Strengthening US-EU Cooperation on Technical Standards in an Era of Strategic Competition
Transatlantic ties have had a rough go in recent months. After an unprecedented degree of alignment on Russia in the first half of 2022, including the quick and efficient rollout of a series of groundbreaking sanctions packages, the United States and Europe stepped back into dispute territory with the fallout from measures taken by Washington, notably some key provisions of the pathbreaking Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed last summer.
This has again strained transatlantic cooperation and affected the potential for US-EU alignment, particularly around China and technology and trade issues. Recent US actions have amplified the divide between “Atlanticists” and “strategic autonomists” and made it harder for Europe to follow in Washington’s footsteps on, for example, export controls or outbound investment screening. Even though both issues are on the table, as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen confirmed in her recent China speech, coordinated moves on these fronts could now be seen as bowing to US pressure in a context of perceived green-technology unilateralism.
Against this background, the December 2022 US-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC) meeting can be seen as a missed opportunity. The TTC had, starting in September 2021, a productive and collaborative first year, but recently some of the most relevant transatlantic discussions have been happening outside the council’s framework. These include negotiations on IRA interpretation and carve-outs, and on export controls on semiconductor technology.
International technical standards, however, is one key aspect of transatlantic cooperation that is moving forward on a strong footing, with significant implications. Over the past 18 months of TTC work, the two sides have managed to build a solid foundation for engagement on the topic, from increased information sharing to the identification of key sectors for collaboration to fruitful collective action on recent International Telecommunications Union (ITU) leadership elections. This happened despite longstanding disagreements on ways to approach international standards development, the role of “harmonized standards”, for instance in the context of the EU’s regulatory framework for artificial intelligence (AI), and US criticism of the EU’s new standardization strategy.
Sometimes overlooked, collaboration on international technical standards is important in the current context of heightened technological competition. A highly technical workstream, international technical standards play a key role in defining future technological pathways. China’s increasing involvement in global standard setting makes transatlantic cooperation in the field crucial and increases the need for a common, strategic approach. Without careful coordination, there is a risk that the current, broad-based pushback against China could spill into the standards sphere and impede the important work of global standards organizations. There is, therefore, a need to strike a balance between strategic competition and an interest-driven approach that can ultimately uphold the benefits of collaborative global standards development.
On the heels of the G7 summit in Hiroshima, and ahead of the next TTC meeting in Sweden on May 30-31, both of which have international technical standards on their agendas, we lay out the case for why and how the United States and the EU can build on achievements in this area to maintain constructive engagement and attain concrete, ambitious results. We begin by explaining why preserving global technical standards is crucial to economic competitiveness and strategic objectives on both sides of the Atlantic (Part 2) and explore China’s increased involvement in the field (Part 3) before laying out six avenues for continued transatlantic cooperation on technical standards (Part 4).
>>> Download the article on GMF's website.
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
Japan’s Energy Policy after Hormuz. Security, Competitiveness, and Decarbonization
The 2026 Hormuz crisis has strengthened rather than weakened the rationale for Japan’s decarbonization strategy, contrary to what might have been expected. Rather than energy policy supplanting climate policy, the two should actually be viewed as inseparable.
Japan and Nuclear Weapons: Between Extended Deterrence and Normative Dilemmas
Since the late 1950s, Japan’s nuclear weapons policy has been based on the coexistence of two competing normative rationales: the rejection of nuclear weapons, rooted in the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the recognition of the central role of US extended nuclear deterrence for Japan’s security.
Japan’s Defense Industry Goes Global: Ambitions and Challenges
Fragmented Europe: Dealing with China as a technology and innovation power
How is Europe navigating China’s ascension as a technological power? The latest report by the European Think-tank Network on China (ETNC) provides a nuanced account of a converging, yet still fragmented approach across 22 countries.