The entry into force of the General Agreement on Trade in Services in 1995 marked a new stage in the history of the multilateral system. Given the peculiarities of services trade, the Agreement contains a variety of conceptual innovations, including its extension to transactions (modes of supply), beyond conventional cross-border trade, and various types of non-tariff restrictions. In turn, the new concepts needed time to be absorbed by the ministries and agencies involved, many of which might have been surprised by ‘their’ sectors being covered by a trade agreement and the ensuing government-internal coordination needs. Thus, understandably, the schedules that emerged from the Uruguay Round, which still account for the majority of current commitments, contain a variety of ill-specified entries. Such entries undermine the transparency and predictability of market conditions, thereby affecting trade and investment decisions in services. Poorly specified commitments also give rise to trade disputes. While the scheduling conventions agreed for the Doha Round provided for technical refinements that would leave the substance of commitments unchanged, this possibility was used far more sparingly than could have been expected. Moreover, additional flaws would have been introduced if some of the (preliminary) offers had entered into effect. The following discussion tries to explain the scope for refinements and develop a clearer picture of the commitments warranting correction – whether in the form of a final Doha Round outcome or through negotiation-independent action by WTO Members.

On 15 August 1971, President Richard Nixon closed the gold window and imposed a 10% surcharge on all dutiable imports in an effort to force other countries to revalue their currencies against the dollar. The import surcharge was lifted four months later after the Smithsonian agreement led to new exchange rate parities. This paper examines the political, economic, and legal issues surrounding this use of trade sanctions to achieve exchange rate adjustments.

We compute ad valorem equivalents (AVEs) for the regulation in three service sectors (i.e. fixed telecom, mobile telecom, distribution) applied by selected emerging countries. We start with qualitative information on the restrictions applied by each country in each sector; we apply a multivariate statistical approach to transform this qualitative data into a trade restrictiveness synthetic index (STRI). In a second stage, we estimate the average impact of STRI on price–cost margins. In the third stage, this impact is used to calculate the AVE of the STRI estimated in the first step. It is shown that the STRI has a significant effect on the price–cost margins of the individual firms only when controlled for Regional Trade Agreements and exception to the MFN clause in the considered sector. Lastly, we compute tariff equivalents for the STRIs previously calculated using the estimated impact. More than half our AVEs are larger than 50% and one AVE out of six is above 100%.