New Generation of Free Trade Agreements: Towards 'International' European Geographical Indications

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandra Moroni
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
New Generation

Die Kartellrechtsregelungen in den Freihandelsabkommen der Europäischen Union

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sören Gerhard Räthling
Keyword(s):  
Central America ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Southern Mediterranean ◽  
New Generation ◽  
Former Soviet Republics ◽  
The Eu

The competition law provisions in the free trade agreements of the EU are compared, analyzed and evaluated in the context of the internationalization of competition law and the approaches of the states to deal with this. A proposal for optimization and an epilogue on "Brexit" complete the analysis. The analysis focuses on the so-called "new generation" free trade agreements with Ecuador/Columbia/Peru, Japan, Canada, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam and Central America, comparing them with the agreements with (potential) EU accessi-on candidates, states of the southern Mediterranean and former Soviet republics as well as the "first generation" free trade agreements of the EU.

Withdrawal from the eu and Bilateral Free Trade Agreements

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-340
Author(s):  
Siri Silvereke
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
New Generation ◽  
Mixed Agreements

Ambiguity still remains around the legal effects of a Member State’s withdrawal from the eu in relation to the new generation of Free Trade Agreements (‘ftas’), which are concluded as bilateral mixed agreements. Such withdrawal may have secondary implications in relation to the international obligations towards the other party of the ratified agreement. According to article 70(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (‘ vclt ’), the termination of a treaty under its provision releases the parties from the obligation further to perform the treaty. However, mixed agreements that are signed by both the Member State and the eu may cause complications. The obligation of sincere cooperation could play a large role in respect of the Member State’s compliance with its commitments under the agreement. Indeed, there are many concerns regarding the effect of the withdrawal on the eu and the withdrawing Member State in respect to mixed ftas. Could a withdrawal lead to an automatic termination or renegotiation of a trade agreement? Would it be possible to argue for fundamentally changed circumstances? Or could the principle of continuity in the vclt in the context of succession of states affect the outcome?This contribution aims to clarify the legal situation in regard to bilateral mixed ftas that are ratified or provisionally applied—such as the eu-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (‘ ceta ’)—in the event of a Member State’s withdrawal from the eu. It considers the Member State’s responsibilities and obligations when the withdrawal has been effectuated. Additionally, it explores the rights of the non-eu party to the agreements, as well as the consequences that the eu might face as a remaining party to the agreement.

scholarly journals Asean is in the Movement of Combating Corruption: Should New - Generation Ftas Be a Promising Forum for Anti-Corruption Enforcement of Asean in International Business?

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-114
Author(s):  
Hieu Le Ho Trung ◽  
Jennifer B. Verances ◽  
Hung Tran Van
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
International Business ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Government Procurement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Asean Member ◽  
Asean Countries ◽  
New Generation

Abstract For a long time, corruption has been a shrilling concern for ASEAN member states for the reason of being one of the primary causes restricting the integration of these nations into international trade and efforts at globalization. In fact, over the last few years, ASEAN has undertaken a myriad of policies and improved the regional legal framework to combat corruption such as the signing of UNCAC and new free trade agreements and the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community. Notwithstanding this, according to the statistics of global organizations, the levels of anti-corruption in ASEAN countries, except Singapore and Brunei, are relatively low. This mainly derives from the fact that the national legal framework in each of the member states has not satisfied fully when the political regime lacks democracy, governmental authority is insufficiently impartial and the awareness of citizens about corruption is still moderate. Simultaneously, the international agreements to which ASEAN member states signed are only the model for domestic enforcement mechanisms, and seem to be silent on international enforcement of anti-corruption. To date, the WTO is known as a global agency for international business, to which all ASEAN countries have acceded. Under the WTO, there is no official mechanism for enforcement of anti-corruption; nevertheless, this organization acknowledges, encourages and states indirectly this issue via transparency, accountability or governance in their agreements (Government Procurement Agreement and Trade Facilitation Agreement). Under the Doha negotiation round, WTO member states failed to gain consensus to dismantle tariffs, resulting in the emergence of a myriad of bilateral and regional trade agreements out of the scope of the WTO. These have gradually developed to be so-called new-generation free trade agreements in the hope of mitigating the traditional trade barriers as well as lessening non-tariff ones, such as governance and transparency. The recent development of new-generation FTAs between ASEAN and/or ASEAN member(s) and the external trading partners that pay high attention to anti-corruption issues, i.e., EU, Australia, Canada, Japan, US, may create a promising forum for anti-corruption enforcement of ASEAN in international business in the future. This article will elaborate on all aforementioned issues before a reasonable conclusion is delivered.

scholarly journals Regulatory Coherence and Standardization Mechanisms in the Trans-Pacific Partnership

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 505-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phoenix X. F. Cai
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Current Literature ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Detailed Examination ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Real ◽  
International Standard ◽  
New Generation

Abstract This article posits a new taxonomy and framework for assessing regulatory coherence in the new generation of mega-regional, cross-cutting free trade agreements. Using the Trans-Pacific Partnership as the primary example, this article situates the rise of regulatory coherence within the current trade landscape, provides clear definitions of regulatory coherence, and argues that the real engine of regulatory coherence lies in the work of international standard setting organizations. This work has been little examined in the current literature. The article provides a detailed examination of the mechanics by which the Trans-Pacific Partnership promotes regulatory standardization and concludes with some normative implications and calls for future research.

Opinion 1/17

2020 ◽  
Vol 187 ◽  
pp. 544-687
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
New Generation ◽  
The Eu

Economics, trade and finance — Free trade agreements — International investment — “New generation” free trade agreements — Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, 2016 (“CETA”) — Whether CETA’s investor–State dispute settlement provisions compatible with EU primary law — Principle of autonomy of EU legal order — Principle of equal treatment — Requirement of effectiveness of EU law — Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal — Article 47 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Free trade agreements — International investment — “New generation” free trade agreements — CETA — European Union and non-member States Parties to international agreement — Agreements integral part of EU law and subject of references for preliminary ruling to Court of Justice of the EU — Compatibility of agreements with EU Treaties, constitutional principles and EU Charter — Court of Justice of the EU having jurisdiction to interpret and apply agreements — Whether jurisdiction of Court of Justice of the EU taking precedence over jurisdiction of court of non-member State — Reciprocal nature of international agreements — Maintenance of powers of European Union in international relations — Whether jurisdiction of Court of Justice of the EU taking precedence over jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals established by agreements — Whether EU law precluding agreement from providing for creation of tribunals — Whether EU law precluding agreement from conferring jurisdiction on those tribunals to interpret and apply provisions of agreement having regard to rules and principles of international law applicable between Parties — Whether conditions applicableJurisdiction — Court of Justice of EU — EU and non-member States Parties to international agreement — CETA — Court of non-member State — Agreement providing for creation of tribunals — Agreement conferring jurisdiction on those tribunals to interpret and apply provisions of agreement having regard to rules and principles of international law applicable between Parties — Whether precluded by EU law — Whether jurisdiction of Court of Justice of EU having precedence — Whether CETA conferring jurisdiction on CETA Tribunal to interpret or apply EU law — Whether CETA adversely affecting autonomy of EU legal order545Damages — CETA Tribunal — CETA Appellate Tribunal — Whether CETA tribunals having jurisdiction to award damages to Canadian investors for loss suffered through EU acts of general application setting the level of protection of a public interest adversely affecting autonomy of EU legal order — Whether damages granted for a fine for breach of EU competition law found to constitute an infringement of CETA undermining the principle of effectiveness of EU lawInternational tribunals — CETA Tribunal — CETA Appellate Tribunal — Whether Article 47 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000 applicable to dispute resolution fora created by EU’s international agreements — Whether CETA tribunals satisfying requirements of accessibility, independence and impartiality — Whether small and medium-sized enterprises’ right of access to CETA tribunals impaired by the “loser pays” principle — Whether powers of CETA Joint Committee to appoint and remove Members of CETA tribunals, to determine their remuneration and to issue binding interpretations of CETA respecting requirement of independence — Whether CETA sufficiently guaranteeing impartiality of Members of CETA tribunals vis-à-vis disputing parties and government of their State of originJurisdiction — CETA Tribunal — CETA Appellate Tribunal — Whether CETA tribunals having jurisdiction to assess compatibility of EU acts of general application setting the level of protection of a public interest adversely affecting autonomy of EU legal orderRelationship of international law and municipal law — EU law as domestic law — Application or interpretation of domestic law as a matter of fact — Whether power of CETA tribunals to take EU law into account as a matter of fact compatible with principle of autonomy of EU legal orderTreaties — Free trade agreements — International investment — “New generation” free trade agreements — CETA — Equal treatment of Canadian and EU investors — Whether granting access to CETA’s investor–State dispute settlement provisions for investments made in EU only to Canadian investors constituting discrimination — Whether Canadian and EU investors investing in EU in comparable situations — The law of the European Union

The Social Dimension in EU Free Trade Agreements: ASEAN Perspectives

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 532-549
Author(s):  
Hoang Ha Hai
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Social Dimension ◽  
Cultural Backgrounds ◽  
Multilateral Environmental Agreements ◽  
Asean Countries ◽  
New Generation ◽  
The Eu

This article analyses the positions of ASEAN countries on provisions of environmental and social sustainability included in the EU free trade agreements (FTA). In the EU’s new generation FTAs with ASEAN countries, there has been a notable and systematic EU approach of linking international labour conventions and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in its trade agreements, which reflects its ambition to play a significant role in ‘harnessing globalization’. However, during trade negotiations, contradictory positions between two sides originate from their different political, socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. When considering the developing countries’ objections to the issue from an ASEAN perspective, three main decisive points can be identified: the exclusive reliance on economic cost-related arguments, different perceptions of the trade-labour/environment nexus, and political and cultural-relativist arguments. Practical findings show that the EU faces resistance to this linkage from the ASEAN countries, which weakens its ability to promote universal social norms through trade.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document