Globalization and liberalization appear to be resulting in pressures for a further extension of the scope of the multilateral trade rules, in that it is perceived that the remaining differences among regulatory regimes create unfair advantages both in terms of trade competitiveness and as attractions for investment. The proposals for the inclusion of "new issues" on the trade agenda, often can be attributed to such concerns, and the dispute settlement framework of the WTO is viewed as the effective way to enforce multilateral disciplines. Against this background, what are the implications, particularly for the development process, of a further extension of the system of multilateral trade rights and obligations to cover new issues? What could be considered as the logical "frontiers" of the multilateral trading system?

Many trade instruments based on concepts which assume that "production" takes place within national frontiers may need to be reexamined in the light of the globalization process. The inability of the Uruguay Round to reach agreement on the question of the "circumvention" of anti-dumping duties is illustrative of this problem, which may also imply viewing such issues as the "origin" of goods and services, the movement of persons, access to networks, or trade in energy, in a somewhat different light. Are certain concepts upon which trade instruments are based, being rendered progressively irrelevant by the process of globalization? Should the trade instruments be systematically reviewed in the context to ensure that the future trading system reflects the realities of trade and production?

Globalization and marginalization can be viewed as two sides of the same coin, in that those countries which are unable to seize the opportunities of globalization, will rapidly find themselves marginalized. In future trade negotiations, provision for some form of international adjustment assistance could be envisaged right from the beginning. The debate that has taken place with respect to the "winners" and "losers" of the Uruguay Round should be preempted. How can future trade initiatives take account of the likelihood that manycountries will not be able to derive benefits, at least in the short run, from future trade liberalization and new disciplines without the concerted support of the international community?

The Uruguay Round resulted in a dramatic increase in the multilateral obligations of developing countries, in terms of tariff bindings, intensified and extended disciplines. A debate has arisen as to whether these obligations have restricted the policy options available to developing countries to the extent that they will be unable to emulate the policy mix applied in the past by successful countries, particularly those in East Asia. How can future trade negotiations maintain the momentum to freer trade and greater multilateral discipline, while permitting developing countries to follow different development strategies as dictated by their particular situations?