Law- regulation of international trade and the Trans Pacific Partnership

Law- regulation of international trade and the Trans Pacific Partnership
Order Description
Include:
(1) identification and logical analysis of the key arguments [structure, premises, conclusion] – including identification of any fallacies; looking at the form of the argument. (precise structure diagrams are not needed; just identification of key premises and conclusions. )
(2) analysis of relevant factual claims or assumptions, including data and causal theory used to interpret such data; looking at the content of the evidence
(3) identification and consideration of ethical, political or economic ideas underlying the arguments
(4) analysis of relevant legal claims or assumptions
(5) your own considered thoughts and proposals in relation to these arguments; your own argument, supported by relevant evidence.
References:
Compulsory: M. Head and S. Mann, Law in Perspective, 2nd Edition, UNSW Press, 2009, with particular reference to chapters 1-7.

Regulation of international trade and the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Identify and evaluate the ideas and arguments contained in the two extracts for your chosen topic. You must focus on the extracts themselves, but for context, you may refer to the documents from which they are extracted, and to relevant backgroundmaterial.
Include:
(1) identification and logical analysis of the key arguments [structure, premises, conclusion] – including identification of any fallacies; looking at the form of the argument. (precise structure diagrams are not needed; just identification of key premises and conclusions. )
(2) analysis of relevant factual claims or assumptions, including data and causal theory used to interpret such data; looking at the content of the evidence
(3) identification and consideration of ethical, political or economic ideas underlying the arguments
(4) analysis of relevant legal claims or assumptions
(5) your own considered thoughts and proposals in relation to these arguments; your own argument, supported by relevant evidence.
References:
Compulsory: M. Head and S. Mann, Law in Perspective, 2nd Edition, UNSW Press, 2009, with particular reference to chapters 1-7.
Optional: Other academically-verifiable references may be used.

Assignment advice to students
In response to queries from students, the following advice may be critical in assisting students to complete the Law Foundation assignment:
1. Structure your essays according to points (1) to (5) in the assignment criteria.
2. You will need to do a small amount of background research to clarify the issues under consideration.
3. Your essay must demonstrate detailed attention to the specified references.
4. You may use headings in the essay to assist in showing where and how you have addressed the 5 assignment criteria.

McAULEY, MILLS SMITH AND RODEN ON THE TPP
Reading One
What can the TPP deliver for Australia?
April 14, 2015
Lisa McAuley and Stacey Mills-Smith
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement should benefit Australian traders.
There has been much scaremongering surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and significantly less publicity around the potential benefits of the agreement, of which there are many.
Liberalisation of trade should preferably advance on a multilateral basis; however, in the absence of any foreseeable completion of the World Trade Organisation Doha round of negotiations, advances in the liberalisation of international trade must occur, by default, pursuant to regional, bilateral and other free trade or similar agreements.
TPP is a regional agreement currently being negotiated by Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Peru, the United States and Vietnam. Negotiations commenced in 2010 and some believe the agreement will be concluded as early as mid-2015.
Critics of the TPP have expressed concern regarding the Health and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, IP protection, the inclusion of Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions, privacy laws and the lack of transparency surrounding the negotiations. However, the federal government has provided assurances that:
• The Australian government is not going to accept any outcome that would adversely affect the integrity of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or our health system more generally.
• Australia has an effective and balanced intellectual property regime and the current system is not going to be altered through the TPP.
• Australia will look to seek an outcome on intellectual property in the TPP that is consistent with existing international intellectual property commitments, and that retains the flexibilities Australia currently has.
• The government would not entertain ISDS provisions that restrict our ability to pursue legitimate public policy objectives. For example, should it negotiate on ISDS,it would seek exceptions and other protections to further safeguard current and future policies on health and the environment.
• The TPP agreement will not alter Australia’s privacy regime.
• It is standard practice in international negotiations that the parties agree that draft negotiating texts should not be made public.
While the proof will be in the pudding, the Australian public must not forget that, in accordance with the treaty making processes, there will be an opportunity for full public and parliamentary discussion prior to the government entering into any final agreement. That said, what do we stand to gain from the TPP?
The potential gains for Australia are significant, with Australian exports to partner countries worth nearly $100 billion in 2012. Moreover, given more than 70 per cent of Australia’s trade is with Asia Pacific, the TPP is going to support trade liberalisation throughout the Asia-Pacific region, creating a better trade environment for Australian companies and ultimately increase economic integration of Australia into the region.
The TPP will provide preferential access to three new markets Australia does not have free trade agreements with, namely Canada, Mexico and Peru. It also provides an opportunity to improve current levels of benefits occasioned under our existing FTAs with countries who are also party to the TPP. There has been some criticism our current FTAs have not gone far enough and the TPP agreement provides a welcome opportunity for Australia to negotiate improved outcomes.
Generally, the agreement will result in fewer barriers for Australian exporters of goods and services and Australian investors and improved supply chains. As a result Australian consumers may benefit as a result of reductions in customs duties being passed on as well as, presumably, more ready access to a wider variety of goods in a more efficient manner.
Importantly, the TPP is hoping to address new trade issues not previously addressed in trade agreements of this nature. These issues include a focus on outcomes for SMEs, strengthening regulatory coherence, the promotion of economic development, and the promotion of transparency of new laws and regulations.
Ultimately, the federal government is seeking an outcome that reduces or eliminates trade and investment barriers in partner countries, securing new opportunities for Australian businesses to compete and sell their products abroad, facilitating greater trade flows. This is vital to the Australian economy as trade is a key driver of jobs, innovation and long term prosperity. By creating commonly agreed rules to trade in goods and services and promoting transparency, the TPP opens up new trade and investment opportunities for Australian businesses in the region.
Lisa McAuley is the CEO of and Stacey Mills-Smith is the trade policy and research manager for the Export Council of Australia

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/growing/what-can-the-tpp-deliver-for-australia-20150414-1mkqnq.html#ixzz3hFFInRIX
Reading Two
New evidence of planned corporate take over as WikiLeaks releases another TPP chapter
Green Left Weekly; Monday, June 22, 2015
By Duncan Roden
WikiLeaks released the secret draft of the healthcare annex to the transparency chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on June 10. If the TPP is adopted, the annex would adversely affect national pharmaceutical schemes, such as Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and New Zealand’s Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC).
The TPP is a free trade deal being negotiated by countries on the Pacific rim: the US, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Brunei, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam and Japan. These countries represent about 40% of global GDP.
“Transparency” in the TPP does not refer to revealing the otherwise secret activities of corporations and governments to the public, but rather granting corporations better access to, and influence over, government regulations.
The previously leaked intellectual property chapter of the TPP showed that it aimed to strengthen pharmaceutical monopolies, primarily by providing more chances to apply for and extend patents.The leaked healthcare transparency annex shows the TPP would also give corporations better chances to have their medicines taken up by national pharmaceutical schemes.A previously leaked healthcare annex was even worse. It appears the US was forced to water it down due to opposition from other countries. But there are still major problems
Dr Deborah Gleeson from La Trobe University said “It is clearly intended to cater to the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Nor does this do anything to promote ‘free trade’: rather it tightly specifies the operation of countries’ schemes for subsidising pharmaceuticals and medical devices with the aim of providing greater disclosure, more avenues for pharmaceutical industry influence and greater opportunities for industry contestation of pharmaceutical decision making.”
The annex has measures to include review processes involving “at a minimum, a substantive reconsideration of the application” that potentially allows for decisions to be remade at pharmaceutical companies’ behest.
The draft allows countries that now prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals to continue to do so, but it would lock in any loopholes in national laws that permit companies to get round these prohibitions.
The annex does say that state-to-state dispute settlement cannot apply to this area, but says nothing about prohibiting investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). ISDS allows corporations to sue governments for changes to laws or regulations that impact on their profits, even perceived future profits.
Gleeson said :“It sets a terrible precedent for using regional trade deals to tamper with other countries’ health systems and could circumscribe the options available to developing countries seeking to introduce pharmaceutical coverage programs in future.
“The impact of the 2014 annex provisions in their current form would be felt most by New Zealand. There are several provisions that could have detrimental effects on PHARMAC, adding new transaction costs and significantly reducing its flexibility and autonomy.”
The US House of Representatives voted 218 to 208 in favour on June 19 of a fast-track bill, called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), on June 19. It would enable any trade deal to be put to Congress for a straight yes or no vote, without debate. This is seen as crucial to the conclusion of the TPP negotiations, as many countries will not reach final agreement until they are certain the US will do so.
The effects of this opposition and pressure from unions and other groups was reflected by Democrat Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, who said, “This thing is modelled after NAFTA, which cost us 5 million jobs.”This is why even pro-TPP Democrats insist on passing the TAA. But TAA would only offset a tiny part of the problems caused by the deal. For example, in relation to digital media, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said on June 18 “TAA will not prevent the TPP from extending the term of copyright protection to a uniform life plus 70 years throughout the Pacific Rim, and simultaneously locking in that term at home.
“It won’t stop the imposition of [Digital Millennium Copyright Act]-like laws that prevent users from bypassing [‘digital rights management’ or copy protection software] simply in order to view or make fair use copies of their media.
“It will not prevent foreign corporations from suing the American government to stop it from adopting pro-user laws or policies, for example on orphan works (or, conversely, American corporations from suing our trading partners for introducing such laws or policies).”