The UK’s new free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific: how closely is it adopting US trade regulation?

References

• Abbott, K., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A. M., & Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), 401–419. doi:10.1162/002081800551271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acharya, R. (2016). Regional trade agreements and the multilateral system. Geneva: WTO.
   Google Scholar
• Ahcar, J., & Siroën, J. M. (2017). Deep integration: Considering the heterogeneity of free trade agreements. Journal of Economic Integration, 32(3), 615–659. doi:10.11130/jei.2017.32.3.615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allee, T., & Lugg, A. (2016). Who wrote the rules for the Trans-Pacific Partnership?. Research and Politics, 3(3), 1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alschner, W., & Skougarevskiy, D. (2016). The new gold standard? Empirically situating the Trans-Pacific partnership in the investment treaty universe. Journal of World Investment and Trade, 17(3), 339–373.
   Google Scholar
• Anson, I. G. (2020). Advancing the field of writing analytics: Lessons from “text-as-data” in the social sciences. The Journal of Writing Analytics, 4(1), 1–14. doi:10.37514/JWA-J.2020.4.1.02
   Google Scholar
• Arbia, A. (2013). Templates for trade: Change, persistence and path dependence in US and EU preferential trade agreements. Free University of Berlin, KFG Working Paper Series, No. 51, September. Retrieved from www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/37327.
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics. International Organisation, 59(1), 39–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, A., & Vines, D. (2022). The EU–UK trade and cooperation agreement: Lessons learnt. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 38(1), 68–81. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grab049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhagwati, J. (2008). Termites in the trading system: How preferential agreements undermine free trade, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bhala, R. J. (2017). TPP, American National Security and Chinese SOEs. World Trade Review, 16(4), 655–671. doi:10.1017/S1474745617000258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biegon, R. (2020). US hegemony and the trans-pacific partnership: Consensus, crisis, and common sense. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 13(1), 69–101. doi:10.1093/cjip/poaa001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brakman, S., Garretsen, H., & Kohl, T. (2018). Consequences of Brexit and options for a ‘Global Britain. Papers in Regional Science, 97(1), 55–72. doi:10.1111/pirs.12343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bromley, S. (2003). Reflections on empire, imperialism and United States Hegemony. Historical Materialism, 11(3), 17–68. doi:10.1163/156920603770678300
   Google Scholar
• Broude, T., Haftel, Y. Z., & Thompson, A. (2017). The Trans-Pacific partnership and regulatory space: A comparison of treaty texts. Journal of International Economic Law, 20(2), 391–417. doi:10.1093/jiel/jgx016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burfisher, M. E., Lambert, F., & Matheson, T. (2019). NAFTA to USMCA: What is Gained?, IMF Working Paper Series, No WP/19/73. Washington, DC: IMF.
   Google Scholar
• Capling, A., & Ravenhill, J. (2011). Multilateralising regionalism: What role for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement? The Pacific Review, 24(5), 553–575. doi:10.1080/09512748.2011.634078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for European Policy Reform (CEPR). (2022). What can we know about the cost of Brexit so far?. London: CEPR.
