One of the achievements of the Uruguay Round would be the Uruguay Round agreement on agriculture, managed by the WTO, which would place agricultural trade more broadly under the gatt. Prior to the Uruguay Round, agricultural trade conditions deteriorated with the increasing use of subsidies, stockpiling, falling world prices and rising support costs.  It provides for the conversion of quantitative restrictions into customs duties and a gradual reduction of customs duties. The agreement also establishes rules and disciplines for agricultural export subsidies, domestic subsidies and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures through the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures The Uruguay Round was the 8th round. Round of multilateral trade negotiations (MTNs) under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which from 1986 to 1993 included 123 countries as “contracting parties”. The round led to the creation of the World Trade Organization, with GATT remaining an integral part of the WTO agreements. The broad mandate of the Round was to extend GATT trade rules to areas that were previously exempt from excessive liberalization (agriculture, textiles) and to new and increasingly important sectors that were not previously included (trade in services, intellectual property, distortions of investment trade).  The round entered into force in 1995 and the deadlines expired in 2000 (2004 in the case of parties to developing countries) under the administrative direction of the newly created World Trade Organization (WTO).  However, the dispute settlement system cannot be used to settle trade disputes resulting from political differences. When Qatar requested the creation of a panel of measures imposed by the UAE, other GCC countries and the United States were quick to reject its request as a political issue and said national security issues were not suitable for the WTO litigation system.  The GATS Agreement has been criticized because it tends to replace the authority of national law and justice with that of a GATS dispute settlement body that conducts concluded hearings.
Spokesmen for WTO member states and the government have an obligation to reject such criticism because they have committed themselves in advance to the perceived benefits of the dominant trade principles of competition and “liberalization.” In the end, the result was an average tariff reduction of 35%, with the exception of textiles, chemicals, steel and other sensitive products; plus a reduction in tariffs on agri-food products from 15% to 18%. In addition, the negotiations on chemicals resulted in a provisional agreement on the abolition of the US selling price (ASP). This was a method of valuation of certain chemicals used by these countries for the imposition of import duties, which allowed domestic producers to benefit from a much higher level of protection than indicated in the Customs Regulation. . . .