The Indian Finance Act, 2016 has introduced an equalisation levy on online advertising services with effect from June, 2016. The Report on Digital Economy as part of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project has articulated the concerns of various countries across the world about the ease with which businesses that make the digital economy escape a taxing presence in the countries from where they earn their revenues as well as their "home" countries. This article examines whether or not this equalisation levy is in accordance with the non-discrimination provisions in the double tax conventions as well as the WTO Agreements, more particularly, the General Agreement on Trade in services (GATS).
{"title":"Equalisation Levy – Applicability of Non-Discrimination Rules in International Agreements","authors":"Ganesh Rajgopalan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2815109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2815109","url":null,"abstract":"The Indian Finance Act, 2016 has introduced an equalisation levy on online advertising services with effect from June, 2016. The Report on Digital Economy as part of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project has articulated the concerns of various countries across the world about the ease with which businesses that make the digital economy escape a taxing presence in the countries from where they earn their revenues as well as their \"home\" countries. This article examines whether or not this equalisation levy is in accordance with the non-discrimination provisions in the double tax conventions as well as the WTO Agreements, more particularly, the General Agreement on Trade in services (GATS).","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114629099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Customary international law affirms the obligation of the host state to protect foreign investors by according the minimum standard of treatment of foreign investors. These become well-established principles of fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security in foreign investment law. Led by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), investment protection provisions are heavily negotiated in modern FTAs. The jurisprudence of investment protection in early FTAs, namely NAFTA, relied on principles of customary international law as the texts of agreements did not contain definitions or exemplification to the principles. A number of mega-FTAs, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) bring about changes in the minimum standard of treatment of foreign investors. In contrast to a principle-led approach, the minimum standard of treatment terms are more clearly defined in recent mega-FTAs. The fair and equitable treatment term in the TPP, for example, includes the obligation not to deny justice in criminal, civil or administrative adjudicatory proceedings in accordance with the principle of due process embodied in the principal legal systems of the world. The proposed TTIP provides that a breach of the fair and equitable include a targeted discrimination on manifestly wrongful grounds, such as gender, race or religious belief. The paper proposes that there has clearly been a shift in the minimum standard of treatment clause from the principle-based approach to the rule-based approach in recent mega-FTAs. On the one hand, the rule-based provisions in the new mega-FTAs could limit the scope of ordinary principles of customary international law and negate from a long-held jurisprudence in foreign investment law. On the other, the rule-based provisions could manifest the intention of parties to be bound by obligations provided by agreements and limit the expansive view of tribunals in applying the principle.
{"title":"Development of Rule-Based Investment Protection Provisions in Mega-FTAs: A Manifestation or a Negation from Customary International Law Principles?","authors":"Prapanpong Khumon","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2801917","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2801917","url":null,"abstract":"Customary international law affirms the obligation of the host state to protect foreign investors by according the minimum standard of treatment of foreign investors. These become well-established principles of fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security in foreign investment law. Led by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), investment protection provisions are heavily negotiated in modern FTAs. The jurisprudence of investment protection in early FTAs, namely NAFTA, relied on principles of customary international law as the texts of agreements did not contain definitions or exemplification to the principles. A number of mega-FTAs, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) bring about changes in the minimum standard of treatment of foreign investors. In contrast to a principle-led approach, the minimum standard of treatment terms are more clearly defined in recent mega-FTAs. The fair and equitable treatment term in the TPP, for example, includes the obligation not to deny justice in criminal, civil or administrative adjudicatory proceedings in accordance with the principle of due process embodied in the principal legal systems of the world. The proposed TTIP provides that a breach of the fair and equitable include a targeted discrimination on manifestly wrongful grounds, such as gender, race or religious belief. The paper proposes that there has clearly been a shift in the minimum standard of treatment clause from the principle-based approach to the rule-based approach in recent mega-FTAs. On the one hand, the rule-based provisions in the new mega-FTAs could limit the scope of ordinary principles of customary international law and negate from a long-held jurisprudence in foreign investment law. On the other, the rule-based provisions could manifest the intention of parties to be bound by obligations provided by agreements and limit the expansive view of tribunals in applying the principle.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"52 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133322204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper asks how countries can implement their commitments to limit the increase in the global average temperature under the recent Paris Agreement on Climate Change for agriculture. An initial examination of the relevant trade rules and case law indicates that they appear unable to legally secure the necessary differentiation of products and services according to their climate footprint. Indeed, the main purpose of the multilateral trade rules framework is to combat discrimination. This compatibility issue is compounded by the development dimension: while poor developing countries and poor farmers have always been and remain the least significant greenhouse gas emitters in absolute terms, they are among the most severely affected by, and the least resilient to climate change. This means that their food security is perhaps the gravest equity issue in the whole climate change discussion. Climate change therefore appears as a new, major and highly complex cause of (additional) food insecurity. The paper finds that contrary to the official discourse of ‘mutual supportiveness’ between trade and environment agreements, WTO rules and commitments can actually prevent climate action, for agriculture generally as well as with specific solutions for the development dimension. ‘Paris’ thus requires a comprehensive, careful and urgent review of the relevant agricultural trade and investment rules – and a number of adjustments commensurate with the multiple challenges of global warming.
{"title":"WTO Rules Can Prevent Climate Change Mitigation for Agriculture","authors":"C. Häberli","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2800011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2800011","url":null,"abstract":"This paper asks how countries can implement their commitments to limit the increase in the global average temperature under the recent Paris Agreement on Climate Change for agriculture. An initial examination of the relevant trade rules and case law indicates that they appear unable to legally secure the necessary differentiation of products and services according to their climate footprint. Indeed, the main purpose of the multilateral trade rules framework is to combat discrimination. This compatibility issue is compounded by the development dimension: while poor developing countries and poor farmers have always been and remain the least significant greenhouse gas emitters in absolute terms, they are among the most severely affected by, and the least resilient to climate change. This means that their food security is perhaps the gravest equity issue in the whole climate change discussion. Climate change therefore appears as a new, major and highly complex cause of (additional) food insecurity. The paper finds that contrary to the official discourse of ‘mutual supportiveness’ between trade and environment agreements, WTO rules and commitments can actually prevent climate action, for agriculture generally as well as with specific solutions for the development dimension. ‘Paris’ thus requires a comprehensive, careful and urgent review of the relevant agricultural trade and investment rules – and a number of adjustments commensurate with the multiple challenges of global warming.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132185714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article proposes to recast a big part of international trade law as behavioural regulation. The Sanitary and Phytosanitary and Technical Barriers to Trade Agreements of the World Trade Organisation include provisions on disclosure of better information, on legal default rules and on debiasing through law that are similar to the ones proposed in the Behavioural Law and Economics literature to nudge governments towards specific directions. This happens even in the absence of a (centralised) social planner. The article further aims to use behavioural trade regulation to draw some general lessons for Behavioural Law and Economics; most importantly, to show that nudging may have a libertarian rather than a paternalistic result. Finally, the paper proposes that behavioural regulation should be complemented by learning facilities to debias government institutions and lead to social and institutional learning.
本文建议将国际贸易法的很大一部分重新塑造为行为规范。世界贸易组织(wto)的《卫生、植物检疫和技术贸易壁垒协定》(Sanitary and Phytosanitary and Technical Barriers to Trade Agreements)包括了有关披露更好信息、法律违约规则和通过法律消除偏见的条款，这些条款类似于行为法和经济学文献中提出的、旨在推动政府向特定方向发展的条款。即使在没有(集中的)社会计划者的情况下，这种情况也会发生。本文进一步旨在利用行为交易规制为行为法学和经济学提供一些普遍的借鉴;最重要的是，这表明轻推可能会产生自由意志主义而不是家长式的结果。最后，本文提出行为监管应辅以学习设施，以消除政府机构的偏见，并导致社会和制度学习。
{"title":"Behavioural International Trade Law","authors":"G. Dimitropoulos","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2799528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2799528","url":null,"abstract":"This article proposes to recast a big part of international trade law as behavioural regulation. The Sanitary and Phytosanitary and Technical Barriers to Trade Agreements of the World Trade Organisation include provisions on disclosure of better information, on legal default rules and on debiasing through law that are similar to the ones proposed in the Behavioural Law and Economics literature to nudge governments towards specific directions. This happens even in the absence of a (centralised) social planner. The article further aims to use behavioural trade regulation to draw some general lessons for Behavioural Law and Economics; most importantly, to show that nudging may have a libertarian rather than a paternalistic result. Finally, the paper proposes that behavioural regulation should be complemented by learning facilities to debias government institutions and lead to social and institutional learning.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"31 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117047279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The WTO Appellate Body (AB) has produced a volume-wise important body of case law, which is often difficult to penetrate, never mind classify. Howse (2016) has attempted a very lucid taxonomy of the case law using the standard of review as benchmark for it. His conclusion is that the AB is quite cautious when facing nondiscriminatory measures, especially measures relating to the protection of human life and health, while it has adopted a more intrusive (into national sovereignty) standard when dealing with trade measures (like antidumping), which are by definition discriminatory as they concern imports only. In my response, I share his basic conclusion with no buts and ifs. I simply add that this approach is not the outcome of a process that mandates this standard of review, but simply a political (e.g., nonlegal) reaction aimed at placating its clientele, the WTO membership.
{"title":"The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight: The Not so Magnificent Seven of the WTO Appellate Body","authors":"P. Mavroidis","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2849008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2849008","url":null,"abstract":"The WTO Appellate Body (AB) has produced a volume-wise important body of case law, which is often difficult to penetrate, never mind classify. Howse (2016) has attempted a very lucid taxonomy of the case law using the standard of review as benchmark for it. His conclusion is that the AB is quite cautious when facing nondiscriminatory measures, especially measures relating to the protection of human life and health, while it has adopted a more intrusive (into national sovereignty) standard when dealing with trade measures (like antidumping), which are by definition discriminatory as they concern imports only. In my response, I share his basic conclusion with no buts and ifs. I simply add that this approach is not the outcome of a process that mandates this standard of review, but simply a political (e.g., nonlegal) reaction aimed at placating its clientele, the WTO membership.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124376714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It has long been established in theory that uncertainty impacts on firm behaviour. However, the empirical basis for quantifying the uncertainty-reducing effects of trade agreements has not been firmly established. In this paper, we develop estimates of the effect of reducing uncertainty regarding market access on cross-border services trade by making commitments that are bound under a trade agreement. Specifically, we identify the effect of services trade restrictions on cross-border services trade, as measured by the OECD’s Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI), and the separate effect of “water” in countries’ WTO bindings, as assessed by the difference between their commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services and their applied level of market access, as captured by their STRI scores. Using a gravity model, we find that services trade responds positively but inelastically to reductions in services trade barriers, as measured by the STRI, and that the response to actual restrictions is about twice as strong as the response to comparable reductions in uncertainty, as measured by water. Responses are highly heterogeneous across services sectors. We suggest how these results can be used provisionally to quantitatively assess the impact of trade agreements in CGE modelling frameworks, taking into account not only actual liberalization of market access terms and conditions, but also the extent of binding of those commitments.
{"title":"Quantifying Services-Trade Liberalization: The Impact of Binding Commitments","authors":"Dan Ciuriak, Dmitry Lysenko","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2730265","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2730265","url":null,"abstract":"It has long been established in theory that uncertainty impacts on firm behaviour. However, the empirical basis for quantifying the uncertainty-reducing effects of trade agreements has not been firmly established. In this paper, we develop estimates of the effect of reducing uncertainty regarding market access on cross-border services trade by making commitments that are bound under a trade agreement. Specifically, we identify the effect of services trade restrictions on cross-border services trade, as measured by the OECD’s Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI), and the separate effect of “water” in countries’ WTO bindings, as assessed by the difference between their commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services and their applied level of market access, as captured by their STRI scores. Using a gravity model, we find that services trade responds positively but inelastically to reductions in services trade barriers, as measured by the STRI, and that the response to actual restrictions is about twice as strong as the response to comparable reductions in uncertainty, as measured by water. Responses are highly heterogeneous across services sectors. We suggest how these results can be used provisionally to quantitatively assess the impact of trade agreements in CGE modelling frameworks, taking into account not only actual liberalization of market access terms and conditions, but also the extent of binding of those commitments.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129612961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alexander Knobel, M. Kazaryan, D. Kuznetsov, V. Sedalishchev, Alexander Firanchuk
The analysis of the agreement on free trade area between Ukraine and the EU and an assessment of the signing of this agreement and the political situation around him will affect the GDP of Russia, Ukraine and the EU, trade flows between the two countries and discussed the risks of termination of cooperation for the individual enterprises of Ukraine and Russia. On the basis of the general equilibrium model, the authors consider the implications for different scenarios of further development of trade relations between Russia and Ukraine. The first scenario is the implementation of the trade agreement on association, namely the zeroing reciprocal duties between the EU and Ukraine. The second scenario is the introduction of CCT EAEC countries in relation to imports from Ukraine, without consideration of the implementation of the commercial part of the association agreement. The third scenario is considering a complete cessation of mutual trade through the introduction of protective (in magnitude) of mutual non-tariff barriers Russia and Ukraine.
{"title":"Экономические Выгоды, Издержки и Риски Для России От Торгово-Экономических Союзов Стран Снг Со Стра-Нами Европы и Сша (Economic Benefits, Costs and Risks for Russia on Trade and Economic Alliances with Countries of CIS, Europe and the USA Contact)","authors":"Alexander Knobel, M. Kazaryan, D. Kuznetsov, V. Sedalishchev, Alexander Firanchuk","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2812159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2812159","url":null,"abstract":"The analysis of the agreement on free trade area between Ukraine and the EU and an assessment of the signing of this agreement and the political situation around him will affect the GDP of Russia, Ukraine and the EU, trade flows between the two countries and discussed the risks of termination of cooperation for the individual enterprises of Ukraine and Russia. On the basis of the general equilibrium model, the authors consider the implications for different scenarios of further development of trade relations between Russia and Ukraine. The first scenario is the implementation of the trade agreement on association, namely the zeroing reciprocal duties between the EU and Ukraine. The second scenario is the introduction of CCT EAEC countries in relation to imports from Ukraine, without consideration of the implementation of the commercial part of the association agreement. The third scenario is considering a complete cessation of mutual trade through the introduction of protective (in magnitude) of mutual non-tariff barriers Russia and Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132241087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
BACKGROUND Negotiations surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade and investment agreement have recently concluded. Although trade and investment agreements, part of a broader shift to global economic integration, have been argued to be vital to improved economic growth, health, and general welfare, these agreements have increasingly come under scrutiny for their direct and indirect health impacts. METHODS We conducted a prospective health impact analysis to identify and assess a selected array of potential health risks of the TPP. We adapted the standard protocol for Health impact assessments (HIAs) (screening, scoping, and appraisal) to our aim of assessing potential health risks of trade and investment policy, and selected a health impact review methodology. This methodology is used to create a summary estimation of the most significant impacts on health of a broad policy or cluster of policies, such as a comprehensive trade and investment agreement. RESULTS Our analysis shows that there are a number of potentially serious health risks associated with the TPP, and details a range of policy implications for the health sector. Of particular focus are the potential implications of changes to intellectual property rights (IPRs), sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), technical barriers to trade (TBT), investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and regulatory coherence provisions on a range of issues, including access to medicines and health services, tobacco and alcohol control, diet-related health, and domestic health policy-making. CONCLUSION We provide a list of policy recommendations to mitigate potential health risks associated with the TPP, and suggest that broad public consultations, including on the health risks of trade and investment agreements, should be part of all trade negotiations.
{"title":"The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is it Everything We Feared for Health?","authors":"R. Labonté, Ashley Schram, Arne Ruckert","doi":"10.15171/ijhpm.2016.41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2016.41","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\u0000Negotiations surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade and investment agreement have recently concluded. Although trade and investment agreements, part of a broader shift to global economic integration, have been argued to be vital to improved economic growth, health, and general welfare, these agreements have increasingly come under scrutiny for their direct and indirect health impacts.\u0000\u0000\u0000METHODS\u0000We conducted a prospective health impact analysis to identify and assess a selected array of potential health risks of the TPP. We adapted the standard protocol for Health impact assessments (HIAs) (screening, scoping, and appraisal) to our aim of assessing potential health risks of trade and investment policy, and selected a health impact review methodology. This methodology is used to create a summary estimation of the most significant impacts on health of a broad policy or cluster of policies, such as a comprehensive trade and investment agreement.\u0000\u0000\u0000RESULTS\u0000Our analysis shows that there are a number of potentially serious health risks associated with the TPP, and details a range of policy implications for the health sector. Of particular focus are the potential implications of changes to intellectual property rights (IPRs), sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), technical barriers to trade (TBT), investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and regulatory coherence provisions on a range of issues, including access to medicines and health services, tobacco and alcohol control, diet-related health, and domestic health policy-making.\u0000\u0000\u0000CONCLUSION\u0000We provide a list of policy recommendations to mitigate potential health risks associated with the TPP, and suggest that broad public consultations, including on the health risks of trade and investment agreements, should be part of all trade negotiations.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"141 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131845549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Due to globalisation and their role as enablers in global value chains, services are playing an increasingly important role in international trade. The supply of services around the world provokes an increased vulnerability to certain barriers, created by differing domestic regulation. This increase is caused by the fact that services are being supplied in various countries, at the same time, which obliges the service supplier to adapt to every country’s domestic regulation regarding his specific service. The need for country-specific adaptation to domestic regulation entails significant (sometimes even prohibitive) costs.The fact that services value chains and services-intermediates have grown immensely has implications for the global economy and the trade barriers that need to be addressed. However, the present normative framework for trade does not adequately deal with the issue of regulatory incoherence. This paper compares the approach taken in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and contrasts its incompleteness with the new provisions in both the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The aim of this paper is to assess whether these two new "deep-RTAs" successfully include new disciplines dealing with regulatory incoherence.
{"title":"Regulatory Cooperation in the WTO and at the Regional Level: What Is Being Achieved by CETA and TPP?","authors":"Ines Willemyns","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2768058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2768058","url":null,"abstract":"Due to globalisation and their role as enablers in global value chains, services are playing an increasingly important role in international trade. The supply of services around the world provokes an increased vulnerability to certain barriers, created by differing domestic regulation. This increase is caused by the fact that services are being supplied in various countries, at the same time, which obliges the service supplier to adapt to every country’s domestic regulation regarding his specific service. The need for country-specific adaptation to domestic regulation entails significant (sometimes even prohibitive) costs.The fact that services value chains and services-intermediates have grown immensely has implications for the global economy and the trade barriers that need to be addressed. However, the present normative framework for trade does not adequately deal with the issue of regulatory incoherence. This paper compares the approach taken in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and contrasts its incompleteness with the new provisions in both the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The aim of this paper is to assess whether these two new \"deep-RTAs\" successfully include new disciplines dealing with regulatory incoherence.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125451333","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The TPP’s investment chapter pursues a reform path within the existing international investment regime that many other states, including the US, support. But the fact that mega-regionals like the TPP may advance the economic and security interests of hegemons does not mean that, on balance, they may not also advance the interests of even small states like New Zealand. Most treaties — and indeed perhaps most of customary international law — have been the product of exercises of asymmetric power games. The TPP is made up of package deals of no less consequence than in the Law of the Sea Convention or on-going efforts to control climate change. It incorporates tradeoffs between regulatory discretion and the benefits anticipated for trade in goods and global value chains. These tradeoffs merit sober reflection.
TPP的投资章节在包括美国在内的许多其他国家支持的现有国际投资体制内寻求改革之路。但是，像TPP这样的大型地区组织可能会促进霸权国家的经济和安全利益，但这并不意味着，总的来说，它们也可能不会促进像新西兰这样的小国的利益。大多数条约——实际上可能还有大多数习惯国际法——都是不对称权力游戏的产物。TPP由一揽子协议组成，其重要性不亚于《海洋法公约》(Law of The Sea Convention)或正在进行的控制气候变化的努力。它包含了监管自由裁量权与货物贸易和全球价值链预期收益之间的权衡。这些权衡值得冷静地思考。
{"title":"Is The Trans-Pacific Partnership's Investment Chapter The New 'Gold Standard'?","authors":"J. Álvarez","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2756145","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2756145","url":null,"abstract":"The TPP’s investment chapter pursues a reform path within the existing international investment regime that many other states, including the US, support. But the fact that mega-regionals like the TPP may advance the economic and security interests of hegemons does not mean that, on balance, they may not also advance the interests of even small states like New Zealand. Most treaties — and indeed perhaps most of customary international law — have been the product of exercises of asymmetric power games. The TPP is made up of package deals of no less consequence than in the Law of the Sea Convention or on-going efforts to control climate change. It incorporates tradeoffs between regulatory discretion and the benefits anticipated for trade in goods and global value chains. These tradeoffs merit sober reflection.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121116552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：