Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2015 pp 191–209Cite as

Economic Partnership Agreements Concluded by Japan

  • Chapter

  • 945 Accesses

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 6))

Abstract

At the turn of the century, Japan made a volte-face on its policy regarding bilateral trade agreements and started to conclude a number of economic partnership agreements (or free trade agreements) with various trade partners in the Asia-Pacific and is now engaged in negotiations on several multilateral as well as bilateral negotiations. EPAs concluded by Japan include a number of "WTO Plus" elements relating to trade in service, intellectual property rights, etc. They also generally provide investor-State as wel as State-to-State arbitration to settle disputes concerning their interpretation and application. Such treaties, together with several "Mega-FTAs" under negotiation, may gradually erode the role that the WTO play, particularly in the settlement of international trade disputes.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Most importantly, see “Part III: FTA/EPA and BIT” of the annual Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade Agreements, published by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/index_report.html.

  2. 2.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Economic Diplomacy, Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/index.html; Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/english.html.

  3. 3.

    Hamamoto (2011), p. 53 (54–55).

  4. 4.

    Multilateral Trade Negotiations—The Uruguay Round, Negotiating Group on GATT Articles, Article XXIV, Submission by Japan, MTN.GNG/NG7/W/66 (22 December 1989).

  5. 5.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Diplomatic Bluebook 1995, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/1995/index.html.

  6. 6.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Diplomatic Bluebook 1995, Chapter II, Part 2: The International Economy; (1) Ensuring Sustainable Growth of the World Economy and Japan’s Role; (d) Regional Integration and Regional Cooperation Movements.

  7. 7.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Diplomatic Bluebook 1995, Chapter II, Part 2 (1) (e) Bilateral Consultations (emphasis added).

  8. 8.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Japan’s FTA Strategy (Summary), October 2002, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/strategy0210.html. The full text of the Strategy is available only in Japanese at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/fta/senryaku.html.

  9. 9.

    Krauss (2003), p. 307; Munakata (2006), pp. 102–114; Ravenhill (2008), p. 78 (81–84); Webster (2008), p. 301; Pekkanen (2008); Solís (2009), p. 198; Thorbecke and Salike (2013); there also exists an enormous number of studies in Japanese. To quote only those from which the present author benefited most: Watanabe (2014), p. 211; Terada (2012), p. 11.

  10. 10.

    The term “East Asia” in the context of FTAs/EPAs usually designates ASEAN+3. See, e.g., Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, White Paper on International Trade 2003, Chapter 4, Section 2, p. 302, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/gIT03maine.html.

  11. 11.

    “[T]here is a growing trend of Japanese companies collaborating with those in East Asian countries to form international frameworks for the division of labor and mutually complementary systems in processes such as research and development, design and assembly. […] It is our firm belief that creating common business infrastructures in East Asia and thereby linking related business networks would lead to an increase in the competitiveness of the entire East Asia region in addition to maintaining and increasing the competitive advantage of Japanese companies.” Keidanren (2001), III. 3.(1). Keidanren or Japan Business Federation is a private organization with a membership comprised of more than a thousand representative companies of Japan.

    “Japanese companies’ activities are moving their focus of activities largely to East Asia, and as a source of profit also, East Asia is growing in significance. In order to ensure these sources of profit and strengthen them accordingly, it would be effective to systemize cooperative relations in East Asia.” Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, White Paper on International Trade 2003, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/gIT03maine.html, Chapter 4, Section 2, p. 299.

  12. 12.

    “In the 1990s, FTAs mushroomed worldwide on an unparalleled scale and with unprecedented speed […]. Japan, however, has yet to undertake a single free trade agreement. As a result, Japanese companies are losing out on business opportunities in the international arena, and also finding themselves placed at a competitive disadvantage in doing business with countries that have already concluded FTAs elsewhere.” Keidanren (2000), 1; Keidanren (2006a).

  13. 13.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Japan’s FTA Strategy (Summary), October 2002, point 1(1), available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/strategy0210.html.

  14. 14.

    “Bilateral free trade agreements are also important, because […] they have the potential to strengthen Japan’s negotiating power in, for example, the upcoming WTO negotiations.” Keidanren (1999), 3.(1).

  15. 15.

