Explore the vast range of titles available.

The regulations of cross-border data flows is a growing challenge for the international community. International trade agreements, however, appear to be pioneering legal methods to cope, as they have grappled with this issue since the 1990s. The World Trade Organization (WTO) rules system offers a partial solution under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which covers aspects related to cross-border data flows. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) have also been perceived to provide forward-looking resolutions. In this context, this article analyzes why a resolution to this issue may be illusory. While they regulate cross-border data flows in various ways, the structure and wording of exception articles of both the CPTPP and USMCA have the potential to pose significant challenges to the international legal system. The new system, attempting to weigh societal values and economic development, is imbalanced, often valuing free trade more than individual online privacy and cybersecurity. Furthermore, the inclusion of poison-pill clauses is, by nature, antithetical to cooperation. Thus, for the international community generally, and China in particular, cross-border data flows would best be regulated under the WTO-centered multilateral trade law system.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to identify the similarities and differences between intra-industry trade (IIT) of European Union and IIT of United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and their member states. Moreover, we answer the question if more advanced economic integration goes together with more intensive IIT. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: We conducted an analysis of IIT disaggregated into 6-digit HS codes using the UN Comtrade database, and employed Grubel-Lloyd indices. We aggregated GL indices for selected countries and selected blocs of countries (here the EU and USMCA) and for the world. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: We chose the EU and USMCA as examples of correlations between economic integration and intra-industry trade because they are some of the most important RTAs in the world and their members fulfil conditions for intensive IIT. We verify the hypothesis that sharing membership in such a grouping is an important factor intensifying bilateral IIT. RESEARCH RESULTS: We have shown that EU IIT shares were considerably higher than those in the case of the USMCA, and the advantage of the EU grew over time. Our empirical study confirms that sharing membership in RTA bloc is an important factor intensifying bilateral IIT. Also, more advanced integration of adjacent countries, especially those that differ little with respect to economic potential, wealth, and culture, helps to increase IIT shares. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: We compare the IIT characteristics of the EU and its member states with those of the USMCA bloc and its members in a relatively long and turbulent period (2000-2022). To the best of our knowledge, there was no such analysis of world IIT during this period. Moreover, the correlation between the intensity of intraindustry trade and the advancement of economic integration has not been studied in literature very often.

The global trading system has undergone a shift away from multilateral trade negotiations to a ‘spaghetti-bowl’ of regional and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). In this two-part glossary, we discuss why this shift has occurred, focusing on how it poses new challenges for public health. Specifically, we introduce key terms that shape this new trading environment and explain them through a public health lens. Part 1 of this glossary focuses on provisions in FTAs that build on previous agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO). These provisions are commonly designated as ‘WTO-Plus’. This approach continues into part 2 of the glossary, which also considers components of FTAs that have no precedent within WTO treaties. Following a broader discussion of how the current political context and the COVID-19 pandemic shape the contemporary trade environment, part 2 considers the main areas of trade and health policy incoherence as well as recommendations to address them.

Trade deals negotiated as the next part of the Brexit process will have big implications for healthcare, and we need greater transparency say May van Schalkwyk and colleagues

The first panel constituted under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Facility-Specific Rapid Response Labor Mechanism (RRM) determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the situation presented to it by the United States. This Essay argues that the panel reached this conclusion based on a misperception of its mandate. Whereas the panel saw itself as a traditional adjudicatory body, the framing of an RRM panel’s mandate – to determine whether there has been a denial of labour rights at a worksite – is more similar to a factfinding mission’s mandate in international human rights law than it is to a state-to-state dispute settlement tasking as found in other areas of international economic law. Seeing the panel’s mandate this way makes it easier to understand how the procedural, methodological, and jurisprudential analyses of the panel and the parties converged in a murky hybrid.

Donald Trump assumed office in January 2017, committed to revamping US foreign policy and putting ‘America First’. The clear implication was that long-held international commitments would be sidelined where, in Trump’s view, the American interest was not being served. NATO, in the crosshairs of this approach, has managed to ride out much of the criticism Trump has levelled against it. Written off as ‘obsolete’ by the American president, it has fared better in the Trump era than many commentators had predicted. NATO exemplifies a tendency in US foreign policy, which pre-dates Trump, where open criticism stops short of abandonment. This pattern has continued since 2017 and indicates a preference for voice over exit. As such, it suggests that Trump’s foreign policy is not always as illogical as many have assumed. Logic is borne of institutional context: Trump has chosen to articulate voice where institutionalisation makes exit unviable. Institutional resilience in general and NATO’s case specifically has a wider relevance, both for transatlantic relations and international order.

Background Trade and investment agreements negotiated after the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have included increasingly elevated protection of intellectual property rights along with an expanding array of rules impacting many aspects of pharmaceutical policy. Despite the large body of literature on intellectual property and access to affordable medicines, the ways in which other provisions in trade agreements can affect pharmaceutical policy and, in turn, access to medicines have been little studied. There is a need for an analytical framework covering the full range of provisions, pathways, and potential impacts, on which to base future health and human rights impact assessment and research. A framework exploring the ways in which trade and investment agreements may affect pharmaceutical policy was developed, based on an analysis of four recently negotiated regional trade agreements. First a set of core pharmaceutical policy objectives based on international consensus was identified. A systematic comparative analysis of the publicly available legal texts of the four agreements was undertaken, and the potential impacts of the provisions in these agreements on the core pharmaceutical policy objectives were traced through an analysis of possible pathways. Results An analytical framework is presented, linking ten types of provisions in the four trade agreements to potential impacts on four core pharmaceutical policy objectives (access and affordability; safety, efficacy, and quality; rational use of medicines; and local production capacity and health security) via various pathways. Conclusions The analytical framework highlights provisions in trade and investment agreements that need to be examined, pathways that should be explored, and potential impacts that should be taken into consideration with respect to pharmaceutical policy. This may serve as a useful checklist or template for health and human rights impact assessments and research on the implications of trade agreements for pharmaceuticals.

This study examines the impacts of the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States and the subsequent events that resulted in the replacement of NAFTA with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on the U.S., Canada, and Mexico stock markets. The results indicate that the major index returns on election day were positive in the U.S. and Canada, but more negative returns accrued after subsequent events in both stock markets. In the case of Mexico, most sample index returns are negative on the U.S. presidential election day followed by positive returns for all subsequent events. For academics, this study presents how it is possible for a country to pull out of an existing agreement with a discussion on its replacement and yet see the major stock indices not immediately show positive returns. For practitioners, it is important to understand that pulling out of trade deals does not guarantee that the next deal would be better for stock market performances but might favor the stock markets of developing countries. JEL Classifications: C22; F40; GIO