In October last year, trade ministers from 12 countries reached an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). On 4 February, the agreement was signed. These developments have intensified debates within India about whether the country could fit into the TPP’s structure, either now or in the future.
There has been a good deal of hype touting the recently concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement as the first ‘21st century’ trade pact. Whether it lives up to this high accolade is currently under debate, both in the United States and among the 11 other TPP member states that still need to pass the agreement through their national legislatures.
Let’s consider a scenario. On leaving the European Union, Britain will make a Free Trade Agreement with the EU, or trade with it under World Trade Organisation most-favoured-nation (MFN) rules. It will also regain its WTO seat and make trade deals with other countries to replace those it enjoys via the EU, with a particular focus on the Commonwealth. In this way, sovereignty will be regained.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) may yet be the agreement that most transforms national regulatory systems. It could be even more transformative than the Uruguay Round (1986–1994) that delivered the WTO and the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). However, much depends on if, and when, China joins the TPP.
Transnational corporations are secretly and undemocratically, formulating the rules of the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). The world’s largest ever, free trade deal will be the most powerful tool in corporate resistance to the COP21 agreement.
There was great optimism following the pledges made by nearly 200 nations at the COP21 conference on in Paris in December. In setting a goal of net zero emissions by the middle of the century, the Paris agreement went much further than the 1997 Kyoto protocol, which spectacularly failed.
At the last Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in November 2015, the United States and China advanced their own set of interests with respect to trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific region. While the United States celebrated the conclusion of its Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal in early October 2015, China stressed the potential of a Free Trade Area of Asia-Pacific (FTAAP).
Those familiar with the history of the World Trade Organization (WTO) may also recall its long-stalled negotiations over the Doha Development Agenda (DDA or simply “Doha). Last month, a bloc of developed nations led a charge to finally dismantle those talks and allow the WTO to move forward on addressing different agendas. While this call to new action has received challenges by developing nations — led chiefly by India — the United States and the European Union have both called for the WTO to start work on “new issues” pertaining to international trade.
TransCanada, the Canadian company synonymous with the Keystone XL pipeline, announced its intention to sue the United States under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The case will be filed in both an international tribunal and a U.S. Federal Court in Dallas.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) closed its Nairobi Conference over the weekend with some agreements and new directions many — both in the negotiations and reporting on their outcome — found surprising. Indeed, some say the changes may have such significance that they could completely change the face of the WTO.
For the first time since 2001, when the Doha round launched, the WTO’s 164 members declined to “reaffirm” the Doha mandate. Moreover, the members agreed to discuss an array of new issues and focus on smaller, more incremental reforms.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has negotiated for years on a package of trade reforms that aims to reduce or eliminate barriers to world trade. Unfortunately, trade talks have reached a deadlock, and trade ministers seem unlikely to find a way to break the stalemate before they meet in Nairobi next month, according to World Trade Organization Director General Roberto Azevedo.
