前言:跨太平洋伙伴关系的持续相关性

A. Mitchell, Tania Voon
{"title":"前言:跨太平洋伙伴关系的持续相关性","authors":"A. Mitchell, Tania Voon","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3155975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We are delighted to introduce this special issue of the Melbourne Journal of International Law ('MJIL') on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement ('TPP'). The special issue developed from fruitful collaboration between MJIL and Melbourne Law School's Global Economic Law Network ('GELN'), and in particular the symposium hosted by GELN at Melbourne Law School on 19-20 May 2016: The Age of Mega-Regionals: TPP & Regulatory Autonomy in International Economic Law, which was skilfully managed by Mr Christopher Pidgely. The symposium brought together more than 70 participants from around the globe including presenters from academia, non-governmental organisations, industry, the legal profession, and governmental departments in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The symposium benefited from a range of funding sources including the Melbourne Law School Major Collaborative Project Fund and the Australian Research Council (Discovery Project DP 130100838 and Linkage Project LP120200028, which involves collaboration with the McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer). Led by Editors Ms Anna Saunders, Ms Kara Connolly and Mr Justin Browne, MJIL issued a call for papers for the TPP special issue in conjunction with the GELN symposium but open to all. The majority of the papers in this special issue were presented at the symposium; all were selected by MJIL through a competitive process and expertly edited by MJIL's Editors and Members. Since we conceived the symposium, and since the core of the articles in this special issue were written, the world has developed in unexpected directions. In particular, the TPP appears to be but one of many casualties of the United States election held on 8 November 2016. Since then, on 21 November 2016, New Zealand became the first country to enact TPP-implementing legislation, which is specified to come into force on the date that the TPP enters into force for New Zealand. (1) Of course, the entry into force of the TPP requires ratification by either all 12 signatories (2) or by 'at least six of the original signatories, which together account for at least 85 per cent of the combined gross domestic product of the original signatories in 2013'. (3) In effect, then, both the United States and Japan must ratify the TPP for it to come into force in the form signed on 4 February 2016. And while Japan continues to pursue ratification, (4) United States President-elect Donald Trump has made clear--both before and since his election--his aversion to globalisation and trade liberalisation in general, and the TPP in particular. (His plans for bilateral as opposed to regional or multilateral trade deals are less clear, as regards both theory and practice). Should Mr Trump proceed with his threatened withdrawal from the TPP upon his inauguration, (5) the TPP in its current form is undeniably dead. However, two alternative futures exist for the TPP. First, at the time of writing, while plans to submit the TPP in the lame-duck session of Congress before Trump's inauguration have been abandoned, (6) key stakeholders still predict that the United States might agree to renegotiate the treaty. (7) Second, even if the United States is out, the other negotiating parties may remain committed to the TPP or something very like it, raising the possibility of a 'TPP-11'. Renegotiation would not be easy, particularly given the heavy influence of United States demands and drafting on the TPP text, which for example bears a strong resemblance to existing United States preferential trade agreements. (8) Moreover, the TPP market absent the United States would be considerably smaller, leading to necessary recalculations of its likely benefits, (9) which were already contentious. (10) On 30 November 2016, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties ('JSCOT') of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia released its report on the TPP. (11) JSCOT recommended that Australia ratify the TPP, while making certain other recommendations reflecting various concerns with the agreement, such as a recommendation for enhanced transparency in the negotiation of trade agreements by allowing 'security cleared representatives from business and civil society to see the Australian Government positions being put as part of those negotiations'. …","PeriodicalId":378416,"journal":{"name":"International Economic Law eJournal","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Foreword: The Continuing Relevance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership\",\"authors\":\"A. Mitchell, Tania Voon\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3155975\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We are delighted to introduce this special issue of the Melbourne Journal of International Law ('MJIL') on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement ('TPP'). The special issue developed from fruitful collaboration between MJIL and Melbourne Law School's Global Economic Law Network ('GELN'), and in particular the symposium hosted by GELN at Melbourne Law School on 19-20 May 2016: The Age of Mega-Regionals: TPP & Regulatory Autonomy in International Economic Law, which was skilfully managed by Mr Christopher Pidgely. The symposium brought together more than 70 participants from around the globe including presenters from academia, non-governmental organisations, industry, the legal profession, and governmental departments in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The symposium benefited from a range of funding sources including the Melbourne Law School Major Collaborative Project Fund and the Australian Research Council (Discovery Project DP 130100838 and Linkage Project LP120200028, which involves collaboration with the McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer). Led by Editors Ms Anna Saunders, Ms Kara Connolly and Mr Justin Browne, MJIL issued a call for papers for the TPP special issue in conjunction with the GELN symposium but open to all. The majority of the papers in this special issue were presented at the symposium; all were selected by MJIL through a competitive process and expertly edited by MJIL's Editors and Members. Since we conceived the symposium, and since the core of the articles in this special issue were written, the world has developed in unexpected directions. In particular, the TPP appears to be but one of many casualties of the United States election held on 8 November 2016. Since then, on 21 November 2016, New Zealand became the first country to enact TPP-implementing legislation, which is specified to come into force on the date that the TPP enters into force for New Zealand. (1) Of course, the entry into force of the TPP requires ratification by either all 12 signatories (2) or by 'at least six of the original signatories, which together account for at least 85 per cent of the combined gross domestic product of the original signatories in 2013'. (3) In effect, then, both the United States and Japan must ratify the TPP for it to come into force in the form signed on 4 February 2016. And while Japan continues to pursue ratification, (4) United States President-elect Donald Trump has made clear--both before and since his election--his aversion to globalisation and trade liberalisation in general, and the TPP in particular. (His plans for bilateral as opposed to regional or multilateral trade deals are less clear, as regards both theory and practice). Should Mr Trump proceed with his threatened withdrawal from the TPP upon his inauguration, (5) the TPP in its current form is undeniably dead. However, two alternative futures exist for the TPP. First, at the time of writing, while plans to submit the TPP in the lame-duck session of Congress before Trump's inauguration have been abandoned, (6) key stakeholders still predict that the United States might agree to renegotiate the treaty. (7) Second, even if the United States is out, the other negotiating parties may remain committed to the TPP or something very like it, raising the possibility of a 'TPP-11'. Renegotiation would not be easy, particularly given the heavy influence of United States demands and drafting on the TPP text, which for example bears a strong resemblance to existing United States preferential trade agreements. (8) Moreover, the TPP market absent the United States would be considerably smaller, leading to necessary recalculations of its likely benefits, (9) which were already contentious. (10) On 30 November 2016, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties ('JSCOT') of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia released its report on the TPP. (11) JSCOT recommended that Australia ratify the TPP, while making certain other recommendations reflecting various concerns with the agreement, such as a recommendation for enhanced transparency in the negotiation of trade agreements by allowing 'security cleared representatives from business and civil society to see the Australian Government positions being put as part of those negotiations'. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":378416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Economic Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Economic Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3155975\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Economic Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3155975","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

我们很高兴向大家介绍《墨尔本国际法杂志》关于跨太平洋伙伴关系协定(TPP)的特刊。这期特刊是由墨尔本法学院与墨尔本法学院全球经济法网络(GELN)卓有成效的合作发展而来的,特别是GELN于2016年5月19日至20日在墨尔本法学院举办的研讨会:“大地区时代:TPP与国际经济法中的监管自治”,该研讨会由Christopher pidely先生精心策划。是次研讨会吸引了超过70位来自世界各地的人士出席,包括来自澳洲、纽西兰及南非的学术界、非政府机构、业界、法律界及政府部门的讲者。本次研讨会得益于一系列资金来源,包括墨尔本法学院重大合作项目基金和澳大利亚研究理事会(发现项目DP 130100838和链接项目LP120200028,其中涉及与McCabe法律和癌症中心的合作)。在编辑Anna Saunders女士、Kara Connolly女士和Justin Browne先生的带领下,MJIL与GELN研讨会一起发布了TPP特刊的论文征集,但对所有人开放。这期特刊的大部分论文都在研讨会上发表;所有这些都是由MJIL通过竞争过程选出的,并由MJIL的编辑和成员专业编辑。自从我们构思这个专题讨论会以来,自从这期特刊的核心文章撰写以来,世界已经朝着意想不到的方向发展。特别是,TPP似乎只是2016年11月8日举行的美国大选的众多受害者之一。此后,2016年11月21日,新西兰成为第一个制定TPP实施立法的国家,该立法将于TPP对新西兰生效之日起生效。(1)当然,TPP的生效需要全部12个签署国的批准(2),或者“至少6个原始签署国的批准,这些签署国加起来至少占2013年原始签署国国内生产总值的85%”。(3)实际上,TPP必须得到美国和日本的批准,才能以2016年2月4日签署的形式生效。在日本继续寻求批准TPP的同时,美国当选总统唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)在当选前后都明确表示,他对全球化和贸易自由化,尤其是TPP的厌恶。(就理论和实践而言,他对双边贸易协定(而非区域或多边贸易协定)的计划就不那么明确了。)如果特朗普在就职后继续威胁退出TPP,那么无可否认,目前形式的TPP已死。然而,TPP的未来有两种选择。首先,在撰写本文时,虽然在特朗普就职前向国会提交TPP的计划已被放弃,但关键利益相关者仍预测美国可能会同意重新谈判该条约。(7)其次,即使美国退出,其他谈判方也可能继续致力于TPP或类似的协议,从而增加了“TPP-11”的可能性。重新谈判并非易事,尤其是考虑到美国对TPP文本的要求和起草的巨大影响,例如,TPP文本与美国现有的优惠贸易协定非常相似。(8)此外,没有美国的TPP市场将会相当小,导致对其可能利益的必要重新计算,(9)这已经是有争议的。(10) 2016年11月30日,澳大利亚联邦议会条约联合常设委员会(JSCOT)发布了关于TPP的报告。(11) JSCOT建议澳大利亚批准TPP,同时提出一些其他建议,以反映对该协议的各种关注,例如建议通过允许“来自商业和民间社会的安全许可代表看到澳大利亚政府的立场作为这些谈判的一部分”来提高贸易协定谈判的透明度。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Foreword: The Continuing Relevance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
We are delighted to introduce this special issue of the Melbourne Journal of International Law ('MJIL') on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement ('TPP'). The special issue developed from fruitful collaboration between MJIL and Melbourne Law School's Global Economic Law Network ('GELN'), and in particular the symposium hosted by GELN at Melbourne Law School on 19-20 May 2016: The Age of Mega-Regionals: TPP & Regulatory Autonomy in International Economic Law, which was skilfully managed by Mr Christopher Pidgely. The symposium brought together more than 70 participants from around the globe including presenters from academia, non-governmental organisations, industry, the legal profession, and governmental departments in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The symposium benefited from a range of funding sources including the Melbourne Law School Major Collaborative Project Fund and the Australian Research Council (Discovery Project DP 130100838 and Linkage Project LP120200028, which involves collaboration with the McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer). Led by Editors Ms Anna Saunders, Ms Kara Connolly and Mr Justin Browne, MJIL issued a call for papers for the TPP special issue in conjunction with the GELN symposium but open to all. The majority of the papers in this special issue were presented at the symposium; all were selected by MJIL through a competitive process and expertly edited by MJIL's Editors and Members. Since we conceived the symposium, and since the core of the articles in this special issue were written, the world has developed in unexpected directions. In particular, the TPP appears to be but one of many casualties of the United States election held on 8 November 2016. Since then, on 21 November 2016, New Zealand became the first country to enact TPP-implementing legislation, which is specified to come into force on the date that the TPP enters into force for New Zealand. (1) Of course, the entry into force of the TPP requires ratification by either all 12 signatories (2) or by 'at least six of the original signatories, which together account for at least 85 per cent of the combined gross domestic product of the original signatories in 2013'. (3) In effect, then, both the United States and Japan must ratify the TPP for it to come into force in the form signed on 4 February 2016. And while Japan continues to pursue ratification, (4) United States President-elect Donald Trump has made clear--both before and since his election--his aversion to globalisation and trade liberalisation in general, and the TPP in particular. (His plans for bilateral as opposed to regional or multilateral trade deals are less clear, as regards both theory and practice). Should Mr Trump proceed with his threatened withdrawal from the TPP upon his inauguration, (5) the TPP in its current form is undeniably dead. However, two alternative futures exist for the TPP. First, at the time of writing, while plans to submit the TPP in the lame-duck session of Congress before Trump's inauguration have been abandoned, (6) key stakeholders still predict that the United States might agree to renegotiate the treaty. (7) Second, even if the United States is out, the other negotiating parties may remain committed to the TPP or something very like it, raising the possibility of a 'TPP-11'. Renegotiation would not be easy, particularly given the heavy influence of United States demands and drafting on the TPP text, which for example bears a strong resemblance to existing United States preferential trade agreements. (8) Moreover, the TPP market absent the United States would be considerably smaller, leading to necessary recalculations of its likely benefits, (9) which were already contentious. (10) On 30 November 2016, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties ('JSCOT') of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia released its report on the TPP. (11) JSCOT recommended that Australia ratify the TPP, while making certain other recommendations reflecting various concerns with the agreement, such as a recommendation for enhanced transparency in the negotiation of trade agreements by allowing 'security cleared representatives from business and civil society to see the Australian Government positions being put as part of those negotiations'. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信