Australian Trade Agreements – A Divergence between Trade Policy and Business Outcomes – Can They Deliver Trade-related Growth for Australia?

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 236-255
Author(s):  
Bruno Zeller ◽  
Bill Cole
Keyword(s):  
Trade Policy ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Trade Negotiation ◽  
Economic Sectors ◽  
Business Outcomes ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Economic Partnership ◽  
Partnership Agreement

The recently negotiated Japan Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (jaepa) is the latest in a series of trade agreements that seek to create a trading environment for Australian firms delivering outcomes similar to those anticipated under the wto multilateral model. However, the gains to business and the economy from this approach to trade policy have been particular to specific economic sectors and have generally not resulted in significant broad based economic benefits. In particular, the negotiation of trade agreements by Australia has been characterised by the reduction of trade-in-goods barriers (tariffs etc) which have assisted some agricultural and resource activities and compromised value adding, high employment sectors of the economy such as manufacturing. In contrast, Australian trading partners have increasingly sought concessions relating to Foreign Direct Investment (fdi), allowing their businesses to vertically integrate productive activity. The apparent disconnection between Australian trade policy outcomes and the requirements of business and the broader economy stem from failures at both the fundamental level of policy creation and the negotiation and implementation of the agreements. This paper argues that Australian trade policy needs to develop a new, more flexible and responsive model of trade negotiation in order to better serve the economy and its businesses.

Making Sense of U.S. Trade Policy: What Recent Negotiations Can Tell Us

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 378-380
Author(s):  
Inu Manak
Keyword(s):  
Trade Policy ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
The North ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
The U.S

U.S. trade policy is not what it used to be. Since the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in January 2017, Indo-Pacific trade relations have been in constant flux. It is not clear where U.S. trade policy will end up, particularly with regard to its relationship with China. However, the conclusion of two renegotiations of previous U.S. trade agreements can tell us generally about the new U.S. approach and what this means for our trading partners. I will discuss developments from the renegotiation of the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS) and the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) as a replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

scholarly journals East Asia’s Engagement with Cosmopolitan Ideals Under its Trade Treaty Dispute Provisions

2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 821-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chin Leng Lim
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Open Approach ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Trade Dispute ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Economic Partnership ◽  
Partnership Agreement

An East Asian view about how trade dispute settlement systems should be designed is slowly emerging. Democratically-inspired trade law scholarship and cultural explanations of the international law behaviour of the Southeast and Northeast Asian trading nations have failed to capture or prescribe the actual treaty behaviour of these nations. Instead, such behaviour has resulted in the emergence of two different treaty models for the peaceful settlement of trade disputes. The first, which seems firmly established, may be found in ASEAN’s 2004 dispute settlement protocol and the regimes established under the China-ASEAN, Korea-ASEAN, Japan-ASEAN, and ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTAs. A second model, based on the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, could in time become an alternative model for an Asia-Pacific-wide FTA (i.e., including the East Asian nations within it). It adopts a more open approach; one which better accommodates greater transparency in dispute proceedings. At least for now, the two models coexist, obviating the need for East Asia’s legal policy-makers to choose a clear, dominant design for treaty-based trade dispute settlement in the region. But it also means that East Asia’s trading partners can influence East Asian nations, at least in those trade agreements that—like the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement—involve negotiations with trans-continental partners.

Regionalism in the WTO and the Legal Status of a Development Agenda in the EU/ACP Economic Partnership Agreement

2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-248
Author(s):  
Yenkong Ngangjoh Hodu
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
African Caribbean ◽  
Economic Partnership ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe proliferation of regional trade agreements (RTAs) which share similar ideals with the World Trade Organization (WTO) has added to claims of disintegration within international trade law. Notwithstanding the ambiguity surrounding the reading of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XXIV on RTAs, WTO members are continuously negotiating RTAs with objectives which have so far not received universal acceptance under the WTO treaty system. In the context of European Union (EU)-Africa trade relations, the December 2007 EU-Africa summit was expected to be an appropriate venue for leaders from both sides to resolve the controversy surrounding the idea of development-friendly free trade agreements between the contracting parties. But, the summit was wrapped up without achieving any clear answer to this issue. Similarly, at the multilateral level, i.e. the WTO Doha Development Round negotiations, which the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States have sponsored, numerous development-friendly proposals on RTAs stalled since July 2006. Consequently, in view of this controversy, if development concerns can be factored into economic partnership agreements (EPAs), what would be an acceptable threshold for such RTAs to conform to GATT Article XXIV requirements of “substantially all trade” and “reasonable period of time”? This paper discusses the idea of development and WTO compatibility in the context of the EU-Africa Economic Partnership negotiations. In view of the flawed dispute settlement provisions under the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA), the paper further tries to answer the question of whether the CPA contains rights and obligations that need protection by individual EU member courts and may necessarily be enforced before the European Court of Justice. The paper ends with some thoughts on the post-EPAs adjustment programme.

scholarly journals The Pursuit of Non-Trade Policy Objectives in EU Trade Policy

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Ingo Borchert ◽  
Paola Conconi ◽  
Mattia Di Ubaldo ◽  
Cristina Herghelegiu
Keyword(s):  
Trade Policy ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Environmental Standards ◽  
Generalized System ◽  
Generalized System Of Preferences ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Limited Scope ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Union (EU) often conditions preferential access to its market on compliance with Non-Trade Policy Objectives (NTPOs), including human rights and labor and environmental standards. In this paper, we first systematically document the coverage of NTPOs across the main tools of EU trade policy: its (association and non-association) trade agreements and Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) programs. We then discuss the extent to which the EU can use these tools as a ‘carrot-and-stick’ mechanism to promote NTPOs in trading partners. We argue that, within trade agreements, the EU has limited scope to extend or restrict tariff preferences to ‘reward good behavior’ or ‘punish bad behavior’ on NTPOs, partly because multilateral rules require members to eliminate tariffs on substantially all trade. By contrast, GSP preferences are granted on a unilateral basis, and can thus more easily be extended or limited, depending on compliance with NTPOs. Our analysis also suggests that the commercial interests of the EU inhibit the full pursuit of NTPOs in its trade agreements and GSP programs.

scholarly journals Effects of Tariff Concessions on Japanese Beef Imports by Product and Source

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Muhammad ◽  
Amanda M. Countryman ◽  
Kari E. R. Heerman
Keyword(s):  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Economic Partnership Agreement ◽  
Economic Partnership ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Tariff Reductions ◽  
The U.S

Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could be costly for U.S. beef exports to Japan given existing trade agreements such as the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (JAEPA). We estimate the demand for imported beef in Japan by source and product and assess the impact of tariff reductions on exporting countries. Our results suggest JAEPA will result in considerable increases in Australian beef exports to Japan, largely at the expense of the U.S. beef. However, similar tariff reductions for U.S. beef could eliminate these negative effects and even result in a net increase in beef imports from both countries.

scholarly journals The dynamics of agri-food trade between the EU28 and East African Community (EAC)

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-50
Author(s):  
Ivo Zdráhal ◽  
Nahanga Verter ◽  
Věra Bečvářová
Keyword(s):  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The European Union ◽  
East African ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Trade Patterns ◽  
East African Community ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
African Community ◽  
Partnership Agreement

AbstractThe increasing number of regional blocs and interdependence of nations have become important aspects of global economic integration. The European Union (EU28) as one of the most advanced regional bodies has had preferential trade agreements with other regional bodies, such as the East African Community (EAC). Historically, the EU28 has been the EAC’s leading trading partner. Against this background, this paper analyses the dynamics of bilateral trade in agri-food between the two regional blocs for the period 2000–2018, using the battery of empirical tools.The findings indicate that even though the EU has finalised trade agreements with the EAC, it holds on the region regarding trade has diminished. The EAC bloc has diversified its trading partners (to other African countries, India and China) beyond the EU28 markets. The results further reveal that the EU28 has comparative advantages in 32 out of 46 agri-food products in trading with EAC. The export concentration ratios show the EU28 slightly concentrated more in exporting products to the EAC than EAC to the Union. The BCG findings reveal (un)competitive and/or promising (dropping) products in export structures of both regions. By and large, the results indicate certain shifts in the comparative advantage, specialisation/diversification of exports and competitiveness of specific products on the bilateral level between EU28 and EAC. Policymakers, especially from EAC should continue to create enabling environments to stimulate food processing, trade and monitor changes in trade patterns or shocks within the framework of the Partnership Agreement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document