We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 November 2021
The article examines the theoretical concept of interregionalism in the context of the evolving framework between the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). As the EU’s first free trade agreement (FTA) with an ASEAN country, the EU-Singapore FTA is a pathfinder agreement that signifies a new phase of interregionalism and the EU’s new Asia strategy after the Treaty of Lisbon. The article argues that the innovative designs of the EU-Singapore FTA will shape the normative development of EU-ASEAN relations in the post-pandemic era. It also cautions that a comparative analysis of EU and US agreements reveals deficiencies in the FTA that require remedies. To buttress the contention, key provisions on ASEAN cumulative rules of origin, banking and legal services and non-tariff barriers are analysed in light of contemporary Asian agreements. The research further provides insight into the effectiveness of new-generation rules on geographical indications, competition, and investor-state arbitration and mediation. Hence, the findings contribute to the understanding of interregionalism and the EU’s Asia-Pacific trade and investment agreements from global and interdisciplinary perspectives.
I wish to thank Professors Catharine Titi, Csongor István Nagy, Joanna Lam, Anna Marhold, Neha Mishra, and Mary Elizabeth Chelliah for their insight and comments on earlier drafts of this article. I also acknowledge the valuable assistance of Nicholas Kuek, Tan Yoong San, Victoria Liu, and Soh Kian Peng. All errors are my own.
1 The Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore (MTI), The EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Enters into Force (2019), at 1; European Commission, ‘The EU-Singapore agreements explained’, available at ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/eu-singapore-agreement/agreement-explained/.
2 European Parliament Resolution on Regional Free Trade Areas And Trade Strategy in the European Union (2002/2044(INI)), P5_TA(2003)0237 (2003), para. D; European Commission, ibid.
3 World Trade Organization, ‘Trade Set to Plunge as COVID-19 Pandemic Upends Global Economy’, 8 April 2010, available at www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres20_e/pr855_e.htm.
4 European Commission, ‘Trade for All: Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy’, (2015), at 31–2; EU-ASEAN Plan of Action (2018-2022) (2017), para. 2.1(c).
5 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), ‘Investing in ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations’, (2019/2020), at 5.
6 ASEAN, ‘ASEAN Key Figures 2019’, (2019), at 32.
7 European Commission and MTI, ‘European Union – Singapore Trade and Investment Agreements’, (2019), at 7; European Commission, ‘Client and Supplier Countries of the EU 27 in Merchandise Trade (Value %) (2019, Excluding Intra-EU Trade)’, (2019), at 1.
8 Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong initiated the ASEAN Free Trade Area and the Asia-Europe Meeting. R. Severino, Southeast Asia in Search of An ASEAN Community: Insights from the Former ASEAN Secretary-General (2006), at 29, 334.
9 European Commission, ‘Agreement with Singapore set to give a boost to EU-Asia Trade’, 13 February 2019, available at trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1980.
10 A. Suse and J. Wouters, ‘Exploring the Boundaries of Provisional Application: The EU’s Mixed Trade and Investment Agreements’, (2019) 53(3) Journal of World Trade 395, at 399. Note that the negotiations for provisions on goods and services and provisions on investment protection of the original EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA) were completed in 2013 and 2014, respectively. MTI, EUSFTA, available at www.mti.gov.sg/Improving-Trade/Free-Trade-Agreements/EUSFTA.
11 See generally Opinion 2/15 of the Court, [2017].
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid. European Parliament, ‘CJEU Opinion on the EU-Singapore Agreement’, (2017), at 2.
14 D. Kleimann and G. Kubek, ‘The Signing, Provisional Application, and Conclusion of Trade and Investment Agreements in the EU: The Case of CETA and Opinion 2/15’, (2018) 45(1) Legal Issues Eocnomic Integration 13, at 22–4.
15 R. Leering, ‘Dutch Rejection of Mercosur Now Threatens Wider EU Trade Deals’, ING, 3 June 2020, available at think.ing.com/snaps/dutch-rejection-of-mercosur-sign-of-the-times/.
16 E.g., EU-Singapore Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) (2018), Arts. 2–40.
17 Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, 2019/C 384 I/01 (2019), Arts. 2, 126–7; United Kingdom -Singapore FTA (2020), Art. 1; Enterprise Singapore, ‘United Kingdom – Singapore Free Trade Agreement’, available at www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/non-financial-assistance/for-singapore-companies/free-trade-agreements/ftas/singapore-ftas/uksfta.
18 Department for International Trade & The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, ‘Press Release: UK International Trade Secretary Visits New Zealand, Australia and Japan’, 16 September 2019, available at www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-international-trade-secretary-visits-new-zealand-australia-and-japan; Department for International Trade & The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, ‘Press Release: Liz Truss Kick-starts Trade Negotiations with Japan’, 12 May 2020, available at www.gov.uk/government/news/liz-truss-kick-starts-trade-negotiations-with-japan; Department for International Trade, ‘An Update on the UK’s Position on Accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)’, 17 June 2020, available at www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-approach-to-joining-the-cptpp-trade-agreement/an-update-on-the-uks-position-on-accession-to-the-comprehensive-and-progressive-agreement-for-trans-pacific-partnership-cptpp?fbclid=IwAR2Ld4DkNU_Q_2pC6GsojcqWfP82PQO-S1cc_WkL2-VUCmROX0ne_RYqRjg.
19 Forward by EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, in European Commission and MTI, supra note 7, at 3.
20 European Commission and MTI, ibid., at 10–11.
21 European External Action Service, ‘Annual German Ambassadors’ Conference 2020: Opening remarks by High Representative/Vice President Josep Borrell’, 25 May 2020, available at eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/79817/annual-german-ambassadors’-conference-2020-opening-remarks-high-representative-vice-president_en.
22 For criticism on the view of Eurocentrism see, e.g., A. Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism (2009), 27; F. Söderbaum, Rethinking Regionalism (2016), at 7–8, 175.
23 EU Mission to ASEAN, ‘Blue Book: EU-ASEAN Natural Partners’, (2010), at 11; EEAS, ‘EU-ASEAN: Natural Partners’, (2013), at 1.
24 For WTO law see, e.g., General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994), Art. XXIV.8.
25 J. Gilson, ‘New Interregionalism? The EU and East Asia’, (2005) 27(3) European Integration 307, at 309; R. Roloff, ‘Interregionalism in Theoretical Perspective: State of the Art, in J. Rüland, H. Hänggi and R. Roloff, Interregionalism and International Relations: A Stepping Stone to Global Governance? (2005), 17, 18.
26 F. Söderbaum and L. Van Langenhove, ‘Introduction: The EU as a Global Actor and the Role of Interregionalism’, (2005) 27(3) European Integration 249, at 258.
27 V. K. Aggarwal and E. A. Fogarty, ‘Between Regionalism and Globalism: European Union Interregional Trade Strategies’, in Aggarwal and Fogarty (eds.), EU Trade Strategies: Between Regionalism and Globalism (2004), 1, 5–6; Söderbaum, supra note 22, at 176–7; J. Rüland, ‘Balancers, Multilateral Utilities or Regional Identity Builders? International Relations and the Study of Interregionalism’, (2010) 17(8) Journal of European Public Policy 1271, at 1272.
28 Aggarwal and Fogarty, ibid., at 5; H. Hänggi, ‘Interregionalism as a Multifaceted Phenomenon: In Search of a Typology’, in Rüland, Hänggi and Roloff, supra note 25, at 31, 40–1.
29 L. Fawcett and A. Hurell, Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective, in Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order (1995), 37, 48–9; J. Gilson, Asia Meets Europe: Inter-regionalism and the Asia-Europe Meeting (2002), 15–30.
30 Ibid., at 50; Rüland, Hänggi and Roloff, supra note 25, at 295, 300–1; A. Hardacre and M. Smith, ‘The EU and the Diplomacy of Complex Interregionalism’, (2009) 4 Hague Journal of Diplomacy 167, at 170.
31 H. Hai Hoang and D. Sicureli, ‘The EU’s Preferential Trade Agreements with Singapore and Vietnam: Market vs. Normative Imperatives’, (2017) 23(4) Contemporary Politics 369, at 371–2; A. Bradford, The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World (2020), 26–36; Council of the EU, ‘Joint Statement of the 22nd EU-ASEAN Ministerial Meeting’, 21 January 2019, available at www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/01/21/joint-statement-of-the-22nd-eu-asean-ministerial-meeting/.
32 Fawcett and Hurell, supra note 29, at 59–60.
33 Rüland, Hänggi and Roloff, supra note 25, at 302–3.
34 Fawcett and Hurell, supra note 29, at 60; Rüland, Hänggi and Roloff, ibid., at 303.
35 E.g., A. Acharya, The Making of Southeast Asia: International Relations of A Region (2012), 11–12; T. Lenz and G. Marks, Regional Institutional Design, in T. A. Börzel and T. Risse (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism (2016), 513, 520–1.
36 Rüland, Hänggi and Roloff, supra note 25, at 308–9; Hardacre and Smith, supra note 30, at 170.
37 A. Wendt, ‘Collective Identity Formation and the International State’, (1994) 88(2) American Political Science Review 384, at 384–5; P. L. Hsieh, ‘Rethinking Non-recognition, Taiwan’s New Pivot to ASEAN and the One-China Policy’, (2020) 33(2) Cambridge Review of International Affairs 204, at 207–8.
38 Aggarwal and Fogarty, supra note 27, at 18–19; I. Manners and R. Whitman, ‘The “Difference Engine”: Constructing and Representing the International Identity of The European Union’, (2003) 10(3) Journal of European Public Policy 380, at 385.
39 B. Ong, ‘Recognizing Regions: ASEAN Struggles for Recognition’, (2012) 25(4) Pacific Review 513, at 525–6.
40 L. Kuan Yew, One Man’s View of the World (2013), 112–13.
41 The EU’s share of world trade in goods and services is 16.7% and its GDP is expected to fall from 15% to 9% by 2050. Trade Policy Review, Report by the Secretariat, European Union, WT/TPR/S/395, 10 Dec. 2019, at 25; PWC, ‘The Long View: How Will the Global Economic Order Change by 2050?’, (2017), at 4; L. Hwee Yeo, ‘EU-ASEAN Security Cooperation’, in S. Economides and J. Sperling, EU Security Strategies: Extending the EU System of Security Governance (2018), 67, 77.
42 P. L. Hsieh, ‘Reassessing The Trade-Development Nexus in International Economic Law: The Paradigm Shift in Asia-Pacific Regionalism’, (2017) 37(3) Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 321, at 335.
43 J. Bhagwati, Termites in the Trading System: How Preferential Agreements under Free Trade (2008), 29–31.
44 WTO, ‘World Trade Report 2011 – The WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements: From Co-Existence to Coherence’, (2011), at 52, available at www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report11_e.pdf.
