欢迎来到爱尚英语
关于爱尚:
您当前所在的位置:主页 > 爱尚动态 > 英语热点 >

英语阅读:多哈回合谈判

浏览量: 发布时间:2018-11-14 19:06 点击在线免费咨询

就世界贸易组织而言,已经加入世贸组织的发展中国家的绝对数量也使调整成为必要。经过14年的谈判,多哈回合谈判未能结束,这是问题的一个症状。在2010年代,出现了一个大型区域贸易谈判(最重要的是跨太平洋伙伴关系协定(Trans-Pacific Partnership,简称tpp)和跨大西洋贸易和投资伙伴关系协定(Trans-Atlantic trade and Investment Partnership,简称tpp)的谈判)以及在WTO框架之外进行其他“小边”谈判的体系。
 
 
在多哈回合谈判失败后,特朗普的攻击可能会导致一个功能性的世贸组织的终结。但有关世贸组织命运的辩论,是有关多边主义的广泛讨论的一部分。多边主义包括联合国、20国集团(G20)和国际货币基金组织(IMF)。冒着过度简化的风险,三个替代的“系统”似乎是可能的。
 
 
第一种是由双边协议主导的体系,在这种体系中,没有国际规则和国际法。这不仅适用于贸易,也适用于已成为贸易谈判一部分的许多“边界后”监管问题。它还将把IMF和金融稳定委员会(Financial Stability Board)的角色降至最低,并结束由20国集团(g20)主导的多边努力,以防止企业的税收优化战略导致一场恶性竞争。在其极端形式中,这一愿景成为一个“丛林法则”盛行的愿景。
 
 
第二种选择是现行体系,即各国利用全球多边主义来执行共同规则。这一制度包括许多区域组织;然而,在这一体系的最高层,是国际货币基金组织(IMF)、世界银行(World Bank)和世贸组织(WTO)等全球性多边机构,目的是制定全球规则和标准。
 
 
最后,我们可以设想这样一种制度:在这种制度中,建立全球规则的尝试被放弃,但区域性或志趣相投的国家集团制定自己的规则集。这种制度将适应各国可能存在的偏好差异。从理论上讲,我们应该很容易构想出两种不同的监管体系,例如,它们反映了美国和欧盟对隐私的不同优先级。然而,在实践中,考虑到美国和欧盟之间的深度互动,实施两种不同的系统将是复杂的。事实证明,就欧盟的一般数据保护监管而言,实施这两种系统是困难的。
 
 
第一个体系抛弃了提供全球公共产品和管理溢出效应(包括过去几十年发生的那些)的所有努力。各国将成为一场反反复复的报复游戏的参与者,即使是最强大的国家也会遭受损失,这也可能导致军事冲突。这正是二战后战胜国领导人试图避免的。
 
 
但拒绝“丛林法则”并不意味着一切都在现有制度和规则下运转良好。显然需要在规则和标准上有所区别,以适应不同的偏好。
 
 
这是否意味着我们应该采用第三种体系,一种支离破碎的多边主义,没有多少全球机构的空间?
 
 
一旦人们思考了世界经济和世界社会的相互依存程度,就会清楚地看到,一个高度分散的体系将无法提供受欢迎的全球公共产品和福利。当然,区域组织或志同道合的国家也有自己组织的空间。我们的全球机构往往不遵循辅助性原则。

In the case of the WTO, the sheer number of developing countries that had joined also made adjustment necessary. The inability to conclude the Doha Round of negotiations, after 14 years of talks, was a symptom of the problem. In the 2010s, a system emerged in which mega-regional trade negotiations - most importantly, those for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - and other "minilateral" negotiations took place outside the WTO framework. 
 
Trump's attacks, coming after the failure of the Doha Round, may lead to the end of a functional WTO. But the debate about the WTO's fate is part of a wider discussion concerning multilateralism, which includes the United Nations, the G20 and the IMF. At the risk of oversimplifying, three alternative "systems" appear to be possible.
 
The first is a system dominated by bilateral deals, in which international rules and international law are absent. This would apply not only to trade, but also to the many "behind the borders" regulatory issues that have become part of trade negotiations. It would also minimize the roles of the IMF and the Financial Stability Board, and end the G20-led multilateral effort to prevent a race to the bottom by corporations' tax optimization strategies. In its extreme form, this vision becomes one in which the "law of the jungle" prevails.
 
The second alternative is the current system, in which countries use global multilateralism to enforce common rules. This system includes many regional organizations; at the top of the system, however, sit global multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO, with the aim of formulating global rules and standards.
 
Finally, one can envision a system in which the attempt to establish global rules is abandoned, but regional or like-minded country groupings formulate their own sets of rules. This kind of system would accommodate the differences in preferences countries may have. In theory, it should be easy to conceive of two different regulatory systems that reflect, for example, the different priorities that the US and the EU assign to privacy. In practice, however, implementing two different systems would be complicated, given the deep interaction between the US and the EU, and has proven difficult in the case of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation.  
 
The first system discards all the efforts to provide global public goods and manage spillover effects, including those that have occurred over the last few decades. Countries would become players in a game of back-and-forth retaliation that creates losses even for the strongest, which would also likely lead to military conflict. It is exactly what the leaders of the victorious powers after World War II tried to avoid.
 
But rejection of the "law of the jungle" does not mean that everything is working well under the existing institutions and rules. There is a clear demand for some differentiation in rules and standards to accommodate varying preferences.
 
Does this mean we should adopt the third system, a fragmented multilateralism, with not much room for global institutions? 
 
Once one has thought through the degree of interdependence, not only of the world's economies, but of the world's societies, it becomes clear that a strongly fragmented system would be unable to deliver the sought-after global public goods and benefits. There certainly is room for regional groupings or for like-minded countries to organize themselves. Our global institutions often do not follow the principle of subsidiarity.
 

姓名: *
性别:
手机: *
QQ:
E-mail:
宁波哪里有成人英语培训

如果宁波哪里有成人英语培训,那么一般来说,我们来宁波是为了宁波爱英语。宁波爱英语...[详细]

关于思瑞褔 | 关于爱尚 | 联系我们 | 优惠活动
首页 | 宁波英语培训 | 宁波英语口语 | 宁波商务英语 | 宁波职场英语 | 宁波日常英语 | 宁零基础英语 | 宁波雅思培训
宁波思瑞福教育旗下爱尚英语 客服QQ:800030336 地址:宁波市江东区彩虹南路11号嘉汇国贸A座902
Copyright (C) 2012-2012 www.nbsrf.com Inc. All rights reserved. 思瑞教育集团 版权所有
网站地图
浙ICP备12008911号-4