IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v7y2008i01p71-113_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (DS 285)

Author

Listed:
  • IRWIN, DOUGLAS A.
  • WEILER, JOSEPH

Abstract

The controversial gambling decision of the Appellate Body is mostly important because of examination of the nature of Access under Article XVI GATS, the relationship of that Article to Articles XIV and XVII GATS, and the parallels with Articles III, XI, and XX GATT. Notably, the Appellate Body took the position that an apparant internal regulatory measure, which, nonetheless, had equivalent effect to a zero quota, violated Article XVI GATS. A similar measure in the area of goods would have been examined under Article III GATT and require a showing of discrimination. The facts of the case would have allowed the decision to be based on Article XVII GATS. Most of this paper deals with this issue. We agree with this interpretation of Article XVI by the Appellate Body but are critical of its hermeneutics, suffering from a textual fetish and a policy phobia. Some other elements in the decision are also examined critically.

Suggested Citation

  • Irwin, Douglas A. & Weiler, Joseph, 2008. "Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (DS 285)," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 71-113, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:7:y:2008:i:01:p:71-113_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474745608003674/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Staiger, Robert & Bagwell, Kyle & Bown, Chad, 2015. "Is the WTO Passé?," CEPR Discussion Papers 10672, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Kyle Bagwell & Chad P. Bown & Robert W. Staiger, 2016. "Is the WTO Passé?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1125-1231, December.
    3. Bown, Chad & Crowley, Meredith A., 2016. "The Empirical Landscape of Trade Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 11216, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Bernard M. Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2015. "A Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement for Services?," RSCAS Working Papers 2015/25, European University Institute.
    5. Bond, Eric W. & Trachtman, Joel, 2016. "China–Rare Earths: Export Restrictions and the Limits of Textual Interpretation," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 189-209, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:7:y:2008:i:01:p:71-113_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/wtr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.