Search Result(s)

The Role of Digital Products Under the WTO: A New Framework for GATT and GATS Classification

Sam Fleuter  Abstract This Comment provides a new system of classifying digital products as goods or services under international trade law. Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), WTO member states have limited power to impose protectionist measures on the importation of goods. Under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), states face similar limitations on their ability to restrict international trade in services. But GATS only applies if states opt in, meaning that countries can choose which services are subject to trade liberalization. Within the GATT-GATS framework, digital products are notoriously difficult to classify because they possess traditional characteristics of both goods and services. Though this Comment applies to different types of digital products, it focuses on the international trade of 3D renderings used for additive manufacturing, as this is a type of digital product that has not received any attention in international trade literature. This Comment proposes a three-part taxonomy for distinguishing digital goods from digital services. To distinguish goods from services, I first look at formalistic definitions of good and services. Next, I look at practical concerns of consistency across international trade. Finally, I investigate the underlying goals of the WTO to identify which classification best suits digital products. I conclude that digital products should be treated as services and therefore be governed by the GATS.

Weaponizing Digital Trade.

from Councilo on Foreign Relations, which is a private non-democratic non governmental group that, like the Atlantic Council often takes extreme neoliberal positions and often, tries to look like part of the government, and pretend that neoliberalism is inevitable and, its assertions credible. As the last few years have shown, people are beginning to realize that if the world has democracy, then it has a choice to reject neoliberalism and neoliberals greed centered global coup. They don't own us.

Prosperity Undermined, by Public Citizen.

A few years ago Public Citizen published "Prosperity undermined", It is a must read for understanding how the spin on "trade deals" fails to tell the truth about them. They actually hurt trade.

The Global Financial Crisis And Government Support For Banks : What Role For The GATS?

This paper examines whether the GATS is a useful instrument to tackle government support that creates distortions of international competition in the banking sector. The GATS has no specific provisions on subsidies. However, general support schemes ‘as such’ or ‘as applied’ may violate Article XVII if they exclude foreign- owned banks with a commercial presence in the territory of the WTO Member that adopts the scheme. This depends on the specific commitments of the WTO Member and the limitations to this commitment. Moreover, it is required that the excluded banks are ‘like’ the domestic banks. A single application of a general scheme may violate Article VI:1 if solid evidence is available that this application is not reasonable, objective or impartial. Despite these possible violations, the great majority of measures will still be justified under the broad ‘prudential carve-out’. Only support measures that are not reasonably able to achieve the prudential goal will not be exempted. Hence, the GATS imposes only in very limited cases restraint on government support. The WTO Members should address the remaining uncertainties with regard to both the obligations and the exception. This would ensure that the GATS is able to prevent that government support distorts competition and would also alleviate concerns that the GATS constitutes a danger to financial stability.

Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?

This deceptive article shamelessly attempts to have Americans confuse immigration (which we generally like, with good reason) with GATS's "Movement of Natural Persons" which is a scheme to massively lower the entire world's wages, that trades away jobs with the aim of lowering wages, and also becomes an entitlement of jobs to broker for foreign services firms. Implementation of the WTO's GATS agenda which Bill Clinton agreed to, in 1994, could result in the loss of *tens of millions of decent jobs* to low wage "body shopping" firms. Its often been compared to slavery. It will in many cases mean huge profits for the already incredibly rich, by brokering skilled jobs, shaving off immense profits. according to leading economists. Notice especially how many misrepresentations are made in this essay which is an excellent example of the logical fallacies used to sell TiSA and GATS to our gullible nation. This article is not about what we think of as immigration because the Mode 4 is not about immigration, its about non-immigration only which allows workers coming here to work for short periods of typically six years, often at very low wages. These irreversible trade rules which as they have admitted have no expiration date, are a betrayal of the nation and the reason the stakes wee sohigh in 2020. They are designed to give foreign investors certainty and protection from the voters wishes all around the world. no matter how bad a crash or other economic disaster gets the governments cannot help. Services FTA also block increases in the minimum wage for workers if they apply to the huge foreign temping firms which are expected to take over entire industries (typically highly unionized ones) Please read up on the related categories listed in the keyword tags.

Jane Kelsey on E - commerce - The development implications of 'future proofing' global trade rules for GAFA

The World Trade Or ganization (WTO) General Council established a Work Programme on Electronic Commerce in September 1998 t o examine all trade - related issues arising from electronic commerce , taking into account the economic, financial, and development needs of developing countries. 1 Consistent with Article III.2 of the Marrakesh Agreement, 2 electronic commerce was defined in terms of its trade characteristics, with discussions to be conducted through the bodies responsible for the relevant WTO instruments 3 and supplemented by ad hocdedicated discussions at the General Council. The work programme identified many critical issues, especially on trade in services, but languished in recent years. In 2016, the issue of electronic commerce was brought to life with gusto as the US, Japan and the European Union initiated moves that were clearly designed to secure a mandate for formal negotiations at the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Their proposals go far beyond traditional notions of trade and would see the WTO adopt binding and enforceable rules that restrict how governments can regulate the digital domain. This paper first examines the drivers behind the push for electronic commerce to become the major ‘new issue’ adopted in a post - Doha round WTO. It th en assesses the development implications of the new e - commerce agenda for the WTO acquis, with particular reference to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Four interrelated factors underpin this new focus on electronic commerce. The first is the pre - eminence of the mega - corporations from Silicon Valley, symbolised by the acronym GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple), who by 2010 had displaced the old industrial giants as the world’s largest corporations. With their rise in corporate power came greatly enhanced political influence in the US Congress and in the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) . The industry’s wish-list of global rules became the US agenda in the relevant negotiating forums. The second factor is the growing threat posed by China to the dominance that both GAFA and the US had established over the digital economy, as China refocuses its domestic economy on services and technology and expands internationally through the One Belt One Road initiative and its digital component led by Alibaba. Other countries in the global South are also exploring strategies to close the digital divide and catch- up through digital industrialisation. That strategy commonly includes technology transfer, support for domestic start-ups and attracting joint venture investments, while balancing their social, employment and economic development objectives.

Ongoing negotiations on countries domestic regulations under the GATS Article 1:4 mandate.

The GATS already contains disciplines on barriers to trade in services in the form of restrictions on https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/26-gats_01_e.htm#art16">market access (Article XVI) and on https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/26-gats_01_e.htm#art17 national treatment</a> (Article XVII). Market access restrictions encompass quantitative restrictions such as limitations on the number of services suppliers, total value of services transactions or assets, total number of services operations, the total quantity of services output, the total number of persons that may be employed, as well as measures restricting or requiring specific types of legal entity or joint venture, and foreign equity limitations. <p> The obligation of national treatment prohibits the discriminatory treatment of foreign services and services suppliers when compared to domestic services and services suppliers. In drafting the GATS, negotiators recognized that non-quantitative, non-discriminatory measures relating to licensing and qualification requirements and procedures, and technical standards could also adversely affect trade in services. For example, excessively lengthy, complex and opaque licensing procedures may discourage foreign services providers from doing business in the market of another WTO member. By the same token, lack of objective and transparent criteria, on the basis of which authorities would grant a qualification, may disguise protectionist intentions. Article VI:4 is not intended to start a deregulatory process, but rather to lead to better regulation that has the potential to address and prevent undesirable regulatory practices. In more general terms, WTO negotiations on domestic regulation disciplines seek to boost good regulatory practices and to enhance regulatory quality, with a view to boosting economic growth and development. </p> Evolution of the negotiations Between 1995 and 1998, WTO members negotiated in the Working Party on Professional Services the <a href="http://docsonline.wto.org/imrd/directdoc.asp?DDFDocuments/t/s/l/63.doc" target="_blank">Disciplines on Domestic Regulation in the Accountancy Sector</a> (<u>S/L/64</u>) and adopted the Guidelines for Mutual Recognition Agreements or Arrangements in the Accountancy Sector (S/L/38). The Accountancy Disciplines were intended to be integrated into the GATS at the end of the Doha Round of trade negotiations (S/L/63). Therefore, they have not yet entered into force. Subsequently, a <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/s_coun_e.htm#domestic">Working Party on Domestic Regulation</a> was established in 1999 for the continuation of the negotiations, replacing the earlier Working Party on Professional Services. The mandate of the Working Party is to develop generally applicable disciplines and to develop disciplines as appropriate for individual sectors.</p> <p> WTO members have focused on negotiating general disciplines on domestic regulation applicable to any services sectors within the scope of the GATS. Members felt that work on general disciplines would be more efficient than negotiating specific disciplines for each sector. </p> <p> In December 2005, the WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration called on members to intensify negotiations and to develop a text for adoption before the end of the Doha Round.&nbsp; </p> <p> In the Working Party on Domestic Regulation, more than 60 WTO members have submitted drafting proposals. These were consolidated into a number of texts issued by the chair of the working party. &nbsp;The most recent was contained in a 2011 <a href="http://docsonline.wto.org/imrd/directdoc.asp?DDFDocuments/t/s/wpdr/w45.doc" target="_blank" title="MS word format; opens in a new window">Progress Report</a> reflecting progress in the negotiations up to 2011 and containing possible options for disciplines on domestic regulation.&nbsp;</p> <p>Following a slowdown in negotiations between 2012 and 2015, activities were revived in 2016, with a number of text proposals submitted by members in the hope of securing an outcome by the 11th Ministerial Conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires in December 2017. However, no outcome was achieved at MC11. </p> The Working Party on Domestic Regulation met most recently in March 2019 to discuss a revised proposal for disciplines on domestic regulation.</p>