   Google Scholar
• Chander, A. (2018). The coming North American digital trade zone. Council for Foreign Relations Blog. October 9, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/blog/coming-north-american-digital-trade-zone.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, R. W. (1983). Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 12(2), 162–175. doi:10.1177/03058298830120020701
   Google Scholar
• Cox, R. W. (1987). Production, power, and world order. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cygan, A. (2020). De-Europeanisation of UK regulatory governance and the future UK–EU trade relationship. ERA Forum, 20(4), 509–529. doi:10.1007/s12027-020-00599-6
   Google Scholar
• Dalingwater, L. (2021). Britain’s post Brexit trade deals: Taking back control or a threat to sovereignty? Angles, 13(1), 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Dent, C. M. (2006). New free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Dent, C. M. (2010). Free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific a decade on: Evaluating the past, looking to the future. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 10(2), 201–245. doi:10.1093/irap/lcp022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dent, C. M. (2016). East Asian regionalism: 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dent, C. M. (2022). Neoliberal Environmentalism, Climate Interventionism and the Trade-Climate Nexus. Sustainability, 14(23), 15804. doi:10.3390/su142315804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhingra, S., Ottaviano, G., Rappoport, V., Sampson, T., & Thomas, C. (2018). UK trade and FDI: A post‐Brexit perspective. Papers in Regional Science, 97(1), 9–24. doi:10.1111/pirs.12345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drezner, D. W. (2007). All politics is global: Explaining international regulatory regimes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elms, D. (2013). The Trans-Pacific partnership: The challenges of unravelling the noodle bowl. International Negotiation, 18(1), 25–47. doi:10.1163/15718069-12341244
   Google Scholar
• Elms, D. (2016). The origins and evolution of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations. Asian Survey, 56(6), 1017–1039. doi:10.1525/as.2016.56.6.1017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Parliament (2021). Short overview of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Brussels: European Parliament.
   Google Scholar
• Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. doi:10.1162/002081898550789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleury, J. S., & Marcoux, J. M. (2016). The US shaping of state-owned enterprise disciplines in the Trans-Pacific partnership. Journal of International Economic Law, 19(2), 445–465. doi:10.1093/jiel/jgw046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, R., Manova, K., Prayer, T., & Sampson, T. (2022). Trade disruptions in the wake of Brexit. CentrePiece, 27(2), 7–9.
   Google Scholar
• Fusacchia, I., Salvatici, L., & Winters, L. A. (2022). The consequences of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement for the UK’s international trade. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 38(1), 27–49. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grab052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz, D. A. (2018). The United States-Mexico-Canada agreement: Overview and analysis. Houston, TX: Baker Institute for Public Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Gaston, S. (2019). The Post-Brexit Paradox of ‘Global Britain’. The Atlantic. 10 June.
   Google Scholar
• Gilpin, R. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, M. P. (2018). From TPP to CPTPP. Washington DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/tpp-cptpp.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, B. K. (2012). Trading up in Asia: Why the United States needs the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Foreign Affairs, 91(4), 17–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J., Roberts, M. E., & Stewart, B. M. (2022). Text as data. Ithaca, NY: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Helble, M. (2017). Salvaging the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Building blocks for regional and multilateral trade opening? Asia Europe Journal, 15(4), 399–416. doi:10.1007/s10308-017-0487-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heron, T., & Siles-Brügge, G. (2021). UK-US trade relations and ‘Global Britain’. The Political Quarterly, 92(4), 732–736. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.13075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, P., & Rollo, J. (2020). EU-UK post-Brexit trade relations: Prosperity versus sovereignty? European Foreign Affairs Review, 25(4), 523–550. doi:10.54648/EERR2020037
   Google Scholar
• Horne, C., & Mollborn, S. (2020). Norms: An integrated framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), 467–487. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054658
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons. (2022). Progress on UK free trade agreement negotiations. House of Commons Library Research Briefings, Number 9314 (December), London.
   Google Scholar
• House of Lords. (2021). UK accession to the CPTPP: Scrutiny of the government’s negotiating objectives. London: House of Lords.
   Google Scholar
• Ji, X., & Rana, P. B. (2019). A deal that does not die: The United States and the rise, fall and future of the (CP)TPP. Pacific Focus, 34(2), 230–255. doi:10.1111/pafo.12143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawharu, A. (2012). The negotiations for a Trans-Pacific partnership agreement. ICSID Review, 27(1), 145–158. doi:10.1093/icsidreview/sis005
   Google Scholar
• Kiely, R. (2006). United States hegemony and globalisation: What role for theories of imperialism? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19(2), 205–221. doi:10.1080/09557570600723647
   Google Scholar
• Kindleberger, C. P. (1981). Dominance and leadership in the international economy: Exploitation, public goods, and free rides. International Studies Quarterly, 25(2), 242–254. doi:10.2307/2600355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggi, G. (2016). Issue linkage. In K. Bagwell and R. Staiger (Eds.), Handbook of Commercial Policy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. London: Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Mercurio, B. (2014). The Trans-Pacific partnership: Suddenly a ‘game changer’. The World Economy, 37(11), 1558–1574. doi:10.1111/twec.12212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morita-Jaeger, M. (2021). Challenges ahead for the UK to join CPTPP. UKTPO blog, 16 April. Retrieved from https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2021/04/16/challenges-ahead-for-the-uk-to-join-cptpp.
   Google Scholar
• Morita-Jaeger, M. (2022). What a digital divide and divergence of data governance in the Asia-Pacific mean for the UK. UKTPO Blog, 4 May. Retrieved from https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2022/05/04/what-a-digital-divide-and-divergence-of-data-governance-in-the-asia-pacific-mean-for-the-uk.
   Google Scholar
• North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). (2022). Brexit analysis: Economic and fiscal outlook, March 2022. London: OBR.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE). (2022). The UK and the global economy after Brexit. Washington DC: PIIE.
   Google Scholar
• Ranald, P. (2015). The Trans-Pacific partnership agreement: Reaching behind the border, challenging democracy. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 26(2), 241–260. doi:10.1177/1035304615580721
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravenhill, J. (2017). The political economy of the Trans-Pacific partnership: A ‘21st Century’ trade agreement? New Political Economy, 22(5), 573–594. doi:10.1080/13563467.2017.1270925
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resolution Foundation. (2022). The Big Brexit: An assessment of the scale of change to come from Brexit, London: Resolution Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Rogowsky, R. A. (2016). Intellectual property in the Trans-Pacific partnership. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 22(2), 123–136.
   Google Scholar
• Sheargold, E., & Mitchell, A. D. (2016). The TPP and good regulatory practices: An opportunity for regulatory coherence to promote regulatory autonomy? World Trade Review, 15(4), 587–612. doi:10.1017/S1474745616000045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siles-Brügge, G. (2019). Bound by gravity or living in a ‘post geography trading world’? Expert knowledge and affective spatial imaginaries in the construction of the UK’s Post-Brexit trade policy. New Political Economy, 24(3), 422–439. doi:10.1080/13563467.2018.1484722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK Department for International Trade. (2021a). UK accession to CPTPP: The UK’s strategic approach. London: DIT.
   Google Scholar
• UK Department for International Trade. (2021b). Impact assessment of the Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia. London: DIT.
   Google Scholar
• UK Department for International Trade. (2022). Impact assessment of the Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and New Zealand. London: DIT.
   Google Scholar
• UK Government. (2021). Global Britain in a competitive age: The integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. London: UK Government.
   Google Scholar
• US Trade Representative Office (USTR). (2011). The Trans-Pacific partnership. Washington, DC: USTR.
   Google Scholar
• US Trade Representative Office (USTR). (2022). Indo-Pacific economic framework for prosperity (IPEF): Pillar I –Trade, Washington, DC: USTR.
   Google Scholar
• Vasudevan, R. (2008). Finance, imperialism, and the hegemony of the dollar. Monthly Review, 59(11), 35–50. doi:10.14452/MR-059-11-2008-04_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White House. (2015). Statement by the President on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, 5 October, Washington, DC: White House.
   Google Scholar
• Wohlfort, W. C. (1999). The stability of a unipolar world. International Security, 24(1), 5–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Trade Organisation (WTO). (2023). Regional trade agreement database. Retrieved from https://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Worth, O. (2015). Rethinking hegemony. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, W. (2021). Rethinking the (CP)TPP as a model for regulation of Chinese state-owned enterprises. Journal of International Economic Law, 24(3), 572–590. doi:10.1093/jiel/jgab030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar