Search

Whether there are defects in origin rules for services of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is ascertained. Four defects in general origin rules for commercial presence were found, especially in the ownership or control requirement. Origin rules were also found to be classified into two types: general origin rules and special origin rules.

A study was conducted to consolidate research on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and basic social services, and to examine the impact of the GATS on the provision of basic social services in developing countries. It is argued that making specific commitments in basic social services will be marginally harmful.

Scheduled commitments and most favored nation exemptions by the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reveal variations in commitments regarding foreign direct investment in financial services. Market access and national treatment limitations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services determine the presence of foreign banks.

The article discusses the evolution of the GATS 2000 negotiations and presents a concise overview with a special reference to India.

An investigation of whether the temporary migration measures found in bilateral labor agreements and economic integration agreements are covered by disciplines in the World Trade Organization (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services is presented.

Key elements of the prevalent regulatory measures and barriers to market access of developing country service providers are outlined. The ways in which the proposed disciplines would help in securing or easing market access of professionals in the developed country markets are assessed. An investigation of select professional services in India shows that for developing countries in general there exist many elements in the proposed disciplines that are not only desirable but would assist them to get better market access into key developed country markets.

The experiences of East Asian countries in conducting financial liberalization are examined. The experiences of Malaysia and China in managing the Asian crisis are referred to argue that in addition to having appropriately sequenced, gradualist reforms on capital account liberalization, a country should keep certain regulatory space for itself and maintain independently the financial policy-making power.

A dividing line between Articles VI, XVI, XVII, and XVIII that are four important provisions of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is drawn. The lack of clarity of the GATS text on the relationship of these four Articles is exemplified in the US-Gambling dispute.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), enacted during the Uruguay Round, is designed to address the more complex protectionist measures found in service industries, but the agreement is still very generalized and has limited political support. Unlike in the goods sectors addressed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, service industries are subject to subtle but pervasive regulations and customs that protect domestic industries more effectively than any tariff could. The GATS is not considered a free trade document, but relaxation of domestic laws that restrict international access is one goal of the agreement.

A study was conducted to analyze the commitments proposed on financial services under the General Agreement on Trade in Services that was signed on Dec 12, 1997. The function of trade in financial services in an economy and on the international economic was also examined. Results indicated that the agreement supported gradualism and promotes principles of non-discrimination and transparency. However, the agreement suffers from a number of limitations such as the absence of generic guidelines.

A most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment clause was included in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), an unprecedented addition for a multilateral international trade in services agreement. However, MFN treatment should be unconditional, rather than the conditional or reciprocal approach advocated by nations including the US. Unconditional MFN can provide efficient access to low-cost financial services, while conditional reciprocity can hinder trade and raise customers' costs.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a pathbreaking multilateral agreement that governs trade in services. GATS defines trade in services as the provision of a service through any one of four supply modes: presence of natural persons, commercial presence, consumption abroad and crossborder. Each signatory to GATS makes a commitment to adhere to regulations in individual sectors in relation to each mode, with the level of commitment differing across modes.

Trade law issues associated with the establishment of mutual recognition agreements that aim to eradicate internal non-tariff barriers associated with the trading of goods and services were examined. The establishment of a transatlantic marketplace was correlated with plans that address internal measures between territories supporting low tariff barriers. In addition, the application of the plurilateral requirements of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, Article VII to recognition for goods was also analyzed.

A study has been conducted to identify some of the major limitations of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and examined possible amendments which may be included in the next round of GATS talks. It has been observed by analysts that the flow of exports has been largely in one direction, that is, from the rich industrialized countries to the developing countries. There are no commensurate benefits to developing countries in the GATS, since developing countries are treated more as importers rather than exporters. Damage control measures have remained elusive for developing countries.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) has defined trade in services as the supply of a service from the territory of one member country into the territory of any other member nation. The establishment of emergency safeguard measures has been deemed necessary GATS member countries and economic analysts. It has been argued that the establishment of such a system may still be riddled with loopholes at the onset. However, modifications can be made to the mechanism at a later stage based on the problems that emerge with the application of the new system.