Acknowledgements. The study was conducted with the support of the Department of global problems and international relations (Russian Academy of Sciences) in the framework of the Program of fundamental research “Economic and social imbalances in the macro-regions of the modern world”.
Abstract. Another delay of the signature of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) after fifteen rounds of talks, and protectionist rhetoric of the newly-elected US President Donald Trump give a good reason to think about the future of the agreement between the EU and the USA. The author takes into account the interest of the negotiators in strengthening their joint position in the world and mutual liberalization. However, the author points to a fundamental difference in the logic and practice of trade regulation and competition on both sides of the Atlantic. In particular, the author notes individual features that cannot be included in the common model such as the EU precautionary principle and the European system of protection of geographical indications. The article also highlights the difference between the EU and the US in their goals of standardization and conformity assessment procedures. Their positions differ significantly on the issue of the protection of competition. Finally, the EU has a negative view towards the US non-interference in the activities of the largest monopolies and the market of state orders. These differences limit the subject of discussion and impede the creation of a common economic model. The EU and the United States tend to preserve their identity in the areas of consumer and environment protection, standardization, competition. The negotiations become a means of competitive positioning of their models. At the same time it is an example of tolerant interaction of competing poles. The estimate also allows to rethink the outcome of the EU–Russia dialogue and to stress its useful results. The author believes that Russia adopted many elements of the institutional model of the European Union. These elements are embedded in the practice of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). So, there is a chance to use them as a basis for a potential dialogue between EU and EAEU.
Keywords: TTIP, EU, USA, protectionism, market, trade, technical regulation, international standardization, competition
1. Inside TTIP. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2015. 46 p. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/july/tradoc_153635.pdf (accessed 12.02.2017).
2. Report of the 15th Round of Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Oñtober 2016. European Ñomission, 17 p. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/october/tradoc_155027.pdf (accessed 12.02.2017).
3. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: The Economic Analysis Explained. Technical Report. European Commission, September 2013. 16 p. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/september/tradoc_151787.pdf (accessed 12.02.2017).
4. Bromund T., Coffey L., Riley B. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): Economic Benefits and Potential Risks. Available at: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnershipttip-economic-benefits-and-potential-risks (accessed 12.02.2017).
5. Small and Medium Sized Enterprises and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. London, 2014. 44 p. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/april/tradoc_153348.pdf (accessed 12.02.2017).
6. From Competition to Convergence. TTIP and the Evolution of Global Standards. Kommerskollegium. National Board of Trade, Sweden, November, 2015. 46 p. Available at: http://www19.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2016/15971.pdf (accessed 12.02.2017).
7. TTIP: Who Benefits from a Free Trade Deal? Part 1: Macroeconomic Effects. Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2013. 52 p. Available at: http://www.bfna.org/sites/default/files/TTIP-GED%20study%2017June%202013.pdf (accessed 12.02.2017).
8. William E. Kovacic. Competition Policy in the European Union and the United States: Convergence or Divergence? Bates White Fifth Annual Antitrust Conference Washington, D. C. June 2, 2008. Available at: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/competition-policy-european-union-and-united-states-convergence-ordivergence/080602bateswhite.pdf (accessed 12.02.2017).
9. Alden F. Abbott. A Brief Comparison of European and American Antitrust law. The Competition Law & Policy Guest Lecture Programme. The University of Oxford Paper (L), 02.05.2005. 22 p. Available at: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/cclp_l_02-05.pdf (accessed 12.02.2017).
10. Lianos I. Causal Uncertainty and Damages Claims for the Infringement of Competition Law in Europe. Yearbook of European Law. 2015, pp. 1-62. Available at: https://awards.concurrences.com/IMG/pdf/yearbook_lianos.pdf (accessed 12.02.2017).
11. Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on Certain Rules Governing Actions for Damages under National Law for Infringements of the Competition Law Provisions of the Member States and of the European Union. OJ L 349/1. 05.12.2014, pp. 1-19.
12. State Aid: Ireland Gave Illegal Tax Benefits to Apple Worth up to €13 Billion. Brussels, European Commission. Press Release. 30 August 2016. 4 p. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP‑16-2923_en.htm (accessed 12.02.2017).
13. Woolcock S., Grier J. H. TTIP and Public Procurement. Rule-Makers or Rule-Takers? Exploring the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Hamilton D. S., Pelkmans J., eds. CEPS. 2015, pp. 297-340. Available at: https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/TTIP.pdf (accessed 12.02.2017).
Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX