Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship between Trade and Competition in Free Trade Agreements: Developments since the 1990s and Challenges

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2013

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((volume 4))

Abstract

Since the 1990s, the number of free trade agreements (FTAs) has dramatically increased. According to the WTO, 336 regional trade agreements were in force in June 2012. While these agreements 20 years ago covered primarily trade in goods-related issues, their scope and complexity have since been steadily extended. Today, they often contain “WTO plus” provisions in the field of services, intellectual property rights or government procurement and also increasingly address issues that are not covered by WTO Agreements in a comprehensive way, such as investment or competition. This can in particular be explained by the fact that once tariff barriers have been removed, domestic policies and regulations become more salient as potential obstacles to trade.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Source: WTO Website. Note that this figure includes customs unions that are not considered in this article.

  2. 2.

    See WTO, World Trade Report 2011: The WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements—From Coexistence to Coherence, 2011, p. 109.

  3. 3.

    WTO, World Trade Report 2011: The WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements—From Coexistence to Coherence, 2011, p. 132.

  4. 4.

    The Member States of EFTA are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.

  5. 5.

    Art. 46(1) of the Havana Charter.

  6. 6.

    Art. 46(1) of the Havana Charter.

  7. 7.

    See Hoekman/Mavroidis, Competition, Competition Policy and the GATT, The World Economy 17 (1994) 2, p. 121; OECD Joint Group on Trade and Competition, Competition Elements in International Trade Agreements: A Post-Uruguay Round Overview of the WTO Agreements, 1999.

  8. 8.

    The working group dealt with the following issues: core principles, including transparency, non-discrimination and procedural fairness, and provisions on hardcore cartels; modalities for voluntary cooperation; and support for progressive reinforcement of competition institutions in developing countries through capacity building. Full account was to be taken of the needs of developing and least-developed country participants and appropriate flexibility provided to address them.

  9. 9.

    On the reasons for the failure to reach an agreement on the launching of negotiations, see Anderson/Evenett, Incorporating Competition Elements in Regional Trade Agreements: Characterization and Empirical Analysis, Working Paper, 2006, Section 2.2.3.

  10. 10.

    This finding is also supported by Anderson/Evenett, Incorporating Competition Elements in Regional Trade Agreements: Characterization and Empirical Analysis, Working Paper, 2006, Section 2.2.2.

  11. 11.

    International Competition Network (ICN), Cooperation between Competition Agencies in Cartel Investigations, Report of the Cartels Working Group to the ICN Conference, May 2006, p. 5. For examples of bilateral cooperation agreements on competition, see the EU-Japan Agreement concerning Cooperation on Anti-Competitive Activities, signed on 10 July 2003, in force since 9 August 2003; see also United States-Canada Agreement of 1995 concerning the Application of Their Competition and Deceptive Marketing Practices Laws, signed on 1 and 3 August 1995, in force since its signature.

  12. 12.

    Holmes/Papadopoulos/Kayali/Sydorak, Trade and Competition in RTAs: A Missed Opportunity?, in: Brusik/Alvarez/Cernat (eds.), Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: How to Assure Development Gains, 2005, p. 67 (71); Anderson/Evenett, Incorporating Competition Elements in Regional Trade Agreements: Characterization and Empirical Analysis, Working Paper, 2006, Section 2.1; Desta/Barnes, Competition Law in Regional Trade Agreements: An Overview, in: Bartels/Ortino (eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, 2006, p. 239 (242).

  13. 13.

    See Mitchell, Broadening the Vision of Trade Liberalisation—International Competition Law and the WTO, World Competition 24 (2001) 3, p. 343.

  14. 14.

    International cooperation is thus for several years a key topic for the International Competition Network, the OECD Competition Committee and the UNCTAD IGE on Competition Law and Policy.

  15. 15.

    Holmes/Papadopoulos/Kayali/Sydorak, Trade and Competition in RTAs: A Missed Opportunity?, in: Brusik/Alvarez/Cernat (eds.), Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: How to Assure Development Gains, 2005, p. 67 (71–72).

  16. 16.

    Solano/Sennekamp, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, OECD Trade Policy Working Paper, (2006) 31.

  17. 17.

    Anderson/Evenett, Incorporating Competition Elements in Regional Trade Agreements: Characterization and Empirical Analysis, Working Paper, 2006, Section 3.1.

  18. 18.

    Teh, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, in: Estevadeordal/Suominen/Teh (eds.), Regional Rules in the Global Trading System, 2009, p. 418 (483); WTO, World Trade Report 2011: The WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements—From Coexistence to Coherence, 2011, p. 144.

  19. 19.

    Therefore, it is no coincidence that Solano/Sennekamp also listed as agreements where there is overlap between the features of the two styles agreements such as Chile-Korea, EC-Chile, EC-Mexico, EFTA-Mexico or Korea-Singapore.

  20. 20.

    See infra.

  21. 21.

    For other classifications, see Solano/Sennekamp, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, OECD Trade Policy Working Paper, (2006) 31; Holmes/Papadopoulos/Kayali/Sydorak, Trade and Competition in RTAs: A Missed Opportunity?, in: Brusik/Alvarez/Cernat (eds.), Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: How to Assure Development Gains, 2005, p. 67 (73–74) and Desta/Barnes, Competition Law in Regional Trade Agreements: An Overview, in: Bartels/Ortino (eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, 2006, p. 239 (244–245).

  22. 22.

    The FTAs concluded by the United States for instance include obligations related to non-discrimination, due process and judicial review. See for instance Art. 16.1.(2) US-Chile FTA.

  23. 23.

    See Desta/Barnes, Competition Law in Regional Trade Agreements: An Overview, in: Bartels/Ortino (eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, 2006, p. 239 (244).

  24. 24.

    Pursuing a different objective than this article, the study conducted by Teh provides a broad and comprehensive analysis of these provisions. See Teh, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, in: Estevadeordal/Suominen/Teh (eds.), Regional Rules in the Global Trading System, 2009, p. 418.

  25. 25.

    See Anderson/Evenett, Incorporating Competition Elements in Regional Trade Agreements: Characterization and Empirical Analysis, Working Paper, 2006, Section 3.1.

  26. 26.

    See Grewlich, Globalisation and Conflict in Competition Law: Elements of Possible Solutions, World Competition 24 (2001) 3, p. 367 (382).

  27. 27.

    These include the agreements with South Africa (in force since 1 January 2000), Mexico (in force since 1 July 2000), Chile (in force since 1 February 2003/1 March 2005), CARIFORUM States (signed in 2008 and provisionally applied since 29 December 2008), Korea (signed in 2010 and provisionally applied since 1 July 2011).

  28. 28.

    Szepesi, Comparing EU Free Trade Agreements: Competition Policy and State Aid, ECDPM inBrief 6E, 2004, p. 2.

  29. 29.

    See for instance Art. 53 EU-Jordan Association Agreement.

  30. 30.

    See Art. 23 EU-Switzerland FTA.

  31. 31.

    See for instance Art. 35 EU-South Africa Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement; Art. 41(1) EU-Algeria Association Agreement; Art. 11.1(3) EU-Korea FTA.

  32. 32.

    Annex XV EU-Mexico Global Agreement; Art. 172(1) EU-Chile Association Agreement; Art. 11.1(1) and 11.3(2) EU-Korea FTA.

  33. 33.

    See for instance Art. 39 EU-Macedonia SAA; Art. 37 EU-Tunisia Association Agreement.

  34. 34.

    See for instance Art. 70 EU-Macedonia SAA; Art. 55 EU-Jordan Association Agreement; Art. 38 EU-Morocco Association Agreement.

  35. 35.

    Art. 179 EU-Chile Association Agreement; Art. 11.4 and 11.5 EU-Korea FTA. Inversely, the EU-Mexico Global Agreement contains no such provisions.

  36. 36.

    See for instance Art. 34(5) EU-Egypt Association Agreement; Art. 73(10) EU-Montenegro SAA.

  37. 37.

    Art. 11.7 EU-Korea FTA.

  38. 38.

    See Art. 2 of Protocol 7 of the EU-Montenegro SAA; Art. 2 of Protocol 7 of the EU-Serbia SAA.

  39. 39.

    Art. 180 EU-Chile Association Agreement; Art. 11.8 EU-Korea FTA.

