Communication services

This is a concise encyclopedia entry that discusses the applicable law of the World Trade Organization (WTO) with regard to telecommunications, audiovisual, postal and courier services, which are framed in terms of existing WTO classification under the common heading of 'Communication Services'. The chapter analyzes the pertinent rules of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the present state of commitments, the problems faced in light of the recent technological advances that affect, albeit differently, all these sectors. It includes insights from the case-law and a brief overall appraisal of the prospects for change.

Why Do Economies Enter into Preferential Agreements on Trade in Services? Assessing the Potential for Negotiated Regulatory Convergence in Asian Services Markets

More than one-third of the World Trade Organization-notified services trade agreements that were in effect between January 2008 and August 2015 involved at least one South or Southeast Asian trading partner. Drawing on Baier and Bergstrand’s (2004) determinants of preferential trade agreements and using the World Bank’s database on the restrictiveness of domestic services regimes (Borchert, Gootiiz, and Mattoo 2012), we examine the potential for negotiated regulatory convergence in Asian services markets. Our results suggest that Asian economies with high levels of preexisting bilateral merchandise trade and wide differences in services regulatory frameworks are more likely candidates for services trade agreement formation. Such results lend support to the hypothesis that the heightened “servicification” of production generates demand for the lowered services input costs resulting from negotiated market openings.

Why do Countries Enter into Preferential Agreements on Trade in Services? Assessing the Potential for Negotiated Regulatory Convergence in Asian Services Markets

More than a third of the World Trade Organization (WTO)-notified services trade agreements (STAs) in effect over January 2008 - August 2015 have involved at least one (South or Southeast) Asian trading partner. Drawing on Baier and Bergstrand's (2004) determinants of preferential trade agreements and using the World Bank's database on the restrictiveness of domestic services regimes (Borchert et.al. 2012), we examine the potential for negotiated regulatory convergence in Asian services markets. Our results suggest that countries within Asia with high levels of pre-existing bilateral merchandise trade and wide differences in services regulatory frameworks are more likely candidates for STA formation. Such results lend support to the hypothesis that the heightened "servicification" of production generates a demand for the lowered service input costs resulting from negotiated market opening.

The Principle of Common Concern and Climate Change

Effective policies combating global warming and incentivising reduction of greenhouse gases face fundamental collective action problems. States defending short term interests avoid international commitments and seek to benefit from measures combating global warming taken elsewhere. The paper explores the potential of Common Concern as an emerging principle of international law, in particular international environmental law, in addressing collective action problems and the global commons. It expounds the contours of the principle, its relationship to common heritage of mankind, to shared and differentiated responsibility and to public goods. It explores its potential to provide the foundations not only for international cooperation, but also to justify, and delimitate at the same time, unilateral action at home and deploying extraterritorial effects in addressing the challenges of global warming and climate change mitigation. As unilateral measures mainly translate into measures of trade policy, the principle of Common Concern is inherently linked and limited by existing legal disciplines in particular of the law of the World Trade Organization.

Trade Policy, Investment and Migration: The Liberalisation Paradigm

Presentation by Thomas Cottier & Charlotte Sieber-Gasser prepared for the Markets for Migration and Development (M4MD) Conference, Bern, 13-15 September 2011. This presentation is part of Session 1 "Why Trade, Development and Migration?" of the M4MD conference, which was one of the thematic meetings held in the context of the 2011 Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) chaired by Switzerland. Session 1 seeked to understand to what extent international trade and foreign direct investment drives migration and why states find it more difficult to liberalise the trans‐boundary movement of persons than to liberalise cross‐border trade in goods and services. One discussed aspect was why globalisation, trade liberalisation and FDI can lead not only to more, but also to less migration and what the corresponding effects on development would be. This Session provided a timely opportunity to broaden the perspective on international migration and explore the interaction between migration, development and trade policymaking.

Addressing climate change under preferential trade agreements: Towards alignment of carbon standards under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

With its wide coverage of economic spheres and the variety of trade and investment measures currently under negotiation, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership opens windows of opportunity for advancing action on climate change. We examine possible avenues and international trade law implications for an alignment of carbon-related standards between the EU and the US. We compare EU and US carbon emissions standards for cars and argue that negotiators should strive for a mutual recognition of their equivalence for a transitional period, while pursuing the goal of full harmonization at the level of the highest standards of two parties at some date in the future. This could be a way to balance between economic and environmental interests and harness economic incentives for the benefit of climate.

The role of the G20 in WTO governance

Report by Professor Sungjoon Cho, Associate Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Chair), and Charlotte Sieber-Gasser, Doctoral Research Fellow, World Trade Institute, University of Bern, Session 27, WTO Public Forum 2010: The Forces Shapping World Trade, pp.29-33. In the course of the financial crisis, the global geography of power has shifted from G8 to G20. The latter, although representing roughly two thirds of global trade, consists of relatively a small number of global players and is consequently excluding many others from decision-making at the international stage. Nevertheless, the G20 has been successful in its reaction to the financial crisis and became therewith an important new player within the international community. When highlighting how the G20 might interfere with the WTO, the panel voiced concerns over the political legitimacy of the G20, given the limited number of members and the global impact of its decisions. It agreed on the impression that although the G20 intends to extend its debates from the financial sector to world economy in general, it has so far little achieved in this direction, particularly when it comes to moving the Doha agenda forward. It remains, thus, open how the G20 will evolve in the coming few years, and what mandates it will shed or adopt. So far, the G20 has complemented the WTO and international financial institutions in handling the financial crisis. Yet, even if there is little evidence pointing towards a less cooperative role in the future, the desirability of a G20 commitment in WTO trade negotiations has yet to be debated. The panel concluded by providing ideas on how the potential of the G20 might be used to serve global interests even better in the future. In their concluding remarks, the panellists agreed that it remains to be seen whether or not the G20 will further broaden its agenda. Given the ebbing away of the financial crisis there is even the question whether the G20 will remain an important international forum for financial collaboration, or whether it has already served its cause and will eventually disappear from the international stage. The Chair concluded the well attended and lively panel with voicing the hope that the two international bodies – the G20 and the WTO – will work in a positive way together in the future and face the challenges and opportunities in their collaboration to the benefit of everyone.

What TRIPS is and what is is not

For industry people, journalists, activists, lawyers, diplomats, national legislators, and students of the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) has awesome proportions. These are magnified by the fact that these groups lack detailed knowledge of either IP as such or international trade law. IP involves a broad spread of academic specialists and practitioners covering heterogeneous complex regimes of patents, copyright, trade marks, design, undisclosed information (trade secrets), and geographical indications. IP, and subsequently TRIPS, is the meeting point of many stakeholders and actors with conflicting interests spread between market aspirations and concepts of public good. In a globalized economy with deep interconnections across sectors, national borders challenged by inchoate technologies, dynamic social stakeholders, and converging technologies, it is fundamental to have a clear and uncluttered understanding of this Agreement. That is because TRIPS impinges on trade in many products of daily life, from pharmaceuticals to entertainment electronics, as well as mitigating and adaptive technologies for climate change and sustainable development. Given its saliency and ubiquity in economic life, TRIPS has often generated misunderstanding and controversy in the public debate. To complicate matters, technical and legal issues at the interface of technology, IP, and trade remain the province of an eclectic band of specialists and on the radar of interest groups with goals on opposite poles.

The future of the WTO and the international trading system: investigating the institutional crisis

Pierre Sauvé addressed the issue of the WTO’s institutional crisis at a workshop on "The Future of the WTO and the International Trading System" organized by the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee in Brussels on May 8th, 2012.

The Extensive (but Fragile) Authority of the WTO Appellate Body

The authority of an international court (IC) is not necessarily evolutionary and its development unidirectional. This article addresses the authority of the Appellate Body (AB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and shows how it rapidly and almost immediately became extensive, but has since exhibited signs of becoming more fragile. The article applies a typology of IC authority developed by Alter, Helfer and Madsen (2014) and explains the transformation from narrow authority (a dispute resolution venue under the GATT based on political negotiations) to extensive authority (a judicialized WTO dispute settlement system with a sophisticated case law) and presents empirical indicators of the rise of the AB’s authority. Such rapid development of extensive authority is arguably a unique case in international politics at the multilateral level. That authority nonetheless remains fragile, and shows signs that it could decline significantly for reasons we explain.