The article of Manzella on globalization presents an argument that is clearly in favor of the process. It starts of with his quotation of a Chinese proverb and relates this to his definition of the term globalization. He noted that with the emergence of globalization, “infinite possibilities, greater freedom and new hope for the poor” will come forward. He kept on with his discussions with citing the Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo. The main argument that is observable in this article is presented when Manzella stated that “helping the world’s poorest countries become globally integrated will position them for greater growth in the 21st century.”
It is implied in his argument that what Manzella meant by “poor countries” include those developing and under developed countries. The problem with the promise of helping these countries in need is the apparent inequality in the system, particularly in the decision making process of the organization. Issues and proposals for restructurings in the WTO’s decision-making processes increased in eminence first following the fall down of the 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference, on account of which Members undertook to have debates associated to internal transparency and involvement. The last foremost formal debate among Members on these concerns transpired for the duration of the July 2000 assembly of the General Council. Throughout that gathering, the then-General Council Chairman, Ambassador Kare Bryn of Norway, required to recognize, anchored on his discussions with Members, what he sensed were the typical of the debates with regards to internal accountability and involvement towards acquiring a consensus.
Official WTO decision-making processes are presided over by Article IX of the WTO Agreement. Consensus decision-making is profoundly entrenched in the WTO decision-making arrangement, and has its origins in GATT 1947 decision-making procedures. (WTO Agreement, Art. IX.1) Article IX.1 of the WTO Agreement specifically points out that an inclination for consensus decision-making above that of conventional majority voting. Consensus is characterized in the WTO Agreement as the organization involved shall be believed to have made a decision by consensus on an issue presented for its consideration, if no Member, in attendance at the assembly when the decision is obtained, officially opposes to the suggested decision. The description of consensus in Article IX.1 of the WTO Agreement rests significance on the actual and learned or informed attendance of a Member’s delegate throughout the meeting in which the decision is completed; and the compliance of such Member, throughout the meeting, to officially and clearly point out that it is in opposition to consensus on the suggested decision. In this type of “passive” consensus, both nonattendance from the assembly and silence or non-objection throughout the assembly are corresponding to joining in the recommended consensus.
However, given the capacity and resource constraints that many developing countries face in terms of their representation and participation in the WTO’s day-to-day business in Geneva, as opposed to what Manzella claims, developing countries might not be able to fully maximize the potential of the consensus decision-making approach indicated in Article IX.1 of the WTO Agreement in guaranteeing that their outlook and points of view are unmistakably attended to and completely emulated in the concluding outcomes of the procedure. To deal with the underperformances of the existing “passive” consensus regulation in the WTO, Members could probably aim to spell out the manner through which consensus could be put across.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment