RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE WT/REG/M/11
9July1997
ORGANIZATION(97-2880)
Committee onRegional Trade Agreements
Eleventh Session
NOTE ONTHE MEETINGS OF19-20 JUNE 1997
Chairman: Mr.Stuart Harbinson (Hong Kong)
A. Adoption oftheAgenda
1. ThemeetingwasconvenedindocumentWTO/AIR/613/Rev.1,whichcontainedarevisedagenda
fortheEleventh Session.
2. TheChairman noted thatanewround ofexamination ofECEnlargement, which hadoriginally
beenplanned forthisSession, hadbeenpostponed andwould takeplace on14July1997, sothatall
information needed forafruitful meeting would becompleted anddistributed toMembers. Also, under
"Other Business" hewould raisetworequests forobserver status thathadbeenreceived, from the
LatinAmerican Integration Agreement (LAIA) andfromtheLatinAmerican Economic System (LAES).
Bothorganizations hadhadobserver status intheGATT Council aswellasinother subsidiary bodies;
inaddition, LAIA presented areport totheCommittee onTrade andDevelopment every twoyears
withupdates onregional tradeagreements concluded among itsmembers, under theEnabling Clause.
3. Thefollowing agenda wasadopted:
A. Adoption oftheAgenda
B. Examination ofRegional Trade Agreements:
I. Interim Agreement Between theEuropean Communities andBulgaria
II. FreeTrade Agreement Between theEuropean Communities andEstonia
III. FreeTrade Agreement Between theEuropean Communities andLatvia
IV. FreeTrade Agreement Between theEuropean Communities andLithuania
V. Interim Agreement Between theEuropean Communities andRomania
VI. InterimAgreementBetweentheEuropeanCommunitiesandtheCzechRepublic
VII. Interim Agreement Between theEuropean Communities andHungary
VIII. Interim Agreement Between theEuropean Communities andPoland
IX. InterimAgreementBetweentheEuropeanCommunitiesandtheSlovakRepublic
C. Systemic Implications ofAgreements andInitiatives fortheMultilateral Trading System
andtheRelationship Between Them
D. Reporting ontheOperation ofAgreements
E. Examination oftheFreeTrade Agreement Between Canada andIsrael
F. Other Business
4. TheChairman saidthatAmbassador JohnWeekes would normally chairdiscussions onitems C
andDoftheagenda butcould notbepresent atthistime. With theapproval oftheParties,
Ambassador Weekes hadrequested thathehimself chairthefirstround ofexamination oftheCanada-
Israel Agreement, duetothespecial situation thathadarisen from Ambassador Jaona Ravaloson 'sWT/REG/M/11
Page2
unavailability tocomplete histermasVice-Chairman. InJulytheChairman oftheCommittee planned
toinitiate consultations toidentify appropriate replacements fortwoVice-Chairmen.
5. TheChairman thennoted thatdelegations hadbeensentbothaninformal notebytheSecretariat,
entitled theStatus ofAdvancement oftheExamination ofAgreements, andaChairman 'sProposal
ontheSchedule ofMeetings intheSecond Halfof1997. Theinformal notebytheSecretariat detailed
work completed todatewithrespect totheexamination ofvarious agreements, aswellaswork tobe
performed inupcoming months. Herecalled thatearlyoninthelifeoftheCommittee, therehadbeen
abacklog ofthirty-two agreements needing tobeexamined. Since then,anadditional twelve agreements
hadbeenentrusted totheCommittee forexamination, bringing thepresent totalofagreements inthe
process toforty-four. ThenotebytheSecretariat showed thatforfourteen ofthose agreements, the
Committee waspractically atthestage ofdrafting theconclusions; bytheendofthisSession, another
thirteen would havealready undergone more thanoneround ofexamination, sothatthefinalsteps
wereforeseeable; oftheremaining seventeen, onlyfivewerepartoftheoriginal backlog. According
totheChairman 'sproposal, theCommittee would havestarted examining those seventeen remaining
agreements during thesecond halfof1997. Asusual, theschedule wastobeconsidered flexible, but
because thework programme wasrather full,theCommittee needed tostructure itbeforehand. Any
specific problems ofdelegations could ofcourse beconveyed totheChairman through theSecretariat.
B. Examination ofRegional Trade Agreements
6. Reports onthese examinations willsubsequently becirculated asseparate documents.
C. Systemic Implications ofAgreements andInitiatives fortheMultilateral Trading System
andtheRelationship Between Them
7. TheChairman recalled thatattheCommittee 'sNinth Session, theSecretariat hadbeenasked
toannotate theChecklist ofsystemic issues. Thisinformation hadbeen circulated indocument
WT/REG/W/16. Turning tothatdocument, heproposed thattheCommittee firsttakeupcomments
ofageneral nature. Itcould thendiscuss issues almost exclusively dealing withArticle XXIV and
theUnderstanding ontheInterpretation ofArticle XXIV ofGATT 1994 (theUnderstanding), which
fellunder theheadings AtoHandKtoOinthedocument. Then theCommittee might continue with
questions specifically dealing withtherelationship between Article XXIV andother provisions ofthe
WTO, which entailed issues under headings P,QandR.Finally, theCommittee could address other
issues identified, which werethose under headings I,S,TandU.Thiswould offer anopportunity
fordelegations toputforth comments andthenfortheCommittee toidentify priority issues.
(a) General remarks
8. Therepresentative ofAustralia recalled thathisdelegation hadsubmitted apaper onthegeneral
matter ofsystemic issues, delivered instatement form on20February andinwriting on6March.
Building onthecomments inthatpaper, hisdelegation wished tonotethatthere weretwobroad and
interrelated subject areas thatfellwithin thecategory of"systemic issues". Thefirstarea-covered
extensively intheuseful Annotated Checklist -related totheinterpretation ofGATT Article XXIV
andGATS Article V,andtheirrelationship tootherWTO Agreements. TheCommittee 'sconsideration
ofspecific RTAs hadrevealed awiderange ofviews astotheirconsistency withvarious aspects of
therelevant Articles. Thishighlighted theneedforgreater clarity inMembers 'understanding ofthe
meaning andapplication ofthese Articles. Particular issues thathisdelegation would liketosee
considered indepth bytheCommittee were themeaning of"substantially allthetrade" in
Article XXIV:8(a) and8(b)(item OoftheAnnotated Checklist), aswellastheissue ofpreferentialWT/REG/M/11
Page3
rulesoforigin. These issues, while ostensibly ofatechnical orlegalnature, needed alsotobeviewed
from thestandpoint oftheireconomic effects andtheeconomic intent oftherelevant Articles. The
secondareathattheCommitteecouldtreatwasthegeneraleconomicquestionofdevelopmentsinregional
tradeseenashaving asignificant impact ontheoperation andeffectiveness ofthemultilateral rules-based
(WTO) trading system. Anissue ofparticular interest totheAustralian delegation wastheeffect on
themultilateral trading system (MTS) oftheproliferation ofRTAs. Related tothisissuewasthevalidity
ofthe"building blocks" thesis which suggested thatthisproliferation wasalargely benign development.
Theissues were controversial, buttheywere important toaddress. With respect totheCommittee
process, theseissues allhadimportant policy implications, butprioranalysis wasrequired before such
implications could beexplored andbefore conclusions could bedrawn. Hisdelegation proposed that
thisanalysisbeundertakenthroughinformalCommitteemeetings,convenedtoconsiderspecificsystemic
issues ofinterest toMembers. Thisprocess might centre onissue papers prepared byMembers or
theSecretariat, asappropriate.
9. TheChairman saidthattheAustralian viewseemed inlinewithhisown, inthatthere were
some selected issues which theCommittee might wishtodesignate formore indepth analysis.
10. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthattheonlyproblem hisdelegation hadregarding
theuseofthissortofchecklist wasthattheChecklist wasbuiltuponexperience withagreements that
hadbeennotified recently. Itseemed nottocapture thehistory ofagreements thathadbeenexamined
under Article XXIV inthepast,andthenthere wastheassociated issue -which wasitself asystemic
issue -ofnon-notified agreements containing provisions withimportant implications. So,while his
delegation considered thedocument anexcellent firststepinterms ofidentifying issues, itwasdifficult
toconsider thelistanexhaustive onefrom which tosetpriorities.
11. TheChairman noted thattheSecretariat hadtriedtoinclude information onRTAexaminations
byGATT working parties. While theAnnotated Checklist could notbeexhaustive, anattempt had
beenmade tomake itascomprehensive aspossible, while stillnotbeing cumbersome.
12. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathehadconstrued thecitations asincluding
references toallmaterial usedindrawing uptheAnnotated Checklist; itwasnowclearthatmore was
encompassed intheexplanations thanwasreflected inthecitations.
13. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiessaiditseemedthattheSecretariathadperformed
thetaskrequested incomposing theAnnotated Checklist. Thehistory oftheChecklist wasacurious
one,andthecomment justmade bytheUnited States representative highlighted some oftheoddity,
inthattheissues themselves arose from current work intheCommittee, butthehistory theycalled
upreached farback. TheChecklist wasauseful start. Duetoitsnature, itwasnotexhaustive, and
issues would beadded ordropped according tointerest. TheCommittee hadtorelyontheSecretariat
tolookatthetextwithacritical eyeandtopurge from theChecklist items thatwere nottaken up
infurther discussions. Heagreed withtheAustralian approach offocusing onafewissues aspriority
onesneedingfurtherwork.TheChairman'sgroupingofitemsfordiscussionmirroredthecategorization
setoutbyhisdelegation inthepasttwomeetings, andalsoreflected Australian ideas. From thepoint
ofviewofhisdelegation, auseful approach would betousetheChecklist toidentify afewissues as
central tothewebofsystemic issues andtofocus attention onthose issues infuture meetings. The
Australian suggestion tostartwiththequestion of“substantially allthetrade”seemed appropriate,
asthisissue layatthecentre ofanysystemic debate theCommittee might have. Healsoendorsed
theideaofconcentrating onorigin rulesasapriority which might yieldsignificant insights ofgeneral
use. Also, hewould tagtheissues relating totheinternal construction ofArticle XXIV:5 (issue C,
aswellasothers tangentially). Examinations demonstrated thatanoperational divergence between
therulesofArticle XXIV:5(a) and5(b)hademerged fromtheUnderstanding. Thatdivergence needed
tobeaddressed. IftheCommittee would concentrate onquestions related toArticle XXIV:8 andWT/REG/M/11
Page4
Article XXIV:5, itwould haveacoherent intellectual framework. Article XXIV:8 setoutanimportant
definition ofwhatafree-trade area(FTA) orcustoms union should looklikebetween itsmembers,
while Article XXIV:5 described theconditions governing therelationship between theFTAorcustoms
union ontheonehandandtherestoftheGATT world ontheother. IftheCommittee began itssystemic
work bylooking atthose central aspects ofArticle XXIV, itwould haveagood focus andbeable
tolookseriously attheheart oftheissues, astheother Checklist issues seemed toflowoutward from
there. TheAustralian delegation hadalsomentioned looking atthewider economic consequences of
theinteraction ofthetotality ofpreferential arrangements withtheMTS asitwasevolving. While
thiswasanimportant topic, hewould caution devoting toomany resources toit,asthetopic wastoo
vastandfundamental fortheCommittee totreatsufficiently. Hedidnotmean tosuggest thattheissues
should betaken offthetable, butthatresources should betaken intoaccount. Aninformal process
might beanacceptable waytoproceed ifitbuiltonanalytical andhistorical underpinnings provided
bytheSecretariat.
14. TheChairman noted thattheCommittee should viewthechecklist asanevolving document.
Some issues might beweeded outovertimeifthere waslittleinterest inthem.
15. Therepresentative ofCanada saidsome issues would befleshed outorclarified during
examinations ofspecific agreements. Thiswasespecially worth noting withrespect tothecoretest
ofArticle XXIV, astheexamination process showed various positions ofMembers onpoints. So,
while worthwhile todebate many ofthekeytestsofArticle XXIV, itwasimportant thatthisnotbe
done inisolation oftheagreements under examination. Soperhaps itwould bebeneficial tofocus
onChecklist issues thatwereofamore technical nature, asopposed tothemore substantive elements
ofArticle XXIV. Itmight bebetter towaituntiltheCommittee hadafirstsampling ofconclusions
onvarious agreements. TheCommittee wasclosetoreaching astagewhere 25orsoagreements would
beattheconclusions phase. From thatexperience, theCommittee would haveanimmense background
withwhich itcould pursue adiscussion ofthetestsofArticle XXIV. Hisdelegation alsowasofthe
view thattheCommittee should notlimit itself totheArticle XXIV test,astherelation between
Article XXIV andother WTO provisions wasanimportant element fromapolicy standpoint, perhaps
deriving from thefactthatMembers were nowintheWTO environment withthesingle legal
undertaking. Thatsortofbroader policy discussion sometimes emerged during different examinations.
Inthatregard, hisdelegation would bewilling toseetheCommittee identify certain issues aspriority
areas;butitalsowishedtohaveabalanceincompletingexaminationsthatwerenowripeforconclusions,
which would inturnhelptheCommittee proceed withadiscussion ofthecoretestsofArticle XXIV.
Inthemeantime, theCommittee might pursue some broader policy discussion, perhaps ofthetype
mentioned inthepaper submitted earlier bytheAustralian delegation, orperhaps along thelinesof
thehorizontal andcomparative studies. Inthisway,itcould identify abroader range ofsystemic issues,
asopposed tobeing confined tothecoreArticle XXIV tests, while ofcourse recognizing thatthese
were central totheexercise.
16. TheChairman saidthiswasapoint toconsider. Paradoxically, itmight bebestnottostart
withthetoppriorities.
17. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidtheChecklist wasasound working document for
discussions which would serve asabasisfordeveloping anapproach fortheanalysis. Analysis must
bebased onpastexperience andtheCommittee 'sestimate ofwhatwould likely occur inthefuture.
With regard totheapproach outlined bythedelegate oftheUnited States, thevarious issues inthe
Checklist stemmed fromconsiderations currently underway ortaken upinthepast. IftheCommittee
really wanted toanalyze thequestion oftherelationship between regionalism andmultilateralism, it
seemed theCommittee needed togobeyond thatbasis andwork withinformation thatmight provide
amore realistic assessment ofregionalism today. Indeed, withrespect toacertain number ofregional
economic integration processes, theCommittee lacked information; however, thatinformation wasWT/REG/M/11
Page5
available inother contexts. Forexample, information wasforthcoming fromtheCommittee onTrade
andDevelopment concerning Enabling Clause notifications. Hedidnotwishtoreopen thedebate
onthelegalobligations regarding notification under Article XXIV andother clauses. TheCommittee
might havetheopportunity todealwiththese legal obligations asitdiscussed thesystemic issues.
Hewasthinkingmoreoftheneedfortransparency,andoftheimportanceoftheCommittee'sconsidering
regionalism asawhole. TheAnnotated Checklist made some reference tothisinitemI.Itseemed
theCommittee needed tobaseitswork onallinformation available. There were other types of
informationavailableintheWTO,forexample,informationontheEnablingClause.Allthisinformation
would helptheCommittee work effectively onthequestion ofregionalism andmultilateralism.
18. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidhisdelegation welcomed theAnnotated Checklist and
viewed itasevolving. TheChecklist might expand inthefuture astheCommittee examined other
agreements andlooked further intoWTO Agreements. Hisdelegation supported theproposal toidentify
afewitems foramore substantive discussion atthenextmeeting. While pleased withtheChecklist,
hisdelegation would emphasize thatitwasaninstrument fortaking theCommittee tothenextstage
ofdiscussion onsystemic issues. Some Checklist elaborations seemed togivedisproportionate weight
tovarious arguments thathadbeenmade inthepast. (Hewould identify thesewhen thespecific clusters
were being discussed.) Hisdelegation understood theconstraints theSecretariat hadbeenworking
under anddidnotintend toturnthedocument intoanegotiated text. Still, while thedocument was
onlyaninstrument, itwasimportant thatviews bemade known. Since somany issues wereinterlinked,
which made prioritizing according toimportance somewhat difficult, perhaps thebestwaytoproceed
would betofocus onthose issues which delegations considered themselves prepared todiscuss
substantively. Having saidthat,hisdelegation agreed withtheECdelegation thatthesubjects relating
toArticle XXIV weregood candidates, especially itemQ,which dealtwithArticle XXIV:8. Also,
itemBappeared agood subject, asitconcerned abasic question often arising inthecourse of
examinations. Thematter oftheevaluation ofgeneral incidence hadarisen inexaminations, andin
oneinstance thediscussion hadbeencontroversial; moreover, thequestion wasofatechnical nature,
asnoted bythedelegate ofCanada, soitemBwasripeformoving ontothenextstage. Discussion
onitemR,which dealtwiththerelationship between Article XXIV andother WTO Agreements, had
alsobeencontroversial andwould continue toattract attention inexaminations, soit,too,wasan
appropriate itemfortheCommittee tomove ontoinasubstantive manner.
19. Therepresentative ofNorway saidtheAnnotated Checklist would serve asagood basis for
amore substantive discussion oftheissues. Hisdelegation, likeothers, didnotviewthelistofissues
asanexhaustive one;inparticular, astheCommittee hadonlylimited experience examining agreements
notified under GATS Article V,more systemic issues would likely ariseasmore services agreements
wereexamined. Heagreed thatthere wasaneedtofocus thedebate, inparticular toconcentrate on
those issues thatweretheyardstick oftheexamination process -those issues bywhich theCommittee
judged thecompatibility ofRTAs withWTO rules. ItwastheCommittee 'sobligation toensure that
theRTAs wereindeed building blocks oftheMTS. Hisdelegation shared many oftheviews expressed
bytheECdelegation interms ofpriorities, seeing itnecessary tocontinue thediscussion ondefining
theconcept of“substantially allthetrade”,aswellasonrulesoforigin withrespect toArticle XXIV:5
(point EintheChecklist). Itwould alsobeinteresting tohavefurther discussion ontheconcept of
"other regulations ofcommerce", interms ofwhatwasincluded inthatconcept, andinterms ofits
relationship withtheconcept of“otherrestrictive regulations ofcommerce ”asfound inArticle XXIV:8.
These questions hadarisen often during examinations.
20. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidhisdelegation welcomed theAnnotated Checklist and
viewed itasaninformal catalogue ofsystemic issues which didnotexclude further points being raised;
hisdelegation supported theideaoftheCommittee taking anevolutionary approach inthisarea. In
terms ofsetting priorities, the“substantially allthetrade”requirement needed tobeencompassed in
theCommittee 'songoing consideration ofsystemic issues, asthiswasarecurring issue. Even ifthereWT/REG/M/11
Page6
were difficulties involved inreconciling thedifferent interpretations, itwasimportant thattheissue
bekeptinfocus. Interms ofageneral approach tolooking attheissues, hisdelegation favoured the
ideaputforth bytheECdelegation ofusing therequirements ofArticle XXIV:5 andXXIV:8 asa
launching padformore specific consideration ofthesystemic issues. Thiswould encompass items O,
C,D,Qandothers. Itwasalsonecessary thatabalance bestruck bydealing withmore technical
issues aswell. Hisdelegation supported theideaoftreating apackage ofissues thatwould include
technical issues, inparticular thequestion ofthegeneral incidence ofduties (item B).Inaddition to
achieving amore focused consideration ofthesystemic issues, hisdelegation alsosupported theidea
ofhaving aninformal information-exchange process within theframework oftheCommittee. Finally,
anumberofcommentshadbeenmadeaboutthedifferencebetweenthelegalissuesrelatingtocompliance
withArticle XXIV andthebroader issues oftherelationship ofregionalism totheMTS. Hisdelegation
agreed withtheviews expressed intheAustralian delegation 'spaper thattheseissues wereinterrelated;
inpractice itwasdifficult todraw linesbetween thetwosetsofissues. Therelationship between
regionalism andtheMTS wasdependent uponthewayinwhich theruleswereinterpreted andapplied
inagiven context. Anyconsideration ofsystemic issues would seethese broader issues entering into
thediscussion.
21. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthattheChecklist setforthaframework ofissues.
TheECproposal seemed rather fundamental. However, itwould bepremature toprioritize issues.
TheCanadian ideatobegin work ontechnical aspects seemed appropriate untilsuchtimeastherewas
theopportunity forabroader examination ofagreements thatheretofore hadnotbeenmade. There
weresome potentially substantive issues thatmight beconsidered priorities, nottospeak ofwhatthe
representative ofSwitzerland hadraised withrespect toagreements notified totheCommittee onTrade
andDevelopment under theEnabling Clause. So,acombination offactors affected prioritization, and
hisdelegation would encourage theCommittee 'sgetting abetter handle onthem before getting into
priorities.
22. Therepresentative ofJapan saidtheAnnotated Checklist represented strenuous efforts tocover
totheextent possible allthemajor issues surfacing inCommittee discussions. Assuch, itprovided
thebasic knowledge toenable further discussions. Asexpressed bymany delegations, theChecklist
should beanevolving document, withitems added inthefuture. Rather thandealing withjust
Article XXIV matters, theCommittee could dealwithbroad issues, including therelationship between
regionalism andtheMTS andissues relating toservices. Interms oftheCommittee ’sfuture direction,
hisdelegationsupportedthebasicapproachsuggestedbytheChairman.Hisdelegationwishedtopropose
thatfurther discussion dealwiththree broad issues. First, there wastheissue ofthe“substantially
allthetrade”requirement ofArticle XXIV:8, which hadgiven risetodifferences ofviewandconfusion
invirtually allexaminations todate, duetothelackofclarity. Most oftheproblems pertaining to
thisissuewereexpressed under heading O,which indicated themagnitude ofthisissue. Inthisregard,
hisdelegation wished toemphasize thatthere wasanidentical issueintheareaofservices, which was
the“substantial sectoral coverage ”requirement inGATS Article V:1. Hisdelegation hadraised this
issue andhadsubmitted anon-paper ontheinterpretation oftheArticle. Theissue hadbeenraised
inthecontext oftheNAFTA examination butdidnotappear inthecurrent Checklist. However, it
seemed thisissue hadthesame degree ofimportance intheareaofservices asthe"substantially all
thetrade" requirement hadintheareaofgoods. Hisdelegation proposed thatdiscussion ofthisissue
becombined withthe"substantially allthetrade" issue infuture discussions. Second, hisdelegation
would likeattention tobegiven totherelationship between paragraphs 4and5ofArticle XXIV. This
issueconcerned theraising ofbarriers, anditoverlapped withother issues, including those contained
intheAnnotated Checklist withregard tocustoms unions andpreferential rulesoforigin, which had
appeared invarious examinations. Asfarasthisitemwasconcerned, hisdelegation preferred tohave
ageneric identification because ofthedelicate nature oftheissue. Thefocus ofthediscussion would
develop astheCommittee became more engaged inin-depth discussions. Third, hisdelegation could
goalong withthesuggestions bytheECdelegation andothers todiscuss thedifferent approaches inWT/REG/M/11
Page7
Article XXIV towards customs unions andFTAs. Thesuggestion tofocus on“other regulations of
commerce ”alsowould beaninteresting itemfordiscussion. Itwasimportant nowtoformulate a
framework forfuture discussions onsystemic issues inorder torespond tothemandate given tothe
Committee, which wasconfirmed attheSingapore Ministerial Conference. Ashalfayearhadalready
passed, theCommittee needed tostartactual discussions rightaway.
23. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthattheAnnotated Checklist helped explain whatinterpretative
problems existed. Itshould serve asagood starting point from which theCommittee would pursue
itsmandated work ofanalysing whether thesystem ofWTO rights andobligations asitrelated toRTAs
needed tobefurther clarified, asindicated intheCommittee 'sReport totheGeneral Council. Before
expressing views onwhatitems needed closer attention, hewished tocomment oncertain points made
byother delegations. Likeothers, hisdelegation recognized thattheChecklist wastobeanevolving
document. Itwasthushisdelegation 'shopethatastheChecklist grew inthefuture withtheaddition
ofnewissues, theannotation beupdated accordingly. Theannotation should serve asaninstrument
fortheCommittee ’ssubstantive discussion inthefuture, soitwould notbesensible fortheCommittee
tospend timereviewing indetail theannotations orthespecific wording. Rather, theCommittee should
identify issues deserving further analytical work, withaview todischarging itsmandate. Another
matter concerned themanner inwhich theCommittee would perform itsanalytical work ontheWTO
rules, asmandated bytheSingapore Declaration. Adelegation hadsuggested earlier inthediscussion
thattheCommittee needed towaitforthecompletion ofthefirstwave ofRTA examinations before
actually engaging itself inthesubstantive discussion ofthese issues. While recognizing theneedto
strike abalance between examinations andtheanalytical work, hisdelegation could notagree thatthe
Committee should avoid conducting asubstantive discussion onlegalinterpretations untilthecompletion
ofRTA examinations. TheChecklist wasaproduct oftheCommittee ’seffort tobenefit from the
synergies fromtheexamination ofRTAs. Thesynergies flowed twoways, sothatdiscussion andthe
eventual clarification ofsystemic issues, inparticular those issues relating totheinterpretation ofthe
WTO rulesonRTAs, would inturnfacilitate theactual examination ofRTAs. Inaddition todiscussing
legalmatters, hisdelegation wasoftheviewthattheCommittee should address broader issues, such
astherelationship between RTAs andtheMTS. Asfarasthelegalissues wereconcerned, itseemed
thatissues deserving priority attention included those issues directly related totheyardsticks bywhich
theconsistency ofRTAs withWTO rules were tested during examinations. Inother words, the
Committee ’sfocus should beplaced onthose issues directly related toArticle XXIV:5 andXXIV:8 -
more specifically, thecriteria of"substantially allthetrade", ascontained initemO,andthose legal
questions theCommittee frequently encountered during examinations withregard tothecriteria for
notraising theduties andother regulations ofcommerce, which might include theoverall assessment
ofthechange induties andotherregulations, rulesoforigin, application ofsafeguards andanti-dumping
measures, etc.Bysaying this,hisdelegation viewed itself asjoining theemerging consensus onthe
scope oftheissues theCommittee should undertake. Thematters weredifficult andhadbeensome
ofthestumbling blocks inthepast. Over thelast50years, Members hadcollectively attempted to
reach acommon understanding onthose interpretations inexamining RTAs, without much success.
TheCommittee appeared tobeinabetter position compared tothose previous years’working parties
toattempt again todothis,asitcould discuss issues apart fromtheactual examinations ofRTAs, and
thuswasabletoconsider them inamore detached orgeneric way. Hestressed theimportance of
notrestricting tootightly thescope oftheCommittee ’sfuture work, which should remain flexible.
Itwastheexpectation ofhisdelegation thattheSecretariat would prepare papers foreachitemdetailing
thevarious legalaspects oftheissues, inlinewiththeproposal hisdelegation hadmade twosessions
before, sothatinthenextsession theCommittee could enter intoasubstantive discussion onpriority
issues.
24. Therepresentative ofPakistan saidhisdelegation hadalways taken theconsideration ofsystemic
issues tobeanimportant element oftheCommittee 'sterms ofreference; inthatregard, itwelcomed
theAnnotated Checklist. TheCommittee hadalready devoted much timetodebating howtoapproachWT/REG/M/11
Page8
thisaspect ofitsterms ofreference. Ithaddocuments from which itcould benefit: theAnnotated
Checklist, horizontal studies, andapaper bytheAustralian delegation. TheCommittee hadreached
astage where itcould begin substantive discussions based ontheChecklist, which wasofanevolving
nature. Hisdelegation didnothavestrong views regarding priorities, though issues ofparticular interest
included items B,E,O,Q,andR.Hisdelegation could goalong withtheconsensus view, solong
astheissues selected werebothbroad policy issues aswellaslegalandtechnical issues. Hisdelegation
hoped thattheCommittee could startsubstantive discussions onselected items atitsnextmeeting.
(b) Issues almost exclusively dealing withArticle XXIV andtheUnderstanding onthe
Interpretation ofArticle XXIV ofGATT 1994 (theUnderstanding)
25. Therepresentative ofHong Kong referred toparagraph 12oftheAnnotated Checklist, quoting:
"theassessment of'theimpact ofmeasures other thantariffs, suchasanti-dumping, preferential rules
oforigin, technical standards, subsidies andcountervailing measures 'remains difficult". Thispointed
toanimportant aspect oftheassessment oftheeffects ofanRTAbefore andafteritscoming intoeffect.
Involving adimension beyond thetraditional tariff aspects, thisdeserved attention inthefuture.
26. Therepresentative ofAustralia supported thesuggestion bytherepresentative ofJapan tolink
discussion ofthe"substantially allthetrade" requirement ofGATT todiscussion ofthe"substantial
coverage" counterpart inGATS Article V:1. Thisaspect oftheGATS hadbeenhighlighted buthad
beenleftoutoftheChecklist.
27. TherepresentativeofBrazilreactedtotheJapaneseandAustraliansuggestiontostudytheGATT
andGATS Articles together, saying thatitwasnotnecessarily logical totreattheprovisions together.
Atthistimehisdelegation didnotsupport linking thetwo.
28. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiessaidthatheunderstoodtheargumentforlinking
discussionofthe"substantialcoverage"requirementofGATStothe"substantiallyallthetrade"provision
ofGATT; however, hewasoftheviewthatthequestion concerning GATS didnotyetbelong inthe
Checklist, asitwasnotanareathattheCommittee hadfound persistently difficult. Indeed, itwas
anareawhich theCommittee hadjuststarted toconsider. Because theCommittee wasonlyjust
beginning togainexperience intreating services agreements, itseemed better towaitbefore starting
aseparate, parallel process which might addconfusion.
29. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthattheChecklist, being anevolving document, would have
tobeexpanded inlightofadditional observations thatwould come outduring theexamination process.
Inconsidering “substantially allthetrade”,itseemed thatrather thantrying toelaborate onthisin
astand-alonediscussion,theCommitteewouldprobablybenefitmorebydeepeningthetreatmentthrough
theexamination process. TheCommittee wasstillatastage where itneeded toidentify issues, so
astodeepen itsunderstanding ofvarious implications fortheoverall WTO system. Thetreatment
ofsome oftheissues intheSecretariat ’snote, albeit well-done, wasfromalimited information base.
While efforts hadbeenmade toincorporate longstanding discussions, examinations thathadnotyet
taken place might point toother elements thatwould needtobereflected. Thus, theCommittee would
bemissing information ifitdidnottakeintoaccount lessons itwould gainfromexamining these other
agreements -i.e.,non-notified agreements oragreements notified under theEnabling Clause -which
wereimportant fromanoverall systemic standpoint. Information fromsuchexaminations would expand
theknowledge baseforconsidering issues. Regarding itemE,paragraph 21seemed tomischaracterize
theissue, sinceitwasnotthecasethattherewerenorulesoforigin disciplines inFTAs; tothecontrary,
there were disciplines onrules oforigin because theywere inFTAs. Itwaswellknown thatrules
oforigin wereanessential instrument ingranting preferences. Theoverall toneofthatsection suggested
thattherulesonFTAs werefarlessstringent thanoncustoms unions; however, itwasnotclearthat
suchaclaim hadbeendemonstrated. Thephenomenon ofdifferent rulessimply reflected thefactthatWT/REG/M/11
Page9
these weredifferent agreements; itwould beincorrect toconclude thatthere werelessstringent rules
pertaining toFTAs.
30. TheChairman saidthat,while theChecklist wasnotanegotiated document, suchviews on
thecontent were useful.
31. Therepresentative ofKorea saidhehadcomments onthegeneral nature ofthedocument.
Asindicated inparagraph 2,thedocument didnotattempt toanalyze indetail thelegalcomplexity
involvedinthespecificissues;inthatrespect,thedescriptionswereacceptable,butitwashisdelegation’s
expectation thattheAnnotated Checklist would befurther amplified, particularly thesummaries of
thetreatment ofissues under GATT 1947. Ifitweretheintention oftheCommittee toasktheSecretariat
toupdate theChecklist inthefuture, hisdelegation would appreciate more information onthetreatment
ofissues inprevious years.
(c) Issues specifically dealing withtherelationship between Article XXIV andother
provisions oftheWTO
32. With reference toitemQ(b), therepresentative ofHong Kong saidthathisdelegation had
previously argued thatArticle XXIV:8(a) wasadefinitive clause andnotanoperational one;his
delegation would further argue thattheparagraph didnotoblige parties toacustoms union totake
measures inconsistent withtheirother obligations. Totheextent thattheintroduction orextension
ofquantitative restrictions created abarrier totrade forthirdcountries, those measures violated the
second sentence ofArticle XXIV:4. Thecruxoftheissue wastheinterpretation ofArticle XXIV.
Hisdelegation looked forward toafurther andmore substantive discussion oftheissueinthefuture.
(d) Other issues identified
33. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatthisitemoftheCommittee 'sagenda wasimportant
andconcerned averybroad field; interms oftheCommittee 'smandate, thework entailed comparing
thephenomenon ofregionalism totheevolution oftheMTS, inwhich context theCommittee wasto
analyze thesituation vis-à-vis existing multilateral (WTO) rules. Onthebasis ofthisanalysis, the
Committee wastoseewhatshould bedone. TheCommittee hadnotyetreached thisjuncture. To
make suchananalysis, theCommittee needed tohaveaviewofthephenomenon ofregionalism as
awhole. Referring toitemI,itwasimportant thatdiscussion emphasize transparency, asthis,rather
thanacompatibility test,wastheoverall aimforthispartoftheCommittee 'swork. Under thisitem
ofitsterms ofreference, theCommittee wastomake anoverall assessment ofthesituation. Ifthe
Committee wanted tobeintouch withrealities, itwould needasmuch transparency aspossible, touching
onallaspects ofregionalism throughout theworld. Itshould notconcentrate onanyspecific region
orregions. AstheCanadian representative hadsaid,itwasonthebasisofexaminations andexperience
withthese agreements, andalsoonreviewing other agreements thathadnotbeen notified under
Article XXIV, thattheCommittee could amass information. More specifically, reference hadbeen
made many times to“substantially allthetrade”.IftheCommittee wanted tounderstand fullythis
provision ofArticle XXIV, ithadtocompare itwiththecoverage ofFTAs orcustoms unions in
existence. Todothis,itneeded information oncoverage forallFTAs, andnotjustthose notified under
Article XXIV. Hisdelegation would likeitsrequest from thelastmeeting tobefollowed upon,so
thattheCommittee would haveinformation fromother WTO bodies. Perhaps theCommittee should
asktheSecretariat toplayanactive roleinthiscontext, withtheSecretariat carrying outanumber
ofinitiatives. Intheinterest oftransparency, itmight beuseful forinformation submitted tothe
Committee onTrade andDevelopment tofollow theStandard Format onavoluntary basis. Thiswould
make thediscussion onsystemic issues much easier, inasmuch asinformation would besubmitted in
comparable form.WT/REG/M/11
Page10
34. Therepresentative ofKorea saidhehadaquestion onitemT,which concerned themodalities
toimprove themechanism ofexamining RTAs. Hisdelegation could notrecall thecontext inwhich
thisissue hadbeenlabelled asystemic issue. Because theCommittee wasdiscussing thisparticular
issue under another element ofitsmandate, perhaps theitemshould bedropped from theChecklist
unless there wassomething ofasystemic nature involved init.
35. TheChairman saidthatitemTbuiltonthereference intheinitial checklist (WT/REG/W/12),
which indicated thattheissue hadarisen inthecontext oftheNAFTA inJuly1996.
36. Therepresentative oftheUnited States referred totheintervention bytheSwiss delegate
concerning agreements thathadnotbeennotified; whatwasnotclearintheChecklist wastheimportance
ofdeveloping aprocess ormodalities forgathering these agreements .Oneofthedifficulties wasthat
somany ofthese non-notified agreements would notfitthe“substantially allthetrade”test,asthey
frequently werelimited toafewproducts. These weresome oftheagreements thatwerenotbeing
factored intoanalyses, despite thefactthattheywere central tothewhole MFN issue. They were
important andtheyweregrowing. Itwould behelpful tocapture thisinamore specific wayinitemT.
Thiswasadimension oftheCommittee 'swork thatshould bemade more systematic.
37. Therepresentative ofJapan saidwithrespect tothematter ofservices thattheCommittee ’s
mandatewasbroad,reading:“toconsiderthesystemicimplicationsofagreementsandregionalinitiatives
forthemultilateral system andtherelationship between regionalism andthemultilateral trading system ”.
There wasnomention oftheexclusion ofservices, sotheCommittee wasentitled todealwithservices
atanytimeincarrying outthisaspect ofitsmandate. Themandate indeed included discussion on
services.
38. Therepresentative ofBrazil saidhehadnever questioned thattheCommittee hadinitsmandate
thematter oftrade inservices; what hehadquestioned, however, waswhether GATT andGATS
language should betreated inthesamemanner. Thelanguage ofGATS Article V-“substantial sectoral
coverage ”and"substantially alldiscrimination" -entailed adifferent concept from "substantially all
thetrade". Itmight complicate things tostudy thetwotogether.
39. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidhewished tosupport thepoint thattherepresentative
ofJapan hadmade. Suggesting thattheCommittee study theconcept "substantial sectoral coverage"
along with"substantially allthetrade" didnotmean thattheconcepts hadtobeconstrued asidentical,
withthesameconsiderations applying. Rather, theJapanese intervention seemed tohighlight alogical
linkbetween thereferences to"substantially all"inthegoods sense andtheideaof"substantial sectoral
coverage" intheservices sense. Thefootnote toGATS Article Vmight provide abasisforsome further
clarification. Themainpoint wasthattheCommittee should notpreclude issues fromconsideration.
While delegations might havedifferent views astohowtheissues wereaddressed intheservices and
goods contexts, itseemed unwise todenythepossibility ofthesebeing raised asissues. Hisdelegation
wasoftheviewthatthere wasalogical linkage thatmade itsensible forthisservices issuetobedealt
withaswell.
40. TheChairman saidhewasoftheviewthattheCommittee could notexclude fromthepurview
ofitsdiscussion ofsystemic issues anyissue thathadapotential bearing ontherelationship between
RTAs andtheMTS; nobody seemed tobesuggesting thattheissueofGATS and“substantial sectoral
coverage ”wasexcluded. Thequestion inhismindwaswhether theCommittee hadsufficient experience
withservices todoasystemic analysis atthisstage. TheCommittee needed tobearinmind thatthe
AnnotatedChecklistwasbasedontheearlierdocumentWT/REG/W/12,entitled"AChecklistofSystemic
Issues Identified intheContext oftheExamination ofRegional Trade Agreements". Inother words,
itwassupposed tobesomething thatwasbackward looking, drawing outissues from, insome cases,WT/REG/M/11
Page11
longstanding discussions inrelation tothisissue. Hisownviewwasthat,while nothing wasexcluded,
there might notbesufficient material toconsider theissue atthisstage.
41. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation appreciated theclearly
expressed views oftheChairman.
42. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthedebate seemed tobeoveraquestion onwhich there
wasnodisagreement. Hehadnotheard anydelegation saythattheissue of"substantial sectoral
coverage" inGATS Article Vwasnotanissue; however, therehadbeeninterventions saying thisissue
should notbeconsidered inconjunction withtheissue of"substantially allthetrade" inGATT
Article XXIV, which seemed logical since there were separate agreements forgoods andservices.
Others hadsaidthatperhaps theCommittee didnothavethesame amount ofcasehistory forGATS
Article VasitdidforGATT Article XXIV, andthis,too,seemed undeniable. Theissue ofGATS
Article Vandsectoral coverage could beincluded intheChecklist asaseparate item, perhaps with
anotethatdiscussion onthisissue hadonlyjustbegun. Ithadinfactbegun, asithadbeenraised
inexaminations. While thiswasneither anegotiated nornegotiating document, theCommittee should
reflect theissue somewhere.
43. Therepresentative ofJapan saiditseemed thatthere wasnodisagreement about thelogical
linkinthesense thatthere wasasubstantial coverage requirement intheGATT andtheGATS. It
alsoseemed thatmany delegations were oftheviewthatthere wasnotasufficient number ofcases
totreattheissue. Hewished toavoid asituation where thisissue wasforgotten. Toprevent itfrom
being lost,andwiththeunderstanding thatthiswasnotanegotiated document, hisdelegation wished
torequest thattheissue beadded totheChecklist andthattheCommittee press forward. Even ifthe
Committee would needtowaitbefore treating theissue, theissue should beregistered somewhere.
Hisdelegation wasopentoothersuggestions, butitcould notaccept asituation where theissuereceived
nomention.
44. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatessaidtheAustraliansuggestionseemedpractical,addressing
theunderlying concern onthepartofsome delegations thatservices weresomehow being omitted from
theChecklist andthereby from thesystemic discussion. Theideawasfortheservices issue tobe
effectively flagged, withthenotation thatitwould notnecessarily beripeforanexamination because
oftheCommittee 'slackofexperience withservices agreements.
45. TheChairman proposed that,assuggested bythedelegations ofAustralia andtheUnited States,
theCommittee include some reference intheAnnotated Checklist tothequestion of"substantial sectoral
coverage" under theGATS butaddthenotation thattheissue might notberipeforconsideration by
theCommittee asasystemic issue.
46. Therepresentative ofJapan saidhecould agree withthefirstsuggestion, buthequestioned
theneedtonotethattheissue wasnotripeforconsideration. There were noother issues withthat
notation.
47. TheChairmansaidthattheChecklistwasa"ChecklistofSystemicIssuesIdentifiedintheContext
ofExaminations ofRTAs", andmost oftheissues hadalonghistory ofbeing problematic. The
suggestionhadbeenmadethattheCommitteedidnotyethavesuchahistoryofproblematicinterpretation
withrespect totheGATS provisions.
48. Therepresentative ofJapan explained thathisdelegation hadraised theissue inthecontext
oftheNAFTA examination. While thiswasarelatively newissue, there wereother Checklist issues
thathadbeenraised ononlyoneortwooccasions, andseveral minor issues hadbeenincluded. AWT/REG/M/11
Page12
notation saying thatthisissuewasnotripefordiscussion, when noother itemcarried thatmark, would
seem todiscriminate against theissue.
49. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidheagreed withtheJapanese delegate thatitwould not
beappropriate tostarttoclassify items ontheChecklist. TheChecklist wasfirstandforemost an
indicative Checklist; there wasnocommitment involved inincluding various items. Theimmediate
presence ofcertain items ontheChecklist didnotcommit anyMembers toanyfuture discussions,
nomatter howeager some Members might betodoso.Secondly, theCommittee hadnever discussed
thecriteria according towhich certain items were tobeincluded ontheChecklist. There hadbeen
anunderstanding that,indrawing uptheinitial Checklist, theSecretariat wastosurvey previous
discussions andinclude issues raised byMembers. TheJapanese delegation hadmade thepoint that,
since theissue hadbeenraised inaprevious RTA examination, there seemed tobelittlereason why
thatitemcould notbeplaced ontheChecklist. Whether anitemwould gointoastage ofsubstantive
discussion wasamatter fortheCommittee todecide. Ittherefore seemed thattheissue should be
included inthenextupdate oftheChecklist.
50. Therepresentative ofKorea saidhisdelegation supported thearguments bytherepresentatives
ofJapan andHong Kong. Theoriginal Checklist hadnotbeenanegotiated text,butrather hadsimply
beenacomprehensive document containing anysuggestion thathadbeenmade bydelegations during
Committee discussions. Astherehadbeennoexact criteria bywhich theCommittee identified whether
anissue wassystemic ornot,theinsistence bythedelegation ofJapan seemed sensible. Itwas
understandable thatcertain delegations found itdifficult toinclude thatquestion together withthe
"substantially allthetrade" issue, asthatmight begiving some interpretations; buthesawnoreason
whythatparticular itemshould notbeincluded separately intheChecklist. Ifthisposed aproblem,
perhaps theCommittee could maintain aseparate checklist concerning services.
51. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidthatthedifficulty voiced bytheJapanese delegation
seemed tobelimited tothesuggestion tolabel theissue asnotripeforconsideration. Perhaps the
Committee could agree fortheChecklist toreflect thenature ofthediscussion todate. Iftheissue
were raised asaseparate item, thedescription could include areference towhen ithadbeenraised
intheCommittee asanissue andastatement reflecting thatsome delegations hadindicated thatthe
Committee needed todevelop greater practical experience ontheissues involved inthisarea. That
would beaneutral wayofdealing withtheissue, while accommodating theconcern thatitnotbe
neglected orforgotten.
52. Therepresentative ofArgentina saidthat,fromaconceptual pointofview, hisdelegation shared
thedoubts expressed bythedelegates ofBrazil, theECandothers, inthatitwasdifficult todraw a
strict parallel between GATT Article XXIV andGATS Article V.TheChecklist under discussion
wasbased onmatters delegations hadnoted asimportant inthesystemic context. TheChecklist was
notbinding, butrather indicative. Itincluded some specific points andsome detail onwhatdelegations
hadsaidwhen raising thepoints. There didnotseem tobeaproblem. IftheCommittee wasgoing
toplace thismatter ontheChecklist orwasgoing todealwithitinaseparate fashion, whynotdeal
withitseparately andspecify thatthiswasapoint raised bydelegations. Theissuecould beincluded
intheChecklist withsome additional explanation, andtherecould beanindication thattheissuemight
leadtosome difficulties ofdefinition, which would needtobethrashed out. Thefactthatnotall
delegationshadtakenthefloordidnotnecessarilymeanthateverydelegationsubscribedtothedefinitions
intheChecklist. Delegations would discuss issues oncetheywereaware ofwhatmatters weregoing
tobedebated atlength andoncetheywere inaposition tocontribute.
53. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthesuggestion bytherepresentative
ofNewZealand seemed reasonable: toinclude theitemintheChecklist andtonotewhen ithadbeenWT/REG/M/11
Page13
discussed,withoutprejudicetoanyparticularview.Therecordofthemeetingwouldallowtheinterested
reader toexplore therange ofviews thathadbeenexpressed.
54. Therepresentative ofJapan saidhisdelegation supported theremarks bythedelegations of
theECandNewZealand onthispoint.
55. TheChairman asked theCommittee toagree tohaveareference totheissueinthenextversion
oftheChecklist. Itwould beaseparate item, recording briefly thecontext inwhich theitemarose.
What theCommittee nowneeded todecide washowitwould takeitswork forward inthisinteresting
butsometimes controversial area. Hehoped theCommittee would beabletoagree onthree orfour
issues atmost, which theCommittee would begin todelve more deeply intoforitsanalytical work.
Rather thanusing theword “priorities ”,which would givethewrong impression, headvocated that
theCommittee consider those fewissues assimply astarting point. TheCommittee didnotneedto
debate whatwerethemostimportant issues, butinstead should identify three orfourissues ofbroad
interest. These issues didnotnecessarily havetobethemost controversial ones. TheCommittee
might thenasktheSecretariat toprovide some moreinformation tohelpdeepen analysis onthose issues.
Thiswould bedoneonaflexible basis, andtheCommittee would havethefreedom tochange itscourse
atalaterdate. Thiscould beastarting point forthenextstepoftheCommittee ’swork. Ofcourse,
itwaseasytosaythis,butlesseasytoidentify theissues.
