How to assess regional trade agreements? Deep FTAs v. China’s trade agreements
Regional trade agreements are undergoing many changes. Notably, the trajectory of China’s trade agreements has been affected by the unique US-China Phase One agreement, and these agreements extend beyond free trade agreements (FTAs). China’s trade agreements represent a different path forward from t...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4473 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/6431/viewcontent/ssrn_3767654_av.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Regional trade agreements are undergoing many changes. Notably, the trajectory of China’s trade agreements has been affected by the unique US-China Phase One agreement, and these agreements extend beyond free trade agreements (FTAs). China’s trade agreements represent a different path forward from that mapped out by deep FTAs (e.g., the CPTPP) in respect of the future of trade law. This paper analyses two crucial but underexplored questions: What are the approaches behind deep FTAs and China’s trade agreements? How can we assess trade agreements (particularly China’s trade agreements)?The article critically reviews China’s trade agreements and deep FTAs. Based on in-depth comparative study, it argues that China’s trade agreements adopt an early harvest approach, which contrasts starkly with the regulatory plowing approach found in deep FTAs. It further proposes a tripartite theoretical framework with six indicators to assess trade agreements in terms of their impacts on domestic regulation. It theorizes about three crucial variables of trade agreements: (i) breadth (regulatory outreach) with two indicators (WTO-plus and WTO-beyond rules); (ii) depth (regulatory density) with two indicators (regulatory cooperation and coherence, and domestic law changes); and (iii) strength (rule use intensity) with two indicators (state-to-state dispute settlement (SSDS) rules, and SSDS coverage). This framework provides key insights into the significant heterogeneity and rationales behind trade agreements. It is critical to the in-depth analysis of evolving trade agreements and their implications, and supports the thorough assessment of the merits of different agreements in future research. |
|---|