    “FTAs liberalize trade and investment and harmonize the regulatory systems of the countries concerned. In Japan’s case, this would encourage the elimination or relaxation of various regulations, the redressing of high-cost factors, and other such structural reforms.” Keidanren (2000), 2.2.c.

    The Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy stated in 2002 that “relevant ministries shall promote and strengthen economic partnership including FTAs and make necessary efforts to overcome obstacles” and that “relevant ministries shall improve the climate, starting from financial year 2002, for the creation of an ‘East Asia Free Business Zone,’ where regimes will be harmonized and unified.” Council on Economic Fiscal Policy, Basic Policies for Economic and Fiscal Policy Management and Structural Reform 2002, 21 June 2002, available (in Japanese) at: http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizai/tousin/020621f.html. The English summary, which does not include these sentences, is available at: http://japan.kantei.go.jp/policy/2002/0621kouzoukaikaku_e.html.

  16. 16.

    The ASEAN Plus Three (China, Japan, Republic of Korea) Cooperation began in 1997; see http://www.asean.org/asean/external-relations/asean-3/item/asean-plus-three-cooperation. The Chiang Mai Initiative was agreed in 2000; see Ministry of Finance Japan, Japan’s Financial Cooperation in Asia, available at: http://www.mof.go.jp/english/international_policy/financial_cooperation_in_asia/index.html. See also Sussangkarn (2010).

  17. 17.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Japan–Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/singapore.html; see also Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan–Singapore EPA, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/epa_en/sg/. For the negotiation process, see Terada (2006).

  18. 18.

    “In identifying countries or regions to negotiate with, the Government shall take the following perspectives into comprehensive consideration:

    1. Creation of international environment beneficial to our country

    1–1 Whether or not it will facilitate the efforts towards community building and stability and prosperity in East Asia.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Basic Policy towards further promotion of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), approved by the Council of Ministers on the Promotion of Economic Partnership on 21 December 2004, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/policy0412.html.

  19. 19.

    “Mexico has concluded free trade agreements with more than 30 countries. Since Japan has not concluded such an agreement with Mexico, Japanese companies must pay tariffs averaging 16 percent, and they are placed in an uncompetitive position relative to European and U.S. companies regarding government procurements and investment. This situation is causing real losses for Japanese companies. Annual losses resulting from the lack of an FTA are estimated at 400 billion Japanese yen,” Keidanren (2003). See also Japan Foreign Trade Council, Toward the Japan–Mexico Free Trade Agreement, 12 September 2002, available at: http://www.jftc.or.jp/english/news/2001_02/2001_02_1.htm. The Japan Foreign Trade Council is a private organization in which companies engaged in international trade participate.

  20. 20.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Agreement between Japan and the United Mexican States for the Strengthening of the Economic Partnership, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/mexico.html; see also Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan–Mexico EPA, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/epa_en/mx/.

  21. 21.

    Council of Ministers on the Promotion of Economic Partnership, Basic Policy towards further promotion of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), 21 December 2004, available at: http://japan.kantei.go.jp/policy/index/keizairenkei/041221kettei_e.html.

  22. 22.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Chile for a Strategic Economic Partnership, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/chile.html; see also Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan–Chile EPA, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/epa_en/cl/. METI’s report states that “Chile has already entered into FTAs with approximately 50 countries, including the United States, Canada, the EU, EFTA, Korea and China, and it was thus important for Japan to resolve the economic disadvantage with Chile due to the non-existence of an EPA/FTA with it.” Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2013 Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade Agreements, Part III, Overview, p. 787, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/gCT13_1coe.html.

  23. 23.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Agreement on Free Trade and Economic Partnership between Japan and the Swiss Confederation, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/switzerland.html; see also Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan–Switzerland EPA, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/epa_en/ch/. METI’s website maintains that “The contents of the Japan-Switzerland EPA as Japan’s first EPA with a developed Western country attained a high level, thus making it possible to serve as an EPA model between advanced countries.” See also Keidanren (2007).

  24. 24.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Peru for an Economic Partnership, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/peru.html; see also Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan–Peru EPA, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/epa_en/pe/.

  25. 25.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Agreement between Japan and Australia for an Economic Partnership, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/australia.html; see also Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan–Australia EPA, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/epa_en/au/. See also Keidanren (2006b).

