Limits and Challenging Factors of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism in the Light of China- ASEAN Free Trade Agreement Perspective

Author(s):  
Pattawee Sookhakich
Author(s):  
Yair Baranes

SummaryThe Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Israel bases its dispute settlement mechanism on Chapter 20 of NAFTA. There are accordingly many similarities between the two regimes. In certain areas, however, such as consultations and Panel composition, the Canada-Israel dispute settlement regime was clearly intended to differ from the NAFTA regime.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 659-677
Author(s):  
NOEMIE LAURENS ◽  
ZACHARY DOVE ◽  
JEAN FREDERIC MORIN ◽  
SIKINA JINNAH

AbstractThe renegotiation of what US President Trump called ‘the worst trade deal ever’ has resulted in the most detailed environmental chapter in any trade agreement in history. The USMCA mentions dozens of environmental issues that its predecessor, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), overlooked, and in line with contemporary US practice, brings the vast majority of environmental provisions into the core of the agreement, and subjects these provisions to a sanction-based dispute settlement mechanism. It also jettisons two controversial NAFTA measures potentially harmful to the environment. However, this paper argues that the USMCA only makes limited contributions to environmental protection. It primarily replicates most of the environmental provisions included in recent agreements, and only introduces three unprecedented environmental provisions. Moreover, it avoids important issues such as climate change, it does not mention the precautionary principle, and it scales back some environmental provisions related to multilateral environmental agreements.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 3153
Author(s):  
Katharine Heyl ◽  
Felix Ekardt ◽  
Paula Roos ◽  
Jessica Stubenrauch ◽  
Beatrice Garske

Transnational trade holds opportunities for prosperity and development if accompanied by a robust political and legal framework. Yet, where such a framework is missing, transnational trade is frequently associated with, among others, negative impacts on the environment. Applying a legal comparison, this article assesses if recent free trade agreements, i.e., the Mercosur Agreement, CETA and the EU–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, negotiated by the European Union, have been underpinned with effective environmental standards so that they are in line with global environmental goals and avoid detrimental effects on climate and biodiversity. Besides that, we evaluate the extent to which these agreements at least enable and incentivise environmental pioneering policies in the trading Parties. In particular, we discuss the likely impacts of the agreements on the agricultural sector. The analysis finds that, while a few mandatory standards concerning, e.g., deforestation have been established, overall, the agreements lack a comprehensive legal framework to uphold/enhance environmental protection. Moreover, weak dispute settlement mechanisms to ensure compliance with sustainability measures limits their effectiveness. In addition, the provisions on regulatory cooperation and investor-state dispute settlement are likely to negatively affect the decision-making processes and (thus) discourage ecological pioneering policies in the trading Parties. Hence, there is a long way to go so that transnational trade is compatible with global environmental goals.


Author(s):  
Gonzalo Villalta Puig ◽  
Sabrina Leung Tsam Tai

The China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone (PFTZ) is the first free trade zone of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). It seeks to reform the national economy and open it up to foreign investment. This article argues that the suite of legal instruments that establish the PFTZ – the Framework Plan, the Negative List, the Decision, and the Management Method – are legally uncertain and that their legal uncertainty could cause disputes between PFTZ investors and the PRC. To address the problem of legal uncertainty, the article proposes, first, the adoption of a rational connection to the PFTZ as the test for jurisdiction of the PFTZ Court and the PFTZ Court of Arbitration; secondly, the enactment of the Negative List and the Decision as laws in order to clarify their legal status; and, thirdly, a reform of the PFTZ dispute settlement mechanism under the Management Method into an arbitral system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document