DOCSLIB.ORG

Issues Arising from the CEPA Between Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macao

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Issues Arising from the CEPA Between Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macao Pace International Law Review Volume 18 Issue 2 Fall 2006 Article 2 September 2006 Closer Integration, Controversial Rules: Issues Arising from the CEPA between Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macao Jiaxiang Hu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended Citation Jiaxiang Hu, Closer Integration, Controversial Rules: Issues Arising from the CEPA between Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macao, 18 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 389 (2006) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol18/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLOSER INTEGRATION, CONTROVERSIAL RULES: ISSUES ARISING FROM THE CEPA BETWEEN MAINLAND CHINA, HONG KONG, AND MACAO Jiaxiang Hut I. Introduction ....................................... 389 II. A Retrospective View of the Trade Relations Between Mainland China, Hong Kong, and M acao ............................................. 390 III. Legal Status of the CEPA Agreements ............ 393 IV. Controversial Rules in the CEPA Agreements ..... 395 V. The Economic Analysis of a Regional Trade Arrangem ent ...................................... 400 VI. Conclusion ......................................... 406 I. INTRODUCTION On June 29, 2003, the central government of the People's Republic of China and the government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region signed the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA).' Then, on October 17, 2003, with the same title and almost the same contents, the Chinese central t PhD (Edinburgh University, UK), Professor of Law, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. No. 800, Dong Chuan Road, Min Hang District, Shanghai, P. R. China, 200240. Email: [email protected]. I am deeply grateful to Professor Dar- ren Rosenblum of Pace University School of Law for his helpful recommendations and the previous Editor-in-Chief, Nikki Feit, of Pace International Law Review for her careful editing of this article. However, the responsibility for any possible er- rors is still mine. 1 Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA), P.R.C.-H.K., June 29, 2003 translated at http://www.tid.gov.hk/english/ cepa/legaltext/fulltext.html [hereinafter Hong Kong CEPA]; Mainland and Macao Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA), P.R.C.-Mac., Oct. 17, 2003 translated at http://www.economia.gov.mo/page/english/cepa-e.htm [hereinafter Macao CEPA]. Please note that there are no official English versions of these doc- uments. See http://www.zhuhai-trade.gov.cn/cepa/ (Chinese version). The titles are translated into English by the author. 1 PACE INT'L L. REV. [Vol. 18:389 government signed a similar agreement, Closer Economic Part- nership Arrangement (CEPA),2 with the government of Macao Special Administrative Region.3 Both arrangements have been in effect since January 1, 2004. These two documents indicate a substantial step to further integrate the economies of mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macao. After China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) on December 11, 2001, 4 the two CEPA agreements have aroused much attention from both the academic and business circles, particularly regarding their ef- fects on economic development in these three areas. Further- more, the issue of whether the rules in the CEPA agreements are in conformity with the provisions of the WTO agreements also merits attention. In the following sections, the author ex- amines the CEPA agreements, particularly Articles 7 and 8, as they apply to the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 5 the Anti-dumping Agreement, 6 and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.7 II. A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW OF THE TRADE RELATIONS BETWEEN MAINLAND CHINA, HONG KONG, AND MACAO Since mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macao have all ob- tained full membership in the WTO, the current trade relations among them are regulated not only by bilateral agreements like CEPA, but also by the WTO agreements. The WTO has both 2 Macao CEPA, supra note 1. 3 Id. 4 See Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1995, 33 I.L.M. 1125, 1144, reprinted in THE RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND OF MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS: THE LEGAL TEXTS 11 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1999) (hereinafter WTO Agreement). Hong Kong and Macao acceded to the WTO as original Members in 1994 under Article XI of the WTO Agreement. See id. 5 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Oct. 30, 1947, 55 U.N.T.S. 194 [hereinafter GATT]. 6 Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, in Annex 1A of Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1995, reprinted in THE RESULTS OF THE URU- GUAY ROUND OF MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS: THE LEGAL TEXTS 147 (Cam- bridge Univ. Press 1999) (hereinafter Anti-Dumping Agreement). 7 See Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, in Annex 1A of Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1995, reprintedin THE RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND OF MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGO- TIATIONS: THE LEGAL TEXTS 231 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1999) (hereinafter Agree- ment on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures). https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol18/iss2/2 2 20061 CLOSER INTEGRATION, CONTROVERSIAL RULES 391 sovereign States and separate customs territories as its Mem- bers, a fact which can be traced back to the GATT history. When the original General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was signed in 1947, there were only twenty-three signa- tories." Many countries, before they gained full independence, were the colonies of western powers. They became GATT con- tracting parties with the sponsorship of their suzerain States under Article XXXIII of GATT 1947, which states: A government not party to this Agreement, or a government act- ing on behalf of a separate customs territory possessing full au- tonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations and of the other matters provided for in this Agreement, may accede to this Agreement, on its own behalf or on behalf of that territory, on terms to be agreed between such government and the CON- TRACTING PARTIES. Decisions of the CONTRACTING PAR- TIES under this paragraph shall be taken by a two-thirds 9 majority. Among this group of GATT "contracting parties" are Hong Kong and Macao. 10 According to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, 1 signed December 19, 1984, after the Chinese government resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong on July 1, 1997, "[t]he Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will retain the status of a free port and a separate customs territory."12 The Declara- tion further states that "[ulsing the name of 'Hong Kong, China', the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may on its own maintain and develop economic and cultural relations and conclude relevant agreements with States, regions and rel- evant international organizations."1 3 These principles are reaf- 8 See GATT, supra note 5. In his book, THE CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNA- TIONAL LAW, James Crawford made an estimate that shortly before World War II, there were only about seventy-five States on the earth. See JAMES CRAWFORD, THE CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1 (Oxford Univ. Press 1979). 9 See GATT, supra note 5, at art. XXXIII. 10 Hong Kong and Macao became GATT separate territories under the spon- sorship of United Kingdom and Portugal, their former suzerain States. 11 The Joint Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the Question of Hong Kong, Dec. 19, 1984, translatedat http://www.info.gov.hk- trans/jd/jd2.htm [hereinafter the Sino-British Joint Declaration]. 12 Id. at Point 3(6). 13 Id. at Point 3(10). 3 PACE INT'L L. REV. [Vol. 18:389 firmed in similar words in Article 116 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong. 14 On April 13, 1987, the Chinese government and the Portu- guese government signed the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declara- tion. 15 Point 2(8) of the Declaration stipulates that after the Chinese government resumes the exercise of sovereignty over Macao on December 20, 1999, "[t]he Macao Special Administra- tive Region will remain a free port and a separate customs terri- tory in order to develop its economic activities."16 The Declaration further states that "[u]sing the name 'Macao, China', the Macao Special Administrative Region may, on its own, maintain and develop economic and cultural relations and in this context conclude agreements with States, regions and relevant international organizations."1 7 Similar wording can also be found in Article 112 of the Basic Law of the Macao.18 Before China became a full member of the WTO, trade reg- ulations between mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macao were different from trade relations between China and other coun- tries. In other words, Hong Kong and Macao received more preferential treatment than other countries under the Chinese domestic law. As China was "poised to finalize its WTO acces- sion process, some small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Hong Kong feared that they would lose their competitive edge over foreign companies once China's market fully opened up."' 9 Therefore, the SME's pressed the Chinese central government and the governments of Hong Kong and Macao to maintain this special preferential treatment even after China entered the 14 The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peo- ple's Republic of China, April 4, 1990, available at http://www.info.gov.hk/basic- law/fulltext/content0205.htm [hereinafter The Basic Law of Hong Kong]. 15 The Joint Declaration of the People's Republic of China and the Govern- ment of the Republic of Portugal on the Question of Macao, Apr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Executive Office of the President Office of the United States Trade Representative Washington, D.C
    EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508 ADDENDUM Rev. October 4, 2004 The following changes have taken effect since the March 1999 printing of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Guidebook: CHANGES IN THE LIST OF GSP BENEFICIARIES BENEFICIARY ACTION EFFECTIVE REFERENCE ISSUE DATE Cambodia Add to ASEAN Jul 1, 1999 64 FR 36229-35 7-02-99 Congo (Brazzaville)Change Name Jul 1, 1999 64 FR 36229-35 Congo (Kinshasa) Change Name from Zaire J ul 1, 1999 64 FR 36229-35 Gabon Designate BDC Jul 1, 1999 64 FR 36229-35 Mauritania Reinstate (LDBDC) Sep 1, 1999 64 FR 36229-35 Mongolia Designate BDC Jul 1, 1999 64 FR 36229-35 Zaire Change Name to Congo (Kinshasa) “ 64 FR 36229-35 Belarus Suspend Sep 11, 2000 65 FR 42595-96 7-10-00 French Polynesia Graduate Jan 1, 2002 65 FR 42595-96 Malta Graduate Jan 1, 2002 65 FR 42595-96 New Caledonia Graduate Jan 1, 2002 65 FR 42595-96 Slovenia Graduate Jan 1, 2002 65 FR 42595-96 Nigeria Designate BDC Aug 27, 2000 65 FR 52903 8-30-00 AGOA beneficiariesDesignate AGOA BDCs Oct 2, 2000 65 FR 59321-27 10-04-00 Eritrea Designate BDC Oct 2, 2000 65 FR 59321-27 AGOA beneficiariesDesignate AGOA BDCs Dec 21, 2000 65 FR 80723-32 12-21-00 Symbol “D” in HTSUS Georgia Designate BDC Jul 1, 2001 66 FR 35365 7-05-01 Ukraine Suspend Aug 24, 2001 66 FR 42246-50 8-10-01 Afghanistan Designate BDC Jan 29, 2003 68 FR 1949-54 1-14-03 Afghanistan Designate LDBDC Feb 13, 2003 68 FR 1949-54 Chile Terminate-FTA Jan 1, 2004 Free Trade Agreement Algeria Designate BDC
    [Show full text]
  • China As a Hybrid Influencer: Non-State Actors As State Proxies COI HYBRID INFLUENCE COI
    Hybrid CoE Research Report 1 JUNE 2021 China as a hybrid influencer: Non-state actors as state proxies COI HYBRID INFLUENCE COI JUKKA AUKIA Hybrid CoE Hybrid CoE Research Report 1 China as a hybrid influencer: Non-state actors as state proxies JUKKA AUKIA 3 Hybrid CoE Research Reports are thorough, in-depth studies providing a deep understanding of hybrid threats and phenomena relating to them. Research Reports build on an original idea and follow academic research report standards, presenting new research findings. They provide either policy-relevant recommendations or practical conclusions. COI Hybrid Influence looks at how state and non-state actors conduct influence activities targeted at Participating States and institutions, as part of a hybrid campaign, and how hostile state actors use their influence tools in ways that attempt to sow instability, or curtail the sovereignty of other nations and the independence of institutions. The focus is on the behaviours, activities, and tools that a hostile actor can use. The goal is to equip practitioners with the tools they need to respond to and deter hybrid threats. COI HI is led by the UK. The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats tel. +358 400 253 800 www.hybridcoe.fi ISBN (web) 978-952-7282-78-6 ISBN (print) 978-952-7282-79-3 ISSN 2737-0860 June 2021 Hybrid CoE is an international hub for practitioners and experts, building Participating States’ and institutions’ capabilities and enhancing EU-NATO cooperation in countering hybrid threats, located in Helsinki, Finland. The responsibility for the views expressed ultimately rests with the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on Goods and Services
    A-1 INFORMATION ON GOODS AND SERVICES GOODS (CENSUS BASIS) Quarterly Revisions to Chain-Weighted Dollar Series: For March, June, September, and December statistical month Data for goods on a Census basis are compiled from the releases, revisions are made to the real chained-dollar series documents collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection presented in Exhibits 10 and 11: the previous five months are and reflect the movement of goods between foreign countries revised to incorporate the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ revisions and the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. to price indexes, which are used to produce the real chained- Virgin Islands, and U.S. Foreign Trade Zones. They include dollar series and to align Census data with data published by the government and non-government shipments of goods and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in the National exclude shipments between the United States and its territories Income and Product Accounts (NIPAs). and possessions; transactions with U.S. military, diplomatic, and consular installations abroad; U.S. goods returned to the United Annual Revisions: Each June, not seasonally adjusted goods States by its Armed Forces; personal and household effects of data are revised to redistribute monthly data that arrived too late travelers; and in-transit shipments. The General Imports value for inclusion in the month of transaction. In addition, revisions reflects the total arrival of merchandise from foreign countries are made to reflect corrections received subsequent to the that immediately enters consumption channels, warehouses, or monthly revisions. Seasonally adjusted data are also revised to Foreign Trade Zones.
