On 26 September 2014 the European Union and Canada announced the conclusion of the negotiations of a new agreement that would open the doors for new business opportunities and enhanced economic co-operation, creating a trade bridge between two economic powers. The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a secondgeneration agreement, since it is not merely focused on the abolition of tariffs but more properly on the abolition of nontariff barriers. The agreement also contains innovative stateto-state dispute settlement provisions. The purpose of this article is to analyze these provisions but also to underline the extent to which they represent an innovation in comparison with the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). In order to do so, the article offers an overview of the major salient issues on dispute settlement in preferential trade agreements as well as on the EU-Canada CETA state-to-state dispute settlement provisions and compares the latter to the WTO DSU. The analysis sheds light on the rather more simple nature of the EU-Canada CETA dispute settlement chapter compared to that of the WTO DSU because of the absence of an appellate review stage, which will probably be balanced by a more incisive role for the CETA Joint Committee. The analysis of the contours of the dispute settlement chapter of the CETA concludes with the identification of the major similarities with the WTO DSU but also by identifying the major improvements in the EUCanada CETA, if compared with the WTO DSU. Ultimately, this article shows how CETA has reinforced the economic partnership between the European Union and Canada without disregarding civil society participation and transparency in the dispute settlement phase.
{"title":"State-to-State Dispute Settlement Provisions in the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.","authors":"P. Pusceddu","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3392474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3392474","url":null,"abstract":"On 26 September 2014 the European Union and Canada announced the conclusion of the negotiations of a new agreement that would open the doors for new business opportunities and enhanced economic co-operation, creating a trade bridge between two economic powers. The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a secondgeneration agreement, since it is not merely focused on the abolition of tariffs but more properly on the abolition of nontariff barriers. The agreement also contains innovative stateto-state dispute settlement provisions. The purpose of this article is to analyze these provisions but also to underline the extent to which they represent an innovation in comparison with the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). In order to do so, the article offers an overview of the major salient issues on dispute settlement in preferential trade agreements as well as on the EU-Canada CETA state-to-state dispute settlement provisions and compares the latter to the WTO DSU. The analysis sheds light on the rather more simple nature of the EU-Canada CETA dispute settlement chapter compared to that of the WTO DSU because of the absence of an appellate review stage, which will probably be balanced by a more incisive role for the CETA Joint Committee. The analysis of the contours of the dispute settlement chapter of the CETA concludes with the identification of the major similarities with the WTO DSU but also by identifying the major improvements in the EUCanada CETA, if compared with the WTO DSU. Ultimately, this article shows how CETA has reinforced the economic partnership between the European Union and Canada without disregarding civil society participation and transparency in the dispute settlement phase.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"63 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":"127140642","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 chapter analyzes the provisions to improve regulatory discretion of member States included in regional investment agreement of the Asia-Pacific region. The analysis will be limited to the regional agreements only, excluding the Bilateral Investment Treaties which, in general, do not contain relevant derogatory provisions. In this context, a central role is played by the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) that, since 1987, promoted the conclusion of an Investment Guarantee Agreement among the 6 States at the time members of ASEAN. However, only after the conclusion of the ASEAN Charter in 2008, which provided a more solid institutional profile to ASEAN as well as the international legal personality, ASEAN concluded a number of investment agreements: the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (among ASEAN members), and a number of agreements with third countries (China, Korea, Australia and New Zealand). All the agreements are focused exclusively on investment, with the exception of the agreement with Australia and New Zealand, which is part of a more comprehensive free trade agreement.
{"title":"The Protection of General Interests of Host States in Regional Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Area","authors":"C. Dordi, Yen Trinh","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2706281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2706281","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyzes the provisions to improve regulatory discretion of member States included in regional investment agreement of the Asia-Pacific region. The analysis will be limited to the regional agreements only, excluding the Bilateral Investment Treaties which, in general, do not contain relevant derogatory provisions. In this context, a central role is played by the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) that, since 1987, promoted the conclusion of an Investment Guarantee Agreement among the 6 States at the time members of ASEAN. However, only after the conclusion of the ASEAN Charter in 2008, which provided a more solid institutional profile to ASEAN as well as the international legal personality, ASEAN concluded a number of investment agreements: the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (among ASEAN members), and a number of agreements with third countries (China, Korea, Australia and New Zealand). All the agreements are focused exclusively on investment, with the exception of the agreement with Australia and New Zealand, which is part of a more comprehensive free trade agreement.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132550841","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 importance of services to Canada’s economy is often lost in the discussion of how Canada can take advantage of trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In this Commentary, we look to close this gap with respect to the vital financial services sector. In order to determine the countries that Canada should target as realistic priorities in trade negotiations – with a focus on financial services – we ranked markets from the viewpoint of both economic attractiveness and the feasibility of concluding negotiations. We find that Canada’s first priority, which exploits Canada’s advantages in financial services, should be to ratify the TPP, as many of the countries ranked high on our list are involved in this agreement. Next, Canada should respond to China’s still outstanding offer to negotiate a trade agreement. In addition, we should build on our existing agreements and reinvigorate negotiations with Latin America, as well as with India, and engage with ASEAN nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. While not an exhaustive list, successful liberalization of financial services in these markets would bring significant gains to the Canadian financial sector and economy as a whole. This conclusion is supported by our empirical analysis of three liberalization scenarios – one the TPP as recently signed; second, a Canada-China comprehensive trade agreement that assumes, however, only minimal direct liberalization of financial services; and last an exercise in liberalizing only financial services with some key markets. From this wide range of scenarios, we find gains for Canada’s financial services sector to liberalizing trade. These gains come from the overall positive impact on economic growth of trade agreements, from any actual reduction to barriers affecting financial services, assumed to be fairly modest in all cases, and from the reduction of uncertainty that results from the “binding” of these barriers at levels much lower than what countries are allowed to impose under World Trade Organization rules.
{"title":"Opening Up New Trade Routes for Financial Services: Canada's Priorities","authors":"Daniel Schwanen, Dan Ciuriak, Jeremy M. Kronick","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2701935","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2701935","url":null,"abstract":"The importance of services to Canada’s economy is often lost in the discussion of how Canada can take advantage of trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In this Commentary, we look to close this gap with respect to the vital financial services sector. In order to determine the countries that Canada should target as realistic priorities in trade negotiations – with a focus on financial services – we ranked markets from the viewpoint of both economic attractiveness and the feasibility of concluding negotiations. We find that Canada’s first priority, which exploits Canada’s advantages in financial services, should be to ratify the TPP, as many of the countries ranked high on our list are involved in this agreement. Next, Canada should respond to China’s still outstanding offer to negotiate a trade agreement. In addition, we should build on our existing agreements and reinvigorate negotiations with Latin America, as well as with India, and engage with ASEAN nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. While not an exhaustive list, successful liberalization of financial services in these markets would bring significant gains to the Canadian financial sector and economy as a whole. This conclusion is supported by our empirical analysis of three liberalization scenarios – one the TPP as recently signed; second, a Canada-China comprehensive trade agreement that assumes, however, only minimal direct liberalization of financial services; and last an exercise in liberalizing only financial services with some key markets. From this wide range of scenarios, we find gains for Canada’s financial services sector to liberalizing trade. These gains come from the overall positive impact on economic growth of trade agreements, from any actual reduction to barriers affecting financial services, assumed to be fairly modest in all cases, and from the reduction of uncertainty that results from the “binding” of these barriers at levels much lower than what countries are allowed to impose under World Trade Organization rules.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121558011","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}
In this paper, we report findings on whether trade and investment agreements that allow for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) contribute to regulatory chill. The study focused on whether ISDS contributed to changes in internal vetting of government decisions related to environmental protection in the province of Ontario, Canada. Our main source of information was confidential interviews with insiders, mostly current or former officials in ministries with an environmental or trade mandate. We aimed to advance understanding of litigation risk and government decision-making with a focus on ISDS.
{"title":"Investment Treaties and the Internal Vetting of Regulatory Proposals: A Case Study from Canada","authors":"Gus van Harten, D. Scott","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2700238","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2700238","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we report findings on whether trade and investment agreements that allow for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) contribute to regulatory chill. The study focused on whether ISDS contributed to changes in internal vetting of government decisions related to environmental protection in the province of Ontario, Canada. Our main source of information was confidential interviews with insiders, mostly current or former officials in ministries with an environmental or trade mandate. We aimed to advance understanding of litigation risk and government decision-making with a focus on ISDS.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122715050","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}
French Abstract: Cette chronique fait un tour d’horizon des principaux faits intéressant le Canada en matière d’investissement étranger en ce qui concerne sa pratique conventionnelle, les différends relatifs aux investissements et la politique gouvernementale. L’année 2014 a été marquée surtout par la publication du texte complet de l’accord de principe intervenu entre les négociateurs de l’Accord économique et commercial global entre le Canada et l’Union européenne (AECG), dont le chapitre sur l’investissement fait l'objet d'une analyse détaillée. English Abstract: This paper gives an overview of essential developments in international investment law regarding Canada in 2014. Treaty practice, disputes and governmental policy are all analysed. The main development is the publication of the complete text of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union. The investment chapter of CETA is reviewed in details.
