RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/C/M/1
27March 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-0699)
Council forTrade inGoods
20February 1995
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on20February 1995
Chairman: Ambassador M.Endo (Japan)
Subjects discussed Page
1. Rules ofProcedure fortheCouncil forTrade inGoods 3
2. Agreement onTrade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) 3
(A) Notification formats andprocedures: notifications under Article 5.1
oftheTRIMs Agreement (PC/IPL/8, paragraphs 2,4and5)
(B) Notifications under Article 5.1bygovernments which accept the
Agreement after1January 1995 (PC/IPL/8, paragraph 6)
3. Agreement onPreshipment Inspection 4
- Legal status oftheIndependent Review Entity under Article 4
oftheAgreement
4. Agreement onSafeguards 5
- Membership oftheCommittee onSafeguards
5. Understanding ontheInterpretation ofArticle XVII oftheGATT 1994 5
(A) Establishment oftheWorking Party onState Trading Enterprises
(B) Notification requirement withrespect toState Trading Enterprises
under Article XVII ofGATT 1994 (G/STR/1)
6. Marrakesh Ministerial Decision onNotification Procedures 6
- Establishment oftheWorking Group onNotification Obligations
andProceduresG/C/M/1
Page2
7. Enlargement oftheEuropean Union: Accession ofAustria, Finland 6
andSweden totheEuropean Communities
- Communication from theEuropean Communities
(L/7614 andAdd.1; WT/L/7; WT/L/22)
8. Interim Agreement between Bulgaria andtheEuropean Communities 8
- Communication from theEuropean Communities
(L/7671 andAdd.1; WT/REG1/1)
9. Interim Agreement between Romania andtheEuropean Communities 8
- Communication from theEuropean Communities
(L/7618 andAdd.1; WT/REG2/1)
10. Notification byMalaysia inpursuance ofArticle XVIII:C ofGATT 1994 9
andthe1979 Decision onSafeguard Action forDevelopment Purposes (WT/L/32)
- Communication from Singapore (G/L/2)
- Communication from Malaysia (G/L/3)
11. UseofSpanish asaworking language intheTechnical Committee on 14
Rules ofOrigin
12. Appointment ofofficers fortheCommittee onMarket Access, 15
Committee onAgriculture, Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary
Measures, Committee onSafeguards, Working Group onNotification
Obligations andProcedures andWorking Party onState Trading Enterprises
13. Other business 17
- Chairmanship oftheWorking Parties ontheFreeTrade Agreements between
theCzech Republic andSlovenia, andbetween theSlovak Republic andSlovenia
- Adhocprocedures onparticipation ofinternational organizations inthe
work oftheWTO bodies -firstmeeting ofthesubsidiary bodies ofthe
Council forTrade inGoods
TheChairman welcomed delegations tothefirstmeeting oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods
oftheWorld Trade Organization (WTO). Heproposed thatthisbeing thefirstmeeting oftheCouncil,
itshould bedevoted mostly to"housekeeping issues". Henoted thatthegovernments which hadbeen
granted observer status intheGeneral Council anditssubsidiary bodies through thedecision taken
atthemeeting oftheGeneral Council on31January 1995hadbeeninvited asobservers tothismeeting
oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods. Healsodrew attention tothefactthat,inaccordance withthe
"Adhocprocedures onparticipation ofcertain international organizations inthework oftheWTO
Bodies" (WT/GC/COM/2) which were accepted ataninformal meeting ofHeads ofDelegations to
theGeneral Council on9February 1995, theUnited Nations, UNCTAD, IMFandtheWorld Bank
hadbeeninvited tothefirstmeeting oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods. Hewelcomed theobserver
governments andtheinternational organizations mentioned tothemeeting.G/C/M/1
Page3
1. Rules ofProcedure
1.1 TheChairman drew attention toArticle IV:5 oftheWTO Agreement which foresaw the
establishment bytheCouncil forTrade inGoods of"rules ofprocedure subject totheapproval of
theGeneral Council". Heproposed tostartverysooninformal consultations forestablishing such
rules ofprocedures, andthatuntilthenextmeeting oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods, business be
conducted onthebasis ofestablished GATT practice.
1.2 TheCouncil soagreed.
2. Agreement onTrade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)
(A) Notification formats andprocedures: notifications under Article 5.1oftheTRIMs Agreement
(PC/IPL/8 paragraphs 2,4and5)
2.1 TheChairman stated that,theGeneral Council, atitsmeeting on31January 1995, hadremitted
thequestion ofnotification procedures andformats totherespective Committees forimplementation
andaction asappropriate. However, theTRIMS Agreement (Articles 5.1and5.5)provided thatcertain
notifications bemade totheCouncil forTrade inGoods. Also, astandard format fornotifications
under Article 5.1hadbeenagreed aswellassuggestions forfurther work onnotification requirements
under theAgreement. Headded thatitwould seem consistent withthedecision taken bytheGeneral
Council fortheCouncil forTrade inGoods toendorse theformat andtoremit itandtheother issues
relating tonotifications totheTRIMS Committee forfurther consideration and/or action asappropriate.
Thismeant thattheCommittee onTRIMs would carry outthetaskassigned totheCouncil under the
TRIMs Agreement withrespect tonotifications. Asprovided forinArticle 7.3oftheTRIMs Agreement,
theCommittee onTRIMs would submit annual reports totheCouncil.
2.2 TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil endorse thestandard format andremit thisandother
issues relating tonotifications totheCommittee onTRIMs forfurther consideration and/or action as
appropriate.
2.3 TheCouncil soagreed.
(B) Notifications under Article 5.1bygovernments which accept theAgreement after1January
1995 (PC/IPL/8, paragraph 6)
2.4 TheChairman stated thatinthecourse ofdiscussions heldlastyearunder theauspices ofthe
Preparatory Committee, itwasnoted thatthecompetent WTO bodymight needtoexamine atanearly
stage thequestion ofthearrangements fornotifications under Article 5.1oftheTRIMs Agreement
bycountries which were eligible tobecome original Members oftheWTO butwhich accepted the
WTO Agreement afteritsentryintoforce(document PC/IPL/8, paragraph 6).Specifically, theproblem
wasraised thatinthese cases theperiod ofninety daysprovided inArticle 5.1might haveexpired
atthetimesuchcountries accepted theAgreement. Thismatter hadnotbeenreflected intheReport
ofthePreparatory Committee andtherefore noaction hadbeentaken onitbytheGeneral Council.
2.5 TheChairman proposed, therefore, thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods request theCommittee
onTRIMs toconsider thismatter andtoprepare anyappropriate recommendations.
2.6 TheCouncil soagreed.G/C/M/1
Page4
3. Agreement onPreshipment Inspection (PSI)
- Legal status oftheIndependent Review Entity under Article 4oftheAgreement
3.1 TheChairman recalled thatatitsfirstmeeting, on31January 1995, theGeneral Council had
assigned thesubject ofpreshipment inspection totheCouncil forTrade inGoods. Healsorecalled
thattheSub-Committee onInstitutional, Procedural andLegal Matters, atitsmeeting on7October
1994, hadrequested theSecretariat, inconsultation withinterested delegations andwiththeInternational
Federation ofInspection Agencies (IFIA) andtheInternational Chamber ofCommerce (ICC), toprepare
adraftforformalising, inwriting, thestatus oftheICC, theIFIAandtheIndependent Entity foreseen
under Article 4oftheAgreement onPreshipment Inspection (PC/IPL/M/6, paragraph 60). The
Secretariat had,sincethen,beenengaged inconsultations withinterested delegations andwiththeICC
andIFIA. Herequested theSecretariat topresent anoralreport onthestateofthese consultations.
3.2 Therepresentative oftheSecretariat stated thatthisreport wasbeing made ontheSecretariat 's
responsibility. Since therequest bytheSub-Committee onInstitutional, Procedural andLegal Matters,
on7October 1994, theSecretariat hadconvened sixmeetings ofinterested delegations, aswellas
consulted withdelegations individually andwiththeICCandIFIA. Some halfdozen proposals had
beenonthetablewithaviewtofinding asolution tothequestion oflegalliabilities oftheIndependent
Entity, itsstaffandpanellists. Sofarthishadnotbeenpossible, aseither some delegations orthe
ICCandIFIA hadhadproblems withoneorother option. However, from theconsultations itwas
clear thatdelegations appreciated theproblems andwere desirous tofindasolution tothem. All
concerned werealsoaware oftheurgency ofthematter. Indeed, fromthelastround ofconsultations
itseemed thattherewassome hopethatanoption recently proposed might leadtoapositive outcome.
Herecalled, furthermore, thatthePSIAgreement hadentered intoforce forallWTO Members on
thedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement, thatwas1January 1995. However, Article 4
ofthePSIAgreement(whichrelatedtotheIndependentReviewProcedures),foresawthattheIndependent
Entity shallestablish, within twomonths ofentry intoforce ofthePSIAgreement, alistofexperts
from which panellists shallbechosen. Thatmeant thatadelay ofuptotwomonths wasprovided
beforeArticle4couldbecomeoperational.Giventhattheprocessofconsultationshadnotyetconcluded,
itdidnotseem possible tomeetthisdeadline of1March 1995. Thus, untilasolution hadbeenfound
tothequestions ofstatus andlegalliabilities oftheIndependent Entity andofitsstaffandpanellists,
theIndependent Entity would notcome intoexistence and,therefore, norecourse could bemade to
it.
3.3 TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthereport; request theSecretariat to
pursue itsconsultations withinterested delegations andwiththeICCandIFIA, withaviewtoputting
forward asolution tothequestions ofthestatus oftheIndependent Entity andthelegalliabilities of
theIndependent Entity, itsstaffandpanellists, forconsideration byallWTO Members; andagree to
revert tothismatter atitsnextmeeting.
3.4 TheCouncil soagreed .G/C/M/1
Page5
4. Agreement onSafeguards
- Membership oftheCommittee onSafeguards
4.1 TheChairmanstatedthatArticle13.1oftheAgreementonSafeguardsprovidedforthefollowing:
"ACommittee onSafeguards ishereby established under theauthority oftheCouncil forTrade in
Goods, which shallbeopen totheparticipation ofanyMember indicating itswishtoserve onit".
TheAgreement onSafeguards imposed obligations regarding safeguards onallWTO Members,
irrespective ofwhether ornottheyweremembers oftheCommittee onSafeguards. Article 13.1of
theAgreement onSafeguards provided forapossibility ofcertain Members electing themselves out
from themembership oftheCommittee onSafeguards. Since theCommittee onSafeguards would
discuss thesafeguards notifications byallMembers oftheWTO, themembership oftheCommittee
onSafeguards could beestablished onthebasis thatallWTO Members would bemembers ofthe
Committee onSafeguards, withtheexception ofthose WTO Members whoexpressly indicated their
wishnottobeamember oftheCommittee. Thiswould preserve thepossibility, mentioned inArticle
13.1, forcertain WTO Members whodonotwishtobemembers oftheCommittee onSafeguards
tooptoutofmembership ofthebody.
4.2 Inviewofthis,theChairman proposed thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods consider allWTO
Members tobemembers oftheCommittee onSafeguards unless theyindicate otherwise by22February
1995.
4.3 TheCouncil soagreed.
5. Understanding ontheInterpretation ofArticle XVII oftheGATT 1994
(A) Establishment ofaWorking Party onState Trading Enterprises
5.1 TheChairman drewattention toparagraph 5oftheWTO Understanding ontheInterpretation
ofArticle XVII oftheGATT 1994, which provided thataWorking Party shallbesetuponbehalf
oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods toreview notifications andcounter-notifications onstatetrading
andtoreview, inthelightofthenotifications received, theadequacy ofthequestionnaire onstatetrading
andthecoverage ofstatetrading enterprises.
5.2 Inlinewiththis,theChairman proposed thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods decide toestablish
aWorking Party onState Trading Enterprises tocarry outthetasks described inparagraph 5ofthe
Understanding ontheInterpretation ofArticle XVII ofGATT 1994, withmembership intheWorking
Party opentoallMembers indicating theirwishtoserve onit.
5.3 TheCouncil soagreed.
(B) NotificationRequirementwithrespecttoStateTradingEnterprisesunderArticleXVIIofGATT
1994 (G/STR/1)
5.4 TheChairman drew attention tothenotebytheSecretariat indocument G/STR/1, andagain
totheUnderstandingontheInterpretationofArticleXVIIofGATT1994whichprovidedinparagraph1,
thatinordertoensurethetransparencyofstatetradingenterprises,Membersshallnotifysuchenterprises
totheCouncil forTrade inGoods. TheUnderstanding provided adefinition of"state trading enterprise"
andstated thatnotifications shallbemade inaccordance withthequestionnaire onstatetrading adopted
on24May1960 (BISD 9S/184), taking account oftheprovisions oftheUnderstanding. Inorderto
startthenotification process under theWTO andinorder thattheWorking Party onState Trading
Enterprises beenabled toconduct itswork onthebasisofcomplete information andinatimely mannerG/C/M/1
Page6
in1995, itwasproposed thatthefirstnotifications onstatetrading enterprises under theWTO régime
be"new andfull"notifications.
5.5 With respect tothedeadline forsubmission ofnotifications, theChairman pointed outthat
accordingtotheCONTRACTINGPARTIES'Decisionof9November1962(BISD11S/58),contracting
parties wereinvited tosubmit every thirdyearbeginning fromJanuary 1963newandfullnotifications.
However, thisdeadline wasalmost never observed. So,inorder togivedelegations sufficient time
toprepare theirnotifications, andtoensure thatthenecessary material wasbefore theWorking Party
assoonaspossible, thedeadline of30June1995hadbeenproposed forthecurrent year'snotification
obligation. Withrespect toallfuture notifications, theWorking Party itselfwould decide whatdeadlines
were appropriate.
5.6 TheChairman, therefore, proposed thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods decide thatthefirst
notifications onstatetrading enterprises would be"new andfull" andthatthedeadline fortheir
submission would be30June1995.
5.7 TheCouncil soagreed.
6. Marrakesh Ministerial Decision onNotification Procedures
- Establishment ofaWorking Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures
6.1 TheChairman drewattention totheDecision onNotification Procedures, which wasanintegral
partoftheWTO Agreement andwhich wasadopted bytheGeneral Council atitsmeeting of31January
1995. Itprovided thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods would "undertake areview ofnotification
obligations andprocedures under theAgreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement." Thereview
wastobecarried outbyaworking group which wastobeestablished immediately afterthedateof
entry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement andinwhich membership wasopentoallMembers.
6.2 Inaccordance withthis,theChairman proposed thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods decide
toestablish aWorking Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures tocarry outthetasks set
outinPartIIIoftheDecision onNotification Procedures.
6.3 TheCouncil soagreed.
7. Enlargement oftheEuropean Union: Accession ofAustria, Finland andSweden tothe
European Communities
- Communication from theEuropean Communities (L/7617 andAdd.1; WT/L/7; WT/L/22)
7.1 TheChairman stated thatinformal consultations heldunder theChairman oftheGeneral Council
hadresulted inagreement ontheestablishment ofaworking party under Article XXIV ofGATT 1994
andonitsterms ofreference aswellasontheunderstanding onthebasisofwhich theterms ofreference
would beadopted.
7.2 Inthisconnection, theChairman proposed thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods establish a
"Working Party ontheEnlargement oftheEC"withthefollowing terms ofreference andcomposition:G/C/M/1
Page7
Terms ofreference:
7.3 "toexamine, inlightoftherelevant provisions oftheGATT 1994, theaccession ofAustria,
Finland andSweden totheEuropean Communities andtosubmit areport totheCouncil forTrade
inGoods".
7.4 Theterms ofreference were tobeadopted withthefollowing understanding:
Understanding
7.5 "According totheUnderstanding ontheInterpretation ofArticle XXIV oftheGATT 1994
"allnotifications under paragraph 7(a)ofArticle XXIV shallbeexamined byaworking party inthe
light oftherelevant provisions oftheGATT 1994 andofparagraph 1ofthisUnderstanding".
Paragraph 1oftheUnderstanding confirms thatagreements leading toacustoms union mustsatisfy,
interalia,theprovisions ofparagraphs 5,6,7and8ofArticle XXIV. Similarly, theentire Schedules
ofconcessions andcommitments attached totheMarrakesh Protocol willbeexamined bytheWorking
Party.
7.6 According toparagraph 5(a)ofArticle XXIV, theduties andother regulations ofcommerce
affecting trade withWTO Members notparticipating inthecustoms union "shall notonthewhole
behigher ormore restrictive thanthegeneral incidence oftheduties andregulations ofcommerce"
applicable priortotheformation oftheunion. Thisimplies thataworking party established toexamine
anotification under paragraph 7(a)ofArticle XXIV hasthemandate toexamine theincidence and
restrictiveness ofallduties andregulations ofcommerce, inparticular those governed bytheprovisions
oftheAgreements contained inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement.
7.7 However, itshould bekeptinmindthatthepurpose ofanexamination inthelightofparagraph
5(a)ofArticle XXIV would notbetodetermine whether eachindividual dutyorregulation existing
orintroduced ontheoccasion oftheformation ofacustoms union isconsistent withallprovisions
oftheWTO Agreement; itwould betoascertain whether onthewhole thegeneral incidence ofthe
duties andother regulations ofcommerce hasincreased orbecome more restrictive. Accordingly,
although theWorking Party would conduct itsexamination inlightoftherelevant provisions ofthe
Agreements contained inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement, theconclusions oftheReport ofthe
Working Party would beconfined toreporting onconsistency withtheprovisions ofArticle XXIV.
7.8 Ontheoccasion oftheformation ofacustoms union ameasure might betaken whose legal
status under theWTO Agreement isnotdirectly related toordoesnotdepend ontheconsistency of
theformation ofthecustoms union withArticle XXIV assuch. Theexamination ofincidence and
restrictiveness ofsuchameasure byaworking party established under Article XXIV would notprevent
anyWTO Member fromraising thequestion oftheconsistency ofthatmeasure inanother WTO body
competent toexamine thatissue, nordoesthepresent arrangement prejudice therights andobligations
ofanyWTO Member under theWTO agreements.
7.9 Iunderstand thatitisexpected thattheWorking Party should coordinate itsworking schedule
withthatofanyother working party thatmaybeestablished toexamine theenlargement according
totherelevant procedures oftheWTO Agreement."
Membership:
7.10 TheWorking Party would beopentoallMembers oftheWTO andother signatories ofthe
FinalActthatwerecontracting parties totheGATT 1947andwereeligible tobecome original Members
oftheWTO indicating theirwishtoserve onit.G/C/M/1
Page8
7.11 TheChairman proposed thathebeauthorized todesignate theChairperson oftheWorking
Party inconsultation withthedelegations principally concerned.
7.12 TheCouncil soagreed
8. Interim Agreement between theRepublic ofBulgaria andtheEuropean Communities
- Communication from theEuropean Communities (L/7617 andAdd.1; WT/REG1/1)
8.1 TheChairman drewattention tothecommunication fromtheEuropean Communities contained
indocument WT/REG1/1 inwhich itindicated thatthenotification oftheInterim Agreement between
theEuropean Communities andtheRepublic ofBulgaria which wasoriginally notified totheGATT
1947 contracting parties indocument L/7617 dated 23December 1994 should beconsidered tobea
notification alsounder theGATT 1994.
8.2 TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods agree toestablish aworking party
withthefollowing terms ofreference andcomposition:
Terms ofreference:
8.3 "toexamine, inlight oftherelevant provisions oftheGATT 1994, theInterim
Agreement between theRepublic ofBulgaria andtheEuropean Communities andto
submit areport totheCouncil forTrade inGoods."
8.4 Headded thathisstatement concerning theunderstanding ontheterms ofreference ofthe
Working Party fortheEnlargement oftheEuropean Communities applied mutatis mutandis tothis
Working Party. Itshould benoted, however, thatthetwoAgreements weredifferent innature: while
theECAgreement related totheenlargement ofacustoms union, theEC-Bulgaria Agreement was
aninterim agreement fortheformation ofafree-trade area.
Membership:
8.5 TheWorking Party would beopentoallMembers oftheWTO andother signatories ofthe
FinalActthatwerecontracting parties totheGATT 1947andwereeligible tobecome original Members
oftheWTO indicating theirwishtoserve onit.
8.6 TheChairman proposed thathebeauthorized todesignate theChairperson oftheWorking
Party inconsultation withthedelegations principally concerned.
8.7 TheCouncil soagreed.
9. Interim Agreement between Romania andtheEuropean Communities
- Communication from theEuropean Communities (L/7618 andAdd.1; WT/REG2/1)
9.1 TheChairman drewattention tothecommunication fromtheEuropean Communities contained
indocument WT/REG2/1 inwhich itindicated thatthenotification oftheInterim Agreement between
theEuropean Communities andRomania which wasoriginally notified totheGATT 1947 Council
indocument L/7618 dated 23December 1994 should beconsidered tobeanotification alsounder
theGATT 1994.G/C/M/1
Page9
9.2 TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods agree toestablish aworking party
withthefollowing terms ofreference andcomposition:
Terms ofreference:
9.3 "toexamine, inlight oftherelevant provisions oftheGATT 1994, theInterim
Agreement between Romania andtheEuropean Communities andtosubmit areport
totheCouncil forTrade inGoods."
9.4 TheChairman stated thathisstatement concerning theunderstanding ontheterms ofreference
oftheWorking Party fortheEnlargement oftheEuropean Communities applied mutatis mutandis to
thisWorking Party. Itshould benoted, however, thatthetwoAgreements weredifferent innature:
while theECAgreement related totheenlargement ofacustoms union, theEC-Romania Agreement
wasaninterim agreement fortheformation ofafree-trade area.
Membership:
9.5 TheWorking Party would beopentoallMembers oftheWTO andother signatories ofthe
FinalActthatwerecontracting parties totheGATT 1947andwereeligible tobecome original Members
oftheWTO indicating theirwishtoserve onit.
9.6 TheChairman proposed thathebeauthorized todesignate theChairperson oftheWorking
Party inconsultation withthedelegations principally concerned.
9.7 TheCouncil soagreed.
10. Notification byMalaysia inpursuance ofArticle XVIII:C ofGATT 1994 andthe1979
Decision onSafeguard Action forDevelopment Purposes (WT/L/32)
- Communication from Singapore (G/L/2)
- Communication from Malaysia (G/L/3)
10.1 TheChairman drewattention toacommunication fromSingapore circulated indocument G/L/2
which wasinresponse toMalaysia 'snotification made inpursuance ofArticle XVIII:C andthe1979
DecisiononSafeguardActionforDevelopmentPurposes.Malaysiahad,sincethen,sentacommunication
which hadbeencirculated indocument G/L/3.
10.2 Therepresentative ofSingapore referred todocument WT/L/32 of6February 1995, andstated
thatMalaysia hadnotified theWTO ofitsinvocation ofArticle XVIII:C andofitsapplication, since
7April 1994, ofquotas andimport licensing measures forimports ofcertain petrochemicals. In
document G/L/2 dated 15February 1995, Singapore hadobjected tothisnotification andrequested
thatthisCouncilnotacceptMalaysia'scommunicationasanotificationunderArticleXVIII:C.Singapore
supported theproper useofArticle XVIII asanimportant toolinpromoting economic development.
However, inorder toprotect theinterests ofallWTO contracting parties, itwasessential thatthe
provisions ofArticle XVIII becomplied with. Since thiswasthefirstcaseofaninvocation ofArticle
XVIII:C under theWTO Agreement, andsincetheimport restrictions affected Malaysia 'stariffbindings
under theWTO Agreement, itwasimportant forthisCouncil toensure thatArticle XVIII:C wasnot
applied inamanner which would open abigloophole intheWTO legal system andwhich could
undermine, inthiscaseasinfuture cases, therights ofallcontracting parties.G/C/M/1
Page10
10.3 ArticleXVIII:Callowedaless-developedcountrytotakemeasuresinconsistentwithotherArticles
oftheGATT onlyunder anumber ofconditions:
10.4 Thefirstcondition waspriornotification oftheproposed measures andofthespecial difficulties
which prevented thecountry fromachieving itsobjective through GATT-consistent measures. Contrary
tothisrequirement, Malaysia 'snotification hadcome tenmonths afteritsunilateral imposition ofimport
restrictions. Malaysia hadexplained neither theconditions under which import licenses would beissued
bytheMinistry ofInternational Trade andIndustry, northespecial difficulties which hadprevented
MalaysiafromassistingitspetrochemicalindustrythroughGATT-consistentmeasures.Whiletheimport
restrictionsweredescribedasa"Customs(ProhibitionofImports)Order"inMalaysia'sOfficialGazette,
Malaysia nowclaimed thatthisdescription waserroneous. Because therewasnoproper notification,
itwasimpossible forCONTRACTING PARTIES toexamine therequirement inArticle XVIII:13 that
noGATT-consistent measures werepracticable toachieve Malaysia 'spolicy objective. AsMalaysia,
since1January 1995, hadaccepted athirty percenttariffbinding ontwoofthepetrochemicals subject
toimport restrictions, Singapore could notseeanyreason why-onlyfiveweeks aftertheentry into
forceofthesetariffbindings -GATT-consistent tariffs orproduction subsidies should nolonger suffice
toprotect thepetrochemical industry inMalaysia. Allthese problems illustrated thattheprocedural
requirement ofaproper notification wasnotamereformality which could beignored without impairing
therights ofother contracting parties.
10.5 Thesecond condition wasthatthecontracting party invoking Article XVIII "shall notintroduce
thatmeasure before theexpiration ofthetimelimitlaiddown inparagraph 15or17,asthecasemay
be,orifthemeasure affects imports ofaproduct which isthesubject ofaconcession included inthe
appropriate schedule annexed tothisAgreement, unless ithassecured theconcurrence ofthe
CONTRACTING PARTIES inaccordance withtheprovisions ofparagraph 18".Malaysia hadclearly
violated thisobligation byintroducing itsimport restrictions unilaterally tenmonths agoandwithout
theconcurrence oftheCONTRACTING PARTIES. Again, thisprohibition ofunilateral import
restrictions priortotheirproper notification andconsultations wasnotamereformality butwasessential
forenabling adversely affected countries, likeSingapore, toengage inconsultations andprotect their
rights under theGATT. TheMalaysian notification hadinvoked the1979 Decision on"Safeguard
Action forDevelopment Purposes", butthisDecision allowed Malaysia todeviate from these
requirements onlyifithadbeendemonstrated byMalaysia thatthere were "unusual circumstances
where delay intheapplication of(the)measures... maygiverisetodifficulties intheapplication of
itsprogrammes... ofeconomic development", andonly"totheextent necessary". ButMalaysia had
neither notified norexplained anysuch"unusual circumstances". Theunilateral introduction ofimport
restrictions wastherefore clearly illegal alsointhisrespect, anddeprived contracting parties oftheir
righttoconsult andtherefore avoid disputes prior totheintroduction ofimport restrictions.
10.6 Singapore wasnotcontending thataparty should loseitsrights under Article XVIII orany
other provisions oftheAgreement foraminor, technical violation which harmed noone. GATT had
operated inthepastwithahighdegree ofprocedural flexibility, anditwasSingapore 'sviewthatthis
neednotchange under theWTO. ButitwasalsoSingapore 'sconsidered viewthataproper notification
andconsultations, asrequired byArticle XVIII:C, were anecessary precondition forenabling the
CONTRACTING PARTIES toexamine theapplicability ofArticle XVIII:C andtoprotect theirrights
before import restrictions were introduced unilaterally. Hisdelegation regretted thatMalaysia had
chosen toignore itsprocedural obligations under Article XVIII. Thelegalconsequences ofthisshould
beborne byMalaysia andnotbytheother GATT contracting parties adversely affected bythis. If
theCONTRACTING PARTIES tolerated unilateral invocations ofArticle XVIII:C without proper
notifications andwithout consultations inclear violation oftheprocedural requirements of
Article XVIII:C, ahuge loophole inthenewWTO legalsystem would becreated andadangerous
precedent would besetnotonlyforArticle XVIII butalsoforother notification andconsultation
requirements under theWTO Agreement. Itwould beverysadindeed ifoneofthefirstdecisions
ofthisCouncil wastoendorse ortolerate suchanundermining oftheWTO legalsystem.G/C/M/1
Page11
10.7 Initscommunication circulated asdocument G/L/2, Singapore hadtherefore requested the
Council nottoaccept Malaysia 'scommunication asaproper notification andinvocation of
Article XVIII:C because theprocedural requirements ofArticle XVIII:C hadobviously notbeenmet.
However, asaprecautionary measure incasetheCouncil didnotshare Singapore 'sview, andinorder
toprotect itsrights under Article XVIII:15, Singapore hadalsoasked theCouncil tomake therequest
toMalaysia,within30daysofreceiptofMalaysia'scommunication,toconsultwiththeCONTRACTING
PARTIES pursuant toArticle XVIII:15 soastoclarify thepurpose andcontents ofMalaysia 'smeasures,
andthemeans bywhich therights andinterests ofadversely affected contracting parties likeSingapore
could beprotected. Headded thatitwasonlyproper thattheCouncil, afterhaving made sucharequest,
should notproceed toconsult withMalaysia under paragraph 16ofArticle XVIII untiltheCouncil
hadreached adecision onthepropriety oftheMalaysian notification.
10.8 Heemphasized thatthenotetoArticle XVIII:15 intheAnnex toGATT 1994 gaveSingapore
therighttomake sucharequest, because Malaysia 'simport restrictions hadseverely limited Singapore 's
traditional exports ofthepetrochemical products concerned andSingapore wasclearly "appreciably
affected" byMalaysia 'simport restrictions. AfterMalaysia hadcurtailed Singapore 'srights byviolating
theprocedural requirements ofArticle XVIII:C, Singapore hoped thatthisCouncil would meet its
obligations andwould notaddtotheinjustice donebyeither accepting theinvocation ofArticle XVIII:C
ornotrequesting Malaysia toconsult under paragraph 15ofArticle XVIII:C, thereby condoning
Malaysia'sclearlyillegalmeasures.Malaysia'sunilateralintroductionofclearlyillegalimportrestrictions
hadcompelled Singapore torequest consultations under Article XXIII:1 indocument WT/DS1/1
circulated on13January 1995. Itwasonlyafterwards thatMalaysia hadinvoked Article XVIII:C.
Singapore would begladtosettle thisdispute inconformity withGATT ruleswithout having toproceed
toadispute settlement proceeding, butthiswould require thatMalaysia remove theoffending import
prohibitions.
10.9 Therepresentative ofMalaysia stated thatthisissue ofpolypropylene andpolyethylene had
beenconsidered bytheDispute Settlement Body on10February 1995, andbilateral consultations had
beenheld. Asecond round ofconsultations wasduetotakeplace inearly March 1995. Thismatter
wasnowinscribed asanagenda itemforthemeeting oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods. However,
Malaysia wasoftheviewthatasthismatter hadadevelopmental perspective itshould fallwithin the
competence oftheCommittee onTrade andDevelopment.
10.10 Theclaim bySingapore indocument G/L/2 thatMalaysia wasattempting todelay Singapore 's
request forconsultations wastotally incorrect asbothcountries werealready actively engaged inbilateral
consultations. Inaddition, theWTO Agreement hadonlyentered intoforce on1January 1995, and
inthisregard, Malaysia wasintheprocess oftaking stepstoassume itsobligations tonotify asrequired
bythevarious agreements. Moreover, thenotion thatthemeasure inquestion wasannounced too
lateshould bedispelled. Forallpractical purposes traders andinterested parties knew about thismeasure
three weeks prior totheeffective dateofitsimplementation, i.e.7April 1994. Itwaspublished in
Malaysia 'sofficial gazette on16March 1994. Moreover, itwasanestablished practice under GATT
thatprocedural deficiencies should notbeusedtoinvalidate anaction thatwould meetthesubstantive
criteria established intheagreement. Additionally, Singapore 'sdescription ofthemeasure inquestion
asanimport prohibition waserroneous. Licences hadbeenissued during theperiod from 7April
1994to31December 1994forimports of209,457 metric tonsofpolyethylene and45,995 metric tons
ofpolypropylene.Thisrepresentedamajorityshareofdomesticconsumption.Inconclusion,hestressed
Malaysia 'swillingness tolookatallpossible arrangements withaviewtofinding anamicable solution.
10.11 Therepresentative ofIndonesia, speaking alsoonbehalf ofBrunei-Darussalam, thePhilippines
andThailand stated thatheviewed thematter under consideration withmixed feelings. Ontheone
hand, hefirmly believed inthenewWTO dispute settlement mechanism asacorecomponent ofthe
strengthened multilateral trading system; ontheother handhewasconcerned thatthefirstdispute
casebrought totheWTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) involved twoASEAN partners. HeG/C/M/1
Page12
hopedthatbothpartieswouldcontinuetheirconsultationswithaviewtoachievingamutuallysatisfactory
solution.Inviewofthepossibleramificationsofthisissue,heproposedthattheChairmanoftheCouncil
forTrade inGoods conduct consultations withbothparties concerned; consultations which would be
opentoother interested delegations andwhose results could thenbereported tothenextmeeting of
theCouncil.
10.12 Therepresentative ofHong Kong stated thatany"exception rule" totheprovisions ofthe
GATT hadtobeinterpreted verynarrowly; thispoint hasbeenproven byGATT jurisprudence. By
thesametoken, procedural requirements ontheinvocation ofthese"exception rules" hadtoberespected.
Article XVIII provided aframework which would clarify thematter presently under consideration.
However, heexperienced feelings similar tothose indicated bytherepresentative ofIndonesia, speaking
alsoonbehalf ofBrunei-Darussalam, thePhilippines andThailand, andsupported theirproposal that
theChairman should conduct informal consultations which might leadtoanamicable resolution of
thisissue.
10.13 Therepresentative oftheUnited States shared Singapore 'sconcerns regarding thenotification
byMalaysia under Article XVIII. IftheCouncil decided toinvite interested Members toconsult on
thismatter, hisdelegation would understand thatthescope ofconsultations would besufficiently broad
toencompass adiscussion ofallelements ofArticle XVIII, including theeligibility ofMalaysia to
invoke theprovisions ofSection CofArticle XVIII. Apart from theissue ofwhether Malaysia had
metthenotification requirements under Article XVIII, theUnited States believed thattherestrictions
would bemore appropriately addressed under other GATT articles. IfArticle XVIII wasviewed to
betheappropriate GATT article, thensection Dandnotsection C,would provide therelevant legal
framework, within which suchmeasures might beintroduced, assuming thatallother applicable
conditions could bemet.Furthermore, hisdelegation understood thattheseconsultations werewithout
prejudice towhether, asathreshold matter, Malaysia hadproperly invoked Article XVIII withrespect
tothesemeasures orwhether thenotification wasotherwise valid. Hisdelegation expected toparticipate
actively inconsultations initiated under theauspices oftheCouncil onMalaysia 'snotification.
