Some activist groups believe that GATS risks undermining the ability and authority of governments to regulate commercial activities within their own borders, which will lead to the flight of power from the commercial interests of citizens. In 2003, the GATSwatch network published a critical opinion, supported by more than 500 organizations in 60 countries.  At the same time, countries are not required to enter into international agreements such as the GATS. For countries that like to attract trade and investment, GATS adds a degree of transparency and legal predictability. Legal barriers to trade in services may have legitimate political reasons, but they can also be an effective instrument for large-scale corruption.  The final report suggests that an improvement in legal certainty by tiSA could reduce the cost of trade in services in OECD markets by 3.4% and low- and middle-income markets by 5.8%. However, given the methodological challenges and the scarcity of statistics related to trade in services, the quantitative results of the study should be viewed with caution. Quantitative results were therefore supplemented by a more qualitative analysis. While national governments have the option of excluding certain services from liberalisation under the GATS, they are also under pressure from international trade interests not to exclude any “commercial” service. Important utilities, such as water and electricity, are most often linked to consumer purchases and are therefore clearly “commercially supplied”. The same is true of many health and education services that some countries are supposed to “export” as profitable industries.  The creation of the GATS was one of the flagship achievements of the Uruguay Round, the results of which came into force in January 1995. The GATS was essentially inspired by the same objectives as its merchandise trade counterpart, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): the creation of a credible and reliable system of international trade rules; Ensure fair and equitable treatment of all participants (principle of non-discrimination); boosting economic activity through guaranteed political ties; Promoting trade and development through gradual liberalization.
The GATS agreement has been criticized for replacing the authority of national law and justice with that of an GATS dispute resolution body that holds closed hearings. Spokespeople for WTO government members have an obligation to reject this criticism because they had previously pledged to recognize the benefits of the dominant trade principles of competition and “liberalization. The GATS agreement includes four types of service delivery in cross-border trade: Exceptions may be granted in the form of Article II exceptions.