— by Oscar Nanjia Songe —
International Trade Agreements (ITAs) will always be vital or deemed core elements aiming to reposition, characterize as well as reformulate the geo-economic environments, settings, and blocs worldwide. Although they effectively ease and expedite cross-border economic and financial exchanges, and in the process reinforce interstate and regional economic assimilation, apprehensions have been advanced on their growing impact on states’ autonomy. These fears are predominantly laid bare when factoring in ITAs’ capability to upend and standardize internal issues or challenges, coherent with entrenched norms, laws, and policies. Therefore, this article showcases how existing ITAs have impacted the autonomy of two European Union (EU) states. It starts by briefly conceptualizing state autonomy and its tactical connection to global trade. Finally, the paper will delineate the ways through which ITAs could either strengthen Germany and Poland’s state autonomy by opening up opportunities that mutually benefit interstate collaboration or entrench greater economic expansion. It will in addition assess how ITAs could weaken the financial and economic standings of these two EU nations.
Conceptualising State Sovereignty vis-à-vis International Trade
An autonomous state possesses an enviable right or authoritative position to self-govern and is not impeded by any external meddling. Rao (2024, p. 8), opines that sovereignty is “a state’s ability craft and enforce laws, regulate local matters, as well as control borders.” Rao (2024, p. 8) adds that “in international law, sovereignty is a fundamental principle that is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations as well as other universal legal instruments.”
ITAs are therefore defined as contracts, deals, agreements, or treaties amongst states that put in place rules and standards that govern global trade’s interoperability. ITAs may then be construed as regional trade accords citing vivid cases like the (United States – Mexico-Canada Agreement – USMCA formerly known as the ‘North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement’ – NAFTA); Multilateral Agreements (About the World Trade Organisation – WTO pacts); plus Bilateral Investment Treaties. Although ITAs stimulate economic advancement and steady development; and enforce mutual collaboration, nations are expected to sync or adapt local protocols, guidelines, laws, and strategies according to global standards, and resultantly losing some autonomy.
Delineating ITA’s Impact on Germany and Poland’s Sovereignty
ITAs are conceptualized to lessen many intricacies or obstacles related to trade expansion, and reinforcing economic partnerships, not to talk of entrenching a sustainable interstate or interregional economy. Nonetheless, as nations sign off these contractual pacts, difficulties typically arise in terms of measuring up and traversing expected participatory gains inside the universal fiscal and commercial chain; contrasting their need to uphold national autonomy. What then are the ITAs’ main constraints on national sovereignty; and how are they repositioned to influence either the state’s independence or internal policies? By exploring such questions, varied ITAs’ effects on state sovereignty would have been delineated.
To start, Germany and Poland both EU member states, have divergent socio-political and economic structures all considered as key to exposing wider inferences on how trade arrangements negatively affect states’ self-rule. Germany being the EU’s strongest and biggest economy wields enormous power in influencing the bloc’s trade, economic, financial, and marketing frameworks which usually entails huge and strategic concessions vis-à-vis policy-making from a domestic perspective. Taking this into consideration, Germany’s sovereignty has been affected in many ways:
About the EU’s aligned external tariff network, Germany exerts little or no control over its trade tariffs with non-EU states. This limits Germany’s capacity to autonomously regulate tariffs to shield local industries; as well as its ability to discuss as well as fine-tune mutual trade relations that are deemed favourable than the ones agreed at the EU level. A vivid example projected here is Germany’s need to abide by a specific collective decision or terms of engagement regarding the ‘EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement’; even when its key economic exchange activities and vibrant industries including pharmaceuticals, auto-manufacturing, energy sector, and agronomy may likely be impeded from liberalized trade terms (Schuster, 2023, pp. 62 – 65).
According to Davies (2022), Germany is also impeded by its adherence to trade rules negotiated by the European Commission (EC) – a principal EU mediator on international trade agreements. Hence, although Germany is considered a powerhouse for its strong economy, its ability to sign third-party trade deals with other countries globally is highly restrictive. Consequently, Germany must stick with every agreed stipulation negotiated by the EC even when not seamlessly aligned or harmonized with its economic gains or trade benefits. Worsening matters, the EU’s harmonization of its trade regulations into a sole market system depicts Germany’s inability to create separate socio-economic, and environmental norms, some level of fiscal standards, trade competition practices, and labor laws not necessarily aligned to EU regulations. Its pharmaceutical, energy, and automobile sectors for example must be aligned strictly to EU-wide policies restricting its capability to self-regulate them. This indicates that Germany’s regulatory autonomy is not fool-proof as it cannot single-handedly regulate this vital industry. Therefore, Germany’s challenges in carrying out critical self-regulation is a key aspect of the country’s sovereignty, which greatly limits its will to best serve its national economic interests.
Poland, a comparatively smaller economy than Germany and a newer entrant to the EU continues to experience different problems. While it profits enormously from these trade relations, it similarly faces some setbacks. For example, when considering how the US trade negotiations with the EU center on data protection, security, and environmental standards, Poland has specific policies or preferences but has to abide by the EU’s ones even if they conflict with its national interests. A glaring example was noted during the European Union / United States Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) discussions, where Poland had no choice but to align behind the EU overarching position on regulatory cooperation together with the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause despite concerns raised by the Polish Agriculture sector for example.
Poland’s affiliation with the EU’s single market also impacts its sovereignty. While Poland gains from its membership in this economic fabric or market, especially through unrestricted trade and labor movements, this decreases its ability to individually adjust its trade policies. A depiction of this is Poland’s limited capability to introduce national-level agricultural policies that are deemed as deviating from the standards set by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In addition, the country’s dependence on the EU for its agrarian and agronomic subsidies greatly limits its capacity to roll out proactive agricultural trade plans and policies without prior approval from the EU. To add, polish farmers sometimes feel unprotected and left out because certain trade deals do not provide enough protections for their domestic agricultural production, resulting in undermining domestic interests in favor of wider EU goals and interests.
Conclusion
With the EU’s economic exchange agreements being considered adequately beneficial from an economic and financial standpoint, alongside enormous perks that come in from a wider geopolitical reach for being in a single market, substantial problems that could affect both Germany and Poland’s sovereignty negatively are also thriving. Comparatively, the EU’s economic exchange pacts or agreements affect both countries’ sovereignty differently when considering the disparity between each country’s economic clout, geopolitical sway, or sector-specific growth trends and patterns. So, Germany being the strongest economy in Europe faces certain trade restrictions, especially in the harmonisation of its trade regulations including its external tariffs determination. However, Germany wields more power and influence over the EU’s economic exchange policies; and is therefore in a ‘pole’ position to better and effectively negotiate multifaceted terms of engagements and sign-off agreements. Poland’s autonomy on the other hand is far more exposed to challenges, expressly its agricultural sector where it has a lesser bargaining power within the EU negotiation framework. Poland, it has been deduced has less leverage when it comes to negotiating terms that favor its national industries because it is highly dependent on EU-wide trade deals. Thus, while Germany’s economic power is laudable, it still needs to compromise on tariffs and regulatory issues. Poland on its part faces stiffer limitations vis-à-vis its economic exchange negotiation leverage. Both nations’ experiences indicate the inextricable compromise entrenched by the need to safeguard their respective national autonomy or state sovereignty and preserve the advantages that sustainable regional economic integration brings with it.
References
- Davies, A. (2022). The European Union’s Regulatory Power: A Case Study of Germany. Journal of European Integration, 44(5), 787-804.
- Fichtner, U., & Bencsik, G. (2021). The Impact of EU Trade Agreements on Member States: A Study on CETA. European Trade Review, 12(2), 34-49.
- Kaczmarek, M. (2021). The EU’s Agricultural Policies and Poland’s Sovereignty. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 43(3), 98-115.
- Rao, R. (2024). ‘The Impact of Global Trade Agreements on National Sovereignty: A Legal Review.’ Indian Journal of Law, 2(5), 7-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36676/ijl.v2.i5.51
- Schuster, L. (2023). EU Trade Policy: The Role of Germany in Shaping Global Economic Relations. European Journal of Political Economy, 47(1), 56-72.
- Tusk, D. (2022). Poland’s Role in EU-US Trade Negotiations: Implications for National Sovereignty. International Relations Journal, 59(3), 212-229.
