The basic premise of opposition to the TPPA and its descendant agreements is that the risks outweighed the benefits. With the CPTPP Agreement apparently now concluded but no available text, we’re left in a familiar limbo. Will the benefits of this new agreement be enough to offset the risks? One of the main reasons TPPA
The state of play with TPPA The original Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement was signed by the 12 negotiating parties in Auckland on 4 February 2016, in the face of a massive protest led by tangata whenua. Japan and NZ completed their domestic processes to ratify (adopt) the original agreement during 2016. In January 2017 US President
Speaking to CBNC at the World Economic Forum in Davos yesterday, US President Trump reiterated his view that the original Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) was a “horrible deal”, but said “I would do TPP if we were able to make a substantially better deal”. University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey has called on the New Zealand government
Overnight in Japan the remaining eleven governments have concluded the ‘revised’ but essentially unchanged Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA-11), now called the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership. The signing is set for 8 March 2018 in Chile. University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey predicts ‘the rebranding of the TPPA won’t fool anyone,
‘The World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial conference in Buenos Aires has concluded without a formal statement. This reflects the deep divide between poorer countries who have demanded that WTO members deliver on their promises to address outstanding development issues’, Auckland University law professor Jane Kelsey reports from the meeting. ‘Richer countries, including New Zealand, sought
‘“Inclusion” is the buzzword on the lips of trade ministers at this week’s World Trade Organization ministerial conference in Buenos Aires, as they seek to rescue an international regime and its peak organization from a deepening crisis of legitimacy’, reports University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey from the meeting. ‘Proposals on gender, small and
