Talk:Most favoured nation/Archives/2013

spelling

Concerning the spelling: "most favoured nation" as opposed to "favored": It is the official spelling of the World Trade Organization and the United Nations , and the usual spelling in international agreements. -Iwaki 16:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See GATT (The General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade), PART I,

Article I: General Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment -202.32.53.44 03:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I came here to protest it. Looks like I'm wrong. --YixilTesiphon 01:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

concerning the spelling: 'favored' is american spelling, 'favoured' is british english. Same with labour, labor etc etc In the book 'Global Transformations' by David Held et al, they use the British spelling. conclusion: i think it is whatever you'd like it to be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.81.188.101 (talk • contribs)

Well, "favoured" is in fact the spelling used by the WTO agreements, see here. As it is the spelling version originally used in this article (and international trade agreements generally use English spelling), I think we should retain it. Sandstein 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On spelling, I think we Americans need to defer to the nation that invented the language. -MB

Since the US no longer uses the term MFN, there is no reason to use the American spelling of it. Axeman (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

--Let's keep the spelling...-- And throw away the agreements.

Oh no! The liberals have gotten to this article also!

"Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users. Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[3]. Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words." [1]

You just can't make this stuff up. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What a ridiculous, self-mocking comment. If spellings should certainly be in American when the topic in question is American, then what possible justification could there ever be in this galaxy of ours for using the American spelling of Habsburg? This is bad comedy. Kingshalmaneser 11:56, 07 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that this is important or anything, but, um, is China still considered MFN? I mean, in light of the recent reports that it is, intentionally or not, sending us poison food, I'd think that a reapprasial is in order.

Free trade agreements citation

I'm not sure how to edit. But I notice there is a "citation neeeded" tag after the statements regarding free trade agreements being exceptions to MFN. This can be found in GATT article XXIV. Here is a link: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/regatt_e.htm

Someone who knows the rules of Wikipedia and how to edit please add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.48.24 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Abu Casey (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

U.S. law chronology and citations

There needs to be a better effort at supplying documentation of the chronology: events, parties responsible, in the U.S. giving permanent MFN status to China. I've added the October 10, 2000 signing date by President Bill Clinton, to P.L. 106-286. And I've added a citation, something missing from much of this article.Dogru144 (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Reciprocity in trade agreements

The article states "Most favoured nation relationships contrast with reciprocal bilateral relationships." This contrasts with the fact that reciprocity is generally recognized as one of the core norms of the multilateral trading system (under both GATT and WTO). Reciprocity is not simply a bilateral phenomenon, and MFN status is an extension of reciprocity from a bilateral to a multilateral context. I believe Oatley's IPE textbook addresses this point, also, see Bagwell & Staiger (2006, 46-47).

Bagwell, Kyle and Robert Staiger. 2006. The Economics of the World Trading System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Abu Casey (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)