GDyn has been shown to be able to realistically capture dynamics in a variety of ways (Ianchovichina et al. 2014). Footnote 2 In addition, the GDyn model takes into account capital mobility due to specific policy shocks across different channels; First, changes in the fundamentals of these economies, due to trade-facilitated cost reductions, can help to spread investment more or less within a region, depending on the extent to which it has become competitive and investment-friendly. Second, there are direct levers that may shock the extent of policy facilitation that can encourage investment. Even if the jury does not know when and if the mega-regions under negotiation will be successfully concluded, mega-regions and other forms of plurilateral without a revived agenda at the WTO could be the inevitable direction that like-minded countries are taking in a globalized world. They provide a way to facilitate existing trading models and build new ones. They enable businesses and governments to proactively respond to competitive challenges and create trade agreements with a higher common denominator. And when designed with an open architecture, they retain the possibility of eventually achieving a healthier multilateral outcome. Megaregionals are integration partnerships based on partnerships between countries or regions that account for a significant share of global trade and foreign direct investment (FDI). Beyond simply improving trade relations, the agreements aim to improve regulatory compatibility and create a rules-based framework to compensate for differences in investment and business climates.
El-said M (2010) Public health related TRIPS-Plus provisions in bilateral trade agreements: a policy guide for negotiations and implementers in the eastern mediterranean region”. In: Commitments by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) under megaregionals allow for transition periods for developing countries. But they also allow rights and privileges for foreign investors, with the obligation of governments to ensure the protection of these rights. Such obligations can significantly limit a government`s ability to regulate the operation of businesses within its national borders, which can then have an impact on promoting access to medicines and protecting public health in general. In this way, the potential impact of deep investment rules on public health highlights three areas of concern. First, the extensive rights and privileges granted to foreign investors, with the corresponding obligation of Governments to ensure the protection of those rights, are likely to significantly limit the ability of Governments to regulate the operation of enterprises within their national borders. Current disputes over tobacco regulation show the potential public health implications that can result from broad definitions of “investments” and the obligation to protect investors and their investments. Second, investment rules combine strong investor rights and high standards of protection with a dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism that would provide the “teeth” to enforce these obligations. It should also be noted that intellectual property rights are included in the definition of “investment”, which would mean that a government measure that affects investors` stock of intellectual property can be considered an “expropriation” or a denial of “fair and equitable treatment”. This raises concerns about the ability of governments to implement and exploit the range of flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement, many of which could be seen as limitations or limitations on exclusive rights granted under a patent. Although the proposals provide that compulsory licenses do not constitute expropriation if such a license is granted “in accordance with the TRIPS Agreement”, investment companies can still challenge the compulsory license using ISDS on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement.
A related concern is that the broad framework of investor rights and ISDS could provide a legal framework for companies to challenge any government action, resulting in a “deterrent effect” on government regulation and action. Reichenmiller P (2005) Tightening TRIPS: the intellectual property provisions of recent US free trade Agreements. World Bank, Washington, DC. Commercial Note No. 20. Online access: siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/Pubs/TradeNote20.pdf. Assessed on 2 March 2017, these concerns are particularly relevant in the context of the TPP agreement, which has been positioned as a “model” for the twenty-first century, implying that similar provisions are likely to appear in future trade agreements, including those involving developing countries. Analysis of TPP commitments suggests that the agreement reaffirms the commitment of participating countries to the 2001 WTO Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and on Public Health. Interestingly, the TPP contains a specific chapter with commitments that impact the health sector. However, the TPP Agreement contains specific commitments by partners with regard to the provisions on medicines relating to the development of innovative medicines and the availability of generics, which in fact provide for enhanced protection of intellectual property. .