East Asian Economic Review

Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (대외경제정책연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of the New Trade Regime for State-Owned Enterprises under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

  • Yun, Mikyung (School of International Studies, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Published : 2016.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper analyses the new discipline on state-owned enterprises contained in the recently concluded Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, and evaluates various factors that influenced the shaping of its specific rules. The new discipline consolidates and strengthens related provisions in current trade regimes, reflects various aspects of trade disputes between China and the US, and adopts, as its general underlying rationale, the principle of competitive neutrality. The new discipline contains elements that may challenge the multilateral trade regime, and may serve as a role model in regulating state-owned enterprises, including subsidies in services trade in other on-going trade negotiations. The new regime makes us think hard about fundamental issues regarding enforcement of competition policy against state-owned enterprises, treatment of non-market economies, and how to deal with effects of subsidies in international trade, bringing competition issues back on the trade agenda.

Keywords

References

  1. Aaken, A. 2013. Blurring Boundaries between Sovereign Acts and Commercial Activities: A Functional View on Regulatory Immunity and Immunity from Execution. University of St. Gallen Law School Law and Economics Research Paper Series. Working Paper No. 2013-17.
  2. Adlung, R. 2015. "The Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) and Its Compatibility with GATS: An Assessment Based on Current Evidence," World Trade Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 617-641. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745615000294
  3. Ahn, D. and J. Lee. 2011. "Countervailing Duty Against China: Opening a Pandora's Box in the WTO System?," Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 329-368. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgr015
  4. Cartland, M., Depayre, G. and J. Wozonowski. 2012. "Is Something Going Wrong in the WTO Dispute Settlement?," Journal of World Trade, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 979-1016.
  5. Chi, M. 2012. "China's Participation in WTO Dispute Settlement Over the Past Decade: Experiences and Impacts," Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 29-49. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgs002
  6. Cottier, T., Mavroidis, P. and K. N. Schafer (eds.). 1998. State Trading in the Twenty-first Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  7. Ding, R. 2014. "'Public Body' or Not: Chinese State-Owned Enterprise," Journal of World Trade, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 167-190.
  8. Hafbauer, G. C. and C. Cimino-Isaacs. 2015. "How will TPP and TTIP Change the WTO System?," Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 679-696. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgv036
  9. Hilmer, F., Rayner, M. and G. Taperell. 1993. "National Competition Policy." Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
  10. Kowalski, P., Buge, M., Sztajerowska, M. and M. Egeland. 2013 "State-Owned Enterprises: Trade Effects and Policy Implications-Annex (Annex to the OECD Trade Policy Paper No. 147). OECD, Working Party of the Trade Committee. Paris, OECD.
  11. Lee, J. 2010. "Vitamin "C" is for Compulsion: Delimiting the Foreign Sovereign Compulsion Defense," Virginia Journal of International Law. vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 757-791.
  12. Lee, J. M. 2015. "State Responsibility and Government-Affiliated Entities in International Economic Law: The Danger of Blurring the Chinese Wall Between 'State Organ' and 'Non-State Organ' as Designed in the ILC Draft Articles," Journal of World Trade, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 117-152.
  13. Martyniszyn, M. 2012. "A Comparative Look on Foreign State Compulsion as a Defense in Antitrust Litigation," Competition Law Review, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 143-167.
  14. OECD. 2005. Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State Owned Enterprises. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  15. OECD. 2009. "State Owned Enterprises and the Principle of Competitive Neutrality," Policy Round Tables. Paris: OECD.
  16. OECD. 2012a. Competitive Neutrality - National Practices. Paris: OECD.
  17. OECD. 2012b. Competitive Neutrality - Maintaining a Level Playing Field between Public and Private Business. Paris: OECD.
  18. OECD. 2012c. Competitive Neutrality: A Compendium of OECD Recommendations, Guidelines and Best Practices. Paris: OECD.
  19. Qin, J. 2004. "WTO Regulation of Subsidies to State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs)-A Critical Appraisal of the China Accession Protocol," Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 863-919. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/7.4.863
  20. Sappington, D. E. M. and J. G. Sidak 2003. "Competition Law for State-Owned Enterprises," Antitrust Law Journal, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 479-523.
  21. Sauve, P. and M. Soprana. 2015. Learning by not Doing: Subsidy Disciplines in Services Trade. E15 Initiative. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum.
  22. Shadikhodjaev, S. 2012. "How to Pass a Pass-Through Test: The Case of Input Subsidies," Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 621-646. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgs026
  23. Sokol, D. D. 2009. "Competition Policy and Comparative Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises," Brigham Young University Law Review, vol. 2009, no. 6, pp. 1713-1812.
  24. Szamosszegi, A. and C. Kyle. 2011. "An Analysis of State-owned Enterprises and State Capitalism in China." U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Prepared by Capital Trade, Incorporated, Washington, DC.
  25. UNCTAD. 2014. Competitive Neutrality and Its Application in Selected Developing Countries.
  26. UNCTAD, 2015. Summary of the TPP Agreement. "Chapter 17: State-Owned Enterprises" (accessed October 10, 2015).
  27. USTR and US Department of Commerce. 2015. Subsidies Enforcement: Annual Report to the Congress.
  28. Virtanen, M. and P. Valkama. 2009. "Competitive Neutrality and Distortion of Competition: A Conceptual View," World Competition, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 393-407.
  29. Wang, D. T. 2012. "When Antitrust Met WTO: Why U.S. Courts Should Consider US- China WTO Disputes in Deciding Antitrust Cases Involving Chinese Exports," Columbia Law Review, vol. 112, no. 5. pp. 1096-1142.
  30. WTO. 2001. Council for Trade in Services, "Guidelines and Procedures for the Negotiations on Trade in Services." Geneva: WTO.
  31. WTO. 2012. WTO Analytical Index: Guide to WTO Law and Practice. Geneva: WTO.
  32. Yang, Y. 2000. "China's WTO Accession: The Economics and Politics," Journal of World Trade, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 77-94.
  33. Yun, M. 2007. "Analysis of Designated Monopoly and State Enterprise Clauses in the Korea-US FTA Competition Chapter," Trade Remedy, vol. 28, Fall. (in Korean)
  34. Yun, M. 2013. "Chapter 2: Regulating Abuse of Administrative Power: The Experience of the Korean Fair Trade Commission," In Shin, K.S. (ed.). Knowledge Sharing Program with China: Experience of the KFTC on Enforcing Competition Laws and Policies. Sejong-si: Ministry of Strategy and Finance and Korea Development Institute.