The Trojan Horse of e-commerce.

The Trojan Horse of e-Commerce Professor Jane Kelsey (University of Auckland) Intellectual Property and Trade in the Pacific Century Brisbane, 22 June 2017 QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program The comprehensive chapter on electronic commerce in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) heralded a game changer in the negotiation of international rules. The benign chapter heading belies a fundamental rewriting of the international trade rules to serve the rapid growth of digital economy, controlled by a powerful oligopoly of mega-corporations. Their stated goal is to achieve global rules that protect them from national regulation of their activities for the indefinite future. The TPP text has since been tabled in the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) negotiations and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), judging by a leaked list of the headings of articles in the e-commerce chapter. If adopted, these rules would impose huge and unforeseeable fetters on the sovereignty of governments to regulate their economies, and address related issues of privacy, security and consumer protection. The cross-fertilisation of the e-commerce chapters with others on cross-border services, financial services, telecommunications and transparency would create a regime of unprecedented constraints and complexity that even advanced countries in RCEP would struggle to implement them, let alone the developing and least developed country parties in the RCEP.

How the United States Exports Managed Care To Third World Countries.

As their expansion slows in the United States, managed care organizations will continue to enter new markets abroad. Investors view the opening of managed care in Latin America as a lucrative business opportunity. As public-sector services and social security funds are cut …

Glossary on free trade agreements and health part 1: the shift from multilateralism and the rise of ‘WTO-Plus’ provisions (2021)

The global trading system has undergone a shift away from multilateral trade negotiations to a ‘spaghetti-bowl’ of regional and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). In this two-part glossary, we discuss why this shift has occurred, focusing on how it poses new challenges for public health. Specifically, we introduce key terms that shape this new trading environment and explain them through a public health lens. Part 1 of this glossary focuses on provisions in FTAs that build on previous agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO). These provisions are commonly designated as ‘WTO-Plus’. This approach continues into part 2 of the glossary, which also considers components of FTAs that have no precedent within WTO treaties. Following a broader discussion of how the current political context and the COVID-19 pandemic shape the contemporary trade environment, part 2 considers the main areas of trade and health policy incoherence as well as recommendations to address them. This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained. https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-215104

Glossary on free trade agreements and health part 1: the shift from multilateralism and the rise of ‘WTO-Plus’ provisions (2021)

The global trading system has undergone a shift away from multilateral trade negotiations to a ‘spaghetti-bowl’ of regional and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). In this two-part glossary, we discuss why this shift has occurred, focusing on how it poses new challenges for public health. Specifically, we introduce key terms that shape this new trading environment and explain them through a public health lens. Part 1 of this glossary focuses on provisions in FTAs that build on previous agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO). These provisions are commonly designated as ‘WTO-Plus’. This approach continues into part 2 of the glossary, which also considers components of FTAs that have no precedent within WTO treaties. Following a broader discussion of how the current political context and the COVID-19 pandemic shape the contemporary trade environment, part 2 considers the main areas of trade and health policy incoherence as well as recommendations to address them. This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained. https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-215104

BMJ Glossary on the World Trade Organisation and public health: part 2 (2006)

Abstract Part 1 of this glossary introduced different health and trade arguments, overviewed the history of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), defined key “trade talk” terms, and reviewed three WTO treaties concerned with trade in goods (GATT 1994, the Agreement on Agriculture, and the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures). Part 2 reviews five more agreements and the growing number of bilateral and regional trade agreements, and concludes with a commentary on different strategies proposed to ensure that health is not compromised by trade liberalisation treaties. View Full Text http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.038950

Video: Papering over Poverty

This mess is arguably caused by GATS, and Britons, like we Americans, are being kept in the dark about that connection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU

Domestic Regulation within the Framework of GATS

by Jan Wouters and Dominic Coppens, Institute for International Law Working Paper No 93 - May 2006 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 4 2. EXPLORING THE WEIGHING SCALE OF GATS: BALANCING MEMBERS’ RIGHT TO REGULATE AND TRADE LIBERALIZATION ....... 4 3. GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF GATS ............................................................. 7 3.1. SCOPE ............................................................................................................. 7 3.2. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS ................................................................................... 8 3.3 SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS ................................................................................... 9 3.4. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS ................................................................................... 11 3.5. PROGRESSIVE LIBERALIZATION ...................................................................... 12 3.6. INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ................................................................................... 12 4. ARTICLE VI ON DOMESTIC REGULATION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF GATS ................................................................................... 12 4.1. THE ROLE OF ARTICLE VI IN THE FRAMEWORK OF GATS................................ 12 4.2. ADMINISTRATION AND APPLICATION OF DOMESTIC REGULATIONS.................. 14 4.3. FUTURE DISCIPLINES ON DOMESTIC REGULATION .......................................... 16 4.3.1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR)............................. 17 4.3.2. Disciplines Developed under Article VI:4: the Accountancy Disciplines 19 4.3.3. Key Issues for Future Disciplines........................................................... 21 a) Legal Status of Future Disciplines............................................................ 21 b) Scope of Future Disciplines ..................................................................... 22 1. Type of Measures................................................................................. 22 2. Restricted to Non-Discriminatory Measures? ....................................... 24 3. Unconditional or Conditional Disciplines? ........................................... 35 4. Level of Government ........................................................................... 36 5. Sectoral or Horizontal Level?............................................................... 38 c) Content of Future Disciplines................................................................... 39 1. Transparency disciplines ...................................................................... 39 2. Necessity Test...................................................................................... 41 3. Mutual Recognition.............................................................................. 48 4. Role of International Standards ............................................................ 50 4.3.4. Article VI:5 on Provisional Application ................................................. 51 5. CONCLUSION: BALANCING THE RIGHT TO REGULATE AND TRADE LIBERALIZATION, EQUILIBRIUM REACHED?........................................... 53

Legal Commentary on Article XIX GATS: Progressive Liberalization (GATS' noose?)

Panos Delimatsis Tilburg Law and Economics Center (TILEC); Tilburg Law School - Date Written: 2008 This is written in the format used in law books and its examining the chapters of the GATS which define it's one-way, noose-like "progressive liberalization" of services, making it so deregulation in services committed to in the GATS cant be re-regulated. The US media is suppressing this important fact. (and indeed the entire existence of the GATS) MAX PLANCK COMMENTARIES ON WORLD TRADE LAW, WTO - TRADE IN SERVICES,

World Competition Day

World Competiton Day is brought to us by INCSOC. This year, 2020, the theme is "Competition Policy and Access to Healthcare". Their main area is increasing competition of all kinds in governments global procurement of (often newly privatized) services.

Must See: Video from Senate from the very beginning of state capture in 1995

This is a MUST-WATCH video. Testimony before the US Senate by Sir James Goldsmith of the UK explaining to the Senate Commerce subcommittee on GATT how all FTAs particularly the new WTO are implementing changes that subsume democracy. Please watch the whole thing because some of the best testimony is in the middle and near the end.

Trading Away Our Jobs: How "free trade" threatens employment around the world.

The world is facing an economic crisis on a scale unseen since the Great Depression. Hundreds of millions of people stand to lose their jobs and their livelihoods as a result of the current recession, adding to the hundreds of millions who have already lost their livelihoods to the "free market" model of globalisation. Yet still politicians continue to proclaim their faith in the principles of "free trade" as the means to pull the global economy out of recession and create employment opportunities for the future. --- This report examines the empirical evidence of the impact of "free trade agreements" on jobs. Using studies and statistics collated here for the first time, the report shows how past trade "liberalisations" caused huge job losses in both Africa and Latin America, the two continents that bore the brunt of early experiments in "structural adjustment" and other "free trade" policies. Findings from those experiments reveal a pattern of deindustrialisation, job losses and falling wages whose impact continues to be felt to this day, condemning whole generations to unemployment and poverty and stifling hopes for sustainable development. (Note: This report was written in the UK but also applies to the US which along with the UK is likely next in line for massive "structural adjustment") Working people and the non-wealthy are invariably expected to pay the full price. Direct PDF URL: https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/Trading%20Away%20Our%20Jobs.pdf

How Should the EU and Other WTO Members React to Their WTO Governance and WTO Appellate Body Crises?

Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Abstract Since 2017, the United States (US) and other World Trade Organization (WTO) members violate their legal duties and democratic mandates given by national parliaments to maintain the WTO Appellate Body (AB) as legally prescribed in Article 17 of the WTO Dispute Understanding (DSU), i.e. as being ‘composed of seven persons’, with vacancies being ‘filled as they arise’. This contribution argues that none of the reasons offered by the US for its blocking of the (re)appointment of AB candidates - on grounds unrelated to the personal qualifications of the candidates - can legally justify its disruptions of the WTO legal and dispute settlement system. Also the European Union (EU) has offered no convincing justification of its failure to protect ‘strict observance of international law’ in it external relations, as required by Article 3 of the Lisbon Treaty on European Union (TEU) and by Article IX:1 WTO Agreement (‘where a decision cannot be arrived at by consensus, the matter at issue shall be decided by voting’). The 2018 ‘Concept Paper’ prepared by the EU Commission on ‘WTO modernization’ indicates no strategy for the obvious problem that the EU objective of ‘preserving and deepening the rules-based multilateral system’, including ‘more effective and transparent dispute settlement including the Appellate Body’, is inconsistent with the US strategies underlying US blocking of the AB jurisdiction by preventing the appointment of AB judges, a strategy which was previously applied by the US for blocking third-party adjudication under Chapter 20 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Trade diplomats have no democratic mandate for disrupting the AB jurisdiction by illegally reducing the number of AB members to one single judge by December 2019 and, thereby, undermining the WTO legal and dispute settlement system. EU trade diplomats must exercise leadership for using the existing legal powers and duties of the WTO Ministerial Conference and General Council under Article IX:1 WTO – if necessary, based on ‘a majority of the votes cast’ - to initiate and complete the WTO selection procedures for filling AB vacancies and protect the AB as legally defined in Article 17 DSU. Article IX.2 could be used for authoritative interpretations ‘taken by a three-fourths majority of the Members’ confirming the collective duties of WTO members to fill AB vacancies in case of illegal blocking of AB nominations. WTO law foresees similar majority decisions for the appointment of the WTO Director-General; such majority decisions are necessary for preventing illegal de facto amendments of the WTO legal system, and do not set a precedent for future WTO majority voting on discretionary, political issues, which most WTO diplomats reject as a ‘nuclear option’. As suggested by European ordo-liberalism, citizens and democratic institutions must hold trade politicians democratically and legally more accountable for complying with their legislative mandates to implement and modernize, but not to destroy WTO law and dispute settlement. Keywords: Appellate Body; competition rules; governance crisis; ordo-liberalism; WTO

(Forbes) Court Case Against Trump "Immigration" (non-immigrant) Visa Ban Moves Forward

According to Forbes, even in the midst of the coronavirus epidemic, there is no reason not to outsource, and continue to outsourcing an ever growing, potentially unlimited number of good US jobs. (See also several articles on India's WTO suit DS503 in Inside US Trade, from March 2016, and others.) This is just nuts. Money isn't everything.

"If H-1B visa reform goes ahead, here are the GATS violations US would be committing" - Firstpost - India (2017)

"Few know that India has already filed an objection (referred to as ‘request for consultation’ which is the first step for trade dispute settlement) with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in March last year on the current H-1B visa rules. If Trump has his way upending work-visa programs than the present Indian concerns may just look finicky. India requested for consultations with the US, regarding certain American measures for imposing increased fees (objections to “pay higher filing fees and fraud prevention and detection fees under certain specified circumstances”) on certain applicants for L-1 (a non-immigrant visa which allows companies to relocate foreign qualified employees to its US subsidiary or parent company) and H-1B (a non-immigrant visa that allows American employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in speciality occupations), and concerns relating to a numerical commitment for H-1B visas. India has said that these measures are in violation of several articles of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) — the set of multilateral rules that govern international trade in services. New Delhi requested for consultations with Washington that were held last year. India has not yet requested the WTO for establishing a Dispute Settlement Board (DSB). Specifically, India has said that some Washington measures on these categories of visa holders violate clauses related to Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) treatment, rules on transparency, clauses on domestic regulation, measures to increase the participation of developing countries in world trade and commitments to market access and national treatment. Consider some of these stipulations under GATS. The national treatment clause says that a government shall accord services and service suppliers of other countries “in respect of all measures affecting the supply of services, treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own like services and service suppliers”. The MFN treatment clause requires that governments should accord “immediately and unconditionally” treatment “no less favourable” to a country what it accords to other countries for like services and service suppliers. In sectors where a country has undertaken market commitments, the measures that a country cannot “adopt or maintain” in its sub-regions or its territory extend to limitations on the number of service suppliers whether in the form of numerical quotas, monopolies, exclusive service suppliers or the requirements of an economic needs test, limitations on the total number of service operations or on the total quantity of service output expressed in numerical units in quotas, among other such stipulations. The clause on movement of Natural Persons Supplying Services in the GATS Annex says that though GATS does not prevent a country from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons into, or their temporary stay in its territory, “provided that such measures are not applied in such a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Member under the terms of a specific commitment”. All of these possible violations would be important to cite if India chooses to request WTO to set up a DSB. After the panel judgment, either of the countries can appeal against the judgment. If the highest international trade court even then rules in favour of India then US would be bound to comply. However, it is unclear how much the Trump administration would feel bound by its WTO commitments, including dispute judges’ verdicts against it. The growing rhetoric of “unfair” trade agreements used in the current US political discourse might even see Washington pulling out of the WTO. India and most other WTO members are in for rough weather in the present climate as far as trade negotiations with the US are concerned. In a hypothetical situation of India winning a case against the US regulations on work visas at the highest trade court and US ignoring the verdict against it, India can seek WTO’s authorisation to retaliate (to “suspend concessions or other obligations”) against the US — normally such an authorisation is not refused, trade experts opine. India could then consider imposing punitive tariffs on US imports. Another option for retaliation, experts say, could be the refusal to recognise some of the intellectual property (IP) rights of US right holders. But this option of retaliation could involve a much more complicated procedure. An across-the-board or discriminatory higher tariffs, on the face of it, would also be violative of international trade rules, particularly the MFN clause, though much depends on the nitty-gritties of the American legal changes in trade policy. Even Trump’s ‘Buy American, Hire American’ would not be so easy to implement if US does choose to abide by its international trade commitments. There could be two scenarios: one, when the US government procures only from domestic sources, and linked with that the government mandates that even a private entity must source from within the US. In both these possible realities, there is no talk of subsidies yet (which could violate other WTO rules). “In the first situation, the US has some flexibility — it is government procurement to mandate procurement from domestic sources provided this is for non-commercial use and for government’s own use. Then the US would be within its rights to mandate such a local procurement for government purposes. But if the US government mandatorily requires even the private sector to source domestically then that would be violative of WTO rules,” Abhijit Das, Head of the Centre for WTO Studies at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade says. “Then the second situation where US government gives incentives to procure domestically, such an incentive would be violative of WTO subsidies agreement. This is commonly called the local content subsidy, which is prohibited,” he adds." Updated Date: February 06, 2017 08:39:31 IST

Citing the WTO/GATT (including GATS and other) Agreements (NYU Law)

Outline: Selected books, databases & websites Books, Ebooks, Working papers, etc. Law reviews, journals, articles News, blogs & paper/note topics The trade agreements Drafting & negotiating history WTO structure, members, meetings Schedules, tariffs & non-tariff measures Documents & publications The U.S. & the WTO U.S. regulations & tariff schedules WTO dispute settlement Trade Policy Reviews Statistics & terminology Other research guides https://nyulaw.libguides.com/c.php?g=773835&p=5551621

"Visas and Work Permits: Can GATS/WTO help or is a New Global Entity needed?"

Most Americans don't realize that previous Administrations put into place a gradual process that is trading "their" jobs away, and that the power of vastly lower wages is pretty much insurmountable when it really starts happening. The time to change this was in the past, when the primaries were determining political candidates. Where will now working Americans go? Anywhere we can afford. We will be on our own as GATS and similar agreements are also silently dismantling safety nets all around the world. This is an example of the literature on setting up a global "GATS Visa" that trumps national laws on work-related permits.

transnational capitalist class

Trade deals effectuate an increase in the huge amounts of inequality in the world, and its partially done by means of what amounts to a cheap lawyers trick.

Mode 4 trade in services: promoting temporary labour mobility via the trade détour?

By Werner Raza, A comprehensive process of the liberalisation of trade and capital flows notwithstanding, neoliberal globalisation has not been equally successful in freeing the international movement of labour. With the General Agreement on Trade in Services, (GATS), the WTO set up a novel legal framework within the domain of trade politics that includes the cross-border movement of natural persons to deliver services, labelled Mode 4, thus aiming at the promotion of temporary labour mobility. This article seeks to explain the emergence of Mode 4 and its subsequent development as the outcome of a particular politics of scale motivated by the interests of transnational capital as well as the strategic selectivity of specific institutional terrains. The result has been a compromise that restricts Mode 4 liberalisation to highly qualified personnel only. Keywords: political economy, international trade, labour mobility, Mode 4, EU trade policy, services

Politics of scale and strategic selectivity in the liberalisation of public services – the role of trade in services

By Werner Raza. One of the most contentious issues of the neoliberal agenda has been the privatisation of public services. The WTO GATS negotiations over the liberalisation of trade in services, which commenced in the year 2000, led to a strongly contested debate over whether the international level would provide an additional channel for the privatisation of public services. In particular, the position of the European Union was criticised for promoting this agenda. More recently, this question has regained its significance with the start of negotiations for the Trade in Services Agreement and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Thus, this article seeks to analyse the politics of scale in the field of trade in services and its specific impact upon the liberalisation of public services. By applying a Neo-Poulantzian IPE approach, we propose a typology of (i) scalar forms in trade policy and (ii) of particular liberalisation strategies. Our results suggest that the multilateral level is but one element in a strategic politics of scale, with the former primarily fulfilling the role of locking-in liberalisation gains achieved at other levels, while other scalar forms, in particular bi- and plurilateralism, are primarily used to progressively advance the liberalisation agenda. KEYWORDS: Public services, liberalisation, trade in services, politics of scale, Poulantzas

state owned enterprises

State owned enterprises are deprecated as "monopolies" officially, a word which makes creating new ones FTA-illegal, except in dire emergencies in WTO members, The WTO (and also associated but separate agreements such as the US backed TISA which is supposed to be merged with the WTO GATS eventually) is attempting to privatize all of them eventually. So they are framed as a quasi-crime, a sort of theft of profitmaking entitlements from business. Similarly, that means all businesses everywhere, and their workers may be included in the entitlement, its not limited by country.

Temporary labor migration programs Governance, migrant worker rights, and recommendations for the U.N. Global Compact for Migration

By Daniel Costa and Philip Martin • Economic Policy Institute August 1, 2018. The suggestion made that only some inherently temporary jobs should rely on migrant work and workers is a good one but its quixotic and shamefully unrealistic with all of Wall Street counting the gains to be had from turning literally most work into precariatized, temporary labor. Even despite coronavirus, they are determined to do it, "on principle" (Note: One might get a dangerously ignorant false impression on the situation from this paper, if one doesnt realize how much power is being brought to bear to crack our ability to regulate work-related labor. The WTO wants to be put in charge - and has since it was still its predecessor, GATT in the 1980s. In fact putting "Services" under the WTO was the main reason it was formed.) (The effect on wages and the existence/sustainability of having a middle class globally will be astronomical.)

