Implementation of the EU's geographical indications in CETA and JEFTA: EU‐Phoria or GI‐mmick?

Abstract

AbstractOver the last two decades, the EU's foreign trade strategy shifted diametrically from the multilateral World Trade Organization to the bilateral free trade agreements (FTA) route. Accompanying this shift, the EU's regulatory ambitions became more apparent, as can be gleaned from its strategy documents. The main question is whether the EU is succeeding in effectively exporting or promoting its regulations. In this paper, we combine the two disciplines of law and international relations to gauge the EU's success in achieving its external regulatory goals through FTAs. The EU is described in the political science literature as a regulatory power which is trying to promote or export its regulations outside its own jurisdiction. Using two case studies of the recent EU FTAs with Canada and Japan, we conduct a rigorous legal analysis of these FTA texts as well as their implementation in the local jurisdiction by focusing on the area of Geographical Indications (GI). These regulations are compared with the EU's goals mentioned in its strategy documents and from interviews with EU representatives involved in the FTA negotiations. Our results show that the EU has been moderately successful in both FTAs in achieving its general goals such as equal protection for foodstuffs and alcoholic drinks, ex officio protection, and the clawback of some generic names. Overall, the EU was most successful in getting Japan to embrace an EU‐inspired sui generis GI system, whereas Canada showed less leniency and favoured its trademark system.