Methods
The ALADI promotes the creation of an area of economic preferences in the region, aiming at a Latin American common market, through three mechanisms:
- Regional tariff preference granted to products originating in the member countries, based on the tariffs in force for third countries
- Regional scope agreement, among member countries
- Partial scope agreements, between two or more countries of the area
Either regional or partial scope agreements may cover tariff relief and trade promotion; economic complementation; agricultural trade; financial, fiscal, customs and health cooperation; environmental conservation; scientific and technological cooperation; tourism promotion; technical standards and many other fields. As the Montevideo Treaty is a "framework treaty", by subscribing to it, the governments of the member countries authorize their representatives to legislate through agreements on the economic issues of greatest importance to each country.
A system of preferences — which consists of market opening lists, special cooperation programs (business rounds, preinvestment, financing, technological support) and countervailing measures on behalf of the landlocked countries — has been granted to the countries deemed to be less developed (Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay), to favour their full participation in the integration process. As the institutional and normative "umbrella" of regional integration that shelters these agreements as well as the subregional ones (Andean Community, MERCOSUR, G-3 Free Trade Agreement, Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, etc.) the Association aims to support every effort to create a common economic area.
Read more about this topic: Latin American Integration Association
Famous quotes containing the word methods:
“The ancient bitter opposition to improved methods [of production] on the ancient theory that it more than temporarily deprives men of employment ... has no place in the gospel of American progress.”
—Herbert Hoover (1874–1964)
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)
“Cold and hunger seem more friendly to my nature than those methods which men have adopted and advise to ward them off.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)