  26. 26.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Partnership among Japan and Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/fta/j_asean/index.html; see also Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, ASEAN–Japan EPA, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/epa_en/asean/.

  27. 27.

    Article 10(1) provides: “Each Party reaffirms its rights and obligations vis-à-vis another Party under the WTO Agreement and/or other agreements to which these Parties are parties.”

  28. 28.

    METI explains as follows: “an EPA with ASEAN as a whole would facilitate harmonization over a wide region, which would be difficult to achieve through bilateral EPAs between Japan and the ASEAN member countries, and would contribute to strengthen industrial competitiveness in a form fitting into the actual pattern of economic activities conducted broadly between Japan and the ASEAN. For example, while bilateral EPAs might not necessarily be useful where final products exported within the region are processed within ASEAN using high value-added parts manufactured in Japan, the AJCEP [Japan-ASEAN EPA] offers opportunities to enjoy preferential treatment, as cumulative rules of origin are applied in Japan and within ASEAN countries.” Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2013 Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade Agreements, Part III, Overview, p. 782, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/index_report.html. See also Keidanren et al. (2005).

  29. 29.

    Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Global Economic Strategy (Summary), April 2006, pp. 12–14, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/topic/downloadfiles/GlobalEconomicStrategy%28Summary%29.pdf.

  30. 30.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Press Release, Announcement of the Launch of Negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), 20 November 2012, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2012/11/1120_03.html. For the process up to the launch of negotiations, see Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2013 Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade Agreements, III, Overview, pp. 763–765, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/index_report.html.

  31. 31.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Japan–China–Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/ecm/ep/page23e_000337.html.

  32. 32.

    Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2013 Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade Agreements, III., Overview, p. 749, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/index_report.html. The Report recognizes that “[i]n recent years some FTAs include elements of EPAs such as improvement of the investment environment (i.e., United States–Korea Free Trade Agreement), therefore the distinction between EPAs and FTAs is not necessarily strict.”

  33. 33.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between Japan and the Republic of India, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/india.html; see also Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan–India EPA, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/epa_en/in/.

  34. 34.

    For rules relating to investment contained in Japan’s EPAs, see Hamamoto and Nottage (2013), p. 347; Hamamoto (2012), p. 445; Hamamoto (2011); Hamamoto and Nottage (2011), p. 1.

  35. 35.

    Nakagawa argues that there exists a “legal rivalry” in East Asia and Asia-Pacific among the legalistic approach taken by the United States, Singapore and Korea; the medium legalism taken by Japan; and the modest legalism taken by ASEAN countries (except Singapore) and China; see Nakagawa (2009), p. 74 (83–84).

  36. 36.

    WTO, Trade Policy Review, Report of the Secretariat, Japan, WT/TPR/S/276 (15 January 2013), p. 15.

  37. 37.

    Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, White Paper on International Economy and Trade 2012, Chapter 4, Section 1, p. 640, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/gWT2012fe.html.

  38. 38.

    Hiratsuka et al. (2011), p. 77 (103).

  39. 39.

    E.g., Article 14(5)(b), Japan–Singapore EPA.

  40. 40.

    “When the authority of a Party competent for initiating investigation under Article 5 of the Agreement on Anti-Dumping received a written application by or on behalf of its domestic industry for the initiation of the investigation in respect of a good from the other Party, the former Party shall, at least 10 working days in advance of the initiation of such investigation, notify the other Party, and provide it with the full text, of such application.” Article 24 of the Japan–India EPA.

  41. 41.

    E.g., Joint Statement on the occasion of the Signing of the Agreement between Japan and the United Mexican States for the Strengthening of the Economic Partnership, 17 September 2004, para. 12, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/latin/mexico/agreement/joint.html. Similar statements have been issued with Singapore, Chile, Thailand, Indonesia and Switzerland.

  42. 42.

    Besides the Japan–Chile EPA, see EPAs with Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, ASEAN, Switzerland, Vietnam and Australia.

  43. 43.

    • Article 97: Transparency

    • 1. Each Party shall notify electronically to the other Party’s enquiry point, established under Article 10 of the TBT Agreement, at the same time it submits its notification to the WTO Secretariat in accordance with the TBT Agreement:

      1. (a)

        its proposed technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures; and

      2. (b)

        its technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures adopted to address urgent problems of safety, health, environmental protection or national security arising or threatening to arise.

    • […]

    • 3. The Parties shall endeavor to allow a period of at least 60 days following the notification of proposed technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures for the public and the other Party to provide written comments, except where urgent problems of safety, health, environmental protection or national security arise or threaten to arise. A Party shall give positive consideration to a reasonable request for extending the comment period.

  44. 44.

    Chapter 6: Mutual Recognition (especially Article 46), Japan–Singapore EPA.

  45. 45.

    Chapter 6: Mutual Recognition (especially Article 62), Japan–Thailand EPA; Chapter 6: Mutual Recognition (especially Article 60), Japan–Philippines EPA. This system applies to electronical products. See Annex 4, Japan–Thailand EPA; Annex 4, Japan–Philippines EPA.

  46. 46.

    It is, however, to be noted that these EPAs provide for national treatment on the establishment of investments. See, e.g., Articles 58(g) and 59, Japan–Indonesia EPA.

  47. 47.

    See, e.g., Annex 6, Japan–Philippines EPA.

  48. 48.

    The Japan–Mexico EPA and the Japan–Chile EPA also adopt the negative-list approach (Article 97 (Mexico); Article 106 (Chile)) but contain no provision on market access. They also provide for national treatment on the establishment of investments (Article 58 (Mexico); Articles 73, 105(i) (Chile)).

  49. 49.

    See also Japan–Philippines EPA (Article 79); Japan–Thailand EPA (Article 82); Japan–India EPA (Article 66, providing for an obligation “to endeavour”).

  50. 50.

    See also Japan–Brunei EPA (Article 82); Japan–Philippines EPA (Article 79).

  51. 51.

    See World Trade Organization and World Bank, I-TIP Services, available at: https://i-tip.wto.org/services/.

  52. 52.

    With respect to Vietnam and Peru, provisions on the movement of investors are included in respective bilateral investment treaties (Article 8, Japan–Vietnam BIT; Article 11, Japan–Peru BIT), which form part of respective EPAs (Article 9(4), Japan–Vietnam EPA; Article 2(3), Japan–Peru EPA).

  53. 53.

    Section 5(1)(c), Annex 7, Japan–Thailand EPA: Section 5(1)(c), Annex 7, Japan–India EPA; Section 5(1)(c), Annex 8, Japan–Peru EPA.

  54. 54.

    Section 6, Annex 7, Japan–Thailand EPA (Thai classical dance, music, cuisine, boxing, language, spa service); Section 7, Annex 7, Japan–India EPA (Yoga, cuisine, Indian classical music, English language).

  55. 55.

    Article 110(1)(f), Japan–Philippines EPA; Section 6, Annex 10, Japan–Indonesia EPA; Section 5, Annex 7, Japan–Vietnam EPA; Exchange of Notes between Japan and Vietnam on 17 April 2012, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/fta/j_asean/vietnam/pdfs/kango_en.pdf. Training programmes for foreign nurses and care workers based on these provisions have been the subject of heated political, social and legal debate. See, e.g., Takahashi (2012), p. 517; Kanaya et al. (2012), p. 48; Ohno (2012), p. 541; Hirano et al. (2012), p. 594; Kawaguchi et al. (2012), p. 643.

  56. 56.

    Article 144 of the Japan–Mexico EPA provides that the Parties “shall develop their cooperation” in the field of intellectual property.

  57. 57.

    Article 97 of the Japan–Brunei EPA sets forth an obligation for either Party to “endeavour to improve its intellectual property protection system.”

  58. 58.

    For example, Article 11 of the Implementing Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Republic of Singapore pursuant to Article 7 of the Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Singapore for a New-age Economic Partnership provides that the Government of Singapore shall designate the Japan Patent Office as a prescribed patent office stipulated in the Patents Act of Singapore. See also Article 116, Japan–Malaysia EPA; Article 120, Japan–Philippines EPA; Article 126, Japan–Thailand EPA; Article 109, Japan–Indonesia EPA; Article 159, Japan–Chile EPA; Article 83, Japan–Vietnam EPA; Article 103, Japan–India EPA; Article 170, Japan–Peru EPA.

  59. 59.

    “Each Country shall refuse or cancel the registration of a trademark, which is identical or similar to a trademark well-known in either Country as indicating the goods or services of the owner of the well-known trademark, if use of that trademark is for unfair intentions, inter alia, intention to gain an unfair profit or intention to cause damage to the owner of the well-known trademark whether or not such use would result in a likelihood of confusion.” Article 121(2), Japan–Malaysia EPA. See also Article 114(2), Japan–Indonesia EPA; Article 106(1), Japan–India EPA. Article 132(2) of the Japan–Thailand EPA also protects trademarks well known “in any non-Party.”

  60. 60.

    Article 129(3), Japan–Philippines EPA (infringement of right relating to new varieties of plants, patents, utility models, industrial designs or layout-designs of integrated circuits); Article 140(1), Japan–Thailand EPA (idem.); Article 125(1), Japan–Switzerland EPA (idem. and unfair competition).

  61. 61.

    E.g., Article 126, Japan–Indonesia EPA.

  62. 62.

    See Articles 9 to 21 of the Implementing Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Swiss Federal Council pursuant to Article 10 of the Agreement on Free Trade and Economic Partnership between Japan and the Swiss Confederation. For example, Article 13 provides detailed obligations on the coordination of enforcement activities between Japanese and Swiss authorities.

  63. 63.

    “Each Party shall, in accordance with its laws and regulations, promote competition by addressing anti-competitive activities in order to facilitate the efficient functioning of its market. Any measure taken for such purposes shall be taken in conformity with the principles of transparency, non-discrimination, and procedural fairness.” Article 99, Japan–Vietnam EPA.

  64. 64.

    Chapter 11, Japan–Mexico EPA; Chapter 12, Japan–Chile EPA; Article 111 (non-discrimination), Japan–India EPA; Chapter 10, Japan–Peru EPA; Chapter 17, Japan–Australia EPA.

  65. 65.

    Chapter 11, Japan–Philippines EPA; Chapter 11, Japan–Thailand EPA; Chapter 10, Japan–Indonesia EPA; Article 98, Japan–Brunei EPA; Article 106, Japan–Vietnam EPA.

  66. 66.

    Japan–Malaysia EPA, Japan–ASEAN EPA.

  67. 67.

    E.g., Article 107, Japan–Brunei EPA.

  68. 68.

    Articles 67 (TBT) and 72 (SPS), Japan–Malaysia EPA; Articles 66 (SPS) and 71 (TBT), Japan–Chile EPA; Articles 42 (SPS) and 49 (TBT), Japan–ASEAN EPA; Articles 36 (SPS) and 42 (TBT), Japan–Switzerland EPA; Article 204(2) (SPS and TBT), Japan–Peru EPA; Articles 5.6 (SPS) and 6.11 (TBT), Japan–Australia EPA.

  69. 69.

    E.g., Articles 150, 152 and 153, Japan–Philippines EPA.

  70. 70.

    E.g., Article 150(10), Japan–Malaysia EPA.

  71. 71.

    E.g., Article 146(4), (5) and (6), Japan–Indonesia EPA.

  72. 72.

    E.g., Article 138(2), Japan–Switzerland EPA.

  73. 73.

    E.g., Article 116(3), Japan–Vietnam EPA. Article 19.3(2)(c) of the Japan–Australia EPA provides that other dispute settlement procedures may be used where the complaining Party terminates the dispute settlement procedure that has been initiated prior to the issuance of any award.

  74. 74.

    Article 139(4), Japan–Singapore EPA; Article 149(4), Japan–Philippines EPA; Article 159(4), Japan–Thailand EPA.

  75. 75.

    See Hamamoto and Nottage (2013), p. 347; Hamamoto (2012), p. 445; Hamamoto (2011); Hamamoto and Nottage (2011), p. 1. Article 107(1), Japan-Singapore EPA provides that “[t]he Parties shall enter into negotiations after the entry into force of this Agreement to establish a mechanism for the settlement of an investment dispute between a Party and an investor of the other Party.” No such negotiation has reportedly been held so far. The Japan-Australia EPA has a similar provision (Article 14.19(1)) but also provides that “[t]he Parties shall also conduct such a review if, following the entry into force of this Agreement, Australia enters into any multilateral or bilateral international agreement providing for a mechanism for the settlement of an investment dispute between Australia and an investor of another or the other party to that agreement, with a view to establishing an equivalent mechanism under this Agreement.”

  76. 76.

    E.g., Article 165, Japan–Mexico EPA. Under the Japan–Singapore EPA, a joint committee is established in each chapter. See, e.g., Article 114 (Joint Committee on ICT) or Article 117 (Joint Committee on Science and Technology), Japan–Singapore EPA.

  77. 77.

    E.g., Articles 15(1)(j) and 132, Japan–Indonesia EPA.

  78. 78.

    “Main Improvement Requests Made by Japan at Business Environment Improvement Subcommittee Meetings and the Outcomes Thereof”, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2013 Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade Agreements, Part III, Chapter 8, pp. 1148–1152, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/gCT13_1coe.html.

  79. 79.

    Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2013 Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade Agreements, Part III, Overview, pp. 767–771, available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/gCT13_1coe.html.

  80. 80.

    See Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/page2e_000001.html.

  81. 81.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Japan–EU Economic Partnership Agreement, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/page6e_000013.html.

  82. 82.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Japan–China–Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/ecm/ep/page23e_000337.html.

  83. 83.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Ministerial Committee on Comprehensive Economic Partnerships, Basic Policy on Comprehensive Economic Partnership, 6 November 2010, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/policy20101106.html.

  84. 84.

    Japan Revitalization Strategy, adopted by the Cabinet on 14 June 2013, p. 24 and 128, available at: http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/pdf/en_saikou_jpn_hon.pdf.

  85. 85.

    Japan Revitalization Strategy, revised in 2014, adopted by the Cabinet on 24 June 2014, p. 7, available at: http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/pdf/honbunEN.pdf.

  86. 86.

    Keidanren et al. (2014); Joint Statement by BUSINESSEUROPE and Keidanren (2013). Keidanren issued a similar statement on RCEP and the Japan–China–Republic of Korea FTA on 7 May 2013, available (in Japanese) at: http://www.keidanren.or.jp/policy/2013/039.html.

  87. 87.

    For TPP negotiations, see Lim et al. (2012); Voon (2013).

  88. 88.

    Kawase (2007).

  89. 89.

    Nakagawa (2014), p. 1 (3–4) (in Japanese).

References

  • Hamamoto S (2011) A passive player in international investment law: typically Japanese? In Bath V, Nottage L (eds) Foreign investment and dispute resolution law and practice in Asia. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamamoto S (2012) Japan. In: Shan W (ed) The legal protection of foreign investment. Hart, Oxford, p 445

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamamoto S, Nottage L (2011) Foreign investment in and out of Japan: economic backdrop, domestic law, and international treaty-based investor-state dispute resolution. Transntl Disp Manage 8(5):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamamoto S, Nottage L (2013) Japan. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 347

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirano YO, Ogawa R, Ohno S (2012) A comparative study of Filipino and Indonesian candidates for registered nurse and certified care worker coming to Japan under Economic Partnership Agreements. Southeast Asian Stud 49(4):594

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiratsuka D, Isono I, Sato H (2011) Japan. In: Kawai M, Wignaraja G (eds) Asia’s Free Trade Agreements. Elgar, Cheltenham, p 77

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanaya M, Sodeyama E, Hasegawa T, Koda M (2012) Development of a training program for foreign nurses candidate based on the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). Niigata J Health Welfare 12:48

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawaguchi Y, Hirano YO, Ogawa R, Ohno S (2012) Exploring learning programs for Filipino nurse candidates working in Japan. Southeast Asian Stud 49(4):643

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawase T (2007) Competition and coordination in dispute settlement procedures between WTO and Regional Economic Communities: comparative review of forum-choice clauses, December 2007. RIETI Discussion Paper 07-J-050. http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/07120006.html (English summary of the Japanese paper)

  • Keidanren (1999) Challenges for the upcoming WTO Negotiations and agendas for future Japanese Trade Policy. 18 May 1999, 3(1). http://www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/pol102/index.html

  • Keidanren (2000) Urgent call for active promotion of Free Trade Agreements. 18 July 2000. http://www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/2000/033/proposal.html

  • Keidanren (2001) Towards the implementation of strategic trade policies. June 2001. http://www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/2001/029.html

