General Agreement on Trade in Services

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (English General Agreement on Trade in Services, GATS) is an international, multilateral trade agreements of the World Trade Organization ( WTO), which regulates the cross-border trade in services and has its ongoing liberalization of the goal.

The GATS applies to the following four types of cross-border trade in services (so-called "Modes " ):

Mode 1: Cross-border deliveries

The service is by the home country of the supplier to the consumer transferred abroad (eg e-banking, if the service is transmitted via the Internet or telephone to a foreign customer, e -learning).

Mode 2: Alien domestic consumption

The service is in the home country of the provider for a foreign consumers supplied (eg ( foreign) tourism, visit to a dentist abroad, students from abroad ).

Mode 3: commercial offices abroad

The service is provided in the home country of the consumer by the provider of a foreign branch (eg direct investment or joint ventures abroad, language school of a foreign provider).

Mode 4: Natural persons abroad

The service is in the home country of the consumer given by a foreign natural person (eg, personal advice from a foreign lawyer ( in his own right ) in Germany; harvest workers from abroad, native speaker teachers at a language school ).

Note: Only for Mode 1 and 2, the provider of the service is not in the home country of the consumer.

History

After the Second World War existed between the industrialized countries a consensus that the peaceful coexistence of nations should be promoted through economic ties. For this purpose, initially, an International Trade Organization ( ITO) was designed and the Havana Charter, which called for, inter alia, prosperity, peace, employment and fair social standards decided to enter into force, however, was denied by the U.S. Congress. In their place, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ( GATT) was established.

The GATT became increasingly the function of a multilateral framework for international trade. By 1994, eight rounds of GATT took place, during which the Member States have their tariffs massively reduced and eliminated non-tariff barriers to trade.

The last round, the Uruguay Round, which took place from 1986 to 1994, was also associated services and intellectual property rights (patents and copyrights) in the Agreement with a. Results of the Uruguay Round are the foundation of the World Trade Organization ( WTO), the Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ( Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, " TRIPs " ) and the GATS.

The GATS agreement was signed at the end of the Uruguay Round and entered into force (GATS 1995) on 1 January 1995. At the same time it was decided at that time to revise the contract after five years.

Thus, the GATS since the beginning of 2000 renegotiated (GATS 2000). The negotiations should be completed in 2005 (see Doha round ) until the end of the "New Round " ( the agreed under certain conditions in Doha new round of negotiations ). But to a negotiated conclusion there was not due to different views of WTO Members to date.

Most recently, in light of the global financial crisis, adopted by the world financial summit in Washington in November 2008, the accelerated recovery of world trade talks.

MFN and national treatment

One of the key principles of the GATS include the MFN and national treatment.

The principle of MFN means that it is not possible to grant trade concessions only individual states, but that they all WTO members must always be granted. Some general exceptions to the MFN, there are Regional integration agreements, so that for example, the EU does not have to grant to third country trade benefits of its internal market.

The principle of national treatment requires Member States to foreign suppliers equate domestic. State expenditures must also private providers are from abroad available.

Schedules and GATS negotiations

In principle, the WTO Member States may decide which service sectors they open for the market. In the schedules so-called commit the individual states, which services they release, and determine which are the restrictions in terms of market access and national treatment.

The size of each service sectors gradually over several rounds and carried about by the pattern: " Will you give me the service of education, I give you the service traffic ." The liberalization of the service is in many individual points - 12 sectors and 155 subsectors " times " the four different performance modes (Modes ) - negotiated. Currently, the WTO is negotiating with the aim to liberalize the restrictions in the schedules until 2005. The liberalization is, in each round, increasingly, to be pursued more vigorously. The provisions of Article XIX of the GATS explicitly speaks of a progressive liberalization. The redemption of once received liberalization commitments is only possible if the resulting damaged trade partner compensation, eg in the form of liberalization and for other areas receive.

The GATS discussion

The central point of discussion is whether public services (health services, education services, ...) Article I: 3, other than, or at least covered by the GATS.

For instance, argues the Austrian Federal Ministry that the Austrian system of social security and pension insurance under the GATS was excluded because it is services, in accordance with Article I: 3 lit. b of the GATS agreement are provided in state jurisdiction.

What, according to the critics conceal the Ministry of Economy regularly is point c of this article. This provision states that the services

There is neither WTO Members nor the WTO Secretariat agree on the meaning of the term " supplied in the exercise of state power ". In particular, the Secretariat of the WTO seems depending on the circumstances, to pursue different approaches.

In a background paper on health services and social services ( S/C/W/50 ) argues the Secretariat that it may be in cases where private, commercially oriented and public- profit hospitals exist in parallel unrealistic to state that no competitive situation. Consequently, public hospitals, although they are a public service, not excluded from the GATS.

To understand the significance of Article I: 3 is meant for the EU, the exceptions in the course of are to be used " horizontal commitments ". The EU has registered in the lists of countries of the GATS that " services that are considered at national or local level as a public duties, state monopolies or exclusive rights of private operators subject " can ( see WTO 1994: Schedule of Specific Commitments - German translation the European Communities and their Member States GATS/SC/31, April 15, Geneva In: .. Federal law Gazette, part II, pp. 1678-1683 ). This therefore constitutes the basis for the limitations on market access in the field of public tasks

Discussed is further of Article VI: 4, where, among other things, a so-called necessity test is described. This is to check whether state environmental or other conditions are commercially neutral and whether there could be other constraints which provide a greater incentive for foreign investors. This threatens the democratic leeway, since the nation-state has to prove that its requirements are the lowest possible.

The OECD proposes to regard services that are provided under state jurisdiction -profit organization.

GATS and EU

Undesirably the EU's demands as well as the offers to the EU have come to the public and have caused resentment, as is required, inter alia, of the United States to privatize the education sector. Of the 109 countries of the type address the EU's demands for liberalization taught (called requests), the great majority (94 ) developing or emerging countries.

In Europe, there is the " European Services Forum " (ESF ), which was created by Sir Leon Brittan ( Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy ) to include the European service corporations in the GATS negotiations.

GATS and Austria

Austria joined in 1994 by a four -party decision in the National Council of the GATS (see Federal Law Gazette 1/95 ).

In Austria, a particularly strong group against GATS has formed - involved are: the Association of Municipalities, the Association of Cities, Caritas, Attac and ex- ÖVP Vice Chancellor Josef Riegler.

Also, the trade union federation is involved; so the OGB has collaborated for the first time with other support organizations. The former opponents Greenpeace, about the construction of power plants Hainburg, was one of 80 alliance partners. The EU opened to the Offers because of citizens' protests a so-called consultation process: a survey of NGOs and sector associations was begun; thousands of requests came more than 60% of Austria. To address these concerns, the EU has now published a document in which the demands on information addressed to it is given.

The transport, health, education and audiovisual media are excluded according to unofficial reports for Austria from the GATS, a verifiability is not possible because of the secret negotiations. Also, stay as long as they preserve these exemptions for a period of negotiations is questionable, there is indeed negotiating exactly about it.

Even the countries and communities in Austria Report of criticism: for example, believes Sepp Rieder, Vice Mayor of Vienna, that had been, insured first, that the social partners would be involved, but there is no concrete negotiations or information. He suggested that

• The GATS, the necessity test and the proportionality test in the field of general interest should not apply
• Countries and communities should attend the negotiations, would be in the federal constitution for a room available
• Guarantees can be given that the promised at the beginning of the negotiations areas remained really except continually from the negotiations.

GATS criticism

The following are the main points of criticism:

• Basic services in Public Private Partnership at least partially privatized (water as a commodity, natural gas supply, health, education, hospitals, nursing homes ). The privatization often followed by wage cuts in the formerly state-owned enterprises.
• Specifically, the commodification of education (among college tuition ) for students ( student protests ), but also by the UN education officers Vernor Muñoz be criticized.
• In contrast to industrial lobby groups such as the ESF neither that the National Parliament is involved and informed directly into the negotiations, nor is civil society involved. The negotiations are secret and its results are set out in treaties. It is to be expected with irreversible contracts that any process of political expression were subjected.
• The acclaimed and criticized the measures are no longer customs policy but domestic regulations. Thus areas of government policy sovereignty to be touched and may be set by the GATS treaty override. Rufus H. Yerxa Says about ( WTO Director-General ): the decisions are taken by the Member States, the WTO's office leads only. A free trade is essential for peaceful coexistence.
• Critics see not guaranteed beyond doubt by GATS supply security and stability in the sense of general interest.
• Under the so -called " mode 4 " could lead to a detachment of regular immigration, at the end has not seldom equal rights have stood with residents to come through precarious Entsendearbeit, in which the burdens and risks especially from the always limited period only approved Entsendekräften itself are to bear the potentially these are replaced by domestic forces and the societies of the countries of origin. The latter existed mainly in the brain drain, in the full pay of old age, sickness and disability risk, and costs for initial training and in the care of family members of deployed forces. Rich societies succeed in it so, otherwise to avoid unnecessary immigration and sustainable management of their resources and manpower to externalize the cost of providing a qualified workforce. Foreign workers could be denied under Entsendearbeit by frequent exchanges of persons the same rights with nationals in the long run. It arises as a new apartheid or a new Helotenklasse.
• In addition to banks and insurance companies were among big water companies ( Veolia, Suez Environnement, RWE), energy, education and health concerns, such as private hospital groups, with the probable winners of the GATS.

GATS and MAI

The GATS (especially Mode 3) is modeled on the WTO at the summit (1999) in Seattle failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment ( MAI). The MAI intends in this context, to allow claims for damages for corporations to governments, there is a strike in the country or workers or environmental protection laws come into force in the higher. The compensation for the Group is to be determined by the gain reduction that is incurred by the Group by the measures.