Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Deep preferential trade agreements increasingly organise sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) market access through audits, establishment approval, certification and import checks. These arrangements do more than facilitate trade: they create regulatory assurance by generating information, monitoring histories and reciprocal commitments about foreign control systems. This article asks how that relationship-specific assurance should matter under WTO non-discrimination law when the underlying SPS risk conditions have not changed. Because such procedures can themselves be SPS measures, Article 2.3 may apply alongside Article 8 and Annex C; yet relationship-generated assurance should not automatically be treated as a different “condition” for the Article 2.3 comparison. The article argues that assurance is better assessed when asking whether differential administration is arbitrary or unjustifiable, preserving room for risk-based verification without allowing PTA membership to become self-justifying. CETA, USMCA and CPTPP illustrate a broader problem for transnational risk regulation: how law should distinguish objective regulatory conditions from the institutional evidence on which regulators rely.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shao-Jie Chen (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: