Multi Trade Bodies Confuse Countries and Jurisdiction

Amit K 13124 Ishan Tupe 13135 Sonija D 13166 Umang Arora 13169

‡ With the increase in global trade, various bodies to regulate the flow of capital and goods.
± WTO ± UNCTAD ± ITC ± FITA ± OECD ± NAFTA, MECSOUR and other RTAs, FTAs etc

‡ The different economic structures and regulations among nations have been primarily responsible for emergence of these bodies. ‡ Bodies like WTO, ITC, UNCTAD, NAFTA, MIGA etc aim at working cohesively and attaining goals of Economic Development, Fair Trade Practices, Trade Agreements, Economic Co-Operation for the development of LDC, developing countries, etc

‡ However, due to existing political-economical scenario, the frameworks of these organizations are not applicable effectively to all nations. ‡ Confusion due to violation of some rules in WTO which may be acceptable in some other trade organization/agreement. ‡ For e.g. Korea-Japan RTA, Agricultural Imports >10%

‡ RTA vs WTO
± Certain restrictions on imports and exports ± WTO guidelines for RTA

± Between US CANADA & MEXICO ± However, NAFTA has not always worked out in practice as had originally been envisaged. For Canada the dispute settlement mechanisms have not proven to be as nearly watertight as hoped, especially in the case of the on-going dispute with The United States over softwood lumber. In essence NAFTA imposes oversight over whether the three signatories are properly applying their domestic laws. In the case of softwood lumber, The United States chose to ignore the findings of an extraordinary appeal of a NAFTA panel decision, ending any illusion that the NAFTA process could ultimately hold sway over domestic sovereignty.

‡ The NAFTA rules of origin are complex and there is evidence that some importers find it easier to pay the now-typically low MFN tariffs than to comply with the paperwork required for tariff-free entry.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful