Talk:General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/Archives/2013

DEFINITION NEEDED
This article does not explain what the GATT *IS*! Someone who thoroughly understands it, please add this at the top. Evangeline (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Source for member numbers
Every source seems to list a different number of countries that participated in each of the GATT rounds. This may be because some countries took a while to ratify agreements. The list I used here was from the WTO. Tempshill 00:12, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Different Versions of GATT
Someone added Bretton Woods, but deleted the 1994 GATT. Obviously, GATT 1994 is just as (if not more) important, although as a historical note, it's necessary to mention GATT 1947. So please, if you are visiting this page, do not delete the two (2) different GATT references made, but feel free to edit how it is presented. Ommission of either would be detrimental to the clarity of the publics' knowledge of what "GATT" really is. Thanks. --AEnan 00:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Spoof site quoted on references
The website www.gatt.org is actually a spoof site. I am changing the reference to www.wto.org, but will include www.gatt.org as a parody/criticism site.

Foreign policy conflict in Historial Roots section
The following text has been removed for discussion. Please cite and remove NPOV. One reason for (the US not taking a leading role in global trade policy making until the Great Depression) is that under the US Constitution the Congress has responsibility for promoting and regulating commerce, while the executive branch has responsibility for foreign policy. ---Note:--- The comment above that the executive is responsible for foreign policy is a commonly held misconception. The executive only has certain powers to "manage" the foriegn policy, but all foreign policy matters must be approved by the Congress. It is also relative to mention here that in the US there is a common tendency in textbooks to attribute a mythical and near-divine role to the president. This further contributes to a reduction in the ability of normal citizens to challenge excessive presidential activism. (due to lack of correct education) Flickboy 15:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Data
(1) The data for the different rounds in terms of number of participants are wrong

Here are the real ones according to WTO

Geneva : 23 Annecy: 13 Torquay : 38 Geneve : 26 Dillon : 26 Kennedy : 62 Tokyo : 62 Uruguay : 123

http://www.wto.org/french/thewto_f/whatis_f/tif_f/fact4_f.htm

Needs more cowbell?
(1) It doesn't even mention free-trade which is one of the key points? (2) Also, a section on some of the controversies surrounding the implementation of GATT would be a meaningful addition IMO --Bmathew 05:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Broken link
The link to the GATT of 1966 text seems to not work.80.235.62.140 06:51, 19 October 2007 (UTCpkpppkppk)

structure
I think the structure could be improved a little bit - the first lot of headings are actually equivalent to rounds, but these are followed by the section on the rounds which summarises them. I would like to change the structure a little to make it a bit more systematic. What do people think? JenLouise (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dillon round yielding the creation of the European Economic Community?
This must be a factual error: >Along with reducing over $4.9 billion in tariffs, it also yielded discussion relating to the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC). Dillon round was carried out in 1961-62, while EEC was created in 1957. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.164.126.59 (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Power Rangers?
On the top line it says the Agreement is enforced by the Power Rangers. I'm going to guess this is a joke... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.179.251 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

GATT replaced by WTO?
My understanding is that the GATT is included in the WTO. Npenns (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)NPENNS Somebody changed it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.164.52 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)