Notwithstanding President Trump's rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), many of its provisions will likely find their way into other U.S. trade deals, such as a renegotiated NAFTA.
On April 6, Representative Henry Cuellar (D-TX) said in a statement that he believes the NAFTA renegotiations will necessarily draw heavily from the provisions of the now defunct TPP. In arguing his position, Representative Cuellar referenced a recently released Congressional Research Service report (CSR). The CSR examines the parallels between the TPP text and the draft notice on NAFTA renegotiations circulated to Senate committee members in late March by the acting U.S. Trade Representative Stephen Vaughn (as discussed in our last international trade brief).
What is clear is that, had it been implemented, the TPP would have governed trade between NAFTA partners as all three countries were planning to implement the TPP. As such, the U.S. would not in fact have had to renegotiate or provide for many of the same provisions within a revised NAFTA. In light of the U.S.' withdrawal from the TPP, any revisions that the U.S. would like to implement into its trade terms with Canada and Mexico will now need to be done through a renegotiated NAFTA.
One of the areas where the CSR illustrates the existence of considerable overlap between the draft notice and the TPP is in customs and enforcement. Though the draft notice did not provide details, it did call for increased transparency and efficiency in customs proceedings. The TPP, in pursuit of this goal, required the use of electronic systems and automated risk analysis/targeting, provided a special customs procedure for express shipments, and required the online publication of all customs laws, none of which is currently required by NAFTA. The draft notice also called for NAFTA to include a process for exporters/importers to receive early consultation on significant regulations, following the TPP's provisions related to early advice and expeditious responses to general information requests.
Another category discussed in the CSR is investment protection. The CSR highlights the draft notice's proposal to "maintain and [...] improve procedures" for resolving disputes between U.S. investors and NAFTA countries rather than eliminating the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism altogether. Similarly, the TPP Investment Chapter (Chapter 9) also sought substantive protections for private investors and investments against discriminatory, unfair, and arbitrary treatment by host governments and recourse to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) for binding arbitration.
Several other categories are canvassed in the CSR, including sanitary and phytosanitary standards, the treatment of state-owned enterprises, e-commerce and data flows, intellectual property rights, rules-of-origin for the automotive industry, labour and the environment. In all of these areas, the CSR details similarities between the NAFTA renegotiation goals set forth in the draft notice and the provisions of the TPP. Though the draft notice is subject to change, early indications show that the TPP, having already been the subject of intensive negotiations, may provide insights into what a renegotiated NAFTA may include.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
