Regulatory Coherence and Standardization Mechanisms in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
| Author | Phoenix X. F. Cai |
| Position | Associate Professor of Law and Director, Roche L.L.M in International Business Transactions, University of Denver Sturm College of Law |
| Pages | 505-538 |
RegulatoRy CoheRenCe and StandaRdization
MeChaniSMS in the tRanS-PaCifiC PaRtneRShiP
Phoenix X. F. Cai*
University of Denver, University of California, Berkeley, USA
ABSTRACT
This article posits a new taxonomy and framework for assessing regulatory coherence
in the new generation of mega-regional, cross-cutting free trade agreements. Using
the Trans-Pacic Partnership as the primary example, this article situates the rise of
regulatory coherence within the current trade landscape, provides clear denitions
of regulatory coherence, and argues that the real engine of regulatory coherence lies
in the work of international standard setting organizations. This work has been little
examined in the current literature. The article provides a detailed examination of the
mechanics by which the Trans-Pacic Partnership promotes regulatory standardization
and concludes with some normative implications and calls for future research.
CONTENTS
I. intRoduCtion ……………………………………...................................507
II. a new geneRation of tRade tReatieS …………....................................509
A. Critiques of Multi-lateral legal regimes ………............................…..509
B. Regulatory Coherence as a core concept in 21st Century Trade Treaties
............................................................................................................500
C. U.S. Regulatory Coherence Efforts and the Emergence of Regulatory
Coherence as a Policy Goal …...........................................................513
1. U.S. Bilateral Free Trade Agreements ……................................…513
Br. J. Am. Leg. Studies 5 (2016), DOI: 10.1515/bjals-2016-0018
© 2016 Phoenix X. F. Cai, published by De Gruyter Open.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
* Associate Professor of Law and Director, Roche L.L.M in International Business Transactions,
University of Denver Sturm College of Law; University of California at Berkeley College of
Law, J.D., 1999, Order of the Coif; Washington University in St. Louis, B.A., 1996; She can
be reached at pcai@law.du.edu. Thanks to the organizers and participants of the international
conference Transparency vs. Condentiality in International Economic Law: Looking for an
Appropriate Balance, Nov. 20, 2015, Ravenna, Italy, School of Law, sponsored by the Interest
Group on International Economic Law of the European Society of International Law; Italian
Branch of the International Law Association; Camera di Commercio Ravenna; Eurosportello
Ravenna, and Ordine degli Avvocati di Ravenna. Many thanks to Stuart Styron, J.D. and
L.LM. for invaluable research assistance. Any errors are mine alone.
5 Br. J. Am. Leg. Studies (2016)
2. Regulatory Cooperation Councils ……...............................….516
3. Executive Order 13609 …………......................................…..516
4. Concerns with the Regulatory Coherence Measures of Mega-
Regional Free Trade Agreements ………………...............…517
III. tRendS woRth watChing ……….....................................................518
A. Private Entity Participation in International Organizations and
International Treaty Negotiations ……………......................…..519
B. The Increasing Power of International Standard Setting Organizations
…..................................................................................................521
C. Trade Treaties as Shape-Shifters ……..........................................525
IV. the tRanS-PaCifiC PaRtneRShiP and haRMonization of StandaRdS 526
A. Regulatory Coherence ……….................................................…526
B. Standardization in the TBT Chapter of the TPP ..............……….530
C. Harmonization mechanisms in practice in the TPP: Fifty Ways to
Adopt a Standard .....................................................................…534
V. SoMe CloSing thoughtS on iMPliCationS ...........................................536
A. Governance Concerns and Institutional Design ………….....…536
B. Sovereignty and Regulatory Autonomy ..................................…537
C. Legal Transplantation and Regulatory Convergence Concerns 537
D. Public-Private Blurring ………................................................... 537
E. Cross-Cultural Communication and Capacity-Building Challenges 53 7
Vi. ConCluSion ………………………..........................................……538
506
RegulatoRy CoheRenCe and StandaRdization MeChaniSMS in the tRanS-PaCifiC PaRtneRShiP
i. intRoduCtion
A dramatic shift has occurred in the eld of international trade law. Governments
and trade negotiators have been hard at work in crafting a new generation of broad
spectrum economic treaties, often working either in secret or with minimum
input from the public, interested non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
civil society.1 Both the European Union (EU)-United States (U.S.) Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership2 (TTIP) and the multi-lateral Trans-Pacic
Partnership3 (TPP) among the United States and eleven Pacic Rim countries are
both examples of the new generation of trade treaties. These 21st Century trade
treaties4 not only reduce tariffs (to zero under the TPP) and non-tariff barriers,
including behind-the-border technical barriers to trade, but also encompass
ambitious cross-cutting issues like regulatory coherence, intellectual property,
and global supply chain management plus non-trade issues like transparency and
anti-corruption. Due to their ambitious scope, these trade agreements have been
dubbed Mega-Regional Free Trade Agreements.5 Not only do the TTIP and TPP
have expansive scope going well beyond the coverage of traditional trade treaties,
but they have been the subject of widespread criticism, particularly regarding
the cloak of secrecy over the negotiations process. The TPP in particular has
received much criticism, and its passage in the United States Congress6 may
1 See, e.g., Marija Bartl & Elaine Fahey, A Post National Marketplace: Negotiating the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), in tRanSatlantiC CoMMunity
of law: legal PeRSPeCtiVeS on the RelationShiP between the eu and uS legal oRdeRS
210 (Elaine Fahey & Deirdre Curtin eds., 2015); Marika Armanovica & Roberto Bendini,
European Parliament: Directorate-General for External Policies, Civil Society’s Concerns
about Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (Oct. 14 2014), available at http://
www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDataletudes/IDAN/2014/536404/EXPOIDA(2014)536404
EN.pdf; Trans-Pacic Partnership (TPP): More Job Offshoring, Lower Wages and Unsafe
Food Imports, PubliC Citizen, available at http://www.citizen.org/TPP (last visited May
11, 2016).
2 Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, currently being negotiated by the United
States and European Union, no denitive or complete text available. However, some of
the European Commission’s negotiation texts are available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/
doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230 (last visited May 10, 2016).
3 Trans-Pacic Partnership, signed on Oct. 5, 2015 by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Sin-
gapore, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, United States, and Vietnam.
Not yet entered into force. Full text of treaty available at http://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text
(last visited May 10, 2016) and https://ustr.gov/sites/default/les/TPP-Final-Text-Regu-
latory-Coherence.pdf (last visited May 13, 2016).
4 Claude Bareld, The Trans-Pacic Partnership: A Model for Twenty-First-Century
Trade Agreements?, International Economic Outlook, Washington D.C.: American En-
terprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 2011, available at https://www.aei.org/pub-
lication/the-trans-pacic-partnership (last visited May 11, 2016).
5 Reeve T. Bull, Neysun A. Mahboubi, Richard B. Stewart & Jonathan B. Wiener, New
Approaches to International Regulatory Cooperation: The Challenge of TTIP, TPP, and
Mega-Regional Trade Agreements, 78(4) law & ConteMP. PRobS. 1, 2 (2015).
6 Prominent democrats like Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren oppose
the TPP. See Jason Easley, Hilary Clinton Sides with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Sanders against Obama Trade Agenda, PolitiCuSuSa (Jun. 15, 2015), available at
507
To continue reading
Request your trial