Advertisement

From GATS to TiSA: Pushing the Trade in Services Regime Beyond the Limits

Chapter
Part of the European Yearbook of International Economic Law book series (EUROYEAR, volume 7)

Abstract

Trade in services agreements are creatures of neoliberalism. As normative and disciplinary instruments, they have evolved over time, reaching progressively deeper into the regulatory domain of nation states and imposing fetters on the autonomy and authority of governments to determine the best way to regulate services in the national interest. With the paralysis in the World Trade Organization (WTO), new generation free trade and investment agreements offered a way to redesign the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), align it to new technologies and corporate imperatives, and further circumscribe governments’ regulatory options. Ever-more aggressive ambitions, now being pursued through a plurilateral Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) with a view to exporting it back into the WTO, have exacerbated the long-standing tensions that beset the GATS. As these agreements continue to push the boundaries, their attempts to lock governments into a more extreme version of the troubled neoliberal paradigm will heighten the problems of legitimacy confronting the agreements themselves and the WTO.

Keywords

World Trade Organization Uruguay Round Service Agreement Regional Trade Agreement World Trade Organization Member 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arnold PJ (2005) Disciplining domestic regulation: The World Trade Organization and the market for professional services. Acc Organ Soc 30(4):299–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhala R (2007) Competitive liberalization, competitive imperialism, and intellectual property. Liverpool Law Rev 28:77–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bressie K, Kende M, Williams H (2005) Telecommunications trade liberalisation and the WTO. Info J Policy Regul Strateg Telecommun Inf Med 7(2):3–24Google Scholar
  4. Drake W, Nicolaidis K (1992) Ideas, interests and institutionalization: “trade in services” and the Uruguay Round. Int Organ 46(1):37–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feketekuty G (1988) International trade in services: an overview and blueprint for negotiations. Ballinger, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Grynberg R, Dugal M, Razzaque MA (2006) An evaluation of the terms of accession to the World Trade Organization. A comparative assessment of services and goods commitments by the WTO members and acceding countries. Commonwealth Secretariat, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Kelsey J (2005) World trade and small nations in the south pacific region. Kansas J Law Public Policy 14:247–306Google Scholar
  8. Kelsey J (2008) Serving whose interests? the political economy of trade in services agreements. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kelsey J (2010) How the trans-pacific partnership agreement could heighten financial instability and foreclose governments’ regulatory space’. N Z Yearb Int Law 8:1–43Google Scholar
  10. Kelsey J (2011) The conundrum of shifting orthodoxies: FTAs and Korea’s currency controls. J Int Econ Law 14(4):845–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Khor M (2005) Developing countries object to “benchmarking” services proposals. Third World Econ 363:5Google Scholar
  12. Panagariya A (1999) The regionalism debate: an overview. World Econ 22(3):477–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Piketty T (2013) Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Reinhart C, Rogoff K (2013) Banking crises: an equal opportunity menace. J Bank Financ 37:4557–4573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sauvé P, Gillespie J (2000) Financial services and the GATS 2000 round. In: Litan R, Santomero A (eds) Brookings-Wharton papers on financial services. Brookings Institution, Washington DC, pp 423–452Google Scholar
  16. Wolf M (2014) The shifts and the shocks: what we’ve learned-and still have to learn-from the financial crisis. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Wunsch-Vincent S (2003) The digital trade agenda of the U.S.: parallel tracks of bilateral, regional and multilateral liberalisation. Aussenwirtschaft 58(1):7–46Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations