Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Troubled Relationships under the GATS: Tensions between Market Access (Article XVI), National Treatment (Article XVII), and Domestic Regulation (Article VI)

  • GILLES MULLER (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) was adopted in order to establish meaningful liberalization rules, while preserving the right of Members to regulate. To that end, three provisions form the centerpiece of liberalization: market access (Article XVI GATS), national treatment (Article XVII GATS), and domestic regulation (Article VI GATS). Although these provisions contain different obligations, in certain conditions they can overlap. How this issue is resolved could undermine the delicate balance between liberalization and the right to regulate. As the GATS provides no guidance, the task of determining the applicable rules has been delegated to the World Trade Organization (WTO) adjudicating bodies. This paper examines how the three provisions have been interpreted, and analyzes the most applicable way to address the diversity of barriers to trade in services.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Troubled Relationships under the GATS: Tensions between Market Access (Article XVI), National Treatment (Article XVII), and Domestic Regulation (Article VI)
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Troubled Relationships under the GATS: Tensions between Market Access (Article XVI), National Treatment (Article XVII), and Domestic Regulation (Article VI)
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Troubled Relationships under the GATS: Tensions between Market Access (Article XVI), National Treatment (Article XVII), and Domestic Regulation (Article VI)
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Email: gilles.muller@law.nyu.edu.
References
Hide All
Cossy M. (2008), ‘Some Thoughts on The Concepts of “Likeness” in the GATS’, Panizzon M., Pohl N., and Sauvé P. (eds.), GATS and the Regulation of International Trade in Services, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Delimatsis P. (2006), ‘Don't Gamble with GATS – The Interaction between Article VI, XVI, XVII and XVIII in the Light of the US–Gambling Case’, Journal of World Trade, 40(6): 10591080.
Diebold N. (2010), Non-Discrimination in International Trade in Services, “Likeness” in WTO/GATS, 2010, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ehring L. (2002), ‘De Facto Discrimination in World Trade Law, National Treatment and Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment–or Equal Treatment?’, Journal of World Trade, 36(5): 921977.
Flett J. (2014), ‘National Treatment under the General Agreement on Trade in Services’, in Sander Anselm Kamperman (ed.), The Principle of National Treatment: Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property, Cheltenham: Edward Edgar.
Krajewski M. (2003), National Regulation and Trade Liberalization in Services: The Legal Impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on National Regulatory Autonomy, The Hague, London, and New York: Kluwer Law International.
Krajewski M. (2005), ‘Playing by the Rules of the Game?’, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 32(4): 417447.
Krajewski M. and Maika E. (2008). ‘Article XVII GATS National Treatment’, Wolfrum R., Stoll P. T., and Feinäugle C. (eds.), WTO–Trade in Services, Netherlands: Koninkljke Brill NV, pp. 396420.
Mattoo A. (1997), ‘National Treatment in the GATS, Corner-Stone or Pandora's Box’, Journal of World Trade, 31(1): 107135.
Muller G. (2015), ‘The Necessity Test and Trade in Services: Unfinished Business?’, Journal of World Trade, 49(6): 951973.
Ortino F. (2006), ‘Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US–Gambling: A Critique’, Journal of International Economic Law, 9(1): 117148.
Pauwelyn J. (2005) ‘Rien ne va plus? Distinguishing Domestic Regulation from Market Access in GATT and GATS’, World Trade Review, 4(2): 131170.
Pauwelyn J. (2008), ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Likeness’, Panizzon M., Pohl N., and Sauvé P. (eds.), GATS and the Regulation of International Trade in Services, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verhoosel G. (2002), National Treatment and WTO Dispute Settlement: Adjudicating the Boundaries of Regulatory Autonomy, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Vranes E. (2009), ‘The WTO and Regulatory Freedom: WTO Disciplines on Market Access, Non-Discrimination and Domestic Regulation Relating to Trade in Goods and Services’, Journal of International Economic Law, 12(4): 953987.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2012), Trade and Public Policies: A Closer Look at Non-Tariff Measures in the 21st Century, World Trade Report, Geneva: WTO.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2003), ‘Considerations of Issues Relating to Article XX:2 of the GATS’, Note by the Chairman, Committee on Specific Commitments, JOB(03)/213, 20 November 2003.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (1998), ‘Decision on Disciplines Relating to the Accountancy Sector’, The Council for Trade in Services, S/L/63, 14 December 1998.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2001), ‘Guidelines for the Scheduling of Specific Commitments under the General Agreements on Trade in Services (GATS)’, adopted by the Council of Trade in Services on 23 March 2001, S/L/92, 28 March 2001.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (1993), ‘Scheduling of Initial Commitments in Trade in Services, Explanatory Note’, Note by the Secretariat, MTN.GNS/W/164, 3 September 1993.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2003), ‘“Necessity Tests” in the WTO’, Note by the Secretariat, Working Party on Domestic Regulation, S/WPDR/W/27, 2 December 2003.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2009), ‘Draft Disciplines on Domestic Regulation Pursuant to GATS Article VI:4’, Second Revision, Informal Note by the Chairman, Room Document, 20 March 2009.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2011), ‘Disciplines on Domestic Regulation Pursuant to GATS Article VI:4’, Chairman's Report Progress, Working Party on Domestic Regulation, S/WPDR/W/45, 14 April 2011.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2012a), ‘Regulatory Issues in Sectors and Modes and Supply’, Note by the Secretariat, Working Party on Domestic Regulation, S/WPDR/W/48, 13 June 2012.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2012b), ‘Technical Standards in Services’, Note by the Secretariat, Working Party on Domestic Regulation, S/WPDR/W/49, 13 September 2012.
Wouters J. and Coppens D. (2008), ‘GATS and Domestic Regulation: Balancing the Right to Regulate and Trade Liberalization’, in Alexander K. and Andenas M. (eds.), The World Trade Organization and Trade in Services, Netherlands: Koninkljke Brill NV, pp. 207263.
Zdouc W. (2004), ‘WTO Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to the General Agreement on Trade in Services’, in Ortino F. and Petersmann E.-U. (eds,), The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995–2003, Antwerp: Kluwer Law International, p. 381.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

World Trade Review
  • ISSN: 1474-7456
  • EISSN: 1475-3138
  • URL: /core/journals/world-trade-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 25
Total number of PDF views: 197 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 382 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 16th February 2017 - 18th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.