scholarly journals Brazil and the institutionalization of South America: from hemispheric estrangement to cooperative hegemony

2011 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Gustavo Poggio Teixeira
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South America ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
The United States ◽  
South American ◽  
The South ◽  
Trade Area

This article argues that Brazil went from a posture of estrangement in relation to the hemispheric project represented by the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) to a strategy of cooperative hegemony aimed at institutionalizing the South American space and increasing the costs of the FTAA for the United States. Although Brazil was initially isolated, US lack of leadership combined with events at the subregional level ended up turning the tide in the direction of Brazilian interests. These factors help to understand the current institutional configuration of South America.

scholarly journals ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE PERIOD THE PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP (2017-2020)

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-39
Author(s):  
Andrei Martynov ◽  
Sergey Asaturov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Area

The European Union has met Donald Trump's presidency in a crisis, caused by Britain's exit, quarrels over migration policy and prospects for European integration. Trump has abandoned a project to create a transatlantic free trade area. He demanded a one-sided trade advantage for the United States. The rejection of the liberal project of multilateral foreign policy contributed to the deepening of contradictions between the EU and the US in the field of trade, environment, the regime of international disarmament treaties, the algorithm for resolving regional conflicts. The Trump era in US foreign policy was a time of abandoning liberal globalism. But it is impossible to realize this task in one cadence. The question is whether it is possible for Democrats to fully restore liberal globalism in equal cooperation with the European Union.Trump has abandoned the project of a transatlantic free trade area between the United States and the European Union. This shocked the European elites. Differences in approaches to world trade contributed to the coolness. The European Union is promoting a liberal approach. Trump insisted on the priority of the patronage of American interests. As a result, the tradition of relationships has suffered. Until 2017, the United States bought European goods and paid the most to the NATO budget. Trump demanded trade parity and more European funding for NATO. European elites perceived Trump's approach to migration issues as unacceptable. Trump's policy on international conflicts has become another reason for mutual misunderstanding. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and helped establish diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. This has become a challenge for the European Union's Middle East policy.

The Political Economy of NAFTA/USMCA

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo A. Flores-Macías ◽  
Mariano Sánchez-Talanquer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
The North ◽  
Positive Side ◽  
The One ◽  
United States Mexico

When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into force on January 1st, 1994, it created the largest free trade area in the world, and the one with the largest gaps in development between member countries. It has since served as a framework for trilateral commercial exchange and investment between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. NAFTA’s consequences have been mixed. On the positive side, the total value of trade in the region reached $1.1 trillion in 2016, more than three times the amount in 1994, and total foreign direct investment among member countries also grew significantly. However, the distribution of benefits has been very uneven, with exposure to international competition reducing economic opportunity and increasing insecurity for certain sectors in all three countries. Twenty-four years later, the three countries renegotiated the terms of NAFTA and renamed it the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). The negotiation responded in part to the need to modernize the agreement, but mostly to President Donald Trump’s concerns about NAFTA’s effect on the U.S. economy and the fairness of its terms. Although the revised agreement incorporated rules that modernize certain aspects of the institutional framework, some new provisions also make trade and investment relations in North America more uncertain.

scholarly journals The Development of the Free Trade Area of the Americas: A Guide For Legal Research

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle S. Viegas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
The World

At the 1994 Summit of the Americas, leaders of democratic nations in the Western Hemisphere committed to establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) by January 2005. The Declaration of Principles resulting from that Summit called for building on “existing sub-regional and bilateral arrangements in order to broaden and deepen hemispheric economic integration and to bring the agreements together.” Although ambitious, this endeavor was undertaken during a decade marked by an unprecedented proliferation of trade agreements. In 1991, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay agreed to initiate the formation of a common market now known as the MERCOSUR. Then in 1994, Canada, Mexico and the United States signed the North American Free Trade Agreement which replaced the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Later that year, nations around the world formalized the existing General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, creating the World Trade Organization. In 1997, the Andean Community of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela formalized its plans to establish a common market. Members of the Caribbean Community and Common Market also agreed in several protocols to further their economic and social integration. During the 1990's, numerous other trade agreements were negotiated, and their development continues at the same rapid pace today.

New Trade Strategy For the World Economy, Edited by Harry G. Johnson, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1969.

1973 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-92
Author(s):  
Z. A. Vaince
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Trade Policy ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Association ◽  
Integration Scheme ◽  
Kennedy Round ◽  
Trade Area

Harry G. Johnson edited the book under review when trade policy after the Kennedy Round was in a state of flux. In the United States there was a resurgence of protectionism. Britain suffered another EEC rebuff in the same period, with Western Europe remaining at Sixes and Sevens. The imbalance of European Currencies and the inadequacy of international reserves were a threat to international trade. Generalised Tariff Preferences for developing countries were agreed in principle, but agreement in practice was not in sight. President Kennedy's Grand Design needed a revision. A New Trade Strategy was required. The present collection of papers seems to have been designed to provide this new strategy. In broad terms, what is proposed is the establishment of a free trade regime in industrial products amongst a group of countries touching the Atlantic, together with some subsidiary proposals for action in related areas of trade policy. The nucleus of what would thus initially be a North Atlantic Free Trade Area (NAFTA) would be the United States, Canada and Britain and other members of the European Free Trade Associa¬tion (EFTA). But the plan would be an "open-ended" arrangement which other industrialised nations — Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the countries - of the European Economic Community—could also join, provided they were prepared to conform to the rules that this integration scheme would entail. The launching of a multilateral free trade association could be the means of continuing the momentum towards world trade liberalisation and of countering the inward-looking tendencies of the EEC.

Free Trade Area or Common Capital Market? Notes on Mexico-US Economic Integration and Current NAFTA Negotiations

1992 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime Ros
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Investment Liberalization ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
Mexican Government ◽  
Trade And Investment

This Article addresses some of the key issues involved in understanding current trade negotiations between Mexico and the United States, as well as their significance for the process of economic integration in North America. These issues derive from the new setting produced by (a) Mexico's trade and investment liberalization in the 1980s, (b) the incentives which underlie the drive towards integration, as well as (c) those factors which will condition the final content of the current negotiating process.A free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States could be seen as the logical conclusion of the process of trade and investment liberalization carried out by the Mexican government ever since the mid-1980s. At the same time, it also represents a shift in Mexico's initial trade strategy, from multilateralism to bilateralism, or from globalization to regionalization, as a consequence of the global trend, toward the end of the 20th century, to create large regional economic blocs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document