DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW

PROJECT
ON THE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW

REASONS FOR FAILURE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
ORGANISATION
Submitted To:

Submitted By:

Ms. Priya Anuragini

Sanidhya Mamgain

Assistant Professor (Law)

Roll No. 112

VII Semester
B.A. LLB. (Hons.)

1 | Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am fortunate enough to study in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law
University, Lucknow in the guidance of the Law Faculty. I am very thankful to
Ms. Priya Anuragini, for giving me such an important live project, which can
be made use of in the practice.
It is highly exhilarating for me, to have completed this dissertation work under
the valuable and efficient guidance of Ms. Priya Anuragini. They not only
guided me since the premature stage of the work planned round the clock, but
also his continuous guidance, valuable suggestions and discussions bring this
work to reach to its aims. I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to such
cheerful, energetic and enthusiastic persons. At last but not the least, I express
my sincere sense of gratitude to my Parents for their blessings, that is always a
source of Inspiration for me, and the Almighty without whom there wont be
any existence of mine.

Sanidhya Mamgain
VII Semester
Roll No. 112

2 | Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................4
2. THE HISTORY OF ITO.........................................................................4
a. THE GREAT CRASH AND THE SMOOT-HAWLEY AND THE
SUBSEQUENT IMPACT....................................................................5
b. FROM
BILATERALISM
TO
MULTILATERALISM.......................................................................6

3. THE

CRUCIAL

NEGOTIATIONS

AT

THE

HAVANA

CHARTER................................................................................................8
a. THE ACCOSTING DEMANDS...........................................................8
b. INCREASING

DEMANDS

DECREASING

CONSIDERATIONS...........................................................................9
c. PROVISIONS OF THE HAVANA CHARTER...................................10

4. THE BEGINNING OF THE END-NON RATIFICATION OF THE

CHARTER..............................................................................................11
a. RISE OF COMMUNISM..................................................................12
b. TRUMANS CONFLICT..................................................................13
c. A BRITISH SITUATION..................................................................13
5. CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................15
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................17

INTRODUCTION
International Trade Organisation (ITO) - an academic forerunner of World Trade Organisation
(WTO) - by no means existed. During and after World War II wide-ranging efforts were made
to bring it into being, concluding in the multilateral negotiation of a Charter for the
organisation at Havana in 1947-48. However, Havana Charter was never ratified chiefly
facing domestic opposition from the United States led by Truman Administration to drop its
efforts from Congressional backing for the ITO by the end of 1950. Although attempt to
create ITO, failed it was nonetheless significant for two reasons. Firstly, for its relationship
with General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) this was only an interim measure.
3 | Page

Secondly, the idea of ITO marks an important staging post resulting in a paradigm shift in the
liberalism of international trade. After 1945, the arguments for freer trade were almost always
based on institutional internationalism, which unlike moral internationalism, that successful
liberalisation required an international regulatory framework in order to avoid free riding and
good behaviour. Although, ITO proved to be a dead letter, the underlying idea persisted; and
today has a hegemonic structure.
In his book The End of ITO1 William Diebold provides the idea that the end of the ITO can be
attributed an unholy alliance between the supporter of protectionism and free trade purists
who did object to any amendments to the concept of laissez-faire and hence the proposed
rules under ITO. This argument still holds good even today, but all the blame is not be shared
on the grounds of policy framework which was quite the US-centric. An equal blame has to
be attributed to the politics which was revolving around the Anglo-American relationship and
the Cold War. Apart from this a little bit of blame can be attributed to the American
Congressional opposition and the implementation of the Marshall Plan.

THE HISTORY OF ITO:

International Trade Organisation never came into existence. Despite all the efforts were made
to bring it into being, it never saw itself in the law books of international trade. Rather than
making a history it became, and quite unfortunately, a history in itself. As of now it is only
remembered as an event which might have shaped the international trade forever but never
had a chance to do so. This portion of the project shall inspect the various endeavours which
were made in order to establish the International Trade Organisation. The focus shall be on
the events-pre, post and during the Second World War-which demanded the creation of a
multilateral trade organisation and hence the Havana Charter.
The idea to have an international trade organisation received a major boost during the
interwar years. The idea regarding regulations in the international trade has not always
received a unanimous support. The main opposition comes from the liberals who often are
sceptical of this concept. For example, 1902 Brussels Sugar Convention-an agreement signed
by ten countries, including The UK, to tackle the bounties that destabilised the international
trade was a success. However, it was later opposed by the Liberals who prizing the cheap

1 Diebold 1952
4 | Page

sugar for the British consumers above all else, portrayed this as an attack on the British
sovereignty. As a result the Liberal government in the year 1912 denounced the commission2.
The first concrete proposal for a recognizably ITO-type body came from within the United
States. In 1916, Democratic Congressman, Cordell Hull, argued for the establishment of a
permanent international trade congresses. The purpose of his proposed organization was to
reach agreements designed to eliminate and avoid the injurious results and dangerous
possibilities of economic warfare, and to promote fair and friendly international trade
relations3. Hulls contribution thus marked a shift in the American trade debate. The focus
until this point had largely been on whether or not a particular tariff level was beneficial for
the United States; with Americas global power increasing, there was now some consideration
of the impact of trade barriers on the good of the world as a whole4.
THE GREAT CRASH AND THE SMOOT-HAWLEY AND THE SUBSEQUENT
IMPACT:
Efforts were initially made by the League of Nations to constitute a free trade union.
Members were not supposed to impose any protectionist tariffs against any other members of
the union5. However these efforts to establish a tariff truce failed, partly because of the lack
of any means of enforcement, but principally because of the growing protectionist sentiment
in the world at large in the aftermath of the Great Crash of 19296.
In 1930, the United States adopted the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which is frequently alleged to
have deepened the depression and is often mistakenly stated to have been unprecedentedly
high. In fact, Smoot-Hawley was less significant for its direct economic consequences than
for the mythical status it achieved as an emblematic policy failure, which was used by later
policymakers to justify support for international trade cooperation 7. The abolition of such
2 Trentmann 2008, 15461
3 Hull 1948 volume I, 812
4 Hull 1948 volume I, 83
5 Keynes 1919, 248
6 Mathias and Pollard 1989, 92
7 Eckes 1995, chapter 4
5 | Page

forms of discrimination was to become at least as important an object of US policy as the

reduction of average tariff levels. Hull, as Secretary of State, was able to pursue his vision of
freer trade on a more bit by bit basis through the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA)
of 19348. The act virtually handed the power to alter the tariff from Congress to The
administration and empowered the President to enter into trade Agreements with foreign
countries for the reciprocal reduction of tariffs and other trade restrictions. This was basically
an out of box move as it meant encroachment upon the powers of US Congress 9. In this
context, Stephen Haggard notes, With the transfer of tariff-making authority to the
Executive, the United States could make credible commitments and thus exploit its market
power to liberalize international trade10.
Although the RTAA was to become vital to subsequent efforts to generate the ITO, it was not
in the beginning imagined that it could form any kind of foundation for the association of an
international organization. After the outbreak of the Second World War, State Department
planning for the post-war world was primarily based on the postulation that future of the free
trade would be founded on an extension of the RTAA programme.
FROM BILATERALISM TO MULTILATERALISM:
Till now, we have witnessed that the Roosevelt administration had pursued its substantial
objectivean increase in global multilateral tradevia a bilateral procedure, under the
RTAA. The 194243 saw a shift in the direction of support for procedural multilateralism. By
the end of the war, it was envisaged that many countries would negotiate bilateral trade
agreements amongst themselves before generalizing the results of each deal to the other
participant nations, and that a new international organization would be required to make this
process work. Surprisingly, this was the idea of the British Administration which, to
everyones surprise, was against the concept of liberalisation of trade from the beginning.
8 The act permitted the reduction of US tariffs on an item-by-item basis, although no one
duty could be reduced by more than 50 per cent. Any such reductions of duty would be
extended to all other countries, although these benefits could be withheld from countries
that discriminated against American commerce.

9 Only the Senate has the powers to ratify any foreign treaty and make it into the
law of USA. However, this Act put a curtain on the powers of the Senate, and
effectively the Congress, as now the Executive can enter into the negotiations
and enforce the treaty into the US laws.
10 Haggard 1988, 91
6 | Page

However there was a catch the Kings Administration were less interested in the future of
multilateral trade agreements rather were more inclined in the future of world politics. The
bigger question for the Royal Bloods was who shall control the world hegemony in the post
war era? Thus, keeping this in mind British came to Americans with two tacit conditions.
First, they wanted future trade deals to be carried out on a multilateral basis, as they
anticipated that this might help Britain form a union of the Commonwealth countries,
combating possible US attempts to play them off against one another 11. Second, the British
were keen to take the initiative in the wartime discussions. Deeply conscious of their own
countrys likely post-war economic weakness, they chose to make bold proposals to the
Americans while writing their own safeguards and escape clauses12. This also became
evident that British were more interested in politics and not on the policies as they did
everything to bring the Havana Charter to a halt which eventually resulted in the silent death
of the International Trade Organisation.
The multilateral monetary administration that appeared post war administration numerous a
times portrayed as a formation of American hegemonic inconvenience. On account of
exchange, Britain which was a considerably weaker power-assumed an essential part in
advancing the multilateral motivation. Before the end of 1945, the Americans and the British
had concurred on an arrangement of 'proposition for thought by a universal meeting on
exchange and livelihood'. These "Proposition" highlighted the requirement for an
International Trade Organization of the United Nations, the individuals from which would
attempt to direct their universal business strategies and relations as per concurred standards
keeping in mind the end goal to make conceivable an effective development of world
creation, livelihood, trade and utilization'13.

11 One key British proposal was the plan designed by James Meade, a Keynesian
economist and wartime civil servant, for an international commercial union. This was
intended as the complement of John Maynard Keynes contemporaneous plan for an
international clearing union. The purpose of the commercial union was to create a
multilateral trading system, from which, Meade believed, Britain was likely to benefit.

12 This paragraph draws substantially on Miller 2003, chapter 4. For an example of

British official thinking at this time, see Draft Minutes, First Meeting of the InterDepartmental Committee on Post-War Commercial Policy, 24 November 1942, UK
National Archives, Kew London (henceforward TNA), BT 61/79/6.

13Proposals for consideration by an international conference on trade and employment,

Cmd.6709, December 1945, 34

7 | Page

It was henceforth supposed to be multilateral treaty which was to be kept under the
supervision of the United Nations. Like Bretton Woods Institutions, it was seen as an
essential part of a broad-ranging multilateral, international economic regime that would
encompass both trade and payments.

THE CRUCIAL NEGOTIATIONS AT THE HAVANA CHARTER:

There was surely an understanding over the regular attractive quality of the ITO, however
advancement on the issue was unified from contentions over particular exchange practices
and duty levels, and from the new Labor government's requirement for American support the
British economy. After some time, Anglo-American exchange strategy got to be soured by the
Truman organization's developing disturbance at Britain's requests that the ITO rules
incorporate different takeoffs from facilitated commerce standards. At last, the US effectively
prepared a coalition of countries against Britain's requests, yet at the cost of incorporating
different exceptions in the contract that made it inadmissible to American local conclusion.
The "Recommendations" were a short time later expounded in a draft ITO contract, which
was then speaked at the principal session of the preparatory board of trustees to the UN
Conference on Trade and Employment. The Conference was gone to by 18 nations. This was
prompting an inescapable result-more extensive the cooperation more particular the requests.
One can without much of a stretch predicate this suggested there would be clashes as the
requests from partitioned countries, each dissuading for possess interests, and thus the initial
moves towards building a fizzled institutional setup were at that point set into movement.
THE ACCOSTING DEMANDS:

Full Employment Issue: it was based on the idea of Keynesian theorists and found a
place in the Final Act. It was mentioned under Article I and hence was considered as
one of the prime objects of the Charter and effectively that of the ITO.

The

proponents of full employment have two crucial arguments.

o Firstly, that decline in US import demands and increasing export surplus
which can put under countries in the peril of BOP difficulties, and
o Secondly, the countries should be provided greater freedoms so to enhance and
bring back their economies back on track14.
14 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, i. 1361; United Nations, Report
of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Employment (London, 1946), p. 5
8 | Page

But the main bone of contention was the special treatment which was to be given to
underdeveloped and developing nation states. The insertion of a significant number of
poorer countries in the UN gave it a considerable political salience in the era of
decolonization. As a result of this countries started to associate themselves as
developing or underdeveloped categories, and hence made a claim that the richer
states must share the responsibility for the condition of the poorer and should be
prepared to do something about it. As a result of this, developing nations wanted that
a few discriminatory or favouring provisions be inserted in the Final Draft so to bring
them on board.