  • Keidanren (2003) Request for bilateral negotiations on a Japan–Mexico Economic Partnership Agreement, 16 June 2003. http://www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/2003/060.html

  • Keidanren (2006a) Towards broader and deeper economic partnership. 17 October 2006. https://www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/2006/072/proposal.html

  • Keidanren (2006b) Urgent request for the commencement of the Japan–Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Negotiations, 19 September 2006. http://www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/2006/066.html

  • Keidanren (2007) Call for the earliest conclusion of a Japan–Switzerland Economic Partnership Agreement, 20 February 2007. http://www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/2007/013.html

  • Keidanren (2013) Call for the earliest possible conclusion of an EU–Japan EPA/FTA. 15 November 2013. http://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/policy/2013/098.html

  • Keidanren et al. (2005) Call for an early conclusion of the Japan–ASEAN Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, 2 December 2005. http://www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/2005/090.html

  • Keidanren et al. (2014) Call for the early conclusion of the TPP Negotiations. 10 February 2014. http://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/policy/2014/009.html

  • Krauss ES (2003) The US, Japan, and trade liberalization. Pacific Rev 16:307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim CL, Elms DK, Low P (eds) (2012) The trans-pacific partnership: a quest for a twenty-first century trade agreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Munakata N (2006) Transforming East Asia. Brookings Institute Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa J (2009) Competitive regionalism through bilateral and regional rule-making: standard setting and locking-in. In: Solís M, Stallings B, Katada S (eds) Competitive regionalism: FTA diffusion in the Pacific Rim. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, p 74

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa J (2014) Mega FTA no Jidai [The age of mega-FTAs]. Kokusai Mondai (Int Aff) 632:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohno S (2012) Southeast Asian nurses and caregiving workers transcending the national boundaries. Southeast Asian Stud 49:541

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekkanen SM (2008) Japan’s aggressive legalism: law and foreign trade politics beyond the WTO. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenhill J (2008) The new trade bilateralism in East Asia. In: Calder K, Fukuyama F (eds) East Asian multilateralism: prospects for regional stability. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, p 78

    Google Scholar 

  • Solís M (2009) Japan’s competitive FTA strategy: commercial opportunity versus political rivalry. In: Solís M, Stallings B, Katada SN (eds) Competitive regionalism: FTA diffusion in the Pacific Rim. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, p 198

    Google Scholar 

  • Sussangkarn C (2010) The Chiang Mai initiative multilateralization: origin, development and outlook. ADBI Working Paper Series, No. 230, July 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi Y (2012) Legal and practical problems faced by Philippine and Indonesian nurses in the Nursing Programs under Japan’s Economic Partnership Agreements. Asian J WTO Int Health Law Policy 7:517

    Google Scholar 

  • Terada T (2006) The making of Asia’s first bilateral FTA: origins and regional implications of the Japan–Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement. Pacific Economic Paper, No. 354

    Google Scholar 

  • Terada T (2012) Nihon to Ajia Chiiki Shugi no 50 nen [50 years of Japan and Asian Regionalism]. In: Umemori et al. (eds) Rekishi no Naka no Ajia Chiiki Togo [Asian regional integration in historical perspectives], p 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorbecke W, Salike N (2013) Foreign Direct Investment in East Asia. RIETI Policy Discussion Paper Series 13-P-003, March 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Voon T (ed) (2013) Trade liberalisation and international co-operation: a legal analysis of the trans-pacific partnership agreement. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe Y (2014) Seidoteki Wakugumi [Institutional frameworks]. In: Kuroiwa (ed) Higashi Ajia Togo no Keizaigaku [Economics of the East Asian integration], p 211

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster T (2008) East Asia institutionalises: China, Japan and the vogue for free trade. Nordic J Int Law 77:301

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Law, Kyoto University, Sakyo, Yoshida Honmachi, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan

    Shotaro Hamamoto

Authors
  1. Shotaro Hamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shotaro Hamamoto .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Passau, Passau, Germany

    Christoph Herrmann

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hamamoto, S. (2015). Economic Partnership Agreements Concluded by Japan. In: Herrmann, C., Krajewski, M., Terhechte, J. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2015. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 6. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46748-0_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation