Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). The EU and the USA are negotiating the TTIP, a trade agreement that aims to remove trade barriers across different economic sectors to increase trade between the EU and the USA. The TTIP will have spill over effects on the MENA region, the GCC, Australia and the Asian sub-continent, as it raises key questions for intellectual property and international trade agreements. For instance, will the USA and EU be on an equal footing or will one triumph over the other, will third party countries like the GCC states be expected to adopt new standards.

The research design is a paper and online data collection method to find literature to date on intellectual property law development in the GCC states in relation to the three research objectives as set out above. The literature is the population, and this could prove problematic. Different databases have been used to cover all sources where data can be found.

As the EU-USA TTIP is aiming to conclude by the end of 2015, the GCC has an opportunity to reassess its relationship with both the EU and GCC. Up until now, the GCC was able to enter into negotiations with the EU and USA relatively independently. However, where the EU and USA can agree, there will be a harmonisation of regulations. This therefore has repercussions for the GCC. The TTIP has three main aims: to increase trade and investment through market access, increase employment and competitiveness and create a harmonised approach to global trade. To harmonise global trade, the EU and USA aim to harmonise their intellectual property rights through an intellectual property rights chapter that deals specifically with enhancing protection and recognition for geographical indications, build on TRIPS and patentability.

This study is non-empirical.

The TTIP will have spill over effects for the GCC, as it has yet to finalise the EU-GCC free trade agreement and USA-GCC framework agreement. The power dynamics between the USA and EU will be a deciding factor on the intellectual property chapter in the TTIP in terms of what the provisions for intellectual property will look like and what powers will be available to investors to bring investor-state-dispute settlement claims against foreign countries.

The purpose of this paper is to focus, first, on the analysis of recent trends of the European and Italian food industries, and, second, on the possible implications that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiate can exert on the Italian agri-food system.

The study is based on an in-depth analysis of current economic trends, characteristics of production structure, and the trade balance of Italy-USA commercial relationship in the context of EU market. The main advantages and disadvantages that can be derived from the TTIP negotiation are pointed out.

The analysis of the Italian food industry highlights a very fragmented production structure characterized by the coexistence on the market of a small number of big companies and a large number of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Such bipolar structure constitutes a constraint to internationalization and limits the quantities of exportable products. The TTIP can represent an opportunity for the Italian food small businesses. On the other hand, the main disadvantages are related to the agricultural raw materials market.

The study offers an in-depth analysis of the main features of the Italian food industry and of its role in international agri-food trades, describing the scenario that could be opened by the TTIP negotiation.

The purpose of this study is to examine the nature of the protection afforded to foreign investors and whether this protection has been exercised to the detriment of host states. In other words, is the regulatory authority of host states being compromised by the content of the investment agreements entered into? If so, is there scope for reform? The need to reform investor-state arbitration was recently pushed forward by the European Union Commission in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

It is conceptual.

It proposed an investment court system as a replacement for investor-state arbitration. However, there is great ambivalence on whether these reforms would result in a rebalance of investment agreements in favour of host states. Thus, this paper provides a range of solutions to the challenges posed by investor-state arbitration through proposals for a regional and world investment court.

The findings made in this research will inform both academics and practitioners in the field of international law on whether the investment court proposal will bring about the desired changes.

Secondary sources

The contribution draws upon the protests against a proposed trade deal between the European Union (EU) and the United States as an example of the potential to identify as European citizens. It is relevant given the multiple challenges the EU is currently facing, particularly a crisis of democratic legitimacy. While trust in EU institutions is at a historic low, some citizens – such as the Anti-Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) protestors – want to have a say in EU decision-making. The resulting conflicts should not be misunderstood as a threat. Instead, the author’s suggestion here is that democratic conflict has the potential to contribute to the politicisation and the identification of citizens with the European project. Following this line of thought, the potential of the Anti-TTIP protests lies in a civic democratisation of the EU through conflict. The author focusses on protestors’ participation experiences and their self-understanding processes as European citizens. The author explores the different ways in which protestors experience themselves as European citizens which aims to open up the discourse about the multiplicity of European citizenship. This variety of meanings ascribed to European citizenship is not regarded as a danger, but as the potential to enrich Europe with new ways of being and acting as European citizens.

Strong evidence has shown that increased agricultural productivity and opened international trade are required to maintain and enhance food security. The multilateral trading system has been unable to keep trade open for one subset of agricultural products – those that use biotechnology in production. This chapter assesses whether preferential trade agreements can represent potential alternative sources of trade rules for dealing with trade in the products of biotechnology. This chapter analyzes and compares three case studies of preferential trade agreements (Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and Trans-Pacific Partnership), by focusing on negotiations pertaining to products of biotechnology. The three preferential trade agreements have shown little inventiveness in their attempts to put in place rules of trade for the products of modern agricultural biotechnology and have established forums where only issues can be discussed. They are forums to talk and talk without any means to force closure on negotiations. Given the inability to deal with the issue of biotechnology at the WTO or other multilateral forums, the recent and current negotiations of major preferential agreements represent the second best alternative which still needs to be analyzed and still needs to be understood by policy makers, academics, and the population at large. This chapter represents a first step in that direction.

The main purpose of this chapter is to explore the role BRICS countries have played in the formation of regional (free) trade agreements. The present chapter tries to understand and document recent developments and directions taken by the BRICS countries either individually or in aligning with each other at the regional and mega-regional levels.

The chapter is largely empirical and descriptive to analyse the recent RTAs policies of the BRICS countries.

This chapter provides in particular as assessment of the impact on BRICS countries of the three recent Mega-RTAs; that is TPP, TPIP and RCEP. For this purpose, an attempt had been made to find out the commonalties and divergences in the RTAs policies of the BRICS countries.

The chapter is divided into six sections. After a brief introduction, the second section deals with the reasons for countries entering into RTAs. The third section documents the directions of the current negotiations on Mega-RTAs and its (potential) geographical implications for the BRICS countries. The fourth and the fifth sections deal with the current status of these RTAs and their noticeable impact on the response of the BRICS countries. The final section concludes the research with suggestions and recommendations.

RTAs and Mega-RTAs frameworks have been useful for BRICS countries. This recent development in trade negotiations can be regarded as promising for them.