The second proposition posed a Mexican Standoff between the parties. The former imperialist
powers like Britain were unwilling to succumb to the demands of inserting any
discriminatory provisions while the developing nations like India and China were unwilling
to bow down before their former colonial masters. On the other hand, The US which from the
very beginning had great ambitions for this project found itself between a rock and a hard
place. As a result of this Americans took adopted the tactics of going for a harmonious
construction and therefore inserted in the Draft Charter under Chapter IV, Articles 10-13,
pertaining to Economic Development15. Under these provisions, members of the ITO would
'recognize that special governmental assistance may be required in order to promote the
establishment or reconstruction of particular industries and that such assistance may take the
form of protective measures'. The ITO itself would be responsible for judging applications
from countries to be allowed to take such measures16.
Therefore, the real issue at Havana was not whether the principles would be modified, but in
what ways, and to what extent, and because the majority of the fifty-six countries present
classed themselves as economically underdeveloped, the question of development became
central to discussion.
INCREASING DEMANDS DECREASING CONSIDERATIONS:
The US delegation tried to mellow down the tussle between the developed and the
developing/underdeveloped by inserting Chapter IV in the Draft Charter, but this could not
settle the Havana Conference once and for all. The demands of developing countries had
increased, and they held their ground firm on the point to have concessions. On the other
15 In Final Draft these provisions were brought under Chapter III, Articles 8-15
16 UN, Report of the First Session, pp. 27-28
9 | Page

hands, the developed nations maintained the same attitude as they used to have against the
developing nations, when they were the colonial masters. In short, they cold shouldered the
developing nations. The division of opinion at the conference was summed up effectively by
the delegate of El Salvador, Ricardo Jimenez Castillo: 'the industrialized countries' concept of
equilibrium was very formal, while the underdeveloped countries felt that there should be a
basic criterion - unequal treatment for unequally developed countries17.'
While the British ministers themselves pondered the prospect of trying to secure to the
conference, the Truman administration had its own options. By this time it was quite clear
that the Geneva draft of the charter seemed far from realty, the United States would not
accept any text with provisions of the kind likely to be acceptable to the other countries
represented at Havana. In order to break the deadlock three possibilities were considered18:

First, 'to press for a really acceptable Charter' with the adherence of thirty or more

countries representing over 75 per cent of world trade;

Second, to obtain general agreement at Havana on the main points of the charter, and
then adjourn the conference to New York or Geneva to discuss the remaining issues;

and,
Third, to settle at Havana the terms for a purely review ITO.

This was easier said than done. The problem was same that what and how to implement? It
was easy to recognise various issues on which the countries were having not only different
opinions but rather these were more of a hostile nature. Even if the problems were identified
the solutions to those were not unanimously acceptable. For instance, The British believed
that they were being asked to agree to concessions to underdeveloped countries on QRs 19,
whilst receiving, in her own view, insufficient rights to discriminate 20. They also objected to

17 Heads of delegations: summary record of meeting, Records of Havana Conference, 24

Dec. 1947, WTO, E/Conf.2/23, refer to Developing Multilateralism: The Havana Charter
and the Fight for the International Trade Organization, 1947-1948, The International
History Review, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jun., 2003), pp. 282-305, p. 291

18 Memo by Brown, 5 Jan. 1948, FRUS, 1948, i. 829-30; memos, Wilcox to

Clayton, 29 Dec. 1947, and Brown to Clayton, 29 Dec. 1947 USNA, RG 43, ITF,
box 144; Dryden, Trade Warriors, p. 21
19 under Article 13 Draft Charter
20 under Article 23 Draft Charter
10 | P a g e

