a consent from the European Parliament. The TTIP case reminds that relevant public consultations are required before proceeding any trade negotiations with third parties and that a trade negotiation is typical area where two level game takes place. It is noteworthy that many countries have strengthen the role of their national parliaments in the decision making process of their trade policy.
      번역하기

      This study examines how public opinions are reflected on EU’s trade policy and sheds light on EU’s trade policy decision making process. For this purpose, this study reviews Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The TTIP has been ...

      This study examines how public opinions are reflected on EU’s trade policy and sheds light on EU’s trade policy decision making process. For this purpose, this study reviews Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The TTIP has been facing many oppositions from civil societies in the EU and its support has been declining in most of the EU Member States. In this context, this study examines why the support for this trade deal lost its momentum and how the European institutions, particularly, European Commission reacted to this changing landscape inside the EU.
      Main reasons for the opposition are concerns about the regulatory convergence towards US standards and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) which is scheduled to be part of the TTIP. Non-governmental organizations have been very successful in their lobbying to the European institutions, in organizing massive demonstrations and petition campaigns to the public institutions.
      The European Commission attempted to persuade opposing public opinions in the early period of the TTIP negotiations. However, it changed its position toward accepting the opposing opinions, as it seemed increasingly impossible to acquire a consent from the European Parliament. The TTIP case reminds that relevant public consultations are required before proceeding any trade negotiations with third parties and that a trade negotiation is typical area where two level game takes place. It is noteworthy that many countries have strengthen the role of their national parliaments in the decision making process of their trade policy.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 방청록, "유럽연합의 대외정책과 다층적거버넌스에 대한 연구" 한국유럽학회 (21) : 55-84, 2005

      2 송병준, "유럽연합 공동통상정책(CCP)의 변화와 한-EU FTA 체결배경" EU연구소 (43) : 99-132, 2016

      3 강유덕, "유럽 자동차산업의 대EU 로비전략: 한국, 일본, 미국과의 FTA를 중심으로" 한국유럽학회 33 (33): 1-48, 2015

      4 김영귀, "미‧EU FTA의 전망과 영향" 13 (13): 2013

      5 Diamandouro, Nikiforos, "“Transparency, Accountability, and Democracy in the EU.”Lecture by the European Ombudsman" School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University

      6 Follesdal, Andreas, "Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik" 44 (44): 533-562, 2006

      7 Karel De Gucht, "Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - Solving the Regulatory Puzzle"

      8 Bergkamp, Lucas, "Trade, the Precautionary Principle, and Post-Modern Regulatory Process" 4 : 493-507, 2013

      9 European Commission, "Trade, Growth and World Affairs: Trade Policy as a Core Component of the EU's 2020 Strategy" 2010

      10 European Commission, "Trade for All: Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy"

      1 방청록, "유럽연합의 대외정책과 다층적거버넌스에 대한 연구" 한국유럽학회 (21) : 55-84, 2005

      2 송병준, "유럽연합 공동통상정책(CCP)의 변화와 한-EU FTA 체결배경" EU연구소 (43) : 99-132, 2016

      3 강유덕, "유럽 자동차산업의 대EU 로비전략: 한국, 일본, 미국과의 FTA를 중심으로" 한국유럽학회 33 (33): 1-48, 2015

      4 김영귀, "미‧EU FTA의 전망과 영향" 13 (13): 2013

      5 Diamandouro, Nikiforos, "“Transparency, Accountability, and Democracy in the EU.”Lecture by the European Ombudsman" School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University

      6 Follesdal, Andreas, "Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik" 44 (44): 533-562, 2006

      7 Karel De Gucht, "Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - Solving the Regulatory Puzzle"

      8 Bergkamp, Lucas, "Trade, the Precautionary Principle, and Post-Modern Regulatory Process" 4 : 493-507, 2013

      9 European Commission, "Trade, Growth and World Affairs: Trade Policy as a Core Component of the EU's 2020 Strategy" 2010

      10 European Commission, "Trade for All: Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy"

      11 Gheyle, Niels, "Trade Policy with the Lights on" 2016

      12 Meunier, Sophie, "Trade Policy and Political Legitimacy in the European Union" (1) : 67-90, 2003

      13 Milner, Helen V., "Trade Negotiation, Information and Domestic Politics: The Role of Domestic Groups" 8 (8): 145-189, 1996

      14 European Commission, "The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - List of Documents"

      15 Woolcock, Stephen, "The Politics of International Trade in the Twenty-First Century: Actors, Issues and Regional Dynamics. International Political Economy Series" Palgrave 234-252, 2005

      16 Yan, Shaohua, "The European Parliament's Role in EU Trade Policy after Lisbon: Analysis from an Actorness Approach"

      17 Jensen, Thomas, "The Democratic Deficit of the European Union. Living Reviews in Democracy"

      18 Corporate Europe Observatory, "TTIP: a Corporate Lobbying Paradise"

      19 The Guardian, "TTIP protesters take to streets across Germany"

      20 Pew Research Center, "Support in Principle for US-EU Trade Pact"

      21 Euronews, "Stop TTIP: Protests in Europe and beyond against US-EU trade pact"

      22 European Commission, "Report on the online consultation on investment protection and investor-to state dispute settlement in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement"

      23 Hix, Simon, "Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections" 69 (69): 495-510, 2007

      24 Grossman, Gene, "Protection for Sale" 84 (84): 833-850, 1994

      25 "Oxford Economics"

      26 ECORYS, "Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment-An Economic Analysis" European Commission 2009

      27 Krajewski, Markus, "New Functions and New Powers for the European Parliament:Assessing the Changes of the Common Commercial Policy from the Perspective of Democratic Legitimacy" (Special) : 2012

      28 Chari, Raj, "Lobbying the European Commission: Open or Secret?" 25 (25): 103-124, 2011

      29 European Commission, "Letter: Your request for registration of a proposed citizens' initiative entitled "STOP TTIP". C(2014) 6501 final"

      30 Banchoff, Thomas F, "Legitimacy and the European Union: The Contested Polity" Routledge 1999

      31 The Christian Monitor, "Has NSA spying put US-EU trade deal on the rocks?"

      32 EurActive, "For a fair, transparent and effective ISDS in TTIP"

      33 European Commission, "Fact Sheet: Investment Protection and Investor-to State Dispute Settlement in EU agreements"

      34 "Eurostat"

      35 Marsh, Michael, "European Parliament Elections and EU Governance" 5 (5): 2010

      36 Gueguen. Daniel, "European Lobbying" Europolitics 2007

      37 "Eurobarometer"

      38 김세원, "EU의 세계 통상전략" 대외경제정책연구원 2007

      39 강유덕, "EU 통상정책 형성과정에서 산업단체의 역할: 글로벌 유럽전략과 한⋅EU FTA를 중심으로" 한국유럽학회 30 (30): 31-64, 2012

      40 European Commission, "EU finalises proposal for investment protection and Court System for TTIP"

      41 Woolcock. Stephen, "EU Trade and Investment Policymaking After the Lisbon Treaty" (1) : 22-25, 2010

      42 Gerlach, Carina, "Does Business Really Run EU Trade Policy? Observations about EU Trade Policy Lobbying" 26 (26): 176-183, 2006

      43 European Commission, "Documents and events"

      44 Putnam, Robert D, "Diplomacy and Domestci Politics: the Logic of Two-Level Games" 42 (42): 427-460, 1988

      45 Bendini, Roberto, "Depth Analysis" European Parliament 2015

      46 Siedentop, Larry, "Democracy in Europe" Columbia University Press 2001

      47 European Commission, "Consept Paper: Investment in TTIP and beyond ? the path for reform"

      48 European Commission, "Commission proposes new Investment Court System for TTIP and other EU trade and investment negotiations"

      49 EurActive, "Commission changes TTIP position on cosmetics"

      50 Menon, Anand, "Beyond the European Parliament: Rethinking the EU’s democratic legitimacy"

      51 The Guardian, "30,000 lobbyists and counting: is Brussels under corporate sway?"

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2026 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2017-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2014-01-09 학술지명변경 외국어명 : 미등록 -> Journal of International Area Studies KCI등재
      2013-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2009-03-24 학회명변경 한글명 : 국제지역학센터 -> 국제지역연구센터 KCI등재
      2009-03-23 학회명변경 한글명 : 외국학종합연구센터 -> 국제지역학센터 KCI등재
      2008-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2006-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2003-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2002-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2001-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.66 0.66 0.63
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.63 0.62 0.861 0.24
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