  40. 40.

    Art. 39(1) EU-Jordan Association Agreement; Art. 34(3) EU-Algeria Association Agreement; Protocol 4 on Land Transport and Art. 91 concerning financial services of the EU-Serbia SAA. However, competition is in this context conceived as a goal for cooperation and does not give rise to specific obligations with regard to anti-competitive practices.

  41. 41.

    Art. 112 EU-Chile Association Agreement; Art. 7.30 EU-Korea FTA.

  42. 42.

    Art. 139(1) EU-Chile Association Agreement; Art. 167(2) EU-CARIFORUM States Economic Partnership Agreement.

  43. 43.

    Art. 173(2) EU-CARIFORUM States Economic Partnership Agreement.

  44. 44.

    See for instance Art. 97 EU-Chile Association Agreement; Art. 67 EU-CARIFORUM States Economic Partnership Agreement; Art. 7.5 EU-Korea FTA.

  45. 45.

    Art. 68(3) and 77(3) EU-CARIFORUM States Economic Partnership Agreement; Art. 7.6(3) EU-Korea FTA.

  46. 46.

    See Art. 27 EU-CARIFORUM States Economic Partnership Agreement; Art. 2.8 EU-Korea FTA.

  47. 47.

    See Mitchell, Broadening the Vision of Trade Liberalisation—International Competition Law and the WTO, World Competition 24 (2001) 3, p. 343 (360).

  48. 48.

    Art. 190-192 EU-Chile Association Agreement; Art. 235 EU-CARIFORUM States Economic Partnership Agreement.

  49. 49.

    Art. 12.1-12.8 EU-Korea FTA.

  50. 50.

    See Art. 36(6) EU-Israel Association Agreement; Art. 53(7) EU-Jordan Association Agreement; Art. 34(6) EU-Egypt Association Agreement.

  51. 51.

    See for instance Art. 36(3) EU-Tunisia Association Agreement; Art. 36(3) EU-Morocco Association Agreement.

  52. 52.

    EU-Morocco Association Council Decision No. 1/2004 (2005/466/EC) of 19 April 2004 adopting the necessary rules for the implementation of the competition rules, OJ [2005] L 165/10.

  53. 53.

    See Annex 5.

  54. 54.

    Art. 38-40 EU-South Africa Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement.

  55. 55.

    Art. 128 EU-CARIFORUM States Economic Partnership Agreement.

  56. 56.

    Annex XV EU-Mexico Global Agreement; Art. 172 et seq. EU-Chile Association Agreement. The EU-Mexico Agreement is more detailed than the EU-Chile Agreement and provides for instance for provisions on avoidance of conflicts and specifies what kind of information may be exchanged. See also Szepesi, Comparing EU Free Trade Agreements: Competition Policy and State Aid, ECDPM inBrief 6E, 2004, p. 6.

  57. 57.

    Art. 11.6 EU-Korea FTA.

  58. 58.

    Art. 11.7 EU-Korea FTA.

  59. 59.

    Among the 18 US FTAs in force as of May 2012, only 6—i.e. a third—have a competition chapter: NAFTA, US-Chile FTA, US-Singapore FTA, US-Australia FTA, US-Peru FTA and US-Korea FTA.

  60. 60.

    See for instance Art. 1501(1) NAFTA; Art. 16.1 US-Chile FTA; Art. 16.1 US-Korea FTA.

  61. 61.

    Art. 12.2 US-Singapore FTA; Art. 14.2(2) US-Australia FTA; Art. 13.2 US-Peru Trade Partnership Agreement.

  62. 62.

    See for instance Art. 12.2 US-Singapore FTA; Art. 14.2(1) US-Australia FTA; Art. 14.2(3) US-Peru Trade Partnership Agreement.

  63. 63.

    Art. 16.1(2)-(6) US-Korea FTA. These provisions address non-discrimination, the right to be heard, the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, judicial review, possibility of settlements for competition authorities, and rules of procedures for administrative hearings.

  64. 64.

    See for instance Art. 14.3 US-Australia FTA; Art. 13.5 US-Peru Trade Partnership Agreement; Art. 16.2 US-Korea FTA. Certain agreements provide for additional obligations, in particular in the form of notifications, when the designation of a monopoly may affect the interests of persons of another party, see Art. 1502(2) NAFTA, and Art. 16.3 US-Chile FTA.

  65. 65.

    See for instance Art. 1503 NAFTA; Art. 14.4 US-Australia FTA; Art. 16.3 US-Korea FTA.

  66. 66.

    Art. 12.3(2) US-Singapore FTA. See Desta/Barnes, Competition Law in Regional Trade Agreements: An Overview, in: Bartels/Ortino (eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, 2006, p. 239 (257).

  67. 67.

    Art. 16.6 US-Chile FTA; Art. 12.5 US-Singapore FTA; Art. 14.8 US-Australia FTA; Art. 13.8 US-Peru Trade Partnership Agreement; Art. 16.5 US-Korea FTA.

  68. 68.

    Art. 16.7 US-Chile FTA; Art. 16.7 US-Korea FTA; Art. 13.9 US-Peru Trade Partnership Agreement.

  69. 69.

    Art. 1501(1) NAFTA; Art. 14.2(1) US-Australia FTA.

  70. 70.

    See for instance Art. 16.8 US-Chile FTA; Art. 14.11 US-Australia FTA; Art. 16.8 US-Korea FTA.

  71. 71.

    Art. 1501(3) NAFTA.

  72. 72.

    See for instance Art. 12.4(2) and 12.8 US-Bahrain FTA; Art. 13.4(2) and 13.8 US-Dominican Republic/Central America FTA.

  73. 73.

    Art. 1305 NAFTA.

  74. 74.

    See Art. 12.16(1) US-Australia FTA.

  75. 75.

    Art. 1106(1) NAFTA; Art. 15.8(3)(b)(ii) US-Singapore FTA; Art. 11.8(3)(b) US-Korea FTA.

  76. 76.

    See for instance Art. 1007(4), 1008(2), 1013(2), 1016 and 1019(3), (5) NAFTA; Art. 15.6(6), 15.7(6), 15.8 and 15.9(2) US-Australia FTA. The US-Singapore FTA on its part incorporates provisions of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, including Art. VII, X and XV, which refer to competition concerns (Art. 13.3(1) US-Singapore FTA).

  77. 77.

    Art. 301 NAFTA; Art. 3.2(1) US-Chile FTA.

  78. 78.

    See for instance Art. 1802-1805 NAFTA; Chapter 19 US-Singapore FTA; Chapter 18 US-Oman FTA.

  79. 79.

    See Art. 1501(2) NAFTA; Art. 12.4 US-Singapore FTA; Art. 14.2(3) US-Australia FTA.

  80. 80.

    Art. 14.2(4) US-Australia FTA; Art. 13.4 US-Peru Trade Partnership Agreement.

  81. 81.

    Art. 14.6 US-Australia FTA; Art. 16.6 US-Korea FTA.

  82. 82.

    Art. 14.9 US-Australia FTA.

  83. 83.

    See for instance Art. 17(1) EFTA-Israel FTA; Art. 17(1) EFTA-Morocco FTA; Art. 18(1) EFTA-Albania FTA.

  84. 84.

    See for instance Art. 18(2) EFTA-Jordan FTA; Art. 17(2) EFTA-Albania FTA.

  85. 85.

    See Art. 10 EFTA-Morocco FTA; Art. 14 EFTA-Tunisia FTA; Art. 9 EFTA-Croatia FTA.

  86. 86.

    See for instance Art. 15 EFTA-Albania FTA; Art. 16 EFTA-Serbia FTA.

  87. 87.

    See for instance Art. 50(1) EFTA-Singapore FTA; Art. 72(3) EFTA-Chile FTA; Art. 5.1(2) EFTA-Korea FTA.

  88. 88.

    Art. 51 of the EFTA-Mexico FTA; Art. 14(1) EFTA-Canada FTA.

  89. 89.

    References are only punctual, for instance, Art. 72(3) of the EFTA-Chile FTA provides that anti-competitive practices may be carried out by private and public enterprises.

  90. 90.

    See for instance Art. 17(3) EFTA-Morocco FTA; Art. 17(4) EFTA-Tunisia FTA; Art. 18(4) EFTA-Albania FTA.

  91. 91.

    On EU Agreements, see Solano/Sennekamp, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, OECD Trade Policy Working Paper, (2006) 31, para. 47.

  92. 92.

    See for instance Art. 75(4) EFTA-Chile FTA; Art. 5.1(6) EFTA-Korea FTA; Art. 8.4 EFTA-Colombia FTA.

  93. 93.

    See for instance Art. 50(3) EFTA-Singapore FTA; Art. 78 EFTA-Chile FTA; Art. 8.6 EFTA-Colombia FTA.

  94. 94.

    The agreements with Canada and SACU do not contain such provisions.

  95. 95.

    See Art. 3.11 and 3.12 EFTA-Korea FTA.

  96. 96.

    Art. 4.11 and 4.12 EFTA-Korea FTA.

  97. 97.

    See for instance Art. 21, 23(3), 29(4) and 31(4) EFTA-Mexico FTA with regard to services and financial services; Art. 25(2) EFTA-Chile; Art. 25(3) EFTA-Singapore; Art. 4.5(3) EFTA-Colombia FTA.

  98. 98.

    See for instance Art. 5 and 7 of Annex IX EFTA-Chile FTA; Art. 5 and 7 of Annex X EFTA-Korea FTA.

  99. 99.

    Art. 63(3) EFTA-Mexico FTA; Art. 59(3) and 65(3) EFTA-Chile FTA.

  100. 100.

    Art. 7.8(6) and 7.10(7) EFTA-Colombia FTA. The EFTA-Mexico FTA has a special approach, Mexico committing to apply certain NAFTA rules and the EFTA States certain provisions of the Government Procurement Agreement of the WTO, see Art. 61(1) and Annex XVII EFTA-Mexico FTA.

  101. 101.

    See for instance Art. 11 EFTA-Tunisia FTA; Art. 2.6 EFTA-Korea FTA; Art. 10 EFTA-Albania FTA.

  102. 102.

    See Art. 16(2) EFTA-Singapore; Art. 17(2) EFTA-Albania FTA.

  103. 103.

    Art. 79 EFTA-Mexico FTA; Chapter VIII EFTA-Chile FTA; Art. 10.1 EFTA-Korea FTA; Art. 5 EFTA-Albania.

  104. 104.

    Art. 52(2)-(4) of the EFTA-Mexico FTA.

  105. 105.

    Art. 73 EFTA-Chile FTA; Art. 15 EFTA-Canada FTA.

  106. 106.

    Art. 73 et seq. EFTA-Chile FTA; Art. 15 EFTA-Canada FTA; Chapter 8 of the EFTA-Colombia FTA.

  107. 107.

    See for instance Art. 76(2) EFTA-Chile FTA.

  108. 108.

    See for instance Art. 79 EFTA-Chile FTA; Art. 15(4) EFTA-Canada FTA.

  109. 109.

    Teh, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, in: Estevadeordal/Suominen/Teh (eds.), Regional Rules in the Global Trading System, 2009, p. 418 (421).

  110. 110.

    Solano/Sennekamp, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, OECD Trade Policy Working Paper, (2006) 31; Desta/Barnes, Competition Law in Regional Trade Agreements: An Overview, in: Bartels/Ortino (eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, 2006, p. 239.

  111. 111.

    See supra.

  112. 112.

    See for instance Chapter 5 of the Implementing Agreement of the Economic Partnership Agreement between Japan and Indonesia, signed on 27 August 2007, in force since 1 July 2008; Chapter 3 of the Implementing Agreement of the Free Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement between Japan and Switzerland, signed on 19 February 2009, in force since 1 September 2009; Chapter 2 of the Implementing Agreement of the Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Peru for an Economic Partnership, signed on 31 May 2011, in force since 1 March 2012.

  113. 113.

    See for instance Art. 12.1 US-Singapore FTA and Art. 14.1 US-Australia FTA.

  114. 114.

    Art. 16.1 US-Chile FTA; Art. 16.1 US-Korea FTA.

  115. 115.

    See also Teh, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, in: Estevadeordal/Suominen/Teh (eds.), Regional Rules in the Global Trading System, 2009, p. 418 (464).

