Content uploaded by Babulia Dodo Mghebrishvili
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Babulia Dodo Mghebrishvili on Oct 07, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
ECOFORUM
[Volume 10, Issue 3(26), 2021]
GEORGIA’S TRADE RELATIONS WITH CIS AND EU MEMBER STATES
Babulia MGHEBRISHVILI,
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Georgia
babulia.mgebrishvili@tsu.ge
Tamaz ZUBIASHVILI
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Georgia
zubtamaz@yahoo.com
Abstract
The article provides analysis of Georgia’s trade relations with the countries of the Community of Independent
States (CIS) and the European Union. The authors attempted to demonstrate that Association Agreement with
EU and its fulfillment does not prevent Georgia’s trade relationships with the CIS countries, among them with
Russia. This was evidenced by the results of analysis of factual figures of trade relations. After making Deep and
Comprehensive Free Trade Area Agreement with the European Union, Georgia’s trade relationships have
expanded with both, CIS and EU countries. Foreign trade growth rates with CIS countries exceeded that with
the EU countries. The authors regard that this is result of high visibility and Georgian products. At the same
time, competitiveness of Georgian goods corresponds to the requirements at CIS markets. Goods of independent
Georgia, with Georgian named as the country of origin find their way to the European markets only now. Their
visibility level is low. Authors of the article regard that to improve products visibility at the EU markets,
Georgian businesses should, primarily rely on the markets of the countries of former socialist countries. In
addition, attention should be paid to development of export and import strategies and high professionalism of
the trade personnel.
Keywords: CIS, European Union, import, trade relations
JEL Classification: F10, P33, P45
I. INTRODUCTION
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, most former union republic continued their political and
economic relationships in a form of the Community of Independent States (CIS). Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
did not join CIS. Georgia joined CIS from 1993, when, in its fight for territorial integrity, it was forced to leave
Abkhazia. Georgia’s relationships, within CIS scopes, lasted up to August War in 2008 between Russia and
Georgia. After this war Georgia left CIS and continued relationships with the mentioned alliance members,
based on bilateral, among them, trade agreements. Though, Georgia’s trade relationships with CIS member states
rely on the other legal bases as well. Since 1992, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Russian Federation
and Ukraine are members of Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization (BSEC). Within the scopes of this
organization, one of the spheres of cooperation between the member states includes the issues of economy and
trade development. In addition, most CIS countries (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Moldova, Russian
Federation, Tajikistan and Ukraine) are WHO members, and some of the countries (Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) have the observer status. Within WTO the work between member states is conducted
to manage trade barriers and eliminate discrimination, development of legal framework to resolve trade
disagreements. All above is intended to ensure production and sale of products safe for humans. Today the
population of developed countries pays great attention to this. In this respect, most part of Georgian population
has sound position (Todua N., 2018); (Todua N. 2019), and this impacts the process of sale of the products
imported into Georgia.
Simultaneously with CIS countries, Georgia actively cooperates with EU member states. European Union
has recognized Georgia as an independent state as early as in 1992 and commenced extensive collaboration with
it. In 1996, European Union and Georgia signed the partnership and cooperation agreement that entered into
force in 1999. One of the goals of this agreement is support of trade between the parties and ensuring stable
economic relationships. In further development of the idea of Georgia’s joining to EU a new stage commenced
within the scopes of European Neighborhood politics. European Neighborhood politics has plaid great role for
ECOFORUM
[Volume 10, Issue 3(26), 2021]
modernization of the country, implementation of economic reforms and formation of the state institutes. Though
European Neighborhood policy covered Georgia in June 2004, the action plan was received only in 2006. Within
the scopes of European Neighborhood Policy the incentive of Eastern Partnership originated and led Georgia to
execution of Association Agreement. On 27 June 2014, in Brussels, EU signed Association Agreement with
Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. This Agreement commenced the new stage in Georgia’s trade relationships with
EU member states and this was reflected in details in the components of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade
Area (DCFTA). Association Agreement focuses on the obligations under WTO and interprets such
disagreements resolution between the countries that resolution of disputes within the scopes of Association
Agreement did not impact the disputes resolution procedures within WTO scopes. As all EU member states are
WTO members as well, they trade with one another in the preferential mode; they are protected from
discrimination, have no barriers between one another and at their markets the imported and domestic goods are
subject to similar taxation and sale.
