Preferential Trade Agreements and Trade Liberalization Efforts in the OIC Member States
With Special Emphasis on the TPS-OIC
51
of Art.XXIV in the Agreement on goods such as the extent of the coverage of the proposed
liberalisation. However, it includes specificities associated with the provision of services. For
example, although it would be impossible to exclude some sectors, a priori, agreements should
not provide for the exclusion of a particular mode of provision. Specifically in terms of the
depth of the agreement, Art. V suggests that a compatible agreement should provide for the
elimination of existing discriminatory measures and/or the absence of the introduction of new
ones.
With respect to services disciplines, provisions tend to differ not only according to sectors
(countries tend to be reluctant to liberalise in "sensitive" sectors such as communication and
media or with additional policy implication such as financial services); but also with respect to
the way the service is provided. In this sense, there is a major distinction between those
services in which their provision does not require the local presence of the provider (e.g.
tourism or consultancy services provided from abroad) and those services where the presence
of the provider in the country is necessary (e.g. a foreign bank offering financial services or a
musician on tour). Depending on the country, they might be more or less inclined to liberalise
in one type of service provision as opposed to another. For example, some countries fear that
relaxed disciplines in mode 4 (Service delivered within the territory of the Member, with
supplier present as a natural person) might be in conflict with their immigration policies.
Although mode 4 provisions apply exclusively to the temporary movement of persons, it is
perceived as a risk for indiscriminate immigration. However, some limited provisions on mode
4 have been included in some FTAs such as the CARIFORUM EPA. But it is also true that mode
4 is not the only concern of countries when it comes to services liberalisation. The EU, for
example, has been a major proponent of liberalisation in mode 3 or foreign direct investment
in the EU-India, particularly in sectors such as telecommunications, financial services,
transport and energy services (Mukherjee and Goyal, 2013). The provisions on mode 3 tend to
be covered in many investment chapters such as in the NAFTA agreement where the other
three modes are treated in the services chapter.
In terms of scheduling, there are basically two approaches on which services liberalisation is
based: negative and positive lists. The positive list approach (based on the GATS type) requests
the specification of all the sectors and disciplines that would be liberalised. The negative list
(an approach followed in the NAFTA) requires the specification of the sectors and disciplines
that will not be liberalised. It is recognised that those agreements based on negative lists have
a deeper impact in terms of liberalisation as de facto they tend to include more sectors.
(Marchetti and Roy, 2008). There is a third hybrid approach, on which the European Union is
based that takes elements from both types of schedules.