How to address countries not cooperating for tax transparency purposes such as tax havens has long been one of the international challenges, as they have significant damages to each country's tax collection system. In this dispute, Argentina argued that its discriminatory tax or other measures against countries not cooperating for tax transparency purposes were based on such international responses. This paper analyzes how such argument influenced the interpretation by the Panel and the Appellate Body of Article II:1 (most-favoured nation), Article XVII (national treatment), Article XIV (c) (general exception), etc. of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
In addition, after the world financial crisis in 2008, countries recognized again the necessity for governmental regulations on financial sectors and now tend to adopt prudential measures in broader and more stringent manners than ever, which are more likely to constitute trade restrictions. Against this backdrop, this dispute, in which the prudential exception of paragraph 2(a) of the GATS Annex on the Financial Services was resorted to for the first time since the establishment of the WTO, attracted considerable attention. This paper also examines what interpretation the Panel and the Appellate Body developed on the prudential exception and what practical implications can be learned for governmental regulations on financial services.