Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T11:59:26.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LABOUR PROVISIONS IN EU AND US MEGA-REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS: RHETORIC AND REALITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2018

Billy Melo Araujo
Billy Melo Araujo*
Affiliation:
Lecturer, School of Law, Queen's University Belfast, B.Melo-Araujo@qub.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The EU and the US have long called for the linking of trade and labour standards in trade agreements at both the multilateral and bilateral level. This article examines their practice of including labour provisions in trade agreements, with a particular focus on recent attempts to include such provisions on so-called ‘mega-regionals’, which were presented by their proponents as providing the benchmark for labour protection in future trade agreements. It discusses the rationale behind the inclusion of such provisions and their practical limitations, and examines the extent to which mega-regionals address these limitations. It is argued that whilst the EU and the US have been keen advocates for trade-labour linkages, there has also been an unwillingness to convert this rhetoric into practice, raising questions about the extent of their commitment to these values.

Keywords

international economic lawlabourTPPTTIPWTO law
Type
Shorter Articles and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 233 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 USTR, ‘The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Protecting Workers’ (December 2013) <https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Protecting-Workers-Fact-Sheet.pdf>.

2 ibid.

3 C Malmström, ‘TTIP: What Consumers Have to Gain’ (26 January 2016) <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/january/tradoc_154173.pdf>.

4 Bagwell, K and Staiger, RW, ‘Domestic Policies, National Sovereignty and International Economic Institutions’ (2011) 16(2) Quarterly Journal of Economics 535 Google Scholar.

5 Artuso, M and McLarney, C, ‘A Race to the Top: Should Labour Standards Be Included in Trade Agreements?’ (2015) 40(1) Perspectives 5 Google Scholar.

6 Leary, VA, ‘Workers’ Rights and International Trade: The Social Clause (GATT, ILO, NAFTA, U.S. Laws)’ in Hudec, R and Bhagwati, J (eds), Fair Trade and Harmonization: Pre-Requisites for Free Trade? (MIT Press 1996) 177 Google Scholar.

7 See Rodrik, D, ‘Labour Standards in International Trade: Do They Matter and What Do We Do about Them?’ in Lawrence, R, Rodrik, D and Whalley, J (eds), Emerging Agenda for Global Trade: High Stakes for Developing Countries, Policy Essay No 20 (Overseas Development Council, Washington DC 1996)Google Scholar; R Bazillier, ‘Trade, Environment and Labour’ Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales (2005) No 08/2005, 11–13.

8 R Stern and K Terrell, ‘Labor Standards and the World Trade Organization’ World Trade Organization (August 2003) <http://fordschool.umich.edu/rsie/workingpapers/Papers476-500/r499.pdf>.

9 See Blanton, RG and Blanton, SL, ‘Labor Rights and Foreign Direct Investment: Is There a Race to the Bottom?’ (2012) 38(3) International Interactions 267 Google Scholar; Dehejia, V and Samy, Y, ‘Trade and Labour Standards: Theory and New Empirical Evidence’ (2004) 13(2) The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 179 Google Scholar.

10 Brusse, M and Braun, S, ‘Trade and Investment Effects of Forced Labour: An Empirical Assessment’ (2003) 142(1) International Labour Review 49 Google Scholar; Granger, C and Siroen, J-M, ‘Core Labour Standards in Trade Agreements: From Multilateralism to Bilateralism’ (2006) 40(5) JWT 827 Google Scholar; M Aggarwal, ‘International Trade, Labor Standards, and Labor Market Conditions: An Evaluation of the Linkages’ (2016) USITC, Office of Economics Working Paper No 95-06-C.

11 Hoekman, B and Kostecki, M, ‘Towards Deeper Integration? The ‘‘Trade and’’ Agenda’ in Hoekman, B and Kostecki, M (eds), The Political Economy of the World Trading System: WTO and Beyond (Oxford University Press 2001) 415 Google Scholar. For a review of the empirical data on this issue see Dehejia and Samy (n 9) 197.

