It is clear from this definition that the current formulation of the provisions of the PTA in the WTO system is not only an exception to a trade principle (MFN), but rather runs counter to the fundamental principles of the organization and that the ptA rules appear to be superior to those of the WTO. It`s true; THE EDPs are a creation of the WTO, but the way they operate makes it comparable to the WTO and even almost superior. PTAs can now be considered “multiplied MCSEs” in different parts of the world. They sometimes take more restrictive measures than WTO rules. One of the most egregious examples is the more TRIPS measures taken in some bilateral agreements between developed and developing countries. Developed countries negotiate agreements with developing countries that are much more demanding in terms of intellectual property rights (IR) than the WTO TRIPS agreement. If the WTO does not address such situations, the TRIPS agreement could soon be replaced. It is important to act as quickly as possible on these issues, as the delay in the Doha round of multilateral negotiations plays a role in the dissemination of EPZs. Given the recent proliferation of bilateral TTPs and the emergence of mega-PTAs (broad regional trade agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) or the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a global trading system managed exclusively under the WTO now seems unrealistic and the interactions between trade systems must be taken into account. The increasing complexity of the international trading system resulting from the proliferation of EPZs should be taken into account when considering the choice of countries or regions used by countries or regions to promote their trade relations and environmental agendas.  ATPs have grown rapidly; In the 1990s, there were just over 100 PTAs. In 2014, there were more than 700.  An EPI allows countries to trade with a small number of goods, which minimizes the volume of goods.
The TPP comprises twelve member countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam, as shown on the map below. The TPP will cover 40% of global GDP2 and 33% of world trade. Trade diversion means that free trade agreements divert trade from a more efficient supplier, a non-member, to a less efficient supplier under the free trade agreement. Let`s take an African country, Rwanda. Rwanda imports food, machinery and equipment, steel, petroleum products, cement and building materials, and its main suppliers are Kenya and Uganda. However, its export partners are China and Belgium. I think Rwanda imports mainly from Kenya and Uganda because they are part of the East African community and not because they have comparative advantages. In addition, Rwanda`s main export is coffee, tea and tin, and these are also produced and exported by Kenya. Instead of interacting with countries that have an absolute or comparative advantage, Rwanda is obliged to act with countries that have difficulty producing. This is not a good thing for both countries and the question is whether developing countries are prepared to bear the consequences of trade diversion.
The rules of the PTA seem too strict for the economies of developing countries and should be revised accordingly. It seems that a developing country earns more by reaching an agreement with a developed country.