One of the practical advantages of bilateral agreements (EEA) is that they are faster and easier to negotiate than multilateral agreements, since only two parties are involved in bilateral negotiations. In addition, bilateral free trade agreements are an important driver of trade liberalization, even though multilateral agreements are more important. As noted in the example that has allowed Australia and New Zealand to become a single economy in terms of substance; Australian New Zealand Closer Economic Relation Agreement (ANZCERTA). This has had a major influence on New Zealand`s export volumes to Australia, from 14 per cent in 1983 to 20.5 per cent in 2004. Since 1990, trade between the two countries has increased by an average of 9-10% per year. That is why both countries have really benefited from this free trade agreement. Nevertheless, multilateral agreements have become “heavy and large,” says Mauro Guillen, a Wharton management professor, so bilateral plans can be seen as more manageable for negotiators and companies that rely on them for market access. “But bilateral agreements may treat some countries better than others. The United States is already doing so with its free trade agreements (free trade agreements) with Colombia, Israel, South Korea and many other countries, in addition to Mexico and Canada.

The question is whether these bilateral agreements are a matter of free trade or to show some countries to others. The various IP treaties and the WTO agreement are totally ineffective. That could explain President Trump`s U-turn from a supporter of multilateral treaties to bilateral agreements. China is the main breach of WTO trade agreements and the law agreement. In the first 15 years of WTO membership, only China achieved a unilateral victory result and not a win-win with the United States and the rest of the world. Second, the details of the negotiations are particularly related to Cer`s business and business practices. Public opinion is often wrong. As a result, they receive a lot of press, controversies and protests. Within weeks, the Trump administration rejected the troubled Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and announced plans to renegotiate the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. Trade advisers in the new government led by economist Peter Navarro say a greater reliance on bilateral – and non-multilateral – trade agreements will allow U.S. negotiators to create provisions that would bring maximum benefits to U.S.

exporters and consumers. What are the arguments for and against such an approach? The United States has a gross domestic product (GDP) of about $17 trillion and a high GDP per capita. Faced with a huge market, U.S. negotiators actually hold a lot of cards at the negotiating table. However, several bilateral agreements, with many technical provisions, can make it more expensive and more difficult for U.S. exporters to use market opening opportunities.