The World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank: even though they feature heavily in the news, these institutions do not always get good press. In his work devoted to Institutions économiques internationales (International Economic institutions) (1), the Liège jusrist Philippe Vincent introduces us clearly, with neither idealistic reverence nor militant critique, to the poorly understood world of the ‘administrators’ of the global economy.

Why was money given birth to? How was it adapted so that it would work beyond the local market? Does bartering still exist? Is the quandary concerning free trade / protectionism a false debate, or even a great hypocrisy? Far from losing us from the very beginning in the twists and turns of often complex mechanisms, the author begins the different sections of his book with the necessary ABC to understand where we are coming from, why such or such a need was felt and what was done to ensure that it was fulfilled.

There are rules, of course. Everyone is in agreement in recognising that standards of law are indispensable in every form of life in society, be they global, as is the case for our contemporary economy. But there are many people who stress that sometimes these rules are above all in keeping with the interests of the powerful who have imposed them. In certain respects Phillipe Vincent is one of them. But he does not draw the conclusion that it would be better to pure and simply abolish these international institutions, whose practices are often questionable. On the contrary he makes Henri Lacordaire’s observation his own in reminding us that ‘between the strong and the weak, it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free.’ In this regard, the international economic institutions are thus as necessary as the laws which they enact. But he straightaway acknowledges that the application of some of them, in certain countries, produces results which are perhaps worse than the problems they were supposed to remedy. Yes, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) gets hauled over the coals in his book. Yes, the World Bank (WM), its almost twin sister, has been and remains at the very least imperfect. Yes, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is eminently perfectible. But, once again yes, these ‘demiurges’ of the global economy are eminently useful. And no, finally, they should not be abolished, which would return partners who are far from all having the same strength to the laws of the jungle.

To explain things from the beginning: after having covered the history of international trade relations, Phillipe Vincent looks at the end of the Second World War and the year 1944, which saw the meeting of the representatives of several dozens of countries in the American seaside resort of Bretton Woods. Their overriding preoccupation: to sort out the most urgent monetary questions and to organise the reconstruction of a Europe ruined by the war. They found themselves leaning over the cradle of the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). As for international cooperation on purely trade terms, it was to have been managed by…the International Trade Organisation (ITO). But it was still born, lacking the indispensable participation of the United States, of which a number of members of Congress estimated in particular that it would not allow sufficient protection for American producers, including farmers. It just goes to show that protectionism is sometimes to be found amongst its most eager assailants! In the absence of the ITO managing trade cooperation, it was the General Agreement on customs tariffs and trade which played this role for sixty years. We in effect had to wait until 1994 to see the creation of the present World Trade Organisation (WTO), which has its headquarters in Geneva. The aforementioned agreement is better known as GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). We would not however have to wait long before its weaknesses were displayed. Amongst them was its inability to impose its discipline on two sectors jealously protected by important producers: agriculture and textile.

(1) VINCENT Ph., Institutions économiques internationales, Larcier, Coll."Droit International", 2009.