56. Therepresentative oftheUnited States suggested thattheCommittee refrain fromdesignating
afewissues todelve intomore deeply. Heunderstood thattheideahadnotbeentolabel them as
priorities, butthattheywould represent issues where therewasacommon levelofinterest. Theconcern
hisdelegation had,however, evenwiththatconfiguration, wasthatdoing sowould bepremature because
ofthereasons hehadputforthearlier: theCommittee hadnotexamined theuniverse ofagreements
insufficient depth toknow what issues toselect. While taking carenottolabelthem "priorities ”,
themere process ofchoosing what tostartwithwould depend upon asomewhat more elaborate
examination ofwhat provisions existed inthespectrum ofagreements. Gaining thisadditional
understanding would perhaps require onlyafewweeks.
57. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthediscussion hadshown thatdelegations haddifferent
ideas astohowtoproceed. Perhaps itwould beuseful fordelegations toreflect onwhat theyhad
heardtodayandtocommunicatewithcapitals.Onthatmoreinformedbasis,theChairmancouldconduct
informal consultations overthenextfewweeks, withaneyetoward reaching aconclusion before the
nextmeeting devoted tothistopic. Inaddition tothequestion ofwhich issues toembark on,there
wasalsothematter ofhowmany. So,perhaps nowwasnotthebesttimetoenter intowhatwould
beadifficult discussion. Regarding thepoint made bytherepresentative oftheUnited States thatthe
Committee didnothavesufficient information totakeupthisdiscussion, theCommittee needed to
remember itwasoperating within itsterms ofreference andalsowithin theDecision thatMinisters
reached atSingapore. TheCommittee wasenjoined byitsterms ofreference toconsider theimplications
ofagreements andregional initiatives fortheMTS andtherelationship between them, andtomake
appropriate recommendations; moreover, theagreement reached atSingapore charged theCommittee
withanalysing inanon-prejudicial manner whether thesystem ofWTO rights andobligations asit
related toRTAs needed tobefurther clarified withaviewtomaking appropriate recommendations.
Itwould bedifficult toargue onthebasis oftheterms ofreference andtheagreement reached at
Singapore thattheCommittee needed towaituntilacertain stage before embarking onthatdiscussion.
Itseemed clear thattheCommittee needed toconsider theimplications ofexisting agreements,
presumably those ithadhadtheopportunity todiscuss, asthere would always beoutstanding ones.
Itdidnotseem practical todefer thisimportant partoftheCommittee 'swork untilanunspecified time
when theCommittee would haveexamined allnotified agreements; indeed, itseemed suchanapproach
would notbeconsistent withtheCommittee ’sterms ofreference orwiththeagreement reached at
Singapore.WT/REG/M/11
Page14
58. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidhisdelegation supported theintervention
justmade bytheAustralian representative. Given theterms ofreference andthework onsystemic
issues thusfar,itwasnotopentotheCommittee todecide nottoproceed further. There seemed to
beawidemeasure ofsupport intheCommittee forsome non-prejudicial examination ofatleastone
ortwoofthecoreissues thathadbeendiscussed, andthereappeared tobeawidemeasure ofconsensus
onwhatthose coreissues were. Asthedelegate ofAustralia hadsaid,itwasperhaps more forthe
Chairman toidentify theheart ofthatconsensus; butitdidseem thatatthecentre ofthediscussion
there wasawidemeasure ofconsensus astowhere theCommittee might start. Itseemed important
foraninformal consultation process tobuild onthecomments made, andtohaveasitsobjective the
rapid andinformal defining ofaworking question thattheSecretariat anddelegations could useas
abasisfordeeper analysis. InthiswaytheCommittee could begin looking sensibly, inanon-prejudicial
wayandinmore detail, atsome oftheissues identified aslying attheheart ofthecurrent pattern of
systemic issues. AstheAustralian delegate hadnoted, itwould never bepossible tohaveacomplete
picture ofRTAs, astheykeptcoming along. IftheCommittee waited fortheRTAexamination process
tofinish, much oftheutility ofthesystemic exercise interms ofdealing withthefuture might belost,
andmuch oftheCommittee 'swork thathadbeendonewould become pointless. TheCommittee had
nochoice politically orpractically other thantodetermine asensible, low-key andnon-prejudicial way
ofmoving forward inanappropriately careful andintellectually openway.
59. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidhisdelegation wassympathetic totheposition ofthe
United States delegation andrecognized theimportance ofprogress intheexamination ofagreements,
butitwould notbefairtoholdhostage oneaspect oftheCommittee 'sterms ofreference fortheprogress
ofanother aspect. TheCommittee hadaffirmed thesynergy initsReport lastyear. Itseemed the
Australian suggestion astohowtoproceed seemed reasonable. Itwould neither beuseful noracceptable
topostpone thework inthisregard toanunspecified future.
60. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthathisdelegation hadalready expressed itsviewonthemanner
inwhich theCommittee should conduct analytical work onlegal issues. Heheard thatatleastone
ortwodelegations were notready formally tolaunch theanalytical work onthese issues. Asmall
country wasunable topersuade orconvince delegations togoalong withtheemerging consensus; still,
hewished tocallattention tothefactthattherewasawiderange ofsupport fortreating specific issues.
Itseemed apityfortheCommittee todelay itswork offulfilling itsmandate given byMinisters at
Singapore. Hisdelegation supported thesuggestion fortheChairman toinitiate informal consultations.
TheCommittee might atthisstage leave openthescope ofissues, anddelegations would stillbeable
tosubmit contributions onissues ofinterest tothemsoastogenerate interest among other delegations.
TheSecretariat could assist theCommittee byproducing amoredetailed Annotated Checklist toimprove
theCommittee 'sunderstanding. Again, hisdelegation would liketorequest thatmore information
onthetreatment ofthose issues under theGATT period beincluded intheAnnotated Checklist inorder
toimprove theCommittee 'scollective memory.
61. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthere seemed tobeconsensus thatthesystemic issues were
animportant element ofthework oftheCommittee. Theproposed schedule fortherestoftheyear
allocated anumber ofmeetings totheconsideration ofsystemic issues, sothequestion washowbest
tousethetime. Today 'smeeting hadbeenfruitful inthatitrevealed howdelegations viewed thenext
stepinterms ofdeepening theCommittee 'sunderstanding ofspecific rulespertaining toArticle XXIV.
Some comments alsohadpointed tothefactthatthispartoftheCommittee 'smandate called fora
broader policy discussion inthesame context. Some other initiatives hadbeenlaunched lastyear
(e.g., thehorizontal andcomparative study), andtheCommittee stillhadnotdecided howbesttobenefit
from them. So,itseemed appropriate forMembers toreflect forafewdaysonhowtheCommittee
might bestusetimeallocated tosystemic issues inthefall,given thevarious elements thatwere in
play. Itwasimportant thatdelegations hadaclear perspective ofwhat topics andapproach would
besuitable. Inthatregard, itseemed worthwhile topursue informal consultations.WT/REG/M/11
Page15
62. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidhisdelegation agreed thatsome process wasneeded
totaketheCommittee forward initswork. Theideaforinformal consultations wasuseful inthatregard.
Healsoendorsed thecomments that,while there might bedifferent views onsubstantive items, there
wasmuch agreement onwhat items could beconsidered inareasonable package offocused issues
fordetailed consideration. Oneideaputforthhadbeenthat,inaddition tosome ofthemore difficult
issues, itmight beuseful tolookatmore technical issues. Thatmight helpbring together asmall,
manageable andfocused package.
63. Therepresentative ofJapan saidhisdelegation shared theviews ofmany delegations inwanting
toseeagreement astothetopics theCommittee would discuss inthefuture. Thiswasparticularly
thecasebecause ithadbeensixmonths already fromthetimeoftheSingapore Ministerial Conference.
Itwastimetostartfocused discussion onselected issues. Theideaofhaving informal consultations
wasacceptable tohisdelegation, butitseemed important tohaveaconclusion bytheJulymeeting,
sothattheCommittee could startdiscussions inSeptember. Hisdelegation hadalways beenofthe
viewthatitwasgood tohaveagreement, butifthere werenone, allMembers should beallowed to
offertheirownpapers forsystemic discussions. Despite itspreference foragreement, hisdelegation
could notaccept asituation where discussions were continuously postponed. Ifagreement wasnot
possible, theCommittee should proceed withaprocedure whereby anyMember could make itsown
presentations onitems, assuggested bythedelegation ofKorea.
64. Therepresentative ofArgentina saidhisdelegation hadnospecific position onwhether the
Committeeshouldhaveinformalconsultations,butifinformalsweregoingtotakeplace,itwasimportant
thatdelegations gotothemwithout anypreconditions, suchashaving aresult byJuly. TheAnnotated
Checklist contained many options andalternatives, andthere wasawhole universe ofideas init.It
wasnotsomething todigest immediately formaking hurried choices. There werestillbenefits tobe
hadfrom theCommittee 'swork examining RTAs. Inconsidering thedirection oftheCommittee,
sufficient timeshould beallowed forarriving atpositive results.
65. TheChairman saidhewould convey toAmbassador JohnWeekes thesuggestions made. Also,
theCommittee might asktheSecretariat toreview thenoteinlightofthecomments andsuggestions
made, bearing inmind thattheCommittee regarded theChecklist asanevolving document andnot
anegotiated document. Hewould indicate thattheCommittee hadhadaninteresting andfruitful
discussion about theCommittee 'sfuture work. Some delegations wereoftheviewthatitwastime
tofocus discussions more narrowly, notinterms oflabelling things aspriorities, butrather interms
ofsimply making astart. Other delegations wereoftheviewthatmore timewasneeded forreflection
andforamassing additional experience. Hewould reflect those views totheChairman oftheCommittee
andforward thesuggestion thatheconduct informal consultations fordetermining thenextphase of
theCommittee 'swork. Assome delegations hadsaid,thereseemed tobeanumber ofitems regarding
which there waswidespread interest.
66. TherepresentativeofKoreasaidthattheChairman'sformulationwasacceptabletohisdelegation.
Heasked iftheCommittee could expect theSecretariat toproduce anupdated Annotated Checklist
inthefuture, withmore amplified information.
67. TheChairman saidthattheaimwastoproduce arevised version. Hewould notputatimeframe
onitatthistime, andhewould notventure tosaywhatmight bereflected init.TheCommittee should
usetheevolving document, withthecaveat thatitwasnotadocument tobenegotiated andagreed
toasanaccurate reflection ofallpoints ofview. Itwassimply aninstrument tocarry theCommittee 's
work intothefuture.WT/REG/M/11
Page16
D. Reporting ontheOperation ofAgreements
68. TheChairman recalled thatattheprevious session, theCommittee hadhadtheopportunity
toaddress theAustralian contribution onthisissue, contained indocument WT/REG/W/13. Healso
reminded delegations ofdocument WT/REG/W/3, which wasachecklist ofissues prepared bythe
Secretariat. There hadbeenaninteresting debate during theprevious session regarding theobjective
ofthereporting requirement, which ofcourse wasalegal requirement. Some delegations, suchas
thatofAustralia, hadbeenoftheviewthattheobjective wasmore related tothesystemic implications
ofRTAs fortheMTS, while others regarded reporting asgeared toward ensuring thatRTAs conformed
withWTO rules overtime.
69. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthathisdelegation ingeneral supported theideas inthe
Australian paper, butstressed thatperiodic reporting wasnecessary forensuring theconsistency of
anRTA withWTO Agreements. Thiswasalegal requirement, according toparagraph 11ofthe
Understanding.Hisdelegationwasconcernedthattherequirementhadvirtuallybeenignored.Reporting
should bedone systematically, along ascheduled calendar. Toensure consistency with WTO
requirements, biennial reports should alsocover RTAs under waivers, theEnabling Clause andthe
GATS. Asstated inparagraph 5oftheAustralian paper, itwasimportant toconsider trade trends
inorder toassess trade-creation effects. Also, itwasimportant toassess changes ordevelopments
ofnon-tariff measures, orregulations ofcommerce, especially those applying tothirdcountries but
notapplying among theRTA parties. Hisdelegation could goalong withparagraphs 3and8ofthe
Australian paper, ontheinteraction between anRTAandtheMTS. Inaddition totheCommittee treating
thistopicinitssystemic discussions, biennial reports should cover it.Thiswasimportant, asthemain
purpose ofreporting wastoensure theconsistency ofanRTAwithWTO Agreements. IftheCommittee
wasunable todraw aconclusion onasystemic matter inanexamination report, orifitdidnotwish
toreopen debate, different views could beincluded inthebiennial report.
70. Therepresentative ofKorea noted thattheCommittee hadreviewed thissubject onatleast
three occasions andhadbenefited from thewritten contribution bytheAustralian delegation. Inthe
process, many salient points hadbeenraised, soitseemed theCommittee wasaware ofthemajor
differences inviews. Thisreporting obligation hadbeenre-emphasized intheCommittee 'sReport
lastyear, soitseemed thatthelegalobligation toreport should befulfilled assoonaspossible. It
wasnotnecessary torestate positions onthissubject. Because itwasimportant thattheCommittee
move forward, hisdelegation would propose thattheSecretariat develop another paper containing the
various options presented bydelegations, ashadbeendonewiththeGuidelines onFacilitating and
ImprovingtheExaminationProcess.ThiswouldhelptheCommitteemoveforwardandachieveconcrete
results.
71. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidhedidnotwishtoreopen thelengthy anduseful discussion
thattheCommittee hadhadattheprevious session. However, theChairman 'scharacterization ofthe
objectives ofbiennial reporting seemed somewhat stark; itwasnotthattheCommittee hadachoice
ofwhether tofocus onsystemic implications orthecontinuing conformity ofRTAs withWTO
disciplines.TheJapanesedelegationhadarticulatedwellthatthosetwoissuescouldnotbedistinguished.
Itwasclearthatthecontinuing conformity ofanRTA withWTO provisions hadtobeanimportant
partofanydiscussion theCommittee might haveonthesystemic effects ofRTAs ontheMTS. So,
iftherehadbeendifferences ofopinion astotheobjective ofbiennial reporting, those differences could
beaccommodated. Hisdelegation ’sproposal thatbiennial reporting could provide theCommittee with
anopportunity forasystemic discussion hadbeenpremised ontheterms ofreference fortheCommittee,
which enjoined theCommittee todiscuss thesystemic effects ofRTAs ontheMTS. Biennial reporting
alsoafforded theopportunity fortheCommittee tocontinue toregister views onanRTA'sconformity
orlackthereof withWTO provisions. IntheAustralian paper discussed lastsession, hisdelegation
hadmade some specific suggestions astowhatthecontents ofbiennial reporting might include. AsWT/REG/M/11
Page17
therehadnotbeenmuch disagreement about whatmight beincluded, itseemed theCommittee should
focus ontheeasyquestion ofwhatthebiennial report should contain, andputaside whattheobjective
should be,since itwasonlybyimplementing sucharequirement thattheCommittee would likely
discover whatitwould getoutoftheprocess. Again, atleastinthecaseofArticle XXIV agreements,
biennial reporting wasalegal obligation. Herecognized thatinthecaseofeconomic integration
agreements, there would notalways bealegalobligation. Still, given theCommittee 'sobligation to
discuss thesystemic effects ofRTAs ontheMTS, itseemed logical toinclude services agreements
andtakeadvantage ofthem toobtain anoverview oftheeffects ofRTAs ontheMTS.
72. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthat,onthewhole, hisdelegation could subscribe tothe
pointmadebytheAustralianrepresentativethatperhapstheobjectiveofbiennialreportingwouldbecome
self-evident onceasystem wasestablished andtheinformation generated. Itwasanimportant task
fortheCommittee todecide whatthatinformation ought tobe.There already existed avoluminous
amount ofinformation provided totheWTO, forexample, through theTPRprocess. TheTPRprocess
typically involved Members 'asking questions about agiven country 'spreferential arrangements
(reflecting theimportance delegations attached tothistopic), sotheCommittee should avoid duplicating
thisprovisioning ofinformation. Another critical pointneeding tobedecided wastowhom thebilateral
reporting requirement applied. Hisdelegation wasoftheviewthat,inorder toachieve acomprehensive
perspective ondevelopments inregional agreements, thisparticular biennial reporting requirement
should extend toallagreements -notonlytoagreements notified under Article XXIV, butalsothose
notified under theEnabling Clause. Indeed, reporting onthose notified under theEnabling Clause
would begood, asinformation available onthesewasfarlessexhaustive thaninthecaseofArticle XXIV
agreements. Perhaps awaytoaddress whattypeofinformation would bedesirable would betolook
attheexisting Standard Format, using thatasabasis forupdates, withbiennial reporting focusing
onthechanges thathadtaken place overthetwo-year period.
73. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthat,whatever theprocess would entail, itshould
notconstitute areopening oftheexamination ofanagreement. Thecentral focus ofitshould benot
onlythechanges thathadtaken place intheagreement itself, or,inthecaseofaninterim agreement,
whathadhappened toitorwhatadditions hadbeenmade, butalsoupdated tradedatathatwould reflect
theeffects oftheagreement. Suggestions fromtheAustralian paper regarding dataseemed appropriate,
though hewould bereluctant toendorse thenexttolastindent, sincethatdidnotseemapriority, given
thefactthattheCommittee hadanexamination backlog. Hisdelegation shared theviewoftheCanadian
delegationthatthereportingrequirementshouldapplytoagreementsnotifiedunderGATTArticleXXIV,
GATS Article V,andtheEnabling Clause. Byundertaking suchareview, theCommittee would need
tobepractical inthinking oftheeconomies ofreviewing these agreements. There would bequestions
ofmodalities, interms oftimedevoted toreviews. TheCanadian point about theTPRprocess was
fair,buthewould notethattheTPRM wasnottargeted tosome ofthespecific legalelements ofthe
obligations under therespective articles governing theagreements. Intheprocess oftrying to
reinvigorate thisreporting obligation, theCommittee should think interms ofeconomies andwhat
theobjectives were. Entering intoadiscussion onsystemic effects atthisstage seemed aluxury the
Committee perhaps could notafford.
74. Therepresentative ofNorway saidhisdelegation would beinfavour oftheJapanese suggestion
thatagreements notified under theEnabling Clause andunder GATS Article Vbecovered bythe
reportingobligation.Regardingmodalities,hisdelegationagreedthatreportingshouldnotbeareopening
oftheexamination process. There wasmerit intheAustralian proposal tofocus work onwhatshould
bethecontentofbiennialreports,andthatreportingfollowtheStandardFormatandfocusonthechanges
thathadoccurred since thelastreport.
75. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthediscussion seemed tobedigressing.
Lastsession therehadbeenafruitful debate ontheobjective ofthereporting process andhowitshouldWT/REG/M/11
Page18
fitintothewider picture ofexaminations andthesystemic discussion. Thatwasadebate hisdelegation
would liketoseetheCommittee takeforward. Hisdelegation wasdisturbed bytheapparent tendency
toward substituting action forthought, where, rather thansettling theobjective, theCommittee would
putthatasideanddosomething instead. TheCommittee andotherWTO bodies wereoverloaded enough
andshould notgenerate extra material without asense ofthepurpose itwastoplay. Heurged that
theCommittee return tothequestion oftheobjective oftheexercise andtrytomake progress inthat
regard. Hisdelegation continued tohaveaprofound objection tothisobligation being imposed on
theEContopofitsobligations every twoyears under theTPRM. TheCommittee needed toreflect
sensibly onwhattheexercise wassupposed toachieve. Itwould notbearesponsible useofresources
tocreate unnecessary work. TheCommittee needed togivefurther thought toextending theobligation
attaching toagreements covered byArticle XXIV totheGATS context, where therewasnoobligation
existing. Thatwould involve creating anewobligation, again without anyclear sense ofwhat the
objective might be.Itseemed theCommittee would beexceeding itsauthority. There might bea
possibility tolinkasensible approach tothisobligation totheseparate systemic debate, butthatlinkage
would require careful thought tobeconstructive. Thedebate which theCommittee hadjusthadon
howtotakeforward thesystemic debate needed answers first,before thereshould bealinkage between
thetwoexercises.
76. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidhisdelegation ’sposition wasaccurately reflected inthe
minutes fortheprevious session. Hestressed thattheobligation hadremained outstanding forquite
some time, sotherewasasense ofurgency. Inthatregard, theKorean proposal tohavetheSecretariat
produce apaper appeared anappropriate waytoproceed. Hisdelegation could alsosupport theCanadian
suggestion totaketheStandard Format asthebasis ofaformat forbiennial reporting. Ofcourse,
Members would needtobearinmind thatsome information might notbeavailable atthetimeofthe
initial submission oftheStandard Format. Also, sincetheCommittee hadalready discussed extensively
howtheinformation might beused, theSecretariat could setoutthevarious points made inapaper
tohelptheCommittee move forward inthisregard.
77. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthat,haddelegations followed theirobligations over
thepasttwoyears, theCommittee would already haveasignificant volume ofinformation tousein
analysing therelationship between regionalism andtheMTS. Thiswasanexercise intransparency,
since thelanguage called forRTA parties toreport; itwasareporting exercise, notareopening of
theexamination process. Inthatvein,hisdelegation supported theideathatthistransparency exercise
ofreporting should apply notonlytothose agreements notified under GATT Article XXIV, butalso
tothose agreements notified under theEnabling Clause andGATS. Asfaraswhatinformation should
beincluded inthebiennial reports, itseemed thatinformation along thelineoftheStandard Format
would besufficient tocontinue tohaveatransparent presentation ofthedevelopment ofFTAs orcustoms
unions. Forthose RTAs thathadbeenpresented onthebasis oftheStandard Format, anupdate of
statistics, etc.would certainly besufficient. Thisshould beaneasytask. TheCommittee should avoid
creating toomuch bureaucratic work. Forthosedelegations which hadnotinitially provided information
intheStandard Format, thefirstbiennial report might beanoccasion topresent more elaborate
information along thelineoftheStandard Format.
78. Therepresentative ofColombia saidthatthepurpose ofthisdiscussion wastohavepractical
implementation ofMembers 'obligations tosubmit biennial reports, asprovided intheUnderstanding.
TheCommittee needed tobearinmind thescope ofthatreporting obligation, which should concern
thewaytheagreement wasoperating, andwhich should notleadtorenewed discussion ontheagreement
itself. Reports weresimply togiveevidence oftheagreement 'sconformity withArticle XXIV, while
technical discussions should bedealtwithunder thatpartoftheCommittee 'sagenda. Members should
bearinmindthattheCommittee hadatremendous workload already, interms ofexamining agreements.
Furthermore, itwasnottheplace ofthisCommittee toincrease Members 'responsibilities. GATS
Article Vdidnotlaydown anobligation onMembers toreport periodically; therefore iftheCommitteeWT/REG/M/11
Page19
were tolaydown suchanobligation, itwould begoing beyond itsmandate. TheEnabling Clause
established thatparties withapreferential agreement hadtonotify anyamendment orwithdrawal of
MFN treatment. Those aspects concerned theCommittee, andother aspects were dealtwithbythe
committees which hadanobligation tooversee them. Therefore, hisdelegation wasoftheviewthat
theCommittee should notlaydown arequirement foragreements under theEnabling Clause toreport
every twoyears.
79. Therepresentative ofAustralia called attention tothepoint made bytheSwiss delegation that,
haddelegationsconformedwiththereportingobligation,theCommitteewouldalreadyhaveasubstantial
body ofmaterial touseincarrying outitsmandate todiscuss thesystemic implications oftheeffects
ofRTAs ontheMTS. Twoobligations werebeing discussed: thefirstwastheobligation ofparties
toRTAs notified under Article XXIV toreport biennially, andthesecond wastheobligation ofthe
Committee todiscuss thesystemic effects ofRTAs ontheMTS. There wasnochoice involved -it
wassimply amatter ofdeciding howbesttomeetthose obligations. Several delegations hadraised
thepoint thattheCommittee ought notreopen examination ofRTAs aspartofbiennial reporting.
Acursory examination ofmany ofthereports thathadbeenmade onRTAs would show thatthose
examinations infacthadnever beenclosed. Most reports listed alargenumber ofagreements onwhich
consensus wasnotreached. So,thewhole question ofnotreopening anexamination wasnotreally
relevant -there were many unresolved issues thatwere stillunder discussion anddeserved further
attention. Nobody wassuggesting thatsomehow, many years aftertheevent andasaresult ofbiennial
reporting, theCommittee would suddenly declare anyparticular RTA tobeinconsistent withWTO
obligations. TheCommittee needed tobepractical about thepoint oftheexercise. TheECdelegation
hadsuggestedthattheCommitteeneededtodefineobjectivesbeforeseekingtooperationalizethebiennial
reporting requirement; while sensible, thefactremained thattherewasanobligation forparties toRTAs
notified under Article XXIV toreport biennially. Taking thatpointtoitslogical conclusion, Members
could decide todebate theobjectives ofanynumber ofWTO requirements before deciding toconform
withthem. Itmight bebetter if,bearing inmind thesuggestions thathadbeenmade, theCommittee
decided ontheformat forbiennial reporting. There hadbeenseveral suggestions ofwhattheobjectives
ofbiennial reporting should be,noneofwhich seemed toconflict witheachother.
80. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthat,totheextent thatbiennial reviews involved
arehashing ofpoints, theprocess would become impossible tomanage. Still, itseemed thattheEC
delegation wasoverreacting tosuggest thattheCommittee wastrying tocreate more work. Itwould
beirresponsible, notwithstanding theabsence ofasingle legalprovision, fortheCommittee toignore
areview ofRTAs affecting trade inservices. Services hadnotbeenmentioned in1971 because it
was20years prior totheexistence oftheGATS. Also, thefactthatdrafters forgot toinclude these
RTAs inMarrakesh could notjustify notreviewing them. Inthefuture more RTAs would contain
provisions affecting services sectors, sothesameissues would arise. TheCommittee needed toconsider
much more practically, andlesslegally, whether Members hadaresponsibility tocarry outaform
ofreview thatwould include allthesectors covered byWTO Agreements.
81. Therepresentative ofRomania saidthat,while thereclearly wasareporting obligation according
tothe1971 Decision fortrade ingoods, theCommittee needed toconsider whether theobligation,
which hadbeenlaiddown when transparency mechanisms hadnotbeenverydeveloped, wasstilla
requirement. AslongasMembers hadthisobligation, theycould notstrayfromthem. Also, inthe
view ofhisdelegation, there wasaclear difference between abiennial report andanassessment of
anagreement. Inother words, biennial reporting should notreopen theconsideration ofwhether an
RTA wasinkeeping withWTO provisions. Lastly, there wasadistinction between thegoals and
purposes ofbiennial reporting andthose ofthesystemic analysis ofmultilateralism andregionalism.
Ifthese basic considerations weretaken intoaccount, theCommittee might beinaposition tosetout
whatitsobjectives were andthereby determine whatitwanted from biennial reports.WT/REG/M/11
Page20
82. TheChairman saidthat,while taking thepoint thattheCommittee needed tobemindful of
theobjective oftheexercise before itcould design something indetail, itneeded some tool-perhaps
apaper -forrefining itsthinking. Heproposed thattheCommittee request theSecretariat toprepare
adraft document, which would becompletely non-committal, along thelines oftheprevious
paper (WT/REG/W/3). Thismight drawoutoptions regarding various points theCommittee hadbeen
discussing -forexample, thenature ofthereports -sothattheCommittee would havesomething to
useinfocusing thediscussion. TheSecretariat might alsodraw upadraftdocument onthefactual
information tobesubmitted forthereporting requirement; some delegations hadsuggested thatthis
bebased onasimplified version oftheStandard Format. Ashehadstated atthebeginning ofthe
Session, theCommittee hadforty-four agreements todealwithandtherewould beapractical constraint
ontheamount ofattention itcould devote tothismatter. SoiftheSecretariat would dothis,the
Committee would notbecommitted toanything, butitwould haveabasis forthenextdiscussion.
E. Examination oftheFreeTrade Agreement Between Canada andIsrael
83. Areport onthisexamination willsubsequently becirculated asaseparate document.
F. Other Business
84. TheChairman called theCommittee 'sattention totworecent requests forobserver status in
theCommittee. Based onfeedback hehadreceived, itseemed theCommittee should allow alittle
timeforreflection before deciding onthese requests.
85. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatthedelegations oftheEFTA States (Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Norway andSwitzerland) andMorocco wished toinform theCommittee thattheysigned
anFTAon19July1997. Theparties would notify theagreement induecourse.
86. Therepresentative ofMorocco endorsed thestatement bytherepresentative ofSwitzerland.
87. TheCommittee tooknoteofthecomments made.