For example, the European Commission`s recent free trade agreements with Canada and Korea provide for the conclusion of a compliance assessment MMA, without asking their partners to adapt their regulatory requirements to those of the EU. 15 The communication specifies that in the event of a conflict between a provision of the [GATT] and a provision of another agreement in Schedule 1A [including the OEE] … The definition of the other convention is a priority in the scale of the conflict. If the EU refuses to negotiate a similar system of mutual recognition with the UK, it may violate the Most Favoured Nation (MPF) obligation under WTO law. The MFN is a non-discrimination rule that requires that any benefit granted to products originating in one country be granted to similar products originating in other countries. The UK document reaffirms the importance of regulatory autonomy – «respect for the regulatory law of each party» – but also follows earlier considerations by proposing that the agreement «creates a framework for both parties to require the other to consider its technical regulation as equivalent to its own regulation.» 84 Member C may also argue that its technical requirements are equivalent to the technical requirements of Member A and require recognition in accordance with Article 2.7 OBT. However, this is not an MFN claim and is not created by Member A`s MRA with Member B. The pre-benefit or advantage conferred by Member State A in the AMR to Member State B is the recognition of the technical rules of a certain quality and, when an MFN claim is invoked, Member C must argue that its technical rules are of the same quality. 5 This article does not address the question of whether mutual recognition in a regional trade agreement falls within the gaTT Article XXIV exemption, although leading scientists believe that most of these recognition agreements are not covered by the exception. See General Trachtman, Joel P., `Toward Open Recognition? Standardization and regional integration in accordance with GATT Article XXIV, 6 Journal of International Economic Law (2003) 459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bartels, Lorand, «The Legality of the EC Mutual Recognition Clause under WTO Law,» 8 Journal of International Economic Law (2005) 691, at 711-714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 96 This is sometimes referred to as «closed» mutual recognition. See James Mathis, «Addressing Transatlantic Regulatory Barriers: Can the US and the EU Create an Effective Equivalency Instrument?», in Elaine Fahey and Deirdre Curtin (note. M), A Transatlantic Community of Law: Legal Perspectives on the Relationship between the EU and LEGAL Orders (2014) 186, at Note 38; Trachtman, supra note 5, at 459, 481. However, recent free trade agreements indicate a change in approach and acceptance of «traditional» MMAs.

For example, Article 4.6 and Article 7.21, paragraph 4, of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement provide for the negotiation of mutual recognition of the assessment of the compliance of goods and services. In the Brexit negotiations, the UK government called for mutual recognition of the rules, including in Theresa May`s florence speech and as an option for future regulation of financial services, but refused by the EU.