12 Burtless, G, Lawrence, R, Litan, R and Shapiro, R, Globaphobia: Confronting Fears about Open Trade (The Brookings Institution 1998) 122 Google Scholar.

13 Martin, W and Maskus, KE, ‘Core Labor Standards and Competitiveness: Implications for Gobal Trade Policy’ (2001) 9(2) Review of International Economics 317 Google Scholar; Hoekman and Kostecki (n 11) 415.

14 Guzman, AT, ‘Trade, Labor, Legitimacy’ (2003) 91(3) CLR 901 Google Scholar.

15 Lee, E, ‘Globalization and Labour Standards: A Review of the Issues’ (1997) 136(2) IntlLabRev 173 Google Scholar; Tsogas, G, ‘Labour Standards in International Trade Agreements: An Assessment of the Arguments’ (1999) 10(2) The International Journal of Human Resource Management 363 Google Scholar; Bhagwati, J, ‘Trade Liberalisation and ‘‘Fair Trade’’ Demands: Addressing the Environmental and Labour Standards Issues’ (2001) 18(6) The World Economy 753–5Google Scholar.

16 ibid; Weiss, M, ‘International Labour Standards: A Complex Public-Private Policy Mix’ (2013) 29(1) Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 13 Google Scholar.

17 Tsogas (n 15) 363.

18 Maul, D, Human Rights, Development and Decolonization: The International Labour Organization, 1940–70 (Palgrave Macmillan 2012) 277 Google Scholar.

19 Tsogas (n 15) 363; Peksen, D and Blanton, RG, ‘The Impact of ILO Conventions on Worker Rights: Are Empty Promises Worse Than No Promises?’ (2017) 12(1) The Review of International Organizations 75 Google Scholar.

20 Weissbrodt, D and Mason, M, ‘Compliance of the United States with International Labor Law’ (2014) 98 MinnLRev 1878 Google Scholar; J-C Tham and KD Ewing ‘Labour Clauses in the TPP and the TTIP: A Comparison without a Difference? (2016) Melbourne Journal of International Law 3–35.

21 Garibay, M González, ‘The Trade-Labour Linkage from the Eyes of the Developing Countries: A Euphemism for Protectionist Practices?’ (2009) 14 EFARev 763 Google Scholar.

22 WTO, The Singapore Ministerial Declaration, adopted on 13 December 1996, WT/MIN(96)/DEC <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min96_e/wtodec_e.htm>.

23 Leary, VA ‘The WTO and the Social Clause: Post-Singapore’ (1997) 1 EJIL 118 Google Scholar.

24 Evenett, S, ‘Five Hypotheses Concerning the Fate of the Singapore Issues in the Doha Round’ (2007) 23(3) Oxford Review of Economic Policy 392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Gallagher, K, ‘Understanding Developing Country Resistance to the Doha Round’ (2007) 15(1) Review of International Political Economy 62 Google Scholar.

25 González Garibay (n 21) 763.

26 ibid 769.

27 DiMatteo, L, Dosanjh, K, Frantz, PL and Bowal, P, ‘The Doha Declaration and Beyond: Giving a Voice to Non-Trade Concerns within the WTO Trade Regime’ (2003) 36 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 124 Google Scholar.

28 D Kleimann, ‘Negotiating in the Shadow of TTIP and TPP: The EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement’ (20 June 2015) German Marshall Fund of the United States, Asia Program, Policy Brief, June 2015 at SSRN: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2633660>.

29 The US typically includes a ‘Labour’ chapter in its FTAs whilst the EU FTAs include ‘sustainable development’ chapters which address both labour and environmental protection issues.

30 For a review of ILO standards see: Alston, P, ‘‘‘Core Labour Standards’’ and the Transformation of the International Labour Rights Regime’ (2004) 15(3) EJIL 457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Agustí-Panareda, J, Ebert, F Christian and LeClercq, D, ‘ILO Labor Standards and Trade Agreements: A Case for Consistency’ (2014) 36 Comparaative Labour Law & Policy Journal 347 Google Scholar.

31 See Velluti, S, ‘The EU's Social Dimension and Its External Trade Relations’ in Marx, A et al. (eds), Global Governance of Labour Rights: Assessing the Effectiveness of Transnational Public and Private Policy Initiatives (Edward Elgar 2015) 42 Google Scholar. Bartels, L, ‘Social Issues: Labour, Environment and Human Rights’ in Lester, S, Mercurio, B and Bartels, L (eds), Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Case Studies – Volume II (Cambridge University Press 2016) 364 Google Scholar.

32 Final Report of the Panel in the Matter of Guatemala – Issues Relating to the Obligations under Article 16.2.1(a) of the CAFTA-DR, 14 June 2017 at <http://trade.gov/industry/tas/Guatemala%20%20%E2%80%93%20Obligations%20Under%20Article%2016-2-1(a)%20of%20the%20CAFTA-DR%20%20June%2014%202017.pdf>.

33 ibid para 190.

34 ibid para 165.

35 ibid para 193.

36 Art 18(5) US–Australia FTA; art 17(5) US–Colombia FTA; art 16(4) CAFTA-DR FTA; art 19(5) KORUS.

37 Art 18(6) US–Australia FTA; art 17(1) US–Colombia FTA; art 15(6) US–Bahrain FTA; art 16(6) CAFTA-DR FTA; art 19(7) KORUS.

38 See, for example, art 189 and 195 CEPA; arts 13.12–13.15 EU-Korea FTA; art 283–285 Colombia-Peru FTA; arts 294–297 EU–CA FTA; art 13.15 EU–Singapore FTA.

39 See, for example, art 195 EU–CARIFORUM FTA; art 13(3) EU–Korea FTA; art 280 EU–Colombia/Peru FTA.

40 See, for example, art 13-13 EU–Korea FTA; art 282 EU–Colombia/Peru FTA; art 238 CETA.

41 De Ville, F, Orbie, J and Van den Putte, L, ‘Sustainable Development in TTIP: A Highest Common Denominator Compromise?’ (2016) 2 European Journal of Risk Regulation 291 Google Scholar.

42 Kissack, R, ‘Labour Standards: An Historical Account of the EU Involvement with(in) the ILO’ in Orsini, A (ed), The European Union with(in) International Organisations: Commitment, Consistency and Effects across Time (Ashgate 2016) 76–7Google Scholar.

43 See art 13(1) Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea OJ L 127; art 191(2) Economic Partnership between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part OJ L289/I/3. Art 23(3) Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada on the one part and the European Union and its Member States (CETA). The CETA was signed on 30 October 2016 and is currently awaiting approval from the European parliament. The parts of the agreement that fall under the EU's exclusive competence will be provisionally applied once the European Parliament's approval is secured. Those parts that fall within the EU's shared competence will only enter into effect following ratification by each EU Member State <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf>.

44 Art 286(2) Council Decision of 25 June 2012 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other, OJ L 346.

45 F De Ville, J Orbie and L Van den Putte, ‘TTIP and Labour Standards’ (2016) Directorate General for Internal Policies Department: Economic and Scientific Policy IP/A/EMPL/2015-07, at 33. <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/578992/IPOL_STU(2016)578992_EN.pdf>.

46 Art 193 EU–CARIFORUM EPA.

47 Bartels, L, ‘Social Issues: Labour, Environment and Human Rights’ in Lester, S, Mercurio, B and Bartels, L (eds), Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Case Studies – Volume II (Cambridge University Press 2016) 381 Google Scholar.

48 F Ebert and A Posthuma, ‘Labour Provisions in Trade Arrangements: Current Trends and Perspectives’ (2011) ILO International Institute for Labour Studies Working Paper <http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---inst/documents/publication/wcms_192807.pdf>.

49 See for example art 174)(5) and Annex 20A US–Singapore FTA; Grynberg, R and Qalo, V, ‘Labour Standards in US and EU Preferential Trading Arrangements’ (2006) 40(4) JWT 632–3Google Scholar; Cimino-Isaacs, C, ‘Labor Standards in the TPP’ in Cimino-Isaacs, C and Schott, JJ (eds), Trans-Pacific Partnership: An Assessment (Peterson Institute for International Economics 2016) 264–5Google Scholar.

50 Ebert and Posthuma (n 48).

51 The one exception to the rule is the EU–CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement (EU–CARIFORUM EPA). The EU–CARIFORUM EPA subjects disputes concerning sustainable development provisions to its dispute settlement mechanism, although even in that case, the ability to suspend market access concessions as a result of the violation of any sustainable development objective is ruled out. Art 23(2) EC-EPA.

52 Art 189.6 and 195.6 CEPA; art 13.15 KOREU FTA; art 284 Colombia-Peru FTA; arts 297–301 EU–CA FTA ; art 13.16 EU–Singapore FTA.

53 Art 13.15(2) KOREU FTA.

54 Art 185(4) Colombia–Peru FTA.

55 Art 301 (3) EU–CA FTA.

56 Art 13.17(9) EU–Singapore FTA.

57 Art 23.11 CETA.

58 European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2010 on human rights and social and environmental standards in international trade agreements (2009/2219(INI)) P7_TA(2010)0434.

59 F Hoffmeister, ‘The Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements of the European Union’ in M Cremona and T Takács (eds), Trade Liberalisation and Standardisation – New Directions in the ‘Low Politics’ of EU Foreign Policy (2013) CLEER Working Papers 2013/6 <http://www.asser.nl/media/1641/cleer_13-6_web.pdf>.

60 Bridges Weekly, ‘India-EU FTA Talks Hit Snags on IP, Environment, Labour’ (5 May 2010) <https://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/india-eu-fta-talks-hit-snags-on-ip-environment-labour>; J Wouters, I Goddeeris, B Natens and F Ciortuz, ‘Some Critical Issues in EU-India Free Trade Agreement Negotiations’ (2013) Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies Working Paper No 102, 12.

61 C Malmström, European Parliament debate on sustainable development provisions of the EU-West Africa Economic Partnership Agreement (1 February 2016) O-000011/2016 (B8-0108/2016) <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20160201&secondRef=ITEM-014&language=EN>.

62 T Fritz, ‘Analysis and Evaluation of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada’ (Hans-Böckler-Foundation Berlin, 2005) 29 <http://thomas-fritz.org/english/analysis-and-evaluation-of-the-comprehensive-economic-and-trade-agreement-ceta-between-the-eu-and-canada>.

63 European Parliament, ‘Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters in CETA’ (January 2017) Briefing 10 <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/595894/EPRS_BRI(2017)595894_EN.pdf>.

64 For a review of the economic literature on the effect of labour standards commitments in trade agreements see Salem, S and Rozental, F, ‘Labour Standards and Trade: A Review of Recent Empirical Evidence’ (2012) 4(2) Journal of International Commerce and Economics 1 Google Scholar.

65 See Tham and Ewing (n 20) 24.

66 ibid 29.

67 Hafner-Burton, EM, Forced to Be Good: Why Trade Agreements Boost Human Rights (Cornell University Press 2009) 147–51Google Scholar; Moonhawk, K, ‘ Ex Ante Due Diligence: Formation of PTAs and Protection of Labor Rights’ (2012) International Studies Quarterly 704 Google Scholar.

68 Janusch, H, ‘Labor Standards in U.S. Trade Politics’ (2015) 49(5) JWT 1060–5Google Scholar.

69 Bartels, L, ‘The EU's Approach to Social Standards and the TTIP’ in Khorana, S (ed) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Negotiations between the EU and the USA: Caught between Myth and Reality? (CIDOB Ediciones 2015) 95 Google Scholar

70 JF Hornbeck, ‘Free Trade Agreements: U.S. Promotion and Oversight of Latin American Implementation’ (December 2009) Inter-American Development Bank (Policy Brief IDB-PB-I02).

71 Vogt, JS, ‘The Evolution of Labor Rights and Trade—A Transatlantic Comparison and Lessons for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’ (2015) 18 JIEL 836–42Google Scholar.

72 Hornbeck (n 70) 21.

73 S Dewan and L Ronconi, ‘US Free Trade Agreements and Enforcement of Labor Law in Latin America’ (2014) IDB Working Paper Series No IDB-WP-543.

74 US Government Accountability Office (GAO), ‘U.S. Partners Are Addressing Labor Commitments, But More Monitoring and Enforcement Are Needed’ (November 2014) <https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666788.pdf>; Baclawski, B Cohan, ‘Re-Thinking the WTO's Relationship to International Labor Standards: Is It Finally Time for a Global Approach’ (2016) 48 Georgetown Journal of International Law 255 Google Scholar.

75 MJ Bolle, ‘Overview of Labor Enforcement Issues in Free Trade Agreements’ (22 February 2016) Congressional Research Service <http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/1492/>.

76 Marx, A, Lein, B and Brando, N, ‘The Protection of Labour Rights in Trade Agreements: The Case of the EU-Colombia Agreement’ (2016) 50(4) Journal of World Trade 603 Google Scholar.

77 Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain on the Establishment of a Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Bahr. (14 September 2004) 44 ILM 544 [hereinafter US–Bahrain FTA].

78 Radi, Y, ‘Labor Provisions in Dispute Settlement in International Investment Agreements’ in Bjorklund, AK (ed), Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2014–2015 (Oxford University Press 2015) 94–5Google Scholar.

79 Vogt (n 71) 848–9.

80 US GAO (n 74) 43–6; Vogt (n 71) 859.

81 Postnikov, E and Bastiaens, I, ‘Does Dialogue Work? The Effectiveness of Labor Standards in EU Preferential Trade Agreements’ (2014) 21(6) Journal of European Public Policy 923 Google Scholar.

82 J Orbie and L Van den Putte, ‘Labour Rights in Peru and the EU Trade Agreement: Compliance with commitments under the sustainable development chapter’ (2016) OFSE Working Paper <https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8055501/file/8055504.pdf>.

83 ibid 31

84 Marx, Lein and Brando (n 76) 599.

85 Orbie and Van den Putte (n 82) 39

86 ibid; Marx, Lein and Brando (n 76) 603–4.

87 Drahos, P, ‘Weaving Webs of Influence: The United States, Free Trade Agreements and Dispute Resolution Journal of World Trade’ (2007) 41(1) JWT 200 Google Scholar; L Winters, ‘The WTO and Regional Trade Agreements: Is It All Over for Multilateralism?’ (2015) EUI Working Papers, RSCAS 2015/94, 10.

88 G Felbermayr and R Aichele, How to make TTIP Inclusive for all? Potential Economic Impacts of the Transatlantic Trade and investment Partnership (TTIP) on Developing Countries (30 August 2015) Study of the IFO Institute, 25–7; Winters (n 87) 10.

89 D Hamilton and S Blockmans, ‘The Geostrategic Implications of TTIP’ (CEPS Special Report, No 105 / April 2015) 9 <https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/SR105%20Geopolitics%20of%20TTIP%20Hamilton%20and%20Blockmans.pdf>; M Wąsiński, ‘Europe Left Behind: Trans-Pacific Partnership and Its Impact on the EU’ (19 October 2015) Polish Institute of International Affairs No 92 (824) <https://www.pism.pl/files/?id_plik=20683>; K Binder, ‘The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Potential Regional and Global Impacts’ (European Parliamentary Research Service – Briefing May 2016) 12 <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/582028/EPRS_BRI(2016)582028_EN.pdf>.

90 M Froman, ‘If We Don't Write the Rules of the Global Economy, Others Will’ (6 November 2015) GE Reports <http://www.gereports.com/amb-michael-froman-if-we-dont-write-the-rules-of-the-global-economy-others-will/>.

91 D Nakamura, ‘Deal Reached on Pacific Rim Trade Pact in Boost for Obama Economic Agenda’ (5 October 2015) Washington Post <https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/deal-reached-on-pacific-rim-trade-pact/2015/10/05/7c567f00-6b56-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html?utm_term=.90dacdc3f87e>.

92 Office of the United States Trade representative, ‘The President's Trade Agenda – 2016’ <https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-Trade-Policy-Agenda>.

93 C Malmström and J Hill, ‘Don't Believe the Anti-TTIP Hype – Increasing Trade Is a No-Brainer’ The Guardian (16 February 2015) <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/16/ttip-transatlantic-trade-deal-businesses>.

94 C Malmström, ‘TTIP – What's in It for Labour, Environment and Sustainable Development?’ (6 November 2015) Blog Post <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/malmstrom/blog/ttip-whats-it-labour-environment-and-sustainable-development_en>.

95 R Brown, ‘Labor Implications of TPP’ (2016) Working Paper, East-West Center Workshop on Mega-Regionalism – New Challenges for Trade and Innovation) 16. <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745524>.

96 Art 19(3) TPP.

97 Art 19(5) TPP.

98 Brunei Darussalam – United States Labour Consistency Plan (4 February 2016); United States – Malaysia Labor Consistency Plan (4 February 2016); United States – Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam Plan for the Enhancement of Trade and Labour Relations (4 February 2016). Available at <https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text>.

99 Brunei Darussalam – United States Labour Consistency Plan, para II; United States – Malaysia Labor Consistency Plan, para II; United States – Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam Plan for the Enhancement of Trade and Labour Relations, para II.

100 Art 19(12) TPP.

101 Art 19(11) ibid.

102 Art 19(11)(2) ibid.

103 Art 19(11)(6) ibid.

104 Art 19(15) ibid.

105 Art 18(20) ibid.

106 EU Textual Proposal (6 November 2015). Available at: <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/november/tradoc_153923.pdf>.

107 Art 4(2) Textual Proposal.

108 Arts 5–9 ibid.

109 Art 5(3) ibid.

110 Art 4(3) ibid.

111 Art 17(1) ibid.

112 Gruni, G, ‘Law or Aspiration? The EU Proposal for a Labour Rights Clause in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’ (2016) Legal Issues of Economic Integration 43–4Google Scholar.

113 Gao, HS, ‘China–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement’ in Lester, S and Mercurio, B (eds), Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Case Studies (Cambridge University Press 2016) 93 Google Scholar.

114 Gantz, D, ‘The TPP and RCEP: Mega-Trade Agreements for the Pacific Rim’ (2016) 33 ArizJIntl&Comp 63 Google Scholar; See also Oba, M, ‘TPP, RCEP, and FTAAP: Multilayered Regional Economic Integration and International Relations’ (2016) 23(1) Asia-Pacific Review 100 Google Scholar; Lewis, M Kolsky, ‘The TPP and the RCEP (ASEAN6) as Potential Paths toward Deeper Asian Economic Integration’ (2013) 8 Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy 359 Google Scholar.

115 Páez, L, ‘A Continental Free Trade Area: Imperatives for Realizing a Pan-African Market’ (2016) 50(3) Journal of World Trade 549 Google Scholar. See also Angwenyi, V, ‘The Tripartite Free Trade Area: A Step Closer to the African Economic Community?’ (2016) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 589 Google Scholar.

116 D Sevastopulo, S Donnan and C Weaver, ‘Trump Pulls US out of Pacific Trade Pact’ Financial Times (23 January 2017).

117 See, for example, the proposed draft texts for the EU–Japan Economic Partnership Agreement. Available at <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/july/tradoc_155726.pdf>.

118 European Commission, Non-Paper of the Commission Services, ‘Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) Chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements FTAs’ (11 July 2017) available at <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1689>.

119 See section IIIB.

120 Hafner-Burton (n 67) 141.