Expanding the P-4 Trade Agreement into a Broader Trans-Pacific Partnership: Implications, Risks and Opportunities
In 2005, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile and Brunei entered into a path-breaking free trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement which is also known as the P-4 Agreement. The agreement contains an open accession provision which explicitly contemplates the expansion of the agreement to include other countries willing to commit to its terms. The expansion of the agreement has important implications for the world trading system. Its broad coverage and open accession provision may suggest that the agreement has the potential to serve as a stepping stone in the path towards further multilateral trade liberalization in the WTO context. On the other hand, expanding the agreement could result in an agreement so powerful that its members no longer consider devoting energies to liberalizing in the WTO context to be of great importance. The article explores some of the unique aspects of the TPP as well as the potential implications of expanding the agreement, both for the East Asian region and for the broader multilateral trading system.
TPP versus ECFA: Similarities, Differences, and China's Strategies
This article analyzes the development of cross-strait economy in the international political and economic contexts. It explores how the fact that the United States promotes the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) would affect the Mainland – Taiwan Economic Cooperative Framework Agreement (ECFA). It explores the similarities and differences between the TPP and the ECFA, probes the possible impacts that the TPP may have on the ECFA, and proposes strategies for China from three perspectives: developing the ECFA energetically, dealing with Taiwan investment diversion, and being open to exploring a legal channel to connect the cross-strait economy with the TPP.
Gender Politics and Research: Male and Female Violence in Intimate Relationships
This article reviews a wide range of research reports on male and female violence in intimate relationships and highlights the political nature of domestic violence research. The authors review incidence and prevalence-based research that uses quantitative surveys and illustrate how quantitative, family-focussed researchers tend to ignore the political and social context of domestic violence and the complex issues of gender and power. The authors argue that understanding the complexities of domestic violence requires clear definitions of what constitutes domestic violence and multi-method approaches to research, using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies.