Constitutional Aspects of FTAs: A Colombian Perspective

• Author: Andrea Parra,Angelika Rettberg,Philippe De Lombaerde,Juan Felipe Ortiz Riomalo,Liliana Lizarazo Rodríguez
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12108
• Date: 01 November 2014
• Published date: 01 November 2014

Constitutional Aspects of FTAs:

A Colombian Perspective

Liliana Lizarazo Rodríguez,* Philippe De Lombaerde,**

Juan Felipe Ortiz Riomalo,*** Andrea Parra**** and

Angelika Rettberg*****

Abstract: Colombia has recently negotiated trade agreements with the EU, the US and

some other countries. This article explores the compatibility of these agreements with

constitutional rights in Colombia, by looking at recent case-law of Colombian courts.

This Andean country is, in our view, a particularly interesting case because of the

coincidence of a new constitutional context (with, on the one hand, an important rights

catalogue and new instruments to protect fundamental rights, and on the other hand,

liberal economic principles), a Constitutional Court with activist features and a particu-

lar socio-political situation.

I Introduction

In the slipstream of most Latin American countries, Colombia implemented trade

liberalisation policies in the early 1990s.1These policies were part of broader eco-

nomic and institutional reforms which coincided with political developments (partial

peace processes) and the adoption of a new Political Constitution (PC) in 1991. The

programme of economic opening-up (apertura) was conceived as a gradual pro-

gramme in the 1980s,2but it was accelerated from 1991. Trade liberalisation was

accompanied by the liberalisation of the labour market, the foreign exchange market,

capital f‌lows, trade in services and by a re-orientation of monetary policy. Colombia

* Independent Legal Advisor, Belgium.

** Associate Director, United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional Integration

Studies, Bruges, Belgium.

*** MA student in Economics, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.

**** Doctoral candidate, Université de Liège, Belgium.

***** Associate Professor, Political Science Department, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.

The authors thank Julie Pérez for research assistance, in the preparation of the Annex, as well as

Mariana Gutiérrez and Susana Sierra (students at the Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá).

1M.R. Agosín and R. French-Davis, ‘La liberalización comercial en América Latina’, (1993) Revista de la

CEPAL 50, 41–62, 44; A. Franco and P. De Lombaerde, Las empresas multinacionales latinoamericanas.

El caso de la inversión colombiana directa en Ecuador, México, Perú y Venezuela (Tercer Mundo, 2000),

at 36.

2L.J. Garay, Apertura y protección: evaluación de la política de importaciones (Tercer Mundo, 1991);

J.A. Ocampo, ‘La internacionalización de la economía colombiana’, in M. Urrutia (ed.), Colombia ante

la economía mundial (Tercer Mundo, 1993), at 17–65, 45.

bs_bs_banner

European Law Journal, Vol. 20, No. 6, November 2014, pp. 824–847.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

also pushed for a deepening of the Andean integration process and signed a free trade

agreement (FTA) with Mexico and Venezuela (G-3). Since then, a combination of

economic and trade policy instruments has been implemented, including relatively

successful trade promotion policies and the active pursuit of the negotiation of FTAs

to secure market access.3,4

Trade relations with the EU were and are typically governed by wider agreements

consisting of three pillars: trade, political dialogue and cooperation.5And consistent

with the interregional negotiation strategy of the EU,6adopted since the Rio Summit

of 1999, the negotiations of an Association Agreement with the Andean Community

(CAN) were announced at the Vienna Summit in 2006. However, when the CAN

negotiation block disintegrated in 2008 (as Bolivia and Ecuador abandoned the

process), and taking into account that the trade pillar was fundamental to the remain-

ing countries, it were Colombia and Peru that convinced the EU to change its

negotiation mandate and to accept the negotiation of bilateral trade agreements.7This

way, the EU moved away from its characteristic interregionalist strategy, with a

strong region-building component,8in the direction of the ‘new bilateralism’.9The

negotiations of the Colombia/Peru-EU FTA started after the signature of the

Colombia-US FTA and both processes are clearly linked.10 At the EU-Latin America

and the Caribbean (LAC) Summit in Madrid, the negotiations formally concluded11

and the treaty was signed in June 2012, and approved by the European Parliament on

11 December 2012; the Colombian Congress approved the treaty by Law 1669/2013.

Before the entry into force of the treaty, trade relations were—since 2006—governed

by the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)-plus system, based on Regulation

(CE) 980/2005, which was aimed at giving privileged access to products originating in

certain countries that are able to demonstrate that they adhere to UN and Interna-

tional Labour Organization (ILO) rules on human and labour rights, environment

3P. Ochoa, ‘Export Promotion Policies and Instruments in Colombia’, (1998) 2 Integration & Trade 4/5,

133–145; C. Volpe, Odyssey in International Markets. An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Export

Promotion in Latin America and the Caribbean (IADB, 2010); P. De Lombaerde and L. Lizarazo,

‘Fine-Tuning Export Promotion Policies in Colombia’, in M. Dumont and G. Rayp (eds), International

Business, Not as Usual (Garant, 2011), at 117–135.

4Colombia started to negotiate FTAs with Turkey in 2011, and Japan in 2012.

5Parlement Européen, «Négociation d’un accord d’association entre l’Union européenne et la

Communauté andine», Recommandation du Parlement européen du 15 mars 2007 à l’intention du

Conseil sur le mandat de négociation d’un accord d’association entre l’Union européenne et ses États

membres, d’une part, et la Communauté andine et ses pays membres, d’autre part, Bruxelles (2007),

C301E, 13/12.

6S. Santander, Le régionalisme sud-américain, l’Union européenne et les États-Unis (Editions de l’ULB,

2008), at 192.

7A. Parra, ‘El interregionalismo europeo y la integración regional latinoamericana’, (2010) 6 Entramado

2, 96–105.

8P. De Lombaerde, G. Pietrangeli and M. Schulz, ‘EU Support to Latin American Regionalism’, in C.

Franck, J.-C. Defraigne and V. de Moriamé (eds), The European Union and the Rise of Regionalism

(Bruylant, 2009), 247–261; G. Pietrangeli, ‘Supporting Regional Integration and Cooperation World-

wide: An Overview of the European Union Approach’, in P. De Lombaerde and M. Schulz (eds), The

EU and World Regionalism. The Makability of Regions in the 21st Century (Ashgate, 2010), at 9–43.

9K. Heydon and S. Woolcock, The Rise of Bilateralism. Comparing American, European and Asian

Approaches to Preferential Trade Agreements (UNU Press, 2009).

10 J. Altmann, F. Rojas and T. Beirute, Europe-Amérique latine et Caraïbes: bilatéralisme vs

bi-régionalisme? Construction d’un nouveau rapprochement stratégique (FLACSO, 2010).

11 Comisión Europea, Acuerdo comercial entre la Unión Europea (2011), available at http://trade.ec

.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=694&serie=409&langId=es, 22/12.

November 2014 Constitutional Aspects of FTAs

825

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.