As part of a quest to find the most obscure aspect of the new NAFTA, I point you to the scope of non-violation claims. This is from the new NAFTA:
Article 31.2: Scope
1. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, the dispute settlement provisions of this Chapter shall apply:
...
(c) when a Party considers that a benefit it could reasonably have expected to accrue to it under Chapter 2 (National Treatment and Market Access for Goods), Chapter 3 (Agriculture), Chapter 4 (Rules of Origin), Chapter 5 (Origin Procedures), Chapter 6 (Textile and Apparel Goods), Chapter 7 (Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation), Chapter 9 (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures), Chapter 11 (Technical Barriers to Trade), Chapter 13 (Government Procurement), Chapter 15 (Cross-Border Trade in Services), or Chapter 20 (Intellectual Property), is being nullified or impaired as a result of the application of a measure of another Party that is not inconsistent with this Agreement.
And here is the TPP:
Article 28.3: Scope
1. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, the dispute settlement provisions of this Chapter shall apply:
...
(c) when a Party considers that a benefit it could reasonably have expected to accrue to it under Chapter 2 (National Treatment and Market Access for Goods), Chapter 3 (Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures), Chapter 4 (Textile and Apparel Goods), Chapter 5 (Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation), Chapter 8 (Technical Barriers to Trade), Chapter 10 (Cross-Border Trade in Services) or Chapter 15 (Government Procurement), is being nullified or impaired as a result of the application of a measure of another Party that is not inconsistent with this Agreement.
And here is the KORUS:
Article 22.4: Scope of Application
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or as the Parties otherwise agree, this Section shall apply with respect to the avoidance or settlement of all disputes between the Parties regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement or wherever a Party considers that:
...
(c) a benefit the Party could reasonably have expected to accrue to it under Chapter Two (National Treatment and Market Access for Goods), Three (Agriculture), Four (Textiles and Apparel), Six (Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures), Twelve (Cross-Border Trade in Services), Seventeen (Government Procurement), or Eighteen (Intellectual Property Rights)1
is being nullified or impaired as a result of a measure that is not inconsistent with this Agreement, except that neither Party may invoke this subparagraph with respect to a benefit under Chapter Twelve (Cross-Border Trade in Services) or Eighteen (Intellectual Property Rights) if the measure is subject to an exception under Article 23.1 (General Exceptions).1. Neither Party will invoke subparagraph (c) with respect to a measure affecting benefits under Chapter Eighteen (Intellectual Property Rights) during any period for which WTO Members have agreed not to initiate complaints of the type provided for under subparagraph 1(b) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 under the TRIPS Agreement.
Given how few FTA disputes there are in general, and thus how unlikely any of this is to come up, it's interesting to see variations in the scope of non-violation that one country or another apparently cares about. SPS and IP seem to be the main battleground here.
