Services

On 8 October 2003 Honduras requested consultations with the Dominican Republic concerning certain measures affecting the importation and internal sale of cigarettes. This request is a new and expanded version of a complaint filed by Honduras on 28 August 2003 (WT/DS300/1).

El 10 de noviembre de 2004 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas que afectan al suministro transfronterizo de servicios de juegos de azar y apuestas”.

Le 11 février 2000 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Canada - Certaines mesures affectant l’industrie automobile”.

Le 21 décembre 2009 l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport concernant une plainte déposée par les Etats-Unis dans l’affaire “Chine — Mesures affectant les droits de commercialisation et les services de distribution pour certaines publications et certains produits de divertissement audiovisuels” (DS363).

This paper examines how services trade and policies contribute to connectivity. It highlights the economic relevance of services and identifies some key channels through which trade in services contributes to physical and digital connectivity. The paper examines the impact of services trade policies on connectivity in view of recent research showing their impact on sectoral performance economic welfare and development. Finally it discusses the positive contribution that aid for trade can make in support of services policies.

Compared to its counterpart in merchandise trade the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1947 the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) contains a variety of conceptual innovations. In addition to cross-border supply the Agreement covers three additional types of transactions i.e. the supply of services via consumer movements abroad as well as the presence of foreign firms and foreign service professionals in the respective markets. At the same time the GATS accommodates a range of measures including the use of quantitative restrictions and discriminatory taxes or subsidies which are clearly constrained under the GATT. The Agreement offers particularly broad scope for various types of export-related interventions regardless of ensuing market distortions. The social and economic relevance of such measures is immediately evident. This paper seeks to provide an overview and assessment in the light of relevant GATS provisions and WTO dispute rulings.

In most of the current literature the spread of regionalism in international trade relations is iscussed in terms of a rapidly rising number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Far less attention is given to the even more rapid proliferation of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and their overlap with obligations assumed by WTO Members under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). About 60 per cent of world foreign investment stocks are in services and thus covered by mode 3 (commercial presence) of the GATS. A closer look reveals that BITs generally apply across a far wider range of sectors in particular in the case of LDCs and developing countries than those scheduled under the GATS. Furthermore a number of obligations enshrined in BITs go beyond their potential counterparts under the GATS. At the same time since most WTO Members have not listed relevant exemptions from the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) clause of the Agreement their BIT obligations are to be applied on an MFN basis. While this extension may not cause problems in many cases given generally liberal investment regimes and the focus of most treaties on protecting rather than liberalizing access inconsistencies remain between the two frameworks. Based on an assessment of relevant provisions this article discusses options on how WTO Members could proceed.

This paper is concerned with three problems in the interpretation of the national treatment obligation in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). First the precise domain of Article XVII on national treatment has not been clearly delineated particularly in relation to Article XVI dealing with market access. Secondly there is a difference between the text of Article XVII and the structure of the schedules of commitments which makes it difficult to interpret the scope of the national treatment obligation even for identical services supplied through different modes. The final and most complex problem arises in establishing the definition of "like" services and "like" service suppliers. Uncertainty about the precise meaning of the national treatment obligation may undermine the key GATS objective of creating a secure predictable trading environment. Moreover the extent of liberalization implied by the commitments under GATS depends on the precise choice of interpretation.

Discussions about international capital movements raise extremely important and controversial questions. Why should countries open up their capital accounts especially considering that unrestricted international capital movement is a relatively new phenomenon? For example many OECD countries have not eliminated their foreign exchange restrictions only until the 1980's. If the answer is unequivocally affirmative does it matter how fast should countries do so? Should they wait until "all essential pieces" of the policy package are in place before they eliminate all restrictions? How are international capital movements related to domestic financial sectors? Is there a difference between opening to competition an industry such as car manufacturing as compared to the banking sector? Should the opening of the banking sector be governed by different rules? Rules about foreign exchange restrictions are already in place in the IMF Articles. Until recently the IMF Articles only called for the elimination of foreign exchange restrictions on the current account. The ongoing discussion and the controversy about globalization that calls for the capital account liberalization introduces therefore a relatively new element into the whole discussion. These questions have also implications for the World Trade Organization. It is well known that the Uruguay Round Agreements have already provided a coverage for a number of aspects that are directly related to foreign investment. Rules established elsewhere such as in the context of changes to the IMF Articles will obviously have an important bearing for the implementation of rules agreed in the Uruguay Round. This raises a variety of other questions in the mind of some observers. Who should decide about the rules on capital account liberalization? What rules? IMF? What is the role of the WTO? How does one link the two? All of the questions raised above are clearly extremely important and most of them are discussed in the following paper by John Williamson. Mr. Williamson's presentation is based on his lecture and discussion which was delivered on 17 June 1999 at the WTO. The actual text that follows is a transcript of that lecture.

The study tries first to assess the extent of similarities and divergences among services rules in regional trade agreements as compared to the GATS. To do so it uses a typology identifying variations in 48 key provisions structured under seven themes commonly found in RTAs and using the GATS as a benchmark. The analysis identifies two main “families” of agreements GATSinspired and NAFTA-inspired) and a residual category. The paper briefly explores the historical development that led to these families as well as their geographical spread both on an agreement by agreement basis and a country by country basis. The paper then analyses by theme the variations found in the RTAs among services rules including their novelty as compared to the GATS. Given the lack of available information on the implementation of the agreements the paper tries to assess whenever possible the magnitude of the discrepancies and their practical impacts. While subject to some qualifications the results of the study are relatively straight forward: there is no "spaghetti bowl" in services rules but just two "families" and one residual category. The details reveal that the degree of divergence between those two families does not overall seem insurmountable. This assessment concords with other studies (e.g. Marchetti Roy) that have equated them in terms of national treatment and market access and have compared directly commitments undertaken under the three families of agreements. One may even note a certain tendency to a convergence towards the GATS model (e.g. the addition of market access clause in the second generation of NAFTA-like agreements or the use of GATS-type architecture by EU for agreements else than pre-adhesion ones). In terms of "novelty" the results prove somewhat disappointing except in certain areas like mode 4 and transparency. Other issues in which in view of the intensity of WTO DDA debates one would have expected a lot of bilateral creativity such as domestic regulation safeguards and recognition provisions show themselves to be surprisingly embryonic. Finally anecdotal evidence gathered for instance during the drafting by the WTO Secretariat of Trade Policies Reviews and factual presentations on RTAs suggest that in numerous instances provisions relating to future negotiations or even regular meetings are not implemented thereby casting doubt on the effective impact of RTA provisions (including diverging ones) on trade realities.