Critically Reflect on the Functions and Consequences of Multilateralism and Bilateralism, Considering the Value of International Institutions in Economic Terms
- Cansu Güzel
- Feb 3
- 19 min read
Abstract
With the effect of globalization, which is especially related to financial markets and neo-liberal economy, the absolute sovereignty of states has begun to suffer. In this context, international organizations that are subjects of international law in different forms have been established besides states to operate in the international arena, and international normative regulations on the same issues have increased in addition to the national legal rules regulating the cross-border commercial and economic activities of a state.
International organizations, which have become a natural part of international life, have important effects and reflections on the world economy. The article will examine the formation of international institutions from a historical perspective and will critically examine the structure of these institutions by referring to the aims and consequences of their economic regulation.
In recent years, the powerful states' policies and decisions that are almost opposite to multilateralism have caused it to weaken the legitimacy and image of international organizations, which are the backbone of multilateralism. In this context, discussions arise in the direction of leaving multilateralism to bilateralism. Within the scope of this article, it is aimed to provide a comprehensive definition by addressing the doctrinal approaches to bilateral and multilateralism and the interests of states. This essay will try to explain why WTO member states resort to bilateral agreements by emphasising the importance of bilateral agreements and the mechanisms used in their supervision. In this context, the effects and relative advantages of bilateral and multilateralism will be discussed by making a comparison in terms of strong and weak states. It will take support from the tendencies of countries such as the increase in preferential trade agreements. Finally, it will emphasise that bilateralism is not a threat to the multilateral trading system, but rather a complementary element of it.
I. Introduction
Since the facilitation and liberalization of international trade is in the interest of all countries, it has become a common goal to cooperate with their regional integration in the face of the competitive pressure created by globalization and institutionalized their cooperation between countries with agreements.
Since the WTO system, which aims to liberalise international trade, does not sufficiently meet the current needs of world trade and multilateral agreements cannot respond to the current search of countries, countries have turned to preferential trade agreements on a bilateral and regional scale. Thus, the concept of "preferential trade" has become widespread.
While explaining bilateralism in the Essay and giving examples in this context, preferential trade agreements, Regional Trade Agreements, Free Trade Agreements concluded on bilateral/regional basis are mentioned. Bilateral and regional agreements, in particular, offer trade advantages to the states parties, increase international trade and allow for the creation of a larger common market. At the same time, economic ties have been strengthened and bargaining power has been increased by acting together before international institutions. However, multilateralism can lead to advantages like improved collaboration and risk sharing, it can also reduce the sovereignty and authority of strong states, lead to an uneven distribution of advantages, and make enforcement more difficult.
II. Scope of International Economic Law
The state, especially in its domestic law, enacts the rules of law related to various areas of social life and ensures the implementation of legal rules in the legislative, executive and judicial spheres. Today, however, the monopoly of the state in the implementation of the rules of law had increasingly damaged. As a matter of fact, as a result of globalization, besides the national legal rules regulating the cross-border commercial and economic activities of a state, normative regulations regulating the same issues have increased and new international organizations have been established to operate in different fields. Thus, the implementation of the rules of law regulating international economic relations has ceased to be a phenomenon created by states among themselves, and has turned into a shared space with other actors.
With these developments, a legal basis was also needed in the field of cross-border economy and trade, and international economic law emerged as a branch of law that examines the rules of law regulating international economic activities as a whole. Within the scope of these economic activities, all legal regulations on international economic relations fall within the scope of international economic law.
III. GATT and Multilateralism
In the continuation of the Second World War, the globalization and multilateralism movement, which became the dominant trend, had a significant impact on international trade. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947[1] (GATT) agreement was signed by 23 nations in 1947 and entered into force as a temporary accord on January 1, to prevent customs payments applied to national markets, and non-discrimination among GATT member states was adopted as a basic principle.[2] The GATT, is the precursor to the World Trade Organization (WTO), a significant player in the global economic system and international communication.[3] GATT is an international pact that governs commerce between nations in terms of rights and obligations. Its goal is to remove obstacles to international trade by lowering customs rates and banning discrimination in overseas trade. Thanks to GATT, customs duties were greatly reduced and international trade was liberalized to a large extent.[4]
After the successful 1994 Uruguay Rounds (the last round of multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT), the WTO was established in 1995, which played a very important role in the development and liberalisation of world trade. In this context, with the establishment of the WTO, multilateralism in terms of international trade gained a permanent dimension.
