Download the full version of the ebook at ebookfinal.

com

The Routledge Handbook of Transatlantic Relations

1st Edition Elaine Fahey

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-routledge-handbook-of-
transatlantic-relations-1st-edition-elaine-fahey/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookfinal.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

The Complete Handbook of Coaching Elaine Cox

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-complete-handbook-of-coaching-
elaine-cox/

ebookfinal.com

Handbook of China s International Relations Routledge

International Handbooks 1st Edition Shaun Breslin

https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-china-s-international-
relations-routledge-international-handbooks-1st-edition-shaun-breslin/

ebookfinal.com

Routledge Handbook on China Middle East Relations 1st

Edition Jonathan Fulton

https://ebookfinal.com/download/routledge-handbook-on-china-middle-
east-relations-1st-edition-jonathan-fulton/

ebookfinal.com

The Routledge International Handbook of Creative Learning

The Routledge International Handbook Series 1st Edition
Julian Sefton-Green
https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-routledge-international-handbook-
of-creative-learning-the-routledge-international-handbook-series-1st-
edition-julian-sefton-green/
ebookfinal.com
The Routledge Handbook of Syntax 1st Edition Andrew Carnie

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-routledge-handbook-of-syntax-1st-
edition-andrew-carnie/

ebookfinal.com

Employment Relations in the Hospitality and Tourism

Industries Routledge Studies in Employment Relations 1st
Edition Rosemary Lucas
https://ebookfinal.com/download/employment-relations-in-the-
hospitality-and-tourism-industries-routledge-studies-in-employment-
relations-1st-edition-rosemary-lucas/
ebookfinal.com

The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes Andy Kirkpatrick

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-routledge-handbook-of-world-
englishes-andy-kirkpatrick/

ebookfinal.com

The Routledge Handbook of Phenomenology of Emotion 1st

Edition Thomas Szanto

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-routledge-handbook-of-
phenomenology-of-emotion-1st-edition-thomas-szanto/

ebookfinal.com

The Routledge Handbook of Megachurch Studies 1st Edition

Afe Adogame

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-routledge-handbook-of-megachurch-
studies-1st-edition-afe-adogame/

ebookfinal.com
Transatlantic relations are often reduced to security matters. This book responds to the need for more

Edited by Elaine Fahey

The Routledge Handbook of Transatlantic Relations
comprehensive analyses of various policy sectors and arenas in which the EU and the US interact.
These are embedded in larger theoretical debates, thus skillfully connecting theory and practice in this
valuable handbook.
Markus Thiel, Florida International University, USA

An intellectual gold mine for scholars and practitioners alike, this book unlocks the full complexity of
Transatlantic relations. Breaking down policy silos, it goes beyond the diplomatic tip of the Transatlantic
iceberg to shed light on the submerged processes, actors and institutions that structure this cooperative,
competitive and conflictual relationship.
Jean-Baptiste Velut, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, France

With this seminal work Elaine Fahey assembled an impressive selection of authoritative voices on Transatlantic
relations from both sides of the pond who delivered rigorous, original, and thought-provoking contributions
providing a consistent narrative on a crucial relationship that has been and will remain difficult before, during,
and after President Trump.
Professor Martin Trybus, University of Birmingham, UK

In an increasingly bipolar world, the US-EU relationship should be one of strength and coherence. Yet, as the
Handbook vividly shows, this relationship remains unstable and multifaceted. New crises and actions by a
plurality of transatlantic actors are constantly re-shaping the balance of powers in diplomacy, policy, and law
across the Atlantic.
Fernanda G. Nicola, Washington College of Law, American University, USA

The Routledge Handbook on Transatlantic Relations is an essential and comprehensive reference for the
regulation of transatlantic relations across a range of subjects, bringing together contributions from scholars,
policy makers, lawyers and political scientists. Future oriented in a range of fields, it probes the key technical,
procedural and policy issues for the US of dealing with, negotiating, engaging and law-making with the EU,
taking a broad interdisciplinary perspective including international relations, politics, political economic and
law, EU external relations law and international law and assesses the external consequences of transatlantic
relations in a systematic and comprehensive fashion.

The transatlantic relationship constitutes one of the most established and far-reaching democratic alliances
globally, and which has propelled multilateralism, trade regulation and the EU-US relationship in global
challenges. The different contributions will propose solutions to overcome these problems and help us
understand the shifting transatlantic agenda in diverse areas from human rights, to trade, and security, and
the capacity of the transatlantic relationship to set new international agendas, standards and rules.

The Routledge Handbook on Transatlantic Relations will be a key reference for scholars, students and

The Routledge Handbook

practitioners of Transatlantic Relations/EU-US relations, EU External Relations law, EU rule-making, EU
Security law and more broadly to global governance, International law, international political economy and
international relations.

Elaine Fahey is Professor of Law at the City Law School, City, University of London.

of Transatlantic Relations
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND LAW

ISBN 978-1-032-25556-9

www.routledge.com

9 781032 255569
Edited by Elaine Fahey
Routledge titles are available as eBook editions in a range of digital formats
 THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK
OF TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS

The Routledge Handbook of Transatlantic Relations is an essential and comprehensive

reference for the regulation of transatlantic relations across a range of subjects,
bringing together contributions from scholars, policy makers, lawyers and political
scientists. Future oriented in a range of fields, it probes the key technical, procedural
and policy issues for the US of dealing with, negotiating, engaging and law-making
with the EU, taking a broad interdisciplinary perspective including international
relations, politics, political economic and law, EU external relations law and
international law and assesses the external consequences of transatlantic relations in
a systematic and comprehensive fashion.
The transatlantic relationship constitutes one of the most established and far-
reaching democratic alliances globally, and which has propelled multilateralism, trade
regulation and the EU-US relationship in global challenges. The different
contributions will propose solutions to overcome these problems and help us
understand the shifting transatlantic agenda in diverse areas from human rights, to
trade, and security, and the capacity of the transatlantic relationship to set new
international agendas, standards and rules.
The Routledge Handbook of Transatlantic Relations will be a key reference for scholars,
students and practitioners of Transatlantic Relations/EU-US relations, EU External
Relations law, EU rule-making, EU Security law and more broadly to global
governance, International law, international political economy and international
relations.

Elaine Fahey is Professor of Law at the City Law School, City, University of
London.
 ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOKS

Routledge International Handbook of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on

Descendants of Holocaust Survivors
Edited by Judith Tydor Baumel-Schwartz and Amit Shrira
Routledge International Handbook of Visual-motor skills, Handwriting, and
Spelling
Edited by Yanyan Ye, Tomohiro Inoue, Urs Maurer, and Catherine McBride
Routledge Handbook of Environmental Policy
Edited by Helge Jörgens, Christoph Knill and Yves Steinebach
The Routledge Handbook of Soft Power (2nd Edition)
Edited by Naren Chitty, Lilian Ji, Gary D Rawnsley
The Routledge Handbook of Urban Logistics
Edited by Jason Monios, Lucy Budd and Stephen Ison
The Routledge Handbook of Comparative Global Urban Studies
Edited by Patrick LeGalès and Jennifer Robinson
The Routledge Handbook of Transatlantic Relations
Edited by Elaine Fahey
THE ROUTLEDGE
HANDBOOK OF
TRANSATLANTIC
RELATIONS

Edited by Elaine Fahey

 Designed cover image: Alberto Masnovo / Getty Images
First published 2024
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Elaine Fahey; individual chapters, the
contributors
The right of Elaine Fahey to be identified as the author[/s] of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-032-25534-7 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-25556-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-28391-1 (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003283911

Typeset in Bembo
by MPS Limited, Dehradun
 CONTENTS

List of Figures ix
List of Tables x
List of Contributors xi
Acknowledgements xvii

Introduction 1
Elaine Fahey

SECTION I
EU and US Intra-Organisations Relations 15

1 Connecting the US Congress and the European Parliament:

The Work and Role of the EP Liaison Office in
Washington DC 17
Joseph Dunne

2 EU-US Relations in a Changing World 31

David O’Sullivan

3 Negotiating with the European Union – A U.S. Perspective 38

Kenneth Propp

4 Transatlantic Parliamentary Cooperation at Fifty 52

Davor Jancic

v
 Contents

5 The Rise of Informal International Organizations 67

Charles B. Roger

6 The Revival of Transatlantic Partnership? EU-US

Coordination in Sanctions Policy 81
Peter Van Elsuwege and Viktor Szép

7 The EU and US Global Human Rights Sanction Regimes:

Useful Complementary Instruments to Advance Protection
of Universal Values? A Legal Appraisal 96
Sara Poli

8 NATO and Transatlantic Security Relations 113

Gabriella Bolstad and Karsten Friis

SECTION II
Trade, Investment and Cooperation in Transatlantic
Relations 125

9 Transatlantic Economic and Legal Disintegration? Between

Anglo-Saxon Neo-Liberal Nationalism, Authoritarian State-
Capitalism and Europe’s Ordo-Liberal Multilevel
Constitutionalism 127
Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann

10 Reverberations of the CJEU Achmea B.V. Decision in the

Transatlantic Space 141
Jenya Grigorova

11 Executive Accountability in Unilateral Trade Policy:

A Transatlantic Perspective 159
Thomas Verellen

12 Transatlantic Energy Relations: A Brief History and a

Tentative Outlook 172
Simon Dekeyrel

13 Transatlantic Trade Relations: Domestic Obstacles and

Strategic Opportunities 186
L. Johan Eliasson

vi
 Contents

14 Taking Back Control: The Political Economy of Investment

Screening in the US and EU 200
Michelle Egan

SECTION III
Norm Promotion Practices of the EU and US in the
Digital Age 219

15 The Future of the EU-US Privacy Shield 221

Elaine Fahey and Fabien Terpan

16 The EU and US Transatlantic Agendas on Taxation 237

Maria Kendrick

17 The “Beneficial Divergence” in the Transatlantic Approach

to Competition Law Enforcement Towards Platform and
Ecosystem Competition 248
Giulio Kowalski

18 Who Occupies the Transatlantic Data Privacy Space?

Assessing the Evolving Dynamics, Underlying Reasons and
the Way Forward 266
Maria Tzanou

SECTION IV
The Political and Economic Character of Transatlantic
Relations 277

19 The Transatlantic Regulatory Relationship: Limited

Conflict, Less Competition and a New Approach to
Cooperation 279
Alasdair R. Young

20 Bilateral, Trilateral or - Quadrilateral? The UK-US Trade

Relations in a Global Context 292
Peter Holmes and Minako Morita-Jaeger

21 Anglo-American Power in the Wake of Brexit and America

First: A Crisis at the Heart of the Liberal International Order 308
Inderjeet Parmar and Mark Ledwidge

vii
 Contents

22 The Measurement, Structure and Dynamics of the

Transatlantic Current Account 323
Martin T. Braml and Gabriel J. Felbermayr

23 Asymmetry and Civil Society Backlash: Changing European

Calculations in Trans-Atlantic Investment Relations from
CETA to TTIP and Beyond 337
Robert G. Finbow

24 Transatlantic Relations in a Changing World 352

Marianne Riddervold, Akasemi Newsome, and Albert Didriksen

Index 366

viii
 FIGURES

5.1 Governance portfolios 70

5.2 Semi-standardized coefficients plot 76
5.3 Predicted probabilities, 1950–2005 77
20.1 UK’s exports and imports with the EU, the US and rest of the
world 293
20.2 US trade with the EU, UK and the rest of the world 293
20.3 Origin of value added in UK final demand, % of total value
added in final demand, 2018 295
20.4 Origin of value added in US final demand, % of total value added
in final demand, 2018 296
20.5 UK-Reported trade and FDI position with the US and the EU
(£ million), 2019 297
20.6 US-Reported trade and FDI position with the UK and the EU
(£ million), 2019 297
22.1 The transatlantic current account 2003–2020, balances, US
perspective, bn USD 324
22.2 Bilateral trade policy interventions, annual, unweighted count 331
22.3 EU current account, balances and totals, bn EUR, 2021 333
22.4 US current account, balances and totals, bn EUR, 2021 333

ix
 TABLES

1.1 Overview of European Parliamentary visits to Washington DC 25

5.1 Regression Results 75
10.1 Achmea-related arguments before US courts 147
14.1 National Investment Screening Mechanisms among EU Member
States 211

x
 CONTRIBUTORS

Gabriella Bolstad is a junior research fellow in the Norwegian Institute of

International Affairs’ (NUPI’s) Research Group on Security and Defence.
Bolstad’s research focus on transatlantic relations, China in international politics,
geopolitics and the Arctic.

Martin T. Braml served as research economist at the World Trade Organisation

until 2022. Since 2021, Braml is also lecturer in trade policy at the University of
Passau, Germany. His main expertise lies in international economics, trade policy,
and macroeconomics. In these fields, he has contributed to economic policy
debates in Germany.

Simon Dekeyrel is a policy analyst in the Sustainable Prosperity for Europe

Programme at the Brussels-based think tank European Policy Centre, Belgium.
He recently completed his PhD on the contemporary evolution of EU energy
policy at the University of Nottingham, UK, where he was part of the EU
Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie research project ‘EU Trade and
Investment Policy’. His primary research interests are EU internal and external
energy and climate policy.

Albert Didriksen is a research assistant at the Innlandet University, Norway. Since

September 2022, he is a PhD student in political science, more specifically
political theory and political philosophy at the Central European University,
Vienna, Austria. Previously, he was also a seminar teacher, teaching on research
design, qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as political theory at the
University of Oslo, Norway.

Joseph Dunne is director of the European Parliament (EP) Liaison Office in

Washington DC, which was set up to foster and develop relations between the

xi
 Contributors

EP and the US Congress, since 1 October 2019. Earlier, Dunne was a senior
resident fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Washington DC and a visiting
fellow at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason
University. Up to that time, he was a director in the European Parliament
Research Service.

Michelle Egan is professor and Jean Monnet Chair Ad Personam in the School of
International Service American University DC, US. Egan focuses on comparative
politics and political economy. She works on Europe and the United States, with
a focus on issues of federalism, trade, governance and law. Egan is co-director of
the Transatlantic Policy Center with Professor Garret Martin.

L. Johan Eliasson is professor of political science at the East Stroudsburg

University, US. He teaches European politics, trade, international relations,
international law, a simulation on the European Union and research methods.
Elliasson’s research focuses on European mobilisation around trade policy,
transatlantic trade and European Union economic integration.

Elaine Fahey is professor of law at City Law School, City, University of London,
UK and visiting professor at American University, Washington College of Law.
She held a Jean Monnet Chair in Law and Transatlantic Relations from 2019-
2022. She is co-director of the Institute for the Study of European Law (ISEL).
Her research interests include the relationship between EU law and global
governance, international relations, trade and technology and transatlantic
relations.

Gabriel J. Felbermayr is director of the Austrian Institute of Economic Research

(WIFO). He specialises in international economics, international trade agreements,
economic policy and environmental economics. Previously, Felbermayr was a
professor of economics at the University of Munich and director of the Ifo Institute
for Economic Research, Munich. From 2019 to 2021, he was the President of the
Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

Robert G. Finbow is Eric Dennis Memorial Professor of Political Science and deputy
director of Jean Monnet European Union Centre of Excellence, Dalhousie
University, Canada. Finbow’s current research focuses on the socially responsible
elements of trade agreements, especially labour and social issues in NAFTA and
the EU. His focus recently has been on the Canada-European Economic and Trade
Agreement (CETA), especially the implications for social policy and federalism.

Karsten Friis is a senior research fellow and head of the Norwegian Institute of
International Affairs’ (NUPI’s) Research Group on Security and Defence. Friis’
main area of expertise is security and defence policies, international military
operations, civilian-military relations, Nordic security, cyber security, as well as
the Western Balkans.

xii
 Contributors

Jenya Grigorova is dispute settlement lawyer at the WTO. Her research interests
include international trade law, in particular WTO law, issues related to energy
regulation on both international and regional levels, international investment law
and environmental law. Grigorova has published on various pressing issues in
international trade relations, concerning trade in the energy sector, as well as on
specific aspects of EU law, relating to EU restrictive measures and to EU
environmental policy measures.

Peter Holmes is Emeritus Reader at the University of Sussex Business School. He

is now a fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) and a director of
InterAnalysis. He is a specialist in European Economic Integration and other
global public policy issues, including the EU’s relations with the WTO. Holmes
is interested in the relationship among the complex of policies on trade,
competition, regulation and technology.

Davor Jancic is senior lecturer in law at Queen Mary University of London, UK.
His research interests include EU institutional law and governance, comparative
regional integration and regional organisations, democracy and legitimacy
beyond the state. He has dedicated a large portion of his research output to
national parliaments in the EU, the European Parliament and EU foreign affairs
(e.g. with the US and China), parliamentary diplomacy and so forth.

