AMI supporters (such as the United States, Canada and several EU member states) continue to promote investment provisions that are similar to regional trade agreements, bilateral investment agreements, bilateral free trade agreements and discussions within the Global Trade Organization, which will be incorporated into the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Before the end of 1998, British Trade Minister Brian Wilson announced that investment negotiations could be transferred to the WTO. They do not have as much impact on economic growth as a multilateral agreement. The United States has become increasingly dominant in terms of military and economic power, leading countries such as Iran, China and India to question the relevance of the United Nations. At the same time, internationalists such as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan felt that the United States was more inclined to act unilaterally in situations with international implications. This trend began when the U.S. Senate refused in October 1999 to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty signed by President Bill Clinton in September 1996. Under President George W. Bush, the United States rejected multilateral agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines, and a draft protocol to ensure compliance by states with the Biological Weapons Convention. Even under the George W. Bush administration, the United States withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty signed by the Richard Nixon administration and the Soviet Union in 1972. Another challenge to global governance through multilateralism is national sovereignty. Despite the erosion of the legal and operational sovereignty of nation states in international relations, “nation states remain the ultimate place for decision-making on most facets of public and private life.”  Hoffman asserted that nation states “are unlikely to accept abstract obligations that conflict with concrete calculations of national interest.”  These challenges posed by the United States could be seen as instruments of control by a strong faith in bilateral alliances.
However, liberal institutionalists argue that the major powers could still opt for a multilateral alliance. But the major powers can strengthen their capacity to control small powers and maximize their influence by forging a series of bilateral agreements with their allies, instead of seeing that leverage being watered down in a multilateral forum. For similar reasons, the Bush administration probably favoured bilateralism over multilateralism and even unilateralism. Instead of going alone or going with others, the government has opted for intense one-on-one relationships with hand-chosen countries that maximize the ability of the United States to achieve its goals.  Especially with the North American Free Trade Agreement, trade increased by 300% until 2009. It is clear that it is worth discussing the rules and regulations to ensure that these agreements continue. Under a bilateral trade agreement, the countries concerned give each other access to their markets, which leads to trade and economic growth. The agreement also creates an environment that promotes fairness, as a number of rules are followed in business. Here are the five areas covered by the bilateral agreements: the term “regional multilateralism” has been proposed, indicating that “contemporary problems can be better solved at the regional level than at the bilateral or global level” and that there is a need in today`s world to reconcile the concept of regional integration with that of multilateralism.  Regionalism dates back to the early development of political communities, when economic and political relations naturally had a strong regionalist focus due to restrictions on technology, trade and communication.
 A multilateral agreement increases trade for all countries involved.