While the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU) relaunched negotiations on ASEAN-EU FTA in 2017, few signs have indicated significant progress in trade talks and EU has been prompted to pursue, in parallel, bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) with individual ASEANMembers States as building blocks for the region-to-region megaproject. The underlying divergence in economic, political, historical, and social dimensions between ASEAN and EU has continued to condition bi-regional negotiations, and issues of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) are of particular importance given the large inter-regional agri-food trade and inherent tensions embedded in SPS measures that are adopted to strike a balance between trade liberalization and public health. Whether and how the two blocs can reconcile different interests and policy agendas in shaping SPS cooperation under the prospective FTA merits in-depth examination. This article analyses the trajectory and dynamics in ASEAN-EU SPS cooperation. It assesses the SPS Chapters of the EUSingapore and EU-Vietnam FTAs, drawing on their relevance to and implications for region-to-region development. Lastly, this article highlights various bottom-up SPS cooperation initiatives between the two—due to EU’s technical assistance, and more critically, ambition to export its normative paradigms globally—emphasizing their role as catalyst for deeper region-to-region SPS cooperation. ASEAN-EU FTA, EU-Singapore FTA, EU-Vietnam FTA, SPS Agreement, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, New Asian Regionalism
{"title":"The Roadmap to the ASEAN-EU FTA: Reimagining SPS Cooperation in the Regionto-Region Context","authors":"Ching-Fu Lin","doi":"10.54648/leie2022008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2022008","url":null,"abstract":"While the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU) relaunched negotiations on ASEAN-EU FTA in 2017, few signs have indicated significant progress in trade talks and EU has been prompted to pursue, in parallel, bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) with individual ASEANMembers States as building blocks for the region-to-region megaproject. The underlying divergence in economic, political, historical, and social dimensions between ASEAN and EU has continued to condition bi-regional negotiations, and issues of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) are of particular importance given the large inter-regional agri-food trade and inherent tensions embedded in SPS measures that are adopted to strike a balance between trade liberalization and public health. Whether and how the two blocs can reconcile different interests and policy agendas in shaping SPS cooperation under the prospective FTA merits in-depth examination. This article analyses the trajectory and dynamics in ASEAN-EU SPS cooperation. It assesses the SPS Chapters of the EUSingapore and EU-Vietnam FTAs, drawing on their relevance to and implications for region-to-region development. Lastly, this article highlights various bottom-up SPS cooperation initiatives between the two—due to EU’s technical assistance, and more critically, ambition to export its normative paradigms globally—emphasizing their role as catalyst for deeper region-to-region SPS cooperation.\u0000ASEAN-EU FTA, EU-Singapore FTA, EU-Vietnam FTA, SPS Agreement, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, New Asian Regionalism","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89666578","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 the last two decades the venue of free trade agreements has turned into an important platform for digital trade rule-making. Yet, the approaches of individual states differ profoundly and the emerging data governance regime is deeply fragmented.The article seeks tomap these developments by looking at selected preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and their design. The enquiry focuses on the United States (US) and European Union (EU) approaches and discusses the differing stances with regard to data flows regulation in particular, while highlighting innovative solutions found in recent trade deals, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Transpacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). The article then provides an overview of ASEAN’s initiatives with respect to electronic commerce. Against this backdrop, the article evaluates the prospects of digital trade related rules in the future ASEAN-EU agreement. CPTPP, electronic commerce, EU FTAs, data flows, digital trade, RCEP, USMCA
{"title":"Approaches to Digital Trade and Data Flow Regulation Across Jurisdictions: Implications for the Future ASEAN-EU Agreement","authors":"Mira Burri","doi":"10.54648/leie2022007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2022007","url":null,"abstract":"In the last two decades the venue of free trade agreements has turned into an important platform for digital trade rule-making. Yet, the approaches of individual states differ profoundly and the emerging data governance regime is deeply fragmented.The article seeks tomap these developments by looking at selected preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and their design. The enquiry focuses on the United States (US) and European Union (EU) approaches and discusses the differing stances with regard to data flows regulation in particular, while highlighting innovative solutions found in recent trade deals, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Transpacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). The article then provides an overview of ASEAN’s initiatives with respect to electronic commerce. Against this backdrop, the article evaluates the prospects of digital trade related rules in the future ASEAN-EU agreement.\u0000CPTPP, electronic commerce, EU FTAs, data flows, digital trade, RCEP, USMCA","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83264337","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}
Modern markets are increasingly international, online and unrestricted by geographic borders and territoriality. Competition regulation remains decidedly domestic in nature, restrained by principles of jurisdiction and state sovereignty in a way that multinational business is not. With the rise of online markets and transnational trade, legislators and regulators are increasingly expected to grapple with abuses of dominance which span multiple jurisdictions. However, traditional approaches to state sovereignty and prescriptive jurisdiction present fundamental challenges to the effective implementation of competition policy in these modern markets. In particular, abuses of dominance by international or online firms have the potential to profoundly impact national economies. Yet unlike other competition ills, such as cartels, abuse of dominance is not the subject of widespread international regulatory cooperation or legislative uniformity. Against this background, substantive convergence emerges as a potential solution to jurisdictional clash but, as this article explores, it faces legal, sociopolitical, and practical obstacles that make its success not only unlikely, but not necessarily desirable. While recognising the unique political context of the EU legal system, in particular the role of market integration and its place at the core of policy decisions, this article explores what practical guidance may be found in the EU competition law framework. It explores EU horizontal, administrative measures which could be repurposed in order to bring further predictability and clarity to international jurisdictional issues. It concludes by proposing that EU approaches to case allocation, horizontal best practice standards and peer review may be meaningfully adapted by the international competition law community, in order to alleviate jurisdictional issues in competition regulation. jurisdiction, antitrust, EU, regulation, international, competition, convergence, cooperation, multinational markets, EU, abuse of dominance
{"title":"International Abuses, EU Solutions: Using EU Structures to Address the Challenges of International Antitrust","authors":"Morgan Blaschke-Broad","doi":"10.54648/leie2022004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2022004","url":null,"abstract":"Modern markets are increasingly international, online and unrestricted by geographic borders and territoriality. Competition regulation remains decidedly domestic in nature, restrained by principles of jurisdiction and state sovereignty in a way that multinational business is not. With the rise of online markets and transnational trade, legislators and regulators are increasingly expected to grapple with abuses of dominance which span multiple jurisdictions. However, traditional approaches to state sovereignty and prescriptive jurisdiction present fundamental challenges to the effective implementation of competition policy in these modern markets. In particular, abuses of dominance by international or online firms have the potential to profoundly impact national economies. Yet unlike other competition ills, such as cartels, abuse of dominance is not the subject of widespread international regulatory cooperation or legislative uniformity. Against this background, substantive convergence emerges as a potential solution to jurisdictional clash but, as this article explores, it faces legal, sociopolitical, and practical obstacles that make its success not only unlikely, but not necessarily desirable. While recognising the unique political context of the EU legal system, in particular the role of market integration and its place at the core of policy decisions, this article explores what practical guidance may be found in the EU competition law framework. It explores EU horizontal, administrative measures which could be repurposed in order to bring further predictability and clarity to international jurisdictional issues. It concludes by proposing that EU approaches to case allocation, horizontal best practice standards and peer review may be meaningfully adapted by the international competition law community, in order to alleviate jurisdictional issues in competition regulation.\u0000jurisdiction, antitrust, EU, regulation, international, competition, convergence, cooperation, multinational markets, EU, abuse of dominance","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86455813","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}
{"title":"From the Board: Finalising the Sustainable Finance Regulatory Agenda","authors":"","doi":"10.54648/leie2022001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2022001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77819039","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 2020, South Africa and India submitted a landmark proposal to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to allow all countries the legal right under international trade rules to choose not to grant or enforce patents and other intellectual property (IP) related to COVID-19 drugs, vaccines, diagnostics and other technologies and materials for the duration of the pandemic. Since then, the proposal for an IP waiver has gained support from 100 WTO members. However, a small number have continued to oppose implementing an IP waiver, maintaining that the current flexibilities under the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provide a sufficient remedy. The TRIPS flexibility most recommended by waiver opponents is the Compulsory Licensing mechanism which allows government the authority to grant permission to itself or domestic producers to make a patented product without the patent owners’ consent. This article conducts a comparative analysis of the potential IP waiver and the compulsory licensing mechanism’s functioning in relation to facilitating increased production of Covid-19 vaccines by generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. Covid-19 vaccine access, international intellectual property regime, TRIPS agreement, access to medicine, intellectual property waiver, compulsory licensing
{"title":"To Waive or not to Waive: International Patent Protection and the Covid-19 Pandemic","authors":"M. Thomas","doi":"10.54648/leie2022002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2022002","url":null,"abstract":"In 2020, South Africa and India submitted a landmark proposal to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to allow all countries the legal right under international trade rules to choose not to grant or enforce patents and other intellectual property (IP) related to COVID-19 drugs, vaccines, diagnostics and other technologies and materials for the duration of the pandemic. Since then, the proposal for an IP waiver has gained support from 100 WTO members. However, a small number have continued to oppose implementing an IP waiver, maintaining that the current flexibilities under the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provide a sufficient remedy. The TRIPS flexibility most recommended by waiver opponents is the Compulsory Licensing mechanism which allows government the authority to grant permission to itself or domestic producers to make a patented product without the patent owners’ consent. This article conducts a comparative analysis of the potential IP waiver and the compulsory licensing mechanism’s functioning in relation to facilitating increased production of Covid-19 vaccines by generic pharmaceutical manufacturers.\u0000Covid-19 vaccine access, international intellectual property regime, TRIPS agreement, access to medicine, intellectual property waiver, compulsory licensing","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72424640","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}
