THE EU, CHINA AND PRODUCT STANDARDS

INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY, 2011

This article challenges the rhetoric of hardening, according to which international standards become binding through WTO endorsement. The analysis of the system of presumptions set up in the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement and Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Agreement reveals that international standards are actually used as a 'ceiling'rather than a 'floor'benchmark of protection, contrary to their original spirit. They represent a codified and agreed yardstick for least trade-restrictive measures, a minimum compromise ...

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2013

This article explores the European Union (EU) regulatory regime for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and its legal, cultural, economic, and international trade implications. It focuses particularly on the controversial Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products (THMPD), which amended the European Community Code for medicinal products in 2004, with effect as of 2011. The Community Code as amended set new standards for imports of herbal medicines, which previously had been exported from China mainly as food, food supplements or other products. The article analyses the new EU regime and evaluates it in the light of (a) the EU's policy objectives, (b) the implications for Chinese TCM producers and exporters, (c) the role of law in rechanneling market competition and (d) the ethics of social solidarity and pluralism. It concludes that the EU regulatory regime for TCM falls short on all counts. On the basis of this critical evaluation, the article calls for greater medical and legal pluralism, stresses the need for increased participation of other countries in EU decision-making about medicines, and identifies priorities for further research. 1 The expression "TCM" is so widely known that we use it throughout the paper for the sake of convenience. Strictly speaking, however, it is not accurate. It was created in the 1950s to evoke a particular perception of Chinese medicine in western countries, it distorts the history of Chinese medicine by suggesting that it is unchanging and also, conversely, it distinguishes too sharply between Chinese medicine before and after 1949.

2001

Standards and technical regulations which govern the admissibility of imported goods into an economy raise costs of exporters entering new markets, and may have a particularly high impact on firms seeking to export from developing countries. Yet standards may also have a positive side, such as certifying product quality and safety for the consumer. This paper analyzes potential conflicts of

2008

"Introduction: In the framework of the China-EU School of Law (CESL) Grant 2011 on “China and Non-Trade Concerns”, three conferences are organized. The first was held at University of Turin, Law Department & Center of Advanced Studies on Contemporary China (CASCC), Turin on November 23-24, 2011 and the second at Tsinghua University, School of Law on January 14-15, 2012. This is the third of this series of conferences, and is held at Maastricht University, Faculty of Law on January 19-20, 2012. A collected book edited by the Grant holder entitled “China's Influence on Non Trade Concerns in International Economic Law” (tentative title) will be published with Ashgate Publishing (UK), ISBN 978-1-4094-4848-8 (under contract for publication - forthcoming 2014). The book will be also published in Italian, Chinese and Hungarian thanks to the funding delivered by the China-EU School of Law in Beijing, the Department of Public, Civil Procedure, International and European Law at University of Milan and by the National Employment Service of Republic of Hungary. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The delocalization of production appears to be the sole response to the increasing competitive pressure exerted by low-cost producers on European firms. While this delocalization has resulted in loss of employment for European citizens within the EU, it may have a corrosive impact on the core societal values both in EU and in the host country. Both public opinion and policy makers fear that international trade, in particular a further liberalization thereof, may undermine or jeopardize policies and measures on a wide variety of issues, for example, the protection the environment and the sustainable development, good governance, cultural rights, labour rights, public health, social welfare, national security, food safety, access to knowledge, consumer interests and animal welfare. There is a general consensus that these non-trade concerns, which cover very different societal aspirations and fears, must be addressed in EU external policy and in particular measures relating to international trade and foreign direct investment. There is also the expectation that the EU should act in all the international arenas to defend and keep these values at the highest level of protection. However, many of the trade measures introduced by developed countries to address non-trade concerns have been met by developing countries with cautious distrust if not with resistance or dissent. Developing countries, including China, often doubt the authenticity of such concerns that can be inspired by protectionist aims, rather than genuine non-trade concerns. Moreover, developing countries see these measures as an attempt by developed countries to impose their social, ethical or cultural values and preferences on exporting developing countries. Given the different and sometimes opposing interests of developing and industrialized countries, one may question whether international economic law may become a fairer system. If all the countries negotiated in international fora having always in mind the general common interests of the humanity as a whole, this would be the case. Unfortunately this is not the case: this is the reason why this project is timely and necessary. Amongst the new emerging economies, China is already playing a key role in drawing new rules of the game and it is important to evaluate, without prejudice and by taking into consideration its special context, China’s behavior internally and externally to understand which direction the world is being driven in by China"

2003

There is a widespread belief among economists and policymakers that, while formal trade barriers may have been reduced greatly in recent years, there may be growing barriers-whether intentional or unintentional-resulting from the imposition by nation states and by international blocs of technical regulations on product safety, labelling, environmental emissions, hygiene and the like. It is increasingly suggested that these barriers may be being manipulated by national authorities as an alternative, and potentially costly, way of discriminating against import suppliers in favour of their domestic industries, and that trade rules need tightening to reduce such protectionism. Such a sentiment underlies the Annexes on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPSs) to the World Trade Organisation Agreement from the Uruguay Round. The WTO Agreement Annex on TBTs recognises that countries have legitimate reasons for introducing product regulations, but that such regulations must not 'be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create'. Attempts to reduce perceived TBTs also underlie the European Union's Single Market initiative and several recent trade agreements. Nevertheless, there is still considerable disagreement between those (particularly developing country lobbyists) who argue that regulations are still highly obstructive to trade and those who feel countries' sovereignty and the environment and quality of life of their citizens would be at risk from loosening regulations. Quality standards under classical oligopoly and trade: regulatory protection or just over-regulation? T.Huw Edwards Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation Warwick UK

China Information

Economic sociology views markets as organizations characterized by power relations. In this framework, competition is not only for price or quality, but also for market structures, including norms and standards. Food standards, therefore, are not only public goods or tools to protect domestic markets, but they also aim to redesign the rules of the market and provide a competitive advantage to firms and national industries: they are part of the politicization of science. This article argues that China is participating in this form of competition. Since its WTO membership, it has gradually learnt the rules of globalization and has implemented many global standards to benefit from international trade. In recent years, however, it has assumed a more proactive role in reframing international standards of agro-food markets in general and food safety in particular, despite existing problems in its domestic food markets. Three case studies – milk imports; the diplomatic and trade competitio...

2012

This study examines the role of internationally harmonised standards on goods in determining potential trade partners across countries in the context of deepening economic globalisation. The analysis classifies traded products into three groupshomogeneous (organised market), internationally standardised and non-standardised differentiated products-by considering the degree of product comparability and substitutability to potential partners in GVCs in order to examine recent international specialisation patterns across countries. For this analysis we have developed alternative product-type classification, which is in HS 6-digit products, to widely used Rauch’s classification (1999).

""Introduction: In the framework of the China-EU School of Law (CESL) Grant 2011 on “China and Non-Trade Concerns”, three conferences are organized. The first was held at University of Turin, Law Department & Center of Advanced Studies on Contemporary China (CASCC), Turin on November 23-24, 2011 and the third one at Maastricht University, Faculty of Law on January 19-20, 2012. This is the second of this series of conferences, and is held at Tsinghua University, School of Law on January 14-15, 2012. A collected book edited by the Grant holder entitled “China's Influence on Non Trade Concerns in International Economic Law” (tentative title) will be published with Ashgate Publishing (UK), ISBN 978-1-4094-4848-8 (under contract for publication - forthcoming 2014). The book will be also published in Italian, Chinese and Hungarian thanks to the funding delivered by the China-EU School of Law in Beijing, the Department of Public, Civil Procedure, International and European Law at University of Milan and by the National Employment Service of Republic of Hungary. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The delocalization of production appears to be the sole response to the increasing competitive pressure exerted by low-cost producers on European firms. While this delocalization has resulted in loss of employment for European citizens within the EU, it may have a corrosive impact on the core societal values both in EU and in the host country. Both public opinion and policy makers fear that international trade, in particular a further liberalization thereof, may undermine or jeopardize policies and measures on a wide variety of issues, for example, the protection the environment and the sustainable development, good governance, cultural rights, labour rights, public health, social welfare, national security, food safety, access to knowledge, consumer interests and animal welfare. There is a general consensus that these non-trade concerns, which cover very different societal aspirations and fears, must be addressed in EU external policy and in particular measures relating to international trade and foreign direct investment. There is also the expectation that the EU should act in all the international arenas to defend and keep these values at the highest level of protection. However, many of the trade measures introduced by developed countries to address non-trade concerns have been met by developing countries with cautious distrust if not with resistance or dissent. Developing countries, including China, often doubt the authenticity of such concerns that can be inspired by protectionist aims, rather than genuine non-trade concerns. Moreover, developing countries see these measures as an attempt by developed countries to impose their social, ethical or cultural values and preferences on exporting developing countries. Given the different and sometimes opposing interests of developing and industrialized countries, one may question whether international economic law may become a fairer system. If all the countries negotiated in international fora having always in mind the general common interests of the humanity as a whole, this would be the case. Unfortunately this is not the case: this is the reason why this project is timely and necessary. Amongst the new emerging economies, China is already playing a key role in drawing new rules of the game and it is important to evaluate, without prejudice and by taking into consideration its special context, China’s behaviour internally and externally to understand which direction the world is being driven in by China. ""