If you wish to reuse this content on the internet, on print or in any other form, ask for official permission by writing to us editorial@fibre2fashion.com The AMF was introduced in 1974 as a short-term measure to enable developed countries to adapt to imports from developing countries. Developing countries and countries that do not have a welfare state[1] have a comparative advantage in textile production because they are labour-intensive and their poor social security systems allow them low labour costs. [2] According to a study by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the system has cost developing countries 27 million jobs and $40 billion in lost exports per year. [3] Developing countries have opposed measures such as a social clause in customs agreements to make them conditional on improving working conditions. The agreement was concluded for the first time under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Origins (1) recognized both the threat to developed markets of imports of cheap clothing and textiles in terms of market disruptions and the impact on their own producers, and (2) the importance of such exports to developing countries for their own economic development and as a means of diversifying export earnings. Since 1995, the WTOs agreement on the textile and clothing industry (ATC) has taken over the mulltifibre agreement. Until January 1, 2005, the sector was fully integrated with the normal GATT rules. In particular, quotas have ended and importing countries are no longer able to distinguish between exporters. The agreement on textiles and clothing no longer exists: it is the only WTO agreement in which self-destruction has been incorporated.
A key aspect of THE ATC is the provision of Article 6 relating to a special transitional protection mechanism, which aims to protect members from adverse increases in imports during the transitional period of products that are not yet integrated into the GATT and which are not yet below a quota. This clause is based on a two-step approach: first, the importing member must find that the total imports of a particular product cause serious harm or real threat to its domestic industry and, second, that it decides to which Member States can be attributed to this serious harm. Specific criteria and procedures are defined for each step. The importing member must then request consultations with the exporting Member States. These safeguards can be applied selectively and by mutually agreed country or, if the consultation process is not concluded within 60 days, unilateral measures. For a period of 12 months, the quota cannot be below the actual level of imports for that exporting country and the measures taken can only be maintained for up to three years. If the measure has been in effect for more than a year, growth is no less than 6%, with one exception. In practice, the special safeguard clause was used 24 times by the United States in 1995, 8 times in 1996 (Brazil 7, US 1), twice in 1997 by the United States and 10 times in 1998 (Colombia 9, US 1). The number of signatories to the agreement has changed slightly over time, but has generally exceeded 40, with the EC considered one of the signatories.
Trade between these countries dominated the world trade in clothing and textiles, with a share of up to 80%. At the beginning of September, a compromise was reached on this untenable situation, namely the circulation of the textile and clothing items concerned. Although this solution has been reasonable in the circumstances, the regression of Europe`s initial attitude (and established political orientations) can be interpreted by some as a sign of political weakness. Indeed, Europe has used its rights only in a limited way under the accession agreement with China, without using the general measures it has at its disposal in the somewhat more laborious WTO process. The main result of the bilateral agreement between the EU and China on textiles was
