The second way of looking at free trade agreements as public goods is related to the growing trend that they are “deeper”. The depth of a free trade agreement relates to the additional types of structural policies it covers. While older trade agreements are considered more “flat” because they cover fewer areas (for example. B tariffs and quotas), recent agreements cover a number of other areas, ranging from e-commerce services and data relocation. Since transactions between parties to a free trade agreement are relatively cheaper than those with non-parties, free trade agreements are considered excluded. Now that deep trade agreements will improve the harmonization of legislation and increase trade flows with non-parties, thereby reducing the exclusivity of free trade agreements, next-generation free trade agreements will take on essential characteristics for public goods. [19] It should also be stressed that a free trade agreement is a reciprocal agreement that is authorized by Article XXIV of the GATT. Autonomous trade agreements for developing and least developed countries are permitted by the 1979 decision by the signatories of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (“empowerment clause”) on differentiated and more favourable treatment, reciprocity and increased participation of developing countries. It forms the legal basis for the WTO`s Generalized Preference System (GSP). [13] Free trade agreements and preferential trade agreements (as mentioned by the WTO) are considered an exception to the MFN principle.
[14] As a result, each party endeavours to ensure that it does not renounce or otherwise abstain from such laws, nor that it rejects them by other means, or that it otherwise denies, which weakens or reduces the protection afforded by those laws as an encouragement to trade with the other party or as an encouragement to the establishment, acquisition , to expand or maintain an investment in its territory. Both the creation of trade and the diversion of trade have a decisive impact on the establishment of a free trade agreement. The creation of trade will result in a shift in consumption from a cost producer to a low-cost producer, which will lead to an expansion of trade. On the other hand, trade diversion will mean that trade will move from a low-cost producer outside the zone to a more expensive producer in the free trade agreement. [16] Such offshoring will not benefit consumers under the free trade agreement, which will be deprived of the opportunity to purchase cheaper imported goods. However, economists note that trade diversion does not always harm the overall national well-being: it can even improve national well-being as a whole if the volume of misappropriated trade is low. [17] There are significant differences between unions and free trade zones. Both types of trading blocs have internal agreements that the parties enter into to liberalize and facilitate trade between them. The key difference between unions and free trade zones is their approach to third parties [lack of ambiguity needed]. While a customs union requires all parties to apply and maintain identical external tariffs on trade with non-parties, parties to a free trade area are not subject to such a requirement. Instead, they can set and maintain any customs regime for imports from non-parties, as they see as necessary.
[3] In a free trade area without harmonized external tariffs, the parties will adopt a system of preferential rules of origin to eliminate the risk of trade diversion [necessary ambiguities]. [4] An interactive list of bilateral and multilateral free trade instruments is available on the TREND Analytics website. [59] It should be noted that the qualification of the original criteria presents a difference in treatment between the original and non-origin inputs