The EU is one of the world’s largest markets and an important export destination for developing countries. Especially African countries depend on the European market and are greatly affected by its...Show moreThe EU is one of the world’s largest markets and an important export destination for developing countries. Especially African countries depend on the European market and are greatly affected by its trade policies. Trade relations between the EU and developing countries have existed since the inception of the EU. For a long period, the EU has focused on the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries alone, due to their colonial ties with the EU, disregarding other developing countries. However, since the mid-1990s, the ACP countries have faced the consequences of a shifting paradigm in the EU when it comes to trade policy and development. This research focuses on the recent trade relations between the EU and ACP countries. Once the EU wishes to conclude new international trade agreements, such as the controversial Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament have important roles, which influence the course of the negotiations. This research looks at the behaviour of the Commission and the European Parliament during the negotiations of the new EPAs between 2002 and 2013. The literature on the power identity of the EU in international relations is extensive, but speaks about the EU as if it were a homogenous institution. It therefore fails to distinguish the different power identities of the European Institutions. This research provides an original contribution to existing literature by distinguishing the particular identities of the Commission and the European Parliament in international trade relations. A critical discourse analysis shows that the European Parliament prioritised the concerns of the ACP countries during the negotiations and emphasised the need for development-oriented EPAs. The European Parliament challenged the arguments and negotiation tactics of the Commission, which shows that it did not agree with the course taken and intended to hold the Commission accountable. Moreover, it illustrates that the European Parliament took on the task to represent not just EU citizens, but ACP citizens as well. The Commission, on the other hand, prioritised the opening up of ACP markets, which it claimed would lead to development, and the swift conclusion of the negotiations. The Commission avoided discussing the concerns raised by the ACP countries, tried to convince others of the positive atmosphere during the negotiations, and repeatedly claimed to only have the best interests at heart for ACP countries.Show less
