Movement of Capital and Trade in Services:Distinguishing Myth from Reality Regarding the GATS and the Liberalization of the Capital Account

This article will analyze the interplay between capital movements and trade
in services as structured in World Trade Organization (WTO) law, and it will
assess the implications of the capital account liberalization for the freedom of
WTO Members to pursue their economic policies. Although the movement
of capital is largely confined to the domain of international financial or monetary
policy, it is regulated by WTO law due to its role in the process of
financial services liberalization, which generally requires liberalized capital
flows. From a legal perspective, the interplay between capital movements
and trade in services requires striking a delicate balance between the right
of market access and the parallel right of economic stability. Indeed, a liberalized
regime for capital movements could pose serious stability problems
during times of crisis. For this reason, it is necessary that Members are able
to derogate from their obligations and adopt emergency measures.
Regulating the movement of capital in the General Agreement on Trade in
Services (GATS) requires stretching the regulatory oversight of WTO law
over different aspects of international economic policy. Indeed, capital movements are a fundamental component of the balance of payments and have a
major role in shaping monetary, fiscal, and financial policies. This article will
analyze how the discipline provided by the GATS on capital movements will
affect not only trade in services, but also the Members’ policy space on
monetary and fiscal policy. The article will conclude that while the GATS offers enough policy space for the maintenance of financial stability, it does
not fully take into consideration the need of Members to control capital
movements in order to conduct monetary policies.

Up-regulation of GABA transporters and GABAA Receptor α1 subunit in tremor rat hippocampus

The loss of GABAergic neurotransmission has been closely linked with epileptogenesis. The modulation of the synaptic activity occurs both via the removal of GABA from the synaptic cleft and by GABA transporters (GATs) and by modulation of GABA receptors. The tremor rat (TRM; tm/tm) is the parent strain of the spontaneously epileptic rat (SER; zi/zi, tm/tm), which exhibits absence-like seizure after 8 weeks of age. However, there are no reports that can elucidate the effects of GATs and GABAA receptors (GABARs) on TRMs. The present study was conducted to detect GATs and GABAR a1 subunit in TRMs hippocampus at mRNA and protein levels. In this study, total synaptosomal GABA content was significantly decreased in TRMs hippocampus compared with control Wistar rats by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC); mRNA and protein expressions of GAT-1, GAT-3 and GABAR a1 subunit were all significantly increased in TRMs hippocampus by real time PCR and western blot, respectively; GAT-1 and GABAR a1 subunit proteins were localized widely in TRMs and control rats hippocampus including CA1, CA3 and dentate gyrus (DG) regions whereas only a wide distribution of GAT-3 was observed in CA1 region by immunohistochemistry. These data demonstrate that excessive expressions of GAT-1 as well as GAT-3 and GABAR a1 subunit in TRMs hippocampus may provide the potential therapeutic targets for genetic epilepsy.

The International Regulatory Regime on Capital Flows

Capital controls and exchange restrictions are used to restrict international capital flows during economic crises. This paper looks at the legal implications of these restrictions and explores the current international regulatory framework applicable to international capital movements and current payments. It shows how international capital flows suffer from the lack of a comprehensive and coherent regulatory framework that would harmonize the patchwork of
multilateral, regional, and bilateral treaties that currently regulate this issue. These treaties include the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund (IMF Articles), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), free-trade agreements, the European Union treaty, bilateral investment treaties, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Code of Liberalization of Capital Movements (OECD Code of Capital Movement). Each
of these instruments regulate differently capital movements with little coordination with other areas of law. This situation sometimes leads to regulatory overlaps and conflict between different sources of law. Given the strong links between capital movements and trade in services, this paper pays particular attention to the rules of the GATS on capital flows and discusses the policy space available in the GATS for restricting capital flows in times of crisis.