지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 연구보고서
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2015.12
- 수록면
- 1 - 161 (161page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The 12-country’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations were finally concluded on 5 October 2015 through 19 times of official meetings as well as several ministerial meetings and informal meetings. The text of TPP agreement consists of 30 chapters including elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers. In addition, it includes provisions on Rules of Origin, Trade Remedies, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), Investment, Cross Border Trade in Services, Financial Services, Telecommunications, Electronic Commerce, Government Procurement, Competition Policy, State-Owned Enterprises, Intellectual Property, Labour, Environment, Cooperating and Capacity Building, Competition and Business Facilitation, Development, Small and Medium-sized Businesses, Regulatory Coherence, Transparency and Anti-Corruption, Administrative and Institutional Provisions, Dispute Settlement, Exceptions etc.
Since TPP negotiations were focused on opening markets of all goods, TPP was a pressing issue for Korea to which the agricultural industry responds very sensitively. Most of the TPP participants including the US have put efforts to consider internal sensitiveness using various ways. Thus, when we enter TPP, it is expected that Korea will secure a certain level of sensitiveness. On the other hand, it would be not easy to present its bargaining power if Korea participates alone. Moreover, Korea has already concluded Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with most of the TPP participants and the level of tariffs varies depending on the FTAs. This may cause higher level of tariff reduction. Therefore, it is needed to establish a strategy which can secure Korea’s sensitiveness enough by referring to negotiation results among the TPP members.
Given that there are countries which have intention to participate in TPP negotiations such as Taiwan, the Philippines, Colombia, Thailand etc., the second round would be better for Korea to negotiate with new members. Besides, since TPP has set stronger and stricter standards on Rules than existing WTO level, it is expected for Korea to change its overall system. Thus, Korea needs to analyse impact of TPP and prepare more throughly.
Since TPP negotiations were focused on opening markets of all goods, TPP was a pressing issue for Korea to which the agricultural industry responds very sensitively. Most of the TPP participants including the US have put efforts to consider internal sensitiveness using various ways. Thus, when we enter TPP, it is expected that Korea will secure a certain level of sensitiveness. On the other hand, it would be not easy to present its bargaining power if Korea participates alone. Moreover, Korea has already concluded Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with most of the TPP participants and the level of tariffs varies depending on the FTAs. This may cause higher level of tariff reduction. Therefore, it is needed to establish a strategy which can secure Korea’s sensitiveness enough by referring to negotiation results among the TPP members.
Given that there are countries which have intention to participate in TPP negotiations such as Taiwan, the Philippines, Colombia, Thailand etc., the second round would be better for Korea to negotiate with new members. Besides, since TPP has set stronger and stricter standards on Rules than existing WTO level, it is expected for Korea to change its overall system. Thus, Korea needs to analyse impact of TPP and prepare more throughly.
목차
[표지]
[머리말]
[요약]
협정개요
상품양허분야
상품양허분야 외 농산물 관련 주요 내용
시사점
[ABSTRACT]
[차례]
표 차례
부표 차례
부도 차례
[제1장 서론]
1. 연구의 필요성
2. 연구의 목적
3. 연구 내용 및 방법
[제2장 TPP 협상 과정]
1. TPP 배경 및 의의
2. TPP 협상 과정
3. 협정문 구성
[제3장 상품양허분야 협상결과]
1. 호주
2. 브루나이
3. 캐나다
4. 칠레
5. 일본
6. 말레이시아
7. 멕시코
8. 뉴질랜드
9. 페루
10. 싱가포르
11. 미국
12. 베트남
[제4장 상품양허 외 농산물 관련 협상결과]
1. 농산물 수출보조금, 수출신용, 수출신용보증, 수출보험
2. 농산물 수출 국영무역기업
3. TRQ 관리방식
4. 위생 및 식물위생조치(SPS)
[제5장 요약 및 시사점]
[부록]
[참고 문헌]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
TPP가 되면 어떻게 달라질까?
의료와사회
2016 .04
-
지역에 따른 한국의 TPP 가입효과
경영컨설팅연구
2016 .01
-
TPP 협정 상 신규도입 통상규범에 관한 연구
관세학회지
2016 .08
-
Japan's TPP Strategy
[KIEP] World Economy Brief
2018 .02
-
TPP 무역구제규정 분석: WTO협정과 우리나라 FTA와의 비교분석
법학연구
2015 .01
-
양면게임으로 분석한 TPP 가입협상 연구
관세학회지
2018 .05
-
TPP와 일본 통상정책
인하대학교 정석물류통상연구원 연구총서
2017 .02
-
환태평양경제동반자협정(TPP)과 한국의 국가경쟁력
유통경영학회지
2017 .02
-
환태평양경제동반자협정(TPP) 협상에참여한 일본의 입장
대한정치학회보
2016 .01
-
TPP, 일대일로, 그리고 일본
일본공간
2016 .06
-
환태평양경제동반자협정(TPP) 타결에 따른 아태지역 FTA 규범의 수렴
세계지역연구논총
2016 .01
-
미국의 TPP 참가와 타결을 둘러싼 제도적 동학
EU학연구
2015 .01
-
Spillover Effect Analysis of TPP’s Global Value Chain Reorganization on Domestic Employment
무역학회지
2019 .04
-
중국의 TPP에 대한 입장의 변화와 참여 가능성
국제지역연구
2016 .01
-
TPP 투자챕터의 특징 및 법적 쟁점 －한미 FTA 투자챕터와의 비교를 중심으로-
국제거래법연구
2015 .01
-
TPP협정 상품무역 분야 활용 가능성 분석
한국동북아논총
2016 .06
-
TPP 타결에 대한 중국 내 평가와 대응
[KIEP] 북경사무소브리핑
2015 .10
-
TPP협정의 환경보호 및 생물다양성 보전 관련 조항의 해석 및 적용
법학논집
2016 .12
-
An Impact of Korea's TPP Participation on Its Agricultural Sector
농업경제연구
2015 .01
-
우리나라의 TPP 가입 전략과 과제
한국무역학회 학술대회
2015 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-522-001338443