On The Domestic Regulation Disciplines Of EU Services Directive

States always adopt more restrictive requirement to regulate trade in services than goodsin the circumstance that barriers in services trade is in large quantity and in covert way thoughtrade in services has been increasingly important under economic globalization. For thepurpose of promoting the development of services trade, many economic associations arepushing forward to reduce trade barriers by means of providing strict disciplines on domesticregulation in their respective framework. However, difficulties show up in domesticregulation disciplines under GATS and other regional economic associations.The European Union, as a highly integrative union, uses the mean of deregulation in itslegislation, so does in EU Services Directive. Nonetheless, defects exist in EU ServicesDirective on the basis of consulting and compromising considering economic, political factorsand others. This paper aims at obtaining experience and lessons from domestic regulationdisciplines of EU Services Directive and giving advices on both China’s services free tradeagreement and domestic regulate measures by analyzing text and implementation of EUServices Directive as well as comparing domestic regulation disciplines in EU financialservices directives and GATS.This paper is divided into six chapters：The first chapter introduces basis theory of domestic regulation thereby indicating valuesof domestic regulation on services trade and particular on EU services trade.The second chapter analyzes the content of domestic regulation in EU Services Directive.It defines the scope of disciplines by studying the text of its structure and points out that thescope is not wide enough with ambiguity. In the last, it comments, in line with text and casesanalysis, domestic regulation disciplines in EU Services Directive are lack of innovation andno newly practical principles are added in it.The third chapter analyzes the implementation of domestic regulation disciplines in EUServices Directive. Taking Netherland as an example, it gives difficulties members meet whileimplementing Services Directive both in scope and proportionality. By the practice ofEuropean Committee and EU Court of Justice, it also renders functions these two organsshould provide.The forth chapter compares domestic regulation disciplines under EU Services Directive with these under EU financial services directives and GATS and reaches that EU financialservices directives are more liberalized for it adopts home control and mutual recognitionprinciple in accordance with its single sector feature and the disciplines under GATSemphasis necessity and transparency which differs from EU Services Directive.The fifth chapter concludes suggestions for China’ development of services trade onbasis of lessons from Services Directive from the aspects both of China’s services free tradeagreements and China’s domestic regulation measures.Lastly, the sixth chapter makes a conclusion of the whole paper.