¹ See the RTA Database on the WTO website (http://rtais.wto.org/).Google Scholar

² For a comprehensive reconstruction, please see James H. Mathis, Regional Trade Agreements in the GATT-WTO: Article XXIV and the Internal Trade Requirement (2002).Google Scholar

³ Jagdish Bhagwati, The Unilateral Freeing of Trade versus Reciprocity, in Going Alone: The case for Relaxed Reciprocity in Freeing Trade 1, 1–30 (2002).Google Scholar

⁴ Richard Baldwin, Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocs on the Path to Global Free Trade, 29(11) World Economy, 1451–1518 (2006).Google Scholar

⁵ For a more detailed overview of these opinions, please see Carsten Fink, PTAs in Services: Friends or Foes of the Multilateral Trading System?, in Opening Markets for Trade in Services: Countries and Sectors in Bilateral and WTO Negotiations 113–148 (Juan A. Marchetti and Martin Roy eds., 2008).Google Scholar

⁶ Kalypso Nicolaïdis, Non-Discriminatory Mutual Recognition: An Oxymoron in the New WTO Lexicon?, in Regulatory Barriers and the Principle of Non-Discrimination in World Trade Law 270 (Thomas Cottier & Petros C. Mavroidis, eds., 2000).Google Scholar

⁷ I prefer to use the term jurisdiction rather than the term country, because, as a consequence of the European integration process, the former Westphalian equilibrium seems to have disappeared in the old continent, leaving the stage to a new emerging actor.Google Scholar

⁸ C 120/78 Rewe Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung Fuer Branntwein (I – 649).Google Scholar

⁹ The Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community Art. 57.1, Mar. 25, 1957 [hereinafter the Treaty of Rome] (“In order to make it easier for persons to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons, the Council shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b, issue directives for the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications”).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Scholars usually refer to the Cassis judgement as the first case of Mutual Recognition because, while Art. 57 of the Treaty of Rome represents a call for legislative actions which may or may not take place, in the case before the European Court of Justice, such a concept was imposed to all trade in goods.Google Scholar

¹¹ Kalypso Nicolaïdis and Gregory Shaffer, Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance Without Global Government, 68 Mich. Rev. of Int'l Law 263, 297 (2005) (“… Managed mutual recognition can be viewed in a static or in a dynamic manner…. Dynamically, mutual recognition can be viewed as a process, involving implicit or explicit trade-offs between these dimensions to accommodate the ‘supply side’ (for example, regulators’ requirements) that may change over time. The more parties are aware of these potential trade-offs, the higher the likelihood that they will reach agreement and devise solutions acceptable to all”).Google Scholar

¹² Some could question whether these agreements overlap with GATS obligations about MRAs. As GATS authorizes WTO members to sign MRAs, within the limits of art. VII (as I try to explain infra), the parties to such agreements notified them straight after its entry into force, so the problem does not occur.Google Scholar

¹³ Convención sobre el Ejercicio de Profesiones Liberales, Feb. 4, 1889.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Part 2.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For a detailed overview, please see A. Beviglia Zampetti, Market Access through Mutual Recognition: The Promise and Limits of GATS Article VII, in GATS 2000: New Directions in Services Trade Liberalization 283–306 (Pierre Sauvé and Robert M. Stern eds., 2000).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Id. at 285.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See the agreement between EC and the Swiss Confederation on direct insurance other than life insurance, in OJEC (Official Journal of the European Communities) L205, Jul. 27, 1991. The agreement entered into force on January 1, 1993.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Available at http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/08-55698_Ebook.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Zampetti, supra note 15, at 295.Google Scholar

²⁰ General Agreement on Trade in Services art. VII. 2, Jan. 1, 1995 [hereinafter GATS] (“A Member that is a party to an agreement or arrangement of the type referred to in paragraph 1, whether existing or future, shall afford adequate opportunity for other interested Members to negotiate their accession to such an agreement or arrangement or to negotiate comparable ones with it. Where a Member accords recognition autonomously, it shall afford adequate opportunity for any other Member to demonstrate that education, experience, licenses or certifications obtained or requirements met in the other Member's territory should be recognized.”).Google Scholar

²¹ See Introduction.Google Scholar

²² Zampetti, supra note 15, at 295.Google Scholar

²³ The text of GATS art. VII.3 reads ‘disguised'.Google Scholar

²⁴ GATS art. I.3(a) (Scope and Definitions) (“… each Member shall take such reasonable measures as may be available to it to ensure their observance by regional and local governments and authorities and non-governmental bodies within its territory…”).Google Scholar

²⁵ GATS art. VII.4(a) (“Each Member shall: (a) within 12 months from the date on which the WTO Agreement take effects for it, inform the Council for Trade in Services of its existing recognition measures and state whether such measures are based on agreements or arrangements of the type referred to in paragraph 1…”).Google Scholar

²⁶ I made reference to the official contact points list of the WTO Secretariat.Google Scholar

²⁷ As it is stated in GATS art. VII.4.Google Scholar

²⁸ See TABLE 2 – Subject Matter, Annex I.Google Scholar

²⁹ See, e.g., Gary Becker, The Economics of Discrimination (1957); Alberto Alesina & Eliana La Ferrara, Who Trusts Others?, 85 J. of Pub. Econ. 207–234 (2002); Fabian Bornhorst, Andrea Ichino, Karl H. Schlag & Eyal Winter, Trust and Trustworthiness among Europeans: South-North Comparison, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 4378 (2004).Google Scholar

³⁰ Luigi Guiso, Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, Cultural Biases in Economic Exchange?, 124 Q. J. of Econ. 1095 (2009).Google Scholar

³¹ See World Trade Organization – Groups in the negotiations, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/negotiating_groups_e.htm (last visited Aug. 15, 2010).Google Scholar

³² See TABLE 3 – Cultural Biases, Annex II.Google Scholar

³³ By “speaking the same language[,]” we make reference to official recognized languages.Google Scholar

³⁴ That means that in the 85% of the cases, MRAs partners either speak the same language or share the same geographic region.Google Scholar

³⁵ See World Bank list of economies (August 2010), http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/CLASS.XLS (last visited Aug. 15, 2010). We used such indicators because they seem to be broadly recognized and because they are the result of an affordable method of calculation of the level of development of countries.Google Scholar

³⁶ See TABLE 4 – Level of Income - Annex III.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Annex IV.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Treaty of Rome (as it has been modified over the years).Google Scholar

³⁹ European Free Trade Agreement, Jan 4. 1960.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between the Republic of India and the Republic of Singapore, Jun. 29, 2005.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Korea - Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Aug. 4, 2005.Google Scholar

⁴² Aaditya Mattoo, MFN and the GATS, in Regulatory Barriers and the Principle of Non-Discrimination in World Trade Law 80 (Thomas Cottier and Petros C. Mavroidis, eds., 2000).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Kalypso Nicolaïdis and Joel P. Trachtman, From Policed Regulation to Managed Recognition in GATS, in GATS 2000: New Directions in Services Trade Liberalization 241 – 282 (Pierre Sauvé and Robert M. Stern, eds., 2000); see also Robert Z. Lawrence, Regionalism, Multilateralism and Deeper Integration (1996).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ GATS Art. V (“This Agreement shall not prevent any of its Members from being a party or entering into an agreement liberalizing trade in services between or among the parties to such an agreement, provided that such an agreement: (a) has substantial sectoral coverage, and (b) provides for the absence or elimination of substantially all discrimination…”).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ WT/DS/34/AB/R Turkey - Textiles. Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The Turkey - Textiles case is not definitive about how the fundamental conditions to be satisfied in order to invoke the PTA exception have to be demonstrated. It is worth recalling, for instance, the entire § 59 of the AB's report: “We would expect a panel, when examining such a measure, to require a party to establish that both of these conditions have been fulfilled. It may not always be possible to determine whether the second of the two conditions has been fulfilled without initially determining whether the first condition has been fulfilled. In other words, it may not always be possible to determine whether not applying a measure would prevent the formation of a customs union without first determining whether there is a customs union. In this case, the Panel simply assumed, for the sake of argument, that the first of these two conditions was met and focused its attention on the second condition.”Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Supra note 44.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Section C.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Bhagwati, supra note 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ C. Fred Bergsten, Open Regionalism (Peterson Inst. for Int'l Econ. Working Paper No. 97–3, 1997).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Richard Baldwin, A Domino Theory of Regionalism, in Expanding Membership of the European Union 25–48 (Richard Baldwin, Pertti Haaparanta & Jaakko Kiander, eds., 1995).Google Scholar