Numerous platform operators provide composite services comprising electronic and non-electronic elements, whose legal classification has been highly debated. This is partly explained by the fact that theEU law regime applicable to information society services (ISS) is far more favourable to businesses than that applicable to other types of services. The most recent case-law, however, has noticeably strengthened Member State regulatory prerogatives regarding ISS by, inter alia, giving a whole new meaning to the provisions of the E-commerce Directive. This twenty-year old legal act certainly needed reshuffling, but the Court’s approach has created a high degree of uncertainty forMember States wishing to regulate ISS in compliance with their notification obligations. Further, the applicable legal framework fails to guarantee the freedom to provide composite platform economy services that classify as two independent services of offline and online nature. The present article presents the main takeaways from recent judgments and highlights the structural differences between the legal regime applicable to ISS and that applicable to other kind of services, as well as their shortcomings. Digital Single Market – Regulation of the platform economy – Composite services – notification – online platform liability – e-commerce – Digital Services Act – Directive 2000/31 – Directive 2015/1535 – Directive 2006/123
{"title":"Regulating Composite Platform Economy Services: Examining the Applicable Legal Framework in Light of Recent Judicial Developments","authors":"Augustin Chapuis-Doppler, Vincent Delhomme","doi":"10.54648/leie2022003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2022003","url":null,"abstract":"Numerous platform operators provide composite services comprising electronic and non-electronic elements, whose legal classification has been highly debated. This is partly explained by the fact that theEU law regime applicable to information society services (ISS) is far more favourable to businesses than that applicable to other types of services. The most recent case-law, however, has noticeably strengthened Member State regulatory prerogatives regarding ISS by, inter alia, giving a whole new meaning to the provisions of the E-commerce Directive. This twenty-year old legal act certainly needed reshuffling, but the Court’s approach has created a high degree of uncertainty forMember States wishing to regulate ISS in compliance with their notification obligations. Further, the applicable legal framework fails to guarantee the freedom to provide composite platform economy services that classify as two independent services of offline and online nature. The present article presents the main takeaways from recent judgments and highlights the structural differences between the legal regime applicable to ISS and that applicable to other kind of services, as well as their shortcomings.\u0000Digital Single Market – Regulation of the platform economy – Composite services – notification – online platform liability – e-commerce – Digital Services Act – Directive 2000/31 – Directive 2015/1535 – Directive 2006/123","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83255242","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}
On 30 December 2020, the European Union (EU) and China agreed in principle to a revamped investment treaty: The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). Notably, the EU and China have not decided which investment dispute resolution system will be included under the new agreement. Instead, the EU and China are continuing negotiations on this contentious topic. This article discusses the key features of the proposed investment court system in the context of the CAI negotiations to assess whether China could agree on such a paradigmatic change that would have systemic consequences. The article explains the objective reasons behind China’s partial support for the proposed reforms to the existing investor-state arbitration system. For example, China has supported adding an appellate body without accepting the EU’s full-fledged investment court proposal. Finally, the article identifies the points of convergence and divergence which will shape the CAI negotiations and pave the way to global investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reform. comprehensive agreement on investment (CAI), investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), investment court system (ICS), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Working Group III), Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), EUVietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), State-to-state dispute resolution, Achmea case, financial responsibility regulation, European Commission
{"title":"Stress Test for EU’s Investment Court System: How Will Investments Be Protected in the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment?","authors":"J. Chaisse, Xueliang Ji","doi":"10.54648/leie2022005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2022005","url":null,"abstract":"On 30 December 2020, the European Union (EU) and China agreed in principle to a revamped investment treaty: The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). Notably, the EU and China have not decided which investment dispute resolution system will be included under the new agreement. Instead, the EU and China are continuing negotiations on this contentious topic. This article discusses the key features of the proposed investment court system in the context of the CAI negotiations to assess whether China could agree on such a paradigmatic change that would have systemic consequences. The article explains the objective reasons behind China’s partial support for the proposed reforms to the existing investor-state arbitration system. For example, China has supported adding an appellate body without accepting the EU’s full-fledged investment court proposal. Finally, the article identifies the points of convergence and divergence which will shape the CAI negotiations and pave the way to global investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reform.\u0000comprehensive agreement on investment (CAI), investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), investment court system (ICS), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Working Group III), Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), EUVietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), State-to-state dispute resolution, Achmea case, financial responsibility regulation, European Commission","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82929619","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}
{"title":"From State Aid to Autonomy and Back: The Commission’s Continuing Campaign Against Intra-EU ISDS","authors":"J. Fahner","doi":"10.54648/leie2021029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2021029","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79492485","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}
As cannabidiol’s (CBD) popularity has been increasing, multiple questions to as to its legal regime, including under European Union (EU) law, have been raised. In its preliminary ruling in the Kanavape case, the European Court of Justice, for the first time, clarifies that CBD falls under the free movement of goods provisions in primary EU law (Articles 34 and 36 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)). This case note critically addresses the Court’s reasonsing, while putting the case in its broader legal and policy context. Article 34 TFEU, Article 36 TFEU, cannabidiol (CBD), narcotic drugs, negative integration, UN drug conventions, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
{"title":"‘Weed-ing’ Out Disproportionate Regulation: The Free Movement of CBD in the European Union Following the Kanavape Judgment","authors":"Bogdan-Florin Nae","doi":"10.54648/leie2021033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2021033","url":null,"abstract":"As cannabidiol’s (CBD) popularity has been increasing, multiple questions to as to its legal regime, including under European Union (EU) law, have been raised. In its preliminary ruling in the Kanavape case, the European Court of Justice, for the first time, clarifies that CBD falls under the free movement of goods provisions in primary EU law (Articles 34 and 36 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)). This case note critically addresses the Court’s reasonsing, while putting the case in its broader legal and policy context.\u0000Article 34 TFEU, Article 36 TFEU, cannabidiol (CBD), narcotic drugs, negative integration, UN drug conventions, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82016161","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}
Over the last two decades, the number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) including provisions on electronic commerce (e-commerce) or digital trade displayed explosive growth. This phenomenon was especially notable in the Asia-Pacific (APAC), a region that has demonstrated rapid development of e-commerce. This article provides an up-to-date review of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement, focusing on its e-commerce chapter (Chapter 12). By evaluating the change in trends and developments of APAC PTAs covering digital trade, it demonstrates where the RCEP stands. The RCEP E-Commerce chapter is compared to the one in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), to assess the scope of coverage along with points of convergence and divergence. The article also investigates the World TradeOrganization (WTO)’s Joint Statement Initiative on e-commerce (JSI) and how the provisions in the latest text being negotiated compare to the e-commerce chapters in the RCEP and CPTPP. The article assesses the RCEP’s key implications. Its core value lies on it being an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) - driven negotiation that encompasses the three digital powerhouses of Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), promoting regional economic integration by bringing together many members who did not have prior common commitments while providing a flexible approach, through variations in schedules and broad exceptions to cater for national sensitivities. Electronic Commerce, Digital Trade, Asia-Pacific, Preferential Trade Agreements, RCEP, CPTPP, World Trade Organization, Joint State Initiative on E-commerce
{"title":"Digital Trade Regulation in the Asia-Pacific: Where Does It Stand? Comparing the RCEP E-commerceChapter with the CPTPP and the JSI","authors":"Eun-Teak Oh","doi":"10.54648/leie2021032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2021032","url":null,"abstract":"Over the last two decades, the number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) including provisions on electronic commerce (e-commerce) or digital trade displayed explosive growth. This phenomenon was especially notable in the Asia-Pacific (APAC), a region that has demonstrated rapid development of e-commerce. This article provides an up-to-date review of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement, focusing on its e-commerce chapter (Chapter 12). By evaluating the change in trends and developments of APAC PTAs covering digital trade, it demonstrates where the RCEP stands. The RCEP E-Commerce chapter is compared to the one in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), to assess the scope of coverage along with points of convergence and divergence. The article also investigates the World TradeOrganization (WTO)’s Joint Statement Initiative on e-commerce (JSI) and how the provisions in the latest text being negotiated compare to the e-commerce chapters in the RCEP and CPTPP. The article assesses the RCEP’s key implications. Its core value lies on it being an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) - driven negotiation that encompasses the three digital powerhouses of Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), promoting regional economic integration by bringing together many members who did not have prior common commitments while providing a flexible approach, through variations in schedules and broad exceptions to cater for national sensitivities.\u0000Electronic Commerce, Digital Trade, Asia-Pacific, Preferential Trade Agreements, RCEP, CPTPP, World Trade Organization, Joint State Initiative on E-commerce","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78204973","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：