All articles of the special issue are now available on the journal website:

Atikcan, Ece Özlem, Achim Hurrelmann, and Gabriel Siles-Brügge. 2025. Spatial Imaginaries and the Geopolitics of Trade: A Constructivist Perspective. Geopolitics, Early View, .

Forest, Benjamin, Juliet Johnson, and Zarlasht M. Razeq. 2024. Territory, Place, Flow, and Scale: Spatial Analysis in the IPE of Trade. Geopolitics, Early View, .

Stiller, Kenneth T. 2025. The Changing Boundaries of Trade Governance: The Cases of the EU and the UK. Geopolitics, Early View, .

Richardson, Benjamin. 2024. Labour Provisions in UK Trade Policy: Mapping the Spatial Politics of the Trade-Labour Linkage. Geopolitics, Early View, .

Garcia, Maria. 2024. Transcending Geography: The United Kingdom’s Accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. Geopolitics, Early View, .

Escalante Block, Elena. 2024. Trade, Politics, and Patronising Otherness: Analysing the EU’s Moral Authority in EU-Trade Agreements. Geopolitics, Early View, .

Hamilton, Scott Michael. 2025. Politicisation and Place: The Determinants of Labour and Environmental Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements. Geopolitics, Early View, .

Happersberger, Simon, and Caroline Bertram. 2025. Reversing the Gaze in EU Trade Policy: Communities, Hierarchies and Agency under Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters. Geopolitics, Early View, .

Hee, Stefan. 2025. When Trade Hits Home: Distributional Effects of Trade and Populist Voting Across Space. Geopolitics, Early View, .

The European Commission’s support for these publications does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Dßr, Andreas, Scott Hamilton and Dirk De Bièvre (2024) Reacting to the politicization of trade policy, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 31, No 1, 1-19. DOI: .

Basedow, Robert and Julian Hoerner (2024) Trading votes: What drives MEP support for trade liberalisation?, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 31, No 1, 20-53. DOI: .

De Ville, Ferdi and Niels Gheyle (2024) How TTIP split the Social-Democrats: Reacting to the politicization of EU trade policy in the European Parliament, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 31, No 1, 54-78. DOI: .

Donnelly, Shawn (2024) Political party competition and varieties of US economic nationalism: trade wars, industrial policy and EU-US relations, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 31, No 1, 79-103. DOI: .

Polk, Jonathan and Guri RosĂŠn (2024) Trade and the transnational cleavage in European party politics, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 31, No 1, 104-130. DOI: .

Broschek, JĂśrg and Christian Freudlsperger (2024) Regional involvement in EU trade policy: What remains after politicization?, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 31, No 1, 131-156. DOI: .

Hurrelmann, Achim and Frank Wendler (2024) How does politicisation affect the ratification of mixed EU trade agreements? The case of CETA, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 31, No 1, 157-181. DOI: .

Vlasiuk, Nibe, Sophie Meunier, and Christilla Roederer-Rynning (2024) Pre-emptive depoliticisation: The European Commission and the EU foreign investment screening regulation, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 31, No 1, 182-211. DOI: .

DĂźr, Andreas and Gemma Mateo (2024) Lobbying in the face of politicisation: interest group strategies in trade policy, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 31, No 1, 212-238. DOI: .

Antoine, Elise, Ece Özlem Atikcan and Adam William Chalmers (2024) Politicisation, Business Lobbying, and the Design of Preferential Trade Agreements, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 31, No 1, 239-268. DOI: .

Hamilton, Scott (2024) Dropping off the bandwagon: A puzzle for the resource mobilization perspective on civil society contestation networks, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 31, No 1, 269-294. DOI: .

The European Commission’s support for these publications does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Jean Monnet Network scholars Achim Hurrelmann, Joan DeBardeleben and Crina Viju-Miljusevic have contributed to a new textbook published in July 2023:

The textbook is complemented by the EU Governance Videos – a video library designed for use in university teaching that features interviews with the textbook contributors as well as links to other audiovisual resources. The video library is an open-access resource that can also be used in conjunction with other textbooks – please check it out!

Written by a group of leading experts, Standardizing the World presents an unprecedented assessment of the EU’s efforts to standardize a wide array of economic, political, and social aspects of life through its trade agreements across the globe.

More information about the book is available on the .

The European Commission’s support for this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

***

The Spatial Politics of Trade: Constructing Transnational Spaces and Communities through EU and UK Trade Agreements
Academic Workshop, University of Warwick, April 20-21, 2023

Trade has always created spaces. For centuries, it has facilitated movement across borders, formed bridges between political entities, and drawn boundaries between others. Trade is at the heart of spatial imaginaries with large political and economic significance, including the idea of a ‘transatlantic community’ (Gabaccia, 2004). Yet while (political) economists have addressed some spatial questions, related for instance to the uneven distributive impacts of trade policy (e.g. Autor et al., 2013), there is still little systematic discussion of the role that space plays in trade politics.

