Unlike health, finance, work or cultural heritage, the post-war desire to establish safeguards on a global scale took half a century to give birth to an international institution governing trade. between nations. Deemed too liberal by some, too intrusive by others, dispossessed by numerous regional agreements, it has a reduced scope of action, even though 166 States are members, representing 98% of world trade.
4 mins
In 1944, the Bretton Woods system created a new financial organization. The objective is to ensure monetary stability between countries, in order to avoid new crises, which are all factors of political imbalances. They gave birth to the International Monetary Fund – the IMF – and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development – Bird – which is today one of the organizations of the World Bank.
Three years later, the commercial aspect of this system led to a solution perceived as provisional: the General agreement on tariffs and tradebetter known as GATT. These agreements, subsequently modified in the form of cycles, nevertheless regulated international trade for 48 years, before acquiring an official legal entity at the end of the Marrakech agreement in 1995, giving birth to the World Trade Organization.
Making free trade a factor of stability
Originally, it had 123 signatory states. It is not a specialized UN agency, with which it maintains regular relations. It also sits in Geneva. Following the GATT, the WTO intends to guarantee free trade, in particular through the so-called most favored nation clause. This means that each country must be given equal treatment by its trading partners.
It is therefore a non-discrimination measure, aimed at combating both protectionism and commercial or social dumping. In other words, the objective is to prevent trade from becoming instruments of economic domination or disruption that could lead to social crisis, political destabilization or open conflict.
Also read2019: WTO: China and the United States, the biggest beneficiaries of a shutdown institution
The World Trade Organization nevertheless provides for exceptions for developing countries. In the agricultural or textile sectors, for example, generalized preference systems are put in place to grant them a comparative advantage. L’European Union can thus reduce or cancel taxes on goods originating from developing countries.
The WTO annexed to its founding text an Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, including copyright, trademarks, geographical indications and patents. Previously, the World Intellectual Property Organization, a UN agency established in 1967, did not include the resolution of trade disputes.
An institution under threat
The application of this Agreement on the manufacture of generic medicines to combat AIDS or epidemics was at the origin of the Doha declaration in 2001 and a waiver of patent law in 2003. These measures are, however, considered insufficient by many NGOs, because their application remains too complex and too slow. More generally, the work of the WTO is criticized by alter-globalization activists for its participation in the globalization of trade and the priority given to the economy over politics.
The most favored nation clause can be waived in the event of regional trade agreements, which take precedence over general law. From then on, a de facto discrimination is established between products exchanged between the member states of the agreement and those coming from countries which are not. The multiplication of these agreements – 373 in December 2024 – has considerably reduced the prerogatives of the WTO and complicated the rules of international trade.
Also read2021: Nigerian Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, first woman and first African to head the WTO
In 1995, the WTO established a dispute settlement body to resolve trade-related conflicts. After an initial consultation phase, a special group can be formed, which presents its recommendations. The parties involved can appeal this decision, then turning to a seven-member appeals body.
Over the course of the procedures, the dispute resolution body has transformed its experience in conflict resolution into real jurisprudence, provoking the annoyance of the UNITED STATES who see it as calling into question the international consent of States. Also, since 2016, Washington has blocked the renewal of the judges of the appeal body, which has been unable to rule since 2019. Stripped of its prerogatives, it risks settling into a purely advisory role.