David Kleimann

The Challenge of Implementing Preferential Trade Agreements in Developing Countries – Lessons for Rule Design

The latest generation of Preferential Trade Agreements (PTA) features a diversity of ‘deep integration’ provisions, which mandate a wide range of border and behind-the-border regulatory and institutional reforms in areas such as food safety and technical standards, customs administration, government procurement, competition policy, or services liberalization. The implementation of such obligations frequently presents developing countries with major challenges, as they face varieties of domestic structural and behavioral constraints. With a view to a better understanding of such challenges and how they can be effectively addressed, the World Bank has launched a series of case studies on PTA implementation in a dozen selected developing countries from around the world. This paper summarizes the main results of a forthcoming report, which provides an overview of the findings of the country case studies with respect to the implementation of PTA provisions in seven complex border and behind-the-border policy areas. Drawing from the empirical evidence of the case studies and the conclusions of modern policy implementation theory, it is suggested that the challenges associated with PTA implementation in developing countries can, at least partially, be addressed through ‘built-in’ flexibilities, i.e. the customization of PTA rule design to country specific structural and behavioral characteristics, and the establishment of effective institutional mechanisms that are equipped with strong mandates to monitor, analyze, support, and adjust implementation processes over time.

What Next in a Post-Doha World? Lessons from EU, U.S., and Chinese Trade Policy Strategies

With the WTO hamstrung and the Doha Round dead in all but name, the future directions of international trade and investment liberalisation will be largely determined by the policy strategies and initiatives of the world’s economic superpowers. Looking at the trade and investment policy strategies of the EU, the U.S., and China, the authors of this policy brief assess how each of these economic giants is attempting to meet the challenges of a post-Doha world and thereby set the scene for a dynamic process of post-Doha international economic integration.

An inventory and typology of ASEAN external instruments: overview and trends

Introduction In this chapter we present an inventory and typology of ASEANs external agreements, which will then form the basis of our analysis of ASEAN treaty-making practice in the following chapters. Our analysis is based on the inventories and tables which are included in the appendices and is founded on the type of instrument used and their legal quality, the parties to the instruments, and their content. A few initial comments on each of these are in order. First, as to the type of instrument, we have included in our dataset not only legally binding international agreements (such as treaties) but also other instruments: memoranda of understanding (MoUs), action plans and declarations concluded between, or issued jointly by, ASEAN on the one side and a third state, group of states or international organisation on the other. Thus we exclude unilateral ASEAN instruments. The instruments vary widely in terms of length and significance, as well as legal quality. Our classification is based on the indicators of legal quality developed by Davinia Aziz for the purpose of analysing the typology of internal ASEAN instruments. Since a large number of ASEAN external instruments fall into the category of non-legally binding (102 out of a total of 175 instruments) inclusion of the latter will present a fuller picture of ASEAN external relations, will put the binding agreements into their broader institutional context, and will allow us to make an assessment as to whether legally binding commitments are preferred for different subject matters or for relations with different parties, and whether that choice alters over time. An analysis of the legal quality of ASEAN external instruments is presented in section 2 below. Second, we have categorised the instruments in terms of content. We distinguish between (i) political and security, (ii) economic, (iii) social and cultural and (iv) partnership and co-operation instruments.