trade policy Trade policy and food price volatility: Beggar thy neighbor or beggar thyself? By www.ifpri.org Published On :: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 11:35:49 EDT The downsides of emergency trade measures. Full Article
trade policy What the US election means for trade policy By www.chathamhouse.org Published On :: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:50:33 +0000 What the US election means for trade policy Expert comment LJefferson 10 October 2024 Kamala Harris and Donald Trump could not be more different when it comes to trade, despite a changed economic landscape. Trade policy is playing a relatively subdued role in this autumn’s US election. Yes, former president Trump has proposed tariffs of anywhere from 20 per cent to 100 per cent, asserting the revenue could fund policy areas from deficit reduction to childcare, all while growing US employment and promoting world peace. But unlike 2020, or even more 2016, the international trade architecture has not been a lively part of this year’s campaign. The two parties now start from a shared expectation of an international economic landscape shaped more by competition and industrial policy than by continued liberalization. However, the two presidential candidates’ views of which trade tools to use, and whether to proceed with allies and partners or unilaterally, could not be more different.New set of trade expectationsA large part of the relative calm has to do with the emergence of a new set of expectations on trade that are shared across Republicans and Democrats, and that are unlikely to shift in the next four years regardless of who occupies the White House.First, neither party can field the support to pass a traditional comprehensive free trade agreement through Congress. While each party still has a wing of elected officials who would like to see the US return to negotiating deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or attempt expansive new deals with Europe or in the Western Hemisphere, they are unlikely to reach critical mass in the immediate future, regardless of who holds the White House – or who controls Congress. Neither party can field the support to pass a traditional comprehensive free trade agreement through Congress. This shift in perception of the relative value of such deals – and their potential to cause political blowback for legislators – also means that the cost to any administration that wanted to propose such a deal would be high.Second, there is broad bipartisan support to continue measures aimed at promoting US security in the face of high-technology challenges from Beijing that have both military and security applications. This means continued US activism in export controls and other more innovative measures.Less divergence on clean energyWhile there is also cross-party enthusiasm for approaches to building up US manufacturing that fall under the rubric of industrial policy, the parties diverge significantly when it comes to specific content. However, around clean energy that divergence will be less than the campaign trail rhetoric suggests. There is considerable cross-party interest in trade initiatives that promote clean energy and manufacturing – whether from a climate perspective or a pure economic competitiveness perspective. Because clean energy generation is spread so broadly across the United States – with a great deal of wind and solar generation in Republican-governed ‘red states,’ and investment from the Inflation Reduction Act flowing to red states as much or more than blue ones – such incentives, and their effects on trade policy, are here to stay. Despite this, a Republican presidency or Congress will certainly seek to water down or eliminate parts of the Inflation Reduction Act that focus specifically on transition away from fossil fuels. Coupled with this commitment to making America a clean energy superpower, there is considerable cross-party interest in trade initiatives that promote clean energy and manufacturing – whether from a climate perspective or a pure economic competitiveness perspective. A wide range of creative proposals are buzzing around Congress and think-tanks – from a carbon border measure, to resuscitating the Global Steel Arrangement, to critical mineral-focused deals. Though the topic is often overlooked in overviews of trade policy, it is the one where we are most likely to see classic trade tools used.A vast difference between the two candidatesBeyond those broad strokes of an emerging ‘new Washington consensus,’ as former US trade representative and current head of the Council on Foreign Relations Michael Froman describes it: who wins the presidency will make a vast difference in what Washington does on trade – and how it aims to achieve its goals. While Vice-President Harris has criticized Trump’s tariff proposals, she has not signalled that she would make changes to the tariffs on China. A Harris administration will aim to develop shared economic security agendas with allies and partners – quite possibly expanding beyond the Biden Administration’s G7 focus to pursue more deals with a broader range of partners. Trump, on the other hand, has explicitly said he will pursue US economic interests at the expense of allies and partners. ‘Under my leadership,’ he said in a speech in Georgia last month, ‘we’re going to take other countries’ jobs,’ specifically citing allies Germany and South Korea as targets.While Vice-President Harris has criticized Trump’s tariff proposals, and noted their likely negative effects on consumers, she has not signalled that she would make changes to the tariffs on China first imposed by President Trump and then adjusted by President Biden. A Trump administration would use tariffs aggressively, but it remains absolutely unclear how. Full Article
trade policy Taking Stock of Turkey's Trade Policy By www.chathamhouse.org Published On :: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 15:50:01 +0000 Taking Stock of Turkey's Trade Policy 11 September 2018 — 5:00PM TO 6:15PM Anonymous (not verified) 23 August 2018 Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE As the only large economy outside of the EU with a customs union agreement, Turkey has a unique trade policy. Amid domestic economic challenges, Turkey’s trade minister, Ruhsar Pekcan, will discuss prospects for upgrading the EU-Turkey customs union. She will also discuss relations between the UK and Turkey and outline strategies for post-Brexit trade.Attendance at this event is by invitation only. Full Article
trade policy Protectionist Trade Policy Dampens US Economy and Risks Conflict with Asia By www.eastwestcenter.org Published On :: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:24:07 +0000 Protectionist Trade Policy Dampens US Economy and Risks Conflict with Asia Protectionist Trade Policy Dampens US Economy and Risks Conflict with Asia Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 12/19/2018 - 14:24 Jan 8, 2019 Jan 8, 2019 Economics Economics Politics & International Relations Politics & International Relations East Asia East Asia United States United States East-West Wire Tagline News, Commentary, and Analysis Home EWC Feeds East-West Wire The East-West Wire is a news, commentary, and analysis service provided by the East-West Center in Honolulu. Any part or all of the Wire content may be used by media with attribution to the East-West Center or the person quoted. To receive East-West Center Wire media releases via email, subscribe here. For links to all East-West Center media programs, fellowships and services, see www.eastwestcenter.org/journalists. Explore search All Programs All Regions All Topics Release Date Filters Reset filters East-West Wire Tagline News, Commentary, and Analysis Home EWC Feeds East-West Wire The East-West Wire is a news, commentary, and analysis service provided by the East-West Center in Honolulu. Any part or all of the Wire content may be used by media with attribution to the East-West Center or the person quoted. To receive East-West Center Wire media releases via email, subscribe here. For links to all East-West Center media programs, fellowships and services, see www.eastwestcenter.org/journalists. Explore search All Programs All Regions All Topics Release Date Filters Reset filters Full Article
trade policy Trade policy and gender equality [Electronic book] / edited by Amrita Bahri, Dorotea López, Jan Yves Remy. By encore.st-andrews.ac.uk Published On :: Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY : Cambridge University Press, 2023. Full Article
trade policy Japan's Nikkei falls amid US trade policy concerns By www.newkerala.com Published On :: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:42:03 +0530 Full Article
trade policy Trade Policy Toward Supply Chains after the Great Recession [electronic journal]. By encore.st-andrews.ac.uk Published On :: Full Article
trade policy The Pursuit of Non-Trade Policy Objectives in EU Trade Policy [electronic journal]. By encore.st-andrews.ac.uk Published On :: Full Article
trade policy Latin American Journal of Trade Policy [electronic journal]. By encore.st-andrews.ac.uk Published On :: Universidad de Chile Full Article
trade policy Innovation and Trade Policy in a Globalized World [electronic journal]. By encore.st-andrews.ac.uk Published On :: National Bureau of Economic Research Full Article
trade policy Identity Politics and Trade Policy [electronic journal]. By encore.st-andrews.ac.uk Published On :: National Bureau of Economic Research Full Article
trade policy Geography, Competition, and Optimal Multilateral Trade Policy [electronic journal]. By encore.st-andrews.ac.uk Published On :: Full Article
trade policy China's Great Migration'': The impact of the reduction in trade policy uncertainty [electronic journal]. By encore.st-andrews.ac.uk Published On :: Full Article
trade policy Trump’s trade policy violates every strategy rule By www.ft.com Published On :: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 16:39:41 GMT From tweet to tweet, official to official, nobody can tell what his priorities are Full Article
trade policy Climate change and trade policy interactions: Implications of regionalism - Trade and Environment Working Paper By dx.doi.org Published On :: Wed, 31 May 2017 12:10:00 GMT This report examines the implications of regional climate governance for international trade and conversely the implications of regional trade governance for climate change action. Regional approaches to climate change governance are discussed with a specific focus on the rise of “climate clubs” and their implications for international trade. Full Article
trade policy The Environmental Bias of Trade Policy -- by Joseph S. Shapiro By www.nber.org Published On :: This paper documents a new fact, then analyzes its causes and consequences: in most countries, import tariffs and non-tariff barriers are substantially lower on dirty than on clean industries, where an industry’s “dirtiness” is defined as its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per dollar of output. This difference in trade policy creates a global implicit subsidy to CO2 emissions in internationally traded goods and so contributes to climate change. This global implicit subsidy to CO2 emissions totals several hundred billion dollars annually. The greater protection of downstream industries, which are relatively clean, substantially accounts for this pattern. The downstream pattern can be explained by theories where industries lobby for low tariffs on their inputs but final consumers are poorly organized. A quantitative general equilibrium model suggests that if countries applied similar trade policies to clean and dirty goods, global CO2 emissions would decrease and global real income would change little. Full Article
trade policy Trump’s proposed tennis ball tariff represents a grand slam of terrible trade policy By www.washingtonpost.com Published On :: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:24:22 +0000 His unforced errors would make it hard on a U.S. manufacturer. Full Article
trade policy Brexit: What Now for UK Trade Policy? (Part 2) By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:45:01 +0000 Research Event 1 October 2019 - 12:30pm to 1:30pm Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE Event participants Professor Jagjit S. Chadha, Director, NIESRDr Kamala Dawar, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Sussex; Fellow, UKTPODr Michael Gasiorek, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Sussex; Director, Interanalysis; Fellow, UKTPOChair: Professor Jim Rollo, Deputy Director, UKTPO; Associate Fellow, Chatham House In the five months since the last extension of the Brexit deadline, the questions about the UK’s trading relationship with the EU remain as open as before, as do those about what sort of relationship it should seek with other partners.The world has not stood still, however, and so the UKTPO is convening another panel to consider constructive ways of moving forward. The panel will discuss potential trajectories for UK trade policy, followed by a question and answer session.The UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) is a partnership between Chatham House and the University of Sussex which provides independent expert comment on, and analysis of, trade policy proposals for the UK as well as training for British policymakers through tailored training packages. Department/project Global Economy and Finance Programme, UK Trade Policy Observatory Full Article
trade policy Democratize Trade Policymaking to Better Protect Human Rights By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 12:11:18 +0000 12 June 2019 Dr Jennifer Ann Zerk Associate Fellow, International Law Programme There is growing interest in the use of human rights impact assessment to screen proposed trade agreements for human rights risks, and to ensure appropriate risk mitigation steps are taken. 2019-02-15-HumanRightsTradeAgreements-Smaller.jpg Tea pickers walk at dawn through the tea plantations of Munnar, Kerala, on 7 May 2017. Copyright: Pardeep Singh Gill/Getty Images With international trade discourse taking an increasingly transactional and sometimes belligerent tone, it would be easy to overlook the quiet revolution currently under way to bring new voices into trade policy development and monitoring. The traditional division of responsibilities between the executive and legislature – whereby treaties are negotiated and signed by the executive, and the legislature does what is necessary to implement them – may be undergoing some change.Growing awareness of the implications of trade and investment treaties for many aspects of day-to-day life – food standards, employment opportunities, environmental quality, availability of medicines and data protection, just to name a few – is fuelling demands by people and businesses for more of a say in the way these rules are formulated and developed.Various options for enhancing public and parliamentary scrutiny of trading proposals have recently been examined by two UK parliamentary select committees.[1] The reason for this interest is obviously Brexit, which has presented UK civil servants and parliamentarians with the unusual (some would say exciting) opportunity to design an approval and scrutiny process for trade agreements from scratch.Doubtless, EU authorization, liaison and approval procedures (which include a scrutinizing role for the European Parliament) will be influential,[2] as will the European Commission’s experience with stakeholder engagement on trade issues.[3] The recommendations of both UK select committees to include human rights impact assessment processes as part of pre-negotiation preparations[4] echo calls from UN agencies and NGOs for more rigorous and timely analysis of the human rights risks that may be posed by new trading relationships.[5] Again, EU practice with what it terms ‘sustainability impact assessment’ of future trade agreements provides a potential model to draw from.[6] However, process is no substitute for action. Human rights impact assessment is never an end in itself; rather, it is a means to a positive end, in this case a trade agreement which is aligned with the trading partners’ respective human rights obligations and aspirations. It bears remembering, though, that the idea of assessing trade proposals for future human rights risks is a relatively recent one. Do we have the tools and resources to make sure that this is a meaningful compliance and risk management exercise?Thus far there is little evidence that human rights impact assessment and stakeholder engagement exercises are having any real impact on the content of trade agreements.[7] This is the case even in the EU, where practice in these areas is the most advanced and systematic.[8]There are several possible reasons for this. First, the methodological challenges are enormous. Aside from the crystal-ball gazing needed to forecast the social, economic and environmental effects of a trade intervention well into the future, demonstrating causal links between a trade agreement and a predicted adverse impact is often highly problematic given the number of other economic and political factors that may be in play.[9]Secondly, there are many challenges around the need to engage with affected people and listen to their views.[10] The sheer number of possible impacts of a trade agreement on different individuals and communities, as well as the range of rights potentially engaged, makes this a difficult (some would say impossible) task. Some prioritization is always necessary.This makes for difficult decisions about who to engage with and how. Perceived bias or an apparent lack of even-handedness – favouring business compared to civil society, for instance – can sow mistrust about the true aims of such a process, undermining its future effectiveness as participants begin to question whether it is genuine or worthwhile.[11]The challenges are even more acute where impact assessment practitioners are tasked with investigating potential human rights impacts in other countries. Even if it is possible to get past the inevitable political sensitivities,[12] the sort of in-depth consultations required will be beyond the budget and time constraints of most assignments.[13]There are good reasons why trade policy should be subject to greater public and parliamentary scrutiny, and why there should be more opportunities for public participation in the formation of new trading regimes. By building more opportunities for stakeholder consultation at these stages, we can acquire perspectives on trade that are not available from other forms of assessment and analysis.However, policymakers should be wary of overstating the benefits of existing procedural models. Human rights impact assessment processes are still struggling to provide compelling analyses of the relationships between trade agreements and the enjoyment of human rights, let alone a roadmap for policymakers and trade negotiators as to what should be done.[14]And financial and practical barriers to participation in stakeholder engagement exercises mean that, at best, these will provide only a partial picture of stakeholder impacts and views.Experiences with human rights impact assessment of trade agreements so far demonstrate the need for realism about two things: first, the extent to which one can sensibly anticipate and analyse human rights-related risks and opportunities in the preparation stages for a new trading agreement; and, second, the extent to which problems identified in this way can be headed off with the right form of words in the treaty itself.Both recent UK select committee reports place considerable faith in the ability of pre-project transparency and scrutiny processes to flush out potential problems and prescribe solutions. Of course, there may be cases where frontloading the analysis in this way could be useful, for instance where the human rights implications are so clear that they can readily be addressed through upfront commitments by the parties concerned, whether by bespoke or standardized approaches.More often, though, for a trade agreement running many years into the future, human rights impacts and implications will take time to emerge, suggesting the need for robust monitoring and mitigation frameworks designed with longevity in mind. Ideally, pre-signing approval and assessment processes would lay the groundwork for future action by both trading partners, either jointly or separately (though preferably both).To this end, as well as developing ideas for more robust substantive provisions on human rights, policymakers should consider the institutional arrangements required – whether pursuant to the trade agreement or by complementary processes – to ensure that human rights-related risks identified during the planning stages are properly and proactively followed up, that emerging risks are tackled in a timely fashion, and that there are opportunities for meaningful stakeholder contributions to these processes.What needs to happenTrade policymakers can use human rights impact assessment to screen proposed trade treaties for human rights-related risks and to identify possible ways of mitigating those risks, whether through the terms of the agreement itself, domestic law reform or flanking measures.Building more opportunities for stakeholder consultations can enable perspectives on trade to be highlighted that are not available from other forms of assessment.Assessment is complicated, however, by methodological challenges and the difficulties of forecasting a trade agreement’s future impacts. Policymakers need to be realistic about the risks that can be anticipated, and the extent to which many of those identified can be addressed upfront in trade agreements’ terms.These inherent limitations may be overcome to some extent by better ongoing monitoring. Future trade agreements should include more robust human rights risk monitoring and mitigation frameworks, designed with longevity in mind.Notes[1] UK Joint Committee on Human Rights (2019), ‘Human Rights Protections in International Agreements, Seventeenth Report of Session 2017–19’, HC 1833 HL paper 310, 12 March 2019, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201719/jtselect/jtrights/1833/1833.pdf; and House of Commons International Trade Committee (2018), ‘UK Trade Policy Transparency and Scrutiny, Sixth Report of Session 2017-2019’, HC 1043, 29 December 2018.[2] European Parliament and Directorate General for External Policies (2019), Parliamentary scrutiny of trade policies across the western world, study paper, March 2019, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/603477/EXPO_STU(2019)603477_EN.pdf.[3] European Commission (2019), ‘Trade policy and you’, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/trade-policy-and-you/index_en.htm.[4] See UK Joint Committee on Human Rights (2019), ‘Human Rights Protections in International Agreements’, para 12; and House of Commons International Trade Committee (2018), ‘UK Trade Policy Transparency and Scrutiny’, paras 124–34.[5] OHCHR (2003), Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Human Rights, Trade and Investment, 2 July 2003, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/9, Annex, at para 63; UN Economic and Social Council (2017), ‘General Comment No 24 (2017) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities’, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/24, 10 August 2017, para 13; and UN General Assembly (2011), ‘Guiding principles on human rights impact assessment of trade and investment agreements’, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, UN Doc. A/HRC/19/59/Add.5, 19 December 2011.[6] European Commission (2016), Handbook for Sustainability Impact Assessment (2nd ed.), Brussels: European Union, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/april/tradoc_154464.PDF.[7] Zerk, J. (2019), Human Rights Impact Assessment of Trade Agreements, Chatham House Research Paper, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/human-rights-impact-assessment-trade-agreements.[8] Ibid., pp. 11–13. For a detailed explanation of the EU’s approach to human rights impact assessment, see European Commission (2016), Handbook for Sustainability Impact Assessment.[9] Zerk (2019), Human Rights Impact Assessment of Trade Agreements, pp. 14–21.[10] Ibid., pp. 21–22.[11] Ergon Associates (2011), Trade and Labour: Making effective use of trade sustainability impact assessments and monitoring mechanisms, Final Report to DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion European Commission, September 2011; and Gammage, C. (2010), ‘A Sustainability Impact Assessment of the Economic Partnership Agreements: Challenging the Participatory Process’, Law and Development Review, 3(1): pp. 107–34. For a civil society view, see Trade Justice Movement (undated), ‘Trade Justice Movement submission to the International Trade Committee inquiry into UK Trade Policy Transparency and Scrutiny’, https://www.tjm.org.uk/resources/briefings/tjm-submission-to-the-international-trade-committee-inquiry-into-uk-trade-policy-transparency-and-scrutiny, esp. paras 23–32.[12] Zerk (2019), Human Rights Impact Assessment of Trade Agreements, pp. 20–21.[13] Ibid., pp. 21–22.[14] Ibid.This essay was produced for the 2019 edition of Chatham House Expert Perspectives – our annual survey of risks and opportunities in global affairs – in which our researchers identify areas where the current sets of rules, institutions and mechanisms for peaceful international cooperation are falling short, and present ideas for reform and modernization. Full Article
trade policy Brexit: What Now for UK Trade Policy? (Part 2) By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:45:01 +0000 Research Event 1 October 2019 - 12:30pm to 1:30pm Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE Event participants Professor Jagjit S. Chadha, Director, NIESRDr Kamala Dawar, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Sussex; Fellow, UKTPODr Michael Gasiorek, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Sussex; Director, Interanalysis; Fellow, UKTPOChair: Professor Jim Rollo, Deputy Director, UKTPO; Associate Fellow, Chatham House In the five months since the last extension of the Brexit deadline, the questions about the UK’s trading relationship with the EU remain as open as before, as do those about what sort of relationship it should seek with other partners.The world has not stood still, however, and so the UKTPO is convening another panel to consider constructive ways of moving forward. The panel will discuss potential trajectories for UK trade policy, followed by a question and answer session.The UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) is a partnership between Chatham House and the University of Sussex which provides independent expert comment on, and analysis of, trade policy proposals for the UK as well as training for British policymakers through tailored training packages. Department/project Global Economy and Finance Programme, UK Trade Policy Observatory Full Article
trade policy Democratize Trade Policymaking to Better Protect Human Rights By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 12:11:18 +0000 12 June 2019 Dr Jennifer Ann Zerk Associate Fellow, International Law Programme There is growing interest in the use of human rights impact assessment to screen proposed trade agreements for human rights risks, and to ensure appropriate risk mitigation steps are taken. 2019-02-15-HumanRightsTradeAgreements-Smaller.jpg Tea pickers walk at dawn through the tea plantations of Munnar, Kerala, on 7 May 2017. Copyright: Pardeep Singh Gill/Getty Images With international trade discourse taking an increasingly transactional and sometimes belligerent tone, it would be easy to overlook the quiet revolution currently under way to bring new voices into trade policy development and monitoring. The traditional division of responsibilities between the executive and legislature – whereby treaties are negotiated and signed by the executive, and the legislature does what is necessary to implement them – may be undergoing some change.Growing awareness of the implications of trade and investment treaties for many aspects of day-to-day life – food standards, employment opportunities, environmental quality, availability of medicines and data protection, just to name a few – is fuelling demands by people and businesses for more of a say in the way these rules are formulated and developed.Various options for enhancing public and parliamentary scrutiny of trading proposals have recently been examined by two UK parliamentary select committees.[1] The reason for this interest is obviously Brexit, which has presented UK civil servants and parliamentarians with the unusual (some would say exciting) opportunity to design an approval and scrutiny process for trade agreements from scratch.Doubtless, EU authorization, liaison and approval procedures (which include a scrutinizing role for the European Parliament) will be influential,[2] as will the European Commission’s experience with stakeholder engagement on trade issues.[3] The recommendations of both UK select committees to include human rights impact assessment processes as part of pre-negotiation preparations[4] echo calls from UN agencies and NGOs for more rigorous and timely analysis of the human rights risks that may be posed by new trading relationships.[5] Again, EU practice with what it terms ‘sustainability impact assessment’ of future trade agreements provides a potential model to draw from.[6] However, process is no substitute for action. Human rights impact assessment is never an end in itself; rather, it is a means to a positive end, in this case a trade agreement which is aligned with the trading partners’ respective human rights obligations and aspirations. It bears remembering, though, that the idea of assessing trade proposals for future human rights risks is a relatively recent one. Do we have the tools and resources to make sure that this is a meaningful compliance and risk management exercise?Thus far there is little evidence that human rights impact assessment and stakeholder engagement exercises are having any real impact on the content of trade agreements.[7] This is the case even in the EU, where practice in these areas is the most advanced and systematic.[8]There are several possible reasons for this. First, the methodological challenges are enormous. Aside from the crystal-ball gazing needed to forecast the social, economic and environmental effects of a trade intervention well into the future, demonstrating causal links between a trade agreement and a predicted adverse impact is often highly problematic given the number of other economic and political factors that may be in play.[9]Secondly, there are many challenges around the need to engage with affected people and listen to their views.[10] The sheer number of possible impacts of a trade agreement on different individuals and communities, as well as the range of rights potentially engaged, makes this a difficult (some would say impossible) task. Some prioritization is always necessary.This makes for difficult decisions about who to engage with and how. Perceived bias or an apparent lack of even-handedness – favouring business compared to civil society, for instance – can sow mistrust about the true aims of such a process, undermining its future effectiveness as participants begin to question whether it is genuine or worthwhile.[11]The challenges are even more acute where impact assessment practitioners are tasked with investigating potential human rights impacts in other countries. Even if it is possible to get past the inevitable political sensitivities,[12] the sort of in-depth consultations required will be beyond the budget and time constraints of most assignments.[13]There are good reasons why trade policy should be subject to greater public and parliamentary scrutiny, and why there should be more opportunities for public participation in the formation of new trading regimes. By building more opportunities for stakeholder consultation at these stages, we can acquire perspectives on trade that are not available from other forms of assessment and analysis.However, policymakers should be wary of overstating the benefits of existing procedural models. Human rights impact assessment processes are still struggling to provide compelling analyses of the relationships between trade agreements and the enjoyment of human rights, let alone a roadmap for policymakers and trade negotiators as to what should be done.[14]And financial and practical barriers to participation in stakeholder engagement exercises mean that, at best, these will provide only a partial picture of stakeholder impacts and views.Experiences with human rights impact assessment of trade agreements so far demonstrate the need for realism about two things: first, the extent to which one can sensibly anticipate and analyse human rights-related risks and opportunities in the preparation stages for a new trading agreement; and, second, the extent to which problems identified in this way can be headed off with the right form of words in the treaty itself.Both recent UK select committee reports place considerable faith in the ability of pre-project transparency and scrutiny processes to flush out potential problems and prescribe solutions. Of course, there may be cases where frontloading the analysis in this way could be useful, for instance where the human rights implications are so clear that they can readily be addressed through upfront commitments by the parties concerned, whether by bespoke or standardized approaches.More often, though, for a trade agreement running many years into the future, human rights impacts and implications will take time to emerge, suggesting the need for robust monitoring and mitigation frameworks designed with longevity in mind. Ideally, pre-signing approval and assessment processes would lay the groundwork for future action by both trading partners, either jointly or separately (though preferably both).To this end, as well as developing ideas for more robust substantive provisions on human rights, policymakers should consider the institutional arrangements required – whether pursuant to the trade agreement or by complementary processes – to ensure that human rights-related risks identified during the planning stages are properly and proactively followed up, that emerging risks are tackled in a timely fashion, and that there are opportunities for meaningful stakeholder contributions to these processes.What needs to happenTrade policymakers can use human rights impact assessment to screen proposed trade treaties for human rights-related risks and to identify possible ways of mitigating those risks, whether through the terms of the agreement itself, domestic law reform or flanking measures.Building more opportunities for stakeholder consultations can enable perspectives on trade to be highlighted that are not available from other forms of assessment.Assessment is complicated, however, by methodological challenges and the difficulties of forecasting a trade agreement’s future impacts. Policymakers need to be realistic about the risks that can be anticipated, and the extent to which many of those identified can be addressed upfront in trade agreements’ terms.These inherent limitations may be overcome to some extent by better ongoing monitoring. Future trade agreements should include more robust human rights risk monitoring and mitigation frameworks, designed with longevity in mind.Notes[1] UK Joint Committee on Human Rights (2019), ‘Human Rights Protections in International Agreements, Seventeenth Report of Session 2017–19’, HC 1833 HL paper 310, 12 March 2019, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201719/jtselect/jtrights/1833/1833.pdf; and House of Commons International Trade Committee (2018), ‘UK Trade Policy Transparency and Scrutiny, Sixth Report of Session 2017-2019’, HC 1043, 29 December 2018.[2] European Parliament and Directorate General for External Policies (2019), Parliamentary scrutiny of trade policies across the western world, study paper, March 2019, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/603477/EXPO_STU(2019)603477_EN.pdf.[3] European Commission (2019), ‘Trade policy and you’, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/trade-policy-and-you/index_en.htm.[4] See UK Joint Committee on Human Rights (2019), ‘Human Rights Protections in International Agreements’, para 12; and House of Commons International Trade Committee (2018), ‘UK Trade Policy Transparency and Scrutiny’, paras 124–34.[5] OHCHR (2003), Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Human Rights, Trade and Investment, 2 July 2003, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/9, Annex, at para 63; UN Economic and Social Council (2017), ‘General Comment No 24 (2017) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities’, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/24, 10 August 2017, para 13; and UN General Assembly (2011), ‘Guiding principles on human rights impact assessment of trade and investment agreements’, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, UN Doc. A/HRC/19/59/Add.5, 19 December 2011.[6] European Commission (2016), Handbook for Sustainability Impact Assessment (2nd ed.), Brussels: European Union, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/april/tradoc_154464.PDF.[7] Zerk, J. (2019), Human Rights Impact Assessment of Trade Agreements, Chatham House Research Paper, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/human-rights-impact-assessment-trade-agreements.[8] Ibid., pp. 11–13. For a detailed explanation of the EU’s approach to human rights impact assessment, see European Commission (2016), Handbook for Sustainability Impact Assessment.[9] Zerk (2019), Human Rights Impact Assessment of Trade Agreements, pp. 14–21.[10] Ibid., pp. 21–22.[11] Ergon Associates (2011), Trade and Labour: Making effective use of trade sustainability impact assessments and monitoring mechanisms, Final Report to DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion European Commission, September 2011; and Gammage, C. (2010), ‘A Sustainability Impact Assessment of the Economic Partnership Agreements: Challenging the Participatory Process’, Law and Development Review, 3(1): pp. 107–34. For a civil society view, see Trade Justice Movement (undated), ‘Trade Justice Movement submission to the International Trade Committee inquiry into UK Trade Policy Transparency and Scrutiny’, https://www.tjm.org.uk/resources/briefings/tjm-submission-to-the-international-trade-committee-inquiry-into-uk-trade-policy-transparency-and-scrutiny, esp. paras 23–32.[12] Zerk (2019), Human Rights Impact Assessment of Trade Agreements, pp. 20–21.[13] Ibid., pp. 21–22.[14] Ibid.This essay was produced for the 2019 edition of Chatham House Expert Perspectives – our annual survey of risks and opportunities in global affairs – in which our researchers identify areas where the current sets of rules, institutions and mechanisms for peaceful international cooperation are falling short, and present ideas for reform and modernization. Full Article
trade policy Global Trade Policy Forum By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 16:57:38 +0000 This multi-year initiative is the focal point for Chatham House research, partnerships and events concerning global trade. The forum aims to develop substantive and actionable policy recommendations for the future direction of global trade in a context of changing geopolitical dynamics and rapid technological transformations.At the core of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum will be the Chatham House Global Trade Conference, a series of roundtable meetings which address the range of regional and systemic trade matters, and a series of written outputs. The activities will culminate in an annual Global Trade Policy Review Briefing paper.Our unique position in London, and as a world-leading source of independent analysis and with unparalleled convening capacity, enables Chatham House to engage with a committed network of action-oriented policymakers, business leaders, academics, and representatives from the media and civil society to develop trade policy insights. We are committed to the promotion of sustainable growth and more inclusive governance.The forum’s work is supported by AIG (founding partner), Clifford Chance LLP, Diageo plc, and EY (supporting partners).View our current work on International Trade and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Department contact US and Americas Programme Email Latest (4) Research Event The US Role in Shaping World Trade 21 May 2020 Expert comment Privileging Local Food is Flawed Solution to Reduce Emissions 23 April 2020 Expert comment The EU Cannot Build a Foreign Policy on Regulatory Power Alone 11 February 2020 Expert comment Trade Tensions Set to Continue in 2020 14 January 2020 Expert comment (3) Expert comment Privileging Local Food is Flawed Solution to Reduce Emissions 23 April 2020 Expert comment The EU Cannot Build a Foreign Policy on Regulatory Power Alone 11 February 2020 Expert comment Trade Tensions Set to Continue in 2020 14 January 2020 Past events (7) Research Event Reimagining Trade Rules to Address Climate Change in a Post-Pandemic World 5 May 2020 Research Event A Transatlantic Partnership for WTO Reform in the Age of Coronavirus 28 April 2020 Research Event Virtual Roundtable: America’s China Challenge 17 April 2020 Research Event Virtual Roundtable: The End of Globalism? Remaining Interconnected While Under Increased Pressure to Isolate 30 March 2020 Research Event Trade, Technology and National Security: Will Europe Be Trapped Between the US and China? 2 March 2020 Research Event Trade and Environmental Sustainability: Towards Greater Coherence 27 February 2020 Research Event A New Decade: The Path to Sustainable and Inclusive Trade 17 January 2020 More on the Global Trade Policy Forum Full Article
trade policy U.S. Trade Policy Update With Deputy U.S. Trade Representative John Veroneau By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 08:32:37 +0000 U.S. Trade Policy Update With Deputy U.S. Trade Representative John Veroneau HONOLULU (Oct. 8) – Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador John K. Veroneau will offer an update on U.S. trade policy at a breakfast briefing on Wed., Oct. 15, at the East-West Center’s Hawai‘i Imin International Conference Center (Jefferson Hall, 1777 East-West Road). Cost for the event is $14. Registration begins at 8 a.m., with the breakfast program commencing at 8:30. Reservations are requested by Tues., Oct. 14. To make a reservation, contact (808) 944-7111, or ewcinfo@eastwestcenter.org . For media coverage of the event, please contact Derek Ferrar at (808) 944-7204 or via email ferrard@EastWestCenter.org . Full Article
trade policy Trade Policy Review 2016: Korea By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 Each Trade Policy Review consists of three parts: a report by the government under review, a report written independently by the WTO Secretariat, and the concluding remarks by the chair of the Trade Policy Review Body. A highlights section provides an overview of key trade facts. 15 to 20 new review titles are published each […] Full Article
trade policy Trade Policy Review 2016: The Democratic Republic of the Congo By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 Each Trade Policy Review consists of three parts: a report by the government under review, a report written independently by the WTO Secretariat, and the concluding remarks by the chair of the Trade Policy Review Body. A highlights section provides an overview of key trade facts. 15 to 20 new review titles are published each […] Full Article
trade policy Trade Policy Review 2016: Sierra Leone By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 Each Trade Policy Review consists of three parts: a report by the government under review, a report written independently by the WTO Secretariat, and the concluding remarks by the chair of the Trade Policy Review Body. A highlights section provides an overview of key trade facts. 15 to 20 new review titles are published each […] Full Article
trade policy Trade Policy Review 2016: Tunisia By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 Each Trade Policy Review consists of three parts: a report by the government under review, a report written independently by the WTO Secretariat, and the concluding remarks by the chair of the Trade Policy Review Body. A highlights section provides an overview of key trade facts. 15 to 20 new review titles are published each […] Full Article
trade policy Trade Policy Review 2016: Russian Federation By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 Each Trade Policy Review consists of three parts: a report by the government under review, a report written independently by the WTO Secretariat, and the concluding remarks by the chair of the Trade Policy Review Body. A highlights section provides an overview of key trade facts. 15 to 20 new review titles are published each […] Full Article