Universal Service Provisions in International Agreements of the EU: From Derogation to Obligation?

Chapter
Part of the Legal Issues of Services of General Interest book series (LEGAL)

Abstract

The EU is aware that international trade agreements such as the WTO and the GATS may affect the internal EU response to trade in public services and the Commission has publicly stated that international trade agreements should not impede the EU capability to pursue its policies on public services. Markus Krajewski adopts a different approach and asks the question: to what extent can the international agreements signed by the EC/EU reflect, or even advance, a positive understanding of public services? This is an important perspective now that the Treaty of Lisbon 2009 places external relations policy in a larger value, and principle, driven framework. Krajewski also examines the role of the WTO and in particular the GATS. The telecom sector is the focus of attention because telecom provides an important model for liberalisation and the development of universal service obligations which are mirrored in other sectors opened up to competition. Two case studies follow, first the EC–Chile bilateral association agreement and second, the EU–CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement which is of particular interest in that it contains positive universal service obligations. Krajewski also examines a number of agreements which are currently under discussion to determine if there is an emerging trend to include and define PSO and USO in the external agreements of the EU. Underlying this approach is a quest to determine whether in its external role the EU is continuing internal trends of seeing public services not only as exemptions and derogations from EU law, but also as a positive requirement.

Keywords

Free Trade Agreement Postal Service Reference Paper Universal Service Service Obligation 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Olga Batura for helpful comments on an earlier version of this contribution.

References

  1. Adlung R (2006) Public Services and the GATS, 9 JIEL, 455Google Scholar
  2. Batura O (forthcoming) Embedded transnational markets in telecommunications. In: Joerges C, Falke J (eds) Karl Polanyi, globalisation and the potential of law in transnational markets. Hart Publishing, p 245Google Scholar
  3. Bronckers M, Larouche P (2008) A review of the WTO regime for telecommunications services. In: Alexander K, Andenas M (eds) The World Trade Organization and trade in services. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 319–379Google Scholar
  4. Desta M (2006) EC-ACP economic partnership agreements and WTO compatibility, CML Rev 43:1343Google Scholar
  5. Dimopoulos A (2010) The effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the Principles and Objectives of the Common Commercial Policy. Eur Foreign Affairs Rev 15:150Google Scholar
  6. European Commission (2006) Global Europe—competing in the world, a contribution to the EU’s growth and jobs strategy, p 5Google Scholar
  7. Houben I (2008) Public service obligations: Moral counterbalance of technical liberalization legislation? Eur Rev Private Law 16:7Google Scholar
  8. Krajewski M (2008a) Comment: Quis custodiet necessitatem? Adjudicating necessity in multilevel systems and the importance of judicial dialogue. In: Panizzon M, Pohl N, Sauve P (eds) GATS and the regulation of international trade in services, CUP, Cambridge, pp 397–404Google Scholar
  9. Krajewski M (2008b) Protecting a shared value of the union in a globalized world: services of general economic interest and external trade. In: Van de Gronden JW (ed) The EU and WTO law on services. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 173–213Google Scholar
  10. 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. Kluwer Law International, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Neergaard U (2009) Services of general economic interest: the nature of the beast. In: Krajewski M, Neergaard U, Van de Gronden J (eds) The changing legal framework of services of general interest in Europe. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 17–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. OECD (2001) Working party on telecommunication and information services policies: interconnection and local competition, 7 February, DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2000)3/FINALGoogle Scholar
  13. Peha J (1999) Tradable universal service obligations. Telecommun Policy 23:369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Regan D (2007) The meaning of ‘necessary’ in GATT Article XX and GATS Article XIV: the myth of cost–benefit balancing. World Trade Rev 6:347–369Google Scholar
  15. Roseman D (2003) Domestic regulation and trade in telecommunications services: experience and prospects under the GATS. In: Mattoo A, Sauvé P (eds) Domestic regulation and service trade liberalization. Oxford University Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Ross M (2000) Article 16 E.C. and services of general interest: from derogation to obligation? EL Rev 25:22–37Google Scholar
  17. Sauvé P, Ward N (2009) The EC-CARIFORUM economic partnership agreement: assessing the outcome on services and investment. European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)’, Brussels, January http://www.ecipe.org, 39
  18. Schloemann H, Pitschas C (2009) Cutting the regulatory edge? In: Zusammenarbeit (ed) How to ensure development friendly economic partnership agreements, Gesellschaft für technische p 101Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachbereich RechtswissenschaftUniversität Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations