The GATS Schedule of the United States has been interpreted to include specific commitments for gambling and betting services under the sub-sector entitled “Other Recreational Services (except sporting)”; Three US federal laws (the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act) and the provisions of four US state laws (those of Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Utah) on their face, prohibit one, several or all means of delivery included in mode 1 of GATS (i.e. cross-border supply), contrary to the United States’ specific market access commitments for gambling and betting services for mode 1. Therefore, the United States failed to accord services and service suppliers of Antigua treatment no less favourable than that provided for under the terms, limitations and conditions agreed and specified in the US Schedule, contrary to Article XVI:1 and Article XVI:2 of the GATS (i.e. concerning market access); Antigua failed to demonstrate that the measures at issue are inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:3 of the GATS (i.e. concerning domestic regulation); The United States was not able to invoke successfully the GATS exceptions provisions. In this regard, the United States was not able to demonstrate that the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act are “necessary” under Articles XIV(a) and XIV(c) of the GATS (i.e. “exceptions” provisions, including for public morals) and are consistent with the requirements of the chapeau of Article XIV of the GATS; The Panel decided to exercise judicial economy with respect to Antigua’s claims under Articles XI (i.e. concerning payments and transfers) and XVII (i.e. concerning national treatment) of the GATS.
đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..
