Public Services and the Scope of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS): A Research Paper

[Baobab]

Public Services and the Scope of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS): A Research Paper Written for Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) By Markus Krajewski

http://www.ciel.org/Publications/PublicServicesScope.pdf

Note: Although the TOC may evoke the TOCs of several papers I have posted previously, this is not the same paper- the reason I am posting different people's work on this specific area is because this Article I:3 (b) and (c) is a crucially important definition to understand - and hopefully eliminate- its at the root of a lot of the problems we have today with inexplicable policy "mistakes".

They are not "mistakes" they are consequences of the use of this inflexible definition of scope used in unseen back room deals basically controlling public policy without most people's knowledge.

-----------------------------------


Table of Contents


I. Introduction............................................................................................................................3
II. Background........................................................................................................................4
1. What are "public services“?...........................................................................................4
2. Why does the scope of GATS matter?...........................................................................5
Box 1 – Examples of Possible Public Services Challenges...............................................................5
III. Provisions Determining the Substantive Scope of GATS........................................................6
IV. The use of Article I:3 (b)(c) GATS in WTO documents and discussions..........................6
1. Secretariat background notes and papers.......................................................................7
2. Discussions among WTO members...............................................................................8
V. Interpretation according to generally accepted methods of public international law.........9
1. Standards of treaty interpretation.................................................................................10
2. Supply on a "commercial basis“...................................................................................10
3. Supply in "competition with one or more service suppliers“.......................................12
4. Context of Article I:3(b),(c) GATS..............................................................................13
a) Annexes........................................................................................................................13
b) Schedules of Specific Commitments............................................................................14
5. Subsequent practice and preparatory work...................................................................15
a) Subsequent practice, agreements, and other rules of international law....................15
b) Preparatory work......................................................................................................16
6. Conclusion....................................................................................................................17
VI. Further interpretative principles: restrictive and effective interpretation.........................18
1. Restrictive Interpretation..............................................................................................18
2. Effective interpretation.................................................................................................19
VII. "Legislative“ possibilities to narrow the scope of GATS................................................20
1. Amendment to GATS or interpretative understanding................................................20
2. Authoritative interpretation..........................................................................................21
3. Non-binding statement.................................................................................................21


Geneva
May 2001

[djean111]

1. Thank you for all of your OPs.

I am afraid most people don't car or don't understand or think their favorite politician would not do this to us. When that is exactly how it happens.

[Baobab]

2. At this point its already happened

So unless efforts are made to reverse it its SOON going to be out of their hands, and create an impossible situation for us like it did with Slovakia.

People will have to move somewhere else, that hasn't signed on to these things, as even revolutions (South Africa with GATS and NHI) and dissolution of a country and replacement with another one (Czech Republic - in Eastern Sugar case) don't eliminate the obligation.

After all, corporations need stability, they cant be subjected to unpredictable politics.

(official US position now)

What is it about impossible don't people understand? Politicians wont be able to fix it. thats how these things are designed, to be traps. We designed them that way. We can't give our own people a sweetheart deal when so many people have died because THEY could not afford some drug or service, can we? NO. Americans have to get the worst deal of them all, to show we mean business.

[Baobab]

3. I am very sorry- that sounded like i was disagreeing with you- i was agreeing with you

I'm frustrated because understanding this is key to it being stopped- its utterly deceptive policy- Neither we nor virtually anybody else can - clearly we cannot survive under the regimen they are cooking up for us- its that simple, prices wont fall, most Americans will just get pushed out and replaced with new victims, most Americans in the near future America - wont be able to make it well enough to get by- not even marginally. they are pushing a system that intentionally built without any morals- Everything about it is deceptive-

#1 is the fiction that the changes in it will occur elsewhere, they wont- dont fall for the trap of thinking some bad outcome will only happen to other people, it wont- we are all interrelated- whats good for some of us is good for all of us more than we realize.

The whole carrot part of GATS- 'progressive liberalisation' is jobs which must go to the lowest bidding firms, captured by means of huge changes in government procurement down to the local level-

They promised "Americans'" (and other countries that sign on to the most radical trade deals - the ones with 'negative list' like TiSA especially- they promised some potentially huge number of jobs to other people as bait in the globalization game, thats the unpleasant reality. The fiction is that large numbers of contract jobs in other countries would open to US firms but thats less likely to happen than the other way around because of lower wages elsewhere- So what we'll be left with is local jobs shifting to foreign owned or staffed services firms - or subcontracting firms- low wage competition, who will themselves be struggling. this is the cost of our current policy, preserving BAD business models on both sides of the pond, or whatever- instead, both the foreign workers and our own should be able to syay in their countries of origin and be treated fairly.

For example, to preserve our truyly horrible healthcare system, they likely will either import low wage doctors and nurses, or want to ship poor Americans overseas for health care. the WTO "disciplines on domestic regulation" (insomuch that they have not already been conformed- in many cases they have) will change our visa and licensing requirements that stand in the way to allow it.

At least this is what I read to be the situation. Google "Disiplines on domestic regulation" - You il find GATS, this also applies to TISA.

Thats DEFINITELY what we're endorsing if we vote for HRC, and I suspect for any Republican as well, including Trump who has already admitted he has no problem with legal guest worker programs- thats going to be the big problem so thats not a good position for us- H1B is not the problem- L-1 and other trade based, non-immigrant visas which may vastly expand will likely be. . but at that point it will be too late, the trade deal will already be there, for example, with GATS- GATS has been there since 1995 but has been limited by various means that may not remain there for much longer.

[djean111]

4. Oh, no worries, I knew that!

And I do share your actual worries; been posting about the TPP for, really, years, but those OPs, and those of Cali's, can't wait for her to be back) are usually immediately stomped on by shills who, boiled down, are saying hey, you Americans have had it too good for too long; this will fix your asses. They finally stopped that "think of the poor Vietnamese farmers" bullshit - their intent is for us all to be poor Vietnamese farmers.

Hillary will put the final seal on selling us down the river, toasting to that with the finest champagne, with her banker buddies.

Your posting style is so much nicer than mine. I would aspire to it, but I am angry.

[Baobab]

5. You should know that the LDCs are not happy campers in these services deals..

They seem to be more on our side than one would otherwise think, Working America should reach out to them.

They basically want experience in a modern, non-dysfunctional workplace. I think many of them are probably from better off families, despite coming from "poor" countries- So they can afford to work for so little more than Americans could ever. See what i am saying? its like these l-1 visa workers are being taken advantage of too.

have you ever had a family member who made all sorts of bullshit promises to you that they never intended to keep? or maybe to you and other people, promised you all the same thing. Its a bit like bigamy, having two wives at the same time who dont know about one another.

thats what this "progressive liberalisation" WTO scheme is, kind of.