In analysing European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK) trade policy, the creation of spaces through trade deserves renewed attention for two reasons: First, disruptions of established trading patterns through events such as Brexit, COVID-19, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or concerns about strategic dependence on China has led to new discussions about the broader geopolitical implications of trade (Meunier and NicolaĂŻdis, 2019). Second, the broadening of the international trade agenda and the increasing relevance of regulatory issues to trade negotiations has brought up questions of identity and community (Dingwerth & Weinhardt, 2019; Eagleton-Pierce, 2019). Trade deals are more and more contested today, triggering discussions on who we are and what we value.

Against this background, this academic workshop proposes to study trade policy in the EU and UK through the lens of ‘space’ and spatial politics. We understand space as more than geography. It also brings in aspects of identity and community. We are interested in understanding how spatial and social imaginaries are used to build communities and to draw boundaries (Said, 1994; Taylor, 2004). Following Brenner (2004, pp. 10-11) we argue that geographical scales are not static or fixed; they are best understood as ‘socially produced, and therefore malleable, dimensions of particular social processes’. In his work on urban governance, Brenner (2004) studies the hierarchization of spaces in relation to one another. Rosamond (2012) explores EU economic space and how ‘economic patriotism’ appeals to a community, by imagining and constructing it discursively. Adler-Nissen et al. (2017) and Siles-Brügge (2019) discuss how narratives on Brexit shape national identities and competing spatial imaginaries of the global economy.

Building on these contributions, this workshop seeks to explore how EU and UK trade policy, including public discourses and contestation about trade, contributes to the construction of transnational spaces, communities, and identities. The focus is on the effects of EU and UK trade policy and agreements with third parties, both in the Global North and the Global South. The papers in this workshop will address questions such as:

• How do specific EU and UK trade agreements, or political contestation about them, construct new and imagined relationships, identities, and communities?
• What kinds of power relationships underpin these new spaces? What types of new spatial hierarchies are created through trade in the Global North and the Global South? How does EU and UK trade (policy) thus re-border the world?
• Does the ‘spatial’ impact of EU and UK trade policy differ across policy fields (e.g. investment, migration, health, food, digital)?

Paper proposals (500 words maximum) should be sent to the organisers Achim Hurrelmann (achim.hurrelmann@carleton.ca), Özlem Atikcan (O.Atikcan@warwick.ac.uk), and Gabriel Siles-Brügge (g.siles-brugge@warwick.ac.uk) by November 30, 2022. Papers should be available for inclusion in a publication (journal special issue or edited volume) after the workshop. There is some funding available to cover travel and subsistence for participants.

Bibliography

Autor, D., Dorn, D. & Hanson, G. (2013), ‘The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States’, American Economic Review, 103 (6), 2121-2168.

Adler-Nissen, R., Galpin, C., & Rosamond, B. (2017). Performing Brexit: How a post-Brexit World is Imagined outside the United Kingdom. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(3), 573-591.

Brenner, N. (2004). New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dingwerth, K., & Weinhardt, C. (Eds.) (2019). The Language of World Trade Politics: Unpacking the Terms of Trade. Abingdon: Routledge.

Eagleton-Pierce, M. (2019). Trade. In K. Dingwerth & C. Weinhardt (Eds.), The Language of World Trade Politics: Unpacking the Terms of Trade. Abingdon: Routledge.

Gabaccia, D. (2004). A Long Atlantic in a Wider World. Atlantic Studies, 1(1), 1-27.

Meunier, S. and NicolaĂŻdis, K. (2019). The Geopoliticization of European Trade and Investment Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(Annual Review), 103-113.

Rosamond, B. (2012). Supranational Governance as Economic Patriotism? The European Union, Legitimacy and the Reconstruction of State Space. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(3), 324-341.

Said, E. (1994). Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.

Siles-Brügge, G. (2019). Bound by Gravity or Living in a ‘Post Geography Trading World’? Expert Knowledge and Affective Spatial Imaginaries in the Construction of the UK’s Post-Brexit Trade Policy. New Political Economy, 24(3), 422-439.

Taylor, C. (2004). Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.

This workshop is an activity of the Jean Monnet Network on Transatlantic Trade Politics. The Jean Monnet Network is supported by a grant from the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union and by the participating universities.

The Chair is supported by an EU grant of 50,000 Euros for a period of three years (2022-2025). The Chair will support teaching, public and policy debates, and dissemination of resources on the EU as a foreign policy actor, EU-sponsored policies within the Eurasian region, and EU-China relations. In teaching, new graduate and undergraduate courses proposed by the Chair will expand the EU course offerings in the area of study. To target scholars, policy makers and civil society, the Chair will organize a major event each year on a topic related to EU regionalism, EU-China relations, and global economic governance. The Chair will host guest lectures and will disseminate virtual outreach material to provide a platform for debate on EU’s foreign policy and potential implications for Canada-EU relations.

