From TPPA to CPTPP: potential impact on Malaysia's finance, banking and trade

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salim Rashid ◽  
Irwan Shah Zainal Abidin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Balance Of Payments ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
Economic Partnership ◽  
Partnership Agreement

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is an economic partnership pact negotiated by 12 countries in three continents, namely Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States and Vietnam. The TPPA has evolved into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), when the United States pulled out from the multilateral free trade deal in 2018. Malaysia began negotiations on the TPPA in August 2010, and participated as a full negotiating member from October 2010 onwards.The TPPA itself was based on the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), which was completed in 2011. This agreement provided a benchmark to decide and evaluate on several issues in the CPTPP. The overall intent of the CPTPP is a simple one: it is to extend non-discriminatory practices to all CPTPP members. This does not mean that regulations and restrictions will not exist that such regulations will apply equally to Malaysian and non-Malaysian CPTPP members. Contentious issues in the CPTPP will be analyse and discuss in this book. Is the Malaysian economy ready for the CPTPP rules especially in the financial and capital markets? To what extent that Bank Negaras ability to retain their power to intervene when either the balance of payments or the currency is felt to be under threat with CPTPP? What are the impacts of CPTPP to the real economic side of the Malaysian economy? Will national rights are being relinquished under CPTPP? How about the concern over investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)? This book will address these issues in an objective and rational manner.

The Future of Dispute Settlement Within GATT: Conciliation V. Adjudication

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 125-137
Author(s):  
Rudolf Ostrihansky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive System ◽  
Multicultural Context ◽  
The Future ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

A system for the settlement of disputes has developed within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), originally through the practice of this organization, later on embodied in several decisions of Contracting Parties. This system presents a unique set of rules and practices for the settlement of interstate economic conflicts. It is the only comprehensive system, established within multicultural context, that is comparable with the bilateral procedure incorporated in the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Canada.

Presidential Tariff Authority

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 957-969 ◽  
Author(s):  
John K. Veroneau ◽  
Catherine H. Gibson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Expansion ◽  
The North ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
Trump Administration

As part of the “America First” agenda discussed in his inaugural address, President Donald J. Trump promised that “[e]very decision” on trade, among other areas, would be “made to benefit American workers and American families.” During its first months, the Trump Administration made a number of trade moves apparently in connection with this “America First” trade agenda, including initiating national security investigations into steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and preparing an “omnibus” report on trade deficits. The Trump Administration also took steps to alter U.S. treaty relationships, by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, announcing the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and requesting a special session of a joint committee created under the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement. In August 2017, President Trump continued this course—and indicated a willingness to take unilateral action against U.S. trading partners—by signing a presidential memorandum directing the United States Trade Representative to determine whether China's treatment of U.S. intellectual property warranted investigation under Section 301 et seq. of the Trade Act of 1974.

The Investment Provisions of the Canada—United States Free Trade Agreement: A Canadian Perspective

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 394-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Raby
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Ronald Reagan ◽  
The United States ◽  
The World ◽  
Trading Partners

This is a good deal, a good deal for Canada and a deal that is good for all Canadians. It is also a fair deal, which means that it brings benefits and progress to our partner, the United States of America. When both countries prosper, our democracies are strengthened and leadership has been provided to our trading partners around the world. I think this initiative represents enlightened leadership to the trading partners about what can be accomplished when we determine that we are going to strike down protectionism, move toward liberalized trade, and generate new prosperity for all our people.On January 2, 1988, President Ronald Reagan of the United States and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada signed the landmark comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the two countries that already enjoyed the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world. The FTA was subsequently ratified by the legislatures of both countries, if only after a bitterly fought election on the subject in Canada. On January 1, 1989, the FTA formally came into effect.

AHMED GALAL AND ROBERT Z. LAWRENCE, ED., Building Bridges: An Egypt–US Free Trade Agreement (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998). Pp. 121. $29.95 cloth.

2000 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samira Salem
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Brookings Institution ◽  
Optimal Form

Has the time come for a free-trade agreement (FTA) between Egypt and the United States? According to the contributors to Building Bridges, an FTA is the logical next step in the Egypt–U.S. relationship. This policy-oriented volume explores the conditions under which the benefits of an FTA between the parties would be maximized. Although the contributors reach different conclusions regarding the optimal form of the Egypt–U.S. FTA, consensus is reached on one point: an FTA between Egypt and the United States will produce economic benefits for both nations.

Central American integration through infrastructure development: A case study of Costa Rican hydropower

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denielle M. Perry ◽  
Kate A. Berry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Central America ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Market ◽  
Central American ◽  
Infrastructure Development

At the turn of the 21st century, protectionist policies in Latin America were largely abandoned for an agenda that promoted free trade and regional integration. Central America especially experienced an increase in international, interstate, and intraregional economic integration through trade liberalization. In 2004, such integration was on the agenda of every Central American administration, the U.S. Congress, and Mexico. The Plan Puebla-Panama (PPP) and the Central America Integrated Electricity System (SIEPAC), in particular, aimed to facilitate the success of free trade by increasing energy production and transmission on a unifi ed regional power grid (Mesoamerica, 2011). Meanwhile, for the United States, a free trade agreement (FTA) with Central America would bring it a step closer to realizing a hemispheric trade bloc while securing market access for its products. Isthmus states considered the potential for a Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States, their largest trading partner, as an opportunity to enter the global market on a united front. A decade and a half on, CAFTA, PPP, and SIEPAC are interwoven, complimentary initiatives that exemplify a shift towards increased free trade and development throughout the region. As such, to understand one, the other must be examined.

Neoliberalism and Counterinsurgency

Colombia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. Mahoney
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Latin American ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The North ◽  
Trade Promotion ◽  
The U.S

How did the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement come about? The officially named “U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement” was the stepchild of a rancorous hemispheric divorce between the United States and five Latin American governments over the proposal to extend the North American Free Trade Agreement...

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document