  116. 116.

    Art. 1504 NAFTA. This working group no longer meets, see Jones, Competition Dimensions of NAFTA and the European Union: Semi-Common Competition Policy, Uncommon Rules, and No Common Institutions, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, 6 (2006) 18, p. 8.

  117. 117.

    See Teh, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, in: Estevadeordal/Suominen/Teh (eds.), Regional Rules in the Global Trading System, 2009, p. 418 (484).

  118. 118.

    See supra.

  119. 119.

    See supra.

  120. 120.

    See Art. 17(4) in conjunction with Art. 37 EFTA-Tunisia FTA.

  121. 121.

    See Teh, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, in: Estevadeordal/Suominen/Teh (eds.), Regional Rules in the Global Trading System, 2009, p. 418 (482).

  122. 122.

    See Hoekman/Mavroidis, Competition, Competition Policy and the GATT, The World Economy 17 (1994) 2, p. 121; Roessler, Should Principles of Competition Policy Be Incorporated into WTO Law through Non-Violations Complaints?, Journal of International Economic Law 2 (1999) 3, p. 413.

  123. 123.

    See Report of the Panel, Japan—Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper, WT/DS44/R.

  124. 124.

    For an example of such inclusion, see the Free Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement between Japan and Switzerland, signed on 19 February 2009, in force since 1 September 2009.

  125. 125.

    On the issues raised by non-violation complaints in relationship with competition, see Hoekman/Mavroidis, Competition, Competition Policy and the GATT, The World Economy 17 (1994) 2, p. 121 (141).

  126. 126.

    For instance, goal to achieve “optimum effective competition,” see Art. 15.7(6) US-Australia FTA.

  127. 127.

    See for instance Art. 7.6(3) EU-Korea Agreement.

  128. 128.

    See examples from the US FTAs cited supra.

  129. 129.

    See for instance Art. 5 of Annex IX EFTA-Chile FTA.

  130. 130.

    Art. 9.15 US-Singapore FTA.

  131. 131.

    See for instance Art. 4.12 EFTA-Colombia FTA.

  132. 132.

    As stressed by Teh, depending on the carve-out of dispute settlement procedures in the competition chapter, provisions in specific chapters may be the only competition-related provisions of a regional trade agreement that may be subject to such procedures. See Teh, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, in: Estevadeordal/Suominen/Teh (eds.), Regional Rules in the Global Trading System, 2009, p. 418 (482).

  133. 133.

    Art. 90, 97 and 111 EU-CARIFORUM Agreement.

  134. 134.

    Teh, Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, in: Estevadeordal/Suominen/Teh (eds.), Regional Rules in the Global Trading System, 2009, p. 418 (465).

  135. 135.

    Art. 16.1(4) US-Korea FTA.

  136. 136.

    Art. 21.4(1) US-Korea FTA.

  137. 137.

    See supra.

  138. 138.

    Annex V EU-Algeria Association Agreement; Art. 16.2 US-Chile FTA; Art. 5.2(5) EFTA-Korea FTA.

  139. 139.

    Cernat, Eager to Ink, But Ready to Act? RTA Proliferation and International Cooperation on Competition Policy, in: Brusik/Alvarez/Cernat (eds.), Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: How to Assure Development Gains, 2005, p. 3 (8–9).

  140. 140.

    Rosenberg/Araújo, Implementation Costs and Burden of International Competition Law and Policy Agreements, in: Brusik/Alvarez/Cernat (eds.), Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: How to Assure Development Gains, 2005, p. 191 (208).

  141. 141.

    UNCTAD, Experiences Gained so far on International Cooperation on Competition Policy Issues and the Mechanisms Used, TD/B/COM.2/CLP/21/Rev.5, 2007, para. 28; WTO Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy, Modalities for Voluntary Cooperation, Background Note by the Secretariat, WT/WGTCP/W/192, 2002, para. 13.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Economic Law Division, State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, Holzikofenweg 36, 3003, Berne, Switzerland

    Hanspeter Tschaeni & Valérie Engammare

Authors
  1. Hanspeter Tschaeni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valérie Engammare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valérie Engammare .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European Law, European and, University of Passau Chair for Constitutional and Administrat, Passau, Germany

    Christoph Herrmann

  2. Chair for Public Law, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. Chair for Public Law, European and, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

Appendix: List of Agreements Quoted

According to their date of signature.

