Agreement On Tariff

Reducing tariffs and introducing new rules to stem the increase in non-tariff barriers and voluntary export restrictions. 102 countries participated in the cycle. Concessions have been made for $19 billion. In May 1963, ministers agreed on three negotiating objectives: the fifth round took place in New Geneva and lasted from 1960 to 1962. The talks were appointed by U.S. Treasury Secretary and former Undersecretary of State Douglas Dillon, who first proposed the talks. Twenty-six countries participated in the cycle. In addition to reducing tariffs by more than $4.9 billion, it has also led to discussions on the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC). The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is a legal agreement between many countries whose overall objective was to promote international trade by removing or removing trade barriers, such as tariffs or quotas. According to its preamble, its objective was to “substantially reduce tariffs and other trade barriers and eliminate mutually beneficial and reciprocal preferences.” The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) on the protection of human, animal or plant health was so vague that many countries used “health requirements” as trade barriers. These concerns were taken into account in the rules on multilateral trade relations of the 1994 Uruguay Round, which brought food and agricultural products into the set of international trade rules.

It led to the adoption of the SPS Enforcement Agreement (Laws, Regulations and Procedures) and an updated Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (OTC), which ensured fair and effective international trade on the basis of equity and access to global food markets. These agreements should define the conditions for transparency, equivalence, regionalization, harmonisation and national sovereignty when countries establish regulatory measures to ensure food security, consumer protection and plant and animal health. Unjustified health measures as impediments to trade have been discouraged unless such measures have scientific evidence and risk assessment principles.