Article 9 - EU FTAs and divided sovereignty: Transformative shifts in trade authority


  • Maria Helena Guimarães



Creeping competence, divided sovereignty, EU trade policy, subnational engagement, failing forward


EU trade policy has evolved on the scope of its remit through what can be framed as “creeping competence” (Pollack 1994, 2000). Since the Treaty of Rome to the Lisbon Treaty the EU has consolidated its sovereignty over trade by broadening its competences. However, the enlarged scope of EU FTAs has pushed subnational units to demand shared sovereignty over trade issues to protect the status quo on their regulatory competences. In turn, the 2017 Court of Justice ruling that the EU-Singapore Agreement could only be concluded with the consent of the EU and its Member States has led the Commission to propose the splitting of trade deals into EU-only and “mixed” agreements. While the EU holds to its exclusive competences in the former, mixed agreements require divided sovereignty with the member states.  Both the engagement of subnational entities in trade policy and the impact of the Court decision represent transformative shifts in the locus of trade policymaking from centralized competences to divided sovereignty with national and subnational entities. The ensuing difficulties in ratifying EU trade agreements have prompted stop-gap solutions that raise questions as to where the pattern of “creeping competence” is applicable. These political and legal challenges highlight that “creeping competence” may have unintended consequences unleashed by the dynamics of the policy itself. In trade policy the notion of “creeping competence” has to capture the legal challenges, the efforts to claw back centralization, as well as the pushback by subnational entities to protect their regulatory sovereignty.


Download data is not yet available.


Bollen Y., De Ville, F., and Gheyle, N. 2020. From Nada to Namur: National Parliaments’ Involvement in EU Trade Politics and the Case of Belgium. In: Broschek, J. and Goff, P., eds. The multilevel politics of trade (Vol. 59). University of Toronto Press, 256-78. DOI:

Bongardt, A. and Torres, F. 2017. Comprehensive Trade Agreements: Conditioning Globalisation or Eroding the European Model? Intereconomics, 52(3):165-170. DOI:

Broschek, J. 2021. The federalization of trade politics in Switzerland, Germany and Austria, Regional and Federal Studies, doi: 10.1080/13597566.2021.1932829 DOI:

Buonanno, L. 2017. "The New Trade Deals and the Mobilization of Civil Society Organizations: Comparing EU and US Responses." Journal of European Integration, 39(7):795-809. DOI:

Bursens, P. and De Bièvre, D. (2021): Seizing the moment: Regional opportunity structures and Wallonia’s temporary veto of the EU - Canada bilateral trade agreement, Regional and Federal Studies, doi: 10.1080/13597566.2021.2007477 DOI:

Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). 2017. Opinion 2/2015. ECLI: EU:C:2017:376, May 16.

Conceição-Heldt, E. and Meunier, S. eds. 2017. Speaking With a Single Voice: The EU as an effective actor in global governance? Routledge. DOI:

Conconi, P., Herghelegiu, C. and Puccio, L. 2021. EU trade agreements: To mix or not to mix, that is the question. Journal of World Trade, 55(2):231-260. DOI:

De Briève, D. and Poletti, A. 2020. Towards Explaining Varying Degrees of politicization of EU Trade Agreement Negotiations. Politics and Governance, 8(1):243-253. DOI:

De Ville, F. and Siles-Brügge, G. 2016. TTIP: the truth about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Polity Press. DOI:

D’Erman, V. J. 2020. Mixed competences and ‘second generation’ trade agreements: a consideration of EU disintegration, Political Research Exchange, 2:1, 1806003, doi:10.1080/2474736X.2020.1806003 DOI:

Egan, M. and M.H. Guimarães 2022. Trade contestation and regional politics: The case of Belgium and Germany. Frontiers in Political Science, 4:962617. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2022.962617 DOI:

Eliasson, L.J. and García-Duran, P., 2017. Why TTIP is an unprecedented geopolitical game-changer, but not a Polanyian moment. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(10):1522-33. DOI:

Eschbach, A. 2015. The Ratification Process in EU Member States. Cologne: Institute for Comparative Public Law.

Euractive, 2022. “Brazilian Elections: Lula’s victory to revive EU-Mercosur agreement” (27 October). Available at

Eurobarometer. 2019. European’s attitudes on trade and trade policy, Report on the Special Barometer 491.

Freudlsperger, C. 2021. Failing forward in the Common Commercial Policy? Deep trade and the perennial question of EU competence. Journal of European Public Policy 28(10): 1650-1668. DOI:

Freudlsperger, C. 2020. Trade Policy in Multilevel Government: Organizing Openness. Oxford University Press. DOI:

Garben, S. 2019 Competence Creep Revisited, Journal of Commons Market Studies, 57(2):205–222. DOI:

Garcia, M. 2020. “Multilevel Politics of Trade in the European Union in the Aftermath of the Lisbon Treaty”. In The Multilevel Politics of Trade: Configurations, Patterns and Dynamics edited by Jörg Broschek and Patricia Goff. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Guimarães, M.H. 1995. Policymaking in Multidimensional Trade Negotiations: Testing a ‘Modified Liberal Model’. Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights in the Uruguay Round. PhD Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, USA.

Jones, E., Kelemen R. D. and Meunier, S. (2021) Failing forward? Crises and patterns of European integration, Journal of European Public Policy, 28(10):1519-1536. DOI:

Kersschot, M., Kerremans, B. and De Bièvre, D. 2020 Principals and transceivers: regional authorities in EU trade negotiations. Political Research Exchange 2 (1) 1714454, DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2020.1714454. DOI:

Leblond, P. and Viju-Miljusevic, C. 2019. EU trade policy in the twenty first century: change, continuity and challenges, Journal of European Public Policy, 26(12):1836-1846. DOI:

Meunier, S. and Morin, J.F. 2015. No agreement is an island: Negotiating TTIP in a dense regime complex. In J.F. Morin, T. Novotná, F. Ponjaert, and M. Telò, The Politics of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations. TTIP in a Globalized World, 196-209.

Politico. 2022a. Brussels launches power grab to fast-track EU trade deals. (5 October). Available at

Politico. 2022. “Brussels looks to evade EU capitals to get Mercosur deal done”. (28 September). Available at

Pollack, M. A. 2000. The end of creeping competence? EU policy‐making since Maastricht. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(3):519-538. DOI:

Pollack, M. A. 1994. Creeping Competence: The Expanding Agenda of the European Community1. Journal of Public Policy, 14(2):95-14. DOI:

Tatham, M. 2018. The Rise of Regional Influence in the EU – From Soft Policy Lobbying to Hard Vetoing. Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(3):672–686. DOI:

The Brussels Times. 2020. “Wallonia votes against EU trade pact with Mercosur countries”. (6 February). Available at

The Irish Times. 2022. “Ireland’s proposed ratification of EU-Canada trade deal unconstitutional as Irish law stands, Supreme Court rules”. (11 November). Available at

Van Loon, A. 2020. The Selective Politicization of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations Politics and Governance, 8 (1):325–335. doi: 10.17645/pag.v8i1.2608 DOI:

Woolcock, S. 2010. “The Treaty of Lisbon and the European Union as an actor in international trade”. ECIPE Working Paper, No. 01/2010. Brussels.

Young, A. 2019. Two wrongs make a right? The politicization of trade policy and European trade strategy, Journal of European Public Policy, 26(12):1883-1899. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2019.1678055 DOI:




How to Cite

Guimarães, M. H. . (2022). Article 9 - EU FTAs and divided sovereignty: Transformative shifts in trade authority. Perspectivas - Journal of Political Science, 27.