Abstract
The recent proliferation of Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) in the last two decades raises questions about the paradigm shift from the multilateral trading system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to bilateral and regional preferential trade arrangements. Even more questionable is the fact that the United States of America (USA) and the European Union (EU), among the other trading powers of the world, are leading the use of RTAs to the detriment and neglect of non-discriminatory trade liberalisation. It has been suggested that neo-colonialism may be the motivation for the use of RTAs by the USA and the EU as their international trade policy of choice within a broader competitive process for imperial domination of their preferential trading partners. This article reviews this suggestion in order to propose an alternative explanation for the RTA practice of the USA and the EU.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For another use of the term ‘competitive imperialism’, see Schoonover, T.D. 1998. Germany in central America: Competitive imperialism, 1821—1929. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
References
Abbott, F.M. 2007. A new dominant trade species emerges: Is bilateralism a threat? Journal of International Economic Law 10(3): 571–583.
Bauer, P.T. 1981. Equality, the third World and economic delusion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bhala, R. 2008. International trade law: Interdisciplinary theory and practice. 3rd ed. New York: Lexis Nexis.
Bhala, R. 2000. The bananas war. McGeorge Law Review 31(4): 839–971.
Bhala, R. 2007. Competitive liberalization, competitive imperialism, and intellectual property. Liverpool Law Review 28(1): 77–105.
Davey, W.J. 2006. The WTO: Looking forwards. Journal of International Economic Law 9(1): 3–29.
Dukgeun, A. 2008. Foe or friend of GATT article XXIV: Diversity in trade remedy rules. Journal of International Economic Law 11(1): 107–133.
Finger, M.J. 2007. Trade negotiations and developing countries negotiating trade: Developing countries in the WTO and NAFTA. World Trade Review 6(1): 135–148.
Goldsmith, E. 1997. Development as colonialism. The Ecologist 27(2): 69–76.
Krisch, N. 2005. International law in times of hegemony: Unequal power and the shaping of the international legal order. European Journal of International Law 16(3): 369–408.
Limão, N. 2006. Preferential versus multilateral trade liberalization: Evidence and open questions. World Trade Review 5(2): 155–176.
Marushkin, B. 1975. The American tradition: What remains? From war for independence to neo-colonialism. Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House.
Regional Trade Agreements Section, World Trade Organization. 2011. Regional trade agreements. Regional trade agreements gateway. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/region_e.htm. Accessed 1 December 2011.
Schoonover, T.D. 1998. Germany in central America: Competitive imperialism, 1821–1929. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
van Aaken, A, and J. Kurtz. 2009. Prudence or discrimination? Emergency measures, the global financial crisis and international economic law. Journal of International Economic Law 12(4): 859–894.
Whitt, J.A. 1996. The mexican peso crisis. Economic Review 81(1): 1–20.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Villalta Puig, G., Ohiocheoya, O. Regional Trade Agreements and the Neo-Colonialism of the United States of America and the European Union: A Review of the Principle of Competitive Imperialism. Liverpool Law Rev 32, 225–235 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-011-9099-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-011-9099-8