GATS Mode 4: Movement of Natural Persons and Protection of Migrant Workers’ Rights (International Labor Organization)

GATS Mode 4: Movement of Natural Persons and Protection of Migrant Workers’ Rights By Pradip Bhatnagar A Paper presented during the Challenges and Opportunities of Bilateral and Multilateral Arrangements for the Mobility of Health Professionals and Other Skilled Migrant Workers Training Programme held on 8-10 October 2014, Philippines (note: Migrant Workers in this context are usually high skilled, professional laborers, such as doctors, nurses, computer programmers, engineers, coders, administrative workers, teachers, or executives.) Other jobs don't matter as much profit wise so the body shop firms are not interested in them, but ultimately, like shale gas etc, they will in turn come under the same pressures.

Migration Policy Institute's "Migrants' Human Rights: Could GATS Help?" ignores core facts about GATS Mode Four, whitewashes its problems.

NOTE: The WTO is completely human rights agnostic. And as such GATS Mode Four favors multinational staffing (i.e. "body shop") corporations moving to countries with very low wages and levels of regulation that are signatory to many trade agreements, in a sense forum shopping for the countries with the lowest wages and worker rights. (which will often apply in lieu of a labor consuming country having other laws, other laws that may not even be applicable if the work is done under a trade agreement, for example, see WTO document T/N/S/14 for the arguments against national wage laws applicability. Trade agreements are also harmonizing other regulations downward to the lowest common denominator levels. When the WTO talks about "wage parity" for example, it means the lowest legal wage. i.e minimum wage, not prevailing wages in a field.

"Biden Cuts Social Security" (The Intercept) Actually, its the GATS agreement we signed more than two decades ago, and the TISA that they probably will revive soon that do it. Medicare is likely to get the same treatment too. See elsewhere on this site.

The Intercept (the destination of the link) doesn't mention this but GATS (and TISA, which is likely to be revived) makes all deregulation in committed services (like financial services) permanent (Yes, both are considered to be in competition with the banking and insurance industries - financial services) Making cuts so costly and difficult to reverse they will become permanent. This has been planned for a long time as shown by the trade literature. here is lots on this site. Voters should refuse to swallow this rigged Kool Aid. Oh, but everything that happens in the WTO is not subject to voting.

Graphic illustrates why the oligarchy wants to capture migration for corporations..

Globally. Thats a hidden gotcha they embedded in the WTO when it was set up. Which could easily turn out to be one of the epic mistakes of all time. This graphic which is repeated in a great many of the dozens of papers hyping TMNP is also fairly misleading, given that the ratio between wages in expensive countries like the US and poor countries like India can be 20 times or more, not the small amount pictured here. Also, they consistently try to confuse temporary movement of natural persons with actual immigration for the purpose of permanent migration (traditional immigration) which most Americans have a favorable opinion of. But the two are totally different. One is freedom, the other is often compared to modern slavery.

Edward Alden: India's landmark WTO challenge to US

In the midst of a xenophobic U.S. presidential campaign in which candidates in both parties have harangued China and Japan over their trade policies, and leading Republicans have called for a "great wall" to keep out immigrants from Mexico and Central America, one country has quietly refused to take it any longer. The government of India filed suit on March 3 in the World Trade Organization (WTO) seeking to overturn a new U.S. tax on high-skilled migrants that India says discriminates against its citizens and would damage some of its most successful companies. The case marks the first time that a country's immigration laws have been challenged using the rules of a trade agreement. And despite the logic of India's action, it may well be the last such case. With tariffs on imports already very low in most countries, economists have argued that easing restrictive immigration laws in advanced countries would now do far more than additional trade liberalization to boost global growth. Michael Clemens of the Center for Global Development has written that immigration restrictions are the "greatest single class of distortions in the global economy," amounting to "trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk" if such distortions could be eliminated.......

The Looming GATS Conflict with Capital Controls (2013)

Tucker, The Looming GATS Conflict with Capital Controls (2013). in Kevin Gallagher and Leonardo Stanley (eds.), Global Financial Reform and Trade Rules: The Need for Reconciliation, (Boston: Boston University, 2013).,, To Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2379257