The positive-list and negative-list modes of financial regulation differ in terms of which sectors are open to foreign services and suppliers. In the positive-list mode, only the listed sectors are accessible to foreign entities, whereas in the negative-list mode, all sectors are open except for those explicitly prohibited by law. Recent trade agreements such as RCEP, CPTPP, and USMCA have moved away from positive-list mode, especially in financial services regulation. While they do not adopt the negative-list mode either, they introduce new financial service clauses that facilitate market access for innovative financial products. These agreements also serve as a benchmark for opening up other sectors. They will continue to offer financial products, but their product types and transfer forms will differ from current financial services. China iscreating significant challenges in establishing a correct understanding of the new financial services clause, developing a robust regulatory system, and mitigating risks associated with opening the financial services market.

The EU, China, and other WTO members recently released their concluded MPIA with its Annexes I and II as a temporary arrangement to deal with the appeals of panel rulings before the Appellate Body resumes its operation. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism is a complete unit with unique features and inherent logic. Although this arrangement maintains the two-tier process with arbitration to replace the appellate review, there is a fundamental difference between them, which is embodied not only in the dispute settlement process but also in the implementation of the rulings. The challenges that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism encounters are not limited to those procedural issues, but they are also connected with the substantive rules, with which the procedural issues should be jointly resolved. This is the correct way to deal with the current challenges and to reform the multilateral trade regime.