scholarly journals EU Trade Agreements and Non-Trade Policy Objectives

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Ferrari ◽  
Matteo Fiorini ◽  
Joseph Francois ◽  
Bernard Hoekman ◽  
Lisa Maria Lechner ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Ingo Borchert ◽  
Paola Conconi ◽  
Mattia Di Ubaldo ◽  
Cristina Herghelegiu

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.


Author(s):  
Leonardo Borlini

An increasingly important aspect of EU trade policy since the lifting of its self-imposed moratorium on preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has been the inclusion of WTO+ provisions on subsidies in bilateral agreements negotiated with a number of third countries. This article covers the main bilateral PTAs negotiated after the publication of the Commission’s Communication on ‘Global Europe’ in order to explore the implications of the different subsidy disciplines they set out. It also discusses the questions that arise when examining the legal discipline of public aid provided by such agreements, regarding not only the substantive appropriateness of standards and rules on compatibility, but also the procedural mechanisms designed to guarantee the implementation and the enforcement of such rules. It concludes that the most advanced among the EU PTAs are shaped as competition regulation and go beyond a mere negative function, ensuring that subsidies can contribute to fundamental public goals.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Gleeson ◽  
Joel Lexchin ◽  
Ronald Labonté ◽  
Belinda Townsend ◽  
Marc-André Gagnon ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Trade and investment agreements negotiated after the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have included increasingly elevated protection of intellectual property rights along with an expanding array of rules impacting many aspects of pharmaceutical policy. Despite the large body of literature on intellectual property and access to affordable medicines, the ways in which other provisions in trade agreements can affect pharmaceutical policy and, in turn, access to medicines have been little studied. There is a need for an analytical framework covering the full range of provisions, pathways, and potential impacts, on which to base future health and human rights impact assessment and research. A framework exploring the ways in which trade and investment agreements may affect pharmaceutical policy was developed, based on an analysis of four recently negotiated regional trade agreements. First a set of core pharmaceutical policy objectives based on international consensus was identified. A systematic comparative analysis of the publicly available legal texts of the four agreements was undertaken, and the potential impacts of the provisions in these agreements on the core pharmaceutical policy objectives were traced through an analysis of possible pathways. Results An analytical framework is presented, linking ten types of provisions in the four trade agreements to potential impacts on four core pharmaceutical policy objectives (access and affordability; safety, efficacy, and quality; rational use of medicines; and local production capacity and health security) via various pathways. Conclusions The analytical framework highlights provisions in trade and investment agreements that need to be examined, pathways that should be explored, and potential impacts that should be taken into consideration with respect to pharmaceutical policy. This may serve as a useful checklist or template for health and human rights impact assessments and research on the implications of trade agreements for pharmaceuticals.


2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 378-380
Author(s):  
Inu Manak

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).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document