No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
TTIP Leaks: A Welcome Opportunity for More Homework
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Extract
So the damage is done: both emperors go naked, and this at a particularly sensitive stage of the negotiations. Worse, the hegemons sit on an applecart already so full that only a “TTIP light” seems to save it from toppling, albeit at a price of losing its most precious apple: regulatory coherence, no wand forever!
But wait! We may already have given up hope for transatlantic agreements on financial cooperation and data protection. Hormone beef and biotech seeds, if not feed, also look rather far away from good and risk–free regulatory solutions. And carmakers in Asia and South America may have chuckled with relief when the efforts of US and EU manufacturers of automobiles failed to define a fully harmonised, standardised and mutually recognised “TTIP Car” – after which they would have had little if any leeway for their own motors, emission limits, windscreens and safety standards.
This is where the leaks may have opened a welcome window of opportunity for third countries, blinded as they apparently all are by the prospects of trade liberalisation racing ahead with megaregional steps too big for them to buy in with any hope for negotiating power.
- Type
- Symposium on TTIP Leaks
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
References
1 As for investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS), the other big apple on that cart, it may already have fallen off. As matters stand, especially when looking at the difficulties WTO now has to reappoint Appellate Body members and to fill vacancies, this is perhaps not a big drama… but that is another story unrelated to this paper.
2 “TTIP Round Produces Signs Of New Flexibilities On GIs, Services Exceptions”, 34/17 Inside U.S. Trade (29 April 2016), at p. 2.
3 Consider, for example (i) United States — Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS381/AB/R, 16 May 2012, at p. 133 et sqq. (ii) European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS231/AB/R, 23 October 2002, at p. 61 et sqq.
4 Parker, Richard and Alemanno, Alberto, Towards Effective Regulatory Cooperation under TTIP: A Comparative Overview of the EU and US Legislative and Regulatory Systems (Brussels: European Commission, 2014)Google Scholar, cf. Annex: Process for developing laws and regulations in the EU and the US.
5 Alemanno, Alberto, The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the parliamentary dimension of regulatory cooperation. Brussels, Doc. EXPO/B/AFET/2013/32, April 2014, at p. 46 et seqq.Google Scholar
6 Rudloff, Bettina, “Food Standards in Trade Agreements: Differing Regulatory Traditions in the EU and the US and Tips for the TTIP”, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, SWP Comments 49 (November 2014), at p. 4 et seqq.Google Scholar
7 Lester, Simon and Barbee, Inu, The Challenge of Cooperation: Regulatory Trade Barriers in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. 16 Journal of International Economic Law (2013), pp. 847–867, at p. 849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Josling, Timothy E. and Tangermann, Stefan, “Transatlantic Food and Agricultural Policy: 50 Years of Conflict and Convergence. Edward Elgar Publishing (2015), at Chapter 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Bull, Reeve T. et al., “New Approaches to International Regulatory Cooperation: The Challenge of TTIP, TPP, and Mega–Regional Trade Agreements”, 78 Law and Contemporary Problems (2015), pp. 1–29 at p. 3.Google Scholar
10 Wiener, Jonathan B. & Alemanno, Alberto, “The Future of International Regulatory Cooperation: TTIP as a Learning Process Toward a Global Policy Laboratory”. 78 Law and Contemporary Problems (2015), pp. 103–136, at pp. 104 and 114.Google Scholar
11 Sparding, Peter, “Germany's Pivotal Role on the Way to TTIP”, Europe Policy Paper, November 2014, at p. 10.Google Scholar
12 “EU Stance On Food Safety in TTIP Makes Resolving Irritants Tough Road” 32/16 Inside U.S. Trade (18 April 2016), at p. 2
13 “Cen–Cenelec, ANSI Negotiate Deal That Could Aid TTIP Regulatory Effort” Inside U.S. Trade (Daily News, 8 October 2013), at p. 1
14 Howse, Robert, “Regulatory Cooperation, Regional Trade Agreements, and World Trade Law: Conflict or Complementarity?” 78 Law and Contemporary Problems (2015), pp. 137–151, at p. 151.Google Scholar
15 European Commission, “Report on the Online public consultation on investment protection and investor–to–state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement”. Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2015) 3 final, Brussels, 13 January 2015
16 Bluth, Christian, “Attitudes to global trade and TTIP in Germany and the United States”. GED–Team, Bertelsmann Stiftung (2016), GüterslohGoogle Scholar
17 Bauer, Matthias and Erixon, Fredrik, “Splendid Isolation as Trade Policy: Mercantilism and Crude Keynesianism in “the Capaldo Study” of TTIP” (2015). ECIPE Occasional Paper 03/2015, at p. 17.Google Scholar
18 World Trade Institute, “TTIP and the EU Member States” (2016). World Trade Institute, University of Bern, Bern, January 2016
19 Porterfield, Matthew C. and Gallagher, Kevin P., “TTIP and Climate Change: Low economic benefits, real climate risks” (2016). International Institute for Sustainable Development, posted 1 December 2015, at p. 1–2.Google Scholar
20 Holzer, Kateryna and Cottier, Thomas, “Addressing climate change under preferential trade agreements: Towards alignment of carbon standards under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership”. 35 Global Environmental Change (2015) 514–522, at p. 515.Google Scholar
21 Daniels, Laura von, “»TTIP right” geht vor »TTIP light«”. German Institute for International and Security Affairs. SWP–Aktuell 33, April 2016, at p. 5.Google Scholar