CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

NINO PARSADANISHVILI CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ in providing preferences to LDCs’ since 2011, decided to extend the date for the waiver until 2030. 37 The Buenos Aires MC next to the underlining the role that trade plays in poverty alleviation and promoting economic growth for all members, 38 catches the eye from the perspective of the active participation of different stakeholders in the negotiations. During the conference The Group of African States have expressed their position regarding the current developments in trade in services negotiations stating that they should address the needs of developing countries especially on Mode 4 related issues. 39 Poverty eradication through social and economic transformation is included as a top priority in the Agenda 2063 for African Countries and therefore they are asking for all the exceptions and exemptions under the GATS to be applied to the provisions of any future agreement to “establish and utilize operational and effective provisions for special and differential treatment”. 40 The key arguments of Africa were based on the fact that “54% of the population in 46 African countries is still living in poverty” 41 seeing trade in services as a major tool for poverty eradication. This is complimented by India’s and its co-sponsors initiative for the need of negotiations for a Trade Facilitation for Services Agreement because of the importance of Mode 4 for the developing and LDCs’ within the WTO. 42 The Buenos Aires MC has clearly showed the growing interest of stakeholders in trade negotiations resulting in no major achievement in the services sector. As it was noted by Roberto Azevedo, “Multilateralism does not mean that we get what we want. We have to bear in mind that multilateralism means we get what is possible”. 43 Current developments in terms of trade in services liberalization for promoting economic growth of developing and LDCs’ inevitably brings the issues of labour rights protection to the table of discussion. For this reason, the next part of the paper deals with UN/ILO/WTO agendas in this regards. “WTO agreements and ILO labour standards cannot be examined in isolation because countries have to comply with all their international obligations”. 44 It is also important from the perspective of the Doha Development Agenda that reaffirmed “declaration made at the Singapore MC regarding internationally recognized core labour standards, taking note of work under way in the ILO on the social dimension of globalization”. 45 37 WTO doc. WT/MIN(15)/48 WT/L/982. 38 WTO doc. WT/MIN(17)/55/Rev.1. 39 WTO doc. WT/MIN(17)/8, JOB/GC/166 JOB/TNC/68, JOB/SERV/274. 40 Ibid. 41 WTO doc. WT/MIN(17)/11, JOB/GC/167 JOB/TNC/69, JOB/AG/133 JOB/DEV/50, JOB/DS/24 JOB/ IP/28, JOB/MA/133 JOB/RL/10, JOB/SERV/275 JOB/TE/48. 42 WTO doc. WT/MIN(17)/19, JOB/GC/168 JOB/TNC/70, JOB/SERV/276, WT/MIN(17)/7; WT/GC/190. 43 WTO doc. WT/MIN(17)/74. 44 The WTO and International Labour Organization, is available on [accessed 23 August 2018]; Steve Charnovitz, “The (Neglected) Employment Dimension of the World Trade Organization”, (2006) NO. 131, George Washington University Law School, p. 1. 45 WTO doc. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, para 8. 4. Debate on Trade and Labour from Poverty Eradication perspective

342