21세기 아태지역에서 지역 차원의 무역협정을 통해 역내 무역구조를 통합시키기 위한 논의는 두 가지 서로 다른 비전의 제안들에 의해 발전되었다. 동아시아 지역주의는 동아시아 자유무역지대(EAFTA) 및 동아시아 포괄적경제동반자협정(CEPEA)의 형태로 나타났으며, 동아시아의 경제통합에 초점을 맞추고 있다. APEC의 환태평양 비전은 보고르 목표 달성을 위해 아태지역의 무역투자 자유화를 추구하는 아태자유무역지대(FTAAP)의 수정된 형태로 논의되었다. 2010년 APEC 정상들은 ‘환태평양 트랙’의 환태평양경제동반자협정(TPP)과 이전의 EAFTA와 CEPEA에서 지금은 역내포괄적경제동반자협정(RCEP)으로 발전된 ‘동아시아 트랙’을 FTAAP 달성의 경로로 동시에 인정하고 이들 두 트랙에 대한 지지를 선언하였다. 그러나 FTAAP 달성을 위한 두 트랙의 수렴 방식은 여전히 논의 중이다.
본 보고서는 이들 두 트랙의 논의 동향과 진전, 분야별 이슈를 고찰하고 평가함으로써 향후 두 트랙의 논의가 어떻게 수렴될 것인지와 APEC에서 FTAAP의 진전에 어떠한 영향을 미칠 것인지를 전망한다. 보다 포괄적이고 높은 수준의 협정을 지향하는 TPP는 지난 3년간 협상이 상당히 진전된 반면, RCEP는 안건의 우선순위와 세부협상원칙에 대한 논의부터 시작해야 하는 초기 단계에 있다. TPP의 경우 원산지규정, 지식재산권, 보조금, 노동 및 환경 등 민감한 이슈에 대한 합의여부에 따라 TPP가 추구하는 높은 수준의 협정을 타결할 수 있는지, 그리고 향후 FTAAP의 모델로 수용될지 결정될 것이다. TPP와 마찬가지로 RCEP의 경우도 상품 및 서비스 교역과 투자 자유화 협상 등 여러 가지 과제를 안고 있으며, 특히 다양한 구성원으로 이루어진 협상참가국 간의 무역협정 수준의 차이를 극복하고, 이를 하나의 협정으로 수렴할 수 있는지 여부가 관건이며, ASEAN 주도의 경제통합 프로세스로서 ASEAN의 리더십을 평가할 수 있는 기회가 될 것이다.
In 2006 APEC leaders sought to emphasise complementarity between the two “visions” by formally adopting a Regional Economic Integration agenda in which the FTAAP was recognized as a “long-term prospect”. At Yokohama in 2010 the leaders set out the way forward in more concrete terms, when they unambiguously endorsed the FTAAP as the end-point to be reached in the evolution of the Asia-Pacific regional trade architecture, while at the same time endorsing a “two-track” approach to its eventual achievement. The leaders stated that achievement of the FTAAP is to be based on progress made within both a “trans-Pacific track”, represented by the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), involving economies from both sides of the Pacific, and an “East Asian track”, now represented by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a successor initiative to the EAFTA and CEPEA, with participation at this stage limited to the sixteen “ASEAN Plus Six” economies on the western side of the Pacific. Six of the 21 APEC economies are currently participating in both “tracks”, while four are participating in neither track. Four of the RCEP participants are not members of APEC.
The leaders left open the question of how the two “tracks” might evolve and eventually converge into the FTAAP. In the meantime, attention is focused on the substance of the TPP and RCEP agreements being negotiated within each “track”, and their implications both for the size and distribution of the prospective economic benefits of each agreement, and for the prospects of each agreement for gaining acceptance from other economies in the Asia-Pacific region as the “model” for the eventual FTAAP.
Of the two agreements, the TPP at this stage appears to have the more ambitious and comprehensive agenda. After three years negotiations have advanced to the point where failure, while still possible, would be a major surprise, but there are many sensitive issues remaining to be resolved. In addition to the expected market access issues of particular sensitivity to individual participating economies, other highly sensitive issues involve rules of origin, intellectual property, pharmaceutical evaluation pricing and subsidy programmes, management of electronic data flows, labour and environment. These and other issues are discussed in detail in the paper. How these issues are eventually resolved will be important in determining both the extent to which the TPP lives up to its stated ambition of being a “high quality” agreement and also its prospects of being accepted as a “model” for an eventual FTAAP.
The RCEP negotiations are only just beginning. It is correspondingly more difficult to evaluate its likely content and its potential as a basis for the eventual FTAAP. It appears likely that the most substantive provisions will be those on trade in goods, trade in services, and investment, prospects for which are analysed in detail in the paper. In these areas the RCEP faces formidable challenges in consolidating existing arrangements among the participating economies to a level that would mark an impressive step towards the eventual FTAAP. On the other hand the RCEP may be better placed than the TPP to develop rules of origin that foster deep integration among the production systems of participating economies. Provisions on intellectual property and competition policy are included in the proposed content of the RCEP, but it would be a surprise if these provisions approach the depth of commitment being sought in the TPP.
Like the TPP before it, RCEP faces all the issues involved in establishing agenda priorities and modalities for negotiating an agreement among countries that in many cases are already linked by existing agreements, or in some cases by ongoing negotiations. The complexities and difficulties will be compounded by the likelihood that the participating economies will come to the negotiations with widely divergent levels of ambition. Especially under these conditions ASEAN’s determination that the RCEP should be an ASEAN-led process also means that RCEP negotiations could turn out to a defining test of ASEAN’s ability to maintain its leadership role in regional economic integration.
II. State of Play in the Two “Tracks”
1. The Trans-Pacific Track: TPP
2. The East Asian Track – the RCEP
3. TPP, RCEP and the Architecture of the “Two-Track” Approach to the FTAAP
III. The TPP: Prospective Content and Issues for Regional Economic Integration
1. Market Access for Goods
2. Rules of Origin
4. Investment (Investor-State Dispute Settlement)
5. Competition: State-Owned Enterprises
6. Intellectual Property
7. Pharmaceutical Evaluation, Pricing and Subsidy Programmes
8. E-Commerce: Data Flow
10. Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures
11. Environment and Labour
12. Development and Capacity-Building
IV. The RCEP: Prospective Content and Issues for Regional Economic Integration
2. Rules of Origin
3. Trade Facilitation
V. Which Way to the FTAAP – TPP or RCEP?
VI. Concluding Remarks