The Internet, cross-border trade in services, and the GATS: lessons from US–Gambling

Abstract

The rapid development of the Internet has led to a growing electronic cross-border delivery of services. While the WTO negotiations have not caught up to the reality of such service trade, the first GATS case dealing with the Internet, namely ' United States -Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services ', has advanced matters. This paper distils the substantive conclusions of the case and remaining questions in relation to Internet-supplied services and certain core concepts of the GATS. Moreover, it sheds light on the case's implications for the services negotiations under the ongoing Doha Development Agenda. It concludes that the second ever GATS case has provided an encouraging set of answers to the unresolved questions of the WTO's Work Programme on E-Commerce, mainly confirming the applicability of GATS commitments to electronically supplied services and shaping the concept of technological neutrality. While more work or dispute settlement cases are necessary to clarify the remaining questions, the rulings have paved the way for the GATS to be a more effective discipline for cross-border (electronic) trade. The paper also explains that a ' chilling effect ' of the rulings on the Doha services negotiations is not warranted.Thanks go to

Crossborder trade in health services: Lessons from the European laboratory

“…On the surface, gambling and health may seem to have little in common, but the decision has important implications for telemedicine. The ruling confirmed that the GATS applies to services provided electronically across borders, and that prohibiting the electronic provision of such a service is not compatible with commitments made under mode 1 (the part of the agreement which would cover telemedicine) [11].…”

The Digital Trade Imbalance and Its Implications for Internet Governance

“…Meanwhile, although the GATS states nothing explicitly about information flows, WTO members have begun to apply these obligations when settling disputes about cross-border information flows (Wunsch-Vincent 2006;Goldsmith and Wu 2006). The WTO's Dispute Settlement Body has adjudicated two trade disputes related to information flows.…”

Why Trade Agreements are not Setting Information Free: The Lost History and Reinvigorated Debate over Cross-Border Data Flows, Human Rights, and National Security

“…The Bush Administration pushed through several free trade agreements with language on e-commerce. The FTAs with Chile, Singapore, Peru, Columbia, and CAFTA-DR stated that signatories should avoid erecting new trade barriers to digital trade as well as saying that neither party may include local presence requirements (Wunsch-Vincent, 2003: 32–34). However, none of these agreements contained language on the free flow of information or clarified when nations could restrict the flow.…”