In 1947, the United Nations negotiated the general agreement on tariffs and trade. This contract has created a body to verify and resolve trade disputes between its members. Members continue to update the underlying contract through a series of “rounds” of negotiations. One of the main principles of the GATT, to which the signatory states adhere, is the non-discriminatory treatment of goods traded. This means that countries ensure that their own national rules do not affect the goods of one country more or less favourably than those of another country and do not treat their own goods more favourably than imported goods. There are two requests for non-discrimination: the most favoured national treatment and national treatment. The GATT had three main provisions. The most important requirement was that each member be obliged to confer the status of the most favoured country on any other member. All members must be treated the same with respect to tariffs. It excluded special tariffs between members of the British Commonwealth and the Customs Union. It allowed tariffs if their removal causes serious damage to domestic producers.
Ensure compliance with laws and rules that are not contrary to the provisions of this agreement, including those relating to the protection of patents, trademarks and copyrights and the prevention of fraudulent practices; Unlike the ITO charter, the GATT did not need congressional approval. Technically, the GATT was a 1934 agreement, in accordance with the provisions of the U.S. Reciprocal Trade Act. But the size of a business cycle can be both a strength and a weakness. The question that arises from time to time is: would it not be easier to focus the negotiations on one sector? Recent history is inconclusive. In some phases, the Uruguay round seemed so tedious that it seemed impossible for all participants to reach agreement on all issues. Then the round ended successfully in 1993/94. Two years followed, during which it was not possible to reach an agreement on maritime transport in the various sectors.
Managing SPS measures to reduce food-related health risks poses clear and specific challenges for developing countries, which are hampered by less access to the scientific and technical knowledge and information needed to meet these new requirements. Their difficulties do not appear to affect the international legislative process, as most developing countries do not have the financial facilities to participate in the activities of international organizations. The conditions for the production and marketing of food are highly fragmented and depend on a large number of small producers. Therefore, they are incompatible with SPS requirements such as traceability. Preliminary estimates show significant negative economic consequences of stricter trade barriers, which have resulted in the loss of millions of dollars in commodity trade. Henson et al. indicated that the number of technical notifications to developing countries to the WTO and its predecessor, GATT, doubled between 1990 and 1998. For the most part, GATT, as developed after 1947 and which became permanent within the World Trade Organization in 1994, represents three key elements that contribute to the monitoring of world trade and to the way in which national governments allow each other to intervene in this trade. The first is a set of mutually agreed limits (or rules) for the application of restrictive measures by national governments.
These were originally defined in the general agreement itself, but were interpreted and developed both later in the negotiations and through the GATT dispute resolution process. The second is progressive liberalization, which must be achieved through negotiations on trade barriers and the removal of trade barriers. These rounds of negotiations, which ended on the basis of reciprocal concessions between the governments of the Member States, took place in the 1960s and 1970s (in Ken