2006•Journal of International Economic LawRequires access

Services Negotiations in the Doha Round: Lost in Flexibility?

Rudolf Adlung

Open publisher page 65 citations

Abstract

The World Trade Organization (WTO) rules for services trade, under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), are far broader in policy coverage than their counterpart provisions under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), reflecting, inter alia, the Agreement’s extension to cross-border movements of services consumers and factors of production. At the same time, the GATS is significantly more flexible in application than the GATT. There are virtually no political sensitivities, protectionist or not, that could not be formally accommodated within its structure. Moreover, the paucity of relevant jurisprudence on key concepts and a yet incomplete rule-making agenda have provided additional scope for ‘creative’ interpretation. However, while flexibility was a sine qua non for the conclusion of the Agreement, given the diversity of institutional conditions, political concerns, and so on among participants, it has not been conducive to one of the key objectives: ‘early achievement of progressively higher levels of liberalization’. This article discusses possible approaches that, within the Agreement’s current structure, could promote the clarity, quantity, and commercial relevance of services commitments and address remaining rule-making issues. However, there is no panacea. The challenge remains to find a reasonable balance between economically meaningful disciplines and their broad application across sectors, modes of supply, and WTO Members.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The World Trade Organization (WTO) rules for services trade, under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), are far broader in policy coverage than their counterpart provisions under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), reflecting, inter alia, the Agreement’s extension to cross-border movements of services consumers and factors of production. At the same time, the GATS is significantly more flexible in application than the GATT. There are virtually no political sensitivities, protectionist or not, that could not be formally accommodated within its structure. Moreover, the paucity of relevant jurisprudence on key concepts and a yet incomplete rule-making agenda have provided additional scope for ‘creative’ interpretation. However, while flexibility was a sine qua non for the conclusion of the Agreement, given the diversity of institutional conditions, political concerns, and so on among participants, it has not been conducive to one of the key objectives: ‘early achievement of progressively higher levels of liberalization’. This article discusses possible approaches that, within the Agreement’s current structure, could promote the clarity, quantity, and commercial relevance of services commitments and address remaining rule-making issues. However, there is no panacea. The challenge remains to find a reasonable balance between economically meaningful disciplines and their broad application across sectors, modes of supply, and WTO Members.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 65 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The World Trade Organization (WTO) rules for services trade, under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), are far broader in policy coverage than their counterpart provisions under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), reflecting, inter alia, the Agreement’s extension to cross-border movements of services consumers and factors of production. At the same time, the GATS is significantly more flexible in application than the GATT. There are virtually no political sensitivities, protectionist or not, that could not be formally accommodated within its structure. Moreover, the paucity of relevant jurisprudence on key concepts and a yet incomplete rule-making agenda have provided additional scope for ‘creative’ interpretation. However, while flexibility was a sine qua non for the conclusion of the Agreement, given the diversity of institutional conditions, political concerns, and so on among participants, it has not been conducive to one of the key objectives: ‘early achievement of progressively higher levels of liberalization’. This article discusses possible approaches that, within the Agreement’s current structure, could promote the clarity, quantity, and commercial relevance of services commitments and address remaining rule-making issues. However, there is no panacea. The challenge remains to find a reasonable balance between economically meaningful disciplines and their broad application across sectors, modes of supply, and WTO Members.

Key concepts: Negotiation, Flexibility (engineering), International trade, Business, Political science, International economics, Economics, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Services Negotiations in the Doha Round: Lost in Flexibility? — Research Paper | ScholarLens