1 / 18

TRIPS & FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS/ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS

TRIPS & FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS/ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS. M Forere, lecturer - UKZN. Normative Framework of FTAs. Tariffs imposed on imports – trade barriers Article I of GATT – Most Favored Nation (MFN) Article II of GATS - MFN

sabina
Download Presentation

TRIPS & FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS/ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. TRIPS & FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS/ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS M Forere, lecturer - UKZN

  2. Normative Framework of FTAs • Tariffs imposed on imports – trade barriers • Article I of GATT – Most Favored Nation (MFN) • Article II of GATS - MFN • Article V of GATS allows exception to non-discrimination and MFN - FTAs • Article XXIV of GATT: exception to MFN – allows free trade areas

  3. cont. Normative Framework of FTAs. • XXIV (4): The contracting parties recognize the desirability of increasing freedom of trade by the development, through voluntary agreements, of closer integration between the economies of the countries parties to such agreements… • Article XXIV (5): Accordingly, the provisions of this Agreement shall not prevent, as between the territories of contracting parties, the formation of a customs union or of a free-trade area or the adoption of an interim agreement necessary for the formation of a customs union or of a free-trade area.

  4. FTAs and the Right to Health • “States have to ensure that the trade rules and policies they select are consistent with their legal obligations in relation to the right to health.” Prof. Paul Hunt – 1st Spec Rap on the Right to Health – report in his mission to the WTO in 2004 • “If the FTA has negative impact on the right to health for the poor & vulnerable, state has an obligation under international human rights law to revise those terms.” (ibid)

  5. Watch out!!! • Impact on government revenue • FTA removes tariff – govmt revenue for developing countries and LDCs • E.g. EU products make 40% of sub-Saharan Africa imports – FTA with EU will cut governments revenue substantially • Such revenue loss compels governments to cut on public spending, e.g, on health • Revenue loss also compels governments to privatize public services such as health • Result: no access to health for poor people

  6. continuation : watch out!!! 2.Trade in Health and Health related services • Health is one of the fastest growing economy in the world economy – BIG PHARMA • In developing countries, it is also a growing economy – middle class & medical aids • Trade in Health would allow the BIG PHARMA to have access to health services in developing countries – leading to privatisation • The privatisation of health sector detrimental to those who cannot afford to pay for health services

  7. continuation : Items to look for in an FTA agreement 3. Stronger IP Rights – TRIPS PLUS • recap: Stronger IPRs cause prices to sky-rocket • High medical prices limit access to health -governments do not afford treatment for everyone

  8. U.S. trade deals recently completed or on the horizon • Free Trade Area of the Americas (dead 2005) • CAFTA (post-ratification/implementation pressures) • Southern African Customs Union (suspended 2006) • Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland • U.S. bilateral Free Trade Agreements • Jordan, Chile, Morocco, Singapore, Oman, Bahrain, Peru • Thailand and Malaysia (suspended) • S. Korea, Columbia, Panama (pending) • Trade Promotion Authority (Fast-Track) expired June 30, 2007

  9. EU Economic Partnership Agreements • Also seek TRIPS-plus provisions: • Patent term extensions • Data exclusivity up to 10 years plus 1 more • Enhanced enforcement/anti-counterfeiting measures – Financing of Ugandan Counterfeit Goods Bill

  10. Other FTAs • Japan and EFTA (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland) also seek TRIPS-plus IPRs. • Bilateral investment treaties (BITS) • There are also South/South and regional trade agreements where more powerful parties might seek unfair trade terms; not much evidence yet of seeking higher IPRs. • Some developing countries have vowed to avoid IPR+ FTAs (India/Brazil/S. Africa), but it is uncertain whether promises will last.

  11. Selected countries’ trade agreements

  12. Ripple Effects • How do other countries and IP right holders benefit from bilateral and regional trade agreements? • Art. 4: most-favored-nation treatment.

  13. Other TRIPS-plus Pressures • U.S. Special 301 List • Generalized System of Preferences • WTO Accession

  14. Trying to Avoid Unilateral Pressure/Sanctions • Countries may have agreed to adopt TRIPS in part to avoid unilateral trade sanctions imposed by the US (11 sanction actions against 7 countries prior to TRIPS) • US used unilateral carrots and sticks during WTO TRIPS negotiations • Unilateral pressures continue post-TRIPS

  15. U.S. Special 301 Watch List • Annual USTR "Special 301" Report details "the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property protection“ worldwide. • Reports include information on WTO disputes, "out-of-cycle reviews,” and countries placed on the “Priority Foreign Country,” "Priority Watch List" or regular "Watch list." • Major IP industry file their own 301 submissions • US National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers also surveys "significant foreign barriers to U.S. exports."

  16. 301 Procedures and Sanctions • Watch List countries are contacted and usually promise to investigate • Priority Watch List countries are contacted with precise complaints and objectives • Priority Foreign Countries are notified re most onerous and egregious polices; failure to make progress can result in trade sanctions • Paradoxically, US has to use WTO for TRIPS violations but can act unilaterally re TRIPS+

  17. Generalized System of Preferences • The U.S. creates trade pressure by offering and threatening to withdraw special (non-tariff) trade preferences. • In 1987, the U.S. imposed 100% tariffs (trade sanctions) against several Brazilian industries because Brazil had not “modernized” its intellectual property law. • The U.S. in 1998 temporarily withheld trade preferences on four classes of products in S. Africa.

  18. WTO Accession Agreements • U.S. can add pressure and make demands for TRIPS-plus IPR provisions in WTO accession negotiations • Cambodia – data exclusivity • China – six year of data exclusivity

More Related