Appendix: List of Agreements Quoted

Agreements Concluded by the European Union

  • EU-Switzerland FTA, signed on 22.7.1972, in force since 1.1.1973

  • EU-Tunisia Association Agreement, signed on 17.7.1995, in force since 1.3.1998.

  • EU-South Africa Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement, signed on 11.10.1999, in force since 1.1.2000

  • EU-Morocco Association Agreement, signed on 26.2.1996, in force since 1.3.2000

  • EU-Israel Association Agreement, signed on 20.11.1995, in force since 1.6.2000

  • EU-Mexico Global Agreement, signed on 8.12.1997, in force since 1.7.2000

  • EU-Jordan Association Agreement, signed on 24.11.1997, in force since 1.5.2002

  • EU-Chile Association Agreement, signed on 18.11.2002, in force since 1.2.2003/1.3.2005

  • EU-Macedonia SAA, signed on 9.4.2001, in force since 1.5.2004

  • EU-Egypt Association Agreement, signed on 25.6.2001, in force since 1.6.2004

  • EU-Algeria Association Agreement, signed on 22.4.2002, in force since 1.9.2005

  • EU-Montenegro SAA, signed on 15.10.2007, in force since 1.5.2010.

  • EU-CARIFORUM States Economic Partnership Agreement, signed on 15.10.2008, provisionally applied since 29.12.2008

  • EU-Serbia SAA, signed on 29.4.2008

  • EU-Korea FTA, signed on 6.10. 2010, provisionally applied since 1.7.2011

Agreements Concluded by the United States

  • North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed on 17.12.1992, in force since 1.1.1994

  • US-Chile FTA, signed on 6.6.2003, in force since 1.1.2004

  • US-Singapore FTA, signed on 6.5.2003, in force since 1.1.2004

  • US-Australia FTA, signed on 18.5.2004, in force since 1.1.2005

  • US-Bahrain FTA, signed on 14.9.2004, in force since 11.1.2006

  • US-Dominican Republic/Central America FTA, signed on 5.8.2004, in force since 2006

  • US-Oman FTA, signed on 19.1.2006, in force since 1.1.2009

  • US-Peru Trade Partnership Agreement, signed on 12.4.2006, in force since 1.2.2009

  • US-Korea FTA, signed on 30.6.2007, in force since 12.3.2012

Agreements Concluded by the EFTA Members

  • EFTA States-Israel FTA, signed on 17.9.1992, in force since 1.7.1993

  • EFTA States-Morocco FTA, signed on 19.6.1997, in force since 1.12.1999

  • EFTA States-Mexico FTA, signed on 27.11.2000, in force since 1.7.2001

  • EFTA States-Croatia FTA, signed on 21.6.2001, in force since 1.1.2002

  • EFTA States-Jordan FTA, signed on 21.6.2001, in force since 1.9.2002

  • EFTA States-Singapore FTA, signed on 26.6.2002, in force since 1.1.2003

  • EFTA States-Chile FTA, signed on 26.6.2003, in force since 1.12.2004

  • EFTA States-Tunisia FTA, signed on 17.12.2004, in force since 1.6.2006

  • EFTA States-Republic of Korea FTA, signed on 15.12.2005, in force since 1.9.2006

  • EFTA States-Egypt FTA, signed on 27.1.2007, in force since 1.8.2007

  • EFTA States-Canada FTA, signed on 26.1.2008, in force since 1.7.2009

  • EFTA States-Colombia FTA, signed on 25.11.2008, in force since 1.7.2011

  • EFTA Sates-Serbia FTA, signed on 17.12.2009, in force since 1.10.2010

  • EFTA States-Albania FTA, signed on 17.12.2009, in force since 1.11.2010

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tschaeni, H., Engammare, V. (2013). The Relationship between Trade and Competition in Free Trade Agreements: Developments since the 1990s and Challenges. In: Herrmann, C., Krajewski, M., Terhechte, J. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2013. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 4. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33917-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation