Trade diversion means that free trade agreements divert trade from a more efficient supplier, a non-member, to a less efficient supplier under the free trade agreement. Let`s take an African country, Rwanda. Rwanda imports food, machinery and equipment, steel, petroleum products, cement and building materials, and its main suppliers are Kenya and Uganda. However, its export partners are China and Belgium. I think Rwanda imports mainly from Kenya and Uganda because they are part of the East African community and not because they have comparative advantages. In addition, Rwanda`s main export is coffee, tea and tin, and these are also produced and exported by Kenya. Instead of interacting with countries that have an absolute or comparative advantage, Rwanda is obliged to act with countries that have difficulty producing. This is not a good thing for both countries and the question is whether developing countries are prepared to bear the consequences of trade diversion. The rules of the PTA seem too strict for the economies of developing countries and should be revised accordingly. It seems that a developing country earns more by reaching an agreement with a developed country. This is because trade plays an important role in promoting development and because increased trade with developing countries increases their export earnings, promotes industrialization and promotes the diversification of their economies. The WTO has introduced a ”special and differentiated treatment” to help developing countries and the EU has introduced the `widespread preference system`, an agreement that benefits the least developed countries and territories while ensuring trade with the EU.

An example is ”everything but arms,” which grants duty-free access to imports of all LDC products, with the exception of weapons and ammunition, without quantitative restrictions. One of the fundamental principles of trade liberalization is the non-discrimination provided for in Articles I of the GATT, II of the GATS and IV of the TRIPS agreement. This principle, Most Favoured-Nation (MFN), means that WTO members must not discriminate against their trading partners. Therefore, if a member pays a favour to one member, he must grant the same favour to others. However, as an exception to this principle, paragraphs 4 to 10 of GATT Article XXIV have been introduced. It allows for the creation of an agreement between members, whereby one member can grant more favourable trade terms to other parties to the agreement, not to other WTO members. The enabling clause, which aims to increase the participation of developing countries, was also introduced as an exception to the MFN in favour of developing countries. It allows the establishment of PTAs for preferential trade agreements between these countries. It must be acknowledged that one of the reasons for the introduction of GATT Article XXIV, the increasing liberalization of trade and trade flows among WTO members, is now being fulfilled. The results indicate that global preference agreements have multiplied and that PTAs have created more businesses than they have hijacked.

The release of the EPZs today justifies this assertion. In East Asia, for example, it is argued that free trade agreements with free trade agreements have strengthened trade between companies, despite concerns about restrictive rules of origin. Since the beginning of the 20th century, several hundred bilateral THPs have been signed. The Canada Research Chair in International Political Economy`s TREND project[6] lists approximately 700 trade agreements, the vast majority of which are bilateral. [7] It is clear from this definition that the current formulation of the provisions of the PTA in the WTO system is not only an exception to a trade principle (MFN), but rather runs counter to the fundamental principles of the organization and that the PTA rules appear to be superior to those of the WTO.