2007年--（節(jié)選）外文翻譯--旅游服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定可持續(xù)發(fā)展與其他發(fā)展問題

1、<p>　　中文5000字，2700單詞，1.5萬英文字符</p><p>　　出處：George B P, Henthorne T L. Tourism and the general agreement on trade in services[J]. International Journal of Social Economics, 2007, 34(3):136-146.</p>

2、<p>　　Tourism and the general agreement on trade in services</p><p>　　Sustainability and other developmental concerns</p><p>　　Babu P. George Tony L. Henthorne</p><p><b>

3、;　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　Purpose – The paper is developed around, and aims to focus on, the possible impacts of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) for sustainable development of tourism,

4、 especially in the context of the third world.</p><p>　　Design/methodology/approach – The paper is an exploration of the issues.</p><p>　　Findings – Findings generally imply that the historica

5、l development of GATS is not in tune with the aspirations of the small and medium scale enterprises in tourism, especially those located in the South. The agreements show only scant regard for the principles of sustainab

6、le development, too.</p><p>　　Practical implications – On a pragmatic level, the paper highlights the opportunities and threats to the stakeholders. It focuses on the most disadvantaged ones in tourism devel

7、opment and provides a set of guidelines for informed action.</p><p>　　Originality/value – The paper tries to explain the meaning and intent of technical and arcane treaty clauses in understandable terms and

8、provide a set of guidelines within which the treaty has to be structured for the best results. The paper offers valuable inputs for the negotiators, the tourism business community, the NGOs, the governments, and other st

9、akeholder groups.</p><p>　　Keywords Tourism management, Sustainable development, Developing countries</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　We live in a world where large transnational cor

10、porations wield tremendous economic power in the negotiations with state and national governments concerning international trade agreements. Truly, many such agreements are born out of the need of transnationals for incr

11、eased access to those territories and markets which were before inaccessible. Services industries in both the European Union and the USA along with their state governments have been actively lobbying and pushing for furt

12、her General </p><p>　　One of the distinguishing features of trade at the end of the twentieth century and at the start of the new millennium has been the expansion of regional trade agreements and the multil

13、ateral agreements. The internationalization of services is at the core of today’s economic globalization. GATS, created as part of the formation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994, are expected to have crucial

14、 implications for the daily lives and living environment of people all over the world. Already,</p><p>　　Political economy of sustainable tourism: theory and practice Tourism as an industry is increasing rap

15、idly in developing countries. Owing to the historical inequality in global trading relationships on the basis of core-periphery dependency, globalization and liberalized free trade, mainstream mass tourism reinforces the

16、 social and economic disadvantages of southern destinations. Hence, some view modern tourism as an extension of colonialism (Palmer, 1994).</p><p>　　Critics have, over the years, constructed a discourse of i

17、nternational tourism in terms dependency theory. Exploration, hunting, and trading dominated touristic purposes at least until the mid-nineteenth century (Chachage, 1999). Extractive as is the nature of such tourism, gai

18、ns were made and directions of development controlled by the colonial powers and their agents. Such activities caused a heavy depletion of ecological resources in the colonies. Still today, tourism remains the privilege

19、of</p><p>　　Worldview of the developed West tends to stress the “development” part of sustainable development, while the Eastern worldview in general attaches relatively</p><p>　　more importance

20、 to the “sustainability” part, independent of whether such an approach leads to development or not in the strict material sense of the term. Tourism theoreticians, especially the sociological school, try to take a middle

21、 path in an attempt</p><p>　　to be comprehensive. For them, sustainable tourism is that which is developed and maintained in a form such that it is viable over an indefinite period of time and does not degra

22、de or alter the physical and human environment to an extent that it prohibits the successful development and well being of other activities and processes (Jafari, 2000).</p><p>　　The confusion, according to

23、some, lies in our failure to appreciate in total the diverse conceptions that different communities hold – worldviews that are gestalts (Clark, 1991) which effectively prohibit attempts to compound these conceptions (

24、each of which are meaningful to at least the members of the espousing community) into a richer and more encompassing reality. Such an encompassing reality would be more agreeable to the ecological school than is the econ

25、omic counterpart which tends to </p><p>　　The material presented above is only to suggest that the complexity involved in constructing knowledge in different contextual frames make the entire debate on GATS

26、and sustainable tourism extremely problematic, especially since stake holding communities are spread across continents and cultures.</p><p>　　What is GATS and what is its present status?</p><p>

27、　　The GATS is an international treaty within the WTO system establishing the multilateral trade rules governing cross-border trade in services. The three negotiating principles defining GATS are to:</p><p>　

28、　create a multilateral framework of principles and rules regarding services trade and elaboration of possible disciplines for individual services sectors;</p><p>　　expand trade in services in a transparent m

29、anner and through a continuous process of liberalization; and</p><p>　　promote the economic growth of all trading partners and the development of developing countries through progressive services market open

30、ing.</p><p>　　Four modes of service supply</p><p>　　GATS identifies four modes of supply of services:</p><p>　　“cross-border supply of services” (in which the service is supplied fr

31、om the territory of one member into the territory of another member);</p><p>　　“consumption abroad” (in which the service is supplied in the territory of one member to a service consumer coming from another

32、member);</p><p>　　“commercial presence” (in which the service is supplied by setting up a business or professional establishment in the territory of one member by a service supplier of another member); and&l

33、t;/p><p>　　“movement of natural persons” (in which a human being from one WTO member going to the territory of another member to provide a service there for short-term, non-immigrant, business-related purposes)

34、.</p><p>　　It may be noted that among the four modes of supply for services previewed by GATS – cross border supply, consumption abroad, commercial presence, and presence of natural persons – tourism is spec

35、ifically represented in the mode of “consumption abroad.” Examples of the four modes include the following:</p><p>　　A Thai sex tourism provider offering virtual sex service in India and facilitating electro

36、nic booking of packages to Pattaya, Thailand.</p><p>　　An Indian national on a trip to the US catered by the US hotelier. (The percentage of members putting no restriction on market access is highest

37、here.)</p><p>　　A US destination developer acquiring the rural tourism resources in the backwater regions of Kerala, India as a separate subsidiary corporation under Indian laws.</p><p>　　This s

38、ame US-based corporation sends a US planner to oversee the operations in India. (This is the mode which has received the stiffest resistance.)</p><p>　　Some key challenges</p><p>　　The travel an

39、d tourism industry is a multilateralizing industry regulated on a global, national, and regional basis. The full liberalization of tourism services should be a win-win situation for all. However, the potentially predator

40、y practices of a few dominant suppliers in the world tourism markets are creating inequities. None-the-less, global decision makers have determined to take the world through the path of free trade. Therefore, the best po

41、ssible course of action for interested parties </p><p>　　Governments should recognize that the GATS process is not all positive. GATS, in some cases, may be a one-way street toward increased limitations on e

42、nvironmentally and socially responsible policies. Once countries adopt increased commitments in particular sectors, it is virtually impossible to reverse course. Countries can list limitations on their commitm

43、ents, but once they have done so, they can only increase those limitations or reverse a commitment altogether after waiting three </p><p>　　Liberalization of international tourism can be extremely positive f

44、or development and for the environment, particularly when compared with some of the rather restrictive development models employed in many parts of the world. It can open countries and cultures to currents of free

45、 thoughts and democracy, international</p><p>　　understanding and peace, good governance, and respect for human rights. It can lead to the replacement of inefficient, polluting technology with more modern

46、 equipment. It can generate the wealth needed to address development problems. A rising standard of living will usually lead to a stronger demand for environmental quality. However, it must be remembered that these oppor

47、tunities are also challenges. The fruition of these opportunities is contingent upon how we meet the associated cha</p><p>　　Prove and exemplify that sustainability issues offer one and the only mea

48、ns for developing truly sustainable international tourism.</p><p>　　Frame guidelines for future negotiations in such a manner that when implemented, only sustainable use of touristic resources will result in

49、 profit. This is one of the best ways for trade liberalization efforts to regain the lost legitimacy.</p><p>　　Ensure that the rounds of negotiations are open to all legitimate parties, including governmenta

50、l tourism bodies (NTOs) and their inter-governmental (IGOs) counterparts, destination and attraction owners, intermediaries, accessibility and amenity providers, representatives of the labor force, local communities at t

51、he destinations, NGOs, and other grassroots level organizations.</p><p>　　Demand commitment and cooperation of suppliers of air, land, and maritime infrastructure, construction and management services, and o

52、ther entities, in the sustainable development programs of international and regional organizations.</p><p>　　Ensure that international trade negotiations are not carried out in isolation and do not undermine

53、 concerted efforts in multiple forums to promote sustainable development, thereby preventing conflicting legal obligations for governments.</p><p>　　Demand the establishment of local chapters within the WTO

54、organization with reasonable autonomy to take into account local priorities and concerns and incorporate them into a wider bottom-up framework.</p><p>　　Provide educational and training drives aimed at the d

55、eveloping world to enable or empower them to take advantage of increased open trade. Awareness programs in the areas of gender equitability and related issues should also be designed.</p><p>　　Ensure that tr

56、ade policy issues do not impose themselves into other policy areas that are weaker and less market supported, but possibly better reflecting the essence of human culture.</p><p>　　Lobby for a special annex o

57、n tourism since heterogeneity of the industry makes it virtually impossible to monitor progressive liberalization and its impacts. One probable solution is a cluster approach modifying the World Tourism Organization’s TS

58、A. This will, in addition, not fundamentally thwart the “negotiate as a package” requirement.</p><p>　　Concluding remarks</p><p>　　International cooperation in trading services is not new, but t

59、he GATS represents the first multilateral trade agreement effort to establish rules governing services trade, including travel and tourism, and to provide a framework for multilateral negotiations on improved market acce

60、ss for foreign services and service suppliers. It reflects a growing realization of the economic importance of trade in services, as well as the need for closer cooperation among nations in a world with growing in<

61、;/p><p>　　GATS schedules remains by and large untested and the complexity involved in the provision of tourism services makes the likelihood of a wrong calculation very probable. At the St Petersburg WTO trade

62、summit on July 17, 2006, G8 and the þ 5(i.e. China, Brazil, India, South Africa, and Mexico) country leaders underlined the need to conclude the Doha deal, and called on their negotiators to resume talks with a view

63、 to bridging existing gaps within a month. However, no deal was made and it was agree</p><p>　　Tourism as a topic of debate has not been championed by any country worth mentioning, except a few voices here a

64、nd there like that from the Dominican Republic. In the absence of a strong democratic voice from the South, no agreement can help the small and medium players in this region. Tourism public policy makers too should be wa

65、ry of this: as stated elsewhere in the present paper, autonomy in public policymaking in tourism may be compromised by GATS – in terms of redistributive growth policies</p><p>　　tourism products, etc.) that

66、may be seen as barriers to entry but are in sympathy with more sustainable ways of assuring tourism growth.</p><p>　　The debate on GATS and its impacts have gone through a radical shift in the post-9/11 worl

67、d. Potentially diverse conceptions of terms and their diverse practical</p><p>　　realizations in different communities, cultures, and among competing stakeholders can restrict the scope of them (Mattoo and S

68、ubramanian, 1998). However, as noted by Cleverdon and Kalisch (2000), lack of consensus should not be construed as an opportunity to bulldoze upon all the vested opinions of the mighty.</p><p><b>　　旅游服

69、務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定</b></p><p>　　可持續(xù)發(fā)展與其他發(fā)展問題</p><p>　　Babu P. George Tony L. Henthorne</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　目的——本文著眼于第三世界中《服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》（GATS）對旅游可持續(xù)發(fā)展可能產(chǎn)生的影響。&

70、lt;/p><p>　　設計/方法論/途徑——本文是對此問題的探索。</p><p>　　調(diào)查結(jié)果——調(diào)查結(jié)果大體上意味著《服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》的發(fā)展歷史與中小規(guī)模企業(yè)對旅游業(yè)的愿望不一致，尤其是那些位于南方的企業(yè)。同時，協(xié)定只顯示了可持續(xù)發(fā)展原則的不足。</p><p>　　現(xiàn)實意義——從務實的層面來講，本文強調(diào)了對利益相關者的機遇和挑戰(zhàn)，側(cè)重于旅游業(yè)發(fā)展中的弱勢群體，并