    [Show full text]
  • Back Ground of the Single Customs Territory
    The EAC Single Customs Territory KENNETH BAGAMUHUNDA DIRECTOR CUSTOMS EAC Over View of EAC Customs Union CU commenced in 2005 Implementation of the CU has been progressive Asymmetric approach in tariff elimination in the 1st 5 years Directorate of Customs at EAC Secretariat coordinates policy and monitors implementation. Customs Administration responsible for day to day operations. Policy and Legal Framework Common Policy framework premised on the CU Protocol Common Customs Instruments EAC Common External Tariff, EAC Customs Management Law, EAC Common Customs Procedures- aligned to International standards Single Customs Territory is the Consolidation level of the CU Purpose: Free circulation of goods with minimum internal customs border controls Enhance trade facilitation by eliminating trade barriers and reduce cost of doing business Promote intra trade and investment Implementation of the EAC SCT Commenced in January 2014 after adoption of the SCT Framework Based on the Destination Model – clearance processes done at destination Partner State Goods are cleared upon arrival at the 1st point of entry and Released from the first point of entry Covers all customs regimes of direct home-use, warehousing, transit, export, intra-EAC trade and temporary imports Customs Staff of Destination Countries are deployed at ports of 1st Entry. Technical Working Groups and Liaison offices in all Customs administrations SCT Process manual has been developed Success factors Minimal internal border control Use of a single bond across
    [Show full text]
  • SINGLE CUSTOMS TERRITORY Frequently Asked Questions
    URA SINGLE CUSTOMS TERRITORY Frequently Asked questions Vol. 1, Issue 1 FY 2015/16 2 SINGLE CUSTOMS TERRITORY What is Single Customs Territory? A Single Customs Territory is a stage in the full attainment of the Customs Union achievable through removal of trade restrictions including minimization of internal border controls on goods moving between partner states. Why SCT? It is about achieving free circulation of goods in the Customs Territory in or- der to reduce the cost of doing business. What are the features of SCT? . Goods are cleared at the first point of entry; . Customs declarations are made once at the destination country; . Taxes are paid at the point of destination when goods are still at the first point of entry; . Goods are moved under a single bond from the port to destination; . Goods are monitored through Electronic Cargo Tracking System (ECTS); . Interconnected Customs systems; . Minimized internal controls / checks at internal borders. When is SCT going to be implemented? The SCT commenced on 1st January 2014 as a pilot on the Northern Corridor. The pilot on the Central Corridor commenced in April 2014 and full roll- out for the whole of the EAC is planned for December 2015. What are the benefits from the SCT? . Reduces cost of doing business by eliminating duplication of processes; . Reduces administrative costs and regulatory requirements; . Facilitates the free movement of goods, labour, services and capital as envisaged under the Common market; . Promotes foreign, domestic and cross border investment; SINGLE CUSTOMS TERRITORY 3 . Enhances trade in locally produced goods particularly agricultural goods from areas of surplus to areas of deficit; .
