….. is just a legal agreement and it`s not an institution, but….. is a permanent institution. 44 GATT Art. XV:2 (adding). The reference to a “special exchange agreement” refers to the situation in which a contracting party of the GATT was not a member of the Fund. Such a member had to conclude the Special Exchange Agreement to reiterate its commitments in order to avoid the chance of exchange rate restrictions that accompany membership of the Fund. See z.B. Gold, Joseph, member and not member of the International Monetary Fund 426 (1974) Google Scholar, John, H. Jackson, World Trade and The Law of GATT 486-91 (1969) Google Scholar. Although such cases are rare today, they remain relevant in the WTO (for example.
B Taiwan province, China, as does the Fund). While these specific trade agreements raise important issues in the Fund`s relationship with the WTO, an in-depth discussion of these issues goes beyond the scope of this article. The cornerstone of the merchandise trade agreements is GATT 1994, an updated version of the 1947 GATT, supplemented by agreements interpreting different provisions. In addition, there are agreements on practices that are important to GATT rules (trade-related investment measures and “grey zone measures”), trade liberalization agreements with agriculture, textiles and clothing, and agreements on the application of non-tariff measures (see Box 1). While agriculture, textiles and clothing are in principle covered by THE GATT rules, the rules have in the past been less effective than for other products. For agriculture, the main outcomes of the negotiations are improving market access by reducing barriers and extending the scope of links, gradually reducing trade-distorting domestic support measures and reducing subsidies to encourage export competition. This process will create the necessary conditions for future market-opening negotiations. In the textile and clothing sector, the reduction of restrictions and the abandonment of the multi-fibre agreement over a ten-year period will result in a key export sector for many developing countries in the disciplines of multilateral trading systems. 20 The U.S. Act, known as Section 301, 19.C.C No. 2411-2420 (2000), is now linked to the results of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.
19 Significant asymmetries remain somewhat representative of the different roles of staff in the two institutions with respect to bureaucratic aspects, such as. B staff size and travel budget.