From the beginning of paragraph 2001 to the PTAs, economists have found that it could be either a “jump block” towards multilateral trade liberalization or a “stumbling block”. If an EPA paves the way for increased multilateral trade liberalization and is compatible with a multilateral system, it can improve the well-being of the countries participating in the agreement and not lead to significant “trade diversion” from the rest of the world. However, if the main effect of a EPZ is to divert trade from former trading partners to EPZ members, it will reduce membership well-being and also lead to increased opposition to multilateral openness (or less support). In addition, it is also envisaged that when country trade agents draw their attention to the negotiation of ATPs, there will be fewer resources – and perhaps less motivation – to support the multilateral system. The founders of the post-war international economic system rightly recognized that multilateral ism was desirable, not only to reduce the possibility of re-emerging in the 1930s and, as they hoped, to eliminate, but also to promote non-discrimination in international transactions. For my purposes today, I will focus on the three main organizations: the International Monetary Fund, which is responsible for maintaining international financial stability; The World Bank, which is responsible for providing development capital; and the World Trade Organization (formerly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), which monitors the world`s multilateral trading system. Asia Pacific Partnership (APP) for Clean Development and Climate was founded in July 2005. Aspects of Taplin and McGee`s (2010) discussion on the development and implications of the APP are repeated here. The APP is a multilateral agreement between Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea (Korea) and the United States.
At the international level, partnership is a soft right, a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding for international cooperation in the fields of development, energy, the environment and climate change (Taplin and McGee, 2010). Cooperation involves transferring clean technologies and facilitating procedures that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, this agreement allows Member States to voluntarily set their own targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, without any binding implementation mechanism or obligation to achieve these targets. The partnership also promotes the national goal, based on greenhouse gas intensity targets, i.e. the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions per economic unit. The United States and Australia encouraged the creation, with the partnership supported by Canada in October 2007. It has been touted as a new model for an international climate agreement and as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol. In recent years, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the implementation in relation to the Kyoto Protocol and whether the partnership is a model of multilateral action against climate change that could replace the protocol, particularly in the months leading up to COP15.
However, as a model opposed to kyoto, it violates the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) common but differentiated responsibilities and hence the symbolic contribution to the disintegration of climate policy (Taplin and McGee, 2010).