Question

In the statement: "...it amounted to a recognition that international trade and its benefits cannot be enjoyed unless trading nations accept the discipline of a negotiated rule-based environment", it refers to:

• A. Ambassador Kantor's defence of the WTO.
• B. The export gains many countries came to associate with a rule-based system.
• C. The higher priority on export gains that prompted many countries at the Uruguay Round.
• D. The provisions of a rule-based system by the WTO.
• A. The Tokyo Round negotiations was an attempt at constitutional reform.
• B. Lawyers did not work for the dispute settlement system.
• C. The US government did not like it.
• D. Important players did not find it in their best interest to do so.
• A. Its rule-based system leads to export gains.
• B. It has the means to prevent the US from taking unilateral measures.
• C. They recognized the need for a rule-based environment to protect the benefits of increased trade.
• D. It settles disputes more legally and more effectively.
• A. Enunciation of the most elementary community goals needed to be emphasized.
• B. Contracting party trade practices need to be consistent with stated rules.
• C. Current policies need to be consistent with stated goals.
• D. Actions against member states needed to be evaluated against the said community goals.
• A. Ambiguities about the powers of contracting parties to make certain decisions.
• B. Grandfather-rights exceptions and defects in dispute settlement procedures.
• C. Rules that create their own incentive for fulfilment.
• D. Integrating under one roof the agreements signed under GATT.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The given statement highlights that the benefits of international trade cannot be fully realized unless countries follow the discipline of a negotiated rule-based environment.
In the passage, this idea is specifically connected to the export gains that many countries began to associate with adopting a rules-based system under the WTO framework.
The Europeans, by the 1990s, had shifted towards supporting such a system because it offered legal certainty, predictable trade dispute resolution, and protection from unilateral trade measures.
This reasoning was spread across multiple countries and became part of their motivation to join and support the WTO package during the Uruguay Round.
Option (a) refers to Ambassador Kantor’s defence of the WTO, which is indeed mentioned in the passage, but the question’s statement more directly reflects the general recognition among multiple countries about the connection between trade benefits and rule-based discipline, not just one ambassador’s speech.
Option (c) focuses on the higher priority on export gains that pushed countries to join the Uruguay Round, but that is a more specific event-based motivation rather than the broader recognition of trade discipline as essential for benefits.
Option (d) refers to the WTO’s provisions themselves, but here the passage emphasises the perception and recognition by member nations, not the institutional clauses alone.
Therefore, option (b) matches most accurately because it captures the collective shift in thinking among countries that sustainable trade benefits depend on adhering to a negotiated, rules-based system, which in turn was reinforced by their positive experiences with export growth.

Answer 2

The passage explains that although multilateral trade negotiations, like the Tokyo Round in the 1970s, addressed several issues under the GATT framework, the creation of the WTO was delayed until the 1990s.
A key factor was that certain major trading nations, such as the United States and other influential players, did not see it as being in their best interest at that time to push forward with a formal constitutional reform of the trading system.
For the United States in particular, there was a reluctance to create an all-encompassing trade organization with a stronger dispute settlement mechanism because they did not want to be bound by rigid legal obligations or constraints on their unilateral trade actions.
This hesitation meant that the proposal for a rule-based, institutionalized system was not advanced in the 1970s, and the matter was deferred.
Option (a) mentions constitutional reform, which is partially related because the Tokyo Round negotiations involved elements of systemic reform, but this was not the primary reason for the delay — it was more about political and strategic interests.
Option (b) about lawyers not working for the dispute settlement system is inaccurate — in fact, lawyers were supportive of a rules-based approach, but political leaders had other considerations.
Option (c) singles out the US government disliking it, which is too narrow and ignores the broader reluctance among multiple influential nations.
Option (d) correctly captures the main idea: that important players in global trade did not believe it served their best interests to establish the WTO at that time, leading to its postponement until the Uruguay Round in the early 1990s.

Answer 3

The passage describes that by the 1990s, many countries — particularly European nations — had shifted towards supporting the WTO package because they valued the stability and predictability offered by a rule-based system.
The central reasoning was that without such a negotiated system of rules, the benefits of increased trade could not be reliably enjoyed.
This recognition was rooted in the understanding that legal certainty and fair dispute resolution help protect weaker trading nations from unilateral actions by stronger powers.
Option (a) mentions export gains, which were indeed a factor for some countries, but the passage presents the deeper, underlying cause as the recognition of the necessity of a legal framework to safeguard those gains.
Option (b) focuses on preventing the US from taking unilateral measures. While this is a specific benefit, it is a narrower reason and does not represent the broader acceptance among all nations.
Option (d) about settling disputes more legally and effectively is a true feature of the WTO system, but the passage highlights it as part of the system’s functioning rather than the primary reason for widespread acceptance.
Therefore, option (c) is correct because it reflects the most fundamental motivation across nations: the awareness that a rule-based environment was essential to protect and sustain the advantages of expanded international trade.

Answer 4

The passage explains that in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the doctrine of "mutual recognition" and its interpretative approach played a major role in European integration.
Specifically, the ECJ’s method involved evaluating the actions of member states by checking whether those actions aligned with the overall community goals as stated in foundational treaties like the Treaty of Rome.
This means that rather than only considering isolated national laws or policies, the court examined whether those laws or actions met the larger objectives set for the European community.
Option (a) is incorrect because merely “emphasizing” community goals is not the same as actively evaluating state actions against them.
Option (b) is too narrow as it focuses on trade practices alone, whereas the ECJ approach applied to broader political and economic measures.
Option (c) refers to current policies being consistent with stated goals, which is closer to the idea but still does not capture the evaluative nature of the court’s method when judging member states’ actions.
Option (d) is correct because it directly reflects the interpretative approach where “actions against member states needed to be evaluated against the said community goals,” ensuring that member state measures did not undermine the broader integration objectives.
This approach parallels the GATT/WTO practice of evaluating member conduct in light of agreed objectives and trade commitments.

Answer 5

The passage explains that one of the technical legal values promoted by the WTO was consistency — meaning the integration of multiple separate agreements into a single, coherent system.
Before the WTO, under the GATT framework, international trade rules existed in separate agreements signed at different times, each with its own procedures.
The WTO brought these agreements together “under one roof,” thereby creating a unified structure for international trade governance.
This consolidation made it easier to apply rules consistently across different areas of trade and reduced the likelihood of conflicting interpretations.
Option (a) is incorrect because ambiguities in the powers of contracting parties are seen as problems to be avoided, not as a way of promoting legal values.
Option (b) is also incorrect because grandfather clauses and defects in dispute settlement systems were limitations of earlier arrangements that the WTO sought to fix, not promote.
Option (c) refers to “rules that create their own incentive for fulfilment,” which is related to effectiveness, but the question focuses on what specifically promoted the technical legal values mentioned — and the passage links these values to consistency via integration.
Option (d) matches perfectly with the passage’s explanation that consistency was enhanced by integrating multiple agreements signed under GATT into the single WTO framework.
This structural reform reinforced predictability, clarity, and coherence in the application of trade rules worldwide.