Article III of the GATS contains transparency provisions that mainly concern state rules. They are important given the impact that rules can have on trade in services. Economists do not deal with such cyclical trade deficits or surpluses. In addition, they are not worried about the emergence of a deficit because the country borrows heavily from abroad to finance investments that will be repaid later. During the nineteenth century, the United States found itself in this position when it took a lot of money to build railroads across the continent, steel mills, and other long-term investments. But this is not the current situation in the United States. Today, it lends itself strongly to other countries to finance consumption in the short term, such as the newest and largest HDTV from Japan or South Korea, and these purchases do not generate revenue to repay its debt in the future. It is clear that the United States is benefiting from the reduction of its trade barriers by its trading partners, because its exports will increase, which will lead to an increase in production and employment. Most economists also believe that the United States benefits from the removal of its own trade barriers, given that consumers benefit from reduced costs and international competition forces producers to improve efficiency.
However, the liberalization of imports has an impact on domestic labour and production, which must be taken into account. Although the removal of barriers to trade is generally a step towards free trade, there are situations where the reduction of a tariff can effectively increase the effective rate of protection for a domestic industry. Jacob Viner cites an example: “Suppose there are import duties on both wool and wool, but despite tariffs, no wool is produced at home. The abolition of the wool obligation, while respecting the wool obligation, increases the protection of the fabric industry, while it does not matter for wool breeding. »  1. No unnecessary barriers to trade: Articles 2 and 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT require that standards, technical rules and conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary barriers to international trade. Article 2 requires that technical rules be no more restrictive than is necessary to achieve a legitimate objective (such as national security, the prevention of fraudulent practices, the protection of human health or human safety or the environment). In accordance with Article 5, conformity assessment procedures shall not be more stringent than it is necessary to ensure that products comply with the applicable requirements. Although regulatory authorities have a margin of discretion in defining their desired level of protection, they must choose the least restrictive measure, which would adequately meet the legitimate objective pursued. Canada has updated its FIPA model to reflect and reflect the results of its growing experience in implementing and operating the investment chapter of NAFTA. This new model is not an abandonment or modification of Canada`s approach to international investment policy; It merely clarifies and formalizes Canada`s current position on some important substantive and procedural provisions. In this context, Canada has added an annex to the expropriation stating that an indirect expropriation can only take place if a measure results in a significant withdrawal from the use and enjoyment of an investment.
Except in rare cases, for example. B where a measure or a number of measures are so serious in view of their purpose that they cannot reasonably be considered to have been adopted and applied in good faith, non-discriminatory measures taken by a Contracting Party to protect legitimate objectives of the common good – such as health, safety and the environment – shall not constitute indirect expropriation. . . .