Maria Kendrick is senior lecturer in law at City, University of London, UK. Her
research areas cover tax law and EU law, including integration, differentiated
integration and tax. Dr Kendrick’s research also covers the subject of Brexit.
Maria is also, by invitation, on the Editorial Board of Kluwer Law International’s
Regulating for Globalization Blog and Global Trade and Customs Journal.

Giulio Kowalski is doctoral researcher at City, University of London, UK. His

research revolves around the impact of the digitisation of the economy on the
Competition and Data Protection Law frameworks. In particular, Kowalski looks
into the interrelation between these two fields of law in the present digital age
and endeavours to address the different issues that arise from incorporating
privacy as a qualitative parameter into the competition and merger assessment by
domestic and supranational competition authorities.

Mark Ledwidge is a Senior Research Fellow within International Politics City

University London, and an independant educational consultant and researcher.
He is an expert on race pertaining to US foreign policy and International
Relations. He was previously also on the Organising Commitee of the AHRC-
Funded Research Network on the Presidency of Barack Obama.

Minako Morita-Jaeger is senior research fellow in International Trade of

University of Sussex Business School and a Policy Research Fellow of the UK
Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO). Prior to her research work, she was

xiii
 Contributors

intensively engaged in trade policy in practice as an economic affairs officer at the

UNCTAD in Geneva, a WTO services trade negotiator at the Japanese
delegation in Geneva and a principal trade policy analyst at the Japan Business
Federation (Keidanren) in Tokyo.

Akasemi Newsome is associate director of the Institute of European Studies at the

University of California, Berkeley, US. Her research on the politics of labour,
immigration and comparative racialisation in Europe addresses topics at the
forefront of international and comparative political economy, including rights
and global governance, institutions, capitalist development and social movements.

David O’Sullivan is a senior counsellor at Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Brussels,

Belgium and former EU Ambassador to the US. O’Sullivan oversaw the EU’s
bilateral relationship with the US, including political, economic and commercial
affairs. A long-time EU official, he has served in several senior official posts in the
European public service. In these roles, he developed a deep understanding of
the trade and diplomatic relationships of the EU and its member countries and
the full range of transatlantic business relationship issues.

Inderjeet Parmar is Professor of International Politics at City, University of

London, UK. Parmar’s research interests focus on the history, politics and
sociology of Anglo-American foreign policy elites over the past 100 years,
specifically embodied in organisations such as philanthropic foundations, think
tanks, policy research institutes, university foreign affairs institutes and state
agencies.

Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann is an Emeritus Professor at the Department of Law at

European University Institute (EUI) Florence, Italy. He taught constitutional law
at the Universities of Hamburg and Heidelberg and was a professor of
international law and European law at the Universities of St. Gallen, Fribourg,
Geneva, the Geneva Graduate Institute of International Relations and the EUI.
He has published more than 30 books and 350 contributions to books and
journals focusing on international law, European law and comparative
constitutional law.

Sara Poli is professor of EU law at University of Pisa, Italy. She is currently member
of the Jean Monnet networks EUDIPLO and EUCTER. She has held a Jean
Monnet Chair between 2013 and 2016. She has carried out research with the
support of the DAAD short term fellowship, Robert Schuman fellowship (EUI),
the Marie Curie fellowship (EUI), the Fulbright-Schuman fellowship and the
Belgian ‘Vlac fellowship’.

Kenneth Propp is an adjunct professor of EU law at the Georgetown University

Law Center, US, and a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council,
Europe Center, and consults for technology companies on transatlantic digital

xiv
 Contributors

and privacy law and policy issues. Privously, he was director of trade policy for
The Software Alliance (also known as BSA), an association of major software
companies and served as legal counsellor at the US Mission to the EU, where he
led US government’s engagement with the EU on digital and privacy law and
policy, and participated in US-EU trade negotiations.

Marianne Riddervold is a research professor at the Norwegian Institute of

International Affairs’ (NUPI’s) Research Group on Security and Defence. She
is also professor of political science/international relations at the Inland School of
Business and Social Sciences and a senior fellow at the UC Berkeley Institute of
European Studies. Riddervold’s research interests include EU foreign and
security policies, international relations and security, maritime security,
transatlantic relations and theory development within the fields of international
relations and European integration.

Charles B. Roger is an associate professor and Ramón y Cajal Research Fellow at

the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacional, Spain. His research explores the
transformations occurring in our system of global governance and how these are
shaping our ability to address cross-border problems.

Viktor Szépis a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Groningen, Netherlands.

His research mirrors his interdisciplinary background and focuses on the legal and
political dimensions of EU foreign and sanctions policy. At present, he devotes
most of his time to the Horizon 2020 ENGAGE project that examines the
possibilities to create a more coherent and effective EU external action.

Fabien Terpan is Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law & Politics and senior lecturer at
Sciences Po GrenobleUGA, France. He is the deputy director of the Centre
d’Etudes de la Sécurité Internationale et des Coopérations Européennes
(CESICE). His research focus lies on the EU’s common foreign and security
policy, international security policy and the interplay between law and politics in
the European Union.

Maria Tzanou is a senior lecturer in Law at Keele University Law School, UK.
Tzanou’s research focuses on European constitutional and human rights law,
privacy, data protection, surveillance, the regulation of new and emerging
technologies and the inequalities of data privacy law and how these affect
vulnerable groups.

Peter Van Elsuwege is Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law at Ghent University,

Belgium, where he is co-director of the Ghent European Law Institute (GELI).
He is also visiting professor at the College of Europe (Natolin Campus) and board
member of the Centre for the Law of EU External Relations (CLEER) at the
Asser Institute in The Hague. His research activities focus on the law of EU
external relations and EU citizenship.

xv
 Contributors

Thomas Verellen is assistant professor of EU Law, Utrecht University,

Netherlands, and visiting assistant professor, University of Michigan Law
School, Ann Arbor, US. He is an expert in EU and comparative foreign
relations law and has a particular interest in the impact of geopolitical change on
the governance of EU trade and investment policy. At Michigan, Verellen does a
comparative research project on legal and political accountability mechanisms in
EU and US trade and investment policy.

Alasdair R. Young is a Professor of International Affairs and Neal Family Chair

at Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), US. He co-directs the
Center for European and Transatlantic Studies, a Jean Monnet Center of
Excellence, and the Center for International Strategy, Technology, and Policy.
His research interests include environment, globalisation and localisation,
international trade and investment, regulation with geographic focus on
Europe, Europe – United Kingdom, and the United States.

xvi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This publication was produced with the support of the Erasmus+ Jean Monnet
Chair grant (2019–2022) Decision No. 2019- 1794-001-001. I am very grateful to
Ivanka Karaivanova for stellar research assistance and support for the project at
various stages and to Eve Poyner for research support.
Special thanks are due to Andrew Taylor for his support to the project and patience
with its development and thanks also to Sophie Iddamalgoda and Meghan Flood.
Thanks to all of the authors of this project who participated in multiple events online
and eventually in person in preparation for this project over a number of years.
Thanks to the following who graciously read draft chapters and supplied many
useful comments and suggestions or inputted into the publication in other ways of
significance to merit acknowledgements: David Collins, Sabrina Cuendet-Robert,
Daniel Francis, Mauro Gatti, Anna-Louise Hinds, Szilárd Gaspar-Szilagyi, Leigh
Hancher, Kristina Irion, Imelda Maher, Isabella Mancini, Eva Pander Maat, Jed
Odermatt, Wyn Rees, Ryan Stones, Martin Trybus, Guillaume Van de Loo, Eva
Van der Zee, Declan Walsh and Philippa Watson.
Elaine Fahey
London, 26 September 2022

xvii
 INTRODUCTION
Elaine Fahey
CITY LAW SCHOOL, CITY, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

A landmark relationship
The relationship between the European Union (EU) and United States (US), as
will be developed in this handbook), tends to be complex and multifaceted.
Relations are variously depicted as cyclical, intergovernmental and fundamental to
multilateralism and crisis-driven. They are driven also by and tend to ‘ignite’
geopolitics, as much as complex domestic issues and themes. EU-US relations are
the foundation of the theoretical ‘West’. In practical terms, they form the key
plank currently and for some time of international economic law, culture and
finance. More recently, they are centrally placed in the regulatory playing-field
of big tech and global data flows (Gardner, 2020). As will be explored here, a
broad range of attempts at transatlantic governance have been characterised as
unsuccessful in scholarship. They raise the seemingly eternal question as to what
the history of transatlantic governance indicates to us in terms of the expectations
and realities of transatlantic cooperation in view of its breadth and distinctiveness,
as much as the reach of the cooperation (Nicolaidis, 2005; Pollack, 2005; Young,
2009; Petersmann, 2015; Smith, 2019). Views on transatlantic cooperation and
their potential have arguably retreated substantially in the post–World War
II (WW2) years from calls for communities of law and transatlantic institutions
(e.g. Stein and Hay, 1963).
The transatlantic partnership may well be an iconic partnership for a long time,
fundamental to the global economy and world security. Yet, it has long been one of
the ‘problem children’ of international economic law for over decades (Petersmann,
2003). Moreover, the EU and US have consistently shaped international approaches
to public international law, albeit distinctively and differently (Dunoff and Pollack,
2013). The role of the US in crafting the global order after WW2 was decisive,
including the active promotion of European integration yet patterns of change
thereafter a complex to map. Over the next 60 or so years, the transatlantic part-
nership was central to global events through the building of the Western liberal
order and all the institutions that went with it. It has for many years been evidenced
by the un-equalness or un-equilibrium of power. For much of the 20th Century, the
US was evidently the stronger partner both militarily and economically. Even as
Europe grew into a larger and more cohesive economic and normative power, its
heavy reliance on the US security umbrella gave the US the upper hand particularly

DOI: 10.4324/9781003283911-1 1
 Elaine Fahey

post 9/11 (O’ Sullivan, in this volume). In contemporary times, however, the EU
and US constitute two of the leading global figures in trade, economics, agriculture,
security and as bulwarks of the liberal global legal order post-WW2, at least until
recently. The EU supported fully the US pivot to mega-regionals to exclude China
and pivot away from the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework, in par-
ticular, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which quickly
stalled with the advent of a new administration but which afforded the EU the
change to align its post-Lisbon Trade agenda with more gusto (De Ville and Siles-
Brügge, 2015; Griller et al., 2017). It spurned a subsequently complex period for EU
trade policy, which has framed itself as being based upon ‘free and open’ trade and
competition but has been stymied by a defensive turn to a lexicon of strategic
autonomy, digital sovereignty and multiple trade defence instruments. The Ukraine
crisis has strengthened relations between the allies. At the same time, however, both
structural (the rise of China) and domestic (eg ‘America first’ policy or the strategic
autonomy of the EU) factors suggest that the EU-US relationship will weaken over
time due to the impact of such factors, in particular on US foreign policy prefer-
ences, especially where the EU is strengthening its own foreign policy, including in
the area of security and defence (Riddervold and Newsome, 2019). Yet the metrics
of the relationship are often shifting across political scientists, political theory and
political economy trade and data lawyers and governance scholarship, where the
calibration between convergence and divergence has been complex. Within a
political cycle, significant variations on the state of transatlantic relations have also
followed as well as their analysis. Transatlantic relations as a regional genre have
undoubtedly shown themselves to be a vibrant source of dynamic theorisation. The
place of actors, powers, competences and institutions form pivotal concepts but also
far from objective ideals, imbued often with constructivism. Conflict as much as
contestation and convergence is easily overplayed or overanalysed. Although a thirst
for international cooperation, standards and institutionalisation is seen globally as
pivotal to the success of the international economic order, such efforts arguably have
often been stymied at transatlantic or domestic level. This handbook explores many
of these themes, isolating these questions in this landmark relationship.

A history of failing to cooperate and disputes

The transatlantic partnership is significant for its regular, high-profile and many ex-
periments in transnational governance, mainly failed ones, often failed through
components thereof rather than the sum of its parts (Nicolaidis and Shaffer, 2005;
Petersmann, 2015). A recent and highly significant transatlantic digital trade cooper-
ation, EU-US Privacy Shield Agreement, arguably was not adequately ‘policed’ by the
US Federal Trade Commission and viewed with much distrust by the Court of Justice
of the EU (CJEU) (Terpan, 2018; Fahey and Terpan, 2021). Other disputes constitute
some of the longest ongoing of all time between WTO members and the transatlantic
partnership has also not sufficed to stop the WTO Dispute Settlement body collapsing
into failure (Pollack and Shaffer, 2009; Scott, 2009; Krisch, 2010; Bradford, 2020).
The US and EU conduct relations pursuant to more than 35 bilateral treaties and other

2
 Introduction

international agreements on subjects as diverse as trade and investment, transport, and

law enforcement – a scale of cooperation comparable to the extensive network of US
agreements with individual EU member states (Propp, in this volume). At the same
time, the failed negotiation of TTIP and the invalidation of commercial data transfer
agreements such as the Privacy Shield Framework attests to the unique legal and
political challenges that the EU poses for US government negotiators and how US
federal law, agencies and actors are not aligned on EU law, values or policy (Propp, in
this volume). A new era of transatlantic relations appears rather easily reset from US
administration to the next (Fahey, 2021). Crucially though, key EU-US attempts to
address global challenges at the outset of the Biden administration, evolving into a
Transatlantic Trade and Technology Council, appeared to place WTO reform down
the menu of an extensive agenda. In the background, the EU has had to develop a
range of controversial measures and ultimately a new industrial policy of defensiveness
and strategic autonomy to deal with a new era of foes from the US to China and
develop the autonomy of EU law against a recent backdrop of several hostile third
countries refusing to recognise its esoteric organisational and diplomatic credentials,
i.e. the UK recently and US initially. To a degree, the US has also engaged in this
agenda, leading the way for the EU but also aligning and synthesizing to a high degree.
Traditionally, political science accounts have contended that EU-US relations are
law-light institution-light. These descriptions need certain health warnings and time
limitations as to their accuracy (Fahey, 2014). At the time of writing, there were a
number of high-profile and longstanding disputes between the EU and US at the
WTO only recently resolved, outside of the multilateral institutional system, that is,
the WTO. Many landmarks in the history of EU-US relations in trade and tech-
nology and other areas date to the Transatlantic Declaration of 1990, expanded
through the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA) in 1995 (Pollack, 2005), have been
through soft law and been evolved somewhat ironically through international or-
ganisations and a commitment to light touch commitment to multilateralism. The
advent of the Trump administration appeared to give effect to an unprecedented
shift in Transatlantic relations since before WW2 – but mostly – from institutions.
Prior to this, the Obama-era TTIP negotiations had brought the EU and US closer
to much deeper forms of cooperation (Bartl and Fahey, 2014). Countless trade wars
ensued which already appears to have changed to a high degree with the Biden
administration, for example, already with the Transatlantic Trade and Technology
Council (TTC) proposed immediately by the European Commission to the new
Biden administration and swiftly implemented could mark a new change. Yet its
law-light, institution-light characteristics are beyond dispute, and it evidences a new
era of negotiation, law, policy and governance of trade and technology. Equally, the
Biden administration has publicly and internationally endorsed ‘soft law’ trade
solutions and non-binding framework agreements as the future of international
economic law, scorning conventional ‘binding’ trade agreements, arguably distinctly
at odds with the EU commitment to the rule of law and binding dispute settlement.
Transatlantic relations are, however, no stranger to a series of innovative hybrid
governance or soft law engagement on law-making and soft law outcomes of note,
including many so-called transatlantic dialogues over the years (Pollack and Shaffer,

3
 Elaine Fahey

2001). Whether they generate higher standards for the other party or not is arguably
less of the focus for some time, more the conflict, convergence and contestation
processes (Bermann et al., 2000; Scott, 2009). Whether they have contributed to the
worsening of global governance through, for example, the dominance of big busi-
ness instead of civil society concerns remains to be proven, but increasingly sensitive
in the era of big tech. Many other formal law-making processes take place against this
difficult backdrop (Fahey, 2014; Jančić, 2015). It can be easily suggested that the
history of transatlantic relations shows a fine line between cooperation and conflict,
although the forum for both is similar. One of the most significant sites of trans-
atlantic ‘law-making’ has been until recently at the WTO. Yet it is here also where
the EU and US have displayed their starkest differences as to the rule of law,
interpretive legitimacy and the place of dispute settlement and courts. Most disputes
between the EU and US have taken place before the WTO Dispute Settlement
Body (DBS) in recent times, until at least the demise of the WTO DSB in late 2020
(Pollack and Shaffer, 2009; Petersmann, 2015). There, the EU and US have his-
torically been involved in most disputes and have arguably contributed to its
legalization, downfall and legitimacy deficit.

Framing shifts in the landmark relationship

Often, the policy shifts of EU-US relations are complex to discern. As Riddervold
and Newsome (2019) state, at a first glance, the EU-US relationship seems stronger
than ever. At the time of writing, the two stand firmly together in a strong and
coordinated response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the crimes against
humanity that has followed. But does this suggest that transatlantic relations are back
to normal after the tumultuous Trump years and the US’ pivot to Asia? Lately, the
EU and US may be embarking on a new period of policy and in particular regulatory
cooperation, one less focused on the technical differences between their rules and
more focused on what shared objectives they have, particularly in relation to China
(Young, in this volume).
The failings and failures of transatlantic cooperation through law are plentiful,
doomed to failure through non-compliance, plagued with sub-optimal remedies
(Pollack and Shaffer, 2009; Petersmann, 2003; 2015; Petersmann and Mayr, 2017;
Gardner, 2020). The EU-US Joint Agenda for Global Change included a
Transatlantic Trade and Technology Council (EU-US TTC), putatively developing
a loose institutionalisation of key global challenges, which is focussed upon in many
chapters of this Research Handbook. The EU proposed as part of its global change
agenda a TTC – centered upon multiple working groups. The span of areas of policy
and the prominence of international law instruments therein indicates the vast
ambitions of the transatlantic partnership in global policy-making, explored well in
this handbook. Yet it is couched in soft law as much as multilateralism and these
parallel legal tracks evidence its lack of convergence and limited institutionalisation
to convergence further.
EU-US relations have generated multiple complex data transfer agreements that
have spawned many esoteric formulations of governance and several struggles

4
 Introduction

between the EU and US as to the balance between security, surveillance and privacy
(Cole et al., 2017; Terpan, 2018; Farrell and Newman, 2019; Fabbrini et al., 2021).
In the post-9/11 period, the place of civil liberties in Europe have been understood
to have been adversely affected by the transatlantic relationship and the norm
promotion it generated (Cremona et al., 2011; Mitsilegas and Vavoula, 2021).
Transatlantic relations may have entered a new era after the CJEU decision in
Schrems II (CJEU, 2020) propelling a new Transatlantic Privacy Framework resulting
in a Transatlantic Data Review Court and binding standards, yet its execution will
be far from straightforward.
Chapters in this handbook across sections traverse directly and indirectly a vast
scholarship on the mutual and external influence of transatlantic standards and of the
directions of transatlantic law-making, also demonstrating global effects and signif-
icance for law and governance scholarship as well as the study of integration and
transnationalism (e.g. Shaffer, 2000; Scott, 2009; Vogel, 2012; Bradford, 2020).
The project views ‘framing’ here thus also as a multidisciplinary exercise in order
to frame shifts in law-making, governance and norms.

Framing actors and institutions in EU-US relations

The place, actors and structures of a particular time are thus of much significance also.
‘The Transatlantic Declaration (TAD)’ was adopted in 1990 at the Paris CSCE
Summit with then US President Bush, Prime Minister Andreotti of Italy and
Commission President Delors which established an institutional framework for
transatlantic consultations. In, 1995 the EU-US Biannual Summit took place in
Madrid with US President Clinton, Prime Minister Gonzales of Spain and President
Santer of the European Commission adopted the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA)
together with a Joint EU-US Action Plan. The Agenda and Plan codified the
mechanics and the substance of the transatlantic relationship and demonstrated
Europe’s progress toward unity and the US commitment to a ‘Europe whole and
free’ following the fall of the Berlin wall on 9 November 1989, the first ‘réalisation
concrète’ in Schuman/Monnet language since President Kennedy’s speech of 4 July
1962 at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall when he proposed a ‘transatlantic part-
nership of equals’ and a ‘Declaration of Interdependence’ between the New World
and the New Europe (Burghardt, 2015).
The WTO has arguably subsequently operated as the most centralised and focus
point of transatlantic engagement at multilateralism at least until the collapse of the
dispute settlement system through the (in)action of the US, in part at least.
Members of the US Congress and the European Parliament have been meeting
regularly since 1972. Nevertheless, it was only in 2010 that one side established a
dedicated structure with the explicit task of channelling and deepening ties between
the two legislatures – a European Parliament Liaison Office (Dunne, in this volume).
Operating outside of legal strictures and structures or on the margins thereof, for
example, as to extraterritoriality is also a key hallmark of transatlantic engagement on
certain fronts (see Poli; Van Elsuwege; Szep, in this volume). Historically, many
have sought an ‘Atlantic Community of Law’, a ‘Transatlantic Marketplace’ or a

5
 Elaine Fahey

‘Transatlantic Civil Society’ to be forged between the EU and US. Such entities
have been mooted with a view to creating a transatlantic polity of sorts, inter alia for
economic, political and even socio-cultural reasons (Fahey and Curtin, 2014). The
lack of Transatlantic Institutions, from a court to a legislature or political union or
sorts has long been a lament of many commentators (Stein and Hay, 1963). The
possibility of a Transatlantic Data Review Court or Transatlantic Parliament or
Political Union is discussed by many in this handbook (Fahey and Terpan, in this
volume; Dunne, in this volume; Jančić, in this volume, who consider in part how
these developments link to past and present institutional and other actors).
In the early 2000s when the EU and US appeared disinterested in alternatives to
dispute settlement outside of the WTO and form of judicalisation or oversight,
Petersmann wrote:

Since EU and US politicians may have no self-interest in limiting their

policy discretion by additional judicial restraints, how can EU and US
citizens defend their constitutional interests in judicial protection of
maximum freedom and other human rights across frontiers? What can
academics do to promote rule of law, judicial dialogue, and co-operation
between national and international courts in transatlantic relations?
(Petersmann, 2003)

They constitute prescient observations as to the challenges of transatlantic institutions

and institutionalisation. Temporal evolutions are significant however in EU-US
relations. As Dunne outlines in this handbook, Transatlantic Declaration on EC-US
Relations of 1990 and the NTA of 1995. Both explicitly mentioned parliamentary
cooperation As early as 1984, in the first term of the directly elected Parliament, the EP
adopted a resolution oping that the Parliament could arrange to ‘be represented in its
own right at [the Commission’s] delegation in Washington’. Nearly two decades later,
in 2006, the idea then secured full EP approval, for the idea of a permanent EP
presence in Washington DC, fully achieved and operationalised at the time of writing
as his account explains further. Indeed, subsequently, it can be said now that the
European Parliament (EP) and Congress aim not only to influence their executive
branches but also to act autonomously in the transnational arena through parliamentary
diplomacy. They seek to secure concessions both formally by scrutinizing transatlantic
international agreements, and have created capacities for internal scrutiny and trans-
national interparliamentary dialogue to gain greater presence, visibility and influence in
international affairs (Jančić, 2016).

State of the art problems

This research handbook considers the state of the art of transatlantic relations,
broadly conceived. In some subjects, it transpires that this can be more discreet or
policy-specific and descriptive, whereas in others, a longer-term view on a subject,
discipline or genre is taken. The deliberately broad ‘take’ of this handbook can
hopefully be ‘forgiven’ with this caveat or open misdemeanor in mind, to allow for a

6
 Introduction

broader disciplinary engagement and include as many contributions as possible, from

academia, practice, policy-makers, think-tanks to former diplomats and policy-
makers. This research handbook moreover takes a broad view of the concept of the
transatlantic (including its broader formulations as to North American and the
Anglo-American spheres for example) and EU-US relations and considers a diverse,
lively and multifarious grouping of subjects across contributors and fields and
reflections upon a range of questions as to the actors of transatlantic relations.
From politics, to international relations (IR), to economics to political economy
and more, there are a host of backgrounds and disciplines captured in this handbook.
It considers the direct and indirect engagement of transatlantic actors with global
governance, as to international organizations, international law, regional develop-
ment, multilateral policy making and initiatives to ignite transatlantic law-making,
growth and evolve its place in transnational standard-setting. The handbook themes
thus consider the transatlantic impetus to evolve trade and technology as much as its
output – and beyond, to wider fields such as security and defiance. The handbook
across contributions reflects upon the externalities of transatlantic trade and tech-
nology, economics, politics, security and defence in global governance. The
handbook draws many perspectives of law, politics and economics, including EU
law, international law, international relations, global governance and transnational
rule-making scholarship to frame contemporary transatlantic relations. Leading new
research on interactions between the EU and US legal orders is thus captured. This
handbook considers how the transatlantic relationship constitutes one of the most
established and far-reaching democratic alliances globally, which has propelled
multilateralism, trade regulation and the EU-US relationship in global challenges.
The handbook probes the key technical, procedural and policy issues for the US of
dealing with, negotiating, engaging and law-making with the EU that challenge and
evolve existing international organisations law and EU external relations, marking
key shifts in its actorness. Key themes also include EU and US cooperation in the
digital age, the EU-US relationship inside and outside of international organisations
and a new institutional infrastructure for EU-US trade and technology. The EU and
US have been pivotal historically in developments towards convergence in inter-
national law and the institutional frameworks underpinning them. The book reflects
upon these sites of EU and US engagement. These debates have resonance with how
we understand the shifting transatlantic agenda in diverse areas from human rights,
trade, security and the capacity of the transatlantic relationship to set new interna-
tional agendas, standards and rules.
We hope that the reader finds a stimulating set of accounts of a past, present and
vibrant future research agenda.
Next, a brief outline of the handbook text is set out.

Overview of the main fields and themes considered

The handbook is organised in 24 chapters around four core themes: (I) EU-US
intra-organization relations, (II) Trade, Investment and Cooperation in Transatlantic
relations, (III) Norm promotion practices of the EU and US in the digital age and

7
 Elaine Fahey

(IV) The political and economic character of transatlantic relations. The span of the
chapters thus takes into account a vast array of fields. The selection thus of four
themes is also rather arbitrary but hopefully the reader will agree that the themes span
the conceptual and practical core functioning and locus of the transatlantic part-
nership – a complex study of global governance; also a study of the world‘s largest
economic area and key drive of the digital economy.
In Part I, EU-US intra-organization relations, the section takes a span of pol-
icymakers and theorists, which is ‘structuralist’ in its focus but also focusing on how
the EU and US have addressed global challenges separately and also together.
Dunne in ‘Connecting the US Congress and the European Parliament: The Work
and Role of the EP Liaison Office in Washington DC’ outlines the evolving role and
historical context of the European Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO) in Washington
DC as a vivid work in progress from the perspective of a policy-maker. He shows how
the EPLO has added an important ‘hard’ dimension to institutionalising the EU-US
inter-parliamentary relationship. An array of factors – the huge boost given to EU-US
relations as a result of the Ukraine crisis, which slowed down the policy ‘pivot to Asia’
and brought the European Union into sharper focus; a new realisation of the
importance of the European Parliament in influencing and delivering privacy, climate,
digital, antitrust and online platform regulation emanating from the EU, the ex-
ponential development of virtual interactions during and since the COVID-19 pan-
demic, and the increasing intensity of parliamentary contacts – are all combining to
change traditional attitudes in the Congress. O’ Sullivan in ‘EU-US Relations in a
Changing World’ drawing from practice outlines the many diplomatic challenges of
the diplomatic organisation, content and actions of the EU engaging with the US.
When it speaks and decides with one voice, it can have huge influence, such as when it
adopted EU regulations on data privacy which have become the de facto global
standard. But, as often as it speaks with one voice, the EU can end up speaking with the
voices of its 27 members. This is confusing for friends and adversaries alike. He argues
that few in Washington, beyond specialists and policy wonks, really understand how
the EU works and how to deal with it and yet the legal and policy outcomes have
evolved immeasurably across administrations, at least until the Trump administration.
Propp exposes deftly in ‘Negotiating with the European Union – A US Perspective’
the complexity of negotiating with the EU from a US perspective in practice.
Relations between the US and the EU on law enforcement and security matters have
come to be grounded in a series of binding international agreements. US negotiators,
he maintains, remain frustrated by the obscurity of mixed competence, but they have
persevered where the practical benefits of proceeding with Brussels are clear. A lin-
gering US preference for bilateralism nevertheless sometimes comes to the fore.
In ‘Transatlantic Parliamentary Cooperation at Fifty’, Jancic outlines how the
transatlantic relationship furnishes an enduring space for parliamentary diplomacy,
norm entrepreneurship and coalition building. It enables EU and US parliamen-
tarians to discuss legislative, regulatory and general political developments; debate
their respective approaches to bilateral initiatives (like the TTC) and shared inter-
national challenges (like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine); and to identify divergences
and consider ways to address them. Roger in ‘The Rise of Informal International

8
 Introduction

Organizations’ using a substantial data set argues that the shift towards informality in
international organisations has primarily been a product of changing cooperation
problems and two major domestic shifts that have subsequently projected outwards
and reshaped the Transatlantic order. Van Elsuwege and Szep then in ‘The Revival
of Transatlantic Partnership? EU-US Coordination in Sanctions Policy’ show how
both the EU and US increasingly use sanctions as an important foreign policy tool
and aim to reinforce the impact of their measures on the basis of close coordination.
Significantly, this coordination is not based on formal legal or institutional structures
but is essentially informal and political. Whereas the existence of geopolitical threats
such as Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine and new security challenges from
emerging powers such as China and India stimulates a revival of the transatlantic
partnership, leading to increased sanctions coordination, frictions about the extra-
territorial application of unilateral sanctions cannot be excluded. Poli in ‘The EU and
US Global Human Rights Sanction Regimes: Useful Complementary Instruments to
Advance Protection of Universal Values? A Legal Appraisal’ outlines how the EU has
been far more selective in using restrictive measures than the US in the case of human
rights breaches. In contrast to the US Global Magnitsky Programmes, the EU scheme
can be considered residual with respect to third country sanctions regimes. Poli shows
how the two Global Human Rights Sanction programmes are useful legal instruments
that complement other diplomatic tools used by the US and EU to reinforce respect of
human rights. Finally, in Part I, Bolstad and Friis argue persuasively in ‘NATO and
Transatlantic Security Relations’ that a combination of strong US engagement and
leadership with a broadly shared threat perception among Allies (primarily towards
Russia) is the combination that continues to make NATO a significant embodiment of
transatlantic security relations.
Part II sets out many key questions of the partnership relating to trade, arguably,
the high-water mark of cooperation.
Petersmann in ‘Transatlantic Economic and Legal Disintegration? Between
Anglo-Saxon Neo-Liberal Nationalism, Authoritarian State-Capitalism and
Europe’s Ordo-Liberal Multilevel Constitutionalism’ argues that path-dependent
value-conflicts among Anglo-Saxon neo-liberalism, authoritarian state-capitalism,
Europe’s multilevel constitutionalism and ‘third world conceptions’ of regulation
will continue to distort ‘regulatory competition’. The geopolitical rivalries impede
transatlantic leadership for protecting the universally agreed sustainable development
goals. Thereafter, Grigorova in ‘Reverberations of the CJEU Achmea B.V. Decision
in The Transatlantic Space’ analyses and categorises the different approaches
adopted. Focusing on the cases recently decided by US courts, the chapter also
tentatively assesses the issues raised before these courts, as well as the potential rel-
evance of the practice on this issue in other jurisdictions. Through this analysis, the
chapter aims at drawing more general conclusions as to the relevance accorded to
EU law by investment tribunals and by US courts, and as to the potential theoretical
and practical implications of these decisions. Verellen next in ’Executive
Accountability in Unilateral Trade Policy. A Transatlantic Perspective’, by means
of a comparative analysis of executive accountability in unilateral trade policy
in the US and the EU, describes this transformation of executive power in

9
 Elaine Fahey

the EU and the accountability gaps it risks amplifying. Dekeyrel in a highly topical
piece ‘Transatlantic Energy Relations: A Brief History and a Tentative Outlook’
analyses the evolving dynamic of EU-US energy relations through the lens of secur-
itisation theory. It considers how transatlantic energy realities diverged in the 2000s as
the American shale revolution transformed the US from the world’s largest importer of
oil into an energy-exporting powerhouse, while the EU’s supply picture gradually
worsened as its relations with Russia deteriorated. Secondly, it studies transatlantic
energy relations during the 2010s, analysing Europe’s attempt to emulate the US shale
boom, the birth and expansion of transatlantic gas trade as well as US support for EU
diversification and opposition to Nord Stream 2. Thereafter, it analyses the secur-
itisation and paradigm shift in EU energy policy following Russia’s invasion of
Ukraine, and explores its implications for transatlantic energy relations. Next, Egan in
‘Taking Back Control: The Political Economy of Investment Screening in US and
EU’ highlights the sectoral and geographic scope of foreign direct investment, the
different investment policy responses across two economic crises, and the efforts to
work together through the new Transatlantic Trade and Technology Council. It
assesses whether there is an opportunity to further align the U.S.-EU partnership and
learn to cooperate to deal with threats posed to both their national security and stra-
tegic economic interests.
In Part III, the handbook considers a range of themes as to the digital area and
cooperation in this context, often plighted by complex global governance.
Terpan and Fahey in ‘The Future of the EU-US Privacy Shield’ outline how soft
law and its complex enforceability, construction and classification is a thorny one
and EU-US relations have contributed to many of these challenges through an
evolving variety of increasingly complex, novel or simply hybrid transatlantic
instruments. The chapter discusses whether a solution is possible to frame and sta-
bilise the transfer of data between European Union and the US. For this, we will
come back to the Safe Harbour and the Privacy Shield, in a first section, to get a
clear view of why these arrangements were deemed inadequate. A second section
will explain the situation created by the ruling in Schrems II while a third one will
explore the possible evolutions of the data transfer regime, considering the ongoing
discussions between EU and US authorities. Kendrick in ‘The EU and US
Transatlantic Agendas on Taxation’ considers both EU and US transatlantic agendas
on ‘fair’ corporate taxation in a digitalised economy. What will become apparent is
that both the EU and the US are trying to ensure that their own transatlantic agendas
on taxation become the basis of the new norms of the digital age. Both the EU and
US transatlantic agendas on taxation therefore demonstrate a desire to harmonise
corporate tax to make it ‘fair’ in order to facilitate new norm promotion practices in
the digital age, but according to their own agendas. Kowalski in ‘Transatlantic
Regulation of Digital Platforms’ Anticompetitive Unilateral Behaviours: The
“beneficial” Divergence between EU and US Antitrust Law’ explores the concept of
‘beneficial divergence’ between EU and US antitrust and whether at least some of
these features can serve as a ‘development platform’ to improve EU antitrust
law. The chapter examines recent case law concerning digital platforms and
looking features characterising the different analytical frameworks and, therefore,

10
 Introduction

convergence and divergence between the EU and US legal system of competition.

