Introduction介紹

該普雷維什信條“治不平等同樣簡(jiǎn)單加劇不平等”被認(rèn)為是一個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)，最惠國(guó)待遇原則，現(xiàn)代國(guó)際貿(mào)易體系的基石。貿(mào)易經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們有時(shí)自定義為不正當(dāng)?shù)钠�，一方面他們歪曲發(fā)展中國(guó)家的注意力從最惠國(guó)談判，一是另一方面，小的好處是依靠?jī)?yōu)惠的市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入，計(jì)入他們離開(kāi)。

它必須回顧，貿(mào)易優(yōu)惠是最惠國(guó)待遇原則之前，，現(xiàn)有的和在很大程度上來(lái)自于原來(lái)的GATT 1947功能的前殖民貿(mào)易協(xié)定的遺產(chǎn)推導(dǎo)。
特別是第1947年關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定藝術(shù)2祖父現(xiàn)有的殖民喜好到GATT體制。
可能很少有人記得的今天，建立普遍優(yōu)惠制度的原命題普雷維什給予了紀(jì)律，競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的喜好廣泛，原本刊登在1947年GATT根據(jù)普雷維什的愿景前歧視性貿(mào)易優(yōu)惠至預(yù)定目標(biāo)通過(guò)一套獨(dú)特的授予基于自當(dāng)選的原則，所有發(fā)展中國(guó)家的喜好進(jìn)行更換。
The Prebisch tenet that "treating unequals equally simply exacerbates inequality" has been perceived as a challenge to the MFN principle, the cornerstone of the modern international trading system. Trade economists have  at times  defined  preferences as perverse since, on one hand  they distorted Developing Countries attention away from MFN negotiations  and, one the other hand,  little benefits were accrued to them by relying on preferential market access. 
It has to be recalled that trade preferences  were existing before the MFN principle and are  largely deriving from a legacy of former colonial trade agreements that featured in the original GATT 1947.
In particular paragraph 2 of art of GATT 1947 grandfathered the existing colonial preferences into the GATT system .  

Few may today remember that the original Prebisch proposition of establishing the Generalized System of Preferences had the intended objective of imparting discipline to the wide array of competing preferences that originally featured in the GATT 1947. According to the vision of  Prebisch  former discriminatory trade preferences were to be replaced by an unique set  of preferences granted to all Developing countries based on a principle of self- election.

In spite of the inevitable shortcomings occurring whenever vision have to be translated into trade policy instruments this attempt largely succeeded.After the establishment of the first GSP schemes in 1971  there has been a relative long period where the preferences were mostly channelled trough the GSP schemes with the notable exception of the preferences granted by the EU to ACP countries under the Lome Conventions and lately the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. 

GSP Preferences from 1971 to 1994: 
From 1994 to present 
The 1976 to 1994 period
Some conclusions and possible actions

As far as rules of origin are concerned, , the work of the Technical Committee of the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the Committee of rules origin has developed an harmonized set of non-preferential rules of origin. Negotiations are still ongoing and at times the whole process has been considered as a failure. This is simply wrong since most of the technical work has been carried out and final agreement is kept hostage of few delegations on the implications of the Harmonized set of rules of origin on other WTO agreements notably Antidumping.The technical work carried out by these Committee could be taken as a guide and reference for harmonizing unilateral preferential rules of origin.  This was the strategy originally envisaged and agreed at the last UNCTAD Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Rules of Origin held in 1994.


Member states may wish to resume such course of action for rules of origin applying under unilateral trade preferences. A working group established  in the WCO secretariat  could be entrusted with the mandate to develop an harmonized set of  preferential rules of origin  used under unilateral trade preferences. In addition, simplification and improvement of the administrative aspects of the rules of origin should also be addressed by the same Working Group. It is quite ridiculous that while Developing Countries have been asked to implement trade reforms in the context of the negotiations on trade facilitation no comparable efforts have been spared by preference giving country to facilitate preferential trade flows.

本文編號(hào)：37851