Norway WT/TPR/S/15
Page 95
V. TRADE DISPUTES AND CONSULTATIONS
(1) GATT Dispute Settlement
(i) Articles XXII andXXIII
1. Intheprevious Trade Policy Review ofNorway, itwasreported thatNorway hadchanged
itsimport régime forapples andpears inresponse toapanel finding inJune1989. TheUnited States
expressed concern about theGATT-consistency ofthenewrégime andrequested Article XXIII
consultations.1Norway saidithadtaken account oftheprovisions ofArticle XI:2(c), andindicated
itwould alsoreview thenewrégime inthelightoftheoutcome oftheUruguay Round.2Infact,no
Article XXIII consultations wereheld. Norway andtheUnited States agreed tosolve thedispute within
theUruguay Round. Tariff ratesforapples andpears werethensetaccording tothetariffication process
foragricultural products ingeneral.
2. When thelastTrade Policy Review ofNorway washeld, theUnited States andNorway had
entered theconciliation phase (Article XXII:1) ofadispute, subsequent toanti-dumping and
countervailing dutydeterminations bytheUnited States Department ofCommerce andaninjury
determination bytheUnited States International Trade Commission onNorwegian exports offresh
andchilled Atlantic salmon.3Norway subsequently requested Article XXIII:1 consultations4;these
werelaterchanged toconsultations under theTokyo Round Committees onAnti-dumping Practices
andonSubsidies andCountervailing Measures (seebelow).
3. In1992,ArgentinarequestedArticleXXII:1consultationswithNorwayregardingahydro-electric
project inCosta Rica, claiming thatNorwegian firms competing withaconsortium offirms from
Argentina, Colombia, Switzerland andtheUnited States hadmade adonation which amounted toan
implicit subsidy.5Later intheyear, Argentina saidithadresolved itsdispute withNorway.
(ii) Disputes under theTokyo Round Agreements
4. Intheprevious Trade Policy Review ofNorway, attention wasdrawn toadispute raised in
theCommittee onGovernment Procurement bytheUnited States against Norway concerning theaward
ofacontract forthedevelopment ofatoll-ring system around thecityofTrondheim. APanel
subsequently recommended infavour oftheUnited States and,atthemeeting oftheCommittee on
Government Procurement heldon13May1992, Norway saiditwould notstand inthewayofadoption
ofthereport, which wassodecided bytheCommittee.6
1DS16/1, 17May 1990.
2C/M/251, 26August 1991.
3DS24/1, 8March 1991.
4DS24/2, 18April 1991.
5C/M/259, 27October 1992.
6GPR/DS2/R, 28April 1992, GPR/M/46 of26June 1992.WT/TPR/S/15
Page 96Trade Policy Review
5. Following thefailure ofconsultations inMarch andMay1991 andanunsuccessful attempt
atconciliation inJuly1991, panels were established attherequest ofNorway on26September and
21October under theCommittee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures andtheCommittee on
Anti-dumping Practice, respectively, toconsider itscomplaint against theimposition ofcountervailing
measures andanti-dumping duties bytheUnited States onfresh andchilled Atlantic salmon imported
fromNorway.7Norway complained, interalia,thattheUnited States authorities hadfailed tosatisfy
themselves thattherequest forinvestigations hadbeenfiledonbehalf ofthedomestic industry. Inthe
anti-dumping case,thePanel concluded thattheUnited States hadacted inconsistently withprovisions
oftheagreement; thePanel established bytheSubsidies Committee concluded thattheUnited States
hadnotacted inamanner inconsistent withitsobligations under theSubsidies Code. Inbothcases,
Norway initially opposed theadoption ofthepanel reports, because itconsidered thatthepanels were
inerror oncertain points, while theUnited States didnotoppose theiradoption. Intheend,itwas
agreed thatthepurpose ofapanel report wastoresolve adispute, itdidnotbindother parties nor
diditsetalegalprecedent. Onthisbasis, thereports were adopted inbothCommittees.8
(2) Other Consultations
6. Asnoted inChapter II,Norway isparty totheEEAAgreement, which entered intoforce on
1January 1994. Compliance withtheagreement byEFTA States totrade liesunder thesurveillance
andenforcement oftheEFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) andtheEFTA Court. Inmatters covered
bytheagreement, theEFTA Court andtheESAhavesimilar competence totheEuropean Court of
Justice andtheEuropean Commission. Norway hasneither beenacomplainant noradefendant in
anydispute settlement cases under theEEA Agreement. However, Norway hasbeen party to
consultations with regard tominium prices ontheimportation oncertain fishspecies tothe
EuropeanUnionandcertainmeasuresregardingveterinaryandhygienechecksconcerningtheimportation
offishintroduced byFrance. Thefirstcase,referred totheEEACommission inFebruary 1994, was
regarding minimum prices ontheimportation ofwhite fishandsalmon totheEuropean Union and
certain measures regarding veterinary andhygiene checks concerning theimportation offishintroduced
byFrance. These measures expired in1994. Thesecond case, referred totheEEA Commission in
December 1995, concerned minimum prices ontheimportation offreshsalmon totheEuropean Union.
Thismeasure isstillinforce. Norway questions thelegalbasis forthismeasure.
7ADP/69, 6November 1992.
8ADP/M/44, 5September 1994; andSCM/M/69, 21September 1994.Norway Page 97
REFERENCES
European FreeTrade Association (1994), European Economic Integration: Effects of"1992" onthe
Services Sector oftheEFTA Countries, Geneva.
Focus Bank (1995), Annual Report, Oslo.
GATT (1991), Trade Policy Review -Norway, Geneva.
OECD (1993), Maritime Transport 1993, Paris.
OECD (1995), Reviews ofForeign Direct Investment -Norway, Paris.
Statistics Norway (1996), Economic Survey, quarterly (to1/96).
Wilse,Hans-Petter(1995),"Managementofthebankingcrisisandstateownershipofcommercialbanks",
Norges Bank Economic Bulletin, 2/95, Oslo.