10.14 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities emphasized theimportance ofthepointunder
discussion andinthisregard regretted thatMalaysia 'snotification hadbeensubmitted atalatestage.
Theproposal toholdconsultations onthismatter wasimportant aswellasuseful andhisdelegation
wanted toparticipate insuchconsultations. More generally, hisdelegation hadsome doubts regarding
Malaysia 'srecourse toArticle XVIII andinanycaserecourse toitssection C.Acertain degree of
analysis wasrequired assoonaspossible inthisconnection.
10.15 Therepresentative ofBrazil stated thathisdelegation hadalways hadaspecial interest inArticle
XVIII-related issues. Ashadbeenstated bytherepresentative ofIndonesia (speaking alsoonbehalf
ofBrunei-Darussalam, thePhilippines andThailand) andtherepresentative ofHong Kong, theissue
under consideration wasdifficult andviewed withmixed feelings. Hesupported theproposal made
bytherepresentative ofIndonesia (speaking alsoonbehalf ofBrunei-Darussalam, thePhilippines and
Thailand) thattheChairman oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods undertake consultations onthismatter.
With respect tothestatement made bytheUnited States, henoted thatinterms ofthescope of
consultations, since theissueoftheapplicability andeligibility ofMalaysia wasnotputintoquestion
bySingapore itshould notbepartoftheconsultations thattheChairman oftheCouncil forTrade in
Goods would undertake.
10.16 Therepresentative ofArgentina supported theproposal thatconsultations beundertaken by
theChairman onthismatter. Headded thatanevaluation ofsuchanissue hadtobecarried outwith
wisdom andinabalanced manner, notonlybecause itconcerned adispute between twodeveloping
countries butalsobecause itwould serve asaprecedent forfuture situations when themultilateral trading
system wasstrengthened bynewMembers whose economies werequitedistinct fromthoseofthecurrent
Members making upthesystem. Theprovisions onnotification were afundamental component inG/C/M/1
Page13
ensuring transparency andpredictability intheexercise oftherights, obligations andtradeopportunities
within theframework oftheWorld Trade Organization; thiswasthusoneofthecornerstones ofthe
WTO forhisdelegation.
10.17 Therepresentative ofCanada stated thattheissue under consideration wasanimportant and
systemic matter onwhich onehadtoproceed verycarefully. Heshared some oftheviews expressed
bytherepresentatives ofArgentina andHong Kong about theimportance offollowing totheletter
proceduralrules.HisauthoritieswerestillinvestigatingwhetherornotCanadahadatradewithMalaysia
thatwasaffected bythismatter, butinanyevent Canada hadaninterest inthesystemic issue, and
reserved itsrighttoparticipate inanyconsultations thattheChairman deemed advisable tosetup.
10.18 Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thathercountry hadbothacommercial andanimportant
systemic interest inthismatter andwanted toregister itsdesire tobepartofanyconsultative mechanism
which wasestablished bytheCouncil. Herdelegation wanted, inparticular, toseetheproblem raised
resolved tothesatisfaction ofallMembers oftheWTO, including thirdcountries. Shesupported the
points made byother delegations thatitwasextremely important towork together toseetheestablished
rules andprocedures ofthesystem upheld byallMembers. Inthisregard, herdelegation didhave
somequestionsorreservationsonwhethersomeproceduralrequirementsonnotificationandconsultations
hadbeenmet.
10.19 Therepresentative ofNorway stated thathiscountry supported theuseofArticle XVIII as
aninstrument inthepromotion ofeconomic development. Itwas,however, aprerequisite, thatthe
introduction ofsuchmeasures should follow scrupulously thetime-frame laiddown inthatArticle.
Hepointed outthatthetime-frame laiddown inArticle XVIII:C wasthere toenhance transparency
andconsequently thepredictability ofinternational trade andnotforanyacademic orlegalreasons.
Hehoped thattheparties directly involved inthismatter would, under theguidance oftheChairman,
come toanamicable understanding.
10.20 Therepresentative ofJapan stated thattheissue under consideration wasimportant, notonly
fromacommercial butalsofromasystemic point ofview. Itwasforthisreason thathisdelegation
wanted toparticipate infuture consultations thattheChairman would beundertaking.
10.21 Therepresentative ofMexico hoped thatthedispute, which wastheobject ofconsultations
between Singapore andMalaysia, would besettled without theneed tousethedispute settlement
mechanism, which wasoneoftheobjectives clearly recognised intheUnderstanding onDispute
Settlement. Headded that,ifconsultations were held, Mexico wanted toparticipate inthem asan
interested party, andtoseewhich effects theymight haveonthesystem, inparticular, asconcerned
notifications.
10.22 Therepresentative ofEgypt stated thathisdelegation hadfollowed withinterest thisissueunder
consideration. Hewould havepreferred toseethisquestion settled earlier andbilaterally through
consultations. However thiswasnotthecase,andheencouraged those delegations tocontinue bilateral
consultations inanefficient andrapid manner inorder tofindasatisfactory solution tothisproblem.
Hesupported theproposal made bytherepresentative ofIndonesia (speaking alsoonbehalf ofBrunei-
Darussalam, thePhilippines andThailand) thattheChairman conduct consultations onthismatter and
indicated hisdelegation 'sdesire tobeassociated withthese consultations.
10.23 Therepresentative ofPakistan stated thathisdelegation viewed thestatements contained in
theissued documents relating tothismatter withmixed feelings. Theissuenodoubt raised important
points ofsubstance andprocedure, including those relating tooraffecting various GATT instruments,
thatcould haveabearing onpractices followed under provisions ofspecial anddifferential treatment
fordeveloping countries. Heexpressed hisdelegation 'ssupport oftheproposal made bytheIndonesianG/C/M/1
Page14
spokesman anditswishtoparticipate inanyconsultations thattheChairman might desire toundertake.
10.24 Therepresentative ofKorea reserved hisdelegation 'srighttoparticipate inconsultations as
aninterested thirdparty. Themeasure taken byMalaysia, inhisdelegation 'sview, didnotconform
withtherequirement ofprior notification andtherequirement specified bytheAgreement onimport
licensing procedures.
10.25 Therepresentative ofIndia stated thatthematter wasunder examination inhiscapital. He
pointed outthatanyarticle which dealtwithgovernmental assistance toeconomic development was
veryimportant tohiscountry andthathisdelegation hadasystemic interest inthiscase. Hesupported
theproposal made bytherepresentative ofIndonesia (speaking alsoonbehalf ofBrunei-Darussalam,
thePhilippines andThailand) thattheChairman undertake consultations onthematter. Heexpressed
hisdelegation 'sinterest inthose consultations, andthehopethatanamicable settlement between the
twoparties tothedispute could bereached through these consultations .
10.26 Therepresentative ofMorocco pointed outthattheissuewasaspecific problem which should
betreated inthelightofthearguments presented rather thaninthelightofallproblems which might
result fromArticle XVIII. Inthisregard, itwasworth noting thattheideashould notbetorenegotiate
Article XVIII; thisArticle hadalready beentheobject ofthemost ambitious andvastnegotiations.
Hesupported theproposal made bytherepresentative ofIndonesia (speaking alsoonbehalf ofBrunei-
Darussalam, thePhilippines andThailand) thatconsultations should beheldbytheChairman inorder
tosolve theissue under consideration.
10.27 Therepresentative ofColombia stressed theimportance ofthesubject forherdelegation and
thefactthatherdelegation would liketoparticipate inthefuture inthese discussions.
10.28 Therepresentative ofSwitzerland stated thatArticle XVIII:C hadprovisions which might nullify
orimpair anadvantage resulting from theGeneral Agreement. Hence, itwasamatter ofavoiding
aneasyorabusive recourse toaprovision concerning aninfant industry. Acountry invoking section
Chadtomake certain thatanydiscipline contained therein wasstrictly observed. Hisdelegation had
asystemic interest inthismatter andwanted toparticipate inconsultations which might takeplace.
10.29 Therepresentative ofNewZealand stated thatinviewofthesystemic interests involved, his
delegation wanted toregister itsinterest inbeing associated withanyconsultations which might be
convened.
10.30 Inlightofthis,theChairman indicated hisintention topursue consultations onthenotification
byMalaysia, (WT/L/32), asrequested inthecommunication fromSingapore, (G/L/2). Inauthorizing
himtoundertake these consultations, theCouncil forTrade inGoods would haverequested Malaysia
toconsult onitsnotification under Article XVIII, paragraph 15,without prejudice totheoutcome of
theinformal consultations. Theresults ofthese consultations would bereported tothisCouncil. The
Chairman therefore proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements andcomments made, and
authorize himtoundertake consultations onthismatter.
10.31 TheCouncil soagreed .
11. UseofSpanish asaworking language intheTechnical Committee onRules ofOrigin
11.1 TheChairman recalled thattheissueoftheuseofSpanish asaworking language intheTechnical
Committee ofRules ofOrigin setupunder theauspices oftheWorld Customs Organization inBrussels
hadbeenflagged initially attheGeneral Council meeting of31January 1995byChile andArgentina.
Thepoint hadbeenmade again, more forcefully, atthefirstmeeting oftheTechnical Committee onG/C/M/1
Page15
Rules ofOrigin intheweek of6February 1995 inBrussels bySpanish-speaking delegations. This
itemhadbeenincluded intheagenda ofthepresent meeting upon request byChile.
11.2 Therepresentative ofChile recalled that,atthefirstmeeting oftheGeneral Council ofthe
WTO, hisdelegation hadstated itsconcern attheabsence ofSpanish asaworking language inthe
meetings oftheTechnical Committee ofRules ofOrigin intheWorld Customs Organization (WCO).
Thefirstmeeting oftheTechnical Committee hadbeenheldintheweek of6February 1995, butit
hadbeenimpossible tofindasolution tothisproblem.
11.3 Thematter wasimportant andconcerned theWTO because theTechnical Committee onRules
ofOrigin wasestablished under theprovisions oftheWTO Agreement onRules ofOrigin. Infact,
inorder toparticipate intheTechnical Committee onRules ofOrigin itwasnecessary forcountries
concerned tobeMembers oftheWTO, whereas members oftheWCO which werenotMembers of
theWTO were onlyallowed toparticipate inthisCommittee asobservers. Another element tobe
considered wasthattheWCO hadbeenservicing theTechnical Committee onCustoms Valuation which
hademerged from theTokyo Round Agreement onCustoms Valuation andwhere itwasexplicitly
stated thatSpanish, English andFrench would betheworking languages. Finally, when theAgreement
onRules ofOrigin wasnegotiated, theWCO hadagreed toserve asaforum fortheTechnical Committee
inthefullknowledge thatSpanish wasoneoftheworking languages oftheWTO.
11.4 Chile considered thatthedocumentation andwork ofallbodies whose origin wasattributable
totheWTO should bedoneinthethreeworking languages oftheWTO. Forthisreason, herequested
thattheCouncil make arecommendation totheCommittee onRules ofOrigin requesting theWCO
toensure thatthetechnical work onrules oforigin becarried outinEnglish, French andSpanish.
Chile believed that,before theTechnical Committee onRules ofOrigin started itswork, itwasimportant
toensure thatthenecessary arrangements hadbeenmade bytheWCO fortheCommittee 'swork to
becarried outinSpanish.
11.5 Therepresentatives ofArgentina, Colombia, Venezuela, European Communities, Morocco,
Peru, Mexico, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Brazil, ElSalvador (also onbehalf ofHonduras), Paraguay,
Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Indonesia (onbehalf ofASEAN countries) supported Chile'srequest
thattheCouncil make arecommendation totheCommittee onRules ofOrigin requesting theWCO
toensure thatthetechnical work onrules oforigin becarried outinEnglish, French andSpanish.
11.6 TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made andthatitrecommend
totheCommittee onRules ofOrigin torequest theWorld Customs Organization toensure thatwork
intheTechnical Committee onRules ofOrigin becarried outinEnglish, French andSpanish.
11.7 TheCouncil soagreed.
12. Appointment ofOfficers fortheCommittee onMarket Access, Committee onAgriculture,
Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures, Committee onSafeguards, Working
Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures, andWorking Party onState Trading
Enterprises
12.1 TheChairman stated thatthisitemonappointment ofofficers tocertain ofthesubsidiary bodies
oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods wasontheagenda ofthisfirstmeeting asprovisions concerning
election ofChairpersons didnotexistinthetextsofUnderstandings, Agreements, orintheterms of
reference forthese Committees orworking party orgroup.
12.2 Inorder toenable these Committees, working party andgroup tobeoperational assoonas
possible, andinaccordance withthe"Guidelines forAppointment ofOfficers toWTO Bodies", heG/C/M/1
Page16
hadundertaken consultations regarding possible chairpersons tothesebodies. Hereported ontheresults
ofthese consultations asfollows:
12.3 Committee onSafeguards: Mr. J.Ruiz (Argentina); Committee onAgriculture:
Ambassador D.Tulalamba (Thailand); Committee onMarket Access: Mr.J.St-Jacques (Canada);
CommitteeonSanitaryandPhytosanitaryMeasures(SPS):AmbassadorK.Bergholm(Finland);Working
Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures: Mr.A.Shoyer; (U.S.); Working Party onState
Trading Enterprises: Mr.P.May(Australia)
12.4 TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods appoint these chairmen asset
out.
12.5 TheCouncil soagreed .
12.6 TheChairman alsoinformed theCouncil thatwhile hewasaware that,according totherelevant
Agreements, thechairpersons ofother subsidiary bodies weretobeelected bytheserespective bodies,
hisconsultations hadalsocovered these bodies. Theresults ofthese consultations were asfollows,
andshould betaken intoaccount when these respective bodies elected theirchairpersons:
12.7 Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures: Mr.O.Lundby (Norway); Committee
onAnti-Dumping: Mr.M.Kumar (India); Committee onTrade-Related Investment Measures:
Mr.V.Notis (Greece); Committee onRules ofOrigin: Mr.C.Osakwe (Nigeria); Committee on
Technical Barriers toTrade (TBT): Miss C.Guarda (Chile); Committee onCustoms Valuation:
Mr.P.Palecka(CzechRepublic);CommitteeonImportLicensing:Mr.C.Mbegabolawe(Zimbabwe).
12.8 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities thanked theChairman fortheefforts made
inthisdifficult process. There were anumber ofdelegations which were notentirely satisfied with
theresults including theCommunity. However, inaspirit ofcompromise andtoensure thegood
functioning ofthesystem which wasjustbeginning hisdelegation haddecided toagree totheChairman 's
proposal. Heregretted thattherepresentation ofwomen atthislevelwaspoor, andpointed outthat
hisdelegation hadmade some proposals which would havecorrected thisdeficiency. Hehoped that
thefuture selection process would paymore attention tothisfactor. Additionally, ithadtobenoted
thatthecurrent distribution ofofficers waswithout prejudice tothefuture, andshould notbeconsidered
aprecedent regarding hisdelegation 'sfuture expectations.
12.9 Therepresentative ofHong Kong stated thatthisprocess hadbeendifficult andthanked the
Chairman fortheefforts made toreach agreement. Hisdelegation wasnothappy withtheresults but
would accept theminlightofthedifficulty inarriving atadeal. Oneimportant pointwasthatofregional
balance. Hong Kong hadnoproblem withtheideaofregional balance, butitshould notbethemain
consideration andcertainly should notbethestarting point oftheprocess. Theobjective wastofind
theright person forthejob,andthiswastheunderlying factor intheguidelines thatMembers had
agreed tointheir"Guidelines forAppointment ofOfficers toWTO Bodies": i.e."thechoice ofa
chairperson should primarily reflect thecapacity ofthatperson toundertake thespecial responsibilities
required ofsuchposts intheWTO system". There wereother requirements suchasrotation, orthe
nominee being Geneva-based, however within thisframework acertain amount offlexibility could
begiven inorder toaccommodate thebestperson forthejob.Theremarks werenotdirected inany
wayagainst theofficers chosen fortheywereallgood, which iswhyHong Kong hadagreed tothe
list.However, theabove mentioned factors hadtobeborne inmind when similar consultations were
conducted inthefuture.
12.10 Therepresentative ofMorocco thanked theChairman fortheefforts undertaken toachieve
agreement onthisdifficult question. Heagreed withtherepresentative ofHong Kong thatfocus should
beonwhether theperson wasthemost appropriate choice. Thischairperson would beserving theG/C/M/1
Page17
Committee, theinstitution andtheorganization, andnoregion hadamonopoly ofcompetence. If
itwaspossible toachieve balance among regions thenthatwould beanadditional advantage. From
thepoint ofviewofgeneral balance, hisdelegation andthedelegations herepresented werenotfully
satisfied withtheresults. Thebasis onwhich thecurrent listofofficers hadbeendrawn upshould
notbeconsidered aprecedent forafuture selection process.
13. Other Business
- ChairmanshipoftheWorkingPartiesontheFreeTradeAgreementsbetweentheCzechRepublic
andSlovenia, andbetween theSlovak Republic andSlovenia
13.1 TheChairman speaking under "Other Business" recalled thattheWorking Parties ontheFree-
Trade Agreements between theCzech Republic andSlovenia, andbetween theSlovak Republic and
Slovenia hadbeenestablished bytheGATT 1947Council atitsmeeting inJune1994. Simultaneously,
theChairman oftheCouncil hadbeenauthorized todesignate theChairman oftheWorking Party in
consultation withthedelegations primarily concerned. Heinformed theCouncil thatAmbassador
Christer Manhusen (Sweden) hadagreed toserve asChairman oftheWorking Party ontheFree-Trade
Agreements between theCzech Republic andSlovenia, andbetween theSlovak Republic andSlovenia.
13.2 TheCouncil tooknoteofthisinformation.
- Adhocprocedures onparticipation ofinternational organizations intheworkoftheWTO bodies
-firstmeeting ofthesubsidiary bodies oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods
13.3 TheChairman speaking under "Other Business" recalled thatattheinformal meeting ofHeads
ofDelegation totheGeneral Council on9February 1995, ithadbeenagreed interaliathat,pending
finalagreement onguidelines forobserver status forintergovernmental organizations intheWTO,
theChairman ofthesectoral councils would consult onwhether toinvite certain organizations tothe
firstmeetings oftheirrespective subsidiary bodies. Onthebasisofthese consultations, theChairman
proposed that,without prejudice towhatmaybethefinalresults ofdiscussions onobserver status for
intergovernmental organizations, atthefirstmeetings oftheCommittees which weresubsidiary bodies
oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods, those international/intergovernmental organizations might beinvited
who, intheperiod before theconclusion oftheUruguay Round, ordinarily attended themeetings of:
1. Committees under GATT orTokyo Round Codes where these existed; and/or
2. Relevant negotiating groups during theUruguay Round.
13.4 Ontheabove basis, theChairman stated thatthefollowing international/intergovernmental
organizations would seem toqualify forinvitation tothefirstmeeting:
Committee onAnti-Dumping: IMF, UNCTAD
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures: IMF, UNCTAD
Committee onSafeguards: None
Committee onMarket Access: UNCTAD, IMF, WCO, IBRD, FAO
Committee onImport Licensing: IMF, UNCTAD
Committee onRules ofOrigin: WCO, UNCTAD
Committee onCustoms Valuation: IMF, UNCTAD, WCO
Committee onTRIMs: IMF, IBRDG/C/M/1
Page18
Committee onTBT: IMF, UNCTAD, ITC(UNCTAD/GATT), International Organization
forStandardization, International Electrotechnical Commission, FAO/WHO Codex
Alimentarius Commission, International Office ofEpizootics
Committee onSPS: Codex Alimentarius Commission, International Office ofEpizootics and
theSecretariat oftheInternational Plant Protection Convention.
13.5 Hehadnotproposed anyinternational/intergovernmental organization tobeinvited tothe
Committee onAgriculture, inviewofthefactthat,atitsfirstmeeting, theCommittee waslikely to
discuss theRules ofProcedure inwhich interaliaitwould bediscussing towhatextent observers could
participate inmeetings oftheCommittee which might needtohaverestricted sessions while dealing
withcertain matters.
13.6 Therepresentative ofHong Kong stated thattheInternational Textiles andClothing Bureau
usedtobeanobserver intheTextiles Committee, butnowwiththedisappearance ofthatCommittee
ithadnolinkwiththeWTO, although theBureau hadapplied forobservership intheGeneral Council.
More thought would needtogointohowtodealwiththissituation.
13.7 TheCouncil agreed withthelistofinternational/intergovernmental organizations which would
qualify forinvitation tothefirstmeeting ofitssubsidiary bodies.