World Trade Organization



Download 2.48 Mb.
Page1/91
Date19.01.2021
Size2.48 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   91

WT/DS285/R
Page



World Trade

Organization







WT/DS285/R

10 November 2004






(04-2687)










Original: English


united States – measures affecting the

cross-border supply of gambling

and betting services


Report of the Panel
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

II. introduction 1

III. conclusions requested by the parties 2

IV. arguments of the parties 2

A. Factual arguments 2

B. Legal arguments 15

1. Applicability of the GATS 15

2. As to whether the United States has undertaken a specific commitment on gambling and betting services 16

3. The measure(s) at issue 31

4. GATS Article XVI 50

5. GATS Article XVII 58

(a) "Likeness" of services and service suppliers 58

(b) Treatment no less favourable 87

6. GATS Article VI 94

7. GATS Article XI 96

8. GATS Article XIV 98

V. ARGUMENTS OF THE third parties 113

A. Canada 113

B. European Communities 118

C. Japan 127

D. Mexico 129

E. Chinese Taipei 130



VI. Interim Section 130

A. Public release of the confidential Interim Report 130

B. Editorial/typographical changes 132

C. Members' right to regulate and to prohibit gambling and betting services 132

D. The US Schedule 132

E. Measures affecting the cross-border supply of trade in services 133

F. Article XIV 134

VII. FINDINGS 134

A. Introduction 134



1. Terms of reference of this Panel 134

2. Structure of this Panel Report 135

3. Interpretation of WTO provisions 135

4. Burden of proof 137

5. Judicial economy 138

6. Definitional issues 139

(a) Definition of "gambling and betting services" 139

(b) "Cross-border" and "remote" supply 141

B. Has the united states undertaken specific commitments on gambling and betting Services? 142



1. Claims and main arguments of the parties 142

2. Assessment by the Panel 144

(a) Method of interpretation to be adopted by the Panel 144

(b) Application of the general rules of treaty interpretation to this case 147

(i) Effective interpretation 147

(ii) Ordinary meaning of the term 147

(iii) ... ordinary meaning ... in light of the context ... 151

1993 Scheduling Guidelines and W/120 as part of the context 152

Interpreting the US Schedule in the context of document W/120 and the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines 155

Other Members' GATS Schedules as part of the context for the interpretation of the US Schedule 158

The US Schedule as context for the interpretation of sub‑sector 10.D 159

(iv) ... ordinary meaning in light of the object and purpose of the treaty 160

(v) Conclusions under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention 161

(vi) Supplementary means of interpretation 161

Preparatory work 162

Cover-notes to US draft Schedules during the Uruguay Round 162

Other supplementary means of interpretation 164

US practice – USITC Document 164

(c) Conclusion 167

(d) Final comments 167

C. The measure(s) at issue 168



1. Claims and main arguments of the parties 168

2. Relevant WTO provisions 169

3. Assessment by the Panel 170

(a) "Measures" being challenged 170

(i) Legal standard relating to the identification of the measures being challenged 170

(ii) Identification of "measures" by Antigua in this dispute 171

(b) Can Antigua challenge a "total prohibition" on the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services under US law as a measure in and of itself in the present dispute? 175

(c) Measures that the Panel should consider in determining whether the GATS has been violated 179

(i) Specific applications 180

(ii) Practice 181

(iii) Laws 182

Laws referred to and/or discussed in Antigua's submissions but not contained in Antigua's Panel request 185

Laws contained in the Panel request but not discussed to an extent that could enable Antigua to provide a prima facie demonstration 186

Laws contained in the Panel request and discussed in Antigua's submissions 187

Federal laws 187

State laws 188

Colorado 188

Louisiana 189

Massachusetts 189

Minnesota 190

New Jersey 190

New York 191

South Dakota 192

Utah 192


(iv) Summary 193

(d) "Measures ... affecting trade in services" 193

D. Claims of violation of the united states' market access commitment under Article xvi of the gats 194

1. Claims and main arguments of the parties 194

2. Relevant GATS provisions 195

3. Assessment by the Panel 196

(a) Introduction 196

(b) Interpretation and scope of Article XVI 196

(i) The first paragraph of Article XVI 196

"None" inscribed under "Market Access Limitations" 197

"Mode 1" and its inherent "means of delivery" 199

Restrictions with respect to certain services covered in a sector or sub-sector 201

(ii) The second paragraph of Article XVI 201

(iii) The scope of the first and second paragraphs of Article XVI 203

Ordinary meaning 203

The context: the relationship between Articles XVI, XVII, XVIII, VI:4 and 5 203

Object and purpose of the GATS 206

(iv) Conclusion 207

(c) Interpretation of Article XVI:2(a) and Article XVI:2(c) 207

(i) Article XVI:2, subparagraph (a) 207

Service suppliers 207

Illustrative or exhaustive list of limitations? 207

"Limitations on the number of service suppliers in the form of numerical quotas" 208

Limitation on all or part of a scheduled commitment 209

Limitation on one, several or all means of delivery under mode 1 209

(ii) Article XVI:2, subparagraph (c) 210

Limitations "expressed ... in the form of a quota" 210

Service operations or service output 211

Limitation on all or part of a scheduled commitment 212

Limitation on one, several or all means of delivery under mode 1 212

(d) Application of the legal standard to the facts of this case 212

(i) US commitment on market access 212

(ii) Measures at issue 213

Federal laws 213

The Wire Act 213

The Travel Act 214

The Illegal Gambling Business Act 216

State laws 217

Colorado 217

Louisiana 218

Massachusetts 219

Minnesota 220

New Jersey 221

New York 222

South Dakota 223

Utah 224

Cumulative Effect of the Wire Act, the Travel Act (when read together with relevant state laws) and the Illegal Gambling Business Act (when read together with the state laws of Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Utah) 225

(iii) Conclusion 225

E. Claims of violation of the united states' national treatment commitment under Article xvii of the gats 226



1. Claims and main arguments of the parties 226

2. Assessment by the Panel 226

F. Claims of violation under Article vi of the gats 227



1. Claims and main arguments of the parties 227

2. Relevant GATS provisions 227

3. Assessment by the Panel 228

G. Claim under Article xi of the gats 229



1. Claims and main arguments of the parties 229

2. Relevant GATS provisions 230

3. Assessment by the Panel 230

H. Defence under Article xiv of the gats 231



1. Claims and main arguments of the parties 231

2. Relevant GATS provisions 231

3. Assessment by the Panel 232

(a) Introduction 232

(b) Measures at issue 233

(c) Provisional justification under Article XIV(a) 233

(i) The legal standard under Article XIV(a) 233

Measures ... to "protect public morals" or to "maintain public order" 234

Measures "necessary" to protect public morals or to maintain public order 237

(ii) Applying the legal standard under Article XIV(a) to the facts of this case 238

Are the challenged measures so as to "protect public morals" or to "maintain public order" within the meaning of Article XIV(a)? 238

Are the challenged measures "necessary" to protect public morals or to maintain public order? 240

Importance of interests or values protected 240

Contribution to ends pursued 241

Trade impact 242

"Weighing and Balancing" 251

Overall conclusion on whether the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act are provisionally justified under Article XIV(a) 252

(d) Provisional justification under Article XIV(c) 252

(i) The legal standard under Article XIV(c) 252

Measures to "secure compliance" with laws or regulations 252

"Laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement" 253

Measure "necessary" to secure compliance with laws or regulations 253

(ii) Applying the legal standard under Article XIV(c) to the facts of this case 254

What are the "laws and regulations" relied upon by the United States? 254

Do the challenged measures secure compliance with the RICO statute? 255

Existence of a measure that "secures compliance" with the RICO statute 255

"Necessity" of the measure taken to secure compliance 256

Overall conclusion on whether the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act are provisionally justified under Article XIV(c) 258

(e) The chapeau of Article XIV 258

(i) The legal standard under the chapeau of Article XIV 259

(ii) Application of the legal standard under the chapeau of Article XIV to the facts of this case 262

Enforcement against local suppliers 262

Video lottery terminals 264

Interstate Horseracing Act 265

Nevada 266

Letters from the President of the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries 267

Conclusion 267

(f) Overall conclusion on Article XIV 268






Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   91




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page