Freedom to Trade and Safeguarding the National Health Service (NHS) - Did the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement Safeguard the NHS?

IF 2.2 0 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Alison McCallum, Meri Koivusalo, Silke Trommer
{"title":"Freedom to Trade and Safeguarding the National Health Service (NHS) - Did the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement Safeguard the NHS?","authors":"Alison McCallum, Meri Koivusalo, Silke Trommer","doi":"10.1177/27551938251411268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The United Kingdom (UK) government has claimed that the National Health Service (NHS) was safeguarded throughout the negotiations of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Australia. This article examines if this was achieved. We used public documents on the UK-Australia FTA, including impact assessments, public consultations, and the text of the negotiated agreement. Analytically, we drew on process tracing to assess whether and how the NHS was (i) included in impact statements and assessments, (ii) excluded from the agreement, and (iii) addressed in key chapters, focusing on (a) to what extent NHS safeguarding differs from that of other comparable public policy prerogatives, such as audiovisual services covering national broadcasting, (b) health-related limitations set by Australia, and (c) using the legal obligations of World Trade Organisation (WTO) membership as the null option. Our analysis shows that the NHS was not fully excluded from the trade agreement on the ground of the negotiated agreement compared with the null option of WTO provisions, including for services and public health protection. This would have been possible, but in several chapters was not considered. There was no overarching exclusion and the NHS gained less comprehensive exclusion in comparison to audiovisual services and, in some chapters, to the health-related restrictions set by Australia.</p>","PeriodicalId":73479,"journal":{"name":"International journal of social determinants of health and health services","volume":" ","pages":"415-425"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13269727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of social determinants of health and health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/27551938251411268","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The United Kingdom (UK) government has claimed that the National Health Service (NHS) was safeguarded throughout the negotiations of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Australia. This article examines if this was achieved. We used public documents on the UK-Australia FTA, including impact assessments, public consultations, and the text of the negotiated agreement. Analytically, we drew on process tracing to assess whether and how the NHS was (i) included in impact statements and assessments, (ii) excluded from the agreement, and (iii) addressed in key chapters, focusing on (a) to what extent NHS safeguarding differs from that of other comparable public policy prerogatives, such as audiovisual services covering national broadcasting, (b) health-related limitations set by Australia, and (c) using the legal obligations of World Trade Organisation (WTO) membership as the null option. Our analysis shows that the NHS was not fully excluded from the trade agreement on the ground of the negotiated agreement compared with the null option of WTO provisions, including for services and public health protection. This would have been possible, but in several chapters was not considered. There was no overarching exclusion and the NHS gained less comprehensive exclusion in comparison to audiovisual services and, in some chapters, to the health-related restrictions set by Australia.

贸易自由和保障国民保健服务(NHS)——英澳自由贸易协定是否保障了国民保健服务?
英国(UK)政府声称,在与澳大利亚的自由贸易协定(FTA)谈判过程中,国民医疗服务体系(NHS)得到了保障。本文将检查是否实现了这一目标。我们使用了有关英澳自贸协定的公开文件,包括影响评估、公众咨询和谈判协议文本。分析上,我们利用过程追踪来评估NHS是否以及如何(i)被纳入影响陈述和评估,(ii)被排除在协议之外,以及(iii)在关键章节中被提及,重点关注(a) NHS的保护在多大程度上不同于其他可比较的公共政策特权,如覆盖全国广播的视听服务,(b)澳大利亚设定的与健康有关的限制。(c)将世界贸易组织(WTO)成员的法律义务作为无效选项。我们的分析表明,与世贸组织条款的无效选项(包括服务和公共卫生保护)相比,国民保健制度并没有完全被排除在贸易协定之外。这本来是可能的,但在几个章节中没有考虑到。与视听服务相比,没有全面的排斥,与澳大利亚制定的与健康有关的限制相比,在某些章节中,国民保健制度没有得到全面的排斥。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书