'Most Favored Country' (MFN), which is undoubtedly the most important article of the agreement within the scope of the GATT system, has been ensured that all members benefit from all kinds of privileged trade relations between the states that are party to the GATT.[5] In short, with this principle, bilateral relations have automatically become multilateral.
However, to facilitate the functioning of the Multilateral Trading System, a provision was introduced in Article XXIV[6] of the GATT to override the principle of MFN. Pursuant to this Article, regional trade agreements, which are almost contrary to the MFN principle, are permitted under certain exceptional circumstances. To make it clear, Article XXIV of the GATT provides that states may establish preferential trade relations among themselves through preferential trade agreements. This Article does not allow any preferential trade relations, but rather agreements aiming to achieve a certain level of integration and aiming at very comprehensive liberalisation will be permitted within the scope of Article XXIV, and agreements that do not fall within this scope will be considered contrary to the GATT/WTO system. In other words, the parties should be able to achieve more international trade liberalisation among themselves than the international trade liberalisation they are preventing. With Article XXIV, it is believed that TTAs will have trade creating effects and enhance international trade.[7]
Nevertheless, since preferential trade agreements are inherently contrary to the MFN principle of multilateralism, the relationship between these two conceptions has always been problematic. Therefore, since the GATT system, although allowing bilateral agreements, also aimed at securing multilateral trade liberalisation, Article XXIV of the GATT laid down certain rules for member states regarding bilateral agreements and the supervision of agreements, which would not be contrary to the general principles of the GATT and serve the liberalisation of international trade.
The increasing number of bilateral agreements by resorting to Article XXIV of the GATT is also an indication that the WTO system has gained legitimacy. However, by the same token, such recourse to Article XXIV turns the MFN principle, which is the most important principle under the GATT, into the “least favored nation”[8]. In this context, it creates debates as to whether the GATT is a victim of its own success.[9]
IV. Preferential Trade Agreements Under Bilateralism
There has been a significant increase in bilateral and regional agreements in the field of international trade in the last decades.[10] While the average number of regional trade agreements per member is five, this figure rises above ten for some members.[11] In fact, international trade has become unthinkable without these agreements, and these agreements have almost preceded the negotiations carried out within the framework of the WTO.[12] From this point of view, it is interesting to note that bilateralism has become increasingly favored at a time when multilateral trade agreements have made significant progress.
Through preferential trade agreements, barriers between two or more countries are removed and trade is strengthened, which in fact strengthens international trade in general. The contribution of preferential trade agreements to international trade has led the GATT system, which has multilateralism at its core, to envisage a mechanism to enable these agreements and to incorporate bilateralism.
Preferential trade agreements are signed between two countries or groups of countries and the countries party to the agreement apply a reduced customs duty or no customs duty when importing products originating from each other. In this case, it becomes more advantageous for the countries party to the bilateral agreement to import with each other than to import from third countries that are not party to the agreement. Thus, the countries that are parties to the trade agreement procure goods from each other and trade between the parties increases.[13] It envisages the application of tax exemptions and reductions called "preferential tariffs", "preferential regime" or "concessions" unilaterally or reciprocally in trade between the party countries.
Bilateral agreements cover a wide range of areas such as the removal of barriers to trade in certain products; the opening of new service and investment markets; competition policy; public policy; intellectual property rights; e-commerce; and labour markets. The aim of these states, which have concluded these agreements and intend to redefine the multilateral trade laws of the future, is to eliminate the barriers to multilateral trade. In this context, South Korea, which signed a lot of trade agreements in the 2000s, opened 60 per cent of the world market to its companies.[14]
The most common form of preferential trade agreements in practice is "free trade agreements". In free trade agreements, unlike customs unions between countries, the parties abolish or reduce customs duties among themselves; however, they do not apply a common customs tariff against third countries.[15] While the principle of free movement is applied in customs unions, rules of origin are applied between the parties in free trade agreements, which are more flexible than other co-operation models in international trade and allow the parties to make comprehensive preferences.
Furthermore, in terms of regional trafe aggrements; The WTO has defined regional trade agreements as preferential trade agreements to which two or more countries are parties, but which do not cover all members, and these agreements can be expressed as agreements other than those negotiated and signed in the multilateral platform represented by the WTO. These agreements can be negotiated and signed between any two countries (such as the US and Jordan), a group of countries that are geographically close to one another in a specific region (such as NAFTA, ASEAN), any country and a regional trade integration (such as the EU and Chile), or between two or more countries and/or regional trade organisations (such as the EU and SACU) in various geographical locations.[16] (The given examples will be detailed below with references.)
The term of "Regional Trade Agreements" was initially used to describe preferential trade agreements reached between nations in a particular region that are geographically close to one another. The "regional proximity" criterion, on the other hand, is no longer relevant when it comes to recent preferential trade agreements. TTAs are now signed by members in a variety of combinations, such as between two countries, two trade blocs, or one country and one trade integration in extremely remote regions. With these developments, the appropriateness of the concept of "regional trade agreements" has been debated. For example, Woolcock argues that the term "Bilateral Trade Agreements" should be used since these agreements are concluded between two parties.[17] Although the concept of Preferential Trade Agreements seems to be an appropriate concept in terms of its inclusiveness, it may lead to confusion as preferential trade arrangements signed between developing countries under the Jurisdictional Provision, which are not based on reciprocity, do not require "substantial" liberalization of trade like Article XXIV of the GATT, provide for more flexible transition periods and notification obligations, and have special and favorable treatment provisions regarding non-tariff barriers are also defined as preferential trade agreements.
V. Trends Towards Bilateral Trade Liberalization
Today, the European Union and the United States of America, the leading actors in international trade, have turned to bilateral or regional preferential trade agreements in order to strengthen their dominance and not to limit it to their own geography. They have also engaged in an intensive negotiation process with some regional integrations whose formation they support. The transformation of the United States is of great importance. The transformation of the United States, a key proponent of multilateralism in the post-war years, and its decision to use both geographical and preferential agreements simultaneously, has shifted the balance of power from multilateralism to especially regionalism.[18]
The European Union has signed free trade agreements with African Pacific Caribbean countries, Mediterranean countries and its geographical neighbors in Eastern Europe; initiated negotiations with regional integration organizations such as MERCOSUR, ASEAN and concluded negotiations with important countries such as Chile and Mexico despite their geographical distance.[19]
The United States has signed free trade agreements with a number of countries such as Korea, Singapore, Israel, Morocco and Australia and established the NAFTA free trade area with Canada and Mexico.[20] Latin American countries, on the other hand, have formed a very important organisation such as MERCOSUR.[21]
Regional and bilateral relations have created free trade areas such as Mercosur in South America in 1991, NAFTA in North America in 1994, Asean in Asia in 1992 and the European Common Market, which have contributed to the liberalisation of international trade. In this context, bilateral agreements between states were signed in parallel with regional integrations.
After the establishment of the WTO, the international trade system has acquired a rather extensive system of rules and a well-functioning institutional character. Nevertheless, it is understandable that countries prefer bilateral trade agreements since, apart from customs regulations, especially technical norms are seen to constitute a significant obstacle to trade liberalisation. In addition, we can analyse the increase in preferential trade agreements under 3 headings. First, from a political perspective, regional agreements can bring together countries with common strategic interests.[22] Secondly, states may sign preferential trade agreements as part of their quest for inclusion in the world economy and economic security against globalization. The third factor is the quest to respond to market demands for legal security and stability.[23] To summarize, despite the multilateralism that developed under the GATT system, states have turned to bilateralism for political or economic integration, foreign policy, national security and access to wider markets.
Another point is that harmonisation, which is difficult to achieve in multilateral negotiations, can be achieved much more easily through bilateral agreements. Therefore, we can say that especially preferential trade agreements facilitate international trade and are almost the main instrument. When we analyse the multilateral negotiations under the WTO, we see how difficult it is for all members to come together and reach a consensus. In this context, it is understandable that states prioritise bilateral agreements despite the advanced GATT system, since it is of course much easier for a smaller number of states to meet on a common ground. Therefore, when there is a failure in multilateral agreements under the GATT system, parties may turn to bilateral agreements to accelerate trade liberalisation.