45 Bhagwati, supra note 43, at 31–5; WTO, ibid., at 52–3.
46 Commentators described the new developments as the third-generation or post-hegemonic regionalism. Söderbaum and Van Langenhove, supra note 26, at 256–7; M. Telo, ‘Introduction: Globalization, New Regionalism and the Role of the European Union’, in M. Telo (ed.), European Union and New Regionalism: Competing Regionalism and Global Governance in a Post-Hegemonic Era (2014) 1, 5.
47 Charter of the ASEAN (2007), Art. 3.
48 Commissions of the European Communities, ‘Communication from the Commission: A New Partnership with South East Asia’, COM (2003) 399 final (2003), at 6; EU-ASEAN Plan of Action (2018-2022) (2017), para. 1.2(b).
49 M. C. Webb and S. D. Krasner, ‘Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment’, (1989) 15(2) International Studies Review 183, at 185–6.
50 R. Baldwin, ‘A Domino Theory of Regionalism’, (1993) NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 4465, at 2–5; European Services Forum, Letter to the Commissioner for Trade, 12 July 2020, at 1–2; A. C. Robles, Jr, ‘An EU-ASEAN FTA: The EU’s Failure as An International Actor’, (2008) 13 European Foreign Affairs Review 541, 542; D. Camroux, ‘Interreginalism or Merely a Fourth-Level Game? An Examination of the EU-ASEAN Relationship’, (2010) 27 East Asia 57, at 67.
51 Editorial, ‘Is There An EU-ASEAN Trade Deal on the Horizon?’, ASEAN Today, 18 December 2019, available at www.aseantoday.com/2019/12/is-there-an-eu-asean-trade-deal-on-the-horizon/; European Commission, ‘Overview of FTA and Other Trade Negotiations’, Updated February 2020, at 2, available at trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/december/tradoc_118238.pdf.
52 I. Monterosa et al., ‘Trade in Time of Corona: What’s Next for the EU?’, ECIPE, June 2020, available at ecipe.org/blog/trade-in-time-of-corona/; VOA News, ‘Virus-Fueled Recession Interrupts ASEAN Path to Middle-Income Status’, VOA News, 28 April 2020, available at www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/virus-fueled-recession-interrupts-asean-path-middle-income-status.
53 European Commission, ‘Europe’s Moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation’, (2020) COM(2020) 456 final, at 13.
54 European Commission and MTI, supra note 7, at 7; United Nations Conference on Trade and Investment (UNCTAD), (2020) World Investment Report 2020, at 2.
55 WTO, ‘Trade in Medical Goods in the Context of Tackling COVID-19’, (2020), at 5.
56 Commission of the European Communities, ‘Creating a New Dynamic in EU-ASEAN Relations’, (1996) COM(96) 314 final, at 66.
57 ASEAN Secretariat’s Information Paper, ‘Overview of ASEAN-European Union Dialogue Relations’, (2019), at 1.
58 Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand – Member Countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, (1980), Arts. 2–4; S. Pushpanathan, ‘ASEAN’s Strategy Towards Its Dialogue Partners and ASEAN Plus Three Process’, 2003, available at asean.org/?static_post=asean-s-strategy-towards-its-dialogue-partners-and-asean-plus-three-process-by-s-pushpanathan.
59 P. J. Lim, ‘ASEAN’s Relations with the EU: Obstacles and Opportunities’, (2012) EU External Affairs Review 46, at 47.
60 A. J. Crozier, ‘The Trade and Aid Policy of the European Union: A Historical Perspective’, in P. J. J. Welfens et al. (eds.), EU-ASEAN: Facing Economic Globalisation (2009), 57, at 69; Severino, supra note 8, at 330.
61 ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization (AIPO), Resolution of the Sixth AIPO General Assembly on ASEAN-EC Economic Cooperation, (1983), 6GA/RES.11/83 at 1; AIPO, Resolution of the Ninth General Assembly of AIPO on the ASEAN-EC Economic Cooperation, (1988), WC/GA9/88/KL/29/6, at 1.
62 L. Vandewalle, The ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA): A Privileged Interlocutor for the European Parliament in South East Asia (2015), 1–6.
63 Council Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 of 25 February 1992 on Financial and Technical assistance to, and Economic Cooperation with, the Developing countries in Asia and Latin America (1992).
64 Commission of the European Communities, Towards a New Asia Strategy, (1994) COM(94) 314 final, at 3–8.
65 Ibid., at 9, 24.
66 Severino, supra note 8, at 334.
67 Aggarwal and Fogarty, supra note 27, at 5; C. Dent, ‘From Inter-regionalism to Trans-regionalism? Future Challenges for ASEM’, (2003) 1 Asia European Journal 223, at 231–2.
68 N. M. Moranda, ‘Europe and Southeast Asia: ASEAN-EU Interregionalism between Pluralist and Solidarist Societies’, (2012) 4(3) Review of European Studies 89, at 96; M. Manea, ‘Human Rights and the Interregional Dialogue between Asia and Europe: ASEAN-EU Relations and ASEM’, (2008) 21(3) Pacific Review 369, at 379.
69 Commission of the European Communities, Europe and Asia: A Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships, (2001), COM(2001) 469 final, at 21.
70 Commission of the European Communities, A New Partnership with South East Asia, (2003), COM(2003) 399 final, at 4, 31.
71 Ibid., at 31.
72 Joint Co-Chairman’s Statement of the 15th ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting Jakarta, (2005), para. 8; L. Hwee Yeo, ‘Political Cooperation between the EU and ASEAN: Searching for a Long-Term Agenda and Joint Projects’, in Welfens et al., supra note 60, at 45, 53–4.
73 Consolidated Version of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, (2012), OJ C 326/47 (TFEU), Art. 207(3).
74 Ibid., Arts. 207, 218; Trade Policy Review, supra note 41, at 34.
75 L. Mckenzie and K. L. Messiner, ‘Human Rights Conditionality in European Union Trade Negotiations: The Case of the EU-Singapore FTA’, (2017) 55(4) Journal of Common Market Studies 832, at 838.
76 Charter of the ASEAN (2007), Art. 41(7); Rules of Procedure for Conclusion of International Agreements by ASEAN (2011), rule 1.
77 European Commission, ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World: A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’, (2006), COM(2006) 567 final, at 1–3.
78 Ibid., at 9.
79 The ASEAN-EU Vision Group, ‘Report of the ASEAN-EU Vision Group: Transregional Partnership for Shared and Sustainable Prosperity’, (2006), at 8–15.
80 Commission of the European Communities, ‘Report on the State of Play of the FTA Negotiations with ASEAN, India, the Andean Community and Central America’, (2009), SEC(2009) 681 final, at 4; European Commission, supra note 51, at 2.
81 European Parliament, European Parliament Resolution of 8 May 2008 on Trade and Economic Relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), (2008), P6_TA(2008)0195, para. H.
82 Commission of the European Communities (2009), supra note 80, at 5.
83 Ibid., at 5–8.
84 Ibid., at 5.
85 Thailand and Brunei also initially expressed interest in being forerunners. Ibid.
86 T. Koh, The Quest for World Order: Perspectives of a Pragmatic Idealist (1998), 177–8.
87 Ibid. L. Kuan Yew, Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going (2011), 306–12.
88 WTO, ‘Regional Trade Agreements Database’, available at rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicSearchByMemberResult.aspx?MemberCode=702&lang=1&redirect=1; EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement, (2018), Ch. 4, Ann. 5.
89 Note that in 2003, the European Parliament called for commencing negotiations with Singapore ‘as soon as possible’. European Parliament, European Parliament Resolution on Regional Free Trade Areas and Trade Strategy in the European Union, (2003), P5_TA(2003)0237, para. 23.
90 MTI, PowerPoint Slides: The EUSFTA: New Opportunities for Our Business, (2019), at 2.
91 Ibid.
92 C. L. Lim and M. Mohen, ‘Ch. 05 Singapore and International Law’, Singapore Law Watch, 1 January 2015, available at www.singaporelawwatch.sg/About-Singapore-Law/Overview/ch-05-singapore-and-international-law.
93 MTI, supra note 1, at 1; European Commission, supra note 51, at 2.
94 K. Vu, ‘Vietnam Ratifies Free Trade Deal with EU’, Reuters, 8 June 2020, available at www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-vietnam-trade/vietnam-ratifies-free-trade-deal-with-eu-idUSKBN23F07V.
95 European Commission, supra note 4, at 31–2.
96 EU-ASEAN Plan of Action (2018-2022), (2017), para. 2.1(c).
97 European Commission, ‘Connecting Europe and Asia – Building Blocks for an EU Strategy’, (2018), JOIN(2018) 31 final, at 8.
98 European Commission and HR/VP Contribution to the European Council, ‘EU-China – A Strategic Outlook’, (2019) JOIN(2019) 5 final, at 1.
99 The EU support is based on the enhanced READI (E-READI) and ASEAN Regional Integration Support from the EU (ARISE) Plus schemes. Yeo, supra note 72, at 54; EEAS, ‘Enhanced Regional EU-ASEAN Dialogue Instrument (E-READI)’, 27 May 2019, available at eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headQuarters-homepage/49815/enhanced-regional-eu-asean-dialogue-instrument-e-readi_ru; ARISE, ‘Background’, available at ariseplus.asean.org/about/.
100 ASEAN, ASEAN Economic Community 2025 Consolidated Strategic Action Plan, (2017), at 46–7.
101 Trade Policy Review, supra note 41, at 62–4.
102 Annex B: Factsheet on the Key Benefits of the EUSFTA, in MTI, supra note 1, at 4.
103 Ibid.
104 Toh B. H., PowerPoint Slides: EUSFTA Trade in Goods: Increase Your Products’ Price Competitiveness in the EU, (2020), at 16–17, available at eurocham.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2-EUSFTA-Seriess-II_Trade-in-Goods_Boon-Ho.pdf; M. E. Chelliah’s explanations at the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) Outreach Series II on 4 February 2020.
105 Toh, ibid., at 16; European Parliament, ‘Free Trade Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Singapore – Analysis’, (2018), at 39.
106 ‘Trade Regulations, Customs and Standards’, available at 2016.export.gov/singapore/doingbusinessinsingapore/traderegulationscustomsandstandards/index.asp. In its WTO commitments, the average bound rate of Singapore is 6.9%. Trade Policy Review, ‘Report by the Secretariat, Singapore’, (2016), WT/TPR.S.343, at 28.
107 Trade Policy Review, ibid., at 27–8.
108 Ibid., at 27; Toh, supra note 104, at 15.
109 European Commission and MTI, supra note 7, at 10.
110 N. H. Nguyen et al., ‘The ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement: Evolution and Regional Implications’, in P. L. Hsieh and B. Mercurio (eds.), ASEAN Law in the New Regional Economic Order: Global Trends and Shifting Paradigms (2019), 22, 39.
111 ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint 2025, (2015), para. 7.
112 The EU grants regional cumulation to nine ASEAN countries. European Parliament, ‘The Generalised Scheme of Preferences Regulation (No 978/2012): European Implementation Assessment (2018)’, at 93, fn 32.
113 ASEAN-Japan Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Partnership, (2008), Art. 24(c). From 2002 to 2008, Japan concluded agreements with Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Brunei, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
114 EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA) (2018), Protocol 1, Art. 3(2).
115 Ibid., Art. 34.
116 Ibid., Art. 3(9) and Protocol 1, Ann. D.
117 EU-Vietnam FTA (2019), Protocol 1, Art. 3.
118 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Protocol 1, Ann. B.
119 Ibid., Ann. B & Ann. B(a).
120 Ibid.; Singapore Customs, PowerPoint Slides: Rules of Origin, (2020), at 13, available at eurocham.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/3-EUSFTA-Series-II_ROO_Greg.pdf.
121 Annex A: Key Benefits of the EUSFTA & EUSIPA, in MTI, European Union and Singapore Sign Free Trade and Investment Protection Agreements (2018), at 3, fn 2.
122 Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement (2002), Ann. II.A.
123 UNCTAD, ‘The Use of the EU’s Free Trade Agreements: Exporters and Importer Utilization of Preferential Tariffs’, (2018), at 13–14; L. Y. Ing, ‘How Do Exports and Imports Affect the Use of Free Trade Agreements? Firm-level Survey Evidence from Southeast Asia’, (2016) ERIA Discussion Paper Series, ERIA-DP-2016-01, at 7.
124 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Protocol 1, Ann. E.
125 Ministry of Power, ‘Summary Table: Employment’, 15 June 2020, available at stats.mom.gov.sg/Pages/Employment-Summary-Table.aspx; W. Wong and L. Y. Ding, ‘Trades in Singapore’s International Trade in Services’, (2016) Statistics Singapore Newsletter, at 4.
126 Negotiating parties include 23 WTO members. European Commission, ‘Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)’, 14 July 2017, available at ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/tisa/.
127 MTI, supra note 90, at 11.
128 Singapore: Schedule of Specific Commitments, (1994), GATS/SC/76, at 17; EU-Singapore FTA (2018), ch. 8, Ann. 8-B; European Parliament, supra note 105, at 79.
129 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Arts. 8.13, 8.14.
130 EU-Vietnam FTA (2019), Arts. 8.13, 8.14 and fn 24.
131 European Parliament, supra note 105, at 13–14. M. Kono and M. Yokoi-Arai, ‘Dissecting Regional Integration in Financial Services from the Competition Policy and Trade Policy Perspectives’, (2009) BIS Papers, No. 42, at 94.
132 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Arts. 8.1.4, 8.62(b).
133 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Art. 8.1.4; T. T. Wei, ‘Regional ‘Travel Bubbles’ Likely in Time, Says Lawrence Wong’, Straits Times, 2 June 2020, available at www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/regional-travel-bubbles-likely-in-time-says-lawrence-wong.
134 Kono and Yokoi-Arai, supra note 131, at 94.
135 Ibid. Monetary Authority Singapore, ‘Types of Deposit-Taking Institutions’, 23 June 2019, available at www.mas.gov.sg/regulation/Banking/Types-of-Deposit-Taking-Institutions.
136 United States-Singapore FTA (2003), Schedule of Singapore to Annex 10B, Sec. B.
137 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Ann. 8-B.
138 United States-Singapore FTA (2003), Art. 8(4).
139 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Ann. 8-B.
140 Only banks of Australia, China, the EU, India, Malaysia, and the United States have Qualifying Full Bank licenses. Ibid.
141 Ibid.
142 Australia-Singapore FTA (2003), Ann. 4-1(B); United States-Singapore FTA (2003), Ann. 8A; Trade Policy Review, supra note 106, at 67–9.
143 The law degrees include Bachelor of Laws and Juris Doctor degrees. Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules (2002), First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Schedules; P. L. Hsieh, ‘Transnational Legal Services in Asia: Legal Implications of the AEC and the CPTPP’, in Hsieh and Mercurio, supra note 110, at 168, 180.
144 Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules (2002), First & Second Schedules; A. Teng and A. Hussain, ‘Shorter List of Approved UK Law Schools Welcomed’, Straits Times, 26 February 2015, available at www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/shorter-list-of-approved-uk-law-schools-welcomed.
145 European Commission, supra note 97, at 5; ASEAN, Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025 (2016), at 7.
146 S. Borhauer, ‘The Role of E-commerce in the Fourth Industrial Revolution’, Digital Commerce, 11 January 2018, available at www.digitalcommerce360.com/2018/01/11/role-e-commerce-fourth-industrial-revolution/.
147 WTO, ‘E-commerce, Trade and the COVID-19 Pandemic’ (2020), at 4; UNCTAD, COVID-19: A 10-Point Action Plan to Strengthen International Trade and Transport Facilitation in Times of Pandemic’, Policy Brief, No. 79 (2020), at 3–4.
148 MTI, supra note 90, at 2.
149 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Arts. 8.26(3), 8.58.
150 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Art. 8.60.
151 See generally M. Burri and R. Polanco, ‘Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset’, (2020) 23(1) Journal of International Economic Law 187, at 203–15; Asian Trade Centre, ‘Comparing Digital Rules in Trade Agreements’, 24 July 2019, available at asiantradecentre.org/talkingtrade/comparing-digital-rules-in-trade-agreements.
152 Infocomm Media Development Authority, Media Factsheet: Digital Economy Agreements (2020), at 1.
153 European Commission, supra note 97, at 2; ASEAN, supra note 145, at 59.
154 ASEAN Business Advisory Council and EU-ASEAN Business Council, ‘Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) in ASEAN and Their Elimination from a Business Perspective’, (2019), at 19.
155 L. Y. Ing et al., ‘NTMs in ASEAN: Ways toward Regulatory Convergence’, in L. Y. Ing et al., Regional Integration and Non-Tariff Measures in ASEAN (2019), 90, 91.
156 Ibid., at 91–3.
157 ASEAN Business Advisory Council & EU-ASEAN Business Council, supra note 154, at 34.
158 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Art. 4.10(2)(e).
159 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Art. 4.10(2)(f).
160 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Ann 2-b, Arts. 1–3; I. Romanchyshyna, ‘Tackling Technical Barriers to Trade in EU ‘New Generation’ FTAs: An Example of Open or Conflicting Regionalism?’, in W. Weiß and C. Furculita (eds.), Global Politics and EU Trade Policy: Facing the Challenges to a Multilateral Approach, Special Issue: European Yearbook of International Economic Law (2020), 41, 58.
161 European Commission, Results of the Industry Consultation from 2010 on a Possible EU Singapore Trade Agreement (2015), available at trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/july/tradoc_153666.pdf.
162 Land Transport Authority, ‘Annual Vehicle Statistics 2019’, available at www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltagov/who_we_are/statistics_and_publications/statistics/pdf/MVP01-6_Cars_by_make.pdf.
163 Ibid.
164 European Commission, supra note 97, at 2; ASEAN, supra note 145; United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, ‘Complementarities between the ASEAN Community Vision 2025 and the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: A Framework for Action’, (2017), at 40–1.
165 Note that the EU-Singapore FTA includes Chapter 7: Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade and Investment in Renewable Energy Generation and Chapter 12: Trade and Sustainable Development, respectively.
166 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Arts. 7.1, 7.3; A. Marhold, ‘Externalising Europe’s Energy Policy in EU Free Trade Agreements: A Cognitive Dissonance between Promoting Sustainable Development and Ensuing Security of Supply’, (2001) 3(1) Europe and the World: A Law Review 1, at 11.
167 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Art. 7.4.
168 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Ann. 2-C, Art. 1.
169 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Ann. 2-C, Art. 3; WTO, ‘The Treatment of Medical Products in Regional Trade Agreements’, (2020), at 7.
170 Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (2016), protocol on the mutual recognition of the compliance and enforcement programme regarding good manufacturing practices for pharmaceutical products.
171 Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (2018), Ann. 8-C, Art. 11 and Ann. 8-E, Art. 12.
172 CPTPP (2018), Ann. 8-C, Art. 12(c) and Ann. 8-E, Art. 13(c).
173 L. H. Kiang to Anand Sharma, Special Scheme for Registration of Generic Medicinal Products from India (2010).
174 Ibid.
175 European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Implementation of Free Trade Agreements: 1 January 2016–31 December 2016, (2017), COM(2017) 654 final, at 4; European Commission, supra note 77, at 8–10.
176 European Commission, supra note 77, at 8–9.
177 European Parliament, ‘Factsheet on the European Union: The Treaty of Lisbon’, (2020), at 1.
178 M. Cremona, ‘Distinguished Essay: A Quiet Revolution – The Changing Nature of the EU’s Common Commercial Policy’, in M. Bungenberg et al. (eds.), (2017) European Yearbook in International Economic Law 3, at 5.
179 Council of the EU, supra note 31.
180 European Commission, supra note 51, at 2.
181 Ibid., at 9–10; European Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, ‘EU-China – Strategic Outlook’, Joint (2019) 5 final, at 6; European Commission, ‘EU and China Reach Agreement in Principle on Investment’, 30 December 2020, available at trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2233.
182 European Parliament, supra note 105, at 16–29.
183 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Art. 10.5.
184 EU-Vietnam FTA (2019), Art. 12.11.
185 CPTPP (2018), Ann. 7.
186 US-Singapore FTA (2003), Art. 16.4; L. Hsu, ‘Ch. 07 Free Trade Agreements: Singapore Legal Developments’, Singapore Law Watch, 17 November 2018, available at www.singaporelawwatch.sg/About-Singapore-Law/Overview/ch-07-free-trade-agreements-singapore-legal-developments.
187 E.g., EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Arts. 10.6, 10.9.
188 Ministry of Law and Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, ‘Singapore Copyright Review Report’, (2019), at 32–4.
189 European Parliament, supra note 105, at 29; European Commission, ‘Guide to the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement and Investment Protection Agreement’, (2018), at 11.
190 Geographic Indications Act (1998), Art. 3.
191 S. H. S. Leong, ‘European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement: A New Chapter for Geographical Indications in Singapore’, in I. Calboli and W. L. Ng-Loy (eds.), Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development, and Culture: Focus on Asia-Pacific (2017), 235, 240; Geographic Indications Act (1998), Art. 3(1).
