중－홍콩 CEPA와 중－대만 ECFA의 비교 연구* －FTA 법적성격을 중심으로－

Abstract

China-Hong Kong CEPA and the China-Taiwan ECFA are preferential trade systems of bilateralism and regionalism which are different from the WTO’s Most Favored Nation Treatment (MFN) and multiateralism. CEPA and ECFA both are types of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) legally based on Article 24 of GATT 1994, understanding of interpretation of Article 24 of GATT 1994, Article 2 and Article 5, Paragraph 2 of GATS of the WTO. The greatest difference between the two is the question of the title of sovereignty. The former is an unequal FTA signed by the legal entity of “One Country, Two Systems” of exclusive tariff territory (Hong Kong) within the same country (China). Meanwhile, the latter is an equal FTA concluded by the legal entity of ‘a special national relationship’ between a country (China) and the other (Taiwan). CEPA is composed of 6 chapters, 23 articles and 6 attached documents including the introduction, general provisions, commodity trade, country of origin, simplification of trade investments, and others. ECFA is organized with 5 chapters, 16 articles, and 5 attached documents starting with the introduction and general provisions, followed by trade and investment, economic cooperation, early liberalization of tariff (early harvest), and others. The purpose of CEPA is to reduce and abolish tariffs and non-tariff barriers of all practical commodity trades between China and Hongkong, promote liberalization of service trades as well as the facilitation of trade investments. On the other hand, ECFA aims to gradually strengthen economy, trade, and investment cooperations between China and Taiwan, and establish liberalization of commodity and service trades, equal, clear and convenient investment, and an economical cooperation mechanism in stages. These include commodity trades, service traces, and investment. However, while CEPA emphasizes regulations on place-of-origin to prevent preferential treatment including tariff removal from leaking out to offshore countries, ECFA recognizes them both as urgent issues and lays stress on the early harvest program, which is to first remove custom tariff from mutually agreed commodity trades and some service trade items. ECFA is closer to the general FTA than CEPA from the viewpoint of equality.’ Still, as a transitional agreement for developing into a higher-level FTA through future negotiations in a ‘perfection of negotiations’ perspective, ECFA keeps a further distance than CEPA which is a package settlement of negotiations. CEPA and ECFA are meaningful not only as singular economic integrations of four independent customs areas of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao, but also as a national integration process aiming for constructing a Greater China. CEPA provides reference data on establishing position of the Gaesung Industrial Complex by international and domestic laws, while ECFA presents the possibility of national unification through economic integration. This is very suggestive to the Republic of Korea, as the North and South continues to stand in hostility.