Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:55:56.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services (WT/DS204/R) A Comment on “El mess in TELMEX”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Damien J. Neven  and
Petros C. Mavroidis
Damien J. Neven
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva and Centre for Economic Policy Research, London
Petros C. Mavroidis
Affiliation:
Columbia Law School, New York and University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This chapter reviews the panel report on Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunication Services. The Panel considered claims by the United States that Mexico acted inconsistently with its obligations in respect to the liberalization of its market for telecommunication services. It is the first Panel to consider solely the rules agreed upon in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). It is also the first Panel to deal with the telecommunication services industry and its complex layers of legislation, in particular the rules agreed to in the Telecommunications Reference Paper (TRP) on pro-competitive regulatory principles. Viewed from this perspective, this report is, because of its potential as a precedent, of particular significance.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 5 , Special Issue S1: WTO Case Law of 2003 , 2006 , pp. 188 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

References

M, Armstrong. (2002). The theory of access pricing and interconnection, In The Handbook of Telecommunications Economics, Caves, , et al., eds. Chapter 8 Vol. 1., Elsevier Science: North Holland, pp. 295–384.Google Scholar
M, Bronckers. and P, Larouche. (2005). The GATS Mimeo.Google Scholar
E, Fox. (2002). What is harm to competition? Exclusionary practices and anticompetitive effects, Antitrust Law Journal, 70: 371–413.Google Scholar
J, Hausman. (2002). Mobile Telephone. In Handbook of Telecommunications Economics, Caves, , et al., eds. Vol. 1, Elsevier Science: North Holland, pp. 563–604.Google Scholar
B, Hoekman., Messerlin, P. and P.C, Mavroidis. (1998). Regulation, competition policyand market access negotiations: lessons from the telecommunications sector. In Competition and Trade Policies, Einar Hope ed. Routledge: New York, pp. 115–139.Google Scholar
F, Jenny. (2003). International Cooperation on competition: myth, reality, and perspective, Antitrust Bulletin, 48: 973–1003.Google Scholar
J.-J, Laffont. (1998). Competition, information and development, Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, pp. 237–268.Google Scholar
P, Mardsen. (2004). Trade and competition. WTO decides first competition case — with disappointing results, Competition Law Insight, 16(3), pp. 3–9.Google Scholar
P.C, Mavroidis. and D.J, Neven. (2000). The WTO agreement on telecommunications: it’s never too late. In The Liberalization of State Monopolies in the European Union and Beyond, Geradin, D., ed. Kluwer: London, pp. 307–318.Google Scholar
G, Sidak. and Singer, H.. (2004). Überregulation without economics: the world trade organization’s decision in the US-Mexico arbitration on telecommunication services Mimeo.Google Scholar