GATS Sample Clauses
GATS. If a Party grants to a non-Party, after the entry into force of this Agreement, additional benefits with regard to the access to its services markets, it shall be prepared to enter into consultations in the Joint Committee with a view to addressing this matter in light of the objective set out in paragraph 1.
GATS. The Parties recognise that, in certain circumstances, subsidies may have distortive effects on trade in services. Any Party which considers that it is adversely affected by a subsidy of the other Party may request consultations with that Party on such matters. Such request shall be accorded sympathetic consideration.
GATS. With respect to market access through the modes of supply identified in Article I, each Member shall accord services and service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favourable than that provided for under the terms, limitations and conditions agreed and specified in its Schedule. (Emphasis added)
GATS. Article 9 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures; and Article 20.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 (Customs Valuation Agreement).
GATS. [NB: this provision should be removed during negotiations, if there is a similar provision in an horizontal part of the agreement covering this Chapter.]
GATS. Since January 1995, world trade in services has come under a basic framework of WTO rules, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). A framework of rules for trade in services, similar to the GATT for trade in goods, was negotiated during the Uruguay Round. It includes the same basic principles of the GATT, i.e. transparency (advance publication of trade-related legislation, judicial review) and non-discrimination (MFN, and national treatment once a commitment has been accepted) for service trade. On the rules side three main issues are being pursued, namely negotiations on safeguards, subsidies, and government procurement. World Trade Organisation members are committed to negotiations to bring about further market opening to foreign providers. Negotiations are not about deregulation of services. The GATS is a flexible agreement and it does not cover services which are not supplied on a commercial basis or in competition with other providers. Only when a WTO member decides to subject a public service to the laws of the market is this service open to competition. Moreover GATS does not require reciprocity in the engagement from other WTO members: opening of a sector by a members does not need to be reciprocated with the opening of the same sector by the other party.
GATS. (The General Agreement on Trade in Services) –
i) National treatment of foreign services: A commitment to national treatment implies that the member concerned does not operate discriminatory measures benefiting domestic services or service suppliers. The key requirement is not to modify, in law or in fact, the conditions of competition in favour of the member's own service industry.
ii) Market treatment of foreign services: Market access is a negotiated commitment in specified sectors. For example, limitations may be imposed on the number of services suppliers, service operations or employees in the sector; the value of transactions; the legal form of the service supplier; or the participation of foreign capital.
GATS style flexibility is a myth: Following the language of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, EU submissions to the WTO make reference to using a „GATS-style approach‟ to a new WTO investment agreement, claiming that this will provide flexibility for developing countries to protect national development policies in the face of non-discrimination disciplines. However, GATS is not a model of flexibility. It is in fact undermining the ability of developing countries to use appropriate policies to achieve development (Hardstaff, 2003). Experience with GATS clearly shows that a „GATS-style positive list approach‟ does not guarantee the flexibility developing countries need to pursue appropriate policies. In fact, over time, GATS guarantees a steady reduction in flexibility. As the Indian Ambassador to the WTO highlights in raising concerns over a proposed investment agreement, “As our experience with services has shown, great pressure would be brought to bear on developing countries to give greater – and still greater – market access to developed countries in these areas in subsequent stages.” (Permanent Mission of India, Geneva, 2003). Given the explicit proposal that a WTO investment agreement should be based on the same approach as that used in GATS, it is clear that the proposed MIA will also fail to provide the flexibility developing countries need to protect their national development policies and to ensure that FDI works to the benefit of their economies and their peoples.
GATS. Untuk itu antar negara-negara anggota WTO dapat xxx diperbolehkan untuk membuat MRA, di mana negara anggota ASEAN 17FX. Xxxx Xxxxxxx, op.cit., hlm. 103. memiliki xxx xxx kewajiban yang sama sesuai MRA,18 dengan tujuan meminimalkan perbedaan-perbedaan dalam menentukan kualifikasi, standarisasi xxx/atau lisensi berdasarkan Article VII GATS, dimana dalam ketentuan Article VII GATS ini juga dimaksudkan sebagai jembatan atas perbedaan konsep dasar yang diatur dalam GATS dengan konsep dasar peraturan domestik dari suatu negara, dimana hal ini diakibatkan karena terdapat perbedaan kondisi tiap-tiap negara khususnya yang berkaitan dengan keperawatan maupun profesi perawat. Secara teoritis, oleh karena stakeholders pada perdagangan khususnya perdagangan jasa internasional mencakup tidak hanya nasional tetapi juga internasional sebagaimana kebebasan pasar yang dikemukakan oleh Xxxx Xxxxx, xxx ini dimaksudkan agar peran negara xxx xxxxx pasar dapat berjalan secara paralel. Oleh karena itu, diharapkan perbedaan konsep dasar yang diatur berdasarkan ketentuan hukum internasional dengan ketentuan hukum domestik dapat diminimalisir xxx semakin mengerucut.19
GATS. RTAs can complement the multilateral trading system, but they are discriminatory because of a departure from the principle of most-favored bases of multilateral trading system. The increase in RTAs and the conclusion of bilateral free trade agreements have created the phenomenon of overlapping membership. Almost all states are members of one or more agreements on regional integration. The WTO Secretariat registered 625 regional trade agreements in 2016 (Table no 1) (1). While in the period from 1948 to 1994 year to the GATT were sent 123 notifications. Free Trade Agreement (FTA), according to GATT Art. XXIV 238 Customs Union (CU), under GATT Art. XXIV 28 Partial Scope Agreement 16 RTAs for goods and services under GATT Art. XXIV and GATS Art. V 139 Total: 421 Because each RTA seeks to develop its own internal trading regime, a coexistence of different trading rules applied to different partners becomes frequent in one country. This can complicate trade flows costs for traders in the performance of multiple sets of trade rules. The spread of RTAs is not multilaterally regulated, and thus increases the risk of inconsistencies in the rules and procedures among the trade agreements. This can lead to regulatory confusion, distortion of regional markets, as well as serious problems of implementation, particularly where there is duplication of RTAs. The accelerated development of regionalization is promoted by multiplicity and complexity of interests of different regions, unequal development and different economic weight of countries and therefore priority in multilateral negotiations. RTAs are a common alternative means of liberalization and globalization. They are concluded between so-called "natural trading partners", which are understood as the neighboring countries with a comparative level of economic development and multilateral trade agreements between countries of the same region (3). Members of WTO are required to notify regional trade agreements in which they participate. Many countries - members of the WTO continue to negotiate new bilateral and multilateral RTAs. For example, negotiations in the Asia-Pacific Partnership involved 12 parties; in Asia among members of ASEAN and six other WTO members with which ASEAN has existing agreements (Regional agreement on comprehensive partnership, RCEP); Pacific Alliance in Latin America between Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru. These multilateral agreements after the entry into force can reduce so-called «spaghe...