another US concession21, that the ITO would be expected to give automatic approval to new
regional preference agreements, created for the purposes of economic development, if they
conformed to certain agreed standards22.However, US policymakers remained relentlessly
unreceptive to British protests which were not to avail.
All these and many other reasons lead to what was inevitable i.e. the non ratification of the
Charter, which is to be dealt under the next heading.
PROVISIONS OF THE HAVANA CHARTER:
Article 7 of the Charter recognized that there were links between core labour standards and
trade as well as foreign direct investment and employment. It stated that the Members
recognize that unfair labour conditions, particularly in production for export, create
difficulties in international trade...23 It also included a provision that ILO (International
Labour Organization) and ITO members shall cooperate with that organization in giving
effect to that undertaking.24 Its most innovative feature was to provide grounds that required
unfair labour conditions to be subject to a nullification and impairment complaint within the
ITOs dispute settlement procedures25.
Even with such a low minimum, members were permitted to take safeguard actions within
the provisions of the charter should other members fail to comply with these commitments.
The crucial clause in favour of full employment policy was related to cases where the
quantitative restriction ban would be lifted. This was an innovative provision even if it
remained a solution of last resort26. As well, in terms of state policy, a highly complex
procedure allowed member states to impose quantitative restrictions to avoid deflationary
21 under Article 15 Draft Charter
22 Gardner 1980, 36667
23 Art.7.1 of the Havana Charter
24 Art.7.2 of the Havana Charter
25 Art. 94 and 95 of the Havana Charter
26According to the Charter, a member State targeted for retaliation was indeed
free to withdraw from the ITO within 60 days. (art. 6,21, 75, 93-5) But if the GATT
experience is any guide, it is doubtful that a country would exercise the exit
option.
11 | P a g e

trends in cases of severe currency crises or even for broader objectives, such as "the
achievement and maintenance of full and productive employment.27"

THE BEGINNING OF THE END-NON RATIFICATION OF THE

CHARTER:
United States is often blamed for the fall of ITO even before it had a chance to exist. This
happened because the Senate never ratified the Havana Charter which ultimately led to the
US pulling out from the Conference and it confirmed what was looking inevitable from the
beginning i.e. the End of the Charter. However, it shall be unfair to put the entire blame on
the American delegation for the failure of the implementation of ITO only because they were
the first one to non-ratify the Charter and rest of the countries followed the suit. From the
records of the Havana conference it is quite clear that the US delegation did everything to put
all the parties on a level playing field, it gave concessions even when the lobbyists within the
country were not at all happy with such grants. There were many reasons why US never
ratified but all the reasons pointed out in one direction that the hope and enthusiasm which
the parties took to make the Havana Conference successful and bring and International
Trading System into life was no more there.
Fifty-three nations, including Britain, marked the last demonstration of the gathering. In any
case, the ITO contract would not become effective until it was approved, and different nations
for the most part kept away from doing as such until it was clear how the United States would
act. Despite the fact that the Democrats recaptured control of Congress in 1948, the Truman
organization faltered to put the issue under a magnifying glass. US popular feeling was not
very much educated on exchange issues. By and by, verifiable reactions of shortcomings in
the organization's advertising endeavours for the ITO are to some degree lost. These were
certainly blemished however they were considerable, and it is suspicious that an enhanced
exertion would have had any kind of effect to the ultimate result.
No single variable can be ascribed for the non confirmation of the Charter there was not one
but rather numerous components which prompted the non-endorsement of the sanction by the
Senate. There was weight of bringing creating nations on board by giving them satisfactory
favouring arrangements nit just this the same must be managed without irritating the created
countries esp. the British who were their war-time partner as well as had a part to play in
coming years on the planet governmental issues. Aside from this there was the Communist
danger from the Soviet coalition which had the aspiration in their brains to paint the world in
27Art. 21.(b) of the Havana Charter
12 | P a g e

red. What's more, to keep the circumstance compound there was likewise no consistent
supposition inside the US itself with respect to the arrangements of Havana Charter.
RISE OF COMMUNISM:
The Truman administration feared that if the talks broke down, the international alliance
against Communism would be subverted.28 There is some evidence to support this contention.
For example, the economic adviser in the state department's office of international trade
policy, Joseph Coppock, argued: 'The Russians would be in a position to make heavy
propaganda use of the Havana failure and would be in a better position to bring other
countries under their economic or political influence.' However, it would be totally unjust to
say that this was the only reason which forbade the Americans not to ratify the Charters late
as August 1947, mere weeks before the Soviet Union announced that it would not take part in
the conference, had put rest to this reason as the ole or even a prime factor detrimental of
non-ratification. If the cold war added urgency to the US delegation's efforts to complete the
charter, this was at least in part because cold war issues were making the ITO less urgent to
those higher up the political ladder.
The fear of a Communist propaganda desires to avoid a defeat and a breach with other
countries from the western hemisphere, and led the US delegation to adopt a less directly
confrontational position towards the developing countries. But it was not the case, that the
cold war drove the United States to make sweeping concessions to all-comers, 'rich and poor
alike', in order to prevent their economies being weakened, and thus to guard against
Communism29. This was not only because the US negotiators saw the kinds of freedoms to
restrict trade that others were demanding as sources of weakness rather than strength, and
thus unlikely to reinforce the front against Soviet expansion, but also because they could not
satisfy in full the competing demands of the developed and the underdeveloped count.
TRUMANS CONFLICT:
Not all parts of the Truman administration in the ITO. Although the US delegation pressed
ahead in the face of Washing- ton's neglect, it soon lost its sense of urgency, as it became
clear that congress was unlikely to consider the charter during 1948, even were it to be
completed in short order.

28 Zeiler, Free Trade, p. 143

29 Zeiler, Free Trade, p. 146
13 | P a g e

Truman administration had been outflanked on a few issues. It had neglected to secure a
revision to the contract by which ITO individuals would concede most-favored-country
treatment to the fares of the involved zones esp. in Germany and Japan. It was compelled to
surrender what ended up being a fleeting change to the guideline of weighted voting (instead
of one vote in favour of every nation) in the ITO. It had been induced by US business
premiums to incorporate into the contract arrangements on the security of outside venture, yet
the arrangements that were really arranged demonstrated, from the perspective of those
interests, inadmissibly feeble30.
It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the Truman administration to have
obtained, from its own point of view, a better result. As Wilcox noted, 'we had come out with
a Charter telling us not to do things that we would in any event not do and, further- more, we
are permitted through various exceptions to do all of the things which we wish or may have
to do.31
To put the final nail in the coffin of ITO was the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950,
which meant that congressional emergency business which sealed the ITO's fate: announced
that it would not ratify.
A BRITISH SITUATION:
This was maybe the most essential, despite the fact that not the sole deciding, consider due to
which the US never confirmed the Charter. English all through the Conference tried the
Americans and utilized each conceivable technique to make them fall in line. English began
by first not consenting to the American proposition, then they acknowledged it later they
hauled out. Every once in a while they undermined Americans that if British requests are not
given inclination the same can endanger the Anglo-American relations additionally they
debilitated to pull back the Marshall Aid which at time was not just vital for reshaping and
revamping the European economy, however in the meantime would assume a critical part in
world political framework particularly when the battle was between the free world and the
socialism.
The British and the US designations had some trouble concurring and adhering to a 'partisan
division' in their dealings with the immature nations. At a meeting of the 'internal gathering'
30 Zeiler, Free Trade, pp. 140-2; Dennison to Carter, 13 Dec. 1947, FRUS, 1948, i.
Trade, pp. 90-91
31 'Memo, of Conversation: ITO Charter', 25 March 1948 [Independence, MO,
Truman Library], Clayton-Thorp office files, box 15
14 | P a g e

of nations that had gone to the preliminary board of trustees in Geneva, called to perceive
how far it is conceivable to meet the cases of the immature gathering without disabling the
sanction, unmistakably the European nations plan to cut down all the non-segregation
commitments which they had acknowledged at Geneva and which he said had been to a great
extent drawn up by them for their own comfort.
The British felt that the plan victimized the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, and the
Crown states in light of the fact that these nations were not topographically adjacent. The
Commonwealth and Empire ought to have an indistinguishable rights to build up new
inclinations from were examined for nations in an indistinguishable locale from each other.
Non-segregation remained the hindrance. Be that as it may, the sterling convertibility
emergency of July-August 1947, which seriously depleted Britain's dollar holds, debilitated
the UK's dedication to the ITO. Generally as the draft sanction was finished, and in the quick
result of the emergency, the British cautioned freely that for the present, keeping in mind the
end goal to protect their adjust of instalments, they would need to utilize strategies which
'may have all the earmarks of being against the standards and techniques for the draft
contract' .
Nonetheless, in spite of all the previously mentioned figures none can be said to have
exclusively decided the result of the Conference-No Result. Every one of these variables
contributed a tiny bit in devaluing the US enthusiasm for ITO additionally none of the
elements worked in detachment; every one of them exclusively or all things considered
influenced the other component.

CONCLUSIONS:
The Charter was a prototypical model understanding for now is the ideal time, supplementing
the IMF and the World Bank, as conceived by the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944,
reinforcing open power and opening markets. There were itemized rules not just on the
'staples of exchange, for example, taxes, quantities, trade controls and state imposing
business models however on a large group of different matters. In spite of the arrangements
which supplemented the current exchange framework was eclipsed by the legislative issues.
Yet, one can't deny the way that the arrangements and the legislative issues they supplement
each other and go one next to the other. The arrangements which reflected in the last draft
were never in a state of harmony with what the countries needed in the draft.
It merits asking regardless of whether the ITO's disappointment ought to be viewed as a
missed open door. The ITO may well have had a more extensive participation than the GATT,
15 | P a g e

which came to be seen as a "rich men's club". It was not that poor nations were rejected from
GATT participation, yet that the association's exercises gave them minimal rationale in
joining: amid the 1950s, it focused its endeavours on decreasing taxes on modern
merchandise, an issue of restricted significance to the numerous immature nations which had
yet to industrialize. An ITO may have been a more alluring association for immature nations
to join, and that may have advanced less autarchic/anarchic exchange approaches in such
nations, with extra development benefits. This may have given a further help to the
noteworthy post-Second World War development in world exchange that occurred under the
support of GATT. In the meantime, the Havana Charter's exemptions to facilitated commerce
rules, particularly those made in light of a legitimate concern for monetary improvement of
poorer nations may have lessened worldwide disparities. Possibly, then, the ITO may have
created a more comprehensive, beneficial, precise, and simply world economy than that
which in actuality developed.
This, be that as it may, stays theoretical, given the troubles noted above of saying with
certainty how the Havana Charter would have worked by and by. It is similarly conceivable
that, even on the hopeful suspicions about the way it would have worked, the ITO would not
have ended up being a generously more financially gainful administration than the GATT. It
is not necessarily the case that the contract ought not be complimented as a forward-looking
record. The level headed discussions encompassing it gave a portion of the motivation to the
radical thinking on monetary improvement that impelled the production of the UN
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1964. It is, be that as it may,
significant some of its constraints. For instance, inquiries of protected innovation and the
earth did not locate any more place in the sanction than they did in the first GATT. At the
time, obviously, nobody proposed that they ought to be incorporated into either record.
An essential contrast between the sanction and the GATT, however, was that the previous
permitted debate to be alluded to the International Court of Justice, the suggestions of which
would tie. By differentiation, the GATT's question settlement component could without much
of a stretch be disregarded as a result of its wilful nature. That an obligatory system was built
into the sanction, despite the fact that it didn't become effective, connotes how much advance
the institutional rendition of exchange progressivism had made since the pre-1914 period.
Today, the presumptions of institutional exchange progressivism are hegemonic to the point
that the normal condition made between the WTO and 'organized commerce' appears a totally
common one. A few guards of established organized commerce, for example, the Ludwig Von
Mises Institute, reprove the WTO as a Trojan stallion for mercantilism and monetary
16 | P a g e

arranging. Such perspectives, forerunners of which were a piece of the standard in Edwardian
Britain and even 1940s America, are these days minor. Maybe they are preposterous. They
do, notwithstanding, advice us that unhindered commerce and worldwide association,
however alluring it might be, did not generally go as an inseparable unit. The connection
between them must be createdand it was for this achievement that the architects of the ITO
were, as it were, capable.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

PRIMARY SOURCES:
o Havana Charter 1947-48
o Constitution of the US
SECONDARY SOURCES:
o BOOKS:
Bossche, Peter van den (2005). "The Origins of the WTO". The Law
and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Materials.

Cambridge University Press.

Kenen, Peter B. (1999). "The Evolution of Trade Policy". The

International Economy (Volume I)

Toye, Richard (2003). Developing Multilateralism: The Havana
Charter and the Fight for the International Trade Organization, 1947-

1948. The International History Review, Vol. 25.

o ONLINE SOURCES:
17 | P a g e

18 | P a g e

http://internationalecon.com/Trade/tradehome.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7725157.stm