The outcome and effects of the Uruguay Round very much influenced the conditions for the launch of the Doha Round. The Uruguay Round had extended considerably the realm of world trade rules with agreements on intellectual property and trade in services in ex- change for finally tackling agricultural protectionism on a broader scale and getting rid of the textile and clothing quotas. However, no substantial liberalization had been accomplished in either services or agriculture. For this reason, further liberalization negotiations at the beginning of the new millennium would start on these two issues, the “built-in agenda”. This Uruguay Round package has sometimes been characterized as the “North-South grand bargain”. However, the bargain turned out to be a “bum deal” in the eyes of some developing countries. These countries came to see the balance of the Uruguay Round’s outcome as tipped against their interests. On top of that, the formation of WTO had led to the decision to collectively associate all countries to all new (and previous) agreements irrespective of whether the countries in question had participated in the negotiations or shown any interest in these agreements. This led to dramatically increased obligations and implementation costs for most developing countries. Furthermore, not only non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but also academic circles considered the results to be balanced in favour of the developed coun- tries. Especially the agreement on intellectual property (TRIPS) was characterized as alien to the world trading system. In the eyes of the EU Commission, the built-in agenda from the Uruguay Round had no chance of being concluded successfully. Only an all-encompassing round, i.e., one that also took ... ... middle of paper ... .... The stillborn and disastrous ministerial meeting in Seattle 1999 was a watershed in attracting the attendance by NGOs beyond the traditional fields of business, environment, development and labour groups. Thus, the driving forces behind the launching of the last GATT round and the first WTO round were very different. The Uruguay Round came into being because a critical mass of outward looking developed and developing countries putting the recalcitrant countries “offside” considered it necessary to expand and “repair” the world trading system, making it more up to date. In contrast, the Doha Round became necessary in order to achieve substantial liberalization in the built in agenda within a fixed timeframe. At the same time a new round offered the opportunity to address the problems that the outcome of the previous round had created for the developing countries.
disaster and the loss of nine people’s lives. Jon Krakauer was a member of that
The resulting emergency meetings by the WTO raised concerns about whether the WTO can be an effective moderator in such disputes if nations decide to do things unilaterally. In other words, if larger, powerful nations can impose their will whenever they wish, what would be the fate of the poorer or less powerful nations? Even at the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Seattle, Caribbean nations would have likely lost out and gained little from the world trade liberalization agenda of the WTO had the huge public not been able to derail that
"Market Access for Goods: A Uruguay Round Summary for Developing Country Exporters." International Trade Forum.1 (1995): 4. ProQuest. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.
Gonzalez, Carmen G. "Institutionalizing Inequility: The WTO Agreement on Agriculture, Food Security and Developing Countries." Columbia Journal of Enviromental Law (2002): 431-487.
...: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40 (4), pp. 603-24.
The European Union (EU), since the initial foundation in 1952 as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and throughout periods of development, has been considered one of the most advanced forms of regional integration. It, based on numerous treaties and resolutions, has strived to promote values such as peace, cooperation or democracy, and in 2012 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe” (Nobel Media AB, 2012). Despite its struggle for promoting democracy, the EU itself has long experienced scholarly criticisms that it suffers the democratic deficit, from which its democratic legitimacy is undermined by observable problems in political accountability and participation. As the importance of legitimacy in a democratically representative institution is hardly debatable, the criticism of whether and why the EU lacks democracy has been given a considerable gravity in academia.
The 1999 Seattle protests brought the apparent proliferation of anti-globalization grassroot sociopolitical movements into the limelight of the world stage. Transnational social movements (TSMs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), as well as the loose transnational activist networks (TANs) that contain them—all these came to be seen as an angry and no less potent backlash that's directed at the powerful states and increasingly towering economic IGOs such as the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank. In the field of international relations, some regard this as a prophetic watershed event that signals the weakening and perhaps even collapsing of the state-centric system of international relations, while many others insist that Seattle is but an eventually insignificant episode in the book of globalization and state power, as evidenced by the Doha success.
First, the structure of the framework strongly supports an extensive analysis of the directive and of the context in which it was formulated and implemented. Second, each element is important when trying to clarify how a policy is created in the European Union and the impact of the policy on businesses. The 'issue' element provides an opportunity to explain the content of the directive. The 'actors', 'interests','arenas' and 'assets' elements describe and illustrate the power play involved in European Union policy formulation and implementation and the place occupied by businesses. The 'information' element demonstrates the ever increasing importance that knowledge has within the European Union and how it can be used by businesses. Finally, the design of a non-market strategy supported by the (IA)3 framework enables a firm to become active and not only adapt to a certain policy but also gain an opportunity to influence the environment within which it is
Lelieveldt, H. and Princen, S. 2011The politics of the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Senior, Nello Susan. "Chapters:4,15." The European Union: Economics, Policies and History. London: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
The IMF was not designed to be an aid agency but its role in economic
After the failed International Trade Organization, Rodrik discusses the Bretton Woods Agreement, the transition from the General Agreement on Tariffs and T...
For example, states remain the key negotiators and entities in major global governance entities. Additionally, states retain compulsory power over their subjects or constituents, a form of control that new players in global governments have generally not obtained. Globalization has led to several substantial changes in global governance and the entities participating in governance activities. First, over the past 70 years, an increasing number of nations have signed onto international agreements. For example, when the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was created in 1947, it had no institutional structure; by 2009, though, more than 150 nations – accounting for 97% of world trade – were members of GATT’s successor, the World Trade Organization (Fidler, 2009).
International trading has had its delays and road blocks, which has created a number of problems for countries around the world. Countries, fighting with one another to get the better deal, create tariffs and taxes to maximize their profit. This fighting leads to bad relationships with competing countries, and the little producing countries get the short end of this stick. Regulations and organizations have been established to help everyone get the best deal, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), but not everyone wants help, especially from an organization that seems to help only the big countries and those they want to trade with. This paper will be discussing international trading with emphasis on national sovereignty, the World Trade Organization, and how the WTO impacts trading countries.
International organizations create space for its members to coordinate interests and actions which helps promote interdependent relationships among them and strengthens their legitimacy. As society has progressed, it has globalized, and in the past 50 years states have had to address their growing dependence, especially in the economic sector. The World Trade Organization (WTO), is an institution which has an immense impact on the international political economy and the way states function within the international system. It organizes agreements and treaties which govern how its members decide policies, tariffs, and keeps states accountable for their actions. For example, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), determines how states can regulate their import and exports. (Hurd 2014,