Legal Analysis of the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Cooperation Partnership Agreement (2003)
https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2012-4-98-115
Abstract
Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA), singed between the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong in late 2003, became the first ever free trade deal for the both parties. CEPA is an international agreement, subjected to international (WTO) law, between the central government of China and the government of one of the China’s special administrative regions. This distinguishes the Arrangement from a myriad of other regional trade agreements (RTA). CEPA focuses on liberalization of trade in goods and services between China and Hong Kong. The Arrangement generally complies with relevant WTO provisions and covers areas of trade not governed by WTO agreements (WTO-plus). Moreover, in some respects CEPA goes far beyond trade liberalization agenda of many RTAs. CEPA demonstrates China’s intention to neutralize those excessive and arguably discriminatory conditions, accepted by her upon admission to the WTO, through the insertion of more favorable rules in her trade agreements with other WTO members.
About the Author
N. V. Veremeyev
City University of Hong Kong
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nikolai V. Veremeyev – lecturer
References
1. Adlung R., Roy M. Turning Hills into Mountains? Current Commitments Under the General Agreement on Trade in Services and Prospects for Change // Journal of World Trade. 2005. Vol. 39. No. 6.
2. Antkiewicz A., Whalley J. China’s New Regional Trade Agreements // NBER Working Paper No. W109992. 2004.
3. Bown С. Why are safeguards under the WTO so unpopular? // World Trade Review. 2002. Vol. 1. No. 1.
4. Emch A. Services Regionalism in the WTO: China’s Trade Agreements with Hong Kong and Macao in the light of Article V(6) GATS // Legal Issues of Economic Integration. 2006. Vol. 33. No. 4.
5. Fink C., Molinuevo M. East Asian Free Trade Agreements in Services: Key Architectural Elements // Journal of International Economic Law. 2008. Vol. 11. No. 2.
6. Gao H. China’s Participation in the WTO: A Lawyer’s Perspective // Singapore Year Book of International Law. Vol. 11. 2007.
7. Gao H. Legal Issues under WTO Rules on the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) between Mainland China and Hong Kong // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2003. Vol. 2. No. 2.
8. Harpaz M. China’s WTO Compliance-Plus Anti-Dumping Policy // Research Paper No. 01-11. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. February 2011.
9. Islam R., Alam S. Preferential Trade Agreements and the Scope of GATT Article XXIV, GATS Article V and the Enabling Clause: an Appraisal of GATT/WTO Jurisprudence // The Netherlands International Law Review. 2009. Vol. 56. Issue 1.
10. Mathis J. Regional Trade Agreements in the GATT/WTO: Article XXIV and the Internal Trade Requirement. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2002.
11. Robert Z. Lawrence. China and the Multilateral Trading System // Faculty Research Working Papers Series. John F. Kennedy School of Government – Harvard University. October 2006. P. 20. URL: http://www.piie.com/publications/papers/lawrence1006-045.pdf (дата обращения: 21.12.2011).
12. Roy M., Marchetti J., Lim H. Service Liberalization in the New Generation of Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs): How Much Further than the GATS? // World Trade Review. 2007. Vol. 6. No. 2.
13. Wang Guiguo. The Law of the WTO. China and the Future of Free Trade. Hong Kong–Singapore–Malaysia: Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2005.
14. World Trade Report 2011: The WTO and preferential trade agreements: From co-existence to coherence. Geneva, 2011. URL: http://wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report11_e.pdf (дата обращения: 21.08.2011).
15. Yu Yanning. Trade Remedies: The Impact on the Proposed AustraliaChina Free Trade Agreement // Michigan State Journal of International Law. 2010. Issue 18.2.
Review
For citations:
Veremeyev N.V. Legal Analysis of the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Cooperation Partnership Agreement (2003). Moscow Journal of International Law. 2012;(4):98-115. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2012-4-98-115
Views:
448
Email this article 