What Are The Types Of International Commodity Agreements

Principles that are outdated from reality. The havana Charter chapter, which deals with intergovernmental agreements to control goods, included provisions that would have benefited the consumer, including (a) equal representation for import and export countries; (b) the participation of all countries that are “essentially interested in the product concerned”; (c) advertising controls in the form of an annual report; and (d) to ensure increased market opportunities for deliveries from regions where production is most efficient. Historically, U.S. policy on international commodity agreements has been marked by some ambivalence. Until recently, it has only participated in agreements that are of interest to the United States, particularly the international wheat agreement. Even in the case of sugar (where the United States remains a net importer), it has acted more in a producer than among consumers; Too large a gap between domestic and foreign prices would embarrass the continuation of the national sugar control system. From time to time, the United States has co-ordded the idea of a lead and zinc agreement to end an existing system of unilaterally imposed import quotas, which has caused great irritation in trade relations with Mexico, Peru, Australia and Canada. The USTR cites U.S. participation in two trade agreements on raw materials: the International Tropical Woods Agreement and the International Coffee Agreement (ICA). These two agreements form intergovernmental organizations with boards of directors. There is a great gap between the principles underlying these provisions and the harsh realities of the agreements that were actually negotiated in the post-war period. The U.S.S.R.

continues to vote on the international sugar agreement and the international wheat agreement as an exporting country, although the dynamism of international trade is such that it has recently become a major net importer of both countries. In the present circumstances, the United States, although not itself a member of the ITA, is in fact setting a ceiling for international tin prices by regulating the rate at which tin disposals are produced from that country`s strategic stocks. In the case of wheat, too, the international market was less dominated by IWA than by the oligopolistic pricing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board and the U.S. Commodity Credit Corporation. The membership of a large number of nations in the current international agreements on raw materials can only complicate administrative and decision-making processes, whereas in at least one case – the UK`s decision not to side with the 1953 IWA – the absence of a major wheat-importing country could have had a beneficial effect in moderating the exercise of oligopolistic power. Since the end of the Second World War, agreements have been successfully negotiated on wheat, sugar, tin, coffee and olive oil. The 1949 and 1953 International Wheat Agreements (IWA) and the Post-War International Sugar Agreements (ISA) are prototypes of two forms of commodity agreements – the multilateral treaty and the variable export quota. Land prices and sugar caps have been set and, for the most part, imposed by the export regulations authorised by Member States; the sugar agreement also provided that stocks held by exporters were not higher or lower than the percentages indicated by export quotas.