Reassessing The Trade–Development Nexus In International Economic Law: The Paradigm Shift In Asia-Pacific Regionalism
Reassessing the Trade-Development Nexus
Reassessing The Trade-Development Nexus In International Economic Law: The Paradigm Shift I n Asia-Pacific R egionalism
Pasha L. Hsieh 0 1
Recommended Citation
0 Thi s Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons
1 Pasha L. Hsieh, Reassessing The Trade-Development Nexus In International Economic Law: The Paradigm Shift I n Asia-Pacific R egionalism , 37 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 321, 2017
-
Copyright 2017 by Pasha L. Hsieh
Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business
Printed in the U.S.A.
Vol. 37, No. 3
Reassessing The Trade–Development Nexus In
International Economic Law: The Paradigm Shift
In Asia–Pacific Regionalism
Pasha L. Hsieh*
By making interrelated theoretical and substantive claims, this article opens an inquiry
into the assertive role of developing countries that prompted the paradigm shift in Asia–
Pacific regionalism. The realist and dependency theories are utilized to decipher the
geopolitical complexity of the rapidly evolving South–South free trade agreements. As
a timely case study, the analysis is based on the creation of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations Economic Community and its implications for economic powers such as
the United States and China. It provides an account of the bloc’s services trade-oriented
development policy under the balance of power strategy. Finally, this article offers
regulatory reform proposals on how to integrate development assistance and remove
trade barriers. Transnational legal harmonization and human rights protection in line
with international labor principles are also indispensable. Such reforms will strengthen
the best practices for global regionalism and reinvigorate the trade–development
connection in the multilateral trading system.
* Associate Professor of Law, Singapore Management University School of Law. J.D., LL.M., University
of Pennsylvania; LL.B., National Chengchi University, Taiwan. E-mail: . This
research was supported by the Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund Tier 1 grant
(C234/MSS14L002). I wish to thank Professors Meredith Kolsky Lewis, Bryan Mercurio, Julien Chaisse,
Locknie Hsu, Yip Man, Bernard Hoekman, Dukgeun Ahn, Melanie Milo, and participants at the
International Law Association-American Society of International Law Asia-Pacific Research Forum, the
Joint Asian International Economic Law Conference, and the Singapore-World Trade Organization
(WTO) Policy Dialogue on the World Trading System for their insights and comments on earlier drafts
of this article. I also acknowledge the valuable assistance of Jevan Li, Nurul Ayu Fajarani and Jolene Ng.
All errors are my own.
Northwestern Journal of
International Law & Business
I. INTRODUCTION
The convergence of economic liberalization and development policy
has formed the cornerstone of multilateral trade negotiations and
international economic law for decades. Geopolitical challenges remain
when it comes to reconciling the mercantilist concept of enhancing market
access with the principle of redistributive justice that demands preferential
treatment.1 More fundamentally, the legalization of the trade–development
nexus reflects the global North–South conflicts that underpin divergent
national interests between developed and developing countries.2
Unanimously adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 2015, the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development seeks to transform such long-standing
conflicts to cooperation.3 With the aim to eradicate poverty and reinforce
inclusive economic growth, the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
conceive of international trade as the essential development apparatus.4 The
SDGs mandated the revitalization of development by completing the
negotiations of the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO).5
Yet, states’ irreconcilable stances on liberalizing restrictions on agriculture,
non-agricultural market access (NAMA), and services trade led the Doha
Round talks to an unresolved standstill.6 From Seattle to Nairobi, the WTO
Ministerial Conferences have generated more frustrations than
achievements.7 The fate of the Doha Round hinges on whether it can achieve
Northwestern Journal of
International Law & Business
the aspirational commitment to development in tandem with liberalizing
trade under the WTO and free trade agreements (FTAs).8
To understand the role of trade politics in shaping today’s global
economic governance, it is pivotal to trace back to the origin of the North–
South clash in the UN and the WTO. The WTO’s predecessor, the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the Bretton Woods Institutions
were established in the 1940s and provided the framework that governed
postwar economic order.9 The most-favored-nation (...truncated)