Some activist groups believe that GATS risks undermining the ability and authority of governments to regulate commercial activities within their own borders, which will lead to the flight of power from the commercial interests of citizens. In 2003, the GATSwatch network published a critical opinion, supported by more than 500 organizations in 60 countries. [1] At the same time, countries are not required to enter into international agreements such as the GATS. For countries that like to attract trade and investment, GATS adds a degree of transparency and legal predictability. Legal barriers to trade in services may have legitimate political reasons, but they can also be an effective instrument for large-scale corruption. [2] The rules on market access and national treatment are not general requirements, but specific commitments that are included in the GATS schedules and are an integral part of the agreement. These schedules define the services and services for which market access is provided and define the conditions for that access. After consolidation, these obligations can only be amended or withdrawn after negotiating compensation with the country concerned. Thus, each member must not treat the services and service providers of another member less favourably than under the conditions set out in its schedule. The GATS agreement has been criticized for replacing the authority of national law and justice with that of an GATS dispute resolution body that holds closed hearings.
Spokespeople for WTO government members have an obligation to reject this criticism because they had previously pledged to recognize the benefits of the dominant trade principles of competition and “liberalization. The agreement is also based on the principle of dealing with issues. In the sectors listed on each member`s list, each Member State treats, under its conditions, products from another Member State no less favourably than its own domestic products. The GATS foresees negotiations that will begin within five years in order to achieve a higher level of liberalization of trade in services. This liberalization will aim to strengthen the commitments set out in the timetables and reduce the negative effects of the measures taken by governments. In addition, members who enter into a free trade agreement or customs union can liberalize trade in services among themselves without having to extend the agreement to other GATS members. However, their bilateral or regional agreement must have significant sectoral coverage and aim to reduce or avoid discrimination. This definition defines virtually all public services as “commercial” and already covers areas such as the police, the military, prisons, justice, public administration and government. In a relatively short period of time, this could apply to the privatization or commercialization of a large part, and perhaps to all those who are now considered public services that are currently considered social requirements for the entire population of a country, structured, marketed, under-distributed to for-profit suppliers and ultimately fully privatized and are only available to those who can pay the price. This process is currently well advanced in most countries, usually (and deliberately) without properly informing the public or consulting whether this is what they want or not.