192 Geographical Indications Act (2014), Arts. 19, 75–76.
193 Geographical Indications Act (2014), Art. 4(6)–(9).
194 Intellectual Property (Border Enforcement) Act (2018), part 2; A. Yap, PowerPoint Slides: The European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA), available at https://eurocham.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/8-EUSFTA-Seriess-II_IPR_Audrey.pdf: Intellectual Property Rights (2020), at 16-17.
195 Trade Policy Review, supra note 41, at 154.
196 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), annex 10-A (emphasis added).
197 Note that Singapore provides no items under Annex 10-A: Section B (Geographical Indications of Singapore).
198 Leong, supra note 191, at 247–8.
199 WTO, ‘Investment, Competition, Procurement, Simpler Procedures’, available at www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/bey3_e.htm; A. Bradford and T. Büthe, ‘Competition Policy and Free Trade: Antitrust Provisions in PTAs’, in A. Dür and M. Elsig (eds.), Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements (2015), 246, 254.
200 E.g., ASEAN Regional Guidelines on Competition Policy (2010).
201 AEC Blueprint 2015 (2008), para. B1; AEC Blueprint 2025 (2015), para. 26-17; ‘Cambodian Antitrust and Competition Draft Law Near Approval’, 17 April 2020, available at www.b2b-cambodia.com/news/cambodian-antitrust-and-competition-draft-law-near-approval/.
202 The Act also provides the legal basis for establishing the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore. Competition Act (2006), Art. 3.
203 CPTPP (2018), Ch. 17; EU-Vietnam FTA (2019), Ch. 11.
204 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Arts. 11.3, 11.4. See, e.g., C. I. Nagy, ‘The Metamorphoses of Universal Service in the European Telecommunications and Energy Sector: A Trans-Sectoral Perspective’, (2013) 14(9) German Law Journal 1731, at 1746–50.
205 CPTPP (2018), Art. 17.1.
206 US-Singapore FTA (2003), Art. 12.8.5; M. McLaughlin, ‘Defining a State-Owned Enterprise in International Investment Agreements’, (2020) 34(3) ICSID Review 595, at 617.
207 EU-Vietnam FTA (2019), Art. 11.1 (g)(iii).
208 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Art. 11.7. Note that both EU FTAs with Singapore and Vietnam incorporate Arts. 1 and 2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Art. 11.5; EU-Vietnam FTA (2019), Art. 10.5.
209 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Art. 11.7.2.
210 Ibid., Art. 11.14.
211 European Commission, supra note 4, at 21; N. Lavranos, ‘After Philip Morris II: The “Regulatory Chill” Argument Failed – Yet Again’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 18 August 2016, available at arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2016/08/18/after-philipp-morris-ii-the-regulatory-chill-argument-failed-yet-again/?doing_wp_cron=1595562519.0411059856414794921875. See generally, ‘Concept Papers: Concept Papers for Academic Forum on ISDS’, available at www.jus.uio.no/pluricourts/english/projects/leginvest/academic-forum/papers/; M. Langford et al., ‘Special Issue: UNCITRAL and Investment Arbitration Reform: Matching Concerns and Solutions’, (2020) 21 Journal of World Investment and Trade, at 2–3.
212 European Commission, supra note 4, at 21.
213 European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Report on the Implementation of the Trade Policy Strategy Trade for All: Delivering a Progressive Trade Policy to Harness Globalisation’, (2017), COM 491 final (2017), at 8.
214 MTI, supra note 90, at 2; M. Mohan, ‘The European Union’s Free Trade Agreement with Singapore – One Step Forward, 28 Steps Back?’, in J. Chaisse and L. Nottage, International Investment Treaties and Arbitration Across Asia (2019), 180, 198.
215 E.g., Commission Draft Text TTIP – Investment (2015), Sec. 3.
216 C. Titi, ‘Recent Developments in International Investment Law’, in Bungenberg et al., supra note 178, at 392–3.
217 Kleimann and Kübek, supra note 14, at 30–1.
218 TFEU (2012), Arts. 3(1), 207(1).
219 Opinion 2/15 of the Court (2017), para. 292.
220 Ibid., para. 293; M. Cremona, ‘Shaping EU Trade Policy Post-Lisbon: Opinion 2/15 of 16 May 2017’, (2018)14 European Constitutional Law Review 231, at 255–6.
221 European Parliament, supra note 105, at 18–20; L. Hsu, ‘EU-ASEAN Trade and Investment Relations with a Special Focus on Singapore’, in C. Herrmann et al. (eds.), (2015) 6 European Yearbook of International Economic Law 233, at 243–5.
222 EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement (IPA) (2018), Ch. 2 and Ann. 1.
223 EU-Singapore IPA (2018), Arts. 3.9, 3.10.
224 Ibid., Arts. 3.9.2, 3.10.2.
225 Ibid., Art. 3.19 (‘The grounds for appeal are (a) that the Tribunal has erred in the interpretation or application of the applicable law; that the Tribunal has manifestly erred in the appreciation of the facts, including the appreciation of relevant domestic law’).
226 European Commission, ‘Factsheet: A New EU Agreement with Japan’, (2017), at 6.
227 European Commission, supra note 51, at 2; C. Chance, The EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement: A Different Kind of Treaty? (2018), 3.
228 CPTPP (2018), annex: 2; ‘ISDS Victory: RCEP Won’t Allow Corporations to Sue Governments’, October 2019, available at isds.bilaterals.org/?isds-victory-rcep-won-t-allow.
229 The Convention will enter into force in September 2020. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, ‘Status: United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Result from Mediation’, available at uncitral.un.org/en/texts/mediation/conventions/international_settlement_agreements/status.
230 Ibid.
231 N. Y. Morris-Sharma, ‘The Singapore Convention is Live, and Multilateralism, Alive’, (2019) 20(4) Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 1009, at 1014–16; United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Result from Mediation (2018), Art. 3(1).
232 United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Result from Mediation (Singapore Convention on Mediation) (2018), Art. 1(1); M. Manukyan, ‘Singapore Convention Series: A Call For A Broad Interpretation of The Singapore Mediation Convention In The Context Of Investor-State Disputes’, Kluwer Mediation Blog, 10 June 2019, available at mediationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/06/10/singapore-convention-series-a-call-for-a-broad-interpretation-of-the-singapore-mediation-convention-in-the-context-of-investor-state-disputes/?doing_wp_cron=1595837214.8890540599822998046875.
233 C. Brown and P. Winch, ‘The Confidentiality and Transparency Debate in Commercial and Investment Mediation’, in C. Titi and K. Fach Gómez (eds.), Mediation in International Commercial and Investment Disputes (2019), 320, at 337.
234 EU-Singapore IPA (2018), Art. 3.4.2.
235 EU-Singapore IPA (2018), Anns. 6, 7, 11.
236 Ibid., Ann. 6, Art. 4.3.
237 Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy, ‘SIDRA International Dispute Resolution Survey: 2020 Final Report’, (2020), at 24.
238 Singapore Convention on Mediation (2018), Art. 12.
239 TFEU (2012), Arts. 205, 207(1); Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union, OJ C 326/15 (2012), Arts. 3(5), 21(3).
240 Opinion 2/15 of the Court (2017), paras. 139–52.
241 ASEAN Social-Cultural Community Blueprint 2025 (2015), paras. 13–16.
242 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Ch. 12.
243 Ibid., Art. 12.16.1. The CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement is the EU’s only FTA that applies the general dispute settlement mechanism to provisions on sustainable development. K. Hradilová and O. Svoboda, ‘Sustainable Development Chapters in the EU Free Trade Agreements: Searching for Effectiveness’, (2018) 52(6) Journal of World Trade 1019, at 1028–9.
244 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Arts. 12.16–12.17; Hradilová and Svoboda, ibid., at 1025–6.
245 Non Paper of the Commission Services, Feedback and way forward on improving the implementation and enforcement of Trade and Sustainable Development chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements (2018), at 7–8.
246 European Commission, ‘EU-Korea Dispute Settlement over Workers’ Rights in Korea Enters Next Stage’, 18 December 2019, available at trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2095. The EU-Korea FTA is the EU’s first FTA that include a chapter on sustainable development. G. M. Durán, ‘Sustainable Development Chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements: Emerging Compliance Issues’, (2020) 57 Common Market Law Review 1, at 24–6; European Commission, ‘Panel of Experts Confirms Republic of Korea is in Breach of Labour Commitments under Our Trade Agreement’, 25 January 2021, available at trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2238.
247 MTI, Inaugural Meeting of the European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) Trad and Sustainable Development (TSD) Board, Ann. 1.
248 Severino, supra note 8, at 1–34.
249 European Parliament, supra note 112, at 13.
250 European Parliament, European Parliament Resolution of 8 May 2008 on Trade and Economic Relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), (2008), P6_TA(2008)0195, para. H.
251 EU-Singapore FTA (2018), Art. 16.18.1.
252 ‘8 EU – Singapore Partnership and Cooperation Agreement’, 9 January 2019, available at publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeuleg/301-xlix/30111.htm.
253 E.g., European Parliament, Resolution on the Situation in South-East Asia, A3-0219/91 (1991), para. 28; EU Delegation to Singapore, EU Local Statement on the Death Penalty Case of Mr Micheal Anak Garing in Singapore (2019).
254 European Parliament, Joint Resolution Replacing Docs. B2-514, 521 and 551/87, 1987 OC C 190 (1987), at 102 (calling for the immediate release of ‘16 leaders or militants of humanitarian Catholic organizations …’).
255 Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012.
256 See R. Nadarajan, ‘Number of Radicalised Individuals on ISA Orders at Highest in 7 Years’, Today, 4 August 2019, available at www.todayonline.com/singapore/number-radicalised-individuals-isa-orders-highest-7-years (‘Self-radicalised individuals make up the bulk of the 50 currently issued with ISA orders … ’). The cases of death penalty range from 2 to 13 from 2014 to 2019. Judicial Executions, available at data.gov.sg/dataset/judicial-executions.
257 Hoang and Sicureli, supra note 31, at 373; Mckenzie and Messiner, supra note 75, at 841–2.
258 E.g., EU Delegation to Singapore, supra note 253.
259 Mckenzie and Messiner, supra note 75, at 842.
260 EU-Singapore PCA (2018), side letter; ibid., at 841.
261 European Parliament, ‘Human Rights in EU Trade Agreements: The Human Rights Clause and its Application’, (2019), at 9–10; Canada-EU Strategic Partnership Agreement (2016), Art. 28.7.
262 EU-Singapore PCA (2018), Arts. 23, 44.
