The European Union (EU) has developed the `Mediterranean pan-euro-sea`, a diagonal accumulation of original regimes. The system allows accumulation between EU Member States, European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries, Turkey, the signatory countries of the Barcelona Declaration, the Western Balkans and the Faroe Islands. Among the parties is a network of free trade agreements with similar rules of origin. This system allows these countries to accumulate components from other pan-Euro-Mediterranean countries. Multilateral agreements can create international standards and improve the efficiency of a wider market. Since tariffs on products are relatively low in most product categories in trade countries, non-tariff barriers are now at the heart of trade negotiations. Indeed, there is international competition for standards setting, with competition playing out in areas as diverse as energy and environmental legislation, as well as information and communication technologies. If countries come together with common standards, they can create benefits in terms of scale and competitiveness for their producers. This standardization function has been one of the main advantages cited by U.S. trade agents in supporting the TPP. This broad scope makes them more robust than other types of trade agreements as soon as all parties sign. Bilateral agreements are easier to negotiate, but only between two countries. President Trump`s strategy to remove the United States from participation in multilateral agreements should be allowed until this experiment is concluded.

Trump might prove it right that more U.S.-controlled trade through bilateral agreements will lead the United States to more strength and prosperity. Certainly, its trade policy plunges us from deep amnesia and complacency in fresh thinking and action. Proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership had argued that one of the greatest virtues of the 12-country trade agreement was to open Japanese markets to U.S. exports, in a way that Japan only wanted to tolerate because the TPP also promised to improve market access for Japanese exporters in other TPP member countries in Asia and Latin America. Is it possible to negotiate a bilateral pact with Japan that would provide the United States with the same value – or better – that the TPP would have provided? “That`s the problem,” Guillen says. “Do these [bilateral] agreements open markets? It seems that the approach is ad hoc, on a case-by-case basis, and not holistic.┬áIn reality, the distinction between bilateral and multilateral agreements is inconclusive. In addition to the central multilateral agreement, the TPP is considering a series of bilateral agreements between various TPP partners. These bilateral agreements are in the form of annexes and annexes. A good example of such a bilateral agreement has been concluded between the United States and Japan. Although the United States and Japan were part of the TPP group, the two countries entered into an incidental agreement specifically for automobiles. In 2015, Japan produced a total of 9,278,238 automobiles.

Although it is one of the largest automakers, Japan limits imports of automobiles produced in other countries.