This paper examines the significance of “special and differential treatment” (S&D) in the current and future free trade system from the perspective of the theory of plurality of norms. Firstly, it provides an overview of the theory of plurality of norms, which has been used in international law to cross-sectionally analyse the relationship between developed and developing countries across multiple treaty systems. Based on this theory, it clarifies the components and characteristics of S&D in the World Trade Organization (WTO) distinct from the provisions related to developing countries in the General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade (GATT).

Next, this paper examines the changes in the circumstances surrounding S&D, which has become prominent since the 2000s. After analysing the criticisms against S&D in recent years, it will consider S&D in the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, which is attracting attention as a model for the future. Furthermore, it compares S&D under this agreement with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) in the Paris Agreement on climate change. It analyses the significance and issues of the “double self-election approach” that is perceived as common to both systems.

The growing digitalization in the economy and society has brought a variety of impacts and new challenges for international trade. As a result, there is a need for changes or evolutions in trade agreements to adapt to this trend. Shedding light on some of these emerging changes or evolutions in trade agreements, this paper aims to examine the emerging global regulatory environment for digital trade, particularly in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).

To that end, it first provides an overview of the concepts of digital trade and reviews the key impacts and challenges arising from the growth of digital trade. It then examines the extent to which trade agreements are adapting to these challenges by analyzing World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements and FTAs. The FTAs considered here are the advanced FTAs of the “rule-maker” countries that are leading the way in establishing digital trade rules, namely CPTPP, USMCA, DEPA, DEA, UKSDEA, EU-UKTCA, and EUSDTP. In addition, RCEP is also included in the scope, as it covers major trading partners.

Based on the results of the research, the paper presents the following conclusions: firstly, the state of mutual interaction between agreements in the formation of digital trade rules; secondly, the extension of the reach of trade agreements brought about by digital trade and the implications thereof; thirdly, the increasing presence of the “right to regulate” in trade agreements in consonance with the emergence of digital trade rules; and fourthly, the need for increased stakeholder participation in the regulation of digital trade.

Triggered by the global spread of COVID-19 (hereafter, “COVID-19 pandemic”), the relationship between international trade rules and infectious disease control measures with access to medicine that constitutes an element of such measures, has once again been tabled for discussion in domestic and foreign forums, and the appropriateness of conventional responses and future direction have come under review. A wide range of trade measures were adopted to secure medical products that contribute to COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and immune-boosting, ranging from export and import restrictions as well as bilateral trade that was criticized as “vaccine nationalism,” to free donations to other countries/regions or to multilateral international organizations such as the COVAX Facility (hereafter, “COVAX”), exemption from protection for some intellectual property rights related to medical products based on the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), and further, application for import of vaccines based on Article 31bis of the TRIPS Agreement. International organizations, including the World Trade Organization (WTO), are gathering and analyzing information on the various measures implemented at the national level and providing feedback on such measures, and at the same time, considering international rules such as the WTO Ministerial Conference decision on the exemption of the protection of COVID-19 vaccine-related patent rights, and World Health Organization (WHO)’s proposed convention on infectious disease control measures. This paper aims to shed light on the development and challenges of infectious disease control measures in trade systems through the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper looks back historically at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) /World Trade Organization (WTO) system and examines the position and role of the security exception clause, which has been the focus of much attention in recent years. The GATT period coincided with the Cold War era, when the Soviet Union (USSR) and China were not GATT contracting parties, and trade restrictive measures against the USSR and China were outside the scope of the GATT law. Therefore, there was little need to justify export restrictions in the context of geopolitical conflicts under the security exception clause. In addition, since the GATT dispute settlement procedure adopted the consensus approach, the interpretation and application of the security exception clause was unlikely to be challenged before a panel, and the function that the clause had to fulfill in the GATT regime was relatively small. In the period of globalization when the WTO was established, China and Russia also joined the WTO. However, after the end of the Cold War, export control measures such as the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) regulations were no longer in place, so there was no need to justify such measures by the security exception clauses. In the post-globalization period, however, the conflict between liberal and democratic economies and state-controlled and authoritarian economies became apparent within the WTO system, and the relationship between trade restriction measures taken against the background of geopolitical conflict and security exception clauses became the focus of attention. In addition, since the WTO dispute settlement procedure adopts a negative consensus approach, the use of the security exception clause has been judicially reviewed by panels. However, the US has taken the position that the security exception clause is self-judging in nature and is trying to ensure the freedom of its own national security policy.

The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) regulation, which entered into force on 17 May 2023, establishes a system that requires the surrender of CBAM certificates corresponding to the amount of embedded CO₂ emissions of import goods produced outside the EU. The aim is to curb carbon leakage, which has become a concern with the abolition of free allocations in emissions trading within the EU region. As such a system has the effect of restricting trade, there is a need to ensure that it is consistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. On the other hand, if the WTO were to strongly deny such a system for violation of its agreements, it risks being perceived as sending out the wrong message that it is an organization that hinders proactive efforts to address global warming. Therefore, this paper analyzes how the CBAM is appraised under WTO agreements and explores how it should ideally be dealt with. The results of the analysis in this paper conclude that under the existing legal system, there is a possibility that CBAM regulation may be found to be in violation of WTO agreements. As such, it is necessary to consider resolving the issue by means other than referring it to the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures, and specifically, to consider the utilization of means such as WTO’s Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE).

Three years have passed since the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) entered into force. USMCA is considered the most important tool to achieve a “worker-centered trade policy” advanced by the Biden administration and includes a “Facility-Specific Rapid-Response Labor Mechanism (RRM)” to ensure compliance with obligations under the labor chapter, which had never been included in trade agreements. RRM has already built up a track record of 14 cases and is exerting widespread influence over corporate behavior within the covered areas. Similarly, regarding the environment, continuous efforts can be seen to ensure compliance with environmental obligations through an improvement to a previous mechanism of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The labor and the environment are increasingly being emphasized not only for the protection of their fundamental values, but also from the perspectives of ensuring a level playing field, as well as building a resilient supply chain. The important feature of USMCA labor and environment chapters is having strengthened compliance procedures with the involvement of non-state actors such as trade unions, environmental organizations, and the civil society, in addition to conventional state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism.

Through the consideration of the current status of the compliance mechanisms for the labor and the environment chapters in USMCA, this article shows some developments in the compliance mechanisms included in the labor and the environment chapters of free trade agreements and considers their implication on new U.S.-led negotiations such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF).