Abstract
In “U.S - Gambling” case and “China - Publications and Audiovisual Products” case, Members and the panels mentioned the principle of “technological neutrality” in their plaints and reports respectively. Some Members urged that Mode 1 under the GATS encompasses all possible means of supplying services, whether by mail, telephone, Internet etc., unless otherwise specified in a Member's Schedule. They noted that this is in line with the principle of technological neutrality. The other members, otherwise, urged that the task of ascertaining the meaning of a Member's Schedule involves identifying the common intention of Members as a counterplea. In addition, they also urged that the principle of technological neutrality is contrary to the principle of progressive liberalization. However, the Panel and the Appellate body did not put the arguments down. There are two purposes in this thesis. One is to clarify the meaning of the principle of technological neutrality which has been widely discussed in the field of GATS. The other is to establish the legal grounding to the principle of technological neutrality from GATS, since the principle itself is still neither the case law or codified in GATS yet. As to the establishment of the legal grounding to the principle itself, it might be helpful as references for Members who would like to claim “technological neutrality” in their plaints for future disputes. At last, as the clarification as well as the quick start, the discussion and the application of this thesis only go to the “scope of the commitment” and the equal treatment of the equal services under “national regulatory of ICT”. Other fields such as “the like services” are not included.