No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Regulatory “Reliance” in Global Trade Governance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 December 2023
Abstract
One of the most significant recent trends in global trade governance has been the increasing use of regulatory “reliance” arrangements as a significant element of trade alliances. Against this backdrop, an important set of questions are raised about how existing institutions of global trade governance – especially the World Trade Organization and international regulatory standards organisations – should respond. To what extent, and how, should such institutions facilitate reliance arrangements? And what role can they usefully play in overseeing and guiding their use? This paper begins to answer these questions through a focused case study of regulatory reliance in the agrifood sector. Four challenges are identified regarding the implementation of such arrangements: the high costs of establishment and maintenance; the lack of agreed and reliable assessment methodologies; the potential for arbitrary discrimination between trade partners; and the difficulties of dealing with regulatory change over time. In light of these challenges, the paper assesses the work of existing international organisations in governing reliance arrangements in the agrifood sector. The paper concludes with a number of preliminary suggestions as to how this architecture of global governance might be supplemented or harnessed to address some of the challenges posed by reliance arrangements.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
1 For a selection of the literature on regulatory cooperation in free trade agreements, see, eg, DP Steger, “Institutions for Regulatory Cooperation in ‘New Generation’ Economic and Trade Agreements” (2012) 38(4) Legal Issues of Economic Integration 109–26; TJ Bollyky, “Regulatory Coherence in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks” in CL Lim et al, The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Quest for a Twenty-First Century Trade Agreement (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2012) ch 11; P Mumford, “Regulatory Coherence: blending trade and regulatory policy” (2014) 10(4) Policy Quarterly 3–9; A Alemanno, “The Regulatory Cooperation Chapter of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Institutional Structures and Democratic Consequences” (2015) 18 Journal of International Economic Law 625–40; AB Marks, “The Right to Regulate (Cooperatively)” (2016) 38 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 1–69; JB Wiener and A Alemanno, “The Future of International Regulatory Cooperation: TTIP as a Learning Process toward a Global Policy Laboratory” (2015) 78 Law and Contemporary Problems 103–36; RT Bull, NA Mahboubi, RB Stewart and JB Wiener, “New Approaches to Regulatory Cooperation: The Challenge of TTIP, TPP, and Megaregional Trade Agreements” (2015) 78 Law and Contemporary Problems 1–29; R Polanco Lazo and P Sauve, “The Treatment of Regulatory Convergence in Preferential Trade Agreements” (2018) 17(4) World Trade Review 575–607; P Mertenskotter and RB Stewart, “Remote Control: Treaty Requirements for Regulatory Procedures” (2019) 104 Cornell Law Review 165–231; H-W Liu and C-F Lin, “The Emergence of Global Regulatory Coherence: A Thorny Embrace for China?” (2018) 40(1) University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 133–89; C Kauffmann, “Adapting Regulation to Globalization: A Typology of Approaches to the Internationalization of Regulation” in E Brousseau, J-M Glachant and J Sgard (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Institutions of International Economic Governance and Market Regulation (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2018); G Hale, “Regulatory Cooperation in North America: Diplomacy Navigating Asymmetries” (2019) 49(1) American Review of Canadian Studies 123–49; B Hoekman and CF Sabel, “In a World of Value Chains: What Space for Regulatory Coherence and Cooperation in Trade Agreements” in B Kingsbury et al (eds), Megaregulation Contested: Global Economic Ordering After TPP (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2019), ch 10; PC Mavroidis, “Regulatory Cooperation: Lessons from the WTO and the World Trade Regime”, E15 Task Force on Regulatory Systems Coherence – Policy Options Paper, E15 Initiative, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum (2016).
2 See generally, European Commission, “Adequacy Decision” <https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/adequacy-decisions_en> (last accessed 16 September 2023), and for examples in the context of food safety, see notes 59–62 infra.
3 On this point, see also AH Lim and K Holzer, “Trading in the era of carbon standards: how can trade, standard setting, and climate regimes cooperate?” (2023) 39(1) Oxford Review of Economic Policy 110–22.
4 WHO, “Good reliance practices in the regulation of medical products: high level principles and considerations”, 55th Report of the WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations, WHO Technical Report Series 1033 (2021), p 243 and Annex 10, available at <https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340323/9789240020900-eng.pdf> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
5 ibid.
6 Such requirements were first enshrined under the Federal Meat Inspection Act [Public Law 90-201] (enacted 1906), the Poultry Products Inspection Act [Public Law 85-172] (enacted 1957) and the Egg Products Inspection Act [PL 91-597] (enacted 1970), as well as the Humane Methods of Slaughtering Act [Public Law 85-765] (enacted 1958).
7 See, eg, 9 CFR § 327.2; 9 CFR § 381.196; 9 CFR § 590.910; 21 USC 620; 21 USC 466; 21 USC 1046.
8 S McMurtrey and M Burr, “The US Food Safety System and Equivalence: Perspectives from Two US Agencies”, paper presented to WTO SPS Committee, 18 March 2019, footnote 1 (copy on file with author).
9 Some brief historical background on FSIS equivalence practices can be found in FSIS, “Ongoing Equivalence Verifications of Foreign Food Regulatory Systems”, 78 FR 5409, 25 January 2013.
10 ibid, 5410.
11 In fact, this worked both ways. As Murano et al report, the rapid adoption of the HACCP framework in many countries not only facilitated equivalence but in fact was also driven in part by the requirement inserted into US law requiring HACCP programmes domestically, coupled with the requirement that foreign countries’ regulatory systems achieved an equivalent level of protection. The best solution for many exporters of meat and poultry was to similarly require HACCP domestically: EA Murano, H Russell Cross and PK Riggs, “The outbreak that changed meat and poultry systems worldwide” (2018) 8(4) Animal Frontiers 4–8, at 5.
12 The current list of eligible foreign establishments and their home countries can be found at USDA, “Eligible Foreign Establishments” <https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/import-export/import-export-library/eligible-foreign-establishments> (last accessed 16 September 2023), along with the relevant listing dates. Most of these relate to meat and poultry: only two countries currently are listed as equivalent with respect to egg products: Canada and the Netherlands. A list of pending determinations, current as at August 2023, can be found at FSIS, “Status Chart for Active Equivalence Requests” <https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2022-04/equivalence-status-chart.pdf> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
13 This agreement, which facilitates exports from Spain and the Netherland to the USA on the one hand and from Washington and Maine to the EU on the other, is structured as two more or less coincident unilateral equivalence determinations and provides for simplified certification procedures and documentation for bilateral trade in specified shellfish. FDA, “Food and Drug Administration Equivalence Determination Regarding Implementation by Spain and the Netherlands of the European Union System of Food Safety Control Measures for Raw Bivalve Molluscan Shellfish With Additional Controls” (2020) 85 Federal Register 60172; FDA, “Equivalence Determination Regarding the European Union Food Safety Control System for Raw Bivalve Molluscan Shellfish” (2018) 83 Federal Register 10487; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) of 4 Feb 2022, amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1641 regarding imports of live, chilled, frozen or processed bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods for human consumption from the United States of America, C(2022) 562 final.
14 An overview of the FSIS process, for example, can be found at FSIS, “Equivalence” <https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/import-export/equivalence> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
15 A process of adjustment in the case of the shellfish determination, for example, is described in FDA (2018) and FDA (2022), supra, note 13.
16 See, eg, the summaries of the various jurisdictions’ practice covered by the WTO SPS Committee’s thematic days on equivalence, available at WTO, “SPS Thematic Session on Equivalence (Part 2) <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop18032019_e.htm> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
17 See, eg, Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health, Art 229. It is supplemented by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/692 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, the latter laying down the lists of third countries, territories or zones thereof from which the entry into the EU of animals, germinal products and products of animal origin is permitted.
18 See, eg, Hoekman and Sabel, supra, note 1; B Hoekman and CF Sabel, “Open Plurilateral Agreements, International Regulatory Cooperation and the WTO”. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2019/10 (2019).
19 “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, Executive Order 13609 of May 1” (2012) 77 Federal Register 26413.
20 Information on the FDA’s process for systems recognition, as well as the texts of each of these agreements, can be found at FDA, “Systems Recognition (Food)” <https://www.fda.gov/food/international-cooperation-food-safety/systems-recognition-food> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
21 ibid, especially section entitled “Systems Recognition v Equivalence”.
22 The quoted language is attributed to Frank Yiannas, Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response, 9 July 2021, see FDA, “FDA in Brief: FDA Issues Systems Recognition Draft Guidance” <https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-brief-fda-issues-systems-recognition-draft-guidance> (last accessed 16 September 2023). A similar point is made by Hoekman and Sabel in the papers cited supra, note 18.
23 See, eg, Food Safety Systems Recognition Arrangement between the Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and the FDA of the United States of America (“Australia SRA”) <https://www.fda.gov/international-programs/cooperative-arrangements/food-safety-systems-recognition-arrangement-between-australian-department-agriculture-and-water> (last accessed 16 September 2023), sections IV, V, VI; Food Safety Systems Recognition Arrangement between the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Department of Health Canada and the Food and Drug Administration of the United States (“Canada SRA”) <https://www.fda.gov/international-programs/cooperative-arrangements/fda-cfia-and-health-canada-food-safety-systems-recognition-arrangement> (last accessed 16 September 2023), sections IV, V, VI; Food Safety Systems Recognition Arrangement between the Ministry for Primary Industries of New Zealand and the Food and Drug Administration of the United States (“New Zealand SRA”), 10 Dec 2012, <https://www.fda.gov/international-programs/cooperative-arrangements/fda-new-zealand-mpi-food-safety-systems-recognition-arrangement> (last accessed 16 September 2023), paras IV, V, VI.
24 FDA, “FDA Oversight of Food Covered by Systems Recognition Arrangements: Guidance for Food and Drug Administration Staff” (2022), available at <https://www.fda.gov/media/150676/download> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
25 The texts of these agreements can be found at European Commission, “Food Safety: Agreements with Non-EU Countries” <https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/international-affairs/agreements-non-eu-countries_en> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
26 See, eg, Agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on sanitary measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal products, OJ L 57, 26.2.1997, pp 5–59, as amended, available at <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01997A0226%2802%29-20150401> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
27 See, for one example, “Developing Guidance on Consideration of Systems Approaches as Equivalent to Existing Measures: Communication from Australia”, G/SPS/W/299, 6 June 2018, noting that the “application of systems approaches may be the only option available to exporting Members to maintain existing trade” (para 5).
28 The work of the WTO’s SPS Committee is an important source of information on experiences with equivalence and recognition in the agrifood sector. “Equivalence” is a standing item on its agenda, and it is part of the regular reviews of the agreement conducted by the Committee. Evidence of the views of a number of WTO Members can be found in both in-meeting minutes and in documentation submitted to the Committee. The SPS Committee has also conducted two thematic days on equivalence in 2018, in the context of the fifth review of the SPS Agreement, at the initiative of Canada. See WTO, “SPS Thematic Session on Equivalence (Part 1)” <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop301018_e.htm> (last accessed 16 September 2023); WTO, “Summary of the Meeting of 1–2 November 2018: Note by the Secretariat”, WTO Document G/SPS/R/93, 11 February 2019; WTO, “SPS Thematic Session on Equivalence (Part 2)” <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop18032019_e.htm> (last accessed 16 September 2023); WTO, “Summary of the Meeting of 1–2 November 2018: Note by the Secretariat”, WTO Document G/SPS/R/94, 27 June 2019. Similar work has been carried out in respect of the recognition of pest-free areas, including both a thematic session and a more formal survey of Members soliciting their experience and views regarding recognition arrangements in this area. See WTO Document, “Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, Questions for Discussion, Compilation of Comments Submitted by Members: Note by the Secretariat”, G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2, 20 September 2019. The following paragraphs draw on this work of the SPS Committee, with attention focused on issues also identified in reviews of reliance arrangements conducted in other sectors, suggesting generic challenges posed by such agreements; see eg, European Commission, “EU Equivalence Decisions in Financial Services Policy: An Assessment” SWD (2017) 102, 27 February 2017; A Correia de Brito, C Kauffmann and J Pelkmans, “The Contribution of Mutual Recognition to International Regulatory Co-operation”, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Paper No. 2 (2016).
29 These points were consistently made, eg, in the presentations to the WTO SPS Committee’s thematic sessions on equivalence, ibid.
30 See Panel Report, “United States – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China”, WT/DS392/R, adopted 25 October 2010; see also, for another example, WTO Dispute Settlement Body, “Minutes of Meeting held on 31 August 2015”, WT/DSB/M/367, 30 October 2015, para 11.5.
31 See, eg, the comments from the representative of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency during the WTO SPS Committee’s thematic day of discussion on equivalence, supra, note 29, noting that “ongoing bilateral communication is critical to maintain the recognition status, including proactive notification of any changes to its inspection system or legislation governing its inspection system”. The difficulties associated with ongoing monitoring and review and not specific to food safety and have been explicitly noted in other regulatory domains. See, on this point, the specific challenges noted in the EU review of equivalence arrangements in the financial services context: European Commission, “EU Equivalence Decisions in Financial Services Policy: An Assessment” SWD (2017) 102, 27 February 2017; also European Commission, “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic And Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Equivalence in the Area of Financial Services”, COM(2019) 249, 29 July 2019.
32 See FSIS, “Ongoing Equivalence Verifications of Foreign Food Regulatory Systems”, 78 FR 5409, 25 January 2013, 5411ff.
33 Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 493 (“SPS Agreement”).
34 See, eg, Panel Report, “United States – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China”, WT/DS392/R, adopted 25 October 2010, paras 7.131-155.
35 See, eg, SPS Agreement, Arts 2, 3, 5, 7, 10.
36 Aspects of the US equivalence regime were at issue in US-Poultry, supra, note 36. In a more general sense, a number of cases brought under Arts 2 and 5 have involved an assessment of claims that alternative individual measures are equivalent to those imposed by an importing country, though they did not involve the application of Art 4; see, eg, Panel Report, “Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon”, WT/DS18/R and Corr.1, adopted 6 November 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS18/AB/R; Panel Report, “Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products”, WT/DS76/R, adopted 19 March 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS76/AB/R; Panel Report, “Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples”, WT/DS245/R, adopted 10 December 2003, upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS245/AB/R.
37 See, eg, WTO Document, “Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement: Draft Report of the Committee: Note by the Secretariat”, G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3, 12 June 2020; WTO Document, “Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement: Report Adopted by the Committee on 26 June 2020 – Part A”, G/SPS/64, 3 August 2020.
38 These proposals can be found, for example, in WTO Document, “Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement: Report Adopted by the Committee on 26 June 2020 – Part A”, G/SPS/64, 3 August 2020; WTO Document, “Developing Guidance on Consideration of Systems Approaches as Equivalent to Existing Measures: Communication from Australia”, G/SPS/W/299, 6 June 2018; WTO Document, “SPS Measures: Discussion Paper from Brazil, Fifth Review”, G/SPS/W/301, 6 June 2018; among others.
39 See WTO, “Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Revision”, G/SPS/19, 26 October 2001, para 11; WTO, “Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7)”, G/SPS/7/Rev.2, 2 April 2002, para 38; WTO, “Proposed Format for the Notification of Agreements of Equivalence”, G/SPS/W/114, 19 February 2002; and on implementation, WTO Document, “SPS Measures: Discussion Paper from Brazil, Fifth Review”, G/SPS/W/301, 6 June 2018, eg para 3.1.
40 See, eg, WTO Document, “Memorandum of Understanding between Senegal and China on Phytosanitary Requirements for Ground-Nut Exports, Communication Concerning Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Principle of Equivalence”, G/SPS/GEN/1461 (and Corr.1), 20 October 2015.
41 WTO, “Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Revision”, G/SPS/19, 26 October 2001, which has been revised a number of times since. For one account of the SPS Committee’s work, see F Veggeland and C Elvestad, “Equivalence and Mutual Recognition in Trade Arrangements Relevance for the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius Commission”, NILF-report 2004-9, November 2004, pp 17–21.
42 See also the contribution by Wearne and co-authors in this issue.
43 FAO, “ISPM24: Guidelines for the determination and recognition of equivalence of phytosanitary measures” (FAO, 2017), available at <https://www.fao.org/3/j5046e/j5046e.pdf> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
44 See OIE Terrestrial Code, chapter 5.3, “OIE Procedures Relevant to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organization”, available at <https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=chapitre_procedures_SPS_agreement.htm> (last accessed 16 September 2023) (originally introduced as chapter 1.3.7 in 2003).
45 Recognition of disease-free zones in foreign countries is a different modality of regulatory reliance than equivalence. The IPPC, it is worth noting, has a similar system for the recognition of “pest-free areas” and “areas of low pest prevalence”.
46 Codex Alimentarius Commission, “Guidelines for the Design, Operation, Assessment and Accreditation of Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems”, CAC/GL 26-1997, adopted 1997, revised 2010.
47 Codex Alimentarius Commission, “Guidelines for the Development of Equivalence Agreements Regarding Food Imports and Export Inspection and Certification Systems”, CAC/GL 34-1999.
48 Codex Alimentarius Commission, “Guidelines on the judgement of equivalence of sanitary measures associated with food inspection and certification systems”, CAC/GL 47-2003.
49 See Codex Alimentarius Commission, “Proposed Draft Consolidated Codex Guidelines Related to Equivalence”, CX/FICS 20/25/7, February 2020.
50 See WTO Documents, G/SPS/19, including Rev.1 and Rev.2, supra, note 39, which cross-references some of the work of the CAC and others on equivalence.
51 See, for one illustrative example, ISPM24, supra, note 43, section 2.4 (regarding the specific way in which the non-discrimination norm applies) and section 3.5 (regarding the relevance of historical trade between the parties).
52 Codex Alimentarius Commission, “Guidelines for National Food Control Systems”, CXG 82-2013; Codex Alimentarius Commission, “Principles for Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification”, CAC/GL 20-1995; as well as generally Codex Alimentarius Commission, “Principles and Guidelines for the Exchange of Information between Importing and Exporting Countries to Support the Trade in Food”, CXG 89-2016.
53 See WOAH (OIE), “Standard Operating Procedure for official recognition of animal health status and for the endorsement of official control programmes of Members”, May 2021, available at <https://www.oie.int/app/uploads/2021/06/en-sop-application.pdf> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
54 See the responses to a survey conducted by the WTO in WTO Document, “Article 6 of the SPS Agreement: Questions for Discussion, Compilation of Comments Submitted by Members, Note by the Secretariat, Revision”, G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2, 20 September 2019.
55 Marks, supra, note 1, at 55.
56 United States–Panama Agreement Regarding Certain Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Standards Affecting Trade in Agriculture Products, 20 December 2006, available at <https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2006%20US-Panama%20SPS%20letter%20exchange%20Text.pdf> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
57 US–Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, available at <https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/colombia-tpa/final-text> (last accessed 16 September 2023) (see Annexures to SPS Chapter, “2006 SPS Letter Exchange” and “August 2006 SPS Letter Exchange” as well as 2012 additional exchanges in April 2012).
58 US–Peru Free Trade Agreement, available at <https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/peru-tpa/final-text> (last accessed 16 September 2023) (see Annexures to SPS Chapter, Exchange of Letters in January 2006, April 2006, October 2006 and March 2016).
59 Trans-Pacific Partnership, text available at <https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text> (last accessed 16 September 2023), see “US–CL SPS Letter Exchange regarding Salmonid Eggs”, “US–CA Letter Exchange on Milk Equivalence”, “US–VN Letter Exchange on Catfish” and “US–VN Letter Exchange on Offals”.
60 Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, available at <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f83a503c-fa20-4b3a-9535-f1074175eaf0.0004.02/DOC_2&format=PDF> (last accessed 16 September 2023) p 1048.
61 For a simple explanation of the sequence of events, see European Commission, “Food Safety: Agreements with Non-EU Countries” <https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/international-affairs/agreements-non-eu-countries_en> (last accessed 16 September 2023): “Since 1999, a veterinary agreement on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in respect of trade in live animals and animal products between the EU and Canada had been in place. This agreement has been suspended on September 21, 2017, whilst the provisions and achievements of the agreement were transposed into the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) that became provisionally applicable at that date.”
62 Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Australia, 17 December 2021 <https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/free-trade-agreement-between-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-australia> (last accessed 16 September 2023) ch 6; Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and New Zealand, 28 February 2022 <https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/free-trade-agreement-between-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-new-zealand> (last accessed 16 September 2023), ch 5; Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, 8 March 2018 <https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/cptpp/official-documents> (last accessed 16 September 2023) ch 7; Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada, 1 July 2020 <https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/agreement-between> (last accessed 16 September 2023) ch 9; EU–Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, 30 October 2016 <https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/text-texte/toc-tdm.aspx?lang=eng> (last accessed 16 September 2023) ch 5; Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, 1 August 2020 <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22020A0612(01)> (last accessed 16 September 2023) ch 6; EU–Singapore Free Trade Agreement and Investment Protection Agreement, 21 November 2019 <https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/singapore/eu-singapore-agreement/texts-agreements_en> (last accessed 16 September 2023) ch 5.
63 This point is also made in B Hoekman and CF Sabel, “Plurilateral cooperation as an alternative to trade agreements: innovating one domain at a time” Working Paper, EUI RSCAS, 2021/01, Global Governance Programme-429, available at <https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/69578> (last accessed 16 September 2023).
64 K Nicolaidis and G Shaffer, “Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance without Global Government” (2005) 68(3/4) Law and Contemporary Problems 263–318, at 295–96.