Skip Navigation



Journal of International Economic Law Advance Access published online on March 26, 2007
Journal of International Economic Law, doi:10.1093/jiel/jgm004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
10/2/235    most recent
jgm004v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Adlung, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2007, all rights reserved

Negotiations on Safeguards and Subsidies in Services: a Never-ending Story?

Rudolf Adlung*

Correspondence: * Senior economist, Trade in Services Division, WTO Secretariat. E-mail: rudolf.adlung{at}wto.org. All views expressed are those of the author and cannot be attributed to the WTO Secretariat or WTO Members. Thanks are due to Peter Morrison, Martin Roy and anonymous referees for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.


  Abstract

After the Uruguay Round, negotiations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) continued in several rule-making areas, including emergency safeguards and subsidies. However, there has been little progress to date. The negotiations on safeguards appear to have suffered from a combination of high ambition, limited flexibility and, possibly, too much inspiration from the existing mechanism under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Yet the GATS is different in at least two respects: its reach has been extended from cross-border trade to factor flows, and from an essentially tariff-only regime to many more permissible restrictions, including import-displacing subsidies. The question arises, whether and where safeguards could still serve a useful purpose. At the same time, with less enthusiasm, however, WTO Members have discussed the need for additional subsidy disciplines beyond current Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) and, in scheduled sectors, national treatment obligations. A link between the two areas has not been established. This article thus seeks to identify and, as far as possible, tie up loose ends. While there appears to be little scope for GATT-type safeguards in services, a transitory arrangement, which allows for suspensions of new commitments during an implementation phase, might encourage more ambitious liberalization under the GATS.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.