Evolution of achievement of the WTO and the Doha rounds of trade talk.
Evolution of achievement of the WTO and the Doha rounds of trade talk.
Background:
The thought is the father to the deed, and the multilateral trading system could never have been built if it had not first been imagined. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is not the product of just one idea, however, or even one school of thought. It instead represents the confluence of, and sometimes the conflict between, three distinct areas of theory and practice. Law, economics and politics have each inspired and constrained the capacity of countries to work together for the creation and maintenance of a rules-based regime in which members with widely different levels of economic development and asymmetrical political power work together to reduce barriers to trade. It is therefore fitting to begin this history with a review of the intellectual prehistory of the WTO, as well as the contemporary debates surrounding each of these fields.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is among the most powerful, and one of the most secretive international bodies on earth. It is rapidly assuming the role of global government, as 134 nation-states, including the United States (U.S.), have ceded to its vast authority and powers. The WTO represents the rules-based regime of the policy of economic globalization. The central operating principal of the WTO is that commercial interests should supersede all others. Any obstacles in the path of operations and expansion of global business enterprise must be subordinated. In practice these "obstacles" are usually policies or democratic processes that act on behalf of working people, labor rights, environmental protection, human rights, consumer rights, social justice, local culture, and national sovereignty (Craig VanGrasstek, 2013).
The WTO has proved to be quite effective in sustaining cooperation between members. Most of what was agreed in the Doha Round was implemented. The dispute settlement mechanism has worked: there have been
Background:
The thought is the father to the deed, and the multilateral trading system could never have been built if it had not first been imagined. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is not the product of just one idea, however, or even one school of thought. It instead represents the confluence of, and sometimes the conflict between, three distinct areas of theory and practice. Law, economics and politics have each inspired and constrained the capacity of countries to work together for the creation and maintenance of a rules-based regime in which members with widely different levels of economic development and asymmetrical political power work together to reduce barriers to trade. It is therefore fitting to begin this history with a review of the intellectual prehistory of the WTO, as well as the contemporary debates surrounding each of these fields.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is among the most powerful, and one of the most secretive international bodies on earth. It is rapidly assuming the role of global government, as 134 nation-states, including the United States (U.S.), have ceded to its vast authority and powers. The WTO represents the rules-based regime of the policy of economic globalization. The central operating principal of the WTO is that commercial interests should supersede all others. Any obstacles in the path of operations and expansion of global business enterprise must be subordinated. In practice these "obstacles" are usually policies or democratic processes that act on behalf of working people, labor rights, environmental protection, human rights, consumer rights, social justice, local culture, and national sovereignty (Craig VanGrasstek, 2013).
The WTO has proved to be quite effective in sustaining cooperation between members. Most of what was agreed in the Doha Round was implemented. The dispute settlement mechanism has worked: there have been
References: Bernard Hoekman (2011). Proposals for WTO reform. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. [Accessed 10 November 2013]. Bouet, A. and Laborde, D. (2009). The potential cost of a failed Doha Round. Available at SSRN 1396335. [Accessed 10 November 2013]. Busse, M. (2004). Trade, environmental regulations, and the World Trade Organization. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Development Research Group. [Accessed 10 November 2013]. Ezeani, E. (2010). The WTO and its development obligation. London: Anthem Press. [Accessed 11 November 2013]. Francois, J., Van Meijl, H. and Van Tongeren, F. (2003). Trade liberalization and developing countries under the Doha round. CEPR Discussion Paper. [Accessed 12 November 2013]. Hoekman, B. (2011). Changing Developing Country Trade Policies and WTO Engagement. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research. [Accessed 12 November 2013]. Horlick, G. (2013). Domestic Judicial Review of Trade Remedies: Experiences of the Most Active WTO Members edited by M"usl"um Yilmaz Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. World Trade Review, 12 (04), pp. 746--754. [Accessed 12 November 2013]. Magariños, C., Long, Y. and Sercovich, F. (2002). China in the WTO. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. [Accessed 12 November 2013]. Roszkowski, A. (2013) Title: Expected changes in agricultural engineering, resulting from reforms of common agricultural policy and WTO provided for 2007-2013. [Accessed 12 November 2013]. Sampson, G. (2008). The WTO and global governance. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. [Accessed 12 November 2013]. World Trade Organization. (2013). Wto annual report 2013. [S.l.]: Bernan Press. [Accessed 12 November 2013].