A Review of the Theoretical Developments and Challenges in Regional Trade Agreements

Sun-Tae Cheong The International Academy of Global Business and T 2023 The International Academy of Global Business and T Vol.19 No.6

Purpose - The core of the debate on RTAs is the economic welfare effect resulting from the provision of preferential treatment among member countries and discrimination against non-member countries, and the resulting implications for the multilateral trading system. This study aims to answer these questions by reviewing theoretical and empirical research on RTAs from an economic perspective. It also presents theoretical challenges that may reflect changes in RTAs. Design/Methodology/Approach - This study examines the development of RTAs from an economic perspective, covering both traditional and new approaches. It does so by reviewing the literature on the theory and empirical evidence of RTAs. Findings - Concerns that RTAs will cause trade diversion and have a negative impact on the multilateral trading system are greatly exaggerated in our study. We also find that deep integration is less discriminatory than RTAs, resulting in more favorable effects on economic welfare and the multilateral trading system. Research Implications - Beyond the theoretical for and against RTAs, given that RTAs exist as a realistic entity, a more practical approach is to explore institutional ways in which RTAs and multilateral trading systems coexist. In other words, in a situation where the WTO system is facing a crisis, a realistic answer must be found as RTAs may be the only means to supplement the WTO system.

쌍무적 지역무역협정(RTA)의 확산과 문제점

정순태(Sun-Tae Jeong) 한국무역연구원 2007 무역연구 Vol.3 No.1

Regional Trade Agreements(RTAs) are a prominent feature of the multilateral trading system and have been an important trade policy tool for WTO Members. RTAs has been steadily increasing over the last ten years and this trend will be further strengthened by the many RTAs being proposed and those currently under negotiation. In particular, the bulk of RTAs are based on bilateral RTA configurations rather than the more burdensome plurilateral RTAs. This proliferation of bilateral RTAs has bring about more differential problems than plurilateral RTAs. This paper considers the recent developments, trends, and feature of bilateral RTAs and suggests that PECS would help to identify critical issees for any future step towards multilateralisation of RTAs as an alternative policy.

RTAs의 후생효과에 관한 이론적·경험적 고찰

곽근재 한국무역통상학회 2010 무역통상학회지 Vol.10 No.4

Regionalism within Multilateralism:

Sherzod Shadikhodjaev 대외경제정책연구원 2010 Working Papers Vol.2010 No.1

Given different legal regimes which govern the global and regional trading systems, the WTO as such cannot stop the proliferation of RTAs. Nevertheless, the WTO can oversee them through its political and judicial review procedures. Notably, Article XXIV of the GATT, Article V of the GATS and the Enabling Clause contain certain procedural requirements for notification and multilateral review of RTAs concluded by WTO members (political track). In addition, RTAs may be challenged in WTO dispute settlement procedures (judicial track). This paper examines legal provisions and practice of the WTO review mechanisms, explores possible remedies for WTO-inconsistent RTAs, analyzes the transparency mechanism for RTAs, and in particular specific issues of linkage with the WTO judicial review procedures and the possibility of extending the scope of the transparency mechanism to the post-formation period of notified RTAs. 세계무역기구(WTO)와 지역무역협정(RTA)은 별도의 법적 제도이나, WTO는 GATT 제24조, GATS 제5조, 권능부여조항(Enabling Clause)에 따른 정치적·사법적 검토메커니즘을 통해 RTA를 감독할 수 있다. WTO의 정치적 검토메커니즘은 WTO 회원국이 체결한 RTA에 대한 통보절차와 다자적 검토를 포함하며, 사법적 검토메커니즘은 RTA가 WTO 규범과 합치하느냐의 여부를 판정하는 WTO의 분쟁해결제도를 의미한다. 본 연구에서는 이러한 WTO 검토메커니즘에 관한 규정과 관행을 살펴보고, WTO 규범에 위배되는 RTA에 대한 가능한 구제조치를 검토하며, 2006년 창립된 RTA 투명성메커니즘 및 그와 관련된 각종 쟁점을 분석한다.

