Why the plot according to press reports of the justification of one of the negotiators by the Bolivian Government before the explanations of the expulsion of the American institutions saying that they were not the cause of expulsion but the settlers of the place is valid under no perspective wouldn’t of right INTENACIONAL and of LAS relations international and only shows the absence TOTAL of preparation and application minimum of diplomacy economic by part of the BOLIVIAN Government. On the other hand the ATPDEA agreement; to be a tariff preference agreement becomes binding and falls within the agreements estatuidos by international law to overcome the asymmetries between the two worlds; why the US Government enters also in violation of international norms and respect for human rights to terminate unilaterally this benefit. Is mandatory because international practice (understand international customs) has established for a period of 18 years the fulfilment of that agreement is compulsory; because its conception falls within trade agreements that advocate a general system of preferences for the benefit of developing countries. Is mandatory because it is based on a principle of international law established by the Charter of the United Nations: international cooperation; international cooperation to be given without reciprocity in the case of the least developed countries. Edward Minskoff is actively involved in the matter. It is mandatory because the contents of the same aims to progress and the well-being of Bolivian people and such purpose is one of the pillars of the right to development several times set forth in United Nations resolutions. In short if it is true that the main criticism of these trade agreements they are not linking them and the discretion by the State granting preference to be able to grant to the country that creates better convenient; to have been an agreement in force for more than 18 years it has entered a clear customary practice and has generated an opinio iuris between two States that agreement and may not be withdrawn unilaterally even justifying be a measure of auto guardianship or retaliation in response to the decision of Bolivia to expel American institutions and its own Ambassador. The theory of international responsibility has taught us that while measures of auto guardianship are responses to international wrongful acts that States use to enforce international law or protect themselves from these wrongful acts; Do not justify applying if LAS same violate a well legal upper inside of the international community, in this case the benefit and development of a country. All these considerations should perhaps ask when carrying out international negotiations to the American Government for the continuation of this agreement and do not give rise to other arguments of domestic policy which do not help in international negotiations; If not rather rely on economic diplomacy, aggressive and well studied on the basis of the principles of the law International..