On 16 April 2010, the negotiating countries issued a joint statement that they had unanimously agreed to make the consolidated text as defined in this round of negotiations available to the public by 21 April. It was also decided not to publish individual negotiating positions of countries.  The final draft text was published on 20 April 2010.  The final text was published on 15 November 2010 and published in English, French and Spanish on 15 April 2011.  Fredrik Erixon and Matthias Bauer of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) write that Tufts` analysis has such serious flaws “that its results should not be considered reliable or realistic.”  You write that the Tufts model “is on the whole a demand-driven model that makes no effort to capture the supply-side effects of trade, which are the effects that have proven to be the positive fundamental effects of trade liberalization. Equally problematic is that the model is not designed to assess the impact of trade agreements on trade – in fact, the model is profoundly unsuitable for such an exercise. No trade economist, regardless of his school of thought, has ever used this model to make estimates of trade. The reason for this is simple: if a model cannot predict the impact of trade liberalization on trade flows and the pattern of trade, it is useless at all.  They add: “According to Capaldo`s analysis, structural change and the emergence of new industries play no role. Capaldo implicitly assumes that an economy with its labor and capital does not respond to new circumstances and does not adapt. New competition only leads to new unemployment. In addition, the impact of reducing barriers to international trade on product and process innovations is overlooked.
Finally, Capaldo does not take into account the effects of competition on production costs and final consumer prices.  In addition, the agreement requires accelerated customs procedures for express shipments and prohibits the application of customs duties to electronic transmissions. It also requires additional privacy, security and consumer protection measures for online transactions and encourages the publication of customs forms online. These provisions should be of particular benefit to small businesses.  In 2013, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz warned that he was “serving the interests of the richest” based on leaked TPP projects.   Organized work in the United States. During the negotiations, they argued that the trade deal would largely benefit companies at the expense of workers in manufacturing and services industries.  The Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research have argued that the TPP could lead to job losses and lower wages.   has fluctuated from contempt to distrust to cautious embrace. The conclusion of an agreement on the TPP in early October sparked a heated debate in Beijing, with the weight of elite opinion appearing to be tilted in favour of eventual membership; For example, the head of the China-sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), Jin Liqun, announced his support during a speech in Washington shortly after the TPP deal was announced.
 Some critics and even supporters of the TPP wanted the deal to include measures that would crack down on countries engaged in alleged currency manipulation, particularly China.  However, Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, argued that the trade agreement would likely never contain restrictions on currency manipulation because it would have restricted the United States. Monetary policy.  Harvard economist Jeffrey Frankel argued that including the language of currency manipulation in the TPP would be a mistake.  Frankel noted that currency manipulation would be difficult to apply (in part because it is impossible to say whether a currency is overvalued or undervalued); “Currency manipulation” can often be legitimate; China, often referred to as a major currency manipulator, is not a party to the TPP; Allegations of currency manipulation are often worthless; and because it would limit U.S. monetary policy.  Section 4 of ACTA deals with the criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights, according to Professor Michael Blakeney. The section (in Article 23) focuses on the criminalization of intentional trademark infringement or piracy of copyright or related rights on a commercial scale. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was a multilateral treaty designed to establish international standards for the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
The agreement aims to create an international legal framework to combat counterfeit products, generics and copyright infringements online, and would create a new governing body outside existing bodies such as the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the United Nations. Brunei, Chile, Singapore and New Zealand are parties to the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPSEP) Agreement, signed in 2005 and entered into force in 2006. The original TPSEP agreement contains an accession clause and reaffirms “the commitment of members to promote the accession of other economies to this agreement”.   It is a comprehensive agreement on trade in goods, rules of origin, trade prevention measures, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. Among other things, he called for a 90% reduction in all tariffs between member countries by 1 January 2006 and a reduction in all trade tariffs to zero by 2015.  The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa filed an access to information request for the government`s position, but received only one document indicating the title of the agreement, and everything else was obscured.  The final text of the treaty was published on September 15. It was reported that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) said it would not use the Trade Promotion Authority to implement ACTA, but the form of a “single executive agreement.”  On March 6, 2012, State Department Legal Counsel Harold Koh refused to support the USTR`s theory that he could reach an agreement that the United States would not change. Law (but requires Congress not to change it) Without Congressional approval, Koh described ACTA as an “executive agreement of Congress” that Congress approved ex ante, citing the PRO-IP Act.  This proposed method of adoption has drawn criticism in Congress.
 According to Senator Ron Wyden, “There are questions of constitutional authority as to whether the government can enter into this agreement without the consent of Congress. In any case, when international treaties like ACTA are designed and constructed under the guise of secrecy, it is difficult to argue that they represent the general interests of the public. The ACTA controversy should come as no surprise.  More recently, on March 20, 2012, Senator Wyden noted, “I believe that Congress should approve binding international agreements before the United States is required to comply with those agreements. This is a point where the government and I disagree, and this is especially true for issues that affect our country`s ability to implement policies that encourage innovation.  ACTA was first made public in May 2008 after a working paper was uploaded to WikiLeaks.  However, according to a comment from the European Union, there was no draft at that time, but the document represented the initial views as circulated by some of the parties to the negotiations.  Disclosed details published in February 2009 showed the subdivision into 6 chapters, which is also present in the final text. .