Thanks, Harlan. You are right: in our MegaReg project we emphasized MNE's interest in regulatory convergence and thought about how agreements like TPP might bring such convergence about beyond the usual suspects (harmonization, mutual recognition, standard-setting). https://twitter.com/harlangcohen/status/1357727603877175300

We emphasized procedural rights as pathways towards "regulatory alignment" and also hypothesized that committees and other institutions could play increasingly important rules: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3456731

We didn't foresee, however, the increasing trend towards investment screening mechanisms. It will be interesting to see whether future trade agreements will find ways to mitigate some of the multijurisdictional risks that @sarahbauerle emphasized.

There is definitely an interesting IPE story to tell here and I look forward to reading what you come up with. I looked a bit at the CFIUS rule making after FIRRMA and I felt that industry concerns were very palpable, particularly on threshold questions.

My hunch is that one needs to drill deeper into different sectors and their economic organization to see who might have a (maybe counterintuitive?) interest in stricter investment screening. It might even be due to intrasectoral dynamics.

Imagine a world in which investment screening clearance is as common and necessary as merger clearance? Who wants that besides law firms? Anyway, to be continued. Very much looking forward to discuss aspects of this at #ASIL2021 @asilorg with @sarahbauerle.