Search

Begin New Search Topic International Trade and Finance Political Geography North America

101. Crisis in the WTO: Restoring the Dispute Settlement Function

Author:
Robert McDougall
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
The impasse in the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the appointment of new members of the Appellate Body is just one symptom of crisis in cooperation on trade. Driven by skepticism about multilateralism and binding dispute settlement, and by a growing strategic and economic rivalry with China, the current US administration has elevated longstanding US concerns about WTO dispute settlement to new heights. The inability of WTO members to exercise their collective authority to interpret the meaning of their WTO commitments has meant that the Appellate Body is effectively not subject to any checks and balances. As other WTO members blocked US efforts to negotiate more member control, the United States increasingly turned to unpopular unilateral mechanisms, culminating in the current block on new appointments as part of its more disruptive trade policy. Assuming the United States will eventually return to rules-based trade, restoring the WTO dispute settlement system to full capacity and enhancing its legitimacy will likely require some changes. This might include improving mechanisms for political oversight, diverting sensitive issues from adjudication, narrowing the scope of adjudication, improving institutional support and providing members more say over certain procedures. Preserving compulsory, impartial and enforceable dispute settlement in the WTO will require an accommodation of different perspectives on how the system should function. Achieving this, in whatever form, will contribute to maintaining and even strengthening multilateral cooperation on trade.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, World Trade Organization, Global Political Economy, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, and North America

102. Trading the Global Future Part III: Bad Consequences

Author:
Dan Steinbock
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
Abstract:
The Trump administration’s ‘America First’ policies come at a critical time in the global economy. These bad policies will have adverse consequences in international trade. In the absence of countervailing forces, they could unsettle the post-2008 global recovery and undermine postwar globalization.
Topic:
Globalization, International Trade and Finance, Economy, and Tariffs
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

103. The Trump-led Trade War with China: Energy Dominance Self-destructed?

Author:
Sylvie Cornot-Gandolphe and Jean-François Boittin
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
Under particular US legal rationale, such as calling foreign imports a “national security threat”, President Donald Trump has started imposing tariffs and/or quotas and has launched national security investigations on a growing number of imported goods from US allies and others alike.In March and June 2018, the US imposed tariffs or quotas on steel and aluminium on all trading partners, but Australia. In July and August 2018, the US began imposing tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese industrial goods on the ground of unfair trade practices. As China has retaliated with tit-for-tat measures, President Trump has imposed tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods from 24 September 2018 onwards, and in an unprecedented escalation of his trade war with China, he has also threatened to impose tariffs on an additional $267 billion in Chinese goods. If eventually carried out, Trump’s latest threat could result in tariffs on all Chinese goods entering the US. China has retaliated and imposed tariffs on $60 billion in US goods, including a 10% duty on liquefied natural gas (LNG). For the time being, trade tensions have had a limited impact on the energy market. But the new round of US tariffs and retaliation measures by China suggest that this is going to change.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Gas, Renewable Energy, and Coal
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

104. The Global Exchange (Winter 2018)

Author:
Adam Frost, David J. Bercuson, Stephen Blank, Monica Gattinger, Sarah Goldfeder, Colin Robertson, Hugh Stephens, Laura Dawson, Randolph Mank, Ferry de Kerckhove, Colin Robertson, Andrew Caddell, Robert Hage, David Perry, and Kelly Ogle
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Global Exchange
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
During the 1947 Duncan & John Gray Memorial Lecture then-minister of external affairs, Louis St. Laurent, outlined guiding principles for Canada’s engagement with the world. In his address, he recognized that Canada could not maintain the standard of living Canadians had come to enjoy in isolation from the rest of the world. He said, “[we] are dependent on markets abroad for the large quantities of staple products we produce and cannot consume, and we are dependent on supplies from abroad of commodities which are essential to our well-being.” This irrefutably remains true today. Canada’s ability to utilize its vast wealth of resources has afforded it the opportunity to become one of the most affluent and developed nations in the world, making the preservation of such ability of vital national interest. However, trade in the 21st century is more complex than ever before. Technology allows for transactions between parties scattered across the globe to occur near instantaneously, and complicates the tracking and classification of many goods and services. Moreover, global political developments and economic transformation are threatening the liberal world order built and protected by the United States since the Second World War. China’s emergence as an economic juggernaut is shifting the global economic centre of gravity. Furthermore, reactionary domestic political forces within much of the western liberal democratic world, including the United States, question the value of continued support for the status quo. Tectonic change is afoot. In response, Canada is charting its path to navigate the challenges of 21st century global trade. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government is pursuing a progressive trade agenda as it seeks to modernize existing agreements, implement newly minted agreements, and explore potential future opportunities. The lead package of this issue examines a multiplex of challenges and opportunities presented to those currently crafting Canadian trade policy. Geographically, it spans not only the management of relations with the United States and NAFTA renegotiation, but also the geopolitical considerations of bolstered engagement with Asia and the underappreciated opportunities present in Africa and South America. In addition to "with whom", this package also addresses the "how and why" of trade: the difficulty of adapting trade practices to the digital age and the costs, benefits and limitations of projecting Canadian values via trade relations. In computer simulated and professional chess matches white consistently wins more often than not. The lack of first-mover advantage is a formidable deficit to overcome. Those who are not leading, are fated to play catch-up. The challenges facing Canada’s policy-makers responsible for protecting and advancing our national interest via trade are legion. To optimally address these challenges, Canada is best served by being proactive at the forefront of negotiations. The benefits of cultivating a proactive posture are enticing, and the costs for failing to do so are avoidable. Canada must adapt to the dynamism of the global economic order, or fight to catch-up.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, Science and Technology, Infrastructure, Internet, NAFTA, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
Africa, Japan, Canada, India, Asia, North America, and United States of America

105. Creating the North Atlantic Marketplace for Jobs and Growth: Three Paths, One Detour, A U-Turn, and the Road to Nowhere

Author:
Daniel S. Hamilton
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Transatlantic Relations
Abstract:
For decades the partnership between North America and Europe has been a steady anchor in a world of rapid change. Today, however, the transatlantic partnership itself has become unsettled and uncertain. Nowhere is this clearer than in the economic sphere. Voters across the United States and many parts of Europe have grown skeptical of open markets. Concerns about stagnant wages, widening income inequality, and pockets of stubbornly high unemployment have combined with fears of automation, digitization and immigration to swell economic insecurities on each side of the Atlantic. The election of Donald Trump as U.S. president and the decision by British citizens to leave the European Union have only added to transatlantic uncertainties. This state of division and mutual inwardness threatens the prosperity and ultimately the position of North America and Europe in the global economy and the broader global security system. This study charts possible paths by which Americans and Europeans can navigate this strange new world. It describes how the transatlantic economy is being transformed by domestic political uncertainties, the digital revolution, the changing nature of production, and the diffusion of global power and intensified global competition. It takes account of shifting trade relations among the United States, Canada and Mexico through NAFTA, and what Brexit and the rise of non-EU Europe may mean for the European Union and for transatlantic partnership.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Treaties and Agreements, Partnerships, Brexit, Economic Growth, Trump, and NAFTA
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, North America, Mexico, United States of America, and European Union

106. Making Reform a Priority for Taiwan’s Fishing Fleet

Author:
Trevor Sutton
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Reform of the Taiwanese fishing sector will strengthen bilateral ties between Taipei and Washington and enhance global perceptions of Taiwanese democracy.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Bilateral Relations, Water, Reform, Democracy, and Fishing
Political Geography:
Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

107. Do Not Fall for the Hype on U.S.-China Natural Gas Trade

Author:
Melanie Hart, Luke Bassett, and Blaine Johnson
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The Trump administration’s obsession with fossil fuel exports plays into Beijing’s grand strategy to become the next high-tech superpower.
Topic:
Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Science and Technology, Natural Resources, Hegemony, Gas, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

108. What the Trump Administration’s NAFTA Priorities Get Right (and Wrong) About Digital Trade

Author:
Anupam Chander
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Digital commerce and trade are increasingly important to the global economy. Seven of the ten most valuable firms today are technology companies (Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Alibaba, and Tencent). Data, according to some analysts, is the new oil. A major study concluded that the internet has powered some one-fifth of recent economic growth within the leading economies. Jobs are increasingly dependent on digitization; digital skills are needed for all but two job categories [PDF] in the United States: dishwashing and food cooking. Just as national economies are becoming more digitized, barriers to digital trade are being erected. These barriers limit opportunities for consumers to access global providers and for small- and medium-sized enterprises to reach new customers. It is not only technology firms that suffer; all enterprises with international operations need cross-border data flows to process, analyze, and transfer data about employees, customers, and operations. Global supply chains depend on the flow of goods, data, and services across borders. Moreover, commitment to the free flow of information across borders is essential to freedom of expression. Digital trade is about more than access to markets; it is about access to information. The renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an excellent opportunity to set the gold standard for digital free trade. Despite public pronouncements about the harm free trade causes to the steel and automobile industries, the Donald J. Trump administration, to its credit, recognizes the importance of removing digital trade barriers in its stated objectives for the NAFTA renegotiation [PDF]. In its negotiations with Canada and Mexico, the Trump administration should seek rules limiting data localization, promote a balanced approach to intellectual property protections, support cross-border privacy rules, and remove barriers that hinder the trade of services.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Digital Economy, and NAFTA
Political Geography:
United States, Canada, North America, and Mexico

109. Writing New Rules for the U.S.-China Investment Relationship

Author:
Jennifer M. Harris
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Chinese outbound investment is on the rise, and much of it is finding its way into the United States. Be- tween 2010 and 2015, China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows to the United States grew by an average of 32 percent annually.1 Within the past two years alone, Chinese foreign investment inflows to the United States increased four-fold, and available data suggests 2017 will see the second highest annual investment on record, after 2016.2 This is not a two-way street: the United States and other foreign investors do not enjoy similar open market access in China. China maintains a dizzying assortment of formal and informal barriers to for- eign investment—from outright restrictions and quotas to mandatory joint ventures, forced localization measures, and domestic licensing regimes. Despite years of negotiations, these barriers are, if anything, growing more cumbersome in many sectors. U.S. firms paint a darkening picture of the business climate they face in China. U.S. FDI in China has slowed considerably in recent years: after growing roughly 180 percent from 2002 to 2007 (albeit from a low baseline), U.S. FDI flows into China have declined since 2012.3 The one-way surge of Chinese investment into the United States comes against a backdrop of strategic mistrust between Washington and Beijing. Ongoing accusations of state-sponsored cyber predation of U.S. firms, Beijing’s increasing aggressiveness over territorial disputes, its systematic efforts to under- mine the U.S. alliance system in Asia, and mounting tensions over North Korea all contribute to a dark- ening mood in the U.S.-China relationship. And, like so much involving China, this investment is simply different. Rarely, if ever, has the United States seen an increase in investment of this magnitude—espe- cially from a non-ally and especially from one where the lines between state ownership and private own- ership are so inherently blurred. For all the concern surrounding Japanese investment in the United States in the 1980s—coming as it did amid fierce economic competition—those debates ultimately re- mained under the umbrella of the U.S.-Japan military alliance. All of this raises questions about whether the United States needs to tighten its stance on Chinese in- bound investment; proposals to that effect have bipartisan support in the Congress. The Donald J. Trump administration has signaled its desire for a tougher approach in its economic dealings with China, which U.S. businesses seem to welcome. One foundation for such an approach is the principle of reciprocity. Roughly two dozen sectors in China—construction, mining, banking, insurance, and so on—remain effectively off-limits to American investment, because the Chinese government protects its domestic companies through regulations and financial subsidies. Even in sectors that technically allow foreign investment, discriminatory industrial policies tilt the playing field in favor of Chinese firms. Until this changes, Washington would be justi- fied—even obligated—to limit Chinese investment in the U.S. market. However, U.S. policymakers do not have a consensus on what a policy of reciprocity would entail, and different policy interpretations could spell quite different economic and foreign policy consequences for the United States. The United States should aim for a version of reciprocity that allows it the flexibility to maximize pressure on the broad range of Chinese industrial policy concerns while leaving a clear route to negotiations. The United States should also encourage European and other Western countries, many of which are seeing similar increases in Chinese investment, to adopt this new approach.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Foreign Direct Investment
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, and North America

110. The Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy

Author:
Munk School of Global Affairs
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto
Abstract:
This report highlights the summary of discussions and key policy recommendations from the 2016 Canada-UK Colloquium Report (CUKC) in Edmonton last November 2016, chaired by the Hon. Jean Charest, which brought together fifty high-level policymakers, academics, industry leaders and young scholars.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Trade and Finance, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
United States, Canada, and North America