Just two quick points related to Joel's earlier posts about the "new" U.S. approach to trade policy.
First, according to the USTR fact sheets on labor and the environment, there is to be a requirement that any alleged labor/environment violations must "affect" trade or investment in order to be challenged (as Joel notes). But how broadly will "affect" be interpreted? This is a vague term and dispute settlement panels will have a great deal of latitude in defining the scope. In practice, will every violation of a covered labor or environmental agreement be found to "affect" trade? If not, how will the line be drawn? I wonder whether the actual agreements will try to clarify the term. If it is left open, one side or the other could find an unpleasant surprise in the meaning decided on by a panel.
Second, at a certain point, do we have to come up with a new name for these kinds of agreements other than "free trade agreements"? Certainly trade (and free trade) is still a substantial component. But with IP protection, investment and now labor/environment included, perhaps we need a more accurate title. Maybe "Economic Partnership" agreement?
