The Peterson Institute for International Economics states that “the TPP involves more protection of workers` rights than any previous U.S. free trade agreement.” [147] In January 2016, Human Rights Watch said that the secondary TPP agreements with Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei were “a unique and significant step in efforts to protect workers` rights in trade agreements,” but said there was still much to be expected to be followed: “Compliance with the rules requires subjective assessments by the United States. , which can take years to implement foreign policy objectives and face obstacles. commercial interests and other political considerations. [148] The Peterson Institute for International Economics argues that “the isYS provisions in the TPP are a significant improvement over previous agreements.” [101] PiIE notes that the ISDS mechanism in the TPP complies with environmental, health and safety rules; Ensure transparency in litigation procedures and eliminates shopping in the forum. [101] PIIE asserts that some of the innovations contained in the TPP`s ISDS rules “are generally rejected by the U.S. business community.” [101] Piie asserts that ISDS rules are necessary because they stimulate investment: “Empirical evidence has shown that contracts, including these provisions, have a positive impact on foreign direct investment flows between signatory countries.” [144] PIIE challenges the assertion that ISDS “lacks integrity to arbitrators” and finds that arbitrators take an oath of impartiality and elect both parties in a case to arbitrators. [101] PiIE agrees that secrecy has gone too far in many ISDS cases, but notes that “TPP negotiators have opened up greater transparency to these criticisms” and ISDS cases. [101] The EU is trying to conclude trade agreements with any country in the TPP: since 2013, there has been talk of a free trade agreement between the EU and Japan, and in 2015 the EU presented its new asia-Pacific trade improvement strategy entitled `Trade for All`. [171] In 2014, linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky warned that the TPP “was designed to advance the neoliberal project of maximizing profit and supremacy and putting workers around the world in competition, in order to reduce wages, increase uncertainty.” [212] Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) argues that trade agreements such as the TPP “have destroyed families who end up working and enriched big business.” [213] Professor Robert Reich asserts that the TPP is a “Trojan horse in a global race to the bottom.” [214] [215] [216] “This is another wake-up call for the United States,” says Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a long-time U.S. trade agent who participated in the TPP negotiations. “Now you have two mega-agreements in the region, and both will lead to greater integration between the members of these different blocs.” Dean Baker argued that Article 18.78, which requires countries to ensure that they should protect trade secrets and criminally prosecute offenders, could be used to enforce non-competition agreements.

[211] Baker points out that California`s success is due in part to the state`s failure to authorize the application of non-compete agreements, which has allowed technology workers to give up their jobs and work for another company. [211] South Korea did not participate in the 2006 agreement, but expressed interest in joining the TPP[35] and was invited by the United States to the TPP negotiations in December 2010.