Last week, Elsa Sardinha from the NUS Centre for International law and Vincent-Joël Proulx from the NUS Faculty of Law visited MEI to give a talk on the impact of US’s withdrawal from the  Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the future of Asian Free Trade Agreements (FTA). The central question of the talk was, “Will American influence wane with the conclusion of the CPTPP[1]?” The researchers’ key hypothesis was that even though the US has left the TPP, and thus the role of the leader in the international trading system, Asian states will likely run on the model that was left behind. The form and content of the CPTPP’s procedural and substantive investment provisions will continue to bear the mark of American influence despite the US’ absence, and that it will continue to serve as a template for Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in Asia-relevant FTAs. They predict that Asian states will continue on the track of trade liberalisation and ensure that there are reliable ISDS mechanisms. This prediction is grounded in the CPTPP investment chapter’s origins; namely, in its embodiment of many hard lessons learned from post-NAFTA practice.

On the issue of rising regional powers – China and India – the researchers hypothesised that they are likely to remain rule-takers instead of becoming rule-makers in international trade. They argued that the post-NAFTA model is recognised as an effective model by the international community, and is a template that has been studied and adopted by Asian states. The CPTPP is merely an upgraded version of NAFTA, fixing the loopholes in NAFTA and providing much more transparency, all while reaffirming existing trade practices. They also buttressed their hypothesis by pointing out the similarities between the CPTPP’s investment chapter and the leaked draft of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)’s investment chapter. The similarities lend weight to the argument that China would follow existing trade practices and not seek to reshape FTAs.

During the Question and Answer (Q&A) session, the researchers were asked if they would apply the same hypothesis to Middle Eastern FTAs. The researchers responded stating that they have not looked into this area, but Canadian FTAs with the Middle East seem to adopt the post-NAFTA model as well. The relevance of human rights to FTA negotiations was also raised during the Q&A session. The researchers highlighted that, to their knowledge, investment chapters of FTAs also include provisions on human rights.

[1] The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is the revised version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It was signed by Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.