Jurisdiction Overlaps between the Dispute Settlement under the WTO and the RTAs

Yan-nan Sun,Yang-kee Lee,Jung-min Kwon 한국무역통상학회 2014 무역통상학회지 Vol.14 No.4

With a massive movement towards RTAs since the early 1990s, scholars have paid much attention on the issue of overlapping of jurisdiction between the dispute settlements of the WTO and of the RTAs. From the case study, we can find that the overlapping of jurisdiction is likely not only to impose substantive legal costs on the defendant party but also to lead to conflict decisions, thereby undermining the security and predictability of the multilateral trading system. With the fear of incoherent jurisprudence and the threat to multilateral trading system, this article tries to find an appropriate solution to deal with the overlapping of jurisdiction. In order to find an appropriate solution for the overlapping of jurisdiction, this article examined the application of some general principles such as Res Judicata or Lis Alibi Pendens, Comity or estoppel and Forum Conveniens and Forum non Conveniens. However, as a result of the strict conditions for their application, these principles seem to be difficult to be applied to deal with the overlapping of jurisdiction. A number of treaties provides for the choice of a form clause and the exclusive clause while setting up RTAs. The potential method for WTO DSB to deal with the jurisdictional overlapping is to decline to excise jurisdiction by using the jurisdiction exclusive clause contained in the RTAs.

An Analysis of Justice in International Trade law

Lim Jeong Kwan(임정관)(林正官) 신아시아연구소(구 신아세아질서연구회) 2018 신아세아 Vol.25 No.3

현재 지역 간 자유무역지대 형성을 목적으로 하고 있는 지역무역협정은 국제 무역 레짐 형성에 있어서 가장 중요한 역할을 하고 있다. 하지만 이를 통해 이루어지는 선진국과 개발도상국간의 무역은 개발도상국이 가지고 있는 상대적인 장점의 토대를 약화시킴으로써 결과적으로는 공정성의 문제를 발생시키고 있다. 이와 같은 결과를 발생키기는 요인으로는 원산지 규정의 부정적 효과, 개발 도상국간 경쟁으로 인한 구조적인 문제, 그리고 선진국 산업기준들의 일방적인 주입을 논의할 수 있다. 특히 선진국의 산업구조를 대변하고 있는 WTO–plus 가 지역무역협정의 기준이 되면서 내용적 측면에서 불공정 무역이 일반화되는 현상이 발생하고 있다. 이는 지역무역협정 과정에서 개발도상국이 처할 수밖에 없는 약자로서 구조적인 결과이다. 근본적으로 지역무역협정이 내포하고 있는 개발도상국의 경제개발을 위한 자유무역의 논리는 과거 선진국들의 경험과는 다른 비현실적, 비역사적 주장 이라고 할 수 있다. 과거 선진국들이 경제발전의 과정에서 보여준 보호주의와 차별은 발전의 과정에 있어서 검증된 방식이었다. 공정성, 정의의 측면에서 자유무역이 아닌 공정무역이 개발도상국 경제개발을 위한 논리이다. 개발도상국의 전략적 측면에서는 양자적, 소다자적 무역협정보다는 WTO를 통한 다자적 무역협상이 공정성의 의미에서 그나마 그들의 장기적인 경제적 발전의 기반을 확보할 수 있는 방식이라고 할 수 있다 Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs), which are now at the center of the international trade system, seem to increase unfair trade between developed and developing countries. RTAs deprive developing countries of their comparative advantage as a result of rules of origin, structural problems in competition among developing countries, and implementation of industrial standards of developed countries. Unfair trade starts at the onset of RTA negotiations that include “WTO-plus,” which represents the interests of developed countries’ industries, and which has become a universal standard in RTAs. The logic of free trade behind RTAs has not worked, even in the historical development of developed countries. Instead, protectionism and discrimination are the time-tested pillars of their development. For justice in international trade law, it is important to distinguish between free trade that focuses on liberalization of tariffs and quotas, and fair trade that supplements the structural negative results of free trade by protecting weaker players. As a way of strengthening developing countries’ long-term ability to develop economically, multilateral trade talks through the WTO are more desirable than FTAs or RTAs for developing countries.

An Analysis of Justice in International Trade law: Why are Free Trade in Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) Unfair?

