A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)

This submission provides a critical analysis of the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – focusing in particular upon intellectual property and innovation policy. Recommendation 1 RCEP has a broad membership – even with the departure of India from the negotiations. Nonetheless, there remain outstanding tensions between participating nations – most notably, Australia and China. The re-emergence of United States into trade diplomacy will also complicate the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific. Recommendation 2 The closed, secretive negotiations behind RCEP highlight the need for a reform of the treaty-making process in Australia, as well as the need for a greater supervisory role of the Australian Parliament. Recommendation 3 In terms of intellectual property principles and objectives, RCEP promotes foreign investment and trade, and intellectual property protection and enforcement. The agreement needs a stronger emphasis on public policy objectives – such as access to knowledge; the protection of public health; technology transfer; and sustainable development. Recommendation 4 RCEP establishes TRIPS-norms in respect of economic rights under copyright law. Recommendation 5 The agreement does not though enhance copyright flexibilities and defences – particularly in terms of boosting access to knowledge, education, innovation, and sustainable development. Recommendation 6 RCEP provides for a wide range of remedies for intellectual property enforcement – which include civil remedies, criminal offences and procedures, border measures, technological protection measures, and electronic rights management information. Such measures could be characterised as TRIPS+ obligations. Recommendation 7 The electronic commerce chapter of RCEP is outmoded and anachronistic. Its laissez-faire model for dealing with digital trade and electronic commerce is at odds with domestic p