一、服务贸易减让表

GATS成员方的服务贸易减让表是确定成员方具体义务最为主要的法律依据，也是GATS最为重要的组成部分。服务贸易减让表可以分为两个部分，第一个部分是“水平承诺”（horizontal commitments），该部分的承诺适用于有关成员方承诺开放的所有服务部门；第二部分是具体承诺（specific commitments），是成员方针对具体服务部门和具体的服务提供方式所作出的承诺。以下我们结合《中华人民共和国入世议定书》（Protocol on Accession of the People's Republic of China）中关于服务贸易的水平承诺和具体承诺来说明服务贸易减让表的相关问题。

（一）服务贸易减让表中的水平承诺

上表反映的是中国入世议定书服务贸易减让表中水平承诺的内容。该表分为四栏，分别是：服务部门或分部门、市场准入限制、国民待遇限制和其他承诺，表中括号内的阿拉伯数字代表着相应的服务提供方式。服务部门或分部门中载明的“本减让表中的所有部门”清楚地表明了相应承诺属于“水平承诺”的范围；市场准入限制一栏中所载明的内容表明了对商业存在和自然人流动两种服务提供方式的市场准入限制；国民待遇限制一栏的内容则表明，对于以商业存在方式提供视听、空运和医疗服务的外国服务提供者不能享有国民待遇，即不能享受国内相同服务提供者所享有的补贴待遇。其他承诺一栏为空，这表明中国在水平承诺方面没有其他特殊承诺。

（二）服务贸易减让表中的具体承诺

根据GATS第20条第1款的规定，成员方应该在减让表中列出其根据本协定第三部分作出的具体承诺。对于作出此类承诺的部门，每一减让表应列明：

（1）市场准入的条款、限制和条件；

（2）国民待遇的条件和资格；

（3）与附加承诺有关的承诺；

（4）在适当时，实施此类承诺的时限；

（5）此类承诺生效的日期。

上表反映的是中国入世议定书服务贸易减让表中具体承诺的内容。与水平承诺表一样，具体承诺表也分为同样的四栏，表中括号内的阿拉伯数字代表着相应的服务提供方式。在服务部门或分部门一栏，“专业服务”属于服务部门，“建筑设计服务”、“工程服务”、“集中工程服务”、“城市规划服务”等属于服务分部门。在市场准入限制一栏中，可以发现四种服务提供方式的情况各不相同：对于跨境交付方式的限制不多，主要是要求与专业机构进行合作，但方案设计除外；对于境外消费则没有市场准入限制；对于商业存在，则要求在中国提供建筑设计、工程、集中工程、城市规划（总体规划除外）服务的外国服务提供者只能采取合资企业的形式，但外商可以持有多数股权，在中国加入WTO后5年内，企业形式可以扩展为外商独资企业；对于自然人流动而言，市场准入方面的限制与水平承诺表中的相应规定相同。在国民待遇限制一栏中，四种服务提供方式所受到的待遇也是不同的：对于跨境交付和境外消费而言，不存在国民待遇限制问题；对于商业存在而言，特别要求从事建筑设计、工程、集中工程、城市规划（总体规划除外）服务的外国服务提供者应为在其本国从事建筑／工程／城市规划服务的注册建筑师／工程师或企业；对于自然人流动而言，市场准入方面的限制与水平承诺表中的相应规定相同。其他承诺一栏为空，这表明中国在建筑设计、工程、集中工程、城市规划（总体规划除外）服务的具体承诺方面没有其他特殊承诺。

从上述介绍中可以看出，GATS的服务贸易减让表在列明具体服务贸易部门开放承诺时采取的是“肯定清单”（positive list）方式，即将能够开放的部门列出清单，并在随后的谈判中逐步增加开放部门的种类，而不是像GATS《关于第2条豁免的附件》中那样采取“否定清单”（negative list）的方式，将不愿意适用最惠国待遇的问题逐一列出。由于发展中国家的管理水平和经验有限，很难预料未来应对哪些服务门类或部门不开放，肯定式的清单使得发展中国家拥有灵活处置的主动权和回旋余地，同时也避免了否定清单列出大量不开放服务部门的尴尬。[1]

二、GATS的市场准入

根据GATS第16条的规定，对于通过GATS第1条确认的服务提供方式实现的市场准入，每一成员对任何其他成员的服务和服务提供者给予的待遇，不得低于其在具体承诺减让表中同意和列明的条款、限制和条件。在作出市场准入具体承诺的部门，除非在其减让表中另有列明，否则一成员不得在其一地区或在其全部领土内维持或采取按如下定义的措施：

（1）无论以数量配额、垄断、专营服务提供者的形式，还是以经济需求标准要求的形式，限制服务提供者的数量；

（2）以数量配额或经济需求标准要求的形式限制服务交易或资产总值；

（3）以配额或经济需求标准要求的形式，限制服务业务总数或以指定数量单位表示的服务产出总量；

（4）以数量配额或经济需求标准要求的形式，限制特定服务部门或服务提供者可雇用的、提供具体服务所必需且直接有关的自然人总数；

（5）限制或要求服务提供者通过特定类型法律实体或合营企业提供服务的措施；

（6）以限制外国股权最高百分比或限制单个或总体外国投资总额的方式限制外国资本的参与。

对外国服务和服务提供者提供市场准入，实质上是允许外国服务提供者进行服务贸易的国际投资，这一点在商业存在的服务方式上体现得尤为明显。根据GATS的“市场准入减让表”部分，如成员对通过跨境交付方式提供服务作出市场准入承诺，且如果资本的跨境流动是该服务本身所必需的部分，则该成员由此已经承诺允许此种资本跨境流动。如果成员就通过商业存在方式提供服务作出市场准入承诺，则成员由此应承诺允许有关资本转移进入其境内。[2]

三、GATS的国民待遇

（一）国民待遇在GATS中的地位和性质

在货物贸易领域中，国民待遇是一项不可动摇的基本原则，其目的在于确保关税减让的效果得到最大程度的落实，避免本国产品在事实上受到超关税的保护。[3]而在服务贸易领域中，国民待遇作为具体承诺的核心内容，同样具有重要的意义。在WTO成立初期，学者们一般认为，国民待遇是GATS中一项重要的原则。随着国内外学者对GATS的研究逐步深入，学者们认识到，鉴于货物贸易和服务贸易之间所存在的差异，将货物贸易领域中的原则直接适用于服务贸易领域可能是不科学的，要想更为准确地把握国民待遇在GATS中的地位和性质，必须要结合GATS中的具体规定进行分析。

GATS第17条第1款是关于国民待遇的规定，根据该款，对于列入减让表的部门，在遵守其中所列任何条件和资格的前提下，每一成员在影响服务提供的所有措施方面给予任何其他成员的服务和服务提供者的待遇，不得低于其给予本国同类服务和服务提供者的待遇。

Article ⅩⅦ

National Treatment

1. In the sectors inscribed in its Schedule, and subject to any conditions and qualifications set out therein, each Member shall accord to services and service suppliers of any other Member, in respect of all measures affecting the supply of services, treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own like services and service suppliers.[4]

2. A Member may meet the requirement of paragraph 1 by according to services and service suppliers of any other Member, either formally identical treatment or formally different treatment to that it accords to its own like services and service suppliers.

3. Formally identical or formally different treatment shall be considered to be less favorable if it modifies the conditions of competition in favor of services or service suppliers of the Member compared to like services or service suppliers of any other member.

该条规定表明，国民待遇在GATS中并不能无条件地适用。首先，国民待遇在服务贸易中只适用于已作出具体承诺的部门。WTO对服务部门的开放基本上采取了“肯定清单”的做法，这意味着国民待遇作为一项义务，只在各成员承诺对其他成员开放并给予国民待遇的服务部门或分部门中，向其他成员的服务和服务提供者提供国民待遇。其次，对于已作出具体承诺的服务部门或分部门，成员方还可以对国民待遇进一步施加与国民待遇不一致的限制措施，如一些条件要求或资格限制等。也就是说，成员方即使就某一服务部门承诺开放市场和给予国民待遇，其在承诺表中仍然可以限制其他成员方的服务和服务提供者享受充分的国民待遇。这些限制措施既可以针对承诺的具体部门，也可以体现在“水平承诺”项下针对所有的服务部门。这无疑又进一步缩小了国民待遇在服务贸易领域的作用。此外，GATS关于一般义务和具体承诺的分类对国民待遇性质也具有重要影响。GATS的第二部分为“一般义务和规定”，此类义务的适用不需要另经各成员方承诺，一般对所有成员方和所有服务部门均有约束力，而不论成员方是否已同意开放这些服务部门；GATS第三部分为“具体承诺”，只适用于成员方承诺开放的服务部门或分部门及服务提供者，且受到成员方在作出具体承诺时所列条件和资格等措施的限制。GATS第17条有关国民待遇的规定是GATS第三部分的重要内容，这更表明国民待遇在GATS中并不构成一种普遍性的义务。

综上，我们可以发现，将国民待遇界定为GATS的一项基本原则似乎不妥。对此，甚至有学者进一步提出，国民待遇亦不构成世界贸易组织法的一项基本原则。因为作为WTO法的基本原则，应当是WTO各成员方公认为不得违反，且构成世界贸易组织法基础的，适用于WTO一切领域的原理，而国民待遇作为多边贸易体制的重要支柱之一——服务贸易的领域中，并不是作为基本原则而适用的。[5]无论如何，国民待遇仅仅是在货物贸易领域中，才可以称得上是一项基本原则，而在服务贸易领域中，国民待遇作为成员方具体承诺的内容，不具有基本原则的性质和地位，这一点是比较清楚的。

（二）GATS国民待遇规则的适用

根据GATS第17条第1款的规定，成员提供国民待遇的义务应当包括该成员影响服务提供的所有措施。GATS第28条则进一步将“措施”定义为包括“法律、法规、规章、程序、决定、行政行为”等，这类行为只有政府才有权制定。此外，第17条还对国民待遇的标准进行了细化，一成员可通过对任何其他成员的服务或服务提供者给予与其本国同类服务或服务提供者的待遇形式上相同或不同的待遇，来满足国民待遇的要求。如形式上相同或不同的待遇改变竞争条件，与任何其他成员的同类服务或服务提供者相比，有利于该成员的服务或服务提供者，则此类待遇应被视为较为不利的待遇。

对于该条规定在实践中的适用，我们需要注意以下几点。

（1）GATS成员给予外国服务和服务提供者的待遇可以与本国服务及其提供者享有的待遇在形式上相同，也可以在形式上不同。将GATS第2条最惠国待遇与第17条国民待遇进行比较可以看出，前者强调的是“不低于……的待遇”，这表明GATS国民待遇要求的并不是完全相同或者同一的待遇，主要还是因为服务贸易所涉及的服务部门以及相关监管措施种类繁多，需要对服务贸易国民待遇进行比较灵活的处理。

（2）第17条所指的平等包括了事实上的平等和法律上的平等，事实上的平等要求形式上不同的待遇不能在实质上改变竞争条件，从而使得外国服务及服务提供者处于不利的地位。相关实践情况表明，一项措施从表面上看可能并不具有歧视性，但实质上却对外国服务及服务提供者产生了更为繁重的负担，并将其置于竞争的不利境地。[6]例如，东道国对本国银行和外国银行所实施的外汇管制措施可能是相同的，但由于外国银行的分支机构对外部机制的依赖往往比东道国本国银行要大得多，外汇管制对外国银行分支机构的影响显然要大于对本地银行的影响。[7]GATS的这种规定实际上表明，只要成员方不对外国服务提供者实施歧视性待遇，不论措施本身力度有多大，都不应该被认为违反了国民待遇原则。同时，GATS所确保的只是外国服务和服务提供者与本国服务和服务提供者之间竞争机会的平等，并不对外国服务和服务提供者所面临的竞争及其结果提供保证。

（3）GATS成员可以对外国服务及其提供者给予更为优惠的条件，即并不禁止成员给予外国服务和服务提供者高于本国服务及服务提供者的待遇。实践中，GATS各成员经常会根据本国服务业的实际情况，在特定服务部门对外国服务和服务提供者给予“超国民待遇”。

（4）在判断成员方具体措施是否符合国民待遇规则的问题上，主要参照的标准是成员方的服务贸易减让表，而不是GATT实践中所采取的“目的与效果标准”。上诉机构在“欧共体香蕉案”中明确指出：We see no specific authority either in Article Ⅱ or in Article ⅩⅦ of the GATS for the proposition that the ‘aims and effects’ of a measure are in any way relevant in determining whether that measure is inconsistent with those provisions. In the GATT context, the ‘aims and effects’ theory had its origins in the principle of Article Ⅲ:1 that internal taxes or charges or other regulations ‘should not be applied to imported or domestic products so as to afford protection to domestic production’. There is no comparable provision in the GATS. Furthermore, in our Report in Japan - Alcoholic Beverages the Appellate Body rejected the ‘aims and effects’ theory with respect to Article Ⅲ:2 of the GATT 1994. The European Communities cites an unadopted panel report dealing with Article Ⅲ of the GATT 1947, United States - Taxes on Automobiles as authority for its proposition, despite our recent ruling。[8]

（5）关于如何理解本条脚注规定的问题。

本条第1款脚注规定，根据本条承担的具体承诺不得解释为要求任何成员对由于有关服务或服务提供者的外国特性而产生的任何固有的竞争劣势作出补偿。在“加拿大汽车案”中，加拿大国内采取了一种“加拿大附加价值要求”（Canada Value Added Requirement），要求只有在加拿大的附加价值达到一定比例的情况下，生产商在加拿大制造的汽车才能享有免税待遇。加拿大辩称，这一规定对在跨境提供和境外消费等服务提供方式之间并没有造成歧视，因为这两种方式在本案中并不可行。同时，“加拿大附加价值要求”给服务和服务提供者所造成的竞争劣势属于脚注规定的“因外国特性而产生”。但专家组并不赞同加拿大的主张：We consider that, although the supply of some repair and maintenance services on machinery and equipment through modes 1 and 2 might not be technically feasible, as they require the physical presence of the supplier, all other services listed by the complainants as being affected by the CVA requirements, including some consulting and advisory services relating to repair and maintenance of machinery, can be supplied through modes 1 and 2. We further consider that treatment less favorable granted to services supplied outside Canada cannot be justified on the basis of inherent disadvantages due to their foreign character. Footnote 10 to Article ⅩⅦ only exempts Members from having to compensate for disadvantages due to foreign character in the application of the national treatment provision; it does not provide cover for actions which might modify the conditions of competition against services and service suppliers which are already disadvantaged due to their foreign character.

We therefore find that lack of technical feasibility only excludes the supply of some repair and maintenance services on machinery and equipment through modes 1 and 2 from Canada's national treatment obligation. We also find that any eventual inherent disadvantages due to the foreign character of services supplied through modes 1 and 2 do not exempt Canada from its national treatment obligation with respect to the CVA requirements.[9]

（三）GATS市场准入与国民待遇之间的关系

就构成具体承诺组成部分的市场准入与国民待遇的关系来看，前者是后者的基础和前提。在货物贸易领域中，如果货物没有获得市场准入，那么就不能够进入国内市场，更无所谓能否享受国民待遇的问题；但在服务贸易领域中，由于服务并不需要通关手续就可以直接进入一国境内。市场准入与国民待遇就有着很紧密的联系。根据GATS第20条第2款的规定，如果某一种措施不符合市场准入的要求，同时也不符合国民待遇义务，就必须被列入服务贸易减让表中的市场准入一栏。此时，对市场准入的限制也构成了对国民待遇义务的限制。

（四）GATS中国民待遇的特点

与货物贸易和知识产权中的国民待遇不同，GATS的国民待遇仅适用于一国做了具体承诺的部门或方面，仅限于列入承诺减让表的部门并且要遵照其中所列的条件和资格，没有作出承诺的部门不适用国民待遇。相比其他领域中的国民待遇，GATS中的国民待遇具有以下特点。[10]

（1）GATS国民待遇规则属于特定义务，GATT的国民待遇属于普遍义务，适用于所有进口成员的商品，而无论进口成员方是否在关税减让表中对产品作出减让或承诺；GATS的国民待遇属于各成员特定承诺的义务，仅适用于列入承诺减让表、承诺给予国民待遇的部门，对于未纳入的部门则不承担国民待遇义务。

（2）GATS国民待遇属于有条件的国民待遇规则，GATT国民待遇规则适用是无条件的。GATS成员在某个部门或活动中是否给予国民待遇通常需要谈判，这种谈判往往在互惠基础上进行，因此作出国民待遇的承诺是有对价、有条件的。