An analysis of preferential trade agreements shows that bilateral agreements are much more common than regional agreements. The fact that regionalism is less preferred shows that preferential trade agreements are not bound by geographical borders, but are much more than that. The agreements signed and negotiated by the European Union with Mexico, Chile, South Africa and South Korea, India and MERCOSUR, as well as the agreements signed by the United States of America with South Korea, Bahrain, Morocco or Jordan are proof that preferential trade agreements have nothing to do with regionalism.[24]
Preferential Trade Agreements help states to improve access to other countries' markets; facilitate the overcoming of customs barriers; or help states to make progress at the bilateral or regional level on issues not yet addressed by multiple agreements and international institutions. Multilateralism can lead to advantages like improved collaboration and risk sharing for developing states, whereas it can also reduce the sovereignty and authority of strong states, also lead to an uneven distribution of advantages, and make enforcement more difficult. Thanks to multilateral agreements, powerful states will have to comply with international rules and regulations, so even if the regulations conflict with their national interests, their sovereignty will be limited. Since there is no central authority for implementation in multilateral agreements, the implementation of these agreements can be difficult. To the advantage of weak states, competition in the international market will decrease and the power of strong states will be limited thanks to multilateral agreements. In this context, although preferential trade agreements are perceived as a threat to the multilateralism and trade liberalisation established by the GATT system, these agreements have an important contribution to the development of international trade
It should also be noted that the first generation of preferential trade agreements, which were much narrower in scope, have now been improved and the new generation agreements have gone beyond the problem of customs walls and have covered very wide areas such as anti-dumping measures, competition rules, investment and scientific co-operation. It is increasingly recognised that today's improved preferential trade agreements could even serve as a model for future WTO negotiations.[25]
VI. Critism of Bilateral Trade Agreements
Doubts about the systemic impact of bilateral agreements, which are one of the main exceptions to the MFN principle and whose number has increased more rapidly in the recent period, have gained weight as a result of the emphasis given to bilateral agreements by the EU and Far Eastern countries, especially by the USA.
The main problem with bilateralism is that it is discriminatory between states. The increase in trade between signatories to these agreements may be to the detriment of countries that are not party to these agreements. The World Trade Organisation adopts a non-preferential approach to free trade. By accepting multilateralism, it is aimed to apply the MFN principle to all countries in a non-discriminatory manner while liberalising international trade. In this way, the barriers to international trade are reduced by all member states of the GATT. As a natural consequence of the MFN principle, the system based on non-discrimination provides equal opportunities for GATT member countries to enter international markets, while at the same time offering the opportunity to import from the most efficient supplier with the lowest cost. In this context, under the WTO, through issue linkages, negotiations can be maintained while ensuring balanced gains for member countries on sensitive negotiating issues. On the contrary, the increase in bilateral agreements creates an obstacle for the WTO in this regard. Because the issues that are considered sensitive for the GATT member countries and slow down the WTO negotiations are excluded from trade liberalisation through bilateral agreements; some arrangements that go beyond the WTO are made on the remaining issues. With bilateral agreements, progress is made in a piecemeal manner on some of the issues that have not been concluded in multilateral agreements, while more sensitive issues are left to WTO negotiations and the WTO loses the possibility of linking these issues, thus clogging the WTO system.
Moreover, compared to multilateralism, bilateral agreements appear to be rather weak in terms of protecting the interests of developing and less developed countries. It is observed that these countries accept some liberalisation arrangements in bilateral agreements that they are unwilling to accept in the WTO and remain at a disadvantage in terms of negotiating position against the developed countries. Another problem is that the gains made through bilateral agreements are constantly eroded by each new bilateral agreement concluded by the partners of that bilateral agreement with another third country. In addition, unlike bilateral agreements, multilateralism provides a platform for negotiations and agreements, thus avoiding costly bilateral negotiations and resulting in lower transaction costs. Multilateralism helps states reduce potential economic losses and ensures that risks are shared among member states.
Since preferential trade agreements cover many areas, including social issues, the favoured party will be able to gain a lot in a short time.[26] Therefore, while the content of preferential trade agreements is very important for the economic and political balance between the parties, the worst feature of these agreements is that the weaker party has little bargaining power.[27] Although in theory a trade agreement is considered to be based on mutual consent and equal sovereign will, in reality, preferential trade agreements do not provide equal terms to the parties, and multilateralism is much more advantageous than bilateralism, especially for weaker states. Particularly strong states, thanks to their economic power, are able to determine much of the content of such bilateral agreements.[28]
In addition, with preferential trade agreements, the historical background and socio-cultural preferences of each country, including social rights, are transferred from powerful states to their weaker partners through agreements negotiated on unequal terms, and weaker states may be deprived of independent national policies in the area covered by the agreements.[29] However, this imbalance of power between the parties will not only have a negative impact. From the point of view of the weaker party, signing a trade agreement with a country with a developed and powerful economy also leads to the conclusion that the weaker country can benefit preferentially from the wide market opportunities of the powerful country. For this reason, powerful states that want to spread their socio-economic structures internationally have used preferential trade agreements, which, unlike multilateralism, has led to a serious increase in these agreements.
Bhagwati, in his "building block vs. stumbling block" debate, discusses whether regional trade agreements support or hinder the multilateral trading system. He likened the confusion created by the rise of regional trade agreements to a "bowl of spaghetti" and argued that it would create a slippery slope away from the multilateral system.[30]
If preferential trade agreements, which accelerate the development of international trade, are completely free and unregulated, it may lead to the creation of protectionist blocs by states and there will be a risk of disruption of trade between these blocs. Therefore, monitoring the effects of regional or bilateral preferential trade agreements on international trade is important in terms of the risks that may arise in the future.[31] Paul Krugman has argued that bilateral/regional agreements are a development that erodes the principle of multilateralism and that the fragmentation of the world into regional trade blocs will negatively affect aggregate welfare[32]
As a result, in line with multilateralism and the MFN principle, it is seen that the place of production is chosen where the costs will be the lowest, consumers are given more choice, and producers are enabled to benefit from the possibility of large-scale production.
In addition, since specific studies on the impact of bilateral trade agreements on third countries in general are new and insufficient, it would not be correct to judge their negative impact on economic welfare. However, it can be argued that under bilateral agreements, even if tariffs against third countries that are not party to the bilateral agreement are not changed, there may be an additional cost element for them. States that are not party to bilateral trade agreements face a competitive disadvantage in the international market, because under preferential trade agreements, state parties now benefit from lower tariffs on each other's firms, investment, trade in services, public procurement, more favorable market access and other trade-facilitating practices. To the extent that they realize economies of scale, preferential trade agreements contribute to the economic welfare of the signatories, but this effect may be at the expense of the ability of third country firms to capture economies of scale.[33]
VII. Conclusion
In addition to multilateral agreements, state parties seek to further protect their commercial interests through bilateral trade agreements. In this context, through preferential trade agreements, states can cooperate with states that prefer trade liberalization. In addition, states parties that cooperate with these agreements can unite their interests on the international platform, especially within the framework of GATT negotiations, and can express their demands much more effectively and strongly than a single state can do alone. One of the most important factors driving states towards bilateral agreements is that it is much easier to find common ground with two states that are relatively close to each other, rather than having all WTO members with very different social, economic and political structures and priorities reach a consensus. Through bilateral agreements, progress can be made, even at the regional level, on issues that have not been finalised or addressed in multilateral negotiations. Finally, the large market created by preferential trade agreements is particularly beneficial for states to attract international investment. In this context, despite the disadvantages and risks detailed in the essay, it is not possible to deny the positive contribution of preferential trade agreements to the international trade system. First of all, their emergence was born out of the GATT system and these agreements have been a complementary element rather than a competitor of the system.[34]
Whether bilateralism is beneficial for states in terms of the international economy depends on various factors, such as the nature of the bilateral relationship, the specific economic policies implemented and the global economic context. Bilateral trade agreements can reduce barriers to trade between two countries, such as tariffs and quotas, and facilitate the movement of goods, services and investment between them. This can help boost the economy, create jobs and improve living standards for the citizens of both countries. In sum, whether bilateralism is beneficial to states in terms of the international economy depends on their position in the international arena, the specific circumstances of the bilateral relationship and the policies implemented. While there may be advantages to bilateralism, it is important to consider the potential drawbacks, which are explained in detail in the essay, and to weigh the costs and benefits carefully.
Bibliography
[2] Irwin, Douglas A. (1995), “The GATT in Historical Perspective,” American Economic Review 85(2), p. 325
[3] Santana, R. (2017), "70th Anniversary of The GATT: Stalin, The Marshall Plan, and The Provisional Application of The GATT 1947", Journal of Trade Law and Development 9(2), p 3.
[4] Irwin, Douglas A. (1995), “The GATT in History,” American Economic Review 85(2), p. 326
[5] Schwartz, W.F. and Sykes, A.O. (2002) “The economic structure of renegotiation and dispute resolution in the World Trade Organization,” The Journal of Legal Studies, 31(S1), p. 181
[6] Regional Trade Agreements - GATT ARTICLE XXIV, WTO. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/region_art24_e.htm
[7] Bagwell, K. and Staiger, Robert W. (2004), “Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Bilateral Opportunism and the Rules of GATT/WTO,” The Economic Journal, 63(1), p. 24
[8] Dieter, H. (2009) ‘The Multilateral Trading System and Preferential Trade Agreements: Can the Negative Effects Be Minimized?’, Global Governance, 15(3), p. 396-398
[9] Candas, U. (2010) ‘Çok Taraflılık mı İki Taraflılık mı? Tercihli Ticaret Anlaşmalarının Uluslararası Ticaret Sistemiyle İlişkisine Dair Bir Değerlendirme’, 6(22), p. 56
[10] Bhagwati, J. (1992), “Regionalism vs. Multilateralism,” The World Economy, 15(5), p. 539
[11] WT/REG/W/37, WTO, Committee on Regional Trade Agreements, 2 March 2000, par. 2.
[12] Abbott, Frederick M. (2007) “A New Dominant Trade Species Emerges: Is Bilateralism a threat?”, Journal of International Economic Law, 10(3), p. 574
[13] Bagwell, K. and Staiger, Robert W. (2004), “Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Bilateral Opportunism and the Rules of GATT/WTO,” The Economic Journal, 63(1), p. 15
[14] Benefits of the U.S.-South Korea Trade Agreement to U.S. small and medium businesses, United States Trade Representative. Available at: https://ustr.gov/uskoreaFTA/small_business
[15] Bhagwati, J. (1992), “Regionalism vs. Multilateralism,” The World Economy, 15(5), p. 543
[16] Bhagwati, J. (1992) “Regionalism vs. Multilateralism,” The World Economy, 15(5), p. 539
[17] Woolcock, S. and Heydon, K. (2009), ‘The Rise of Bilateralism: Comparing American, European and Asian Approaches to Preferential Trade Agreements’, New York: United Nations University Press, p. 10-11
[18] Bhagwati, J. (1992) “Regionalism vs. Multilateralism,” The World Economy, 15(5), p 540
[19] Woolcock, S. & Barfield, C. & Koopmann, G. & MacLaren, D. (2007) ‘Competing Regionalism - Patterns, Economic Impact and Implications for the Multilateral Trading System’, Intereconomics, 42(5), p. 236-238
[20] Barfield, C. (2007), 'US Trade Policy: The Emergence of Regional and Bilateral Alternatives to Multilateralism', Intereconomics
[21] Legler, T. (2013), ‘Post-Hegemonic Regionalism And Sovereignty In Latin America: Optimists, Skeptics, And An Emerging Research Agenda’, 35(2), p. 339
[22] Crawford, Jo-Ann and Fiorentino, Roberto V., (2005), ‘The Changing Landscape of Regional Trade Agreements', World Trade Organization Discussion Paper 8, WTO Publications, p. 16
[23] Deblock, C. (2002), 'Les accords commerciaux régionaux, le nouveau régionalisme et l'OMC', CEIM, p. 19
[24] See footnotes 20 and 21.
[25] Abbott, Frederick M. (2007) “A New Dominant Trade Species Emerges: Is Bilateralism a threat?”, Journal of International Economic Law, 10(3), p. 582.
[26] Abbott, Frederick M. (2007) "A New Dominant Trade Species Emerges: Is Bilateralism a threat?", Journal of International Economic Law, 10(3), p. 571
[27] Woolcock, S. & Barfield, C. & Koopmann, G. & MacLaren, D. (2007) ‘Competing Regionalism - Patterns, Economic Impact and Implications for the Multilateral Trading System’, Intereconomics, 42(5), p. 238.
[28] Bagwell, K. and Staiger, Robert W. (2004), “Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Bilateral Opportunism and the Rules of GATT/WTO,” The Economic Journal, 63(1)
[29] Abbott, Frederick M. (2007) "A New Dominant Trade Species Emerges: Is Bilateralism a threat?", Journal of International Economic Law, 10(3), p. 571
[30] Bhagwati, J. (1995), "U.S. Trade Policy: The Infatuation with Free Trade Agreements", in Jagdish Bhagwati and Anne O. Krueger, The Dangerous Drift to Preferential Trade Agreements, Washington, DC: AEI Press.
[31] Bhagwati, J. (1992), “Regionalism vs. Multilateralism,” The World Economy, 15(5), p 541
[32] Krugman, P. (1989) "Is Bilateralism Bad?", International Trade and Trade Policy, E. Helpman ve A. Razin (eds.), Cambridge MA: MIT Press
[33] Hoekman, B. and Kostecki, M. (2009) “The Political Economy of the World Trading System, The WTO and Beyond”, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 496.
[34] Cottier, T. (2005) ‘The Erosion of Non-Discrimination: Stern Warning without True Remedies,’ Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), p. 598
Comentarios