英语摘要:本专栏概述了加拿大在外国投资方面的主要发展，包括其传统做法、投资争端和政府政策。2014年主要由全文公布了原则上达成协议的谈判者之间的全球经贸协定,加拿大和欧盟之间(AECG),其中有一章详细分析投资对象。英语摘要:本文概述了2014年加拿大国际投资法的主要发展情况。对条约惯例、争端和政府政策进行了分析。手development is The of The complete text出版《综合经济与贸易协定》(CETA) between Canada and The European Union)。对CETA的投资章节进行了详细审查。
{"title":"Investissement (Investment)","authors":"Charles-Emmanuel Côté","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2653493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2653493","url":null,"abstract":"<b>French Abstract:</b> Cette chronique fait un tour d’horizon des principaux faits intéressant le Canada en matière d’investissement étranger en ce qui concerne sa pratique conventionnelle, les différends relatifs aux investissements et la politique gouvernementale. L’année 2014 a été marquée surtout par la publication du texte complet de l’accord de principe intervenu entre les négociateurs de l’Accord économique et commercial global entre le Canada et l’Union européenne (AECG), dont le chapitre sur l’investissement fait l'objet d'une analyse détaillée. <b>English Abstract:</b> This paper gives an overview of essential developments in international investment law regarding Canada in 2014. Treaty practice, disputes and governmental policy are all analysed. The main development is the publication of the complete text of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union. The investment chapter of CETA is reviewed in details.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134531900","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 European Union (EU) aspires to conclude and ratify comprehensive trade agreements with Canada, Singapore, the USA and other States containing investment chapters which also provide for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). Surprisingly, the conditions and limits stipulated by the Treaties upon which the European Union is founded, i.e. the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), have received only selective attention. When it comes to the establishment of dispute resolution bodies in international agreements concluded by the EU the concept of autonomy of EU law has proven to be the crucial touchstone. The role of this concept, mainly developed in a series of opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in limiting the Union’s leeway to subject itself to the current model of investor-State arbitration has so far not sufficiently been explored. This paper suggests that, in the light of recent decisions, it is not a purely theoretical possibility that the CJEU might take issue with the scope of ISDS currently contained in the CETA Text and similar draft treaties. The means available to sufficiently address the conditions stipulated by EU law might not just bring some modification to the current model of investor-State arbitration, but could completely alter its DNA.
{"title":"Repellent Forces: The CJEU and Investor-State Dispute Settlement","authors":"S. Hindelang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2631430","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2631430","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) aspires to conclude and ratify comprehensive trade agreements with Canada, Singapore, the USA and other States containing investment chapters which also provide for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). Surprisingly, the conditions and limits stipulated by the Treaties upon which the European Union is founded, i.e. the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), have received only selective attention. When it comes to the establishment of dispute resolution bodies in international agreements concluded by the EU the concept of autonomy of EU law has proven to be the crucial touchstone. The role of this concept, mainly developed in a series of opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in limiting the Union’s leeway to subject itself to the current model of investor-State arbitration has so far not sufficiently been explored. This paper suggests that, in the light of recent decisions, it is not a purely theoretical possibility that the CJEU might take issue with the scope of ISDS currently contained in the CETA Text and similar draft treaties. The means available to sufficiently address the conditions stipulated by EU law might not just bring some modification to the current model of investor-State arbitration, but could completely alter its DNA.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126175007","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 investigates the trade-diversion effects of regional trade agreements (RTAs), so-called “Spaghetti bowl” Phenomenon (SBP), in multilateral trade. The SBP is due to the proliferation of RTAs. Thus, I investigate the relationship between the number of RTAs concluded by a country and the additional trade value attributed to an RTA. Using bilateral trade data in a sample of 119 countries, from 1995 to 2012, my main finding reveals a negative trade-effect between them, confirming the existence of SBP multilateral trade. However, results could not conclude evidence of a negative effect of overlapping RTAs, involving the existence of SBP, within North-North, North-South or South-South trade. But, the additional trade value attributed to an RTA concluded with EU countries or US seems to confirm significantly a trade-diversion effect because of the number of RTAs signed by these countries.
{"title":"RTAs' Proliferation and Trade-Diversion Effects: Evidence of the 'Spaghetti Bowl' Phenomenon","authors":"Zakaria Sorgho","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2616015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2616015","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the trade-diversion effects of regional trade agreements (RTAs), so-called “Spaghetti bowl” Phenomenon (SBP), in multilateral trade. The SBP is due to the proliferation of RTAs. Thus, I investigate the relationship between the number of RTAs concluded by a country and the additional trade value attributed to an RTA. Using bilateral trade data in a sample of 119 countries, from 1995 to 2012, my main finding reveals a negative trade-effect between them, confirming the existence of SBP multilateral trade. However, results could not conclude evidence of a negative effect of overlapping RTAs, involving the existence of SBP, within North-North, North-South or South-South trade. But, the additional trade value attributed to an RTA concluded with EU countries or US seems to confirm significantly a trade-diversion effect because of the number of RTAs signed by these countries.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132297450","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}
Ralph Buckle, J. Hulsman, Tim Hewish, Iain Mansfield, Robert Oulds
It is quite possible that there will be a referendum on whether Britain should leave the European Union in the next few years. However, few people have well-formed views on what they believe should happen if we leave the EU. How should the objective of free trade be promoted? What approach should be taken to regulation? What political and economic relationships should be formed with other countries? In this volume, expert authors deal with these questions, and others, from different perspectives, all proposing radical but different solutions to how Britain should leave the European Union should it choose to do so. This book is essential reading for all with an interest in the future of Britain and its relationship with the European Union.
{"title":"Brexit: Directions for Britain Outside the EU","authors":"Ralph Buckle, J. Hulsman, Tim Hewish, Iain Mansfield, Robert Oulds","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3903882","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3903882","url":null,"abstract":"It is quite possible that there will be a referendum on whether Britain should leave the European Union in the next few years. However, few people have well-formed views on what they believe should happen if we leave the EU. How should the objective of free trade be promoted? What approach should be taken to regulation? What political and economic relationships should be formed with other countries? In this volume, expert authors deal with these questions, and others, from different perspectives, all proposing radical but different solutions to how Britain should leave the European Union should it choose to do so. This book is essential reading for all with an interest in the future of Britain and its relationship with the European Union.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130841913","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 Australia–United States free trade agreement (AUSFTA) came into effect in 2005. It was the second preferential trade agreement that Australia signed, after its agreement with Singapore, and marked a departure from the primacy of Australia’s previous trade policy of unilateral and multilateral trade liberalisation towards preferential liberalisation. This paper assesses the economic effects of AUSFTA by applying the Productivity Commission’s gravity model of trade from its Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements review. The evidence reveals AUSFTA resulted in a fall in Australian and US trade with the rest of the world — that the agreement led to trade diversion. Estimates also show that AUSFTA is associated with a reduction in trade between Australia and the United States.
{"title":"The Economic Impact of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement","authors":"S. Armstrong","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2558855","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2558855","url":null,"abstract":"The Australia–United States free trade agreement (AUSFTA) came into effect in 2005. It was the second preferential trade agreement that Australia signed, after its agreement with Singapore, and marked a departure from the primacy of Australia’s previous trade policy of unilateral and multilateral trade liberalisation towards preferential liberalisation. This paper assesses the economic effects of AUSFTA by applying the Productivity Commission’s gravity model of trade from its Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements review. The evidence reveals AUSFTA resulted in a fall in Australian and US trade with the rest of the world — that the agreement led to trade diversion. Estimates also show that AUSFTA is associated with a reduction in trade between Australia and the United States.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130483885","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}
South-South trade and investment relations have grown considerably over the past years. This increase in economic transactions have been seen as a positive advancement towards the development of Southern countries economies, especially in what concerns a reduction of their dependence to central economies. However, what it is yet not clear is the role of law in this process. How are Southern and developing economies legally stimulating and increasing their economic ties? What are the main regulatory tools used by those countries? To what extent are they different from those that have coordinated North-South relations? This paper takes the case of Angola and Brazil relations to draw on these analyses, and it focuses on the following elementary question: What are the main regulatory characteristics of Brazil and Angola trade and investment relations? We will address this case analysis using empirical research methods, including analysis of aggregated data, primary and secondary documents, and interviews with government representatives and business community.
{"title":"The Brazilian Approach to its South-South Trade and Investment Relations: The Case of Angola","authors":"Michelle Ratton Sanchez Badin, F. Morosini","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2532584","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2532584","url":null,"abstract":"South-South trade and investment relations have grown considerably over the past years. This increase in economic transactions have been seen as a positive advancement towards the development of Southern countries economies, especially in what concerns a reduction of their dependence to central economies. However, what it is yet not clear is the role of law in this process. How are Southern and developing economies legally stimulating and increasing their economic ties? What are the main regulatory tools used by those countries? To what extent are they different from those that have coordinated North-South relations? This paper takes the case of Angola and Brazil relations to draw on these analyses, and it focuses on the following elementary question: What are the main regulatory characteristics of Brazil and Angola trade and investment relations? We will address this case analysis using empirical research methods, including analysis of aggregated data, primary and secondary documents, and interviews with government representatives and business community.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"435 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132386653","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：