An international organization established in 1995 to replace GATT. Its stated aims are: expanding free-trade concessions equally to all members; establishing freer global trade with fewer barriers; making trade more predictable through established rules; and making trade more competitive by removing subsidies (see Mullins (2004) J. Econ. Geog. 4 on the WTO’s dismantling of the protocols that gave Caribbean, African, and Pacific ex-colonies preferential access to EU markets). Since 2005, WTO members have been unable to place quotas on imports of textiles and garments from other members (Thomsen (2007) J. Econ. Geog. 7).

Potter and Tilzey (2005) PHG 29, 5 argue that ‘the entrenched position of neoliberal ideas and framings within the WTO means that the ideology of the free market is coming to define the terms of international trade’. Wade (2003) Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 10, 4 claims that the ‘development space’ and ‘self-determination space’ for diversification and upgrading policies in developing countries is being shrunk behind the rhetorical commitment to universitization and privatization. Woods (2007) PHG 31, 4 argues that conclaves of the WTO have created new sites of political authority for the global countryside. Uitermark (2002) PHG 26, 6 contends that global institutions, such as the WTO, have facilitated competition between different nations such that the nation-state has been ‘localized’. As against these tirades, Zhu and Sarkis (2006) J. Cleaner Prod. 14, 5 confirm that globalization and China’s entry into the WTO have helped promote green supply chain management practices.