As far as the EU is concerned, it must recognise that china`s national treatment upon accession to the WTO is subject to its GATS timetable, including financial services. This is why the EU`s requirements are WTO plus in nature and are based on the principle of reciprocity. In other words, China has not failed in its WTO obligations, other than to protect its financial market through bureaucracy, as it has done for electronic payment services. Beyond the first phase of the agreement, the EU must again be pragmatic in recognising that alternative and competitive concessions inside and outside the financial services sector could be « a potential landing zone » on the basis of national treatment. Finally, China remains the EU`s second largest market, with many opportunities for EU companies. The PrC Contacts Act also provides that if, after the entry into force of the contract, there is no agreement between the parties on certain content such as quality, price or remuneration or place of performance, or if such an agreement is ambiguous, the parties may agree on additional conditions through consultation. In the absence of a supplementary agreement, these conditions shall be laid down in accordance with the relevant provisions of the contract or transactional practice. Finally, the EU-China Agreement on China`s accession to the WTO (19 May 2000) concluded that, although the ceiling of 50 to 50 own funds is maintained, China offers a legal guarantee to avoid regulatory interference in private contracts between life insurance joint venture partners. China immediately granted seven new licenses to European life and non-life insurers. In this context, the European Union`s objectives for its negotiating objectives are the concessions that China has made to the United States under the United States-China Economic and Trade Agreement (`Phase One Agreement`) signed on 15 January 2020. This commentary deals with how the EU and China reached an agreement 20 years ago, before China joined the WTO. In accordance with Article 3 of the CPP Choice, Chinese law recognizes and respects in principle the choice agreement of the parties in a foreign contract, with a few exceptions. However, for national contacts, the parties may not choose the legislation applicable to the contract.
. . .