I've heard it said informally that the U.S. - Japan trade agreement is an "interim agreement" under GATT Article XXIV:5. But I haven't seen either party make an official statement to that effect. It looks like members of Congress may be pressing USTR on this issue soon, which might give us some answers. Inside US Trade reports:
But lawmakers are questioning the legal authority the administration has claimed “and is planning to use to negotiate and enter into the aforementioned agreements, as well as the consultations the Administration has undertaken and plans to undertake with respect to those agreements,” according to a letter obtained by Inside U.S. Trade. The letter is being circulated among House Ways & Means Committee members by Reps. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) and Dan Kildee (D-MI), who plan to send it to Lighthizer this month.
...
Analysts have questioned whether the limited agreement with Japan is consistent with World Trade Organization obligations, pointing to WTO rules that prevent the U.S. from giving Japan preferable tariff rates if an agreement does not cover substantially all trade -- a point the lawmakers also address in their letter.
“Please explain how the Administration will ensure that the U.S. Japan Free Trade Agreement is consistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules that prohibit narrow sectoral agreements and require that regional trade agreements eliminate duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce on ‘substantially all the trade’,” the letter states. “Has the Administration submitted a plan and schedule for a comprehensive free trade agreement to the WTO? If so, please share the plan and schedule in your response. If not, please explain?”
The House Ways & Means trade subcommittee will also hold a hearing on the agreement next week. The questions set out in the letter are pretty good ones, and I'm curious to see how the discussion of the Article XXIV issue goes.
