Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4World Trade Organization LawGlobal Political and Economic RelationsCOVID-19, Geopolitics, Technology, Migration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

EU-Korea trade relations in the context of global disruption: political and legal perspectives

Open access
Christiansen, Thomas, Kim, Bongchul·2023·Asia Europe Journal
DOI 10.1007/s10308-023-00689-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Trade has long been the foundation of relations between the Republic of Korea and the European Union, and the conclusion of a comprehensive free trade agreement between the two sides in 2011 was both a recognition of the value of economic exchange and a catalyst for deeper cooperation in subsequent years. This paper discusses in some detail the governance of trade relations and other aspects of economic cooperation between Korea and the European Union, highlighting the multilayered nature and the expanding scope of legal ties between the two sides. The positive bilateral cooperation occurs however against the background of a changing and increasingly challenging global context. The failure of the Doha Round, the limitations of the World Trade Organization, and the growing concerns about de-coupling between the USA and China are all developments that complicate efforts towards trade liberalization and indeed threaten to disrupt global trade significantly. These adverse trends contain particular risks for Korea and the EU, both close allies of the USA and also both economies that are deeply integrated with the Chinese economy. Managing Korea-EU trade relations is therefore becoming both more complicated but also more important, and in conclusion, the paper provides an outlook on these future challenges.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10308-023-00689-3

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 4

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Bae YJ (2021) Analysis of labor provisions of Korea’s FTAs and labor dispute under the Korea-EU FTA from the perspective of international law. Korean J Int Econ Law 19(2):35–74 · DOI
  2. Baldwin R E and Evenett S J (2020) COVID-19 and trade policy: why turning inward won’t work, CEPR Press.
  3. Bas M, Fernandes A and Paunov C (2023) How resilient was trade to COVID-19?, Economic Letters, available online at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176523001052?via%3Dihub · DOI
  4. Beeson M (2018) Geoeconomics with Chinese characteristics: the BRI and China’s evolving grand strategy. Econ Polit Stud 6(3):240–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/20954816.2018.1498988 · DOI
  5. Brands H and Gaddis J (2021) The new cold war: America, China, and the echoes of history. Foreign Affairs, 100(6), 10–21, available online at https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fora100&div=145&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals
  6. Christiansen T, Richey M (2021) Security relations between the EU and South Korea. In: Christiansen T, Kirchner E, Tan SS (eds) Security Relations between the European Union and Asian Partners (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021) · DOI
  7. Eeckhout P (2006) The EU and its member states in the WTO. In: Bartels L, Ortino F (eds) Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 448–464
  8. García-Herrero A and Tan J (2020). Deglobalisation in the context of United States-China decoupling. Bruegel. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28508
  9. Hadfield G (2012) Legal infrastructure and the new economy. A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society. Int Assoc Privacy Professionals 8(1):1–59
  10. Haine J, Salloum C (2021) Europe: a strategy for a regional and middle power. US Army War College Quarty Paramenters 51(2):6
  11. Hanson B T (1998) What happened to fortress Europe?: external trade policy liberalization in the European Union. International Organization, 52(1), 55–85, available online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601327 · DOI
  12. Harrison J (2014) The European Union and South Korea: the legal framework for strengthening trade, economic and political relations. Edinburgh University Press · DOI
  13. Hilpert H G and Park S (2022) EU and South Korea: a model example for foreign trade policy relations?. In: Adriaensen J and Postnikov E (eds) A Geo-Economic Turn in Trade Policy?. The European Union in International Affairs. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81281-2_10 · DOI
  14. Hogarth HK (2012) South Korea’s sunshine policy, reciprocity and nationhood. Perspect Global Dev Technol 11(1):99–111. https://doi.org/10.1163/156914912X620761 · DOI
  15. Hosain S (2019) Huawei ban in the US: projected consequences for international trade (October 24, 2019). International Journal of Commerce and Economics, available online at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3474879
  16. Kim B (2014) Legal response to the Korea-EU FTA: is it possible to use the law for other purposes. J Euro Union Stud 37:161–185
  17. Kim B (2015a) The changes of Korean domestic laws with the FTA system. Chonbuk Law Rev 44:415–435
  18. Kim S (2017) EU global strategy and Korea-EU relations. J Contemp Euro Stud 35(3):29–54
  19. Kim B, Kim H (2014) Analysis and proposals to the laws in the Kaesong Industrial Complex: for better regulations under new environments on the Korean Peninsula. Korea J 54(4):80–105 · DOI
  20. Kim B, Lim S (2020) The character of the Korean trade law: the multi-layered structure and new function of the law. J Int Trade Commer 16(3):15–24
  21. Kim B, Shin E, Park G (2023a) Establishing EU norms as a global actor: application of new concepts in FTAs. J Global Bus Trade 19(1):75–89 · DOI
  22. Kim B, Kim H, Shin E (2023b) Possibilities and implications of law changes applied to trade between Korea and Europe. J Int Trade Commer 17(2):387–398
  23. Lee T (2010) Korea joins the big league with a donor-centric approach. In: Wilks A (ed) Aid and development effectiveness: towards human rights, social justice and democracy, Reality of Aid 2010 report (The Reality of Aid Management Committee). IBON Books, Philippines, pp 233–272
  24. Lee JM (2012a) Korea’s FTA drive and enactment of Trade Treaty Conclusion Procedure Act of 2011 - its legal implications and practical consequences -. Seoul Int Law J 19(1):31–62
  25. Lee Y and Lee R (2019) The Korean economy. 1st ed. Taylor and Francis, availavle online at https://www.perlego.com/book/1379121/the-korean-economy-from-growth-to-maturity-pdf · DOI
  26. Lee J (2011) The Korea-EU FTA: capitalizing on the world’s largest market. SERI Quarterly, 4(3), 31–37,6, available online at https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/korea-eu-fta-capitalizing-on-worlds-largest/docview/880059262/se-2
  27. Lim DJ, Ferguson VA (2022) Informal economic sanctions: the political economy of Chinese coercion during the THAAD dispute. Rev Int Polit Econ 29(5):1525–1548. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2021.1918746 · DOI
  28. MacShane D (2016) Brexit: how Britain left Europe. I.B.Tauris · DOI
  29. Park S (2002) Regionalism, open regionalism and Article XXIV GATT: conflict and harmony. In Snyder F (eds) Regional and Global Regulation of International Trade. Hart Publishing, Oxford
  30. Park S (2020) South Korea and the European Union. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, available online at https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1122 · DOI
  31. Pugliese G (2023) The European Union’s security intervention in the Indo-Pacific: between multilateralism and mercantile interests. J Interv Statebuild 17(1):76–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2022.2118425 · DOI
  32. Sarsenbayev M, Véron N (2020) European versus American perspectives on the Belt and Road Initiative. China & World Economy. Peterson Inst Int Econ 84–105 · DOI
  33. Shagina M and Stüwe R (2021) Nord Stream II, Russian Analytical Digest, 267, available online at https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000476769 · DOI
  34. Shattuck TJ (2021) (2021) Stuck in the middle: Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, the US-China tech fight, and cross-strait stability. Orbis 65:101–117 · DOI
  35. Shin G and Moon R J (2017) South Korea after impeachment. Journal of Democracy, 28(4), 117–131, available online at https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jnlodmcy28&div=79&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals · DOI
  36. van Hassel E, Vanelslander T, Neyens K, Vandeborre H, Kindt D and Kellens S (2022) Reconsidering nearshoring to avoid global crisis impacts: application and calculation of the total cost of ownership for specific scenarios, Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier 93(C) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101089. · DOI
  37. Voytyuk O (2021) The perception of Nord Stream II in the international arena. Security Forum, 4(2), pp. 23–37, available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351664197_THE_PERCEPTION_OF_NORD_STREAM_II_IN_THE_INTERNATIONAL_ARENA
  38. Winters L (2011) Preferential trading agreements: friend or foe? In: Bagwell K, Mavroidis P (eds) Preferential Trade Agreements-A Law and Economics Analysis. Cambridge University Press, pp 7–30 · DOI
  39. Wrobel R M (2014) Ten years of Kaesong Industrial Complex: a brief history of the last economic cooperation project of the Korean peninsula, Economic and Environmental Studies (E&ES), ISSN 2081–8319, Opole University, Faculty of Economics, Opole, Vol. 14, Iss. 2, pp. 125–147, available online at https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/178853/1/ees_14_2_02.pdf

Metadata

Authors
Christiansen, T., & Kim, B.
Affiliations
  • Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli (IT)
  • Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (KR)
Corresponding author
  • Christiansen, Thomas
  • Kim, Bongchul
ORCID
Christiansen, Thomas
Venue
Asia Europe Journal
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-11-29
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
527-544
ISSN
  • 1610-2932 (ISSN-L)
  • 1612-1031
DOI
10.1007/s10308-023-00689-3
OpenAlex
W4389109570
Cited by
4
References
22
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Asia Europe Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS - Institutional Research Information System (Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Luiss University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › World Trade Organization Law
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Political and Economic Relations
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › COVID-19, Geopolitics, Technology, Migration
Keywords
Korea-EU Free Trade Agreement, trade governance, trade liberalization, Doha Round, World Trade Organization, US-China decoupling, international trade disruption, economic cooperation, international trade law

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: EU-Korea trade relations in the context of global disruption: political and legal perspectives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10308-023-00689-3
The paper
Christiansen, T., & Kim, B. (2023). EU-Korea trade relations in the context of global disruption: political and legal perspectives. Asia Europe Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-023-00689-3