Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

TPP Trade Remedy System: Development or Divergence from the WTO?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Paradigm Shift in International Economic Law Rule-Making (ODS 2017)

Part of the book series: Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific ((ELIAP))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1029 Accesses

Abstract

The model adopted in the TPP sets forth an important precedent in the subsequent FTA negotiation. This study reviews the main features of the TPP trade remedy chapter and analyzes the implications compared to legal developments in trade remedy rules incorporated in other FTAs involving TPP members. Among many interesting features, it is noted that the TPP abandons a controversial selective safeguard system incorporated in its FTAs since the NAFTA. It becomes a more imminent task to enhance harmonization of trade remedy procedures as well as practices. Mega FTA negotiations in the future should accelerate the regulatory coherence in broader aspects of the global trading system.

We also recognize the financial support from the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant (NRF 2014S1A3A2043505) as well as Seoul National University Asia Center (SNUAC-2015-008).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    TPP Agreement, Annex 6-A(a).

  2. 2.

    TPP Agreement, Annex 6-A(b).

  3. 3.

    TPP Agreement, Annex 6-A(c).

  4. 4.

    TPP Agreement, Annex 6-A(d).

  5. 5.

    TPP Agreement, Annex 6-A(e).

  6. 6.

    WTO, TN/RL/W/254 (21 April 2011).

  7. 7.

    WTO, TN/RL/W/254 (21 April 2011), Article 6.3.1(a).

  8. 8.

    WTO, TN/RL/W/254 (21 April 2011), Article 6.3.1.

  9. 9.

    WTO, TN/RL/W/254 (21 April 2011), Article 6.4.2.

  10. 10.

    WTO, TN/RL/W/254 (21 April 2011), Article 6.4.4.

  11. 11.

    WTO, TN/RL/W/254 (21 April 2011), Article 6.4.5.

  12. 12.

    WTO, TN/RL/W/254 (21 April 2011), Article 6.5.1.

  13. 13.

    WTO, TN/RL/W/254 (21 April 2011), Article 6.5.2.

  14. 14.

    WTO, TN/RL/W/254 (21 April 2011), Article 28.3.1.

  15. 15.

    Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, HR (1890) 33–34.

  16. 16.

    Trade Act of 2002, HR 3009, Sec2102.

  17. 17.

    Among 192 FTAs entered into force until September 2010, 9.4% of them include AD rules dissimilar to the WTO system. 14 FTAs prohibit AD actions against FTA parties while only 4 FTAs provide stricter rules than the WTO disciplines. Jean-Daniel Rey, ‘Antidumping Regional Regimes and the Multilateral Trading system: Do Regional Antidumping Regimes Make a Difference?’ WTO Staff Working Paper ERSD-2012-22 (2012) 12–13. But the latter approach seems to be taken more widely in recent FTAs.

  18. 18.

    The formal title is the Agreement between New Zealand and Singapore on a Closer Economic Partnership (ANZSCEP).

  19. 19.

    After a long dormant period, the Doha rules negotiation seems to resume its discussion. See WTO, Anti-dumping: Issues of Transparency and Due Process (TN/RL/W/257 2015).

  20. 20.

    Dukgeun Ahn, ‘Restructuring the WTO Safeguard Mechanism’ in M Matsushita, D Ahn and T Chen, Cameron (eds) The WTO Trade Remedy System: East Asian Perspectives (2006) 11.

  21. 21.

    For a more diverse example, see J Crawford and others, ‘Mapping of Safeguard Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements’ Staff Working Paper ERSD-2013-10 (2013) 7.

  22. 22.

    See for example Joost Pauwelyn, ‘The Puzzle of WTO Safeguards and Regional Trade Agreements’ (2004) 7 Journal of International Economic Law 109; Dukgeun Ahn, ‘Foe or Friend of GATT Article XXIV: Diversity in Trade Remedy Rules’ (2008) 11 Journal of International Economic Law 107.

  23. 23.

    Only five members provide the TRQ system in Appendix A to Annex 2-D: Canada, Japan, Mexico, US and Vietnam. New Zealand Foreign Affairs & Trade, ‘Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership’ www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/who-we-are/treaty-making-process/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/text-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership accessed 26 March 2016.

  24. 24.

    Article 7.6 of the Australia-Korea FTA also excludes proposed safeguard measures from dispute settlement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Law and Policy, Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

    Dukgeun Ahn

  2. Center for International Commerce and Strategy, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

    Ji Yeong Yoo

Authors
  1. Dukgeun Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ji Yeong Yoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dukgeun Ahn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong

    Julien Chaisse

  2. Singapore Management University, Singapore, Singapore

    Henry Gao

  3. Judicial Yuan, Justices of the Constitutional Court, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chang-fa Lo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ahn, D., Yoo, J.Y. (2017). TPP Trade Remedy System: Development or Divergence from the WTO?. In: Chaisse, J., Gao, H., Lo, Cf. (eds) Paradigm Shift in International Economic Law Rule-Making. ODS 2017. Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6731-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6731-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6730-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6731-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation