Review and Response to the Non-Commercial Assistance Provisions in the CPTPP

Shuming Li

doi:10.6981/FEM.202504_6(4).0020

Authors

Shuming Li

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6981/FEM.202504_6(4).0020

Keywords:

CPTPP; Non-commercial Assistance; SCM Agreement; Competitive Neutrality.

Abstract

The non-commercial assistance provisions under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership introduce adjustments to existing international subsidy rules, establishing the first international trade framework specifically regulating state-owned enterprise subsidies. Compared to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, these provisions eliminate the identification procedures for "public bodies" and redefine the criteria for determining "specificity" of subsidies. This legal evolution may constrain the Chinese government's ability to provide subsidies through SOEs, hinder the development of SOEs in service trade and cross-border investment sectors, and weaken China's influence in negotiating new international trade rules. To address challenges posed by these provisions, China should implement competitive neutrality policies by preventing cross-subsidization and legislating equal subsidy access rights for enterprises of all ownership types, while enhancing transparency regarding SOE subsidy disclosures.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Information on: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1771553284281992930.

[2] Borlini, Leonardo:When the Leviathan goes to the market: A critical evaluation of the rules governing state-owned enterprises in trade agreements." Leiden Journal of International Law,Vol .33(2020)No.3,p.1-22.

[3] Bhala R:Exposing the Forgotten TPP Chapter 17 as a Model for Future International Trade Disciplines on SOEs.Social Science Electronic Publishing, Vol.14(2017)No.1,p.2-49.

[4] Prusa T J , Vermulst E:United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China: Passing the Buck on Pass-Through.World Trade Review, Vol.12(2013) No.2,p.197-234.

[5] Lee, J. . (2019). Trade agreements new frontier- regulation of state-owned enterprises and outstanding systemic challenges. SSRN Electronic Journal.

[6] Fleury, Julien Sylvestre:The US Shaping of State-Owned Enterprise Disciplines in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.19(2016)No.2,p.53-68.

[7] Rolland S E:Emerging Powers and the World Trading System: The Past and Future of International Economic Law.American Journal of International Law, Vol.13(2022)No.2,p.116-139.

[8] Information on: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1719303907459150634.

[9] Li, Chunding , and J. Whalley:China and the TPP: A Numerical Simulation Assessment of the Effects Involved. NBER Working Papers, Vol.37(2012)No.2,p.169-192.

[10] Gao, Henry Shuchao:The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement: A Critical Analysis." Legal Issues of Economic Integration,Vol.25(2010)No.3,p.221-240.

[11] Young, Margaret A:Energy transitions and trade law: lessons from the reform of fisheries subsidies." International Environmental Agreements,Vol.17 (2017)No.1,p.1-20.