Skip to main content

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership: A Battleground for Competing Hegemons?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Free Trade Agreements

Abstract

The proponents of mega-regional trade, investment and economic integration agreements over the past decade aim to set the rules for global capitalism in the twenty-first century. In the United States negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) have been portrayed as a struggle for hegemonic dominance between the USA and China over who writes the rule-book. The American narrative feeds a domestic political sentiment that is hostile to and fearful of China, and which oversimplifies China’s role and strategic interests in such negotiations. The TPP and RCEP include overlapping negotiating parties and substantive texts, even after the USA’s withdrawal from the TPP. A review of four areas—intellectual property, investment, services and electronic commerce—shows the RCEP negotiating parties have adopted a complex matrix of positions within a legal framework that overlaps significantly with the TPP. Ironically, the RCEP parties have continued negotiating provisions that have been suspended from the TPP by the remaining eleven countries. This chapter urges a more nuanced view of international trade and investment agreements as one of a plurality of factors that are reshaping the global political economy, as China’s hegemonic power grows and that of the USA declines. Those dynamics are unpredictable. As the Trump administration reverts to unilateral power and regional relationships that seek to target and isolate China, it is possible that China, rather than the USA, may emerge as the champion of a rules-based regime. But any quest for dominance would not be pursued through mega-regionals, such as the TPP and RCEP. An equally unpredictable factor is the growing popular antipathy to the model of international capitalism and associated rules that beset the original TPP, and has been ignored by the negotiating parties in the revised TPP and the RCEP.

This is a revised version of a paper delivered at a conference at the Beijing Foreign Studies University Law School in May 2017 funded by the University of New England. The research has been conducted in part with assistance of a New Zealand Royal Society Marsden Fund Grant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States of America, Viet Nam.

  2. 2.

    Australia, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, Costa Rica, European Union, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, South Korea, United States of America, Switzerland, Turkey.

  3. 3.

    The USA pushed an adaptation of the same texts in TiSA, having blocked China from joining those negotiations: China in push to join U.S.-led $4tn services trade talks. Financial Times, 24 September 2013, https://www.ft.com/content/864744ec-21eb-11e3-bb64-00144feab7de. Accessed 04 April 2018. Donnan S (2013) China in push to join U.S.-led $4tn services trade talks. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/864744ec-21eb-11e3-bb64-00144feab7de. Accessed 04 April 2018.

  4. 4.

    Obama B (2016, May 2) President Obama: The TPP would let America, not China, lead the way on global trade. Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-the-tpp-would-let-america-not-china-lead-the-way-on-global-trade/2016/05/02/680540e4-0fd0-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html?utm_term=.95501d007ecc. Accessed 18 March 2018. Obama B (2016) President Obama: The TPP would let America, not China, lead the way on global trade. Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-the-tpp-would-let-america-not-china-lead-the-way-on-global-trade/2016/05/02/680540e4-0fd0-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html?utm_term=.95501d007ecc. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  5. 5.

    Donnan, supra, note 5.

  6. 6.

    Clinton H R (2011) America’s Pacific Century, Foreign Policy, 11 October 2011, http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/. Accessed 04 April 2018.

  7. 7.

    Press Briefing by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and Admiral Robert Willard, US Pacific Command, Honolulu, 13 November 2011. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=97049. Accessed 18 March 2018. Obama B (2011) Press Briefing by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and Admiral Robert Willard, US Pacific Command. The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=97049. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  8. 8.

    Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Mike Froman, and National Security Council Senior Director Daniel Russel, Honolulu, 12 November 2011. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/13/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-deputy-nsa-advisor-strategic-c. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  9. 9.

    Obama B. 2011. Opening Remarks by President Obama at APEC Session One, Honolulu. The White House Office of the Press Secretary. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/13/opening-remarks-president-obama-apec-session-one. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  10. 10.

    Press Briefing by Carney, supra note 10.

  11. 11.

    ‘Official says China Open to TPP Negotiations’, 29 September 2011, Shanghai WTO Affairs Consultation Centre, Shanghai, China http://www.sccwto.net/webpages/WebMessageAction_viewIndex1.action?menuid=e36db09f-3dbc-4f2d-b815-46aa90d25174&id=ac2e2ba6-a8e0-4b7f-abf6-c472d4095100. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  12. 12.

    (2011, November 8). China Criticizes U.S. Agenda for APEC Summit. Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052970204554204577023460833102898.html. On file with author. China Criticizes U.S. Agenda for APEC Summit. Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052970204554204577023460833102898.html. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  13. 13.

    Press Briefing by Carney, supra note 10.

  14. 14.

    (2012, November 22). Trade Talks Aim to Expand United States Asia Presence with China on the Horizon. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trade-talks-aim-to-expand-united-states-asia-presence-with-china-on-the-horizon/2012/09/20/5caf2fdc-028e-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_story_1.html. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  15. 15.

    (2012, October 22) Transcript of Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy at Lynn University. Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/22/transcript-presidential-debate-on-foreign-policy-at-lynn-university/#ixzz2A65Mxs6e. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  16. 16.

    Obama, supra note 5.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Denyer S and Fifield A (2016, October 20) China is the big winner as Clinton, Trump disavow hard-fought Asia-Pacific trade deal. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-the-big-winner-as-clinton-trump-disavow-hard-fought-asia-pacific-trade-deal/2016/10/20/1d0de3be-9605-11e6-9cae-2a3574e296a6_story.html?utm_term=.42dcbd0f0245. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  19. 19.

    Sanders B (undated) The Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement Must be Defeated. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  20. 20.

    Pagan M (2017, January 30) Acting United States Trade Representative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Depositary.

  21. 21.

    Kleiner F (2017, March 2) Trump leaves Asia door open for China to dominate trade. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/2fe572fc-ff39-11e6-96f8-3700c5664d30. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  22. 22.

    Hardin R, Mitchell T, and Peel M (2017 March 14). China and Japan vie for control of Asian trade deal. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/d34d324c-03d8-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  23. 23.

    Hsu S. (2017, February 21). China takes another step towards a service economy. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu/2017/02/21/china-takes-another-step-towards-a-service-economy/#164fd45628c1. Accessed 18 March 2017; Sagami T. (2017) China’s transformation into a consumer driven economy. Money and Markets. https://www.moneyandmarkets.com/misc/chinas-transformation-into-a-consumer-driven-economy. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  24. 24.

    Shuiyu J, Xin Q, and Wei H (2017, April 24). Ali Baba bringing Belt, Road benefits to SMEs. China Daily. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-04/24/content_29051117.htm. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  25. 25.

    Hanlon R (2017) Thinking About the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank: Can a China-led Development Bank Improve Sustainability in Asia? Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies (4(3): 541–554.

  26. 26.

    See, for example, Australian Government Productivity Commission (2015), Trade and Assistance Review 2013–2014. Canberra. 162.

  27. 27.

    Trans-Pacific Partnership Ministerial Statement, 10 November 2017. Da Nang, Viet Nam. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/FTAs-in-negotiations/TPP/2017.11.10-Ministerial-Statement-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  28. 28.

    Articles 20.1 and 20.2 of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement 2006.

  29. 29.

    Rajamoorthy T (2013, March). The Origins and Evolution of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Third World Resurgence, 275. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-origins-and-evolution-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/5357495. Accessed: 18 March 2018.

  30. 30.

    Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, 23 January 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-regarding-withdrawal-united-states-trans-pacific-partnership-negotiations-agreement/. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  31. 31.

    Dey S. (2016, March 29). TPP Consultations: Now you see them, now you don't!. Council of Canadians. https://canadians.org/blog/tpp-consultations-now-you-see-them-now-you-don’t. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  32. 32.

    Chan G. (2017, January 26) Malcolm Turnbull cools on TPP ratification in face of hostile Senate. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/26/malcolm-turnbull-cools-on-tpp-ratification-in-face-of-hostile-senate. Accessed: 18 March 2018; Morgan M (2017, 16 January) TPP Dead in the Water: Shorten. SBS News. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/01/16/tpp-dead-water-shorten. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  33. 33.

    Minh HB (2016, November 17). Vietnam PM backs off from U.S.-led TPP, emphasizes independent foreign policy. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-economy-tpp-idUSKBN13C06V. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  34. 34.

    Yoshida R. (2016, December 9) Diet ratifies TPP but trade deal remains dead in the water without U.S. Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/09/business/diet-ratifies-ttp-trade-deal-remains-dead-water-without-u-s/. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  35. 35.

    (2017, February 21). China among 12 invitees slated to attend Chile trade summit; U.S. still silent. Inside US Trade.

  36. 36.

    (2017, February 18). Chile seeks free trade commitments in Asia-Pacific. Xinhua. http://www.china.org.cn/world/Off_the_Wire/2017-02/18/content_40313731.htm. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  37. 37.

    Shepherd C. (2017, March 13). China says Pacific trade meeting not about TPP. Reuters. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-4308476/China-says-Chile-Pacific-trade-meeting-not-TPP.html. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  38. 38.

    Sieg L, Nakagawa I. (2017, January 25). Japan cool to inviting China into TPP as Abe repeats free trade mantra. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-tpp/japan-cool-to-inviting-china-into-tpp-as-abe-repeats-free-trade-mantra-idUSKBN1590O0?il=0. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  39. 39.

    Joint Statement by TPP Partners, 16 March 2017, https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/joint-statement-tpp-partners. Accessed: 18 March 2018. McClay T (2017) Joint Statement by TPP Partners. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/joint-statement-tpp-partners. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  40. 40.

    Hawke, G. (2017, June 25) Is the TPP a sleeping beauty or an organ donor?. East Asia Forum. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/06/25/is-the-tpp-a-sleeping-beauty-or-an-organ-donor/. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  41. 41.

    New Zealand—Pacific Alliance FTA. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/agreements-under-negotiation/pacificalliance/. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  42. 42.

    Chandran N (2017, July 13). Vietnam, Malaysia stand in way of Japan’s TPP dream. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/13/vietnam-malaysia-stand-in-the-way-of-japans-trans-pacific-partnership-dream.html. Accessed 18 March 2018; Riordan P. (2017, August 21). USA opens the door to Mexico market for Australia. The Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/us-opens-the-door-to-mexico-market-for-australia/news-story/f49aaacbb2d8882adfc6d631aad5f2cd. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  43. 43.

    (2017, July 20). TPP-11 examine options for advancing deal without US. Bridges, 21(6) https://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/tpp-11-negotiators-examine-options-for-advancing-deal-without-us. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  44. 44.

    Harding R (2016, November 21) TPP ‘has no meaning’ without US, says Shinzo Abe. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/59972c38-b058-11e6-a37c-f4a01f1b0fa1. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  45. 45.

    Article 30.5 Entry into Force was weighted by the number and GDP of the original signatories, meaning it could not enter into force without both the USA and Japan.

  46. 46.

    McClay T (2017, August 17) Government approves TPP11 mandate, media statement. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/mcclay-government-approves-tpp11-mandate. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  47. 47.

    Trans-Pacific Partnership Ministerial Statement, 10 November 2017, Da Nang, Viet Nam, https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/FTAs-in-negotiations/TPP/2017.11.10-Ministerial-Statement-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  48. 48.

    Donnan S, Sevastopulo D (2018, January 25) Trump opens door to rejoining TPP. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/3cb22bb8-0205-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  49. 49.

    (2017, September 10) RCEP ministers redouble efforts to conclude APEC talks. Xinhua. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-09/10/c_136598504.htm. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  50. 50.

    Jaewon K (2017, October 27) RCEP deal unlikely this year: South Korean official. Nikkei Asian Review. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Economy/RCEP-deal-unlikely-this-year-South-Korean-official. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  51. 51.

    (2017, November 16) RCEP likely to be signed in December next year. United News of India. http://www.uniindia.com/rcep-likely-to-be-signed-in-november-next-year/world/news/1049020.html#g58XTJw3dEbSZIdU.99. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  52. 52.

    Leaked investment and intellectual property texts from August 2015 can be accessed at https://rceplegal.wordpress.com. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  53. 53.

    Personal information to the author.

  54. 54.

    (2017, July 19) With India and China standing eyeball to eyeball in Doklam, matters may come to a head in Hyderabad. The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/china-border-tensions-cloud-asia-trade-pact-talks-in-india/articleshow/59658703.cms. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  55. 55.

    (2017, May 24) Trade calculations: India offers to parley on RCEP tariff terms. The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/trade-calculations-india-offers-to-parley-on-rcep-tariff-terms/articleshow/58814035.cms. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  56. 56.

    O’Meara P (2018, March 5) Stalled RCEP trade pact raises questions about NZ involvement. Radio New Zealand. https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/351787/stalled-rcep-trade-pact-raises-questions-about-nz-involvement. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/trade-calculations-india-offers-to-parley-on-rcep-tariff-terms/articleshow/58814035.cms. Accessed 05 April 2018.

  57. 57.

    U.S. Embassy and Consulate in New Zealand (undated). Summary of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. https://nz.usembassy.gov/summary-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement/. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  58. 58.

    1. WTO consistency; 2.broader and deeper than ASEAN + 1FTAs, while recognising diverse circumstances of individual participating countries; 3. Include trade facilitation, transparency, and facilitate participation in global and regional supply chains; 4. Consider different levels of development and appropriate development flexibilities; 5. Co-existence with existing FTAs among the participants; 6. Participation by further ASEAN FTA partners in negotiations would be allowed by consensus and in the final text by accession provisions; 7. Technical assistance and capacity building may be available to developing and least developed countries in ASEAN to assist participation and implementation; 8. Negotiations on goods, trade in services, investment and other areas will occur in parallel to seek a comprehensive and balanced outcome. Guidling Principles and Objectives for Negotiating the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/rcep/Documents/guiding-principles-rcep.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  59. 59.

    The negotiating parties to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement agreed not to release negotiating documents for four years after the agreement comes into force. See the template letter at: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/Trans-Pacific-Partnership/TPP-letter.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  60. 60.

    Hon Todd McClay to Jane Kelsey, 12 May 2016. On file with author.

  61. 61.

    Single Working Document on the Intellectual Property Chapter. Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. 15 October 2015. https://rceplegal.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/rcep-ip-chapter-15october2015.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  62. 62.

    Townsend B, Gleeson D, and Lopert R (2016) The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, Intellectual Property Protection and Access to Medicines. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health 28(8): 682–693.

  63. 63.

    Ibid, 686.

  64. 64.

    Extending the period of patents by claiming new patents for slight modifications or new uses for existing patented medicines.

  65. 65.

    In February 2017 EFF published an open letter from 60 copyright scholars setting out necessary improvements. Malcolm J (2017, February 24) Law Professors Address RCEP Negotiators on Copyright. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/law-professors-address-rcep-negotiators. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  66. 66.

    RCEP Draft Investment Text as of 16 October 2015. https://rceplegal.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/03-rcep-wgi10-draftconsolidated-investmenttext.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  67. 67.

    Extracted from text at note 69. https://rceplegal.wordpress.com/rcep-draft-investment-text-korea/ Accessed 18 March 2018.

  68. 68.

    https://rceplegal.wordpress.com/rcep-draft-investment-text-india/. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  69. 69.

    Hon David Parker to New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, 20 February 2018, on file with author.

  70. 70.

    https://rceplegal.wordpress.com/rcep-draft-investment-text-china/.

  71. 71.

    ‘US accepts Canadian proposal to remove ISDS from NAFTA’, Latin L23 February 2018, lawyer, https://latinlawyer.com/article/1163287/us-accepts-canadian-proposal-to-remove-isds-from-nafta Accessed 05 April 2018.

  72. 72.

    Extracted from text, supra n 69.

  73. 73.

    Chapter on Trade in Services in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, draft as of RCEP WGTIS 90, draft text of 5 August 2015. Article XX. Schedules of Specific Commitments, paras 3 and 4, proposed by Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. https://rceplegal.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/services_consolidated_text_-_5aug2015.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  74. 74.

    Ninth Meeting of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Working Group on Trade in Services, 3–7 August 2015, para 7. http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/pdf/rcep_summary_of_discussion_wgtis_aug_2015.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  75. 75.

    See Kelsey J (2017) TiSA- Foul Play. UNI Global Union, Brussels. 33–46.

  76. 76.

    The stated goals of the United States of America Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Code 47 U.S.C.¶230(b)) were to ‘promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of telecommunications technologies’ but to ‘preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation’.

  77. 77.

    Obligations to allow the cross-border transfer of financial data were excluded from the TPP. The e-commerce chapter in the EU-Japan FTA does not exclude financial services, but Article 6 in the Financial Services Chapter has square brackets.

  78. 78.

    Dragoo H (2017, August 7) China’s Cybersecurity Law: The Impact on Digital Trade. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/08/07/chinas-cybersecurity-law-the-impact-on-digital-trade/. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  79. 79.

    Ibid note 81.

  80. 80.

    Greiger G (2016, July 7) One Belt, One Road (OBOR): China’s Regional Integration Initiative, Briefing to the European Parliament. European Parliament Think Tank: Brussels. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)586608. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  81. 81.

    Shuiyu J, Xin Q, and Wei H. (2017, April 24) Ali Baba bringing Belt, Road benefits to SMEs. China Daily. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-04/24/content_29051117.htm. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  82. 82.

    Alibaba (2017, March 22) Alibaba turns eWTP into reality with the Creation of the First Overseas E-hub. http://www.alibabagroup.com/en/news/article?news=p170322. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  83. 83.

    This is also evident in its new bilateral free trade agreements, including chapter 8 of the Japan European Union (EU), dated 7 December 2017.

  84. 84.

    Terms of Reference. Working Group on Electronic Commerce. Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. February 2015. http://www.bilaterals.org/?rcep-draft-e-commerce-chapter. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  85. 85.

    Confidential communication with the author.

  86. 86.

    G20 (2016, September 5) Digital Economy Development and Cooperation Initiative. Hangzhou, China. http://www.g20chn.org/English/Documents/Current/201609/P020160908736971932404.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  87. 87.

    WTO (2016, November 16), Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. Aiming at the 11th Ministerial Conference. Communication from the People’s Republic of China and Pakistan, JOB/GC/110/Rev.1. Accessed 05 April 2018.

  88. 88.

    WTO (2016, July 4) Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. Non-paper from the United States, JOB/GC/94. Accessed 05 April 2018.

  89. 89.

    Ono K (2017, November 2) Abe, Trump seek Indian-Pacific strategy to counter China. Asahi. www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201711020031.html. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  90. 90.

    McDonald J (2017, August 15) China attacks Donald Trump’s trade investigation and pledges to ‘resolutely safeguard’ interests. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-donald-trump-trade-investigation-response-protect-businesses-companies-commerce-ministry-a7893856.html. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  91. 91.

    Aleem Z. (2017, August 21) Trump’s new attack on the Chinese economy, explained. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/21/16143350/trump-china-section-301-trade. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  92. 92.

    Office of the USTR. 2018. USTR Robert Lighthizer’s Statemment on President Trump’s Decisions on Imported Steel and Aluminum. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/february/ustr-robert-lighthizer%E2%80%99s-statement. Accessed 18 March 2018.

  93. 93.

    Ma W (2018, March 9) China “Strongly Opposed” to Trump’s Tariffs. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-strongly-opposed-to-trumps-steel-aluminum-tariffs-1520569412. Accessed18 March 2018.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jane Kelsey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kelsey, J. (2019). The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership: A Battleground for Competing Hegemons?. In: Corbin, L., Perry, M. (eds) Free Trade Agreements. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3038-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3038-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3037-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3038-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics