• East Asian Economic Review
• /
• 제20권4호
• /
• pp.447-467
• /
• 2016

The RTAs with trade facilitation provisions have been expected to generate a larger net trade-creating effect and complement the discriminatory feature of RTAs but have yet to be empirically proven. Recognizing the limitations of existing studies, we conducted a quantitative analysis on the effects of RTAs with and without trade facilitation provisions on both intra- and extra-bloc trade by using a modified gravity equation. We applied the Poisson Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood (PPML) estimation with time varying exporter and importer fixed effect method to panel data consisting of 45,770 country pairs covering 170 countries for 2000-2010. We found that the trade facilitation provisions in existing RTAs are non-discriminatory by generating more intra- and extra-bloc trade in general. In particular, we found that the trade effects of RTAs in the APEC region are much stronger than the general case covering all RTAs in the world. In addition, as we control the trade effect of a country's trade facilitation, which is ranked by the World Bank's logistic performance index, RTAs consisting of trade facilitation provisions are discriminatory for trade in final goods and non-discriminatory for trade in intermediate goods. Overall, we endeavor to "explain," instead of "hypothesizing," why most of the recent RTAs contain trade facilitation provisions, especially in light of the deepening regional interdependence through trade in parts and components under global value chains and support the necessity of multilateralizing RTAs by implementing non-discriminatory trade facilitation provisions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.589-616
• /
• 2016

The reviewing of an analysis of the Korea-China FTA due to guidance introduced for the new regulations or exceptional regulations compared to the KORUS, Korea-EU, Korea-ASEAN FTA. Commodity sectors in the Korea-China FTA and the KORUS, Korea-EU, Korea-ASEAN FTA(the majority in the country and trade criteria analysis result) compared and analyzed the results, rules of origin and the customs clearance procedures of origin, preferential tariff rate of origin and the origin preferential specific rules are somewhat difference, but customs and trade facilitation regulations are already quite consistent with the Korea customs system. Relatively important research results were as follows. First, the calculation of the regional value content in KORCHINA FTA is that I'm to use the deduction method can comprehensively reflect a regional value ratio, with respect to the materials acquired originating status as the FTA in the US and EU use the product non it's not to consider the value of the originating materials originating materials can be utilized for intermediate goods. Second, even if a non-treaty country in the middle with the exception of direct transport rules, and acknowledge the country of origin are under customs control, there are provisions for the period are temporarily stored in a non-treaty countries separately, that period goods imported into the non-treaty countries and up to three months from the day. If the situation of the occurrence of force majeure be greater than three months, but has so exceed six months. Third, the materials acquired originating status in the Korea-China FTA not to consider the value of non-originating materials used in its products as the KORUS FTA and Korea-EU FTA, that can be utilized originating materials for intermediate goods. It is expected that higher utilization of rules of origin. Meanwhile, Korea-China FTA has provisions to allow requests for preferential tariff applied on imports Customs declaration of intention to apply pre-condition for a preferential tariff applied to the importer. In other words, if the import customs tariff preference when applying post-intention not to advance is to be noted that any preferential treatment to prevent the later application.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This study mainly investigates two potential legal regimes expected to govern the use of electronic bills of lading: the Rotterdam Rules (2009) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (2017). Widespread use of electronic bills of lading has been unsuccessful partly due to the absence of a uniform legal regime and protracted uncertainties. This paper aims to carry out an assessment of the possibilities where either of two potential legal regimes could provide certainty to the effect and validity of the use of electronic bills of lading, and contribute to the facilitation of electronically transferring the rights to goods carried by sea. Design/methodology - This paper first introduces two legal instruments and the relevance to electronic bills of lading. Since neither of these legal instruments has yet entered into force, the following section looks into the ratification or enactment possibilities based on a literature review and track records of the past legal regimes of the same kind. Assessment of the different adoption possibilities further requires comparative work of the two legal instruments, which will be based on an analysis of relevant provisions and a literature review. The literature review on the Rotterdam Rules delves into various studies and data produced since the UNCITRAL's adoption in 2009. The literature review on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records heavily relies on UNCITRAL working group documents from 2011 to 2017 together with the final explanatory note. Findings - The main findings can be summarized as follows. Application of the Rotterdam Rules would negate the role of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records assisting in the implementation of the Rotterdam Rules due to some conflicting issues. Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law alone can sufficiently provide a higher level of certainty in the use and effect of electronic bills of lading so long as lawmakers and parties are aware of some issues with the application. What concerns potential users most is the extension of the status quo, where neither of the legal instruments have any effect. It is necessary to take a number of alternatives into consideration, such as promotion of standard clauses and confirmation by a court ruling. Originality/value - Existing studies focus either on the Rotterdam Rules or on the UNCITRAL Model Law, but not both. Not many papers have yet dealt with the Model Law, which was adopted by UNCITRAL only 2 years ago, particularly in the context of a potential legal regime for electronic bills of lading. This paper attempts to introduce the differences between the two legal instruments in regulating the use of electronic bills of lading while providing an assessment of the various possibilities for which parties involved in international trade can be better prepared for the changing legal environment.