1 Sometimes referred to as the Financial Services Committee, it should not be confused with the Financial Services Committees of either NAFTA or the U.S. House of Representatives.Google Scholar

2 S/L/1, 4 April 1995, para. 3.Google Scholar

3 See Hernekamp, Juliane, Ausgewählte Dienstleistungssektoren, in WTO-Recht 418 (Meinhard Hilf & Stefan Oeter eds., 2005); Morrison, Peter, The Liberalisation of Trade in Financial Services and the General Agreement on Trade in Services, 5 Singapore Journal of International & Comparative Law 593, 593 (2001); Jarreau, J. Steven, Interpreting the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the WTO Instruments Relevant to the International Trade of Financial Services, 25 North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation 1, 8 (1999).Google Scholar

4 LT/UR/U/1, 15 April 1994.Google Scholar

5 WT/L/432, 23 November 2001, Section 18.Google Scholar

6 For the author and a co-author's full analysis of financial services under GATS, see Bogdandy, Armin von & Windsor, Joseph, Annex on Financial Services, in VI Max Planck Commentaries on World Trade Law 640–666 (Rüdiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll & Clemens Feinäugle eds., 2008).Google Scholar

7 Art. I:3(b) GATS in conjunction with paras. 1(b)-(d), 5(b)-(c) of the Annex on Financial Services.Google Scholar

8 A useful (albeit partially outdated) list of schedules is: Financial services commitments and MFN exemptions, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/finance_e/finance_commitments_e.htm. See also Schedules of commitments and lists of Article II exemptions, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/serv_commitments_e.htm#commit_exempt.Google Scholar

9 S/L/11, 24 July 1995.Google Scholar

10 S/L/45, 3 December 1997.Google Scholar

11 See S/FIN/W/29/Rev.1, 17 September 2003.Google Scholar

12 Trade: At Daggers Drawn, The Economist 17, 22, 8–14 May 1999.Google Scholar

13 For an overview of WTO structure and subsidiary bodies, see WTO organization chart, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org2_e.htm.Google Scholar

14 Arts. 4–5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).Google Scholar

15 See generally Key, Sydney J., Trade liberalization and prudential regulation, 75 International Affairs 61, 69–70 (1999); Zaring, David, Informal Procedure, Hard and Soft, in International Administration, 5 Chicago Journal of International Law 547, 585–592 (2004-2005).Google Scholar

16 Important international financial regulatory organizations include the OECD, the Bank for International Settlement (BIS) and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), the International Organization of Securities Commissioners (IOSCO), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), as well as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).Google Scholar

17 See Zaring (note 15), at 594–595 (“the regulatory cooperation studied here transcends the concept [of ‘soft law’ in international relations] … Even if it is nonbinding, how does that matter if it is obeyed? … In this sense, regulatory cooperation, both hard and soft, amounts to administration by agreement in a way just as substantial as agreement by treaty”).Google Scholar

18 33 ILM 1144 (1994).Google Scholar

19 Art. IV WTO Agreement.Google Scholar

20 Art. IV:5 WTO Agreement.Google Scholar

21 See Whose WTO is it anyway?, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org1_e.htm. This excludes other sub-committees, negotiating groups, and working parties on the accession of specific candidates. See WTO Bodies & other Entities, Chairpersons and associated document series, available at: http://www.members.wto.org/bodiesandseries/Public/main.asp.Google Scholar

22 The most recent is S/FIN/18, 13 November 2007. The minutes of the meeting on 12 November 2007 are contained in S/FIN/M/55, 16 November 2007. As of May 2008, this was the most recent meeting, with a meeting scheduled for 3 June 2008.Google Scholar

23 WT/L/31, 7 February 1995.Google Scholar

24 See Current WTO chairpersons, available at: http://www.192.91.247.23/english/thewto_e/secre_e/current_chairs_e.htm.Google Scholar

25 Regarding the Second Protocol, see S/L/13, 24 July 1995, para. 3; regarding the Fifth Protocol, see S/L/44, 3 December 1997, para. 3.Google Scholar

26 See Status of acceptances of the fifth protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/finance_e/finance_status_5prot_e.htm; S/FIN/M/53, 30 November 2006, paras. 3–7.Google Scholar

27 WT/L/432, 23 November 2001. See also Xin Zhang, Implementation of the WTO Agreements, 23 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 383, 408–410 (2003).Google Scholar

28 See Qin, Julia Ya, WTO Regulation of Subsidies to State-owned Enterprises (SOEs) – A Critical Appraisal of the China Accession Protocol, 7 Journal of International Economic Law 863 (2004); Zhang (note 27), at 409–410.Google Scholar

29 See Steinberg, William, Monitor with No Teeth, 6 University of California Davis Business Law Journal 2, section IV (2005).Google Scholar

30 See Schmidt-Aßmann, in this issue (“Here, even more than in national administrative law, it holds true: administrative law is first and foremost law on the administration of information!”); Esty, Daniel C., Good Governance at the Supranational Scale, 115 Yale Law Journal 1490, 1533 (2006).Google Scholar

31 In Black's Law Dictionary 1358 (Garner, Bryan A., Editor in Chief, 8th ed., 2004) informal rulemaking is defined as: Agency rulemaking in which the agency publishes a proposed regulation and receives public comments on the regulation, after which the regulation can take effect without the necessity of a formal hearing on the record. Informal rulemaking is the most common procedure followed by an agency in issuing its substantive rules. – Also termed notice-and-comment rulemaking. Google Scholar

32 For an account of financial services negotiations, see von Bogdandy & Windsor (note 6), at margin nos. 4–12.Google Scholar

33 S/FIN/M/3, 29 May 1995, paras. 6–7; S/FIN/M/7, 26 July 1995, paras. 19–20.Google Scholar

34 See S/FIN/M/52, 4 May 2006, para. 4; S/FIN/M/53, 30 November 2006, paras. 4–5.Google Scholar

35 The United States, Japan, Switzerland, and the European Communities have recently expressed concern over the delays. S/FIN/M/52, 4 May 2006, para. 5; S/FIN/16, 28 November 2006, para. 2.Google Scholar

36 Transitional review sessions have apparently been extensive, judging from the number of paragraphs covered in the minutes of meetings: S/FIN/M/37, 24 October 2002, paras. 11–71; S/FIN/M/43, 4 December 2003, paras. 21–74; S/FIN/M/47, 26 November 2004, paras. 14–77; S/FIN/M/50, 23 September 2005, paras. 6–55; S/FIN/M/53, 30 November 2006, paras. 12–73; S/FIN/19, 14 November 2007, paras. 30–106.Google Scholar

37 The six reports thus far have been formulaic: S/FIN/7, 25 October 2002, S/FIN/11, 4 December 2003; S/FIN/13, 26 November 2004; S/FIN/15, 23 September 2005; S/FIN/17, 30 November 2006; S/FIN/19, 14 November 2007.Google Scholar

38 For positive comments, see S/FIN/M/47, 26 November 2004, paras. 37, 51; S/FIN/M/50, 23 September 2005, paras. 39, 46; Zhang (note 27), 408–410. For negative remarks, see S/FIN/M/50, 23 September 2005, para. 47; S/FIN/M/53, 30 November 2006, paras. 48, 71; Steinberg (note 29), sections IV-V.Google Scholar

39 S/L/1, 24 July 1995.Google Scholar

40 S/FIN/M/7, 26 July 1995, para. 17.Google Scholar

41 S/FIN/M/8, 26 July 1995, para. 4.Google Scholar

42 Esty (note 30), at 1503–1504. However, unchallenged institutional practice can itself clarify powers. See José E. Alvarez, International Organizations as Law-makers 87 et seq. (2005).Google Scholar

43 In the Secretariat's explanation quoted above, this is indeed assumed. It seems indisputable that the CTS's mandate to “oversee the functioning of [GATS]” (Art. IV:5 WTO Agreement) includes adoption of agreements such as the Second and Fifth Protocols.Google Scholar

44 S/L/13, 24 July 1995, para. 3; S/L/44, 3 December 1997, para. 3 (omits “on Trade in Financial Services”).Google Scholar

45 Institutional Decision, para. 2(f); Arts. VII:5, XXVI GATS; Art. V WTO Agreement.Google Scholar

46 See International intergovernmental organizations granted observer status to WTO bodies, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/igo_obs_e.htm.Google Scholar

47 WT/L/161, 25 July 1996, Annex 3; S/FIN/M/13, 29 April 1997, para. 5; S/FIN/M/26, 29 June 2000, para. 44; S/FIN/M/28, 20 November 2000, para. 31.Google Scholar

48 S/FIN/M/31, 1 June 2001, para. 16; S/FIN/M/32, 9 November 2001, paras. 43–44.Google Scholar

49 S/FIN/M/34, 26 April 2002, paras. 27–32; S/FIN/M/35, 8 July 2002, paras. 36–37.Google Scholar

50 S/FIN/M/39, 7 April 2003, paras. 56–57.Google Scholar

51 S/FIN/M/39, 7 April 2003, paras. 12–18.Google Scholar

52 S/FIN/M/44, 21 April 2004, paras. 25–62.Google Scholar

53 S/FIN/M/55, 16 November 2007, paras. 12–29.Google Scholar

54 WT/L/161, 25 July 1996, Annex 3; Institutional Decision, para. 2(f).Google Scholar

55 S/FIN/M/32, 9 November 2001, para. 44; S/FIN/M/54, 2 July 2007, paras. 15–22.Google Scholar

56 Gkoutzinis, Apostolos, International Trade in Banking Services and the Role of the WTO, 39 International Lawyer 877, 902 (2005).Google Scholar

57 Charnovitz, Steve, Opening the WTO to Nongovernmental Interests, 24 Fordham International Law Journal 173, 199–200 (2000).Google Scholar

58 Steinberg (note 29), at sections III-IV; Zhang (note 27), at 408–409.Google Scholar

59 WT/L/452, 16 May 2002.Google Scholar

60 S/FIN/M/35, 8 July 2002, para. 19; S/FIN/M/37, 24 October 2002, para. 83.Google Scholar

61 See S/FIN/M/54, 2 July 2007, para. 20.Google Scholar

62 Para. 5(b) of the Annex on Financial Services defines “financial service supplier” as “any natural or juridical person of a Member wishing to supply or supplying financial services but the term ‘financial service supplier’ does not include a public entity.” See von Bogdandy & Windsor (note 6), margin nos. 20–21.Google Scholar

63 See BIS, Basel II: Revised international capital framework, available at: http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsca.htm; Barr, Michael S. & Miller, Geoffrey P., Global Administrative Law, 17 European Journal of International Law 15 (2006).Google Scholar

64 This abundance of “multilateral international institutions and standard-setting bodies with a mandate to discuss the international financial regulatory and supervisory framework” contributed to the adoption of the prudential carve-out in para. 2(a) of the GATS Annex on Financial Services as a means of limiting WTO law's (and thus, by extension, the Committee's) impact on domestic regulatory autonomy. Gkoutzinis (note 56), 902–904. Due to the potential fragmentation, “soft regulatory convergence on the basis of international standards and codes” has been suggested in place of attempts to harden regulations. Id., 913–914.Google Scholar

65 See, e.g., S/C/26, 1 December 2006, para. 8, Annex I.Google Scholar

66 S/C/3, 6 November 1996, paras. XXXIV-XL, XLIII.Google Scholar

67 See S/C/26, 1 December 2006, para. 2; S/C/M/85, 12 December 2006, paras. 20–21.Google Scholar

68 See the chapeau and para. 2(b)-(c).Google Scholar

69 But see Wallach, Lori M., Accountable Governance in the Era of Globalization, 50 University of Kansas Law Review 823, 826–841, 862–864 (2002).Google Scholar

70 For the WTO's own assertion of principles, see Principles of the trading system, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm.Google Scholar

71 See The case for open trade, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact3_e.htm; Alan O. Sykes, Comparative Advantage and the Normative Economics of International Trade Policy, 1 Journal of International Economic Law 49 (1998).Google Scholar

72 See preambular paras. 2, 4–6, Arts. III:4, IV, V:3, XV:1, XIX:2, XXV:2 GATS. The Institutional Decision, para. 2(e), also mandates the CTFS “to provide technical assistance to developing country Members and developing countries negotiating accession to the [WTO].”Google Scholar

73 See Murinde, Victor & Ryan, Cillian, Globalization, the WTO and GATS, in Handbook of International Banking 751–763 (Andrew W. Mullineux & Victor Murinde eds., 2003); Isabel Lipke & Myriam Vander Stichele, Finanzdienstleistungen in der WTO: Lizenz zum Kassieren? 37–38 (World Economy, Ecology & Development ed., 2003).Google Scholar

74 Para. 2(a) Annex on Financial Services. See von Bogdandy & Windsor (note 6), at margin nos. 22–24. The Committee debated on the prudential carve-out during seven meetings in 2000–2001 (S/FIN/M/25-31).Google Scholar

75 Esty (note 30), at 1536–1537. The principle can be seen as a specific instance of the principle of subsidiarity, applicable in politically charged situations to maintain or increase accountability, and divorced from geographical considerations.Google Scholar

76 Id. at 1536.Google Scholar

77 S/FIN/M/37, 24 October 2002, para. 83.Google Scholar

78 See also von Bogdandy & Windsor (note 6), at margin nos. 29–30.Google Scholar

79 Leroux, Eric H., Trade in Financial Services under the World Trade Organization, 36 Journal of World Trade 413, 432 (2002).Google Scholar

80 For a Committee debate about what role the Committee and the WTO have in standard-setting, see S/FIN/M/42, 12 November 2003, paras. 49–69.Google Scholar

81 See, supra, note 63; The Joint Forum, Core Principles: Cross-sectoral Comparison (BIS ed., 2001), available at: http://www.bis.org/publ/joint03.pdf.Google Scholar

82 Zaring (note 15), at 580–585.Google Scholar

83 Id. at 583.Google Scholar

84 Id. at 592 (“Whatever standard is chosen has a good chance of developing an adoptive momentum by virtue of the advantages regulators see in being a part of the ‘network’ of regulators applying the same schema to their regulated industry”); Malloy, Michael P., Emerging International Regime of Financial Services Regulation, 18 Transnational Lawyer 329, 347–349 (2005) (“[Basel II] seems to represent the emergence of a new kind of source of law: an international administrative practice involving rule proposal for public comment, revision in light of public comments, and adoption, implementation, and enforcement at the national level”).Google Scholar

85 See Venzke, in this issue.Google Scholar

86 Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch & Stewart, Richard B., The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 Law & Contemporary Problems 15, 27 (2004-2005).Google Scholar

87 Woods, Ngaire & Narlikar, Amrita, Governance and the limits of accountability, 53 International Social Science Journal 569, 577 (2001).Google Scholar

88 See Kingsbury, Krisch & Stewart, (note 86), at 29–31.Google Scholar