The Chair awarded to Professor Viju-Miljusevic is the third Jean Monnet Chair housed in EURUS. Professor DeBardeleben held a Jean Monnet Chair in “EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood Relations” (initial funding 2011-2014, renewed funding 2016-2019). Professor Hurrelmann held a Jean Monnet Chair on “Democracy in the European Union” (funding 2015-2018).

The summer school will be attended by advanced Bachelor, Master and early PhD students with an interest in the political science, history and political economy of transatlantic and international trade, as well as its current geopolitics and politicization. Instructors include scholars from the Jean Monnet Network, as well as other internationally recognized experts.

Please see for more information.

Professor Tienhaara notes the ISDS is an ad-hoc system, in which individuals who serve as a lawyer in one case can be a judge in another case. She argues that ISDS is a one-sided system without benefit to the public, as companies are allowed to bring claims against governments while governments are not allowed to bring claims against companies. She cites cases in the fossil fuel industry to demonstrate how claims through the ISDS have contributed to delaying governments from taking direct action against climate change.

is Canada Research Chair in Economy and Environment and Assistant Professor in the School of Environmental Studies and the Department of Global Development Studies at Queen’s University. Her research examines the intersection between environmental governance and the global economic system.

This is an installment of our Transatlantic Trade Video series. You can find more videos like this here.

The paper abstract reads as such: ‘AUK-US free trade agreement has consistently been presented as the main prize from the UK’s much touted post-Brexit trade policy independence. The UK Prime Minister’s admission that this was not going to be realised any time soon may have surprised media pundits, but it merely confirmed what had become increasingly apparent since the referendum: that a free trade agreement with the US was a long shot. Taken together with the short-lived suggestion of the UK joining the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), we argue that it is the desire to perform ‘independence’ from the European Union rather than policy content which is driving the UK’s trade strategy.’

Gabriel Siles-BrĂźgge is Reader in Public Policy at the University of Warwick, having previously worked at the Universities of Manchester and Oxford Brookes. His teaching has focused on International Political Economy, EU politics and public policy. His research has examined the politics of trade and investment agreements, with a focus on the EU and Brexit. His current work is particularly focused on the role of municipalities and emotions in trade governance. He is the (co-)author of two books – Constructing European Union Trade Policy (2014, Palgrave Macmillan) and (with Ferdi De Ville) of TTIP: The Truth about Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (2016, Polity) – and has published several articles in leading academic journals (including in the Journal of Common Market Studies,ĚýNew Political Economy and the Review of International Political Economy).

He has advised NGOs, trade unions and various parliaments on questions of trade policy and Brexit. He is an advisor on trade policy to the European Public Health Alliance, formerly representing it as an alternate member of the European Commission’s ‘Expert group on Trade Agreements’. He also served as a Parliamentary Academic Fellow with the UK House of Commons International Trade Committee (2017-19), and currently serves as a Specialist Advisor to that same Committee.

The paper’s abstract reads as such: “Constitutionally, Belgium represents the most extreme case of regional entities wielding power over EU external trade policymaking. Formally, the Flemish, Walloon and Brussels regions can wield veto power over Belgian positions. Yet, only once has a Belgian region actually made use of this capacity, when Wallonia temporarily blocked the conclusion of the EU trade agreement with Canada in 2016 (CETA). We show that political actors – legislative and executive – could only activate this constitutional possibility in conjunction with other necessary conditions: a high degree of societal mobilization and, above all, inter-party competition across different levels of government. As the Walloon Parti Socialiste seized the moment, it reinforced the paradox of weakness and strengthened the EU’s trade bargaining power towards Canada. We finish by discussing the spill-over effects of the 2016 CETA episode into the shaping of future EU trade policies, as well as into future intra-Belgian EU policymaking.”

Dirk De Bièvre is Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Antwerp. His teaching at the MA level focuses on Theories of International Relations, Research Design for the MA thesis, and International Political Economy. At the BA level, he offers a reading seminar on international politics. His research is concerned with regulatory and judicial politics, interest group politics, and political economy in the EU and the World Trade Organization. His research has been funded by the Volkswagen-Stiftung, the EU Framework program, the EU Horizon 2020 program, the European Science Foundation, the Research Foundation Flanders FWO and the Research Fund of the University of Antwerp. He previously was postdoc at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods and the Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, and in 2014-15, a Visiting Fellow at the Department of Government at the LSE. He is a steering group member of the ECPR Standing Group on International Relations and member of the editorial board of the Journal of European Public Policy and Politics and Governance.