71、提供了一套明智的行動準則。</p><p>　　獨創(chuàng)性/價值——本文試圖以便于理解的口吻解釋技術性深奧的協(xié)議條款的意義和目的，并提供了一套使協(xié)議最佳結(jié)構化的指導方針。本文為談判專家、旅游商界、非政府組織、政府和其他利益相關者群體提供了有價值的建議。</p><p>　　關鍵詞：旅游管理、可持續(xù)發(fā)展、發(fā)展中國家</p><p><b>　　引言</b&

72、gt;</p><p>　　在我們所生活的世界里，有關國際貿(mào)易協(xié)定方面，大型跨國公司在與國家和政府的談判中執(zhí)掌巨大的經(jīng)濟力量。誠然，許多這樣的協(xié)議并非出自于跨國公司對那些以前無法進入的地區(qū)和市場增加的準入要求的需要。歐洲和美國以及他們的州政府的服務業(yè)已經(jīng)在積極游說和進一步推動《服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》（GATS）的自由化。他們的主要游說團體包括歐洲服務業(yè)論壇和美國服務行業(yè)聯(lián)盟。部分地出于這個原因，關于企業(yè)道德商業(yè)慣例和尋

73、求一個更加公平的貿(mào)易體系的呼聲逐漸增加（Sinclair, 2000）。</p><p>　　20世紀結(jié)束和新世紀開始時，貿(mào)易的一個顯著特征是區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定和多邊協(xié)議的擴張。服務的國際化是當今經(jīng)濟全球化的核心。服務貿(mào)易協(xié)定作為世界貿(mào)易組織（WTO）于1994年形成的結(jié)構的一部分，被期待著將對全世界人民的日常生活及生活環(huán)境產(chǎn)生至關重要的影響。自從談判在高度壓縮的時間表中實施以來，該框架的真正影響就已經(jīng)開始出現(xiàn)了。服務

74、業(yè)預計占全球GDP的61%，是當今跨國生產(chǎn)鏈條中塑造全球經(jīng)濟的關鍵因素。包含旅游業(yè)（據(jù)一部分人稱是開啟世界全球化進程的消費主義的終極范例）的服務部門走在極致的前列（Handszuh, 2001）。旅游業(yè)占服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定承諾的最大一部分比例（128）。不論是什么發(fā)展水平，旅游部門都是所有國家展示具體的和量化的貿(mào)易機會的服務部門中的一員（Paton, 2003）。然而，服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定的終極目標是使每個世界貿(mào)易組織國家的每個服務部門商業(yè)化，包

75、含諸如醫(yī)療保健、教育和飲用水等的基礎服務業(yè)。</p><p>　　可持續(xù)旅游的政治經(jīng)濟學理論：在發(fā)展中國家，理論和實踐旅游業(yè)作為一個產(chǎn)業(yè)正在迅速增加。由于基于中心-邊緣依賴、全球化和自由貿(mào)易的全球貿(mào)易關系的歷史性不平等，主流大眾旅游加劇了南部目的地的社會和經(jīng)濟缺點。因此，一些人認為現(xiàn)代旅游業(yè)是殖民主義的延伸（Palmer, 1994）。</p><p>　　多年以來，評論家已經(jīng)構建了一個國

76、際旅游方面依附理論的論述。至少直到19世紀中期，探索、狩獵和貿(mào)易主宰了旅游業(yè)的目的（Chachage, 1999）。因為索取是這種旅游的本質(zhì)，所以殖民列強及其代理控制了收益和發(fā)展方向。這些活動在殖民地中引發(fā)了生態(tài)資源的巨大消耗。直到今天，旅游仍然是少數(shù)人的特權。世界貿(mào)易組織預測，到2020年，只有7%的世界人口會出國旅行。我們可以看到隱藏在當今“探險旅游”和“生態(tài)旅游”的發(fā)展中的是對“異國風情”探索的推動力（Poon, 1998）。即使

77、是在今天，控制和訪問游客數(shù)量的機制和策略，以及發(fā)送國和東道國在保留旅游支出上的斗爭，都沒有本質(zhì)上的區(qū)別。盡管在比較優(yōu)勢上擁有豐富的資源，發(fā)展中國家和他們的旅游實體仍然比發(fā)達的商業(yè)（國家）伙伴承受著更強烈的成本和發(fā)展壓力（Hindley and Smith, 1994）。不考慮所有的浪漫主義，現(xiàn)實的底線是，旅游是一個“商業(yè)交易，是在世界市場上待售的商品”。從不同的觀點出發(fā)，在傳統(tǒng)觀念上認為單一地說旅游業(yè)好是有問題的（Grassl, 199

78、9）。</p><p>　　西方發(fā)達國家的世界觀趨向于強調(diào)“發(fā)展”是可持續(xù)發(fā)展的一部分，但是東方的世界觀通常認為“可持續(xù)”部分更重要，而不依賴于是否這種方法在術語的嚴格意義上導致了發(fā)展。旅游理論家，尤其是社會學派，試圖嘗試全面的中間途徑。對他們來說，可持續(xù)旅游是以開發(fā)和維護的形式存在的，它在無限時間內(nèi)是可行的，并不降低或改變自然和人文環(huán)境，它在某種程度上阻止了其他活動和進程的運作（Jafari, 2000）。&l

79、t;/p><p>　　一些人認為，我們的困惑在于對不同概念的理解錯誤——世界觀是有效地阻止那些試圖混淆更豐富更圍繞現(xiàn)實的概念（至少每個概念對擁護團隊的成員來說是有意義的）的完全形態(tài)（Clark, 1991）。相比經(jīng)濟，對手傾向于通過精確的、科學的、良好定義的目標和計量方法來達到目的，圍繞現(xiàn)實對生態(tài)來說更令人愉快。一些“科學”的經(jīng)濟學家的堅決的態(tài)度背叛了他們的知識慣性，他們忘記了市場理性不是別的，而是對市場的個人理解的

80、——因為在一些更高層次的集體理解之下，一個人對集體理解變成了當下他的個人理解，這些難以控制的思想導致了螺旋式的無休止的重復。</p><p>　　以上提出的材料只是顯示出在不同的環(huán)境架構里，所涉及的結(jié)構知識的復雜性會對服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定和可持續(xù)旅游業(yè)造成及其不確定的爭論，尤其是因為利益相關團體逐步傳遍各大洲和不同文化之間。</p><p>　　什么是GATS和它目前的狀態(tài)是什么？</p&

81、gt;<p>　　《服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》是世界貿(mào)易組織管轄的一項多邊貿(mào)易協(xié)議，是WTO服務貿(mào)易法的基本規(guī)范和核心規(guī)范?！斗召Q(mào)易總協(xié)定》的三個典型的談判原則是︰</p><p>　　（1）針對個別服務部門，創(chuàng)建一個原則和規(guī)則上的多邊性框架，內(nèi)容關于服務貿(mào)易和可能紀律的細分;</p><p>　?。?）在透明度和逐步自由化的條件下，擴大全球服務貿(mào)易;</p><

82、p>　?。?）通過服務市場的不斷開放，促進各成員的經(jīng)濟增長和發(fā)展中國家服務業(yè)的發(fā)展。</p><p>　　四種方式的國際貿(mào)易服務</p><p>　　《服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》規(guī)定國際服務貿(mào)易具體包括四種方式：</p><p>　?。?）"跨境交付"（從一成員境內(nèi)向任何其他成員境內(nèi)提供服務）;</p><p>　?。?）&q

83、uot;境外消費"（在一成員境內(nèi)向任何其他成員的服務消費者提供服務）;</p><p>　?。?）"商業(yè)存在"（一成員的服務提供者在任何其他成員境內(nèi)以商業(yè)存在提供服務）;</p><p>　?。?）“自然人流動”（一成員的服務提供者在任何其他成員境內(nèi)以自然的存在提供服務）。</p><p>　　通過《服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》呈現(xiàn)出的四種服務貿(mào)易

84、的方式—跨境交付、境外消費、商業(yè)存在和自然人流動—旅游業(yè)是“境外消費”這一模式的典型代表。四種模式的示例包括以下內(nèi)容︰</p><p>　?。?)泰國色情旅游提供者在印度提供虛擬性服務，并且使被服務者通過電子預約到泰國芭提雅享用服務變得更方便。</p><p>　　（2) 一位印度的公民在美國旅游的過程中，被美國的旅館老板服務。（在這里，沒有限制的市場準入成員的百分比是最高的）。</

85、p><p>　?。?)美國的地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商在印度喀拉拉邦的一個未被開發(fā)的地區(qū)獲得一處田園旅游資源，此處則會作為在印度法律管理下的印度子公司。</p><p>　　（4）上述的美國總公司派送了一名美國的計劃者去監(jiān)督印度公司的運營。</p><p><b>　　一些關鍵的挑戰(zhàn)</b></p><p>　　旅游和旅游業(yè)是一個在全球的、

86、國家和地區(qū)的基礎上管制的多邊型產(chǎn)業(yè)。旅游服務的全面開放對所有方面來說都應該是一個雙贏局面。然而，一些占主導地位的供應商在世界旅游市場的潛在掠奪性的做法會造成不公平的現(xiàn)象。但是全球的決策者們?nèi)匀挥袥Q心可以通過自由貿(mào)易的途徑去占有這個世界。因此，為有關各方考慮，最好的可能性行動過程是在確保會受影響的群體能夠得到一個公平待遇的條件范圍內(nèi)去履行。這些條件包括獲得投資和技術的使用權。這對于網(wǎng)絡貿(mào)易來說是尤為重要的。網(wǎng)絡貿(mào)易在全球旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)的信息傳播

87、方面有潛力成為一個最好的公平主義者。此外，它也有可能作為一個有療效的體系去服務于國際旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)所萌發(fā)的負面影響，充足的方針政策的存在，以及在管理上和制度上的基礎設施建設，使人類有能力去了解缺口在哪里，以及他們可以怎么樣被利用。</p><p>　　各國政府應該認識到《服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》的實施并非都是積極的影響。在某些情況下，它可能是朝著有關環(huán)境方面和社會方面的不斷增加的一條單行道。一旦國家采用在特定部門增加承諾，它是

88、幾乎不可能扭轉(zhuǎn)的。國家可以對他們的承諾列出限制，但一旦他們這樣做，他們只能增加那些限制或在等待三年后才能完全的扭轉(zhuǎn)一個承諾，然后提供補償 （通過開放另一個部門的自由化）。尤其是對于發(fā)展中國家來說，這樣的規(guī)則可能會在處理跨國投資事物上捆綁住政府的解決策略（克曼和布拉加，1997年）。</p><p>　　國際旅游的自由化可以對發(fā)展和環(huán)境產(chǎn)生極為積極的影響，特別是與世界上許多采取限制型發(fā)展模式的地區(qū)相比。它可以打開國

89、家和文化向著自由民主，對人權的尊重，這樣的潮流發(fā)展。它可以通過使用更多的現(xiàn)代設備取代效率低下并且會造成污染的技術。它能夠集中所需的財富，去解決發(fā)展的問題。生活水平的提高通常會導致對環(huán)境質(zhì)量的強勁需求。然而，必須記住的是，這些是機會也是挑戰(zhàn)。這些機會的獲得是取決于我們?nèi)绾螒獙ο嚓P的挑戰(zhàn)。作為有責任的公民和群體，我們應該︰</p><p>　　●證明并舉例說明可持續(xù)性議題為國際旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展的真實性提供一個也是

90、唯一的途徑。</p><p>　　●對于未來談判的結(jié)構指導方針，僅以旅游資源的可持續(xù)性使用將會帶來利潤，這樣的途徑去實施。通過貿(mào)易自由化努力奪回失去的合法性，這是最佳途徑之一。</p><p>　　●確保幾輪談判都是向所有合法當事方公開的，包括政府旅游機構（NTOs）和政府間組織(IGOs)、地點和景點的擁有者、中介機構、輔助媒介和設施的提供商，勞動代表，所在地的當?shù)亟M織，非政府組織和其他

91、基層組織。</p><p>　　●在國際和地區(qū)組織的可持續(xù)性發(fā)展項目里，空氣、土地和海洋基礎設施，建設和管理服務，以及其他實體的提供者的需求承諾和合作。</p><p>　　●確保國際貿(mào)易談判不進行孤立和不損害在多個論壇中所促成的可持續(xù)發(fā)展議題，從而為各國政府防止沖突的法律義務的產(chǎn)生。</p><p>　　●要求在世貿(mào)組織管控下的合理自主權范圍內(nèi)建立地方分會，并且考

92、慮到當?shù)氐膬?yōu)先順序和關注點，并將其納入更廣泛的自下而上得框架內(nèi)。</p><p>　　●旨在發(fā)展中世界提供教育和培訓去確保或是使他們能夠采取優(yōu)勢增強開放貿(mào)易。此外，在性別等領域的認知程序和相關的議題也應該被計劃。</p><p>　　●確保貿(mào)易政策問題不會把自己強加進其他較弱并且較少的市場支持的政策方面，而是要盡可能更好的反映人類文化的精髓。</p><p>　　●

93、對于旅游業(yè)一個特別的附加物進行游說，因為該行業(yè)的多相性使它幾乎不可能監(jiān)控漸進的自由主義化和其影響。一個可能的解決方案是通過一個群集途徑去修改世界旅游組織的TSA。此外，這將不能從根本上阻止"作為一攬子談判"的要求。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　在貿(mào)易服務領域展開國際合作并不是新鮮的，GATS代表第一個多邊的貿(mào)易協(xié)定

94、致力于去建立相關的規(guī)則去管理服務貿(mào)易，包括旅游和旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)，以及去提供一個用于多邊談判的架構，為了提高跨國服務和服務供應者的市場準入。它反映出服務貿(mào)易的經(jīng)濟重要性的意識在不斷增長，同時在全世界各國之間的相互依賴，緊密合作的需求在不斷增長（李和阿爾，2002年）。正確恰當?shù)募軜嫼蛯嵤埂斗召Q(mào)易總協(xié)定 》成為至關重要的一步，預示著國際經(jīng)濟合作時代的到來。</p><p>　　《服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》的待辦事項，大體上仍然

95、是未經(jīng)測試，并且旅游業(yè)服務的規(guī)定所涉及的復雜性使錯誤計算的可能性幾率更大。2006年7月17號，在圣彼得斯堡召開的世貿(mào)組織首腦會議上，八國集團和金磚五國（即中國、巴西、印度、南非和墨西哥）國家領導人強調(diào)有必要達成多哈協(xié)議，并呼吁他們的談判人員恢復會談，以便在一個月內(nèi)縮小現(xiàn)有差距。然而，并沒有達成協(xié)議，并且多國達成一致要抽出時間去重新考慮他們的立場。主要的障礙是三角關系中兩個農(nóng)業(yè)基礎框架里，市場準入和國內(nèi)支持。當談判再次展開時它尚不清晰。

96、《服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》，包括對旅游業(yè)影響的規(guī)定，是多哈回合談判的一部分，它的未來也肯定是不能被確定的。盡管世貿(mào)組織一直在敦促各方去推進發(fā)展，這個回合仍沒有在2006年明確地完成。在這兩者之間，貿(mào)易爭端有可能增加，以及雙邊和區(qū)域協(xié)定可能激增。不確定因素可能會產(chǎn)生干涉的力量使談判的整個軌跡改變方向(瑪特圖，1999年)。</p><p>　　旅游業(yè)作為一個辯論的主題卻沒有被任何值得提及的國家所擁護，除了像來自于多米尼亞共

97、和國的各處的一些聲音。沒有來自于南部的強民主的聲音，在這一地區(qū)，也沒有協(xié)議可以幫助小型和中型的參與者。旅游業(yè)公共政策制定者也應該警惕這一點︰如本文其他地方所述，在旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)中公立的決策自主權要受制于《服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》—依據(jù)于再分配經(jīng)濟增長的政策、地方投資和可持續(xù)發(fā)展問題（旅游地點，旅游產(chǎn)品等），除了有利于保證旅游業(yè)增長的可持續(xù)性發(fā)展，這可能被視為進入的貿(mào)易壁壘。</p><p>　　針對于《服務貿(mào)易總協(xié)定 》及其影