Tzanou in ‘Who Occupies the Transatlantic Data Privacy Space? Assessing the
Evolving Dynamics, Underlying Reasons and the Way Forward’ argues that the
EU-US data privacy relations are complex, multifaced, constantly evolving and
rooted on a combination of different underlying reasons, some of which are
unrelated to the transatlantic space. It explores the evolving dynamics of the EU-US
data privacy relations by focusing on their different layers of complexity, examines
the potential justifications of these troubled relations, and offers some suggestions
regarding the potential ways forward in light of recent developments.
Finally in Part IV, the handbook takes a broader perspective on the characteri-
zation of the transatlantic relationship, looking beyond trade issues.
In Young’ chapter ‘The Transatlantic Regulatory Relationship: Limited Conflict,
Less Competition and a New Approach to Cooperation’, the EU and the US are
considered the world’s two regulatory great powers. As they both have relatively
open economies and their economic relationship is very complex, regulatory dif-
ferences are the primary grit in the transatlantic economy. These differences
sometimes result in high-profile trade disputes and contribute to perceptions of
regulatory competition. Regulatory differences have also prompted extensive efforts
to mitigate their adverse economic effects through cooperation. The chapter surveys
transatlantic regulatory conflict, competition and cooperation. Morita-Jaeger and
Holmes in ‘Bilateral, Trilateral or – Quadrilateral? The UK-US Relationship in a
Global Context’ look at a range of data and consider the economic facts by analysing
UK-US trade and investment relations and examine economic and political factors
that shape the UK’s government aims in promoting the UK-US bilateral trade
relationship from pre-Brexit to post-Brexit since domestic politics plays an impor-
tant part in analysing foreign policy. They explore key factors that affect the
relationship in the international context and provide some reflections on how the
UK-US bilateral trade relationship could evolve. Parmar and Ledwidge in a rich and
thought-provoking piece, ‘Anglo-American Power in the Wake of Brexit and
America First: A Crisis at the Heart of the Liberal International Order’, argue that
the Anglosphere is an imperial transnational historic bloc of powers rooted in 19th-
century racialised Anglo-Saxonism, British imperialism and the white dominions of
the Commonwealth. After 1945, the Anglo-American alliance forged in WW2
consolidated in the ‘rules-based liberal international order’ ). They argue that realist
and liberal-internationalist theories legitimise the liberal order, characterise the
Anglosphere as a force for good, as an equally elite and mass-led hegemonic project,
or a mixture of both. It aims contributes to a deeper understanding of Anglo-
American power, regarding their declining position in the global system, and their
anxieties about decline that is prevalent in Anglospheric discourses about America
First, Global Britain and attitudes to non-white powers like China, in addition to the
EU. Felbermayer and Braml in ‘The Measurement, Structure and Dynamics of the
Transatlantic Current Account’ argue from an economics perspective – and drawing
from significant data – that the success of transatlantic trade policy cannot and should
not be measured by the sign of the bilateral trade balance or the growth of exports.
The current account – with all its sub-accounts on goods trade, services trade,

11
 Elaine Fahey

primary and secondary income – is far better suited to assess economic ties between
countries than the sole focus on merchandise goods trade including all its sub-
accounts. Transatlantic trade policy is characterized by notable attempts to liberalize
trade in the 1990s and 2010s, which ultimately have failed. Recent developments
such as the set-up of the Transatlantic Trade Council (TTC) suggest that EU-US
trade policy is increasingly shaped by geopolitical considerations. Next, Finbow in
‘Asymmetry and Civil Society Backlash: Changing European Calculations in Trans-
Atlantic Investment Relations from CETA to TTIP and Beyond’ examines
the recent history of EU’s transatlantic investment relationships with Canada and the
US. It compares the provisions in the Canada-European Union Comprehensive
Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the EU’s proposals for a TTIP with
the US. It is based on background interviews, official policy statements, ratified
agreements, draft texts, and academic analyses. It considers stakeholder and official
views of the benefits, costs, and controversies of an investment chapter. Last but not
least, Riddervold, Newsome and Didriksen in ‘Transatlantic Relations in a
Changing World’ drawing from a range of studies discuss the factors that contribute
to explain a stable or changing relationship in the transatlantic context and synthesise
well the broader debates that the final section of the handbook seeks to capture. It
finds that EU-US relations are robust in many contexts and settings. It is obvious
that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has helped to enhance relations between the
allies. However, at difference to previous periods in the relationship, domestic and
structural factors suggest a longer-term weakening of the relationship.

References
Bartl, M. and Fahey, E. 2014. A Postnational Marketplace: Negotiating the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In: Fahey, E. and Curtin, D. (eds.), A
Transatlantic Community of Law: Legal Perspectives on the Relationship between the EU and US
legal orders. Cambride: Cambridge University Press.
Bermann, G., Lindseth, P., and Herdegen, M. (eds.). 2000. Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bradford, A. 2020. The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Burghardt, G. 2015. New Transatlantic Agenda Celebrates 20th Anniversary! [online].
3 December. AmCham EU. https://www.amchameu.eu/news/new-transatlantic-agenda-
celebrates-20th-anniversary. Accessed 30 September 2022.
CJEU. 2020. Judgement in Case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook
Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (Schrems II) EU:C:2020:559.
Cole, D., Fabbrini, F., and Schulhofer, S. (eds.). 2017. Surveillance, Privacy and Trans-Atlantic
Relations. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Cremona, M. et al. (eds.). 2011. The External Dimension of the European Union’s Area of Freedom,
Security and Justice. Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang.
De Ville, F. and Siles-Brügge, G. 2015. TTIP: The Truth about the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership. Oxford: Wiley.
Dunoff, J. and Pollack, M. 2013. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and
International Relations: The State of the Art. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fahey, E. 2014. On The Use of Law in Transatlantic Relations: Legal Dialogues Between the
EU and US. European Law Journal, 20, 368.

12
 Introduction

Fahey, E. and Curtin, D. (eds.). 2014. A Transatlantic Community of Law: Legal Perspectives on
the Relationship between the EU and US legal orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fahey, E. and Terpan, F. 2021. Torn between Institutionalisation and Judicialisation: The
Demise of the EU-US Privacy Shield. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 28, 205.
Fabbrini, F., Celeste, E., and Quinn, J. (eds.). 2021. Data Protection Beyond Borders: Transatlantic
Perspectives on Extraterritoriality and Sovereignty. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Farrell, H. and Newman, A. (eds). 2019. Of Privacy and Power: The Transatlantic Struggle over
Freedom and Security. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gardner, A. 2020. Stars with Stripes: The Essential Partnership between the EU and US. Cham:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Griller, S., Obwexer, W., and Vranes, E. (eds). 2017. Mega-Regional Trade Agreements: CETA,
TTIP, and TiSA: New Orientations for EU External Economic Relations. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jančić, D. 2016. Transatlantic Regulatory Interdependence, Law and Governance: The
Evolving Roles of the EU and US Legislatures. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal
Studies, 17, 334. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcms.12345
Krisch, N. 2010. Pluralism in Post-national Risk Regulation: The Dispute over GMOs and
Trade. Transnational Legal Theory, 1, 1–29.
Mitsilegas, V. and Vavoula, N. 2021. Surveillance and Privacy in the Digital Age: European,
Transatlantic and Global Perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Nicolaidis, K. 2005. A Compact Between The United States and Europe. Brookings Institute.
Nicolaidis, K. and Shaffer, G. 2005. Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance
without Global Government. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68, 263.
Pollack, M. and Shaffer, G. (eds). 2001. Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pollack, M. 2005. The New Transatlantic Agenda at Ten: Reflections in an Experiment in
International Governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43, 899.
Pollack, M. and Shaffer, G. 2009. When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of
Genetically. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Petersmann, E.-U. and Pollack, M. (eds). 2003. Transatlantic Economic Disputes: The EU, the
US, and the WTO. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Petersmann, E.-U. 2015. Transformative Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements without
Rights and Remedies of Citizens? Journal of International Economic Law, 18, 579.
Petersmann, E.-U. and Mayr, S,. 2017. CETA, TTIP, TiSA, and Their Relationship with EU
Law. In: Griller, S., Obwexer, W. and Vranes, E. (eds.), Mega-Regional Trade Agreements:
CETA, TTIP, and TiSA: New Orientations for EU External Economic Relations. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Riddervold, M. and Newsome, A. 2019. Introduction: Transatlantic Relations in Times of
Uncertainty: Crises and EU-US Relations. In: Riddervold, M. and Newsome, A. (eds.),
Transatlantic Relations in Times of Uncertainty Crises and EU-US Relations. Abingdon,
Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Scott, J. 2009. From Brussels with Love: The Transatlantic Travels of European Law and the
Chemistry of Regulatory Attraction. American Journal of Comparative Law, 57, 897.
Shaffer, G. 2000. Globalization and Social Protection: The Impact of EU and International
Rules in the Ratcheting Up of U.S. Privacy Standards. Yale Journal of International Law, 25, 1.
Smith, M. 2019. The EU, the US and the Crisis of Contemporary Multilateralism. In:
Riddervold, M. and Newsome, A. (eds.), Transatlantic Relations in Times of Uncertainty
Crises and EU-US Relations. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Stein, E. and Hay, P. 1963. Cases and Materials on the Law and Institutions of the Atlantic
Area. In: Stein, Eric and Hay, Peter (eds.), Ann Arbor: The Overbeck pany.
Terpan, F. 2018. EU-US Data Transfer from Safe Harbour to Privacy Shield: Back to Square
One? European Papers, 3, 1045.

13
 Elaine Fahey

Vogel, D. 2012. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in
Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Young, A.R. 2009. Confounding Conventional Wisdom: Political not Principled Differences
in the Transatlantic Regulatory Relationship. The British Journal of Politics and International
Relations, 11(4), 666.

14
 SECTION I

EU and US Intra-Organisations
Relations
 1
CONNECTING THE US
CONGRESS AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
The Work and Role of the EP Liaison
Office in Washington DC

Joseph Dunne
DIRECTOR, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LIAISON OFFICE IN WASHINGTON D.C.

The European Parliament Liaison Office in Washington DC (EPLO) was created to

facilitate and deepen ties between the European Parliament (EP) and the US
Congress. It supports parliamentary diplomacy between the EU and the US, the
longest-lived and most resilient of all of the EP’s relationships with other parlia-
mentary bodies. EPLO is the spearhead for EP-Congress parliamentary cooperation,
particularly for the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD), the flagship structure
between the EP and the US House of Representatives. By virtue of its location,
EPLO enjoys a unique position for outreach and for projecting the work of the EP
in the US. It reaches out to congressional members and staff to explain the EP’s
positions, and works with partner organisations, stakeholders and citizens, think
tanks and academia to provide a platform for Members of the European Parliament
(MEPs) to express their views, making sure the voice of Parliament is heard.
Parliamentary cooperation between the EU and the US has a low public profile and
is a perpetual ‘work-in-progress’. At the same time, there is undoubtedly a generally
positive view of the European Union or the EP among Members of Congress.
The paradox of weak institutionalisation, a ‘soft’ connecting structure embedded
in an overall favourable attitude, of positive perception without engagement, appears
characteristic not only of the TLD but also of the broader EU-US relationship
(Fahey and Terpan in Chapter 15). Transatlantic relations are indeed ‘institution-
light’ but they sit on a stable bedrock of shared empathy, even if surface political
manifestations have ebbed and flowed. It is not, however, a relationship of equals.
Members of Congress have tended not to view MEPs as their parliamentary

DOI: 10.4324/9781003283911-3 17
 Joseph Dunne

equivalents, although attitudes are evolving as their awareness and understanding of

the EU and the EP deepens.
The EPLO has added an important ‘hard’ dimension to institutionalising the EU-
US inter-parliamentary relationship. Its story is one of overcoming the disconnects in
the relationship, counteracting the lack of awareness of parliamentary cooperation,
making new connections and attaining greater buy-in from US Congressional actors
by more successfully linking the legislators in these two continental democracies. I will
argue in this chapter that changing attitudes in the Congress, deriving from a com-
bination of factors – the huge boost given to EU-US relations as a result of the Ukraine
crisis, which slowed down the policy ‘pivot to Asia’ and brought the EU into sharper
focus; a new realisation of the importance of the EP in influencing and delivering
privacy, climate, digital, antitrust and online platform regulation emanating from the
EU, the new possibilities afforded by virtual meetings during and since the COVID-19
pandemic, and the increasing intensity of parliamentary contacts – have all positively
transformed the prospects for deeper cooperation in the future.

A house in Washington
As early as 1984, in the first term of the directly elected Parliament, the EP
adopted a resolution1 tabled by the MEP, and later President, Klaus Hänsch,
whose para. 42 ‘hoped’ that the Parliament could arrange to ‘be represented in its
own right at {the Commission’s] delegation in Washington’.
The landmark reports tabled by Elmar Brok MEP and Erika Mann MEP in 2006
(European Parliament 2006a, 2006b) went a step further and secured full EP
approval, with 470 votes in favour out of 617 votes cast, for the idea of a permanent
EP presence in Washington DC. The plenary resolution called for ‘the necessary
funds for establishing a permanent EP official post in Washington DC that ensures
proper institutionalisation of Parliament’s own activities and allows for improved
liaison between the EP and the US Congress’. The Internal Market Committee
(IMCO) input specified that ‘the opening of a permanent EP liaison office in
Washington is overdue, as it would provide a key means of strengthening contacts
between the EP and TLD on the one hand, and Congress, on the other’. (IMCO,
2006) Progress in creating the office was nonetheless slow, and in 2009, the
Parliament invited its secretary general to proceed ‘as a matter of the utmost urgency’
with the deployment of an official to Washington as Liaison Officer (European
Parliament 2009).
The EPLO Washington DC office was duly established on 29 April 2010 with a
small staff - three policy professionals and two administrative staff – ‘co-located’ in the
EU Delegation, the EU’s Embassy to the US. The creation of the liaison office has
been interpreted by some observers (Farrell and Newman 2019) as being linked to the
then-prevailing conflict over privacy and data protection as well as being a way of
combatting the perception that ‘structural inequalities between the power and political
role of EU parliamentarians and US members of Congress meant that the latter did not
really recognize the former as peers’. It was, at the very least, felicitous that the creation
of the office coincided with the Parliament’s new co-legislative powers under the

18
 Connecting the US Congress and the EP

Lisbon Treaty, including on data protection and consent to international agreements.