    [Show full text]
  • Rise of China and the Cross-Strait Relations by Philip Yang National Taiwan University
    tik 5th Europe-Northeast Asia Forum i The Taiwan Strait and Northeast Asian Security Berlin, 15-17 December 2005 A conference jointly organised by Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), Berlin, the Korean Institute for International Studies (KIIS), Seoul, and the Federal Ministry of Defence, Berlin Discussion Paper Do Note Cite or Quote without Author’s Permission ftung Wissenschaft und Pol Sti Rise of China and the Cross-Strait Relations by Philip Yang National Taiwan University German Institute for International and Security Affairs SWP Ludwigkirchplatz 3–4 10719 Berlin Phone +49 30 880 07-0 Fax +49 30 880 07-100 www.swp-berlin.org In East Asia, the rise of China has dominated most regional policy discussion and deliberation. In almost every field of regional concerns, China’s rise has posed new challenges and brought profound implications. The impacts of China's rise on cross-strait relations are also heatedly discussed in Taiwan’s academia as well as media. China’s surging economy and newfound political clout expand its tool box in handling cross-strait relations and complicate U.S. role in dealing with the cross-strait political and military stalemate. With its missile deployments directed at Taiwan and the adoption of an anti-secession law threatening the use of force to deter Taiwan’s pursuance of de jure independence, China’s coercive cross-strait policy could severely challenge the island and its most important ally, the United States. However, China’s rising economic power and political status in the region have also been translated into a growing pool of “soft” power, affording Beijing increasing leverage on cross-strait issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Taiwan Issue and the Normalization of US-China Relations Richard Bush, Brookings Institution Shelley Rigger, Davidson Colleg
    The Taiwan Issue and the Normalization of US-China Relations Richard Bush, Brookings Institution Shelley Rigger, Davidson College The Taiwan Issue in US-China Normalization After 1949, there were many obstacles to normalization of relations between the United States and the new People’s Republic of China (PRC), but Taiwan was no doubt a key obstacle. The Kuomintang-led Republic of China (ROC) government and armies had retreated there. Washington maintained diplomatic relations with the ROC government and, in 1954-55, acceded to Chiang Kai-shek’s entreaties for a mutual defense treaty. After June 1950 with the outbreak of the Korean conflict, the United States took the position that the status of the island of Taiwan— whether it was part of the sovereign territory of China—was “yet to be determined.” More broadly, PRC leaders regarded the United States as a threat to their regime, particularly because of its support for the ROC, and American leaders viewed China as a threat to peace and stability in East Asia and to Taiwan, which they saw as an ally in the containment of Asian communism in general and China in particular. It was from Taiwan’s Ching Chuan Kang (CCK) airbase, for example, that U.S. B-52s flew bombing missions over North Vietnam. By the late 1960s, PRC and U.S. leaders recognized the strategic situation in Asia had changed, and that the geopolitical interests of the two countries were not in fundamental conflict. Jimmy Carter and Deng Xiaoping not only reaffirmed that assessment but also recognized a basis for economic cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Territories of the World for Use in International Merchandise Trade Statistics
    ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/30/Rev.3 Department of Economic and Social Affairs ● Statistics Division Studies in Methods Series M, No. 30, Rev. 3 ____________________________________________________________ Statistical Territories of the World for use in International Merchandise Trade Statistics ____________________________________________________________ United Nations ● New York, 2000 NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Copyright © United Nations 2000 All rights reserved CONTENTS Paragraphs Page Introduction 1-14 1 List of questions 4 Explanation of concepts used in or related to the questionnaire 8-14 5 Statistical territories of the world 8 ANNEX Agencies and persons responsible for the completion of the statistical territories questionnaire 76 iii INTRODUCTION 1. The United Nations Statistical Commission at its twenty-ninth session (11-14 February 1997) decided that a revision of Customs Areas of the World should be one of the priorities in methodological work in the area of international trade statistics. 1 Following this decision of the Commission, the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) conducted a survey of countries to collect information regarding their statistical territories. 2. In cooperation with members of the Task Force on International Trade Statistics, 2 UNSD developed a special questionnaire which was sent to countries on 11 May 1999. By May 2000, 128 countries had responded. 3. This publication contains a list of the questions which were contained in the questionnaire; an explanation of concepts used or related to the questions; country responses 3 organized in alphabetical order; and an annex listing agencies and persons responsible for completion of the questionnaire.
    [Show full text]
  • IV. SECTORAL TRADE POLICIES (1) 1. Jamaica Continues to Use Trade
    WT/TPR/S/42 Trade Policies Review Page 84 IV. SECTORAL TRADE POLICIES (1) OVERVIEW 1. Jamaica continues to use trade policies and incentive schemes geared at promoting specific sectors. The National Industrial Policy identifies these sectors, focusing on activities where a comparative advantage is perceived to exist, such as tourism and on identifying others where it could be developed through policy actions, such as data processing and systems development. 2. Traditionally, Jamaica's endowments led to the development of activities linked to certain agricultural crops and minerals. Although agriculture and mining remain important, both sectors have lost GDP share to services and manufacturing. A number of incentives promote activity in manufacturing, including income tax exemptions, and import duty concessions for production for export outside of CARICOM. The main exporter in manufacturing is the textiles and clothing subsector, although the industry has been suffering from a loss of competitiveness and inability to fill bilateral export quotas in the past few years. A substantial part of the garment industry is located in free zones. 3. Jamaica's tariff structure offers higher levels of protection to goods with high value added and to agricultural products (Chart IV.1). Goods used as inputs are generally granted duty-free access. 4. The services sector is the largest and fastest growing in the Jamaican economy. Among services, tourism is the main earner of foreign exchange, generating around US$1.13 billion in 1997. After a period of privatization and reform, activities in the services sector have been largely liberalized, few restrictions remain and national treatment is prevalent.
    [Show full text]
  • IP Factsheet: Mainland China
    FACTSHEET 1. THE FACTS: Business in Mainland China for EU Companies • Size of Market • Key INDUSTRY SECTORS 2. IPR in Mainland China for SMEs: BACKGROUND • Intellectual Property Rights for SMEs: Why is this RELEVANT to you? • How does Mainland China’s IP legal framework compare to INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS? 3. IP Rights in Mainland China THE BASICS A. Copyright B. Patents C. Trade Marks D. Geographical Indications (GIs) E. Trade Secrets 4. Using CUSTOMS to block counterfeits 5. Enforcing of rights • Administrative actions • Civil Litigation • Criminal Prosecution 6. RELATED LINKS and Additional Information IP Factsheet: Mainland China For free, confidential, business-focused IP An initiative advice within three working days E-mail: of the [email protected] 2 CHINA IPR SME HELPDESK - IP FACTSHEET: MAINLAND CHINA 1. THE FACTS: Business in Mainland China for EU Companies (Source: DG Trade) 604 394 210 SIZE of Market : EU exports to Mainland China: EUR 210 billion EU imports from Mainland China: EUR 394 billion Total trade in goods: EUR 604 billion • Mainland China is the EU’s second largest trading partner, after the USA. • The EU is China’s largest trading partner. Key INDUSTRY SECTORS: • EU exports to Mainland China are dominated by machinery and equipment, motor vehicles, aircraft, and chemicals. • Mainland China’s key export items to the EU include machinery and equipment, footwear and clothing, furniture and lamps, and toys. 3 IP TIPS and WATCH-OUTS in Mainland China 2. IPR in Mainland China for SMEs: BACKGROUND • IP laws are territorial, meaning that IP is enforceable in China only upon valid domestic registration.
    [Show full text]
  • Involuntary Migrants, Political Revolutionaries and Economic Energisers: a History of the Image of Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia GORDON C
    Journal of Contemporary China (2005), 14(42), February, 55–66 Involuntary Migrants, Political Revolutionaries and Economic Energisers: a history of the image of overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia GORDON C. K. CHEUNG* Along the contemporary migration history of the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, three distinctive images have been constructed through the interaction between the overseas Chinese and Mainland China. First, the image of involuntary migrant, formulated by their migration activity and the continuous remittance they sent back to their hometowns, closely linked to the political and social-economic disturbances in the early years of the twentieth century. Second, the image of the overseas Chinese as political revolutionary was heavily politicised by the revolutionary policies of Mainland China in the 1950s and 1960s. Third, through the operational means of foreign direct investment, the overseas Chinese image of economic energiser was re-focused and mirror-imaged with the imperative of the economic reform of Mainland China in the 1970s and 1980s. On the one hand, the images of involuntary migrant, political revolutionary and economic energiser of the Southeast Asian overseas Chinese describe their situational status. On the other hand, these images also reflect the contemporary historical development of Mainland China. Whatever the reasons for studying the Overseas Chinese, there is no doubt that they are a bona fide object of research. The diversity of cultures represented by these people, the diversity of settings in which they have found themselves, the wide differences in the histories of specific Chinese ‘colonies’, all of these things make them a fascinating laboratory for social scientists of various disciplinary bents.1 In Southeast Asia the capitalists were the Chinese.
    [Show full text]