Trade in Services and the Pacific Alliance: Contrasting Ambitions with Reality

  • Eric H. LerouxEmail author
Part of the United Nations University Series on Regionalism book series (UNSR, volume 16)


The Pacific Alliance (PA) is a trade-liberalizing initiative that is dutifully espousing pre-existing models of services rule-making reflected in, on the one hand, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and on the other, the World Trade Organization General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The services disciplines agreed to date among PA partners draws on both models, presumably drawing on what is considered to be the best elements of each model. This chapter delves on the main problem of such an approach insofar as both models are arguably flawed, no longer reflect the reality of contemporary services trade, nor tackle issues that will be centrally important to the future of PA members’ service sectors and trade in the coming decades. Liberalization prospects in services are today intrinsically linked to cross-border trade, and more specifically to E-Commerce, where market access and non-discrimination issues are no longer the main or sole barriers to cross-border commerce. Meanwhile, cross-border-trade commitments in other sectors are unlikely to be expanded any time soon since the underlying concerns relate more to regulatory issues than to traditional political economy demands for protection. Looking forward, prospects for deepened trade and investment liberalization in services will depend more on the recognition and harmonization of domestic regulation than on the negotiation of commitments in accordance with standard market access and non-discrimination principles. The achievement of a free-movement-of-services objective will remain elusive unless and until Pacific Alliance countries think outside the confines of existing models and negotiate further trade liberalization more along the lines of the mutual recognition principle, provided, again, that PA Members are committed to achieving significant trade and investment liberalization in services.


Pacific Alliance Trade in services GATS NAFTA 


  1. Abusada-Salah, R., Acevedo, C., Aichele, R., Felbermayr, G., & Roldán-Pérez, A. (2015). Dimensions and economic effects of the Pacific alliance. Santiago: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.Google Scholar
  2. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2015). Corporate governance principles for banks. Basel: Guidelines.Google Scholar
  3. Chander, A. (2015). Robots, the internet of things, and the future of trade (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2679028). Rochester: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  4. European Commission. (2010). A Digital Agenda for Europe. Text/html; charset=UTF-8. August 26.Google Scholar
  5. Lodder, A. R., & Murray, A. D. (2017). EU regulation of E-commerce: A commentary. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. López, D., Muñoz, F., & Corvalán, A. (2015). Services dimension in the pacific alliance. (SSRN Scholarly Paper SECO/WTI Academic Cooperation Project Working Paper Series 2015/04). Rochester: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  7. Marczak, J. (2016). Pacific alliance 2.0: Next steps in integration. Edited by Atlantic Council of the United States, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, and Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  8. Meltzer, J. P. (2015). The internet, cross-border data flows and international trade. Asia & The Pacific Policy Studies, 2, 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Monardes, R. (2016). Challenges for countries in trade in services’ negotiations with the Nafta approach: The experience of Chile in the free trade agreement with the United States. British Journal of American Legal Studies, 5, 371–394. Scholar
  10. Organization of American States (OAS). (2015). Trans Pacific partnership agreement. SICE – Foreign Trade Information System. March.Google Scholar
  11. The Nielsen Company. (2014). Ecommerce: Evolution or revolution in the fast-moving consumer goods world?Google Scholar
  12. Tinawi, E., & Berkey, J. O. (1999). E-services and the WTO: The adequacy of the GATS classification framework. 24 May 2001.
  13. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2013). Review of E-commerce legislation harmonization in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Vol. UNCTAD/DTL/STICT/2013/1). New York/Geneva.Google Scholar
  14. Van den Bossche, P., & Zdouc, W. (2017). The law and policy of the world trade organization: Text, cases and materials (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversidad PanamericanaMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations