Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:30:48.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Embracing Diversity: Plurilateral Agreements and the Trading System*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

BERNARD M. HOEKMAN  and
PETROS C. MAVROIDIS
BERNARD M. HOEKMAN*
Affiliation:
European University Institute and Center for Economic and Policy Research
PETROS C. MAVROIDIS
Affiliation:
European University Institute and Columbia University
*
*Email: Bernard.Hoekman@EUI.eu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Plurilateral agreements in the WTO context allow sub-sets of countries to agree to commitments in specific policy areas that only apply to signatories, and thus allow for ‘variable geometry’ in the WTO. Current WTO rules make it much more difficult to pursue the plurilateral route than to negotiate a preferential trade agreement outside the WTO. We argue that this is inefficient from a global welfare and trading system perspective and that WTO Members should facilitate the negotiation of new plurilateral agreements on regulatory matters.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 101 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Bernard M. Hoekman and Petros C. Mavroidis 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Decreux, Y. and Fontagne, L. (2015), ‘What next for multilateral trade talks? Quantifying the role of negotiation modalities’, World Trade Review, this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, P. and Dube, M. (2013), ‘Plurilaterals and the Multilateral Trading System’, ICTSD E15 background paper.Google Scholar
Evenett, S. (2013), ‘The Doha Round Impasse: A Graphical Account’, Review of International Organizations, 9(2): 143–162.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. (2014a), ‘The Bali Trade Facilitation Agreement and Rule-Making in the WTO: Milestone, Mistake or Mirage?’, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Working Paper 2014/102, European University Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekman, B. (2014b), ‘Sustaining Multilateral Trade Cooperation in a Multipolar World Economy’, Review of International Organizations, 9(2): 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekman, B. and Kostecki, M. (2009), The Political Economy of the World Trading System, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. and Mattoo, A. (2013), ‘Liberalizing Trade in Services: Lessons from Regional and WTO Negotiations’, International Negotiation, 18: 131–151.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2013), ‘WTO à la Carte or WTO Menu du Jour: Assessing the Case for Plurilateral Agreements’, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Working Paper 2013/58, European University Institute.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2015), ‘Extending WTO Commitments: Accession Protocols and Amendment of Schedules’, mimeo, European University Institute.Google Scholar
Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2014), ‘Multilateral Environmental Agreements in the WTO: Silence Speaks Volumes’, International Journal of Economic Theory, 10(1), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijet.12033/pdf.Google Scholar
Horn, H., Mavroidis, P., and Sapir, A. (2010), ‘Beyond the WTO: An Anatomy of the EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements’, The World Economy, 33: 1565–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hufbauer, G. and Schott, J. (2012), ‘Will the World Trade Organization Enjoy a Bright Future?’, Petersen Institute for International Economics, Policy Brief 12–11.Google Scholar
Lawrence, R. (2006), ‘Rulemaking Amidst Growing Diversity: A “Club of Clubs” Approach to WTO Reform and New Issue Selection’, Journal of International Economic Law, 9(4): 823–835.Google Scholar
Lawrence, R. (2013), ‘When the Immovable Object Meets the Unstoppable Force: Multilateralism, Regionalism and Deeper Integration’, E15 background paper, ICTSD, Geneva.Google Scholar
Levy, P. (2006), ‘Do We Need an Undertaker for the Single Undertaking? Angles of Variable Geometry’, in Evenett, S. and Hoekman, B. (eds.), Economic Development and Multilateral Trade Cooperation, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. C. (2011), ‘Always Look at the Bright Side of Non-Delivery: WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements, Yesterday and Today’, World Trade Review, 10(3): 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavroidis, P. C. (2013), Trade in Goods, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tijmes-Lhl, J. (2009), ‘Consensus and Majority Voting in the WTO’, World Trade Review, 8: 417–437.Google Scholar
Wolfe, R. (2009), ‘The WTO Single Undertaking as Negotiating Technique and Constitutive Metaphor’, Journal of International Economic Law, 12(4): 835–858.Google Scholar
Wolfe, R. (2015), ‘First Diagnose, Then Treat: What Ails the Doha Round?’, World Trade Review, this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Economic Forum (2010), ‘A Plurilateral ‘Club-of-Clubs’ Approach to World Trade Organization Reform and New Issues’, Global Agenda Council on the Global Trade System and Foreign Direct Investment, World Economic Forum, Geneva.Google Scholar