Addressing Domestic Regulation Affecting Trade in Services in CETA, CPTPP, and USMCA: Revolution or Timid Steps?

Abstract

The number of international agreements purporting to liberalise trade, mainly focused on reducing protectionist measures through the imposition of general principles, has increased greatly over the last 25 years. More recently, the United States and the European Union (EU) concluded comprehensive agreements covering trade in goods, trade in services, and foreign investment. This article inquires whether, and the extent to which, such agreements represent a departure from previous practice. It focuses on (a) the instruments employed to address domestic regulation affecting trade in services and (b) three specific agreements concluded between 2016 and 2018: the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. While these recent Preferential Trade Agreements put forward novel approaches to regulatory diversity affecting trade in services, it is too early to ascertain whether these will have any ground-breaking impact in terms of services trade liberalisation.

Regulatory Cooperation in Mega-Regional Trade Agreements

“…Finally, a common feature of regulatory cooperation/regulatory coherence in the three mega-regional FTAs is that all three FTAs focus on improving procedures when planning, adopting and implementing domestic regulations and not on substantive harmonization of the content of domestic regulations. 114 These key procedures are (i) ensuring economic rationality, usually through the mechanism of RIA; (ii) transparency and the legitimizing participation of relevant stakeholders, especially through notification and consultation mechanisms featuring open, prompt. And impartial public review and appeal processes; and (iii) governmental coordination through joint institutions that monitors the consistency of proposed regulations with treaty commitments.…”