Total rural land performance in a free trade economy

The importance of agriculture in many countries has tended to reduce as their economies move from a resource base to a manufacturing industry base. Although the level of agricultural production in first world countries has increased over the past two decades, this increase has generally been at a less significant rate compared to other sectors of the economies. Despite this increase in secondary and high technology industries, developed countries have continued to encourage and support their agricultural industries. This support has been through both tariffs and price support. Following pressure from developing economies, particularly through the World Trade Organisation (WTO), GATT Uruguay round and the Cairns Group Developed countries are now in various stages of winding back or de-coupling agricultural support within their economies. A major concern of farmers in protected agricultural markets is the impact of a free market trade in agricultural commodities on farm incomes and land values. This paper will analyse the capital and income performance of the NSW rural land market over the period 1990-1999. This analysis will be based on land use and will compare the total return from rural properties based on world agricultural commodity prices.

From Kafka to KAFTA: Intellectual property, and the Korea-Australia free trade agreement

This paper provides a critical examination of the intellectual property sections of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. Chapter 13 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 deals with the subject of intellectual property law. The Chapter covers such topics as the purposes and objectives of intellectual property law; copyright law; trade mark law; patent law; and intellectual property enforcement. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament highlighted the controversy surrounding this chapter of the agreement: The intellectual property rights chapter of KAFTA has drawn considerable attention from academics and stakeholders regarding the proposed need for changes to Australian intellectual property law and the inclusion of intellectual property in the definition of investment with regard to the investor-state dispute mechanism. Other concerns raised with the Committee include the prescriptive nature of the chapter, the lack of recognition of the broader public interests of intellectual property rights, and possible changes to fair use provisions. Article 13.1.1 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 provides that: ‘Each Party recognises the importance of adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights, while ensuring that measures to enforce those rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade.’ This is an unsatisfactory description of the objectives and purposes of intellectual property law in both Australia and Korea. There is a failure to properly consider the range of public purposes served by intellectual property law – such as providing for access to knowledge, promoting competition and innovation, protecting consumer rights, and allowing for the protection of public health, food security, and the environment. Such a statement of principles and objectives detracts from the declaration in the TRIPS Agreement 1994 of the public interest objectives to be served by intellectual property. Chapter 11 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 is an investment chapter, with an investor-state dispute settlement regime. This chapter is highly controversial – given the international debate over investor-state dispute settlement; the Australian context for the debate; and the text of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. In April 2014, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) released a report on Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The overall figures are staggering. UNCTAD reports a significant growth in investment-state dispute settlement, across a wide array of different fields of public regulation. Given the broad definition of investment, intellectual property owners will be able to use the investor-state dispute settlement regime in the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. This will have significant implications for all the various disciplines of intellectual property – including copyright law, trade mark law, and patent law.

Robbery under arms: Copyright law and the Australia-United States free trade agreement

TThis article considers the radical, sweeping changes to Australian copyright law wrought by the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement 2004 (AUSFTA). It contends that the agreement will result in a “piracy of the public domain”. Under this new regime, copyright owners will be able to obtain greater monopoly profits at the expense of Australian consumers, libraries and research institutions, as well as intermediaries, such as Internet service providers. Part One observes that the copyright term extension in Australia to life of the author plus 70 years for works will have a negative economic and cultural impact — with Australia’s net royalty payments estimated to be up to $88 million higher per year. Part Two argues that the adoption of stronger protection of technological protection measures modelled upon the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (U.S.) will override domestic policy–making processes, such as the Phillips Fox Digital Agenda Review, and judicial pronouncements such as the Stevens v Sony litigation. Part Three questions whether the new safe harbours protection for Internet service providers will adversely affect the sale of Telstra. This article concludes that there is a need for judicial restraint in interpreting the AUSFTA. There is an urgent call for the Federal Government to pass ameliorating reforms — such as an open–ended defence of fair use and a mechanism for orphan works. There is a need for caution in negotiating future bilateral trade agreements — lest the multinational system for the protection of copyright law be undermined.

The Australia-Chile free trade agreement 2008: Intellectual property and development. A submission to the Joint Standing Committee on treaties

A submission to the Joint Standing Committee on treaties

Free trade, Gangnam Style: The Korea-Australia free trade agreement

On the 5th December 2013, Australia and Korea announced that they had finalised a new free trade agreement. Is it a fair trade fairytale? Or is it a dirty deal done dirt cheap? It is hard to tell, because the respective governments have not yet published the text of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA). There has been much debate in the Australian Parliament over the transparency of the trade agreement; the scope of market access provided under the deal; and the impact of the investment chapter, with an investor-state dispute settlement clause. KAFTA foreshadows the approach of the new Conservative Government in Australia to other trade deals – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA)

Australia and South Korea have signed a new free trade agreement - the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA). Is it a fair trade fairytale? Or is it a dirty deal done dirt cheap? Or somewhere in between? It is hard to tell, given the initial secrecy of the negotiations, and the complexity of the texts of the agreement There has been much debate in Parliament over the transparency of the trade agreement; the scope of market access provided under the deal; the impact of the investment chapter, with its investor-state dispute settlement clause; the intellectual property chapter; the environment chapter; its impact upon public health; and the labor rights chapter. KAFTA provides an indication of the approach of the new Conservative Government in Australia to other trade deals – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

A European Perspective on the Precautionary Principle, Food Safety and the Free Trade Imperative of the WTO

A European Perspective on the Precautionary Principle, Food Safety and the Free Trade Imperative of the WTO. European Law Review, Vol.27, No.2. April 2002, pp.138-155. RAE2008

Placing political economy: organising opposition to free trade before the abolition of the Corn Laws

The unfurling of global capitalism – and its attendant effects – has long been fertile intellectual terrain for geographers. But whilst studies of the processes and mechanisms of globalisation undoubtedly assume a talismanic importance in the discipline, geographers, with few exceptions, have left examinations of early economic liberalism to historians. One such critically important episode in the evolution of the liberal economic project was the repeal of the so-called 'Corn Laws' in 1846. Whilst the precise impact of the Manchester-based Anti-Corn Law League (ACLL) continues to be a matter of conjecture, Eric Sheppard has asserted that their particular take on political economy managed to assume a 'truth-like status' and worldwide universality. But the ACLL's campaign represents only one, albeit decisive, stage in the long intellectual and practical struggle between 'protectionists' and the disciples of free trade. Studies of the non-'Manchester' components have tended to focus squarely upon national politics. This paper examines a pivotal attempt in 1838 by Lord Melbourne's Government to experiment with the effective elimination of import duties on fresh fruit. Unlike most agricultural commodities, table fruit was produced in a tightly defined area, thus allowing the Government's experiment to play out, in theory, without national political fallout. Whilst the Government's clandestine actions left little time for a concerted opposition to develop, Kentish fruit growers soon organised. A formidable lobby was forged that drew wide local support yet also evolved beyond the original 'epistemic community'. Whilst the coalition failed in their efforts to reintroduce protective duties, their actions allow us to see how protectionist ideologies and policies were vivified through practices at many different spatial scales and to better understand the complex spatiality of protectionist takes on political economy. Their campaign also changed – at least in the short term – the course of British mercantile policy.

Regulating Services Trade Agreements - A Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Disciplines Included in EU and US Free Trade Agreements

Developed countries, led by the EU and the US, have consistently called for ‘deeper integration’ over the course of the past three decades i.e., the convergence of ‘behind-the-border’ or domestic polices and rules such as services, competition, public procurement, intellectual property (“IP”) and so forth. Following the collapse of the Doha Development Round, the EU and the US have pursued this push for deeper integration by entering into deep and comprehensive free trade agreements (“DCFTAs”) that are comprehensive insofar as they are not limited to tariffs but extend to regulatory trade barriers. More recently, the EU and the US launched negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP”) and a Trade in Services Agreement (“TISA”), which put tackling barriers resulting from divergences in domestic regulation in the area of services at the very top of the agenda. Should these agreements come to pass, they may well set the template for the rules of international trade and define the core features of domestic services market regulation. This article examines the regulatory disciplines in the area of services included in existing EU and US DCFTAs from a comparative perspective in order to delineate possible similarities and divergences and assess the extent to which these DCFTAs can shed some light into the possible outcome and limitations of future trade negotiations in services. It also discusses the potential impact of such negotiations on developing countries and, more generally, on the multilateral process.

From Fordism to neoconservatism : free trade and Canadian industrial policy in an era of globalism /

Nothing today affects the lives of people in countries throughout the industrialized and developing world as much as international trade. Nowhere is this more true than in Canada. Canada's involvement in international trade has a long history dating back to 1854 when it was a British colony. As a major trading country, Canada has always adopted a proactive industrial policy which has been largely responsible for its relative economic prosperi ty. But, wi th businesses now free to invest and divest under the terms of the CUFTA and the NAFTA, the most fundamental concerns for Canadians, in a borderless world, are what powers will the Canadian government have to shape industrial policy, and to what extent can Canada continue as a viable nationstate if it can no longer control its national economy? These are important concerns because, in world without borders, the adjustment process becomes more volatile and more difficult to manage. The CUFTA and the NAFTA not only create the rules for conducting trade, but they also establish a set of new rules for the Canadian government that will diminish its power. As a member of a new North American trading bloc, Canada will find itself subject to a set of forces requiring analysis beyond participation in a conventional free trade area. Because many of the traditional levers of government will now be subject to external control imposed by these agreements, Canada will not be able to mount certain policies in the future that it has relied on in the past. This reality limits the pro-active role of the Canadian state to use policies and programmes for the country's immediate national development. What this thesis attempts is an examination of the evolution of Canadian industrial policy, in effect, the transi tion from Fordism to Neoconservatism, and an assessment of Canada's future as a nation-state as it tries to find security and improved access in a free trade arrangement. Unless Canada takes steps to neutralize the asymmetry of power between itself and the United States through adjustment programmes, it is the contention of this thesis that its economic future is anything but stable.

Trade Creation, Trade Diversion and Investment Flows: Evidence from the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement.

Rapport de recherche

Estimation of Steel Exports & Imports to analyze the Impact of Free Trade on Production in the Steel Industry.

Rapport de recherche

Marine Product Exports of Kerala in the ASEAN India Free Trade Area: Possibilities and Challenges

In the backdrop of issues encountered by the marine product exports from Kerala in the traditional strongholds of the European Union and the United States, there is a need to target newer markets. The ASEAN India Trade in Goods Agreement (TIGA) though proposes to liberalize trade between India and the ASEAN member nations, fails to deliver greater market access for our marine products in the markets of the ASEAN nations. This can be attributed to factors such as the lower prevailing MFN base rate in the ASEAN nations, tariff reduction commitments reciprocated by them being lesser than India’s offers, inclusion of our prominent items of export in the restrictive lists of most of the ASEAN nations etc. Export forecast suggests that this is a market to be reckoned, which in turn stipulates the need to secure greater concessions and preferential treatment for our marine product exports in the ASEAN nations to capitalize on the gains that have been made