In Asian countries, the free trade agreement has grown dramatically since the beginning of the 21st century. In 2000, only three free trade agreements were in force, nine years later, 37 free trade agreements were in force and 72 were under negotiation. Important platforms such as the People`s Republic of China, Japan and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have emerged. De facto increasing economic integration, combined with the absence of common economic institutions, has led Asian countries to pursue a trade policy for free trade agreements. So what is the “Made in Japan Spaghetti Bowl” and how to interpret this problem? It is quite common for only one country to sign different bilateral agreements. The tax agreements are all bilateral and the content of such bilateral agreements – negotiated and concluded by a given country – would be different depending on which country is the other party. As a result, the tax requirements differ depending on the bilateral agreements involved for each company or group of companies. This is not surprising, because these are tax issues. Indeed, it is quite natural that the provisions differ from treaty to treaty in areas outside the scope of a multilateral treaty, such as the . B of the WTO. This is the case, for example, in the field of investment, where more than 2,200 agreements have been concluded worldwide. (The crossroads of investment rules causes a certain problem. But the problem is only an extremely technical issue with regard to arbitration and it is completely different from the problem mentioned above of the laws and regulations of crossover.) A country may choose to apply rules for the treatment of people, capital, goods and services, depending on the country of origin, if it believes that such a complex system is manageable.
If not, we simply implement laws and regulations in accordance with the strictest multiple agreements and apply them to all countries. The effect of the Spaghetti Bowl is the proliferation of free trade agreements (ATAFs) that supplant the multilateral negotiations of the World Trade Organization as an alternative to globalization. The term was first used in 1995 by Jagdish Bhagwati in the document “US Trade policy: The infatuation with free trade agreements”, where he criticized free trade agreements as a counterproductive paradox in promoting freer and more open world affairs.