Chapter 6 provides a critical evaluation of the new rules on SOEs developed in international trade and investment agreements, with the CPTPP as the leading example. Despite its reputation as a ’twenty-first century high-standard trade agreement’, we argue that the SOE rules in the CPTPP do not add much to the existing rules in the WTO and are less rigorous than China’s WTO-plus obligations discussed in Chapter 5. This chapter then examines some major post-CPTPP trade and investment agreements with significant rules on SOEs, including the EU–Japan FTA, the EU–Vietnam FTA, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the CAI. As one of China’s latest international agreements, the CAI is also the first treaty where China agreed to SOE rules outside the WTO. Again, the main substantive obligation here – the one on commercial considerations – simply repeats the existing obligation in China’s WTO accession package. While all of the FTAs discussed in this chapter should be praised for setting new and higher standards of transparency, they do not resolve the longstanding problem of enforcement – the most challenging issue under the WTO’s transparency regime.

Chapter 5 discusses the great potential of China-specific rules on pricing and commercial behaviour of SOEs, coupled with WTO rules on subsidies both in the original Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) and further elaborated in China’s WTO Accession Protocol. In particular, in response to the argument that WTO subsidy rules have been rendered ineffective by the AB’s interpretation of the term ’public body’, we argue that the utility of the provision has been rehabilitated by the AB’s subsequent decision in US–Countervailing Measures (China) (Article 21.5). Moreover, even the original ’authority-based’ test is no longer an insurmountable hurdle due to the back-tracking of China’s SOE reform in recent years, which resulted in more micro-management by the Party and state in the management of SOEs. Thus, the best way to tackle China’s state capitalism is through WTO litigation based on existing rules discussed in this chapter.

State-owned enterprises (“SOEs”) – that is, entities in which a government or the State has some form of direct or indirect ownership or control – occupy an increasingly important share of the global economy and international commerce. SOEs commonly operate like, and therefore can be considered in much the same way as, any other enterprise in either national or international markets. However, to the extent that they are controlled by a State, SOEs may pursue government policy objectives, rather than, or in addition to, the strictly commercial interests of the enterprise itself.2 Moreover, a State’s investment in an SOE can create incentives for the State to give preferential treatment to the SOE when compared to other economic actors. Given these dynamics, the presence of SOEs in a given market potentially generates a range of issues for governments and for actual or potential competitors of the SOE.