No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The WTO Committee on Trade in Financial Services: The Exercise of Public Authority within an Informational Forum
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The Committee on Trade in Financial Services (hereinafter, Committee or CTFS) is a committee subsidiary to the Council for Trade in Services (CTS), which itself reports to the General Council of the WTO. Shortly after the WTO Agreement entered into force, the CTS established the Committee in its Decision on Institutional Arrangements for the General Agreement on Trade in Services (Institutional Decision). The Committee acts primarily as a forum for dissemination of regulatory information specific to the often opaque financial services sector. This permits a meeting of national finance ministers and experts, as opposed to (mere) trade negotiators and representatives, who may not be in a position to understand the unique nature of national financial regulation. Fundamentally, a state's finance sector underlies all other sectors of international trade, since any transaction for goods or services requires compensation, usually monetary, thereby making the financial sector function as a sort of central nervous system for global trade. The financial services sector, therefore, is peculiar among WTO trade sectors. Indeed, the regulatory constellation for financial services within WTO law is unique: it includes two annexes to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and two Protocols to GATS, negotiations extended well beyond the Uruguay Round and the Marrakesh Agreement's entry into force, and there is a sui generis set of heightened commitments called the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. The Committee also acts as a monitoring body, overseeing both the implementation of legal commitments under the relevant Protocols and the specific progress of China under the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China.
- Type
- Thematic Studies
- Information
- German Law Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 11: Special issue - The Exercise of Public Authority by International Institutions , 01 November 2008 , pp. 1805 - 1832
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2008 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 Sometimes referred to as the Financial Services Committee, it should not be confused with the Financial Services Committees of either NAFTA or the U.S. House of Representatives.Google Scholar
2 S/L/1, 4 April 1995, para. 3.Google Scholar
3 See Hernekamp, Juliane, Ausgewählte Dienstleistungssektoren, in WTO-Recht 418 (Meinhard Hilf & Stefan Oeter eds., 2005); Morrison, Peter, The Liberalisation of Trade in Financial Services and the General Agreement on Trade in Services, 5 Singapore Journal of International & Comparative Law 593, 593 (2001); Jarreau, J. Steven, Interpreting the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the WTO Instruments Relevant to the International Trade of Financial Services, 25 North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation 1, 8 (1999).Google Scholar
4 LT/UR/U/1, 15 April 1994.Google Scholar
5 WT/L/432, 23 November 2001, Section 18.Google Scholar
6 For the author and a co-author's full analysis of financial services under GATS, see Bogdandy, Armin von & Windsor, Joseph, Annex on Financial Services, in VI Max Planck Commentaries on World Trade Law 640–666 (Rüdiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll & Clemens Feinäugle eds., 2008).Google Scholar
7 Art. I:3(b) GATS in conjunction with paras. 1(b)-(d), 5(b)-(c) of the Annex on Financial Services.Google Scholar
8 A useful (albeit partially outdated) list of schedules is: Financial services commitments and MFN exemptions, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/finance_e/finance_commitments_e.htm. See also Schedules of commitments and lists of Article II exemptions, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/serv_commitments_e.htm#commit_exempt.Google Scholar
9 S/L/11, 24 July 1995.Google Scholar
10 S/L/45, 3 December 1997.Google Scholar
11 See S/FIN/W/29/Rev.1, 17 September 2003.Google Scholar
12 Trade: At Daggers Drawn, The Economist 17, 22, 8–14 May 1999.Google Scholar
13 For an overview of WTO structure and subsidiary bodies, see WTO organization chart, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org2_e.htm.Google Scholar
14 Arts. 4–5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).Google Scholar
15 See generally Key, Sydney J., Trade liberalization and prudential regulation, 75 International Affairs 61, 69–70 (1999); Zaring, David, Informal Procedure, Hard and Soft, in International Administration, 5 Chicago Journal of International Law 547, 585–592 (2004-2005).Google Scholar
16 Important international financial regulatory organizations include the OECD, the Bank for International Settlement (BIS) and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), the International Organization of Securities Commissioners (IOSCO), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), as well as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).Google Scholar
17 See Zaring (note 15), at 594–595 (“the regulatory cooperation studied here transcends the concept [of ‘soft law’ in international relations] … Even if it is nonbinding, how does that matter if it is obeyed? … In this sense, regulatory cooperation, both hard and soft, amounts to administration by agreement in a way just as substantial as agreement by treaty”).Google Scholar
18 33 ILM 1144 (1994).Google Scholar
19 Art. IV WTO Agreement.Google Scholar
20 Art. IV:5 WTO Agreement.Google Scholar
21 See Whose WTO is it anyway?, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org1_e.htm. This excludes other sub-committees, negotiating groups, and working parties on the accession of specific candidates. See WTO Bodies & other Entities, Chairpersons and associated document series, available at: http://www.members.wto.org/bodiesandseries/Public/main.asp.Google Scholar
22 The most recent is S/FIN/18, 13 November 2007. The minutes of the meeting on 12 November 2007 are contained in S/FIN/M/55, 16 November 2007. As of May 2008, this was the most recent meeting, with a meeting scheduled for 3 June 2008.Google Scholar
23 WT/L/31, 7 February 1995.Google Scholar
24 See Current WTO chairpersons, available at: http://www.192.91.247.23/english/thewto_e/secre_e/current_chairs_e.htm.Google Scholar
25 Regarding the Second Protocol, see S/L/13, 24 July 1995, para. 3; regarding the Fifth Protocol, see S/L/44, 3 December 1997, para. 3.Google Scholar
26 See Status of acceptances of the fifth protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/finance_e/finance_status_5prot_e.htm; S/FIN/M/53, 30 November 2006, paras. 3–7.Google Scholar
27 WT/L/432, 23 November 2001. See also Xin Zhang, Implementation of the WTO Agreements, 23 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 383, 408–410 (2003).Google Scholar
28 See Qin, Julia Ya, WTO Regulation of Subsidies to State-owned Enterprises (SOEs) – A Critical Appraisal of the China Accession Protocol, 7 Journal of International Economic Law 863 (2004); Zhang (note 27), at 409–410.Google Scholar
29 See Steinberg, William, Monitor with No Teeth, 6 University of California Davis Business Law Journal 2, section IV (2005).Google Scholar
30 See Schmidt-Aßmann, in this issue (“Here, even more than in national administrative law, it holds true: administrative law is first and foremost law on the administration of information!”); Esty, Daniel C., Good Governance at the Supranational Scale, 115 Yale Law Journal 1490, 1533 (2006).Google Scholar
31 In Black's Law Dictionary 1358 (Garner, Bryan A., Editor in Chief, 8th ed., 2004) informal rulemaking is defined as: Agency rulemaking in which the agency publishes a proposed regulation and receives public comments on the regulation, after which the regulation can take effect without the necessity of a formal hearing on the record. Informal rulemaking is the most common procedure followed by an agency in issuing its substantive rules. – Also termed notice-and-comment rulemaking. Google Scholar
32 For an account of financial services negotiations, see von Bogdandy & Windsor (note 6), at margin nos. 4–12.Google Scholar
33 S/FIN/M/3, 29 May 1995, paras. 6–7; S/FIN/M/7, 26 July 1995, paras. 19–20.Google Scholar
34 See S/FIN/M/52, 4 May 2006, para. 4; S/FIN/M/53, 30 November 2006, paras. 4–5.Google Scholar
35 The United States, Japan, Switzerland, and the European Communities have recently expressed concern over the delays. S/FIN/M/52, 4 May 2006, para. 5; S/FIN/16, 28 November 2006, para. 2.Google Scholar
36 Transitional review sessions have apparently been extensive, judging from the number of paragraphs covered in the minutes of meetings: S/FIN/M/37, 24 October 2002, paras. 11–71; S/FIN/M/43, 4 December 2003, paras. 21–74; S/FIN/M/47, 26 November 2004, paras. 14–77; S/FIN/M/50, 23 September 2005, paras. 6–55; S/FIN/M/53, 30 November 2006, paras. 12–73; S/FIN/19, 14 November 2007, paras. 30–106.Google Scholar
37 The six reports thus far have been formulaic: S/FIN/7, 25 October 2002, S/FIN/11, 4 December 2003; S/FIN/13, 26 November 2004; S/FIN/15, 23 September 2005; S/FIN/17, 30 November 2006; S/FIN/19, 14 November 2007.Google Scholar
38 For positive comments, see S/FIN/M/47, 26 November 2004, paras. 37, 51; S/FIN/M/50, 23 September 2005, paras. 39, 46; Zhang (note 27), 408–410. For negative remarks, see S/FIN/M/50, 23 September 2005, para. 47; S/FIN/M/53, 30 November 2006, paras. 48, 71; Steinberg (note 29), sections IV-V.Google Scholar
39 S/L/1, 24 July 1995.Google Scholar
40 S/FIN/M/7, 26 July 1995, para. 17.Google Scholar
41 S/FIN/M/8, 26 July 1995, para. 4.Google Scholar
42 Esty (note 30), at 1503–1504. However, unchallenged institutional practice can itself clarify powers. See José E. Alvarez, International Organizations as Law-makers 87 et seq. (2005).Google Scholar
43 In the Secretariat's explanation quoted above, this is indeed assumed. It seems indisputable that the CTS's mandate to “oversee the functioning of [GATS]” (Art. IV:5 WTO Agreement) includes adoption of agreements such as the Second and Fifth Protocols.Google Scholar
44 S/L/13, 24 July 1995, para. 3; S/L/44, 3 December 1997, para. 3 (omits “on Trade in Financial Services”).Google Scholar
45 Institutional Decision, para. 2(f); Arts. VII:5, XXVI GATS; Art. V WTO Agreement.Google Scholar
46 See International intergovernmental organizations granted observer status to WTO bodies, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/igo_obs_e.htm.Google Scholar
47 WT/L/161, 25 July 1996, Annex 3; S/FIN/M/13, 29 April 1997, para. 5; S/FIN/M/26, 29 June 2000, para. 44; S/FIN/M/28, 20 November 2000, para. 31.Google Scholar
48 S/FIN/M/31, 1 June 2001, para. 16; S/FIN/M/32, 9 November 2001, paras. 43–44.Google Scholar
49 S/FIN/M/34, 26 April 2002, paras. 27–32; S/FIN/M/35, 8 July 2002, paras. 36–37.Google Scholar
50 S/FIN/M/39, 7 April 2003, paras. 56–57.Google Scholar
51 S/FIN/M/39, 7 April 2003, paras. 12–18.Google Scholar
52 S/FIN/M/44, 21 April 2004, paras. 25–62.Google Scholar
53 S/FIN/M/55, 16 November 2007, paras. 12–29.Google Scholar
54 WT/L/161, 25 July 1996, Annex 3; Institutional Decision, para. 2(f).Google Scholar
55 S/FIN/M/32, 9 November 2001, para. 44; S/FIN/M/54, 2 July 2007, paras. 15–22.Google Scholar
56 Gkoutzinis, Apostolos, International Trade in Banking Services and the Role of the WTO, 39 International Lawyer 877, 902 (2005).Google Scholar
57 Charnovitz, Steve, Opening the WTO to Nongovernmental Interests, 24 Fordham International Law Journal 173, 199–200 (2000).Google Scholar
58 Steinberg (note 29), at sections III-IV; Zhang (note 27), at 408–409.Google Scholar
59 WT/L/452, 16 May 2002.Google Scholar
60 S/FIN/M/35, 8 July 2002, para. 19; S/FIN/M/37, 24 October 2002, para. 83.Google Scholar
61 See S/FIN/M/54, 2 July 2007, para. 20.Google Scholar
62 Para. 5(b) of the Annex on Financial Services defines “financial service supplier” as “any natural or juridical person of a Member wishing to supply or supplying financial services but the term ‘financial service supplier’ does not include a public entity.” See von Bogdandy & Windsor (note 6), margin nos. 20–21.Google Scholar
63 See BIS, Basel II: Revised international capital framework, available at: http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsca.htm; Barr, Michael S. & Miller, Geoffrey P., Global Administrative Law, 17 European Journal of International Law 15 (2006).Google Scholar
64 This abundance of “multilateral international institutions and standard-setting bodies with a mandate to discuss the international financial regulatory and supervisory framework” contributed to the adoption of the prudential carve-out in para. 2(a) of the GATS Annex on Financial Services as a means of limiting WTO law's (and thus, by extension, the Committee's) impact on domestic regulatory autonomy. Gkoutzinis (note 56), 902–904. Due to the potential fragmentation, “soft regulatory convergence on the basis of international standards and codes” has been suggested in place of attempts to harden regulations. Id., 913–914.Google Scholar
65 See, e.g., S/C/26, 1 December 2006, para. 8, Annex I.Google Scholar
66 S/C/3, 6 November 1996, paras. XXXIV-XL, XLIII.Google Scholar
67 See S/C/26, 1 December 2006, para. 2; S/C/M/85, 12 December 2006, paras. 20–21.Google Scholar
68 See the chapeau and para. 2(b)-(c).Google Scholar
69 But see Wallach, Lori M., Accountable Governance in the Era of Globalization, 50 University of Kansas Law Review 823, 826–841, 862–864 (2002).Google Scholar
70 For the WTO's own assertion of principles, see Principles of the trading system, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm.Google Scholar
71 See The case for open trade, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact3_e.htm; Alan O. Sykes, Comparative Advantage and the Normative Economics of International Trade Policy, 1 Journal of International Economic Law 49 (1998).Google Scholar
72 See preambular paras. 2, 4–6, Arts. III:4, IV, V:3, XV:1, XIX:2, XXV:2 GATS. The Institutional Decision, para. 2(e), also mandates the CTFS “to provide technical assistance to developing country Members and developing countries negotiating accession to the [WTO].”Google Scholar
73 See Murinde, Victor & Ryan, Cillian, Globalization, the WTO and GATS, in Handbook of International Banking 751–763 (Andrew W. Mullineux & Victor Murinde eds., 2003); Isabel Lipke & Myriam Vander Stichele, Finanzdienstleistungen in der WTO: Lizenz zum Kassieren? 37–38 (World Economy, Ecology & Development ed., 2003).Google Scholar
74 Para. 2(a) Annex on Financial Services. See von Bogdandy & Windsor (note 6), at margin nos. 22–24. The Committee debated on the prudential carve-out during seven meetings in 2000–2001 (S/FIN/M/25-31).Google Scholar
75 Esty (note 30), at 1536–1537. The principle can be seen as a specific instance of the principle of subsidiarity, applicable in politically charged situations to maintain or increase accountability, and divorced from geographical considerations.Google Scholar
76 Id. at 1536.Google Scholar
77 S/FIN/M/37, 24 October 2002, para. 83.Google Scholar
78 See also von Bogdandy & Windsor (note 6), at margin nos. 29–30.Google Scholar
79 Leroux, Eric H., Trade in Financial Services under the World Trade Organization, 36 Journal of World Trade 413, 432 (2002).Google Scholar
80 For a Committee debate about what role the Committee and the WTO have in standard-setting, see S/FIN/M/42, 12 November 2003, paras. 49–69.Google Scholar
81 See, supra, note 63; The Joint Forum, Core Principles: Cross-sectoral Comparison (BIS ed., 2001), available at: http://www.bis.org/publ/joint03.pdf.Google Scholar
82 Zaring (note 15), at 580–585.Google Scholar
83 Id. at 583.Google Scholar
84 Id. at 592 (“Whatever standard is chosen has a good chance of developing an adoptive momentum by virtue of the advantages regulators see in being a part of the ‘network’ of regulators applying the same schema to their regulated industry”); Malloy, Michael P., Emerging International Regime of Financial Services Regulation, 18 Transnational Lawyer 329, 347–349 (2005) (“[Basel II] seems to represent the emergence of a new kind of source of law: an international administrative practice involving rule proposal for public comment, revision in light of public comments, and adoption, implementation, and enforcement at the national level”).Google Scholar
85 See Venzke, in this issue.Google Scholar
86 Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch & Stewart, Richard B., The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 Law & Contemporary Problems 15, 27 (2004-2005).Google Scholar
87 Woods, Ngaire & Narlikar, Amrita, Governance and the limits of accountability, 53 International Social Science Journal 569, 577 (2001).Google Scholar
88 See Kingsbury, Krisch & Stewart, (note 86), at 29–31.Google Scholar
You have
Access