The new Treaty profoundly changed the setting for EU external relations (Propp in
Chapter 3, Fromage 2019; Szép 2022) and provided a compelling practical case for
closer legislative cooperation (CRS 2013).
Members of the US Congress reacted quickly to the establishment of EPLO. Bills
were submitted in September 2010 and January 2011 by Congressman Darrel Issa,
along with Rep. Bart Gordon and Rep. Alcee Hastings, to provide for a statutory
Congressional Commission on the EU, including the establishment of an office in
Brussels to mirror the EPLO in Washington DC. The CRS (2013) noted that
despite support for the idea in a Hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s
Europe Subcommittee, the lead Congressional body responsible for EU relations,
‘Congress as a whole has not demonstrated significant interest in or enthusiasm about
establishing a reciprocal liaison office in Brussels’. On the EP side, the secretary
general indicated his openness to hosting a US Congress liaison office in Brussels
(CRS 2013).
A clear motive in establishing EPLO, as Farrell and Newman suggest, was to
correct the perception of lack of equivalence between the members of the EP and
Congress. It is undeniable that, just as there are fundamental differences between the
EU and the US as political entities, each of the respective legislatures has a distinct
shape, function and culture. These structural and procedural differences provide a
basis for some to argue that effective cooperation between the EP and the US
Congress on legislation is close to impossible. The CRS (2014, 2022) observes that
‘structural and procedural differences between Congress and the EP likely would
impede more extensive legislative cooperation’. The real difficulty of legislative
cooperation, however, resides less in the different - but nonetheless comparable -
structures and procedures, than in the level of interest and buy-in of the legislators
themselves, the ‘issue areas’ which correlate with congressional behaviour (Henehan
2000). The experience of EPLO has shown that transatlantic legislative cooperation
seems to have the best chance of success when dialogue can be initiated early, on
essentially the same policy challenge at the same time: when both chambers are
confronted by a need to legislate on a new, usually global, issue.
Kreppel (2006) notes that ‘when compared across three characteristics’ – internal
organization and committee structure, voting patterns and legislative influence – ‘the
two legislatures are surprisingly similar’. Meanwhile, both legislatures are constantly in
evolution and roles can shift (Kreppel 2005). The gradual erosion of Congress’ place in
the US constitutional system of divided powers and competing branches (Davidson,
Oleszek 2022) contrasts with the EP’s gradual adjustment of the institutional balance in
its favour through informal institution-building (Hecke and Wolfs 2015; Jančić 2016)
and its strengthening position in interparliamentary cooperation and diplomacy
(Raube 2022). Comparisons are therefore not inevitably favourable to Congress: for
example, the House of Representatives was unable to act on the Swift and PNR issues,
whereas the EP was able to leverage its power of consent to block and influence
outcomes on these agreements (Propp, in this volume).
We can better understand the dynamics of today’s EP-Congress relationship, the
reality and the perception of both houses, as well as the role of EPLO, if we first

19
 Joseph Dunne

retrace the developments that began some 40 years ago. The first steps in inter-
parliamentary contacts were in fact taken at the initiative of the US Congress in
January 1972. A Congressional Delegation (‘CoDel’) led by the Chair of the Europe
Subcommittee, Rep. Benjamin Rosenthal, visited Luxembourg, and, coincidentally,
a delegation of the Ways and Means Committee visited Brussels at the same time.
According to the Congressional reports, with the arresting titles ‘The European
Community and the American Interest’ and ‘A Growing Bond: the European
Parliament and the Congress’, these visits marked ‘the beginning of an effort to
establish parliamentary ties with an institution representing the increasingly effective
economic and political integration of Europe’. The Congressmen were ‘greatly
impressed by the development of a European political consciousness’ and by ‘the
political development at the European Parliament and by its important future role in
the European Community’ (Tulli 2017). The US side hoped to set ‘a style and
pattern of meetings’ twice a year, alternately in Washington and in Europe, for
‘carefully planned and comprehensive’ political and economic discussions, ‘con-
ducted with informality and candor’.
The two visits from the US House of Representatives triggered an immediate and
enduring response from MEPs in May 1972, led by EP Vice-President Schuijt. The
vice-President reported to the plenary on 31 May:

Above all, we wish to open a dialogue that will not end when we leave the
United States but may be continued at regular intervals and developed fur-
ther in a spirit of mutual understanding. This is not merely a diplomatic or
even a governmental concern. But it should be … a matter of permanent
preoccupation for the elected representatives of our peoples.
(Tulli 2017)

A United States – European Community Interparliamentary Group was

created.

The foundational documents for the EU-US inter-parliamentary relationship are the
Transatlantic Declaration on EC-US Relations of 1990 and the New Transatlantic
Agenda (NTA) of 1995. Both explicitly mentioned parliamentary cooperation. The
NTA stressed the importance of ‘enhanced parliamentary links’. Parliamentary frus-
tration at the lack of progress on this NTA commitment (CRS 2013) gave rise to the
TLD. Thus, on 15 January 1999, during the 50th inter-parliamentary meeting in
Strasbourg, 27 years after the bi-annual meetings set in train by Rep Rosenthal and EP
Vice-President Schuijt, the EP and the US House of Representatives formalised their
institutional cooperation in a ‘Strasbourg Declaration’, into a framework they named
the ‘Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue’.
In order to overcome the difficulty of maintaining in-person contact caused by the
cost, time and effort of travelling and organising the bi-annual meetings, early and
pioneering recourse was had to video conferences. This was one of the practical measures
enumerated in the ‘Strasbourg declaration’ creating the TLD, along with the convening
of a Steering Group and special working groups on subjects of mutual interest. The EP

20
 Connecting the US Congress and the EP

delegates had in fact ‘jumped the gun’ in terms of top-level support for the initiative,
announcing the initiative before securing the full agreement of the leadership, but the
necessary authorisations were nevertheless duly granted. Despite these good intentions,
and political endorsement, however, video-conferenced meetings never really caught on
and remained an occasional exception to the regular in-person meetings. The COVID-
19 pandemic later brought about a major, albeit temporary, change.
Parliament’s continued frustration at the lack of progress in EU-US relations, and
particularly at its weak institutionalisation, came to a head in the early 2000s. A
reflection paper of the Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN 2003) with EP and
Congressional, as well as academic and think tank input, noted that ‘Americans are
seen to value institutions for what they can do, Europeans for their durability and
continuity’. The TPN report saw the solution to the slow pace of transatlantic
cooperation in deeper political dialogue, and advocated building on the TLD and
‘active consideration’ of a ‘Transatlantic Assembly’ of legislators.
Impatient at the lack of ‘the necessary conviction and determination’ on the part of
other EU institutions, the EP adopted the 2006 resolutions referenced earlier, on
‘improving EU-U.S. relations’. As well as providing the mandate for the creation of
EPLO, as we have seen, they echoed the TPN recommendations, calling for an up-
grade of the TLD and for a Transatlantic Assembly. The advent of the Obama
administration brought new hope for closer cooperation. In 2009, the EP called yet
again for a Transatlantic Assembly, making far-reaching proposals on deepening the
institutional structures to harness ‘the current momentum’ and ‘to improve and renew
the framework of the transatlantic relationship’. The Transatlantic Assembly itself
would serve ‘as a forum for parliamentary dialogue, identification of objectives and
joint scrutiny’. It ‘should meet in plenary twice a year and be comprised on an equal
basis of both Members of the European Parliament and Members of both Houses of
the US Congress’. The resolution was followed by the publication in 2009 of a study
by the Atlantic Council and other think tanks, putting forward even wider-ranging
recommendations on ‘forging a strategic US-EU partnership’. These proposals were
then reprised and strengthened in a TLD Joint Statement in December of that year.
The momentum was channelled into the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and eventually dissipated by its failure in 2016.
The demise of TTIP and the new Trump administration in the White House did not
however cause the EP to abandon its calls for ‘a structured and strategic dialogue on
foreign policy at transatlantic level, also involving the European Parliament and the
US Congress’. Its 2018 resolution recalled an earlier ‘suggestion to create a
Transatlantic Political Council (TPC) for systematic consultation and coordination
on foreign and security policy’. It welcomed ‘the ongoing and uninterrupted work
of the TLD in fostering EU-US relations through parliamentary dialogue and
coordination on issues of common interest’, and welcomed ‘the relaunch of the
bipartisan Congressional EU Caucus for the 115th Congress’, asking ‘the European
Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO) and the EU delegation in Washington to liaise
more closely with [the Caucus]’.(European Parliament 2018).
Following the change of administration in the US with the election of President
Biden, the EP adopted a new report on EU-US relations in 2021, with rapporteur

21
 Joseph Dunne

Tonino Picula MEP. This resolution echoed the approach of the 2009, Obama-era,
report, seeking to harness the favourable impetus generated by the successful EU-US
Summit of 15 June 2021. It returned to the idea of a Transatlantic Assembly, albeit
sotto voce. Instead, it focussed on the possibly more achievable goal of greater in-
stitutionalisation of the TLD, noting: ‘that raising the awareness of structures such as
the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue and organising more regular meetings and
visits … would restore confidence in and the durability and efficiency of transatlantic
cooperation’. The resolution even went as far as urging the US Congress to ‘enhance
the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue by authorising it as a formal body with
permanent membership’, that is, with the appointment of designated members, as
opposed to the ad hoc membership of the US delegation to the TLD (European
Parliament 2021).
There is a marked difference in institutional structure between the EP and the
House of Representatives in how they deal with delegations in the context of
foreign relations. As Šabič (2015) notes, interparliamentary groups for the UK,
Canada, Mexico and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) exist in statute,2 and include both House and Senate membership. The
NATO PA Parliamentary Group, on the other hand, has a separate legal base,3 as
does the Security and Cooperation in Europe, or ‘Helsinki’, Commission.4 A variant
is the bipartisan ‘House Democracy Partnership’, a House-only entity, which is not a
statutory body but features in the Rules of the House of Representatives.5
Congress has shown little receptivity to the EP’s calls to give such a statutory or
Rules-based foundation to the TLD, despite - so far unsuccessful - efforts on the part
of Co-Chair Rep Jim Costa (H.R. 4105 in the 116th Congress and H.R. 6624 in
the 117th) to include the Senate in the TLD and to give the TLD a basis in statute.
While the House is thus highly selective in the number of interparliamentary
bodies, the EP, by contrast, has a comprehensive, worldwide network of delegations
covering every region provided for in its Rules of Procedure (Title VIII, Chapter 2).
The EP delegation to the TLD is part of this organisational structure, led by its
Delegation for relations with the United States of America (D-US), comprising 64
members and currently chaired by Radosław Sikorski MEP, a former Polish defence
and foreign minister who is well-known and widely respected in Washington. Their
US counterparts are the TLD co-chairs appointed by the Speaker of the House in a
bipartisan arrangement, currently Congressman Jim Costa (Democrat-California)
and Congresswoman Ann Wagner (Republican-Missouri). The US meeting parti-
cipants are chosen on a volunteer basis.
The asymmetric nature of this TLD structure stems, at least in part, from a tradi-
tional reluctance on the part of the Congress to go beyond the small number of existing
formal and institutionalised relationships with other parliamentary bodies, detailed
above, some of which were created in the late 1950s and the most recent (the British-
American Interparliamentary Group) in 1991. In 2013, the assessment of the CRS was
that there were enough skeptics that doubted the utility or need to establish a stronger
relationship between the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament … that Congress
as a whole seems to be at best ambivalent to such efforts and has not demonstrated as
much enthusiasm as the EP about forging closer relations.

22
 Connecting the US Congress and the EP

Above and beyond the question of willingness or enthusiasm is undoubtedly the

fact that, as Marcy (Marcy 1959) points out, ‘Members from Congress.. attend
[interparliamentary meetings] in their individual capacities’. The Members of
Congress are thus not formally expected to speak solely on behalf of the institution
they represent, unlike their European counterparts from the EP.

EPLO and developing parliamentary connection: ‘A bridge

between two houses’
As the lead player in the EP with responsibility for US relations, the D-US has
always had the ambition of coordinating the gamut of legislative cooperation
activities, including the transatlantic contacts made at committee level. The Steering
Committee created with the establishment of the TLD brought together the chairs
of legislative committees. In this way, the D-US sought to complement the largely
external, security, defence and trade policy orientation of the bi-annual TLD
meetings (Lazarou 2020) and to integrate the work being done in the EU-US
committee-to-committee dialogues. In practice, the field has proved too wide, and
the two streams have co-existed rather than converged. The legislative committees
of the EP have pursued their own policy-specific channels and actively maintain
their own contact network and longer-term connections through annual visits. In
fact, the TLD members are rarely the key players in legislation of transatlantic
interest. As is well-illustrated by Jančić (2015) in the case of the Emission Trading
Scheme (ETS) Directive, recourse was not taken to the TLD to enable transatlantic
dialogue on the disputed legislation.
EPLO has managed to act as a channel for the committee-to-committee dia-
logues, giving it a wider range of action than the TLD dialogue alone. The com-
mittees are interested in coordinating regulatory regimes in their legislative areas, and
have been consistently active in the efforts described by Young in Chapter 19. In the
early days, from EPLO’s inception to the TTIP negotiations, these efforts focussed
largely on trade, financial services and product safety. More recently, as new
momentum was generated by the change in the US administration at the end of
2020 and then the sudden closeness produced by Russia’s war on Ukraine, the
palette of issues became the global challenges facing both the US and the EU: the
climate transition and the instruments to fight climate change such as the Carbon
Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), energy policy and regulating the digital
economy and online platform services.
EPLO has taken the lead in facilitating committee-to-committee meetings across
the spectrum of policy issues. Human rights has always been an area where EU and
US views were broadly convergent. As Szép suggests in his work on sanctions,
human rights protection is a policy field where the EP is consistently expanding its
reach. The EP has sought out Congressional support, and, equally, the Congress has
looked to the EP for support. The preferred instruments, increasingly resorted to, are
the use of joint statements (Lazarou 2020) and letters jointly signed by members from
both parliaments, to give them extra weight and legitimacy. With the added for-
mation of ad hoc networks like the Interparliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC),

23
 Joseph Dunne

which involves members from national parliament, EP and Congress, parliaments are
in fact generating layers of ‘legislative networks’ of the kind envisaged by Šabič
(2016).
A joint virtual meeting, mediated by EPLO, between the Helsinki Committee
in Congress (the joint Congressional/Executive commission for the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE) and the EP’s Human Rights
Subcommittee in September 2020, was a high-water mark in inter-parliamentary
cooperation on human rights during the COVID-19 pandemic. The unanimity of
viewpoints was striking.
Issues touching on trade and economic relations are more complicated and
controversial. It might appear self-evident that the EU and US, with the largest
trade-flow in the world, and with the largest combined market and investment pool,
would want to align or converge legislation, regulatory policy and standards so as to
avoid the creation of non-tariff barriers and obstacles to mutually-reinforcing eco-
nomic growth. This was the avowed purpose of legislative cooperation called for in
the EP resolutions described earlier, and the ‘early warning system’ so earnestly
wished for, to alert legislators to legislation or draft legislation which would nega-
tively affect the transatlantic market and common interest. The hope was that an
early warning system would obviate unpleasant surprises like the disagreements over
privacy legislation, and develop a ‘barrier-free’ internal market between the EU and
the US.
Even if the push for regulatory convergence ultimately failed with the demise of
TTIP, the concept certainly incentivised committee-to-committee cooperation from
2008 onwards, with a noticeable intensification after the establishment of EPLO. In
2010, alone there were visits to the US by delegations from the Special Committee on
the Financial Crisis and from a majority of the legislative committees – the Committees
on Civil Liberties, Transport (twice), Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Legal
Affairs and Economic and Monetary Affairs (twice). The Committee on Foreign
Affairs (AFET), the subcommittees on Security and Defence (SEDE) and Human
Rights (DROI), and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) were
equally active. So marked was the development that the 2013 CRS report ‘Evolving
Transatlantic Legislative Cooperation’ focussed on improving direct committee-to-
committee contact and strongly suggested a coordination role for the TLD as the best
achievable outcome from the European perspective.
Parliamentary Committees have thus always accounted for the majority of inter-
actions between the EP and the US Congress, while the TLD meetings have taken
centre-stage as the ‘official’ locus of EP-Congress relations. As Table 1.1 shows, the
intensity of the relationship has remained surprisingly stable over the years, with only a
loose link to the political ‘colour’ (red or blue) of the US Administration.
Once reduced travel opportunities in EP election years, and the pause caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic, are factored in, the level of engagement can be con-
sidered fairly constant, with a slight rise as the overall long-term trend.
An average of 100 MEPs have visited the US Congress each year since the es-
tablishment of EPLO. The large number of virtual meetings in 2020/2021, when
in-person meetings were not possible, is particularly noticeable, and reinforces the

24
 Connecting the US Congress and the EP

Table 1.1 Overview of European Parliamentary Visits to Washington DC

YEAR Committee Individual Meetings of the ‘Parliamentary

and US MEP Visits Transatlantic Conversations’ &
Delegation Legislators’ Virtual Meetings
Visits Dialogue (TLD)
in US

2010 10 5 1
2011 5 14 1
2012 9 21 1
2013 13 22
2014 ∗ 1 15 1
2015 10 15 1
2016 11 17 1
2017 19 16 1
2018 17 7
2019 ∗ 6 9 1
2020-(pre-Covid) 3 1
2020 (Lockdown) 14
2021 (post-Covid) 7 2 33
2022 (end July) 10 17 1 4
TOTAL: 121 ∗∗ 161 9 ∗∗∗ 51

Sources: European Parliament; Figure 1.

Notes
∗
Travel by parliamentary delegations is curtailed in election years (2014, 2019).
∗∗
Committee delegations comprise, on average, 7 Members. This number of delegations
corresponds to approx. 847 individual members.
∗∗∗
A typical TLD Interparliamentary meeting will comprise delegations of 8 to 10 members
from the EP side.

impression of a long-term rise in engagement on legislative issues of mutual interest,

focussed on trade, digital economy, artificial intelligence and the climate transition.
A peak in the number of visiting parliamentarians in 2017 demonstrated that the
cooler transatlantic diplomatic relations of the Trump era had, at least initially, little
impact on the intensity of parliamentary contacts (Vandeputte 2022), and that a
substantial level of EP-Congressional cooperation was maintained. A high influx of
MEPs can again be expected in 2022, as European members seek to capitalise on the
new openness to the European Union, and to multilateral fora, on the part of the
Biden administration.
Although the availability of members of Congress in Washington DC has
decreased somewhat in recent years, in favour of presence in their districts, the
number of congressional meetings organised by EPLO for incoming EP delegations

25
 Joseph Dunne

has steadily increased. For the most part, the meetings are with individual members
of Congress, but often they can take the form of in-person, committee-to-
committee meetings, notably for the International Trade Committee (INTA) in
2020 and 2022, but also for other committees, such as the Committee on Culture
and Education (CULT) in 2022. In 2021, a visit from the Special Committee on
Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age (AIDA) prompted a first meeting of the
Congressional Caucus on AI.
While the larger flow has been in the direction of Europe to America, traffic has
not been one-way only. Congressional delegations, or ‘CoDels’, visiting the EP, are
a regular feature and are increasing in frequency (Lazarou 2020). A delegation of the
Select Committee on Modernization and the Rules Committee in 2022, which,
rather unusually, dedicated its full visit to the EP, presages greater exchange in the
future.
With a helping hand from the pandemic lockdown, and the new acceptability of
‘zoom’ meetings, the number of committee-to-committee dialogue streams, or
‘parliamentary conversations’ mediated by EPLO has increased exponentially. Some
twenty-one parliamentary dialogues during the lockdown held out the promise of
genuine transatlantic parliamentary exchange on legislative issues before respective
positions have solidified. The end of the pandemic brought a restoration of the
primacy of in-person meetings but virtual meetings can add the consistency of
contact that the TLD always sought (and failed) to obtain with video-conferencing.
The depth of the virtual dialogue and the intensity of the in-person contacts since
the pandemic has coincided with, and been framed by, the era of global challenges.
The EU has forged ahead with attempts to regulate the digital economy, manage the
climate transition and energy crisis and to restore multilateral trade mechanisms.
EP-Congress dialogue has brought a new level of understanding, but it is not an
inevitably convergent process: the objections of the House of Representatives and
the Senate to what they perceived as discrimination against US companies by
European legislators in the Digital Markets Act (DMA)6 is a case in point, as one
legislature realises the risk of being subjected to a ‘Brussels’ or a ‘Washington effect’
from the other. At the same time, members of parliament borrow concepts and
regulatory ideas from each other in a symbiotic process.
Common ground is also being found on the need to deal with the increasing
assertiveness of authoritarian actors and on how to deal with existential threats to
parliamentary and democratic legitimacy. The way has opened for transatlantic
parliamentary cooperation to boost democracy at home and abroad, a priority of the
Biden administration and a key concern that now lies at the base of EU-US relations.
The EP and the Congress have a new opportunity to work together and learn from
each other, this time to unravel and disarm the developing threats posed by
cyberattacks, disinformation and dark money, all intertwining with the regulation of
online platforms.
It was always understood that, important as the step was, the establishment of an EP
office in Washington DC could never, of itself, comprehensively cater for the
dynamic, multi-dimensional, multi-stakeholder information flow across the Atlantic.
EPLO accordingly partners with bodies channelling stakeholder and business views,

26
 Connecting the US Congress and the EP

such as the Transatlantic Business and Consumer Dialogues, many of which were
created in the lead up to the TTIP negotiations as contributors to the Transatlantic
Economic Council, active from 2007 to 2016. As the momentum for regulatory
cooperation has receded, the associated bodies have lost salience. Nevertheless the
work with stakeholders continues, and involves business interests, non-governmental
organisations, consulting groups and the Chambers of Commerce. Among these sta-
keholder organisations, the Transatlantic Policy Network retains its specificity of
seeking to blend and synergize the business-oriented and the parliamentary dialogues.
Most recently, the US-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC), launched at the
June 2021 U.S.-EU Summit, holds out the promise of successful executive-to-
executive cooperation in key areas.
In this respect, the question posed by Raube (2022), and Thiel (2022) of the
complementarity of ‘EP diplomatic action’, including the establishment of EPLO, and
the public diplomacy of EU delegations, is relevant to Washington DC. EPLO works
in close coordination with the EU Delegation at all operational levels, and all incoming
parliamentary delegations are systematically briefed by the EU Ambassador.
A parliamentary vehicle intended to support the EP-Congress relationship,
created largely at the initiative of EPLO, is the EU Caucus in the House of
Representatives. The first Caucus was officially launched in the 115th Congress by
Rep. Gregory Meeks (Democrat-New York) and Rep. Joe Wilson (Republican-
South Carolina), with the message that ‘the European Union plays a significant role
in safeguarding and promoting our shared values of freedom and … Our shared
aspiration for enduring European peace and prosperity is undoubtedly in the interests
of the United States’. The EU Caucus has been renewed in each Congressional
session since even if it has not, like many others, been noticeably active.

Outlook
EPLO has developed an increasingly influential role over the years. As the involve-
ment with Congress widens and deepens, there can be at least a modest expectation of
sooner or later reaching the critical mass and leading the Congress to adapt its struc-
tures, thereby achieving greater balance in the TLD relationship. At the same time, by
connecting the committees on new legislative challenges, the traditional conundrum
of where to look for the ‘early warning’ appears to have resolved itself.
Legislators on both sides of the Atlantic understand that regulatory approaches
to global problems (from climate change and a form of Cross Border Carbon
Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to antitrust and ‘big tech’ regulation, to whether
and how to converge on the regulation of the digital economy; to the taxation of
multinational firms, how to regulate cryptocurrency, to artificial intelligence) could
clearly benefit from a common or concerted approach. The US is holding back and
has been generally unwilling to go down the regulatory path in some of these areas.
Attempts at dialogue have been driven from the European side but are recognised on
the US side to be necessary. Non-traditional and difficult areas of policy are no
longer exempt from discussions, as women’s’ issues, gender equality and agriculture
policy become subjects of open dialogue.

27
 Joseph Dunne

The Members of Congress involved now range across many committee forma-
tions, a far cry from the limited pool of the past. Closer cooperation brings ‘socia-
lisation’ and mutual trust, building up over time as the broader legislative partnership
is strengthened and a wider cross-section of Members of Congress become involved
in the committee-to-committee dialogue.
Despite the Congressional leadership’s reluctance to date to endorse a more per-
manent or embedded status to parliamentary dialogue with the EU, it seems con-
ceivable that the US-EU convergence brought about by the war in Ukraine will, in
due course, bring new impetus to proposals for a dedicated body in Congress. It could
take the form of a Congressional Commission on the EU, as originally proposed in
2010, or more diffuse or specialised arrangements such as a Congress-Parliament
Working Group on China to complement the IPAC network, as was suggested in a
Hearing of the Europe Subcommittee in the House of Representatives.7
Both legislatures, EP and Congress, are searching for broader forms of cooper-
ation and parliamentary diplomacy in support of democracy. EPLO is seeking to play
its part in facilitating a new and higher level of connection. Changing attitudes in the
Congress and a growing understanding of the global nature of legislative challenges
and of the need to keep the executive accountable, enabled by the new possibilities
afforded by vsirtual meetings, have transformed the prospects for future cooperation
for the better.

Notes
1 Official Journal C 127/94 of 14 May 1984.
2 Title 22, Chapter 7 of the U.S. Code.
3 Title 22 § 1928a, U.S. Code.
4 Title 22 §3001 to 3009, U.S. Code.
5 § 1125 f., Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, 117th Congress.
6 Hon Suzan DelBene Letter dated February 23, 2022 to President Joseph R. Biden. https://
delbene.house.gov/uploadedfiles/eu_digital_markets_act_letter.pdf
US Senators Ron Wyden, Mike Crapo, Letter dated February 1 to President Joseph
R. Biden. https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2022.02.01%20Wyden-Crapo
%20Letter%20to%20POTUS%20on%20DMA%20DSA.pdf
7 Statement of Dr. Karen Donfried President, German Marshall Fund of the United States,
to the Subcommittee on Europe on ‘The Importance of Transatlantic Cooperation During
the COVID-19 Pandemic’ July 14, 2020.

References
Congressional Research Service (CRS) 29 July 2013 The US Congress and the European
Parliament: Evolving Transatlantic Legislative Cooperation.
Congressional Research Service (CRS) 2014 The European Parliament and U.S. Interests, K
Archick, last updated May 6, 2022.
Davidson, R. and Oleszek, W. et al. 2022 ‘Congress and its Members’ 18th Edition, CQ
Press, SAGE Publications.
European Parliament resolution (P6_TA(2006)0238) of 1 June 2006 on improving EU-US
relations in the framework of a Transatlantic Partnership Agreement.

28
 Connecting the US Congress and the EP

European Parliament resolution (P6_TA(2006)0239) of 1 June 2006 on EU-US Transatlantic

Economic Relations.
EP: Opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO)
adopted on 21 March 2006.
European Parliament resolution (P6_TA(2008)0192) of 8 May 2008 on the Transatlantic
Economic Council.
European Parliament resolution (P6_TA(2009)0193) of 26 March 2009 on the state of
transatlantic relations in the aftermath of the US election.
European Parliament resolution (P8_TA(2018)0342) of 12 September 2018 on the state of
EU-US relations.
European Parliament resolution (P9_TA(2021)041) of 6 October 2021 on the future of
EU-US relations.
Farrell, H. and Newman, A. 2019 ‘Of Privacy and Power: The Transatlantic Struggle over
Freedom and Security’, Princeton.
Fonck, D. 2019 ‘The Emergence of the European Parliament as a Diplomatic Mediator:
Conceptualising, Exploring and Explaining Parliamentary Diplomacy in EU Foreign
Policy’ PhD Thesis, KU Leuven.
Fromage, D. 2019 The European Parliament in inter-parliamentary cooperation, in Raube op cit
Hecke, S. and Wolfs, W. (2015). The SAGE Handbook of European Foreign Policy: Two Volume
Set. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Available at: [Accessed 8 Mar 2023].
Henehan, M. 2000 Foreign Policy and Congress: An International Relations Perspective, The
University of Michigan Press.
Hon Benjamin, S. Rosenthal and Hon Donald, S. Fraser 1972a ‘‘The European Community
and the American Interest’: Report of Special Study Mission to Europe’, January 1972,
Committee on Foreign Affairs pursuant to H. Res. 109.
Hon Benjamin, S. Rosenthal and Hon Donald, S. Fraser 1972b ‘A Growing Bond: The
European Parliament and the Congress’ Report on the First Official Visit to Congress by a
Delegation from the European Parliament’, May 1972, Committee on Foreign Affairs pursuant
to H. Res. 109.
Jančić, D. 2014 ‘The European Parliament and EU–US Relations: Revamping Institutional
Cooperation’, in Elaine Fahey and Deirdre Curtin (eds.), A Transatlantic Community of Law:
Legal Perspectives on the Relationship between the EU and US Legal Orders. Cambridge
University Press, pp. 35–68.
Jančić, D. 2015a ‘Transatlantic Regulatory Interdependence, Law and Governance: The
Evolving Roles of the EU and US Legislatures’, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal
Studies. 17(1), pp. 334–359.
Jančić, D. 2015a ‘The Transatlantic Connection: Democratizing Euro-American Relations
through Parliamentary Liaison’, in Stelios Stavridis and Daniela Irrera (eds.), The European
Parliament and its International Relations. London: Routledge, pp. 178–196.
Jančić, D. and Stavridis, S. 2016 ‘Introduction: The Rise of Parliamentary Diplomacy in
International Politics’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. 11(2–3), pp. 105–120.
Karns D. A. 1970 ‘The Effect of Inter-parliamentary Meetings on the Foreign Policy Attitudes
of United States Congressmen’, International Organization. 31(3), pp. 497–513.
Kreppel, A. 2006 ‘The Environmental Determinants of Legislative Structure: A Comparison
of the US House of Representatives and the European Parliament’, in Poweer and Crae
(eds.), Exporting Congress? The Influence of the US Congress on World Legislatures. University
of Pittsburgh Press.
Kreppel, A. 2005 ‘Understanding the European Parliament from a Federalist Perspective: The
Legislatures of the United States and the European Union in Comparative Perspective’, in
A. Menon and M. Schain (eds.), Comparative Federalism: THe European Union and the United
States in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press.
Lazarou, E. 2020 ‘Transatlantic Parliamentary Diplomacy: Contributing to the future of
Transatlantic relations’, Turning the Tide: How to Rescue Transatlantic Relations, pp. 60–74.

29
 Joseph Dunne

Marcy C. 1959 ‘A Note on American Participation in Interparliamentary Meetings’,

International Organization. 13(3), pp. 431–438.
Raube, K. 2022 Parliamentary Cooperation and Diplomacy in EU External Relations: An Essential
Companion. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Šabič, Z. 2016 Parliamentary Diplomacy and the US Congress: The Case of the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. 11(2–3), pp. 235–252.
Szép V. 2022 ’Transnational Parliamentary Activities in EU Foreign Policy: The Role of
Parliamentarians in the Establishment of the EU’s Global Human Rights Sanctions
Regime’, Journal of Common Market Studies. 60(6), 1741–1757.
Thiel, M. 2022 EU Public Diplomacy in the United States: Socio-political Challenges & EU
Delegation Agency, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, DOI: 10.1080/14782804.
2022.2084049
Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue, 67th Interparliamentary Meeting, Joint Statement, New
York, 4-7 December 2009.
Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN) ‘A Strategy to Strengthen Transatlantic Partnership’
Washington/Brussels, 4 December 2003.
Tulli, U. 2017 ‘Challenging Intergovermentalism and EPC. The European Parliament and Its
Actions in International Relations, 1970–1979’, Journal of Contemporary European Research.
13(2), pp. 1076–1089.
US House of Representatives H.Con.Res.322-111th Congress (2009-2010): Establishing the
Congressional Commission on the European Union, and for other purposes.
US House of Representatives H.Con.Res.2-112th Congress (2011-2012): Establishing the
Congressional Commission on the European Union, and for other purposes.
US House of Representatives H.R.4105 - 116th Congress (2019-2020) To authorize the
Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (United States-European Union Interparliamentary
Group), and for other purpose.
Vandeputte S. 2022 ‘Bridging the Atlantic: An Exploration of EU-US Parliamentary
Diplomacy’, Unpublished thesis. KU Leuven.
Wagner, W. M. and Raunio, T. 2017 ‘‘Challenging Executive Dominance’. Legislatures and
Foreign Affairs. West European Politics’, Special Issue. 40(11–19.
Willem Schuijt, Report on behalf of the Committee on External Economic Relations on
parliamentary relations between the European Community and the United States of
America Document 82/72, PE 30.399 def.

30
 2
EU-US RELATIONS IN A
CHANGING WORLD
David O’Sullivan

The role of the US in crafting the global order after World War II was decisive,
including the active promotion of European integration. Over the next 60 or so
years, the transatlantic partnership was central to global events through the building
of the Western liberal order and all the institutions that went with it. It was never an
equal partnership. For much of the period, the US was by far the stronger partner
both militarily and economically. Even as Europe grew into a larger and more
cohesive economic and normative power, its heavy reliance on the US security
umbrella gave the US the upper hand. Although the US was generally supportive of
greater integration in Europe, it often found the emerging structures and institutions
bewildering.
The EU is an unusual political animal in international relations, an ‘unidentified
political object’, as President Jacques Delors (1985) once said. It is not a country. But
neither is it a mere international organisation. In some areas (trade, market regulation)
it has real federal powers. It has (for 19 countries at least) a single currency. It has a
consolidated legal order. When it speaks and decides with one voice, it can have huge
influence, such as when it adopted EU regulations on data privacy which have become
the de facto global standard. But, as often as it speaks with one voice, the EU can end
up speaking with the voices of its 27 members. As Kenneth Propp points out in his
excellent chapter ‘Negotiating with the European Union – A U.S. Perspective’, this
can be very confusing for friends and adversaries alike (Propp in this volume).
Few in Washington, beyond policy wonks, really understand how the EU works
and how to deal with it. There is a strong lobby for NATO in Congress. The
significance of the EU for US security, economic and value interests has yet to find a
coherent voice. However, in the coming great power confrontation of the 21st
century, the EU arguably holds more of the levers than NATO. Kinetic military
power will remain important, but the real challenges will be economic, techno-
logical, cyber, and informational. In these areas, it is the EU as a bloc rather than
individual member states which yields the real power.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003283911-4 31
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 “It is doubtful whether anyone has brought the same amount and
quality of tourist information into so compact space before.”

+ Springf’d Republican p7a D 12 ’20 130w

DUNLAP, KNIGHT. Personal beauty and racial

betterment. *$1 Mosby 575.6
20–7871

“The first part of the book, ‘The significance of beauty,’ seeks to

explain in detail the characters of personal beauty—an explanation
found exclusively in the reproductive needs of the race. The second
part, ‘The conservation of beauty,’ points to its importance as an
element in race improvement which, the author maintains, can
according to all present evidence be brought about only by selection
of the more fit. It also discusses briefly some of the more disputable
means of eliminating the entirely unfit. Above all, however, the
author directs his argument against economic interest as the decisive
factor in selection and effectively presents the case for the cultivation
of beauty and love marriage as indispensable to race preservation.”—
Survey

Reviewed by E. S. Bogardus

Am J Soc 26:367 N ’20 160w

“In the recent literature of sexual selection and of eugenics there

have been few more stimulating contributions than this one by
Professor Dunlap. It is worth a place in the social hygienist’s library.”
P. P.
 + Social Hygiene 6:577 O ’20 640w

“Professor Dunlap’s study of personal beauty as an element in race

betterment is original and suggestive; it is, however, little more than
a string of ex cathedra propositions presented without evidence or
citation of authority other than his own observations.”

+ − Survey 44:450 Je 26 ’20 200w

DUNN, ARTHUR WALLACE. How presidents

are made. *75c (2½c) Funk 329
20–8653

The book is a historical survey of the conditions and circumstances

that surrounded the campaigns of the various presidents. The author
takes no stock in the general impression that presidents are elected
on “issues,” but thinks that personality and opportunity play a
greater part and that often the result depends on accident or
incident. Contents: Caste and political parties; Federalism and states’
rights—Adams and Jefferson; The Virginia succession—Madison and
Monroe; Developing issues—slavery and the tariff; Passing of
congressional caucus—Adams; Personal popularity a factor—
Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison; Slavery and the northern boundary as
factors—Polk; The Mexican war—Taylor; Slavery issue looming;
Slavery compromise—Pierce; Anti-slavery republicans defeated—
Buchanan; Extension vs. restriction of slavery—Lincoln; The soldier
vote and war issues—Lincoln and Grant; Liberal republican
movement—Grant vs. Greeley; The electoral commission—Hayes vs.
Tilden; Third term issue—Garfield; Mugwump independency—
Cleveland; Protectionist tariff—Harrison; The tariff and free silver—
Cleveland; Gold standard vs. free silver—McKinley; “Imperialism,”
silver, the tariff—McKinley; Personal popularity—Roosevelt; Tariff
and personal influence—Taft; Republican disharmony—Wilson;
Anti-war sentiment and tactical mistakes—Wilson; The negro as a
political factor; Prohibition, suffrage, socialism.

Boston Transcript p7 Jl 24 ’20 230w

+ Cleveland p90 O ’20 30w

“One takes up this little volume expecting a dry-as-dust account of

the operations of the primaries, the electoral college, etc. Instead he
finds a narrative alive with human interest.”

+ Outlook 125:223 Je 2 ’20 50w

“It is a meager and sketchy book, without distinction in research or

judgment, but it does ‘hit the high spots’ in such a way as to bring the
records of past campaigns briefly to mind, and it is written in a fair
spirit, with a practical understanding of events and with intelligent
discrimination.”

+ − Springf’d Republican p11a Je 27 ’20

1500w

DUNN, COURTENAY FREDERIC WILLIAM.

Natural history of the child. *$2 (2½c) Lane 392
20–4905

Although the author of this volume is a physician the book is not

written from a medical or scientific point of view. It is rather the
traditions, prejudices and customs which have surrounded childhood
from time immemorial dressed in an entertaining, humorous garb,
“a history of childhood which for the greater part has been grubbed
up from ancient and scarce books, obscure pamphlets and papers.”
(Foreword) Contents: Him before he was; His ancestry; His early life
—legal infancy; His name; His environment; His language; His
schooldays; His schooling; His development; His play; His religion;
His mental condition; His naughtiness; His afflictions.

“Those portions which come from browsing in old books are

particularly interesting and amusing.”

+ Booklist 16:299 Je ’20

“He has selected a very diverting lot of quotations, which are

strung together on his own agreeable reflections in a book that will
be read with interest by every child-lover.”

+ Outlook 124:657 Ap 14 ’20 100w

“On every sort of aspect of child life, from christening ceremonies

or the custom of infant marriages to the evils of thumb-sucking and
the use of indiarubber ‘soothers,’ there is the same entertaining
jumble of the results of disjointed research. Unfortunately Dr
Courtenay Dunn cannot resist the lure of being ‘bright.’”

+ − Spec 123:250 Ag 23 ’19 350w

“Its contents, far from being prosy or dull to any but the mother or
nurse, are, on the other hand, most interesting to any reader who has
in him a trace of the antiquary.”
 + Springf’d Republican p8 My 18 ’20
200w

“Dr Dunn has burrowed with great industry and good results
among old and sometimes scarce books and pamphlets; and the light
and airy style in which he starts writing must not prejudice us
against his work.”

+ The Times [London] Lit Sup p338 Je 19

’19 300w

DUNN, JOHN DUNCAN, and JESSUP,

ELON H. Intimate golf talks. il *$3 Putnam 796
20–21193

The genesis of the book is: an indoor golf school conducted by

John Duncan Dunn, a reportorial visit by the editor of Outing, the
latter’s interest in the instructor’s methods and desire to profit by
them for his own game, repeated interviews and—the book. The
talks, interpolated with copious illustrations, are: Picking the right
clubs; Learning the golf scale; The golf grip; The golf stance; The gold
address; Some golf faults; Getting the knack of the swing; Stick to the
minor shots; From three-quarters to fullswing; The importance of
balance; Take care of your hands; Topping the ball; Overcoming
faults; Keeping the muscles in harmony; Slicing and hooking;
Methods of curing faults; This brings us to putting.

“Mr Dunn’s golf wisdom and Mr Jessup’s editorial skill combine in

the production of an unusually happy result.” B. R. Redman
 + N Y Evening Post p12 D 4 ’20 980w

DUNN, JOSEPH ALLAN ELPHINSTONE.

Dead man’s gold. il *$1.50 (2c) Doubleday
20–13705

When Wat Lyman died, he left behind him the secret of a gold
lode. But he was canny enough to divide his secret among three,
Healy, an ex-gambler, “Lefty” Larkin, an adventurer, and Stone, an
American temporarily down on his luck. Each of these three knew
one-third only of the directions necessary to locate the gold, which,
when found, was to be divided equally with Lyman’s daughter, who
also had to be found. By their common sharing of the secret, the
three prospectors were kept together all through the first part of their
hunt. Exciting experiences in the Arizona desert, and with the
Apache Indians almost lead to failure. But eventually they find their
lode, only to have Healy turn traitor and try to cheat the other two
out of their share. How the girl comes into it and saves their lives and
the gold is the close of the story.

DUNN, JOSEPH ALLAN ELPHINSTONE.

Turquoise Cañon. il *$1.50 (2½c) Doubleday
20–5121

A story that follows one of the standard formulas for western

fiction. The rich and debonair young easterner comes west, falls foul
of a gang of crooks, loses his heart to the beautiful daughter, rescues
her from her unpleasant environment, breaks up the band and is
rewarded with the love of the girl, who after all, it turns out, is not
the daughter of the chief villain. In this story Jimmie Hollister’s goat
ranching experiences add an original touch.

Booklist 16:280 My ’20

DUNSANY, EDWARD JOHN MORETON

DRAX PLUNKETT, 18th baron. Tales of three
hemispheres. *$1.75 Luce. J. W.
20–26193

“In the two hemispheres we know more or less about, Lord

Dunsany pretends now and then to set his story. But his heart is in
the third hemisphere—the hemisphere at the back of the map, which
lies beyond the fields we know. And, indeed, even when we think for
a moment that we are in the high wolds beyond Wiltshire, or looking
out on the Tuileries gardens, or checked short for a peep at the
cloud-capped tower of the Woolworth building, we are pretty sure to
be in, before long, for a meeting with the old gods, the gods whom
time has put to sleep.” (Review) “The book is divided into two
sections, the first made up of miscellaneous, far wandering tales and
sketches, while the second, which is entitled ‘Beyond the fields we
know,’ leads us into the lands of dream, where flows the great central
river of Yann.” (N Y Times)

“A certain abundance of even commonplace detail, combined with

a subtle deviation from the usual in emphasis and sequence, conveys
successfully a sense of other-reality; but this quality, the true dream-
quality, is constantly impaired by a kind of arbitrary fastidiousness of
language. Nothing is less akin to the dreamlike than the precious,
which is the outcome of an extreme self-consciousness, and we
consider that Lord Dunsany’s use of the precious constitutes a
serious defect of style.” F. W. S.

+ − Ath p202 Ag 13 ’20 560w

Booklist 16:204 Mr ’20

“The stories in divers veins are all characteristic of Dunsany, but

present no tricks not already familiar to his readers.”

+ − Nation 110:660 My 15 ’20 560w

“They are essentially prose poems, these tales, whether they

express in some half dozen vivid, poignant pages the very heart of a
dying man’s desire, as in ‘The last dream of Bwona Khubla,’ or tell of
a girl’s longing, as in ‘An archive of the older mysteries,’ or of such
fear as that which rent the soul of the wayfarer who bore with him
‘The sack of emeralds.’”

+ N Y Times 24:781 D 28 ’19 800w

+ Review 2:111 Ja 31 ’20 650w
+ Spec 124:871 Je 26 ’20 580w

“Through the exotic atmosphere of many of these stories stand out

sudden pictures of rare perfection. This power of calling up
associations to supplement concrete images is indeed his perilous
virtue, and entices him sometimes into tortuous bypaths. Yet his
perfect etching of New York at night in ‘A city of wonder’ proves that
he can look at the world with the disinterested and objective gaze of
the pure artist.”

+ − The Times [London] Lit Sup p437 Jl 8

’20 1250w

DURKIN, DOUGLAS. Heart of Cherry McBain.

*$1.75 (2c) Harper

Because he had once struck his brother with murder in his heart,
King Howden had determined never to fight again, and because of
that resolution he was held to be something of a coward in the
frontier country where he lived a rather solitary life. And then one
day he met Cherry McBain, a girl worth fighting for. She was the
daughter of old Keith McBain, the construction boss of a new
railway. And she had an enemy in the person of Big Bill McCartney,
her father’s foreman, who was determined to win her by fair means
or foul and regardless of her wishes in the matter. The situation
certainly offered grounds for the fight that eventually came, leaving
King with his reputation vindicated, and Cherry free to bestow her
heart where she chose.

Boston Transcript p6 O 9 ’20 150w

N Y Times p24 O 10 ’20 250w

DURSTINE, ROY SARLES. Making

advertisements and making them pay. il *$3.50
Scribner 659
20–16526

“‘Making advertisements’ treats of everything in any way

connected with advertising, even the weight of type. It is well
illustrated with reproduced advertisements. Starting with the genesis
of advertising, it ends asking, ‘Where is advertising going?’”—N Y
Evening Post

“Crisp, entertaining, suggestive chapters.”

+ Booklist 17:98 D ’20

“Somewhat sketchy but enlightening book.”

+ Ind 104:247 N 13 ’20 40w

“Common sense and an agreeable style are blended in a manner

that makes this book delightful as well as informative reading.”

+ N Y Evening Post p18 O 23 ’20 270w

“This book seems to the present reviewer more significant and

more helpful than any of the other manuals which the reviewer has
chanced to see.” Brander Matthews

+ N Y Times p9 N 21 ’20 2400w

 DURUY, VICTOR. History of France. $3.50
Crowell 944
20–14467

A new edition brought down to date to 1920. “The original text was
translated by Mr Cary, and edited and continued down to the year
1890 by Dr J. Franklin Jameson. It has now been continued up to the
present year by Mabell S. C. Smith, author of ‘Twenty centuries of
Paris,’ and other historical studies. The original plan and
arrangement have been maintained in this appendix, which begins in
point of time with the Dreyfus case, includes the famous separation
of church and state, the Fashoda incident, the Agadir incident, and
other events leading up to and including the world war.” (Publisher’s
announcement)

Booklist 17:83 N ’20

+ R of Rs 62:446 O ’20 20w

DWIGHT, HARRY GRISWOLD. Emperor of

Elam, and other stories. *$2 (2c) Doubleday
20–19763

The range of the stories comprises most of the earth and their
flavor, too, is outlandish and full of whimsical humor. The title story
takes the reader to Persia where a young Englishman in a motor-boat
encounters a pompous native barge on a river in Luristan, upon
which an alleged Brazilian is disporting himself as the Emperor of
Elam. At Dizful the Englishman inadvertently discovers that the
Brazilian is a German secret agent of his government. The war breaks
out and in the course of events the would-be Emperor of Elam finds
himself alone on board of the motor-boat with its French chauffeur,
whom he has pressed into his services. With their countries at war,
they recognize themselves as enemies and after a tense encounter of
words and deeds the Frenchman sees but one weapon left to him
with which to serve his country: he blows up the boat. The stories
have appeared in the Century, Scribner’s, Smart Set, Short Stories
and other magazines.

“Mr Dwight brings to the writing of these tales the triple

qualifications of satirist, keen observer and stylist.” L. B.

+ Freeman 2:478 Ja 26 ’21 190w

“The stories are extremely uneven in quality. It is in the eastern

tales that the author’s musical diction and his appreciation of the
suggestive limitations of words are most happily apparent.”

+ − N Y Times p26 D 26 ’20 720w

DYER, WALTER ALDEN. Sons of liberty. il

*$1.50 (2c) Holt
20–21337

Mr Dyer has made Paul Revere the hero of this story for boys. He
has introduced a few fictitious characters and incidents, but in the
main has held to the facts of history. The story begins in 1847 when
Paul was a boy of twelve and it follows the course of events that led
up to the revolution, introducing Sam Adams, John Hancock, Joseph
Warren and others. The author looks on Paul Revere as “one of the
most picturesque and lovable characters of his time,” and regrets
that little is known of him aside from the one incident celebrated in
Longfellow’s poem. He shows him to have been a many-sided man,
of broad interests and sympathies and artistic ability, and a man of
the people.

Ind 104:378 D 11 ’20 50w

“The plot is conventional and Samuel Adams rather too heroic a

figure to be true, but the history behind the record is unusually
sound.”

+ Nation 112:75 Ja 19 ’21 150w

+ N Y Times p28 Ja 2 ’21 320w
Springf’d Republican p8 O 16 ’20 150w

“The book spiritedly sketches the history of the period and makes
one feel the impulses then animating the people of Boston.”

+ Springf’d Republican p10 D 17 ’20 260w

 E

EAST, EDWARD MURRAY, and JONES,

DONALD FORSHA. Inbreeding and outbreeding:
their genetic and sociological significance.
(Monographs on experimental biology) il *$2.50
Lippincott 575
20–352

“Whether close inbreeding causes deterioration of the race and

cross-breeding re-invigorates it, is a question that has long been
disputed. It was not until the development of the Mendelian theory
that a sufficiently powerful method of analyzing the problem was
discovered. The book by Professor East and Dr Jones gives an
account of the solution of the problem by means of this theory. The
data which East and Jones have here brought together have a wide
applicability to practical animal and plant breeding. The authors also
attempt to apply them to the field of human heredity.”—J Philos

Reviewed by L. L. Bernard

Am J Soc 26:251 S ’20 380w

+ − Ath p706 My 28 ’20 500w

“One of the most valuable features of the book is the admirable

bibliography of 225 titles.” M. C. Coulter
 + Bot Gaz 69:530 Je ’20 1100w

Reviewed by Alexander Weinstein

+ J Philos 17:388 Jl 1 ’20 620w

“The book is marked at once by independence and by scholarship.

Of great interest to many will be the application of the biological
results to the particular case of man. There is a carefully selected
bibliography.”

+ Nature 106:335 N 11 ’20 900w

“From a popular standpoint, ‘Inbreeding and outbreeding’ is by far

the most interesting and suggestive book on heredity that has
appeared in recent years.” O. E. White

+ New Repub 24:278 N 10 ’20 1400w

“Two biologists of note, both experimental plant breeders, have

done a useful work in laying the results of their experiments and
their reflections upon the experiments before a semi-popular
audience. They are wise in doing so, for no question comes more
frequently to the eugenicist than this: Is the marriage of cousins
prejudicial to offspring? Or this: What are the biological
consequences of race admixture?” C: B. Davenport

+ Survey 44:252 My 15 ’20 450w

 EASTON, DOROTHY. Golden bird, and other
sketches. *$2 (3c) Knopf
20–11225

These sketches are introduced by a foreword by John Galsworthy

and “catch the flying values of life” as he says a good sketch does.
They contain pictures from the southern countryside of England with
some French sketches. “The golden bird” is an old inn where a
paralyzed youth with a poet’s soul has for ten years made the walls of
his room transparent and who beguiles the time, when he is not
seeing visions of the shifting seasons outside, with his violin. Some of
the other titles are: Laughing down; The steam mill; Heart-breaker;
Twilight; September in the fields; Causerie; Smoke in the grass;
Adversity; It is forbidden to touch the flowers; A Parisian evening;
Life.

“The writer gives us the impression of being extremely young—not

in the sense of a child taking notes, but in the sense that she seems to
be seeing, smelling, drinking, picking hops and blackberries for the
first time. For such sketches as ‘An old Indian’ and ‘From an old
malt-house’ we have nothing but praise. But while we welcome her
warmly, we would beg her, in these uncritical days, to treat herself
with the utmost severity.” K. M.

+ − Ath p831 Je 25 ’20 190w

“They have color, dramatic vivacity and interesting

characterization. Somewhat depressing.”

+ − Booklist 17:61 N ’20

 “Miss Easton writes with a certain graceful precision, an unerring
touch for the right word, for the exact effect, and a deeply
sympathetic attitude toward nature and toward humanity in its
varied aspects.” L. B.

+ Freeman 1:622 S 8 ’20 200w

“They are simple, vivid and effective in their simplicity. There is

real insight and real skill in putting down what the author has seen.”

+ Ind 103:440 D 25 ’20 200w

“With a remarkable economy of means she renders the rather

drowsy sweetness of her south of England scenes. And occasionally,
as in the sketches called Laughing down, her tenderness for her
landscape makes her sentimental and callous—the two are never far
apart—about people. But her best sketches, of which there are many,
have their brief moments of irony and tragedy and so combine
beauty and wisdom in uncommon measure.” Ludwig Lewisohn

+ − Nation 111:161 Ag 7 ’20 360w

“Miss Easton holds almost constantly to this objectivity, except

that she relieves, or perhaps one should say illuminates, it sometimes
with the suggestion of spiritual significance by means of a delicate,
elusive touch that seems less her own than the inescapable
implication of that which she is describing.”

+ N Y Times p22 Ag 8 ’20 600w

 “An ardent fancy and a delicate yet firm hand have gone to its
making; and, thank heaven, it reminds us of nobody! I am not sure,
in thinking it over, but the main charm of the book, apart from its
beauty of workmanship, lies in its total lack of that ‘humor’ which is
the god of the current literary machine.” H. W. Boynton

+ Review 3:502 N 24 ’20 450w

“A book very well worth writing and, what is more, worth reading
afterwards.”

+ Spec 125:744 D 4 ’20 50w

“The author has a deep and comprehensive feeling for the

transitory values of life which she succeeds in communicating to the
emotions of her audience. She writes with a delicacy which would
beautify the most sordid subjects.”

+ Springf’d Republican p8 D 14 ’20 430w

“The quality of the volume suggests that stronger work may follow.
More experience should confirm that individual quality already
described, and may help to put a curb on an exuberance of sentiment
which is at present Miss Easton’s chief weakness.”

+ − The Times [London] Lit Sup p454 Jl 15

’20 390w

EATON, WALTER PRICHARD. In Berkshire

fields. il *$3.50 Harper 917.44
 20–18686

Not as a scientist but merely as a lover of nature and the wilds,

does the author record his wanderings through fields and woods. As
a permanent resident in the hills he knows them in every season of
the year and in every elemental mood and loves them “less for their
softness than their wildness.” Their wildness, he tells us, is still
considerable for in their miles of forest the moose and wildcat still
roam and there is even recent evidence of a timberwolf. Seventy-
eight illustrations, chiefly of winter scenes, by Walter King Stone,
grace the pages and the contents are: Landlord to the birds; Jim
Crow; The cheerful chickadee; The menace from above; By inland
waters; Poking around for birds’ nests; The queen of the swamp;
Forgotten roads; From a Berkshire cabin; Little folks that gnaw; The
ways of the woodchuck; Foxes and other neighbors; In praise of
trees; Enjoying the influenza; Adventures with an ax; Weeds above
the snow.

+ Booklist 17:61 N ’20

+ Boston Transcript p7 N 24 ’20 290w
+ Ind 103:441 D 25 ’20 170w

“He has written of the birds and animals of the Berkshires with an
accuracy perfected by long observation and with a sympathy arising
from sincere affection.”

+ N Y Times p18 D 26 ’20 500w

 Reviewed by E. L. Pearson

+ Review 3:376 O 27 ’20 50w

“Sympathetic nature study and observation, not burdened with

scientific detail, is charmingly set forth.”

+ Review 3:391 O 27 ’20 60w

+ Springf’d Republican p7a N 21 ’20 390w
+ Wis Lib Bul 16:234 D ’20 70w

EATON, WALTER PRICHARD. On the edge of

the wilderness, il *$1.75 (3c) Wilde 591.5

The first of these “tales of our wild animal neighbors” is the story
of a lone timber wolf who strayed into western Massachusetts where
his species is supposed to be extinct. The scene of the other stories is
also the Berkshire hills, where, on the authority of the author and
others, wolves, foxes, deer, moose and other animals still survive,
The titles are: “The return of the native”; Big Reddy, strategist; The
Odyssey of old Bill; The life and death of Lucy; General Jim; The
mating of Brownie; The taming of ol’ Buck; Red slayer and the terror;
Rastus earns his sleep; “The last American.” The illustrations are by
Charles Livingston Bull.

+ Ind 104:378 D 11 ’20 80w

 “Mr Eaton’s art is finished and flowing, a joy to read. Books like
this are not only an education in natural history, but in beautiful
English, in clarity of description and harmony of phrase.” Hildegarde
Hawthorne

+ N Y Times p4 D 5 ’20 180w

“‘On the edge of the wilderness’ is almost ideal in fulfilling the

many demands of the average intelligent boy for an entertaining
book of adventure. In the first place it rings true. It has a literary
value such as boys unconsciously appreciate.” H. L. Reed

+ Springf’d Republican p7a N 28 ’20 250w

ECKEL, EDWIN CLARENCE. Coal, iron and

war; a study in industrialism, past and future. *$3
(2½c) Holt 330
20–13789

Ours is a “machine civilization” and the story of industrial growth

and competition since 1775, the author holds, “is chiefly though not
entirely the story of coal and iron.” The book attempts to keep the
discussion free from any and every preconceived bias, theory or
assumption and to arrive at conclusions entirely through the
historical study of the industrial developments of different countries.
Industrial growth is a matter of natural evolution based on physical
environment and inheritance and hardly at all on human and
personal control. The form of government is a negligible fact—a
strong nationalism still desirable, and war still the simplest solution
of many of our industrial problems. The contents are in four parts:
The growth of modern industrialism; The material bases of industrial
growth: The causes and effects of industrial growth; The future of
industrialism. There is an index.

“The thesis is carefully developed and well maintained. The

striking feature of the book is the openness of mind with which the
future is examined. Although the historical portions of the book are
sound in the main there are some statements with reference to the
eighteenth century that can scarcely be accepted.” A. P. Usher

+ − Am Hist R 26:307 Ja ’21 640w

+ Booklist 17:140 Ja ’21

“Mr Eckel has long been prominent as a geologist and engineer. In

this volume he certainly qualifies also as an economist. His views on
labor organization, the corporation, and the influence of legislation
are especially significant.” G. P. W.

+ Grinnell R 16:356 F ’21 600w

“The present work is written for the general reader, and through
elimination of the less important and by judicious distribution of
emphasis he has produced a book which is likely to be widely read
with both interest and profit. Though written in a language
intelligible to the business man quite as much as the student, it is
perhaps most of all important through its judicious criticism of the
traditional and orthodox viewpoint of the economist.” W: H. Hobbs

+ N Y Evening Post p4 N 27 ’20 1450w

Review 3:351 O 20 ’20 280w
 “It is a worth while book and one has difficulty in telling in a few
words why; probably it is because it is written with sincerity and
because the author is not writing as other engineers have written, to
promote a cause but to examine facts critically.” Hugh Archbald

+ Survey 45:287 N 20 ’20 360w

EDDY, SHERWOOD. Everybody’s world. *$1.60

Doran 327

“A discussion, from the standpoint of world Christianity, of post-

war conditions in the Near East, Russia, Japan, China, and India,
with a chapter on the relations between Great Britain and America
and Anglo-Saxon responsibility to the world. The book is the result of
a tour around the world in 1919.”—R of Rs

“The author has given an interesting and valuable survey of world

conditions.”

+ Boston Transcript p7 Ag 18 ’20 400w

R of Rs 62:333 S ’20 100w

“The charm of style lies in the author’s intense human interest

which results in much picturesque and personal narrative. Mr Eddy
is singularly free of bias.” L. R. Robinson

+ Survey 45:320 N 27 ’20 720w

 EDEN, EMILY. Miss Eden’s letters; ed. by her
great niece, Violet Dickenson with introd. *$6.50
Macmillan

“To the present generation the name of Miss Eden conveys little or
nothing. As the sister of Lord Auckland, who held office in the reform
ministries of the early years of last century, and who became
governor-general of India in 1835, she was well known in London
society under William IV; and during her later life she published
some novels and books of travel which were not without merit, but
had not sufficient distinction to preserve them from oblivion. But her
abiding claim to the notice of posterity was her talent for friendly
letterwriting. Her most intimate friend, Pamela, daughter of Lord
and Lady Edward FitzGerald, had an equally marked gift for talking
with the pen, and perhaps greater vivacity and humour; and the
correspondence between these two brilliant women is preserved in
the present volume.”—Spec

Ath p1139 O 31 ’19 100w

“If she has no ideas about things in general, she has a perpetually
renewed interest in the immediate; it is this, with the firm, easy
texture of her style, and a delicate oddity of perception, which makes
her letters so eminently readable. It is this, but something more; for
of all the qualities named she is perhaps fully conscious; but she
appears admirably unconscious of the qualities of heart and
character she has.” F. W. S.

+ Ath p335 Mr 12 ’20 1100w

 “We think that Miss Dickenson might have suppressed some of the
letters as deficient in interest. But we are grateful to her for
presenting us with some of the best specimens of the lost art of
correspondence.”

+ − Sat R 128:441 N 8 ’19 1100w

“She had the true note of colloquial ease which few people ever
achieve in their letters, and still fewer retain. She gossips
charmingly; her observations on her friends and acquaintances are
not the mere threadbare inanities which can interest only those who
know the persons concerned, but real characteristic illuminative
things which are nearly as pleasant to read now as they were when
they were written eighty or ninety years ago.”

+ Spec 124:179 F 7 ’20 600w

“The judgment of Miss Dickenson’s selections and the unusual

excellence of her materials give the book what we so seldom find in
biographies—construction and artistic purpose.”

+ The Times [London] Lit Sup p627 N 6

’19 950w

EDGINTON, HELEN MARION (MAY

EDGINTON). Married life; or, The true romance.
*$1.75 Small
20–8626
 “May Edginton’s novel begins with the marriage of a pretty, bright,
charming girl who has been earning her own living and a fine,
handsome young man whose salary in an automobile house has been
ample to allow him to spend upon himself with some freedom. The
action carries them rapidly through the rose-colored days of the first
year of married life. By the end of that year they are both beginning
to feel the financial pinch resulting from the necessity of making the
salary that had been enough for one serve the needs of two. Then the
babies begin to arrive and at the end of six years they have three. The
salary that had been little more than enough for one has not been
much increased and it has to be stretched to cover the needs of five.
The husband, under this strain, has grown morose, fault-finding,
resentful, and the wife, with her strength taxed far beyond its
powers, is weary, irritable and hopeless. The author’s solution she
has found solely in the very material one of furnishing them with
enough money to enable the husband to spend as he likes and the
wife to hire a maid, get her hands manicured and buy some new
clothes.”—N Y Times

“Why force an obviously false ending to a tale that rings true up to

a certain point?”

− + Boston Transcript p4 Je 9 ’20 250w

“The author tells the first part of her story with much realistic
detail and with color and vivacity.... The story is the expression of a
purely material and selfish ideal of life.”

+ − N Y Times 25:308 Je 13 ’20 440w

EDIE, LIONEL D., ed. Current social and

industrial forces; introd. by James Harvey Robinson.
*$2.50 Boni & Liveright 330
20–3781

“Essays from a number of radical and liberal English and

American writers, which reveal the fundamental causes of unrest and
propose some plans of action. Some of the authors represented are:
Veblen, Sidney Webb, Meyer Bloomfield, J. A. Hobson, J. Laurence
Laughlin, Bertrand Russell, Helen Marot, Emil Vandervelde, Walter
Lippmann, Norman Angell, H. G. Wells and John Dewey. There are
also numerous reports from various commissions of both the British
and American governments and of organizations of employers and
workers.” (Booklist) “The book grew out of the compiler’s need for a
textbook in his courses on current historical forces at Colgate
university. The selections are grouped under the headings: Forces of
disturbance, Potentialities of production, The price system, The
direction of industry, The funds of reorganization, The power and
policy of organized labor, Proposed plans of action, Industrial
doctrines in defense of the status quo, and The possibilities of social
service.” (Survey)

Am Econ R 10:571 S ’20 70w

Reviewed by R. F. Clark

+ Am J Soc 26:367 N ’20 240w

“Should be very valuable to the student and to the more thoughtful

reader.”
 + Booklist 16:261 My ’20
+ − Cath World 111:681 Ag ’20 420w

“The excerpts and reprints are skilfully grouped, so that the reader
—for the book can be read as well as consulted—can grasp the
material handily. The selections are made without prejudice.”

+ Dial 69:213 Ag ’20 80w

Reviewed by Ordway Tead

+ New Repub 25:210 Ja 12 ’21 60w

“Prof. Edie has rendered a real service by gathering into well-

related chapters some of the most illuminating discussions of a large
number of modern writers on social topics.” H: P. Fairchild

+ N Y Evening Post p16 Ap 24 ’20 900w

“It is every citizen’s duty to be informed on these subjects, and

Professor Edie puts the information within the reach of any who wish
it.”

+ N Y Times p29 Ag 22 ’20 340w

“In this symposium one gets many and variously colored and
confusing glimpses of industrial and social movements, but no
comprehensive view of any single subject and no consistent
coördination or interpretation.” J. E. Le Rossignol
 + − Review 3:504 N 24 ’20 300w
+ Survey 44:312 My 29 ’20 280w

“The book gives a useful conspectus of radical thought—but it

scarcely deals at all with ‘current social and industrial forces.’” W: E.
Walling

+ − Yale R n s 10:218 O ’20 380w

EDMAN, IRWIN. Human traits and their social

significance. *$3 Houghton 301
20–17674

Throughout the long process of civilization two factors have

remained constant, says the author: nature and human nature. The
only change with regard to the one has been in our increasing power
of control of nature through increasing knowledge. And the only
difference between the man of today and the primitive savage is in
the control of the native biological impulses that the civilized man
has achieved through education, religion and morals. It is the aim of
the book to indicate man’s simple inborn impulses and outstanding
human traits and the factors which must be taken into account if
they are to be controlled in the interest of human welfare.
Accordingly the book falls into two parts: Social psychology; and The
career of reason. Types of human behavior and their social
significance, basic human activities and crucial traits in social life,
and the racial and cultural continuity are among the subjects
considered in part one. Part two contains: Religion and the religious
experience; Art and æsthetic experience; Science and scientific
method; Morals and moral valuation. There is an index.
 “There are but few books of only 467 pages that contain so much
information as this one. Written as an introduction to contemporary
civilization and intended for freshmen, it clarifies questions at whose
profundity Plato would have been disheartened. If the freshman of
today can digest even a small portion of this book colleges are
progressing, while for a man comparatively advanced in years, and
with interests as universal as those of Leonardo da Vinci, it would be
a handy manual.”

− + N Y Evening Post p10 N 27 ’20 250w

EDWARDS, A. HERBAGE. Paris through an

attic. *$3 Dutton 914.4
19–19896

“Paris, ever fascinating and ever fresh, was seen in the days before
the war from a new angle, by a delightful young couple, with a thin
family purse. An income of 350 dollars a year sufficed their needs.
Where they lived, and how they lived is told by the feminine half of
this pair of adventurers. The young couple attended the Sorbonne.
Sundays and holidays are treated in an account of how Paris amuses
itself. All these happenings, and many others, fill the space of two
years, and the pages of the book, up to the eventful day when Richard
receives his title, ‘Docteur de l’Universite de Paris.’”—Boston
Transcript

“The section on the students and the university reveals aspects of

French life not ordinarily found in books of travel.”

+ Booklist 17:27 O ’20