（3）GATS国民待遇适用客体是任何其他成员的服务与服务提供者，GATT则只限于产品而不包括产品提供者，这种特点主要是由服务和服务提供者存在的特殊依附性所决定的。

（4）GATS国民待遇是有限制的国民待遇。GATT框架下的国民待遇不得附加任何限制条件；GATS则允许在开放市场实行国民待遇时保留维持本国政策法规对外国服务和服务提供者各种限制和资质要求的权利，但这些限制和要求必须经谈判明示列入承诺减让表。

（5）GATS国民待遇要求成员方不得改变内外国服务或服务提供者的竞争条件，较GATT“不低于国内同类产品待遇”的标准更加明确，其也更注重实际效果的保护而非形式上的保护。

（6）与GATT相比，GATS国民待遇与市场准入的关联程度不同。GATT项下的国民待遇有明确的适用起点，即产品在海关通过完成后，进入进口国国内市场时，才有权利享受国民待遇，进口产品在海关通关手续方面所享有的待遇属于最惠国待遇的范畴。而在GATS中，国民待遇与市场准入问题有着密切的联系，相关管理措施往往很难分开，在某些情况下，一国对服务贸易的市场准入与国民待遇措施往往是合二为一的。

（五）GATS国民待遇规则的例外

尽管GATS中的国民待遇规则具有具体承诺的性质，但其也存在例外的情况，这对于确保GATS成员大胆开放服务市场具有积极的作用。总的来看，GATS中的国民待遇规则主要有以下例外：一般例外措施（第14条之一）、安全例外措施（第14条之二）、政府采购例外（第13条）和经济一体化例外（第5条）等。

四、GATS具体服务部门谈判的进展

乌拉圭回合谈判结束后，各谈判方开始继续针对自然人流动、海运服务、金融服务、基础电信四个领域进行谈判，并在部分领域达成了最终的协议。

（一）关于自然人流动问题的谈判

各成员方于1995年7月就自然人流动问题达成了Annex on Movement of Natural Persons Supplying Services under the Agreement，但这一谈判的成果有限，各成员方均没有在具体承诺上作出太大的改进。2000年2月，WTO服务贸易理事会（Council for Trade in Service）决定正式开始服务贸易的新一轮谈判。在新一轮谈判中，自然人流动被认为是发展中成员参与本轮服务贸易谈判可以获益的主要领域之一，因此受到发展中成员的普遍关注。WTO认为，应当在本轮服务贸易谈判中重视和提高在发展中成员有出口利益的部门和服务提供方式的自由化水平，同时也指出，包括发展中国家在内的WTO成员对自然人流动自由化给予了特别关注。能否在这一领域取得进展，将在很大程度上影响到本轮服务贸易谈判甚至多哈回合谈判的进程和最终结果。

（二）关于海运服务的谈判

GATS《关于海运服务贸易谈判的决定》（Decision on Negotiations on Maritime Transport Services）规定，海运服务的谈判进行到1996年6月，届时WTO将实施谈判结果和谈判组最后报告所建议的其他行动，在此之前，GATS不适用于该部门，也不需要列明最惠国待遇例外清单。在谈判结果生效之前，成员方可以在不提供任何补偿的情况下修改或撤销其具体承诺。1996年6月28日，服务贸易理事会通过《关于海运服务贸易谈判的决定》，规定海运服务贸易谈判将在新一轮服务贸易谈判时开始恢复。2000年1月，服务贸易的新一轮谈判如期启动，海运服务由此被纳入到了本轮谈判的范畴。到目前为止，由于不同成员方在海运服务领域的观点差异太大，该部门的谈判尚未有任何阶段性的突破。

（三）关于基础电信服务贸易的谈判

电信服务业是国民经济的基础部门，关系着整个国民经济的良性运作。在GATS的谈判中，电信服务一直都是发达国家和发展中国家争议的焦点。乌拉圭回合谈判将电信服务贸易分为两大部分，一类是基础电信服务，另一类是增值电信服务。乌拉圭回合结束时，成员方仅仅对增值电信服务作出了具体承诺。由于各种原因，直到1997年2月15日，各方在WTO前总干事鲁杰罗的斡旋下才结束了关于基础电信市场准入的谈判，达成了《GATS第四议定书》（Annex on Telecommunications）。

《GATS第四议定书》及其附件（包括基础电信服务具体减让表和GATS第2条最惠国待遇的豁免清单）一并构成了《全球基础电信协定》。其中，《GATS第四议定书》只有不到一页纸的篇幅，而附件包括了69个WTO成员所提交的55份具体承诺表，这些附件是GATS 框架下关于电信服务承诺最实质性的部分。协定的参与方普遍承认继续进行的谈判将包括通过四种服务贸易方式提供的基础电信服务。在其加入各自的承诺清单中，载明了将最惠国待遇、国民待遇和市场准入适用于四种基础电信服务所作出的保留，大多数例外都与市场准入的承诺有关。

在《全球基础电信协定》达成后，有人对相关承诺将要实施的情况和效果都持比较乐观的态度，也有人认为这个协定可能会给发展中国家背上沉重的负担。为了对协定实施效果进行评估，经合组织（OECD）于1999年作出了一份题为《关于电信市场开放和贸易的考察》（A Review of Market Openness and Trade in Telecommunications）的工作报告，[11]从15个部分对协定的实施进行了全面细致的研究。该报告在指出协定实施过程中的诸多不足的同时，对协定本身为全球电信市场发展所起的推动作用也给予了高度的评价。

（四）关于金融服务的谈判

GATS中的金融服务（Financial Service）指的是所有保险以及与保险相关的服务和所有银行及其他金融服务（保险服务除外），是服务贸易最为重要的组成部分之一。乌拉圭回合谈判结束后，成员方就金融服务问题仅仅达成了两个附件——《金融服务附件》（Annex on Financial Services）和《金融服务的第二附件》（Second Annex on Financial Services），同时制定的规则还有《金融服务承诺谅解》。根据有关决议，金融服务的进一步谈判将于世界贸易组织协定生效后半年内进行。在谈判结束前夕，美国突然变卦，撤回了其所作出的无条件最惠国待遇承诺，致使谈判遭受重大打击。在经过多方协商后，美国撤销了在金融服务贸易领域中的最惠国待遇豁免清单，WTO成员最终达成了《全球金融服务贸易协定》（World Financial Service Agreement），全球金融服务贸易法律规则体系就此形成。在这项体系中，GATS作为服务贸易的一般规则自然适用于金融服务领域，GATS关于金融服务的两个附件与《全球金融服务贸易协定》是金融服务的具体法律制度，此外，《金融服务承诺谅解》中的内容在一定条件下也成为WTO金融服务贸易法律制度的重要组成部分。[12]

《全球金融服务贸易协定》是第一个规范国际金融服务贸易的多边协定，其对未来全球金融体系的发展必将产生深远的影响，这使得我们对于国际金融新秩序的形成有了似乎美好的憧憬，但该协议尚存在一些不足之处：如过多的最惠国待遇例外无疑削弱了该原则的法律效力，由于各国服务业发展水平的差异，有条件的最惠国待遇很可能维持较长的一段时期。金融服务贸易不仅涉及贸易行为，而且涉及跨国金融机构的对外直接投资行为，对外国直接投资的限制必将影响国际金融服务贸易的水平。种种迹象表明，包括投资在内的金融服务贸易的谈判，也许是发达国家和WTO下一步努力的方向。从这个意义上讲，金融服务贸易自由化与资本账户的自由化迟早会变成发展中国家必须面对的一个问题。由此可见，WTO与IMF在此问题上的合作将会进一步加深。

五、新一轮服务贸易多边谈判简述

根据GATS第19条的规定，各成员应该在WTO协定生效日起5年后开始定期举行连续回合的谈判，以减少或消除各种措施对于服务贸易的不利影响。因此，与WTO多哈回合谈判于2001年11月启动不同，服务贸易的新一轮谈判早在2000年1月1日就开始启动，这也被称为“GATS2000”。GATS2000由服务贸易理事会以特别会议的方式进行，并定期向WTO总理事会报告。2001年3月28日，服务贸易理事会通过了《服务贸易谈判的指南和程序》（Guide and Procedure in Negotiation of Service Trade），确立了谈判的目的、范围、模式和程序。根据这份文件的规定，服务贸易的谈判可以分为两大部分：一部分是GATS规则本身的谈判，包括对有关规则的澄清和完善；另一部分是关于服务市场进一步开放的具体承诺。前者由GATS的工作组通过多边谈判方式进行，后者则主要是双边谈判，但谈判结果基于最惠国待遇在多边基础上适用。此后，按照文件的规定，成员方进行了多次谈判，以下就针对新一轮服务贸易谈判中的核心问题进行一些简单的介绍。

（一）服务补贴

补贴在一些服务部门中是确保基本服务提供以及维持公共服务部门运作的重要政策工具，这一工具无论是在发达国家还是发展中国家都运用得比较频繁。鉴于不适当的补贴会冲击正常的国际贸易，GATS非常关注服务领域中的补贴问题。根据2001年《服务贸易谈判的指南和程序》，关于补贴的谈判应该在具体承诺谈判结束前完成。

在新一轮服务贸易谈判中，涉及服务补贴的问题主要有：服务补贴的定义；可能冲击服务贸易的补贴的判断因素；冲击贸易的服务补贴的概念；WTO现有规则对服务补贴的影响；更广义的补贴作用、发展中国家在谈判中的灵活性；是否应该增加新的规则来避免贸易冲击的效果等。[13]时至今日，关于服务贸易补贴问题的谈判尚未取得太大的进展。

（二）服务的政府采购

与货物贸易领域的政府采购不受GATT规则约束一样，政府的服务采购也不受GATS基本规则的约束，因此，各成员方的政府采购可能会构成国际服务贸易的障碍。据粗略统计，在某些服务部门中，政府采购的份额甚至会高达50%以上，而GATS规则对此并没有纪律约束，这无疑会极大降低成员所进行的服务自由化承诺的价值。因此，GATS第13条第2款规定，关于服务的政府采购问题应该在WTO协定生效之日起2年内进行谈判。GATS规则工作组于1995年12月开始讨论服务的政府采购问题，并在2003年6月30日就该问题提交一份比较全面的报告。但从目前情况看，该议题的进展非常缓慢，成员方对此主要有三种不同的主张：第一种主张认为，应该尽快将服务的政府采购纳入到多边谈判中来，应该在市场准入和国民待遇方面对政府采购进行明确的规定；第二种意见认为，GATS第13条并不包含最惠国待遇、国民待遇和市场准入方面的规则谈判，在其他领域没有得到对等利益的情况下开放更多的服务部门，这对于发展中国家来说是不能接受的；第三种意见则是在一定程度上折中了前两种意见，认为政府采购可以创造贸易机会，因此在晚些时候不应该排除有关市场准入和国民待遇规则的谈判，但需要对服务提供者有一定的保护措施。[14]

（三）服务贸易评估

GATS第19条第3款要求服务贸易委员会参照GATS的目标对服务贸易进行总体的和逐部门的评估，该项议题开始于1998年年底。成员方在2001年以前主要讨论的是GATS贸易评估机制所要实现的目标、评估所依赖的体系指标等问题，2001年《服务贸易谈判的指南和程序》通过后，讨论集中在对各成员服务贸易发展现状的评价上，焦点在于发展中国家成员是否真正从国际服务贸易自由化中得到了利益。发展中国家和发达国家对此存在着分歧：发达国家一味强调服务贸易自由化对整体经济发展的好处，发展中国家则认为自己在市场准入上的承诺并没有得到发达国家的互惠性准入，同时其参与自由化的过程给国内社会、政治和经济体制带来了很大的冲击，这在很大程度上抵消了自由贸易可能带来的利益。

除此之外，新一轮服务贸易谈判中的核心问题还包括自主性的贸易自由化待遇、经济需求标准、发展中国家成员的特殊和差别待遇等，这些问题在2005年12月的WTO香港部长级会议上均有所涉及。

从国际服务贸易的实践来看，每个国家在其有竞争力的服务部门和产品上都积极支持完全的自由化，而在其国际竞争力较弱的服务部门及产品上则或明或暗地实行贸易保护政策。由于发展中国家与发达国家经济发展水平的巨大差异及发展中国家在技术密集型、知识密集型服务部门上的劣势，致使发展中国家必然会针对保护国内服务部门进行长期的斗争。另外，虽然WTO鼓励发展中国家更多地参与服务贸易，但这一目标是通过协商达成的，是否能真正获得服务贸易的利益，完全依赖于各个成员方“讨价还价”的能力。从这个意义上讲，发展中国家作出各种积极的努力是非常有益的。

Case Study

UNITED STATES-MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER

SUPPLY OF GAMBLING AND BETTING SERVICES

WT/DS/285/AB/R

The Antiguan government has taken steps since the mid 1990s to build up a primarily Internet-based, “remote-access” gaming industry as part of its economic development strategy. In United States, internet-based gambling was prohibited according to the 1961 Wire Communications Act, and there are several States passing by laws also banning internet-based gambling. In 2003, the Congress adopted the Illegal Gambling Business Act, which provides that whoever conducts, finances, manages, supervises, directs or owns all or part of an illegal gambling business shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. At the same time, the Act restricted Americans to make payment to oversea gamble websites through credits and bank accounts. The measures above soon made the gaming industry of Antiguan going to pot.

In a communication dated 13 March 2003, Antigua requested consultations with the United States, and consultations were held on 30 April 2003, but these consultations did not resolve the dispute. Consequently, in a communication dated 12 June 2003, Antigua requested the DSB to establish a Panel. At its meeting on 21 July 2003, the DSB established a Panel pursuant to the request of Antigua in document WT/DS285/2. On 20 April 2005, DSB adopted the final report of the Appellate Body and the revised report of the Panel.

The issues to the case are the follows:has the United States undertaken specific commitments on gambling and betting Services? If the answer is negative, has the United States complied with its commitments? Is the US able to cite general exceptions? Here are the key points of the Panel and the Appellate Body:

V.Interpretation of the Specific Commitments Made by the United States in its GATS Schedule

163.In considering this section of the United States’ Schedule, the Panel stated that it would begin by “examining the ordinary meaning of various key terms used in the US Schedule.”The Panel examined the term “Other recreational services （except sporting）” in subsector 10.D, as well as the term “Entertainment services” in subsector 10.A. Having consulted the dictionary definitions of various words, the Panel found that “the ordinary meaning of ‘sporting’ does not include gambling”. The United States submits that the Panel could not have made this finding had it properly followed Article 31（1） of the Vienna Convention.

…

166.We have three reservations about the way in which the Panel determined the ordinary meaning of the word “sporting” in the United States’ Schedule. First, to the extent that the Panel's reasoning simply equates the “ordinary meaning” with the meaning of words as defined in dictionaries, this is, in our view, too mechanical an approach. Secondly, the Panel failed to have due regard to the fact that its recourse to dictionaries revealed that gambling and betting can, at least in some contexts, be one of the meanings of the word “sporting”. Thirdly, the Panel failed to explain the basis for its recourse to the meanings of the French and Spanish words “déportivos” and “sportifs” in the light of the fact that the United States’ Schedule explicitly states, in a cover note, that it “is authentic in English only.”

167.Overall, the Panel’s finding concerning the word “sporting” was premature. In our view, the Panel should have taken note that, in the abstract, the range of possible meanings of the word “sporting” includes both the meaning claimed by Antigua and the meaning claimed by the United States, and then continued its inquiry into which of those meanings was to be attributed to the word as used in the United States’ GATS Schedule.

…

176.We do not accept, as the Panel appears to have done, that, simply by requesting the preparation and circulation of these documents and using them in preparing their offers, the parties in the negotiations have accepted them as agreements or instruments related to the treaty. Indeed, there are indications to the contrary. …

178.In our opinion, therefore, the Panel erred in categorizing W/120 and the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines as “context” for the interpretation of the United States’ GATS Schedule. Accordingly, we set aside this part of the Panel's examination of “context”. There is, however, additional context referred to by the Panel and the participants that we must consider, namely: （i） the remainder of the United States’ Schedule of specific commitments; （ii） the substantive provisions of the GATS; （iii） the provisions of covered agreements other than the GATS; and （iv） the GATS Schedules of other Members.

186.Overall, we find it significant that the entries made by many Members in sector 10 of their Schedules contain text additional to the text found in the headings and sub-headings used by the United States （and used in W/120）. Such Members disaggregated their entries beyond the five subsectors identified in W/120 as falling within sector 10. This context does not, however, provide a definitive answer to the question whether, in the United States’ Schedule, gambling and betting services fall within the ordinary meaning of the word “sporting”,within the ordinary meaning of the term “other recreational services”, or elsewhere.

213.Based on our reasoning above, we reject the United States’ argument that, by excluding “sporting” services from the scope of its commitment in subsector 10.D, the United States excluded gambling and betting services from the scope of that commitment. Accordingly, we uphold, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.2（a） of the Panel Report, that:

… the United States’ Schedule under the GATS includes specific commitments on gambling and betting services under subsector 10.D.

Ⅵ. Article ⅩⅥ of the GATS: Market Access

214.Article ⅩⅥ of the GATS sets out specific obligations for Members that apply insofar as a Member has undertaken “specific market access commitments” in its Schedule. The first paragraph of Article ⅩⅥ obliges Members to accord services and service suppliers of other Members “no less favorable treatment than that provided for under the terms, limitations and conditions agreed and specified in its Schedule.” The second paragraph of Article ⅩⅥ defines, in six sub-paragraphs, measures that a Member, having undertaken a specific commitment, is not to adopt or maintain, “unless otherwise specified in its Schedule”. The first four sub-paragraphs concern quantitative limitations on market access; the fifth sub-paragraph covers measures that restrict or require specific types of legal entity or joint venture through which a service supplier may supply a service; and the sixth sub-paragraph identifies limitations on the participation of foreign capital.

215.The Panel found that the United States’ Schedule includes specific commitments on gambling and betting services, and we have upheld this finding.

218.The United States appeals both the Panel's interpretation of sub-paragraphs （a） and （c） of Article ⅩⅥ, as well as its application of those provisions to the measures at issue. We have already determined that the Panel should not have made findings under Article ⅩⅥ with respect to certain state laws because Antigua had not made out a prima facie case in respect of these measures. Having already reversed the Panel's findings regarding these state laws, we need not consider them further in our assessment of this part of the United States’ appeal. Accordingly, our analysis below is limited to a review of the Panel's interpretation of sub-paragraphs （a） and （c） of Article ⅩⅥ:2, as well as to its application of that interpretation to the three federal statutes at issue in this case.

250.The strict interpretation of Article ⅩⅥ:2（c） advanced by the United States would imply that only limitations that contain an express reference to numbered units could fall within the scope of that provision. Under such an interpretation, sub-paragraph （c） could not cover, for example, a limitation expressed as a percentage or described using words such as “a majority”. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for us to draw, in the abstract, the line between quantitative and qualitative measures, and we do not do so here. Yet we are satisfied that a prohibition on the supply of services in respect of which a full market access commitment has been undertaken is a quantitative limitation on the supply of such services.

251.In this case, the measures at issue, by prohibiting the supply of services in respect of which a market access commitment has been taken, amount to a “zero quota” on service operations or output with respect to such services. As such, they fall within the scope of Article ⅩⅥ:2（c）.

252.For all of these reasons, we uphold the Panel's finding, in paragraph 6.355 of the Panel Report, that a measure prohibiting the supply of certain services where specific commitments have been undertaken is a limitation:

… within the meaning of Article ⅩⅥ:2（c） because it totally prevents the services operations and/or service output through one or more or all means of delivery that are included in mode 1. In other words, such a ban results in a “zero quota” on one or more or all means of delivery include in mode 1.

265.We have upheld the Panel's finding that the United States’ Schedule to the GATS includes a specific commitment in respect of gambling and betting services. In that Schedule, the United States has inscribed “None” in the first row of the market access column for subsector 10.D. In these circumstances, and for the reasons given in this section of our Report, we also uphold the Panel's ultimate finding, in paragraph 7.2（b）（i） of the Panel Report, that, by maintaining the Wire Act, the Travel Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act, the United States acts inconsistently with its obligations under Article ⅩⅥ:1 and Article ⅩⅥ:2（a） and （c） of the GATS.

Ⅶ.Article ⅩⅣ of the GATS: General Exceptions

292.Article ⅩⅣ of the GATS, like Article ⅩⅩ of the GATT 1994, contemplates a “two-tier analysis” of a measure that a Member seeks to justify under that provision. A panel should first determine whether the challenged measure falls within the scope of one of the paragraphs of Article ⅩⅣ. This requires that the challenged measure address the particular interest specified in that paragraph and that there be a sufficient nexus between the measure and the interest protected. The required nexus—or “degree of connection”—between the measure and the interest is specified in the language of the paragraphs themselves, through the use of terms such as “relating to” and “necessary to”. Where the challenged measure has been found to fall within one of the paragraphs of Article ⅩⅣ, a panel should then consider whether that measure satisfies the requirements of the chapeau of Article ⅩⅣ.

311.If, however, the complaining party raises a WTO-consistent alternative measure that, in its view, the responding party should have taken, the responding party will be required to demonstrate why its challenged measure nevertheless remains “necessary” in the light of that alternative or, in other words, why the proposed alternative is not, in fact, “reasonably available”. If a responding party demonstrates that the alternative is not “reasonably available”, in the light of the interests or values being pursued and the party's desired level of protection, it follows that the challenged measure must be “necessary” within the terms of Article ⅩⅣ（a） of the GATS.

327. We find that the Wire Act, the Travel Act, and the IGBA are “measures … necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order”, within the meaning of paragraph （a） of Article ⅩⅣ of the GATS.

369.Thus, our conclusion—that the Panel did not err in finding that the United States has not shown that its measures satisfy the requirements of the chapeau—relates solely to the possibility that the IHA exempts only domestic suppliers of remote betting services for horse racing from the prohibitions in the Wire Act, the Travel Act, and the IGBA. In contrast, the Panel's overall conclusion under the chapeau was broader in scope. As a result of our reversal of one of the two findings on which the Panel relied for its conclusion in paragraph 6.607 of the Panel Report, we must modify that conclusion. We find, rather, that the United States has not demonstrated that—in the light of the existence of the IHA—the Wire Act, the Travel Act, and the IGBA are applied consistently with the requirements of the chapeau. Put another way, we uphold the Panel, but only in part.

372.Therefore, we modify the Panel's conclusion in paragraph 7.2（d） of the Panel Report. We find, instead, that the United States has demonstrated that the Wire Act, the Travel Act, and the IGBA fall within the scope of paragraph （a） of Article ⅩⅣ, but that it has not shown, in the light of the IHA, that the prohibitions embodied in these measures are applied to both foreign and domestic service suppliers of remote betting services for horse racing. For this reason alone, we find that the United States has not established that these measures satisfy the requirements of the chapeau. Here, too, we uphold the Panel, but only in part.

Ⅷ.Findings and Conclusions

373.For the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:

with respect to the United States’ GATS Schedule,

upholds, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding that subsector 10.D of the United States’ Schedule to the GATS includes specific commitments on gambling and betting services;

with respect to Article ⅩⅥ of the GATS,

upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.2（b）（i） of the Panel Report, that, by maintaining the Wire Act, the Travel Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act, the United States acts inconsistently with its obligations under Article ⅩⅥ:1 and sub-paragraphs （a） and （c） of Article ⅩⅥ:2;

reverses the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.2（b）（ii） of the Panel Report, that four state laws, namely, those of Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Utah, are inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under Article ⅩⅥ:1 and sub-paragraphs （a） and （c） of Article ⅩⅥ:2; and

with respect to Article ⅩⅣ of the GATS,

upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraph 6.487 of the Panel Report, that “the concerns which the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act seek to address fall within the scope of ‘public morals’ and/or ‘public order’”;

reverses the Panel's finding that, because the United States did not enter into consultations with Antigua, the United States was not able to justify the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act as “necessary” to protect public morals or to maintain public order;

as regards the chapeau of Article ⅩⅣ,

reverses the Panel's finding, in paragraph 6.589 of the Panel Report, that “the United States has failed to demonstrate that the manner in which it enforced its prohibition on the remote supply of gambling and betting services against TVG, Capital OTB and Xpressbet.com is consistent with the requirements of the chapeau”;

as regards Article ⅩⅣ in its entirety,

modifies the Panel's conclusion in paragraph 7.2（d） of the Panel Report and finds, instead, that the United States has demonstrated that the Wire Act, the Travel Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act are measures “necessary to protect public morals or maintain public order”, in accordance with paragraph （a） of Article ⅩⅣ, but that the United States has not shown, in the light of the Interstate Horseracing Act, that the prohibitions embodied in those measures are applied to both foreign and domestic service suppliers of remote betting services for horse racing and, therefore, has not established that these measures satisfy the requirements of the chapeau; and …

374.The Appellate Body recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States to bring its measures, found in this Report and in the Panel Report as modified by this Report to be inconsistent with the General Agreement on Trade in Services, into conformity with its obligations under that Agreement.

Concessions in Trade Services （USA）

Questions:

1.What is the exact meaning or connotation of the expression“none” in the column of “Limitations on Market Access” contained in USA. concession above?

2.Does the U.S law fall into the scope of the prohibitive measures in the meaning of Article 16.2, General Agreement on Trade of Service?

【复习思考题】

1.如何理解服务贸易减让表？

2.比较货物贸易和服务贸易领域中的国民待遇规则。

3.GATS中市场准入与国民待遇的联系。

4.服务贸易的提供方式。

[1] 曹建明、贺小勇：《世界贸易组织法》，北京，法律出版社，2004，第250页。

[2] 郭寿康、韩立余：《国际贸易法》，北京，中国人民大学出版社，2005，第356页。

[3] 曹建明、贺小勇：《世界贸易组织法》，北京，法律出版社，2004，第253页。

[4] Specific commitments assumed under this Article shall not be construed to require any Member to compensate for any inherent competitive disadvantages which result from the foreign character of the relevant services or service suppliers.

[5] 韩龙、张良：《论国民待遇在WTO法律体系中的科学定位》，载《江海学刊》，2006（1）。

[6] P. Eeckhout, The European Internal Market and International Trade: A Legal Analysis, Clarendon Press, 1994, p.208.

[7] 石静霞：《WTO服务贸易法专论》，北京，法律出版社，2006，第103页。

[8] Appellate Body Report on EC - Bananas Ⅲ, para. 241.

[9] Panel Report on Canada - Autos, paras. 10.300-10.301.

[10] 王毅：《WTO国民待遇在服务贸易和知识产权领域的适用》，载《法学研究》，2004（3）。

[11] Working Party on Telecommunication and Communications, Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy, OECD: A Review of Market Openness and Trade in Telecommunications, OILS, 16. September 1999.

[12] 曹建明、贺小勇：《世界贸易组织法》，北京，法律出版社，2004，第262页。

[13] WTO Working Party on GATS Rules: Negotiation on Subsidies （Article of GATS XV）-Checklists on Subsidies, Note from the Chairman, Job（03）/57, March 17, 2003.

[14] WTO Working Party on GATS Rules: Negotiation on Government Procurement, Report of the Chairperson of the WPGR, S/WPGR/11, June 30, 2003, paras.11-14.