A study of brass mouthpiece intonation

Call number: LD2668 .R4 1964 M55

The ASEAN–Australia–New Zealand FTA (AANZFTA)

Published as Chapter 6 in 2 Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Case Studies (2d ed.), Simon Lester, Bryan Mercurio & Lorand Bartels, eds. The ASEAN–Australia–New Zealand FTA (AANZFTA) combines two different pre-existing country groupings of long-standing. The first of these is ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which was founded in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. This grouping has expanded over the years, with Brunei Darussalam joining in 1984, followed by Vietnam in 1995, Laos and Myanmar in 1997, and Cambodia in 1999. While ASEAN has existed for nearly 50 years, for most of that period it has served as an alliance based on economic and political cooperation rather than as a free trade agreement. However, the original members of ASEAN launched a free trade initiative, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), in 1992. In 2003, after the expansion of ASEAN to its current membership, ASEAN announced plans to create an ASEAN Community comprising three pillars, one of which would be a free trade agreement to be called the ASEAN Economic Community. In 2007, this intention was memorialized in writing with a timetable to form the Community by 2015. The other pre-existing alliance was that between Australia and New Zealand, which have a long history of formal trade agreements. In 1965, close in time to the creation of ASEAN, these Oceania neighbours formed a free trade agreement known as the New Zealand–Australia Free Trade Agreement. This FTA was eclipsed in 1983 by the highly ambitious Australia–New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (ANZCERTA), most commonly referred to as Closer Economic Relations (CER). Given the linkages already in place between the ASEAN countries on the one hand, and Australia and New Zealand on the other, the primary trade gains to be had pursuant to AANZFTA lie in new linkages between Australia and New Zealand and specific ASEAN members. Indeed, pursuant to an exchange of letters bearing treaty status, Australia and New Zealand have agreed that AANZFTA obligations only apply between them to a limited extent, including the tariff and Rules of Origin (ROO) commitments and the General Exceptions chapter. Following several years of negotiations, these two groupings formed the ASEAN–Australia–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (AANZFTA), which came into force on 1 January 2010 for most of its participants. AANZFTA has been in effect for all participants since January 2012.https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/book_sections/1119/thumbnail.jp

Safety Standards and Indigenous Products: What Role for Traditional Knowledge?

Published as Chapter 8 in International Economic Law and National Autonomy, Meredith Kolsky Lewis & Susy Frankel, eds. Indigenous communities have used native plants as foods and for medicinal purposes for thousands of years. Some of these indigenous products have proven sufficiently popular that individuals outside the indigenous community have sought to consume, purchase and market them. In certain instances, new products have been derived from the indigenous plant and sold outside the indigenous community. In other cases, the indigenous product has been exported in its original form, but utilized in non-traditional ways in the export market. In recent years, various WTO Members have imposed bans and other restrictions on the importation of certain indigenous products on the basis of health and safety concerns. These restrictions tend to be blanket bans on the products as a whole, thus curtailing both the ability to consume indigenous products according to their traditional uses, as well as the adapted versions of such products. This chapter uses the example of the recent bans on kava from Pacific Island countries as context to argue that the safety of indigenous products with long histories of traditional use should be evaluated on their own merits. They should not be deemed the equivalent of new products with new uses that have been adapted from the indigenous plant, nor should their safety be assessed in combination with such new products. Bans on indigenous products may well be overbroad if they do not differentiate between traditional (quite possibly safe) uses and new (perhaps not-so-safe) uses.https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/book_sections/1113/thumbnail.jp

The Prisoners\u27 Dilemma Posed by Free Trade Agreements: Can Open Access Provisions Provide an Escape?

This article explains why free trade agreements (FTAs) that are not compliant with the spirit of GATT Article XXIV’s requirement that such agreements cover “substantially all the trade” between the parties pose serious challenges for the multilateral trading system. It notes the paradoxical behavior of WTO members in continuing to negotiate such free trade agreements to the detriment of the WTO. It characterizes this paradox as a form of Prisoners’ Dilemma, in that although members would be better off pursuing trade liberalization via the WTO, their dominant strategy is to pursue FTAs. The article goes on to propose a pragmatic solution to resolve the dilemma that attempts to navigate the difficulties posed by both retrospective and prospective solutions

The TPP and the RCEP (ASEAN+6) as Potential Paths Toward Deeper Asian Economic Integration

Facing the trend of globalization, voices within Asia have been calling for deeper Asian integration. In the international economic context, numerous competing visions have been proffered over the years as to what form that integration should take, and which country or countries should lead that process. Amongst these various possible forms of integration, the Trans-Pacific Partnership has emerged as a contender to expand into a Free Trade Agreement of the Asia-Pacific. Unlike any models proposed previously, the TPP includes the United States, but at present does not include China. In turn, the momentum of the TPP appears to have spurred China to push more actively for its own multiparty grouping, the ASEAN＋6 , currently known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (“RCEP”). In this article, the author analyzes the similarities and differences between these two potential paths towards Asian integration and identifies factors that may influence each agreement’s prospects of expanding further

WTO Winners and Losers: The Trade and Development Disconnect

The World Trade Organization (\u27WTO\u27 or the \u27Organization\u27) is premised upon increasing prosperity by opening markets to greater trade flows. Although the goals of the Organization include enhancing development and reducing poverty, thus far the WTO has had difficulty bridging the gap between its trade expansion focus – exemplified by members’ substantive commitments to provide greater access to their markets – and its desire to promote development – largely framed in aspirational, nonbinding terms. This article explains why current measures to assist developing countries (\u27DCs\u27) are not a complete solution to the trade and development disconnect. It further proposes using the concept of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency as the basis for a framework under which the WTO’s trade and development aims could be pursued in a more integrated fashion by adopting a direct or indirect compensation mechanism