임정관 신아시아연구소 2018 신아세아 Vol.25 No.3

Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs), which are now at the center of the international trade system, seem to increase unfair trade between developed and developing countries. RTAs deprive developing countries of their comparative advantage as a result of rules of origin, structural problems in competition among developing countries, and implementation of industrial standards of developed countries. Unfair trade starts at the onset of RTA negotiations that include “WTO-plus,” which represents the interests of developed countries’ industries, and which has become a universal standard in RTAs. The logic of free trade behind RTAs has not worked, even in the historical development of developed countries. Instead, protectionism and discrimination are the time-tested pillars of their development. For justice in international trade law, it is important to distinguish between free trade that focuses on liberalization of tariffs and quotas, and fair trade that supplements the structural negative results of free trade by protecting weaker players. As a way of strengthening developing countries’ long-term ability to develop economically, multilateral trade talks through the WTO are more desirable than FTAs or RTAs for developing countries.

Jurisdiction Overlaps between the Dispute Settlement under the WTO and the RTAs

손안남,이양기,권정민 한국무역통상학회 2014 무역통상학회지 Vol.14 No.4

With a massive movement towards RTAs since the early 1990s, scholars have paid much attention on the issueof overlapping of jurisdiction between the dispute settlements of the WTO and of the RTAs. From the casestudy, we can find that the overlapping of jurisdiction is likely not only to impose substantive legal costs on thedefendant party but also to lead to conflict decisions, thereby undermining the security and predictability of themultilateral trading system. With the fear of incoherent jurisprudence and the threat to multilateral tradingsystem, this article tries to find an appropriate solution to deal with the overlapping of jurisdiction. In order to find an appropriate solution for the overlapping of jurisdiction, this article examined theapplication of some general principles such as Res Judicata or Lis Alibi Pendens, Comity or estoppel and ForumConveniens and Forum non Conveniens. However, as a result of the strict conditions for their application, theseprinciples seem to be difficult to be applied to deal with the overlapping of jurisdiction. A number of treaties provides for the choice of a form clause and the exclusive clause while setting up RTAs. The potential method for WTO DSB to deal with the jurisdictional overlapping is to decline to excise jurisdictionby using the jurisdiction exclusive clause contained in the RTAs.

The Changing Anatomy of Regional Trade Agreements in East Asia

Kati Suominen 동아시아연구원 2009 Journal of East Asian Studies Vol.9 No.1

The recent proliferation of regional trade agreements in the East Asian region can be seen as the most notable development in the region's trading panorama in recent years. Yet, very little is as yet understood about the anatomy of these agreements and, consequently, their full implications to the regional economy. This article strives to fill this gap by analyzing the structure of four dozen RTAs by their various key component parts, including tariff liberalization schedules, rules of origin, and competition policy, customs, investment, and services provisions. The results reveal that intra-Asian RTAs are generally quite rapidly liberalizing, with the exception of agriculture, but they are also quite thin in trade-related disciplines when compared with the more legalistic US trans-Pacific RTAs and those of Mexico and Chile. The proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific would inherently be a construct of the political economy interests of these various constituent RTAs.

Legal Impediments to the Exercise of WTO Jurisdiction in light of Mexico-Soft Drinks (DS308) and Peru-Agricultural Products (DS457)

Won-Youb CHOI 산업통상자원부 2022 통상법무정책 Vol.- No.4

Overlap or conflict of jurisdictions in dispute settlement may be defined as situations where the same dispute or related aspects of the same dispute could be brought to two distinct institutions or two different dispute settlement systems for a solution. As the number of different international regimes and tribunals has multiplied over the past years, overlaps of jurisdictions have become commonplace in the international arena. This phenomenon is part of the fragmentation of international law, which is a result of the rise of specialized regimes that have different interests and biases. Since the World Trade Organization (WTO) recognizes the right of Members to enter into Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs), an inherent tension exists between Members’ rights under their RTAs and their rights under the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). However, there are a limited number of cases in which clear judgments have been made on the conflicting jurisdiction between the WTO and RTAs. Until now, WTO adjudicators have been reluctant to unequivocally state “whether there may be other circumstances in which legal impediments could exist that would preclude a panel from ruling on the merits before it”. This paper considers what potential legal impediments to the exercise of WTO jurisdiction exist if a party raises the question of a WTO panel’s jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, with a specific focus on two WTO dispute settlement cases – Mexico-Soft Drinks (DS308) and Peru-Agricultural Products (DS457).