Hence, Georgia simultaneously trades with the CIS and EU member states. At the same time, it strives to
gaining EU membership. In such situation it is natural to put the question – can integration of Georgia into EU
deep and all-embracing trade space hinder free trade with the other countries, including CIS members? To this
question, the first answer should be: “deep and all-embracing trade space does not impose any limitations for the
free trade agreements made by Georgia with the other countries”. We attempted to prove that this is the case and
that many widespread statements about EU membership is the myth and not reality based on analysis of statistics
describing Georgia’s trade relationships with CIS and EU countries. In addition, we would like to make
emphasis on the other opinion, widespread in Georgian economic space, according to which “Russian-Georgian
relationships in the sphere of trade, supposedly, will worsen after gaining access to deep and all-embracing trade
space by Georgia. Answer to this wrong proposal was already given. In this article, based on statistical data, we
attempted to show that fulfillment of Association Agreement has not impacted Russian-Georgian trade
relationships. We support the opinion that EU and Russian markets are quite different and trade with the
European Union will not be provided on account of trade with Russia.
II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Georgia’s trade relationships with CIS and EU member states were analyzed based on both, practical data
and theoretical sources. Information from the theoretical literature, whether directly or indirectly, has plaid the
role of theoretical-methodological basis for this Article. Such theoretical sources include: Zubiashvili T.,
AtaneliShvili T. (2019); Todua N. (2018); Todua N. (2019); Mghebrishvili B. (2009); Mghebrishvili B.
(2019); Mghebrishvili B., Papava V. (2011); Seturi M. (2015); Mghebrishvili B., Urotadze E . (2016); Papava
V. (2011); Seturi M. (2019); Seturi M. (2020); Silagadze A., Zubiashvili T. (2016); Silagadze A., Atanelishvili
T. (2020). Studying of literature sources and taking into account the collected information in the process of work
on this article was provided applying general research methods, including induction, deduction, analysis and
synthesis. In the process of practical data analysis and making conclusions, we have applied statistical methods
of dynamic series, grouping, comparison. Situation in practice was analyzed and evaluated with both, absolute
and relative indices, and we have calculated some of them.
III. RESEARCH RESULTS
DCFTA is a very important component of Association Agreement between EU and Georgia. It entered
into force from 1 September 2014. How Georgia’s export and import relations with CIS countries developed
after its launching can be seen in table below. It turned out that trade relationship with CIS countries have further
activated after DCFTA launching, instead of worsening.
In the period from 2015 to 2019, growth of Georgia’s exports to CIS countries was USD 1202.6 million
and figure for year 2019 was almost 2.5 times higher, compared with that for year 2015. In this period, imports
grew as well, together with the exports, though at much lower pace. Certainly, this is better for Georgia as
negative trade surplus has drastically reduced. Though trade surplus is still negative, still, negative surplus in
year 2019 was only 35.2% of the similar figure for year 2015, due to growth of exports and imports.
Table 1. Georgia’s foreign trade with CIS countries in the period from 2015 to 2019
At current prices, US $M
ECOFORUM
[Volume 10, Issue 3(26), 2021]
Year
Exports
Imports
Trade surplus
Trade turnover
2015
840,9
1967,9
-1127,0
2808,8
2016
737,5
1981,2
-1243,7
2718,7
2017
1184,8
2317,8
-1133,0
3502,6
2018
1669,5
2694,3
-1024,8
4363,8
2019
2043,5
2440,6
-397,1
4484,1
Change in 2019,
compared with
2015 +/-
+1202,6
+472,7
-729 0
+1675,3
Change in 2019,
compared with
2015 %
243,0
124,0
35,2
159,6
Source: The table is based on the data from GeoStat and Ministry of Economics and Sustainable Development of
Georgia
At the same time, growth of trade turnover with CIS country was 159.6%. Certainly, if DCFTA hindered
Georgia’s trade relationships with CIS countries, exports, imports and total trade turnover growth would not be
so high.
After DCFTA launching, the trade relationships with EU countries have significantly expanded as well,
exports, imports and trade turnover has significantly grown. Growth rates were much lower than those with CIS
countries.
Table 2. Georgia’s foreign trade with EU member states in 2015-2019
At current prices, US $M
Year
Exports
Imports
Trade surplus
Trade turnover
2015
565,7
2215,0
-1649,3
2780,7
2016
655,4
2200,7
-1545,3
2856,1
2017
730,7
2506,1
-1775,4
3236,8
2018
819,0
2407,2-
-2318,2
3226,2
2019
+174,3
+326,3
-882,0
+500,6
Change in 2019, compared
with 2015 +/-
127,0
115,7
161,4
118,4
Change in 2019, compared
with 2015 %
565,7
2215,0
-1649,3
2780,7
Source: The table is based on the data from GeoStat and Ministry of Economics and Sustainable Development of
Georgia
Table 2 shows that in 2015-2019, Georgia’s trade relations with EU member states, compared with CIS
countries have developed in somewhat different way. Though exports growth rate to CIS countries significantly
exceeded that to the EU member states, no significant difference between imports growth rates was found. We
regard that the most significant is the fact that Georgia’s trade surplus in 2015-2019 was much better with the
CIS countries than that with the EU member states. This is normal, as most part of European population does not
know Georgian product while in CIS countries people know Georgian goods and even are loyal to them. This
contributed to greater growth of exports to CIS countries, compared with imports. In addition, significant growth
of negative trade balance with the EU countries was recorded. In 2019, negative trade balance with EU member
states (-2318.0) was 5.8 times higher than that with CIS countries. In 2015-2019, this figure with the EU member
states increased, while with CIS countries decreased. So, negative impact of Deep and Comprehensive Free
Trade Area Agreement on Georgia’s trade relationships with the other countries turned out to be indeed a “myth”
(as stated by some researchers) rather than reality.
In 5 years after DCFTA launching, in totals of Georgia’s exports and imports the CIS countries are at the
leading positions and, notably, these positions became even firmer, as can be seen from Table 3. The table
clearly demonstrates also the fact that in total imports the shares of CIS and EU countries tend to even out. I.e.
opportunities of selling of Georgian products in CIS countries are better but, with respect of imports, Georgia has
equal opportunities with CIS and EU countries. What is the cause of equal opportunities with the CIS and EU
countries for Georgia depend on the goals of importer enterprises, as well as needs of Georgian market. Though,
this needs separate research.
Seemingly, the CIS and EU member states are at the leading positions for Georgian exports and imports.
ECOFORUM
[Volume 10, Issue 3(26), 2021]
In 2015-2019, share of the other countries was about one third and even further reduced. While in 2016, share of
the other countries in total exports was 38.3%, by 2019 this figure reduced to 24.7%. Such reduction was caused
by increase of the share of CIS countries. In the recent period, share of the other countries in imports to Georgia
has been changing non-uniformly and, at the same times, it increased at account of reduction of shares of both,
CIS and EU countries. While in 2016, share of the other countries was 42.5% in total imports, by 2019, this
figure increased to 49.1%.
Table 3. Changes of shares CIS and EU countries in Georgian foreign trade in 2015-2019 (%)
Year
Exports
Imports
Foreign trade turnover
CIS
EU
CIS
EU
CIS
EU
2015
38,1
29,2
27,0
28,5
29,6
28,6
2016
34,9
26,8
27,1
30,0
28,9
29,6
2017
43,3
24,0
29,2
27,7
32,8
26,7
2018
49,8
21,8
29,5
27,4
34,9
25,8
2019
53,7
21,6
25,6
25,3
33,7
24,2
Source: table is based on the data from GeoStat and Ministry of Economics and Sustainable Development of
Georgia
Proportion of the CIS and EU countries in total exports and imports, according to the preliminary data for
three quarters of year 2020, is still in favor of CIS. Thus, share of EU countries in the exports is 21.1% while that
of 44.5%. As for imports, share of CIS countries is 30.0% while that of EU countries – 23.9%. As in previous
years, in three quarters of 2020, share of the other countries is much greater than that of EU member states while
in imports the share of CIS countries is higher. Consequently, Association Agreement does not hinder Georgia’s
foreign trade with any of the countries in the world. Though, we should take into consideration that sales
personnel, qualification of the individuals engaged in sales play significant role in export and import. Georgian
enterprises, in export, should pay proper attention to professionalism of the trade personnel, issues of their
training. We regard that it is significant to care about improvement of qualification of the staff working on the
sites. Otherwise, people engaged in the sphere of trade will not be able to properly present the foreign goods to
Georgian consumers, thus hindering the process of sale of the imported goods (Mghebrishvili and Seturi, 2015);
(Mghebrishvili and Urotadze , 2016); (Seturi, 2019); (Seturi, 2020).
We regard that analysis of the Georgian-Russian trade relationships would be of significance. Studying of
the statistical data showed that share of Russia in total exports of Georgia gradually grows. Since 2015, Russia is
among ten largest partner countries. Though in 2015 Russia was not included in three largest partner countries
with respect of exports, in 2016, it was at the first position together with Turkey, in 2017, it achieved the leading
position with 14.5%. By 2018, in exports of Georgia, Russia moved to the second position, after Azerbaijan. In
the mentioned period, in total imports to Georgia, Russia is among three largest importer countries and, mostly,
is at second position, after Turkey. By 2020, trade relationships with Russia are still active. It is not excluded that
“activation of export and import was caused by negative expectations” in development of foreign trade.
Consequently, Georgia’s relationships with the European Union, and launching of DCFTA does not negatively
impact Georgia’s trade relationships with the other. EU member states are not in top three largest partner
countries of Georgia yet.
IV. CONCLUSION
Studying of the statistical data of Georgia’s trade relationships with the CIS and EU countries showed us
the following:
• Georgia actively cooperates with CIS countries and this, on one hand, is conditioned by visibility of
Georgian goods their and competitiveness at market in these countries. On the other hand, goods produced in
CIS countries meet with the requirements of Georgian market.
• Growth rate of Georgian exports to the CIS countries is much higher than imports growth rate. For
Georgia this is beneficial and the country must do its best to ensure formation of the CIS countries as growing
and stable markets for their goods. Though, Georgia should always be ready for unpleasant surprises from the
side of certain countries.
• Launching of DCFTA with the European Union has positively impacted the process of further
development of the trade relationships with the EU countries. Both, import and export have grown. Though, rate
of export and import growth is lower, compared with that of CIS countries. This is natural. Products of
independent Georgia, with its name have occurred at EU markets for the first time. EU consumers have no
information about Georgian goods (Gaganidze G., 2014). Hence, their visibility is relatively low while Georgian
products are familiar to CIS population. Population of these countries consumes Georgian products and they are
ECOFORUM
[Volume 10, Issue 3(26), 2021]
favorably disposed to them. In our opinion, demand for Georgian goods will grow at the EU markets in the
future. Though, this greatly depends on the attitude of Georgian entrepreneurs to the products quality and proper
selection of the export strategies, by countries. It is easier to find the market niche for Georgian products in the
new EU countries from former socialist system (Gaganidze G.,2014). Georgian businesses should make efforts
to make these countries the platform for further entry of Georgian products to the EU markets.
• Launching of DCFTA has had only positive impact on further development of Georgia’s trade
relationships, beyond EU – trade turnover has increased with CIS and other countries as well.
• Fulfillment of the requirements of DCFTA contributes to improvement of competitiveness of Georgian
products, and finding of the buyers for competitive products would be easier given abundance of the products at
markets.
In developing export and import strategies, proper attention should be paid to supplying professionals to
the trade sphere. Otherwise, export and import cannot be profitable.
V. REFERENCES
1. 1. Mghebrishvili. B., (2009). Georgia`s Trade Relations with the Countries of South Caucasus. Proceedings of the II International
Conference – Globalization and Sustainable Development Prospects of Georgia’s Economy. Publishing House „UNIVERSALI“,
Tbilisi, pp. 122-126.
2. Mghebrishvili, B., (2019). Impact of Changes in External Marketing Environment on the Development of Retail Trade in Georgia.
Journal Economics and Business, Tbilisi, 14(2):142-155.
3. Mghebrishvili, B., Seturi M., (2015). Trade Personnel and Shop Trade Challenges in Contemporary Conditions. The 7 the International
Research Conference, “Management Challenges in the 21st Century, Bratislava, Slovakia.
4. Mghebrishvili, B., (2018). Some Aspects of Social Marketing Development in Georgia. ДВНЗ «Київський національний
економічний університет імені Вадима Гетьмана»
5. Mghebrishvili, B., (2019). Situation of Health and Welfare in Georgia in the Context of Sustainable Development and Sustainable
Marketing. Ecoforum Journal 8 (1).
6. Mghebrishvili, B., (2018). Process of Formation of the Legal Environment for Marketing in Georgia. European Journal of Economics
and Business Studies 4 (3), 61-67.
7. Mghebrishvili, B., Mghebrishvili, A., Atoshvili, T., (2020). Care about environment protection in the conditions of effectiveness of
sustainable development conception (Example of Georgia). ДВНЗ «Київський національний економічний університет імені
Вадима Гетьмана»
8. Mghebrishvili B., Urotadze, E., (2016). Functions of Retailing. Proceedings of 23 International Academic Conference. At: Venice,
Italy. Publisher: International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
9. Gaganidze, G., (2016). Export potential and competitive Advantage. BESSH, 2016 77 (6), p.12, ISBN: 978-969-670-178-1
10. Gaganidze, G., (2014). Export Potential of Georgian Agricultural Products on the EU Market (Based on Competitive Advantages and
Market Entry Modes). European Journal of Business Research, ISSN: 1945-2977 15 (2).
11. Gaganidze, G., (2014). Systematic Approach to Research the Competitive Advantage, TSU; scientific and practical journal. Economics
and Business N 4, 2014.
12. Gvelesiani, R., (2019). The problem of making optimal decisions on the implementation of economic policy objectives. 2nd
International Conference on Business, Management& Economics, Vienna.
13. Gvelesiani, R., (2015). The Influence of Interest Groups on Economic Policy and Its Contradictory Results. Journal of Academy of
Business and Economics, IABE 15 (2), 35-40.
14. Gvelesiani, R., (2020). FORMATION OF THE INNOVATIVE ENTERPRENEURSHIP CULTURE: CAPABILITIES AND
PROBLEMS. Ecoforum Journal 9 (1).
15. Gvelesiani, R., (2020). CONTRADICTIONS OF PUBLIC VALUES–ORIGIN OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. Ecoforum Journal 9
(2).
16. Gechbaia, B., Kharaishvili, E., Mushkudiani, Z., (2019). The trends of producing agro-food products and export innovative marketing
strategy in Georgia. Economics. Ecology. Socium. Vol., 3, Issue 3.
17. Kharaishvili, E., (2016). Small Farm Diversification Opportunities in Viticulture-Winemaking sector in Georgia. International Journal
of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business.
18. Kharaishvili, E., Erkomaishvili, G., Chavleishvili, M. (2015). Problems faced by the agricultural sector and agribusiness development
strategy in Georgia, International Science Index 107. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic and
Management Engineering. Volume 9, Issue 11.
19. Kharaishvili, E., (2011). Problems of Competition and Competitiveness in Agro-Food Products Sector in Georgia. Universali, Tbilisi.
20. Kharaishvili, E., (2015). Farm diversification and the corresponding policy for its implementation in Georgia, World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology. International Journal of Social, Education, Economics and Management Engineering. Vol., 9.
Issue 5.
21. Kharaishvili, E., (2018). The Impact of Preferential Agro Credit on the Development of Agribusiness in Georgia. Ecoforum Journal 7
(1).
22. Kharaishvili, E., Gechbaia, B., Mamuladze, G., (2018). Vegetable market competitive advantages of Georgian product and competition
challenges. Innovative Marketing 14 (3), 8-16.
23. Kharaishvili, E., Chavleishvili, M., Natsvaladze, M., (2014). Trends and prospects for the development of Georgian wine market.
International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering 8 (10).
24. Papava V. (2011). Evolution of Georgian-Russian Economic Relations in Post-soviet Period: Past Way and Prospects. Project: Russia
and Georgia Searching the Way Out. Georgian Fund for Strategy and International Relations Research.
25. Seturi, M., (2019). The Role of Sales Personnel in Developing Relationships with Customers. 18-th International Conference-
Economy & Business ,Volume: 13. At: Burgas, Bulgaria.
26. Seturi, M., (2020). About Customers Attitude Towards Service in Retail Stores. 19-th International Conference-Economy & Business.
Volume: 14. At: Burgas, Bulgaria.
27. Silagadze, A., Tvalchrelidze, A., Zubiashvili, T., Atanelishvili, T., (2016). Aspects of China's Economic Development. Ecoforum 5 (1).
ECOFORUM
[Volume 10, Issue 3(26), 2021]
28. Silagadze, A., Atanelishvili, T., (2014). The main economic indicators of the EU and Georgia “Topical problems of the development of
economy and economic science.” Collection of scholarly works of Paata Gugushvili Institute of Economics TSU.
29. Silagadze, A., (2014). Integration Economic Indicators of the EU and Some Issues of Development of Post-Soviet Countries–New
Associate Members of the EU. Journ. Revista Moldovenească de Drept Internațional și Relații Internaționale. Issue 3. pp. 78-83.
30. Silagadze, A., (2013). Some of the external Aspects of the Georgian Economy in Modern Times. Moldavian Journal of International
Law and Relations 30.
31. Силагадзе, А., Атанелишвили, Т., (2010). Некоторые вопросы экономических доктрин в Грузии. Москва,«Взфэи», 51с.
32. Tvalchrelidze, A., Silagadze, A., (2013). Macroeconomic model for oil-exporting countries. Central Asia and the Caucasus 14 (4), 118-
144.
33. Todua, N., Mghebrishvili, B., (2018). Legal Fundamentals of Food Safety Provisions in Georgia. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
ACADEMIC RESEARCH 1 (1).
34. Todua, N., (2018). Georgian Consumers Awareness about the Benefits Associated with Healthy Nutrition. International Journal of
Business 1:11-18.
35. Todua, N., (2019). Attitude of Georgian Consumers to Healthy Nutrition. Proceedings 46th International Academic Conference. At:
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
36. Veshapidze, S., Mchedlishvili, Z., (2020). From Ilia Chavchavadze’s Economic Views: Competition, Private Property and International
Trade. Ecoforum Journal 9 (2).
37. Veshapidze, S., Zubiashvili, T. (2020). About the Origins of Modern Geoeconomic Foundations of Georgia. Ecoforum Journal 9 (2).
38. Zubiashvili, T., (2012). Educational and Labor Emigration of Youth from Georgia. The book: Youth Employment: Challenges and Opportunities.
The West University of Timisoara, Romania.“Eurostampa. 317-327.
39. Zubiashvili T., Atanelishvili T. (2019). Some Aspects of the Georgia-CIS Trade Relations. Ecoforum 8(2).
40. Analysis of Foreign Trade. Ministry of Economics and Sustainable Development.
41. Materials of the National Statistics Office of Georgia. www.geostat.ge
42. Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the
one part, and Georgia, of the other part (2014).
43. Georgia and European Union. Following Development and Reforms (2016). Center for Development and Democracy (CDD), Tbilisi.
44. Some Aspects of Georgian Exports Development against the Background of Foreign Trade Liberalization. (2018). Center for Research
of Economic Policies. Tbilisi.
45. Gelaschwili, S., Nastansky, A., (2009). Development of the banking sector in Georgia.
46. Mikeladze, G., Gelashvili, S., (2016). Gradualistic strategy of transition to market economy. Theoretical and Applied Economics 23
(4), 237-242.
47. Gelashvili, S., Abesaze, N., Abesadze, O., (2015). Expected Trends in Trade Relations Between Georgia and the European Union.
Folia Pomeranae Universitatis Technologiae Stetinensis. Oeconomica, 37-46
48. Gelashvili S., (2017). Comparative Analysis of Economic Growth Rates for Post-Soviet Countries. International Journal of Arts &
Sciences 10 (1), 525-534.
49. Gelashvili, S., Atanelishvili, T., (2016). BANK SYSTEM EVOLUTION IN GEORGIA. International Journal of Arts & Sciences 9 (3),
50. https://mfa.gov.ge/MainNav/ForeignPolicy/MultilateralRelations/BSEC.aspx
51. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm
52. https://report.ge/economics/ram-ganapiroba-rusettan-savachro-kavshiris-gaaktiureba/