World Trade
Organization RESTRICTED S/CSC/M/13
23 March 2000 (00-1034) Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24 AND 28 FEBRUARY 2000
The Committee on Specific Commitments held its thirteenth meeting on 24 and 28 February 2000. The agenda for the meeting is contained in WTO/AIR/1246. No items were raised under other business.
draft decision of the council for trade in services on the certification of rectifications or improvements to schedules of specific commitments
The Chairman introduced a revised version of the draft decision (Job No. 5203/Rev.2), which reflected the debate held in informal consultations on 17 February 2000. Some delegations made comments on the new text, which seemed to enjoy wide support. However, one substantive issue, concerning the timeframe of the procedure, remained open. The Chairman therefore decided to suspend discussions on this item and revert to it in informal consultations in order to find a so
World Trade
Organization RESTRICTED S/CSC/M/12
26 January 2000 (00-0312) Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22 SEPTEMBER 1999
Note by the Secretariat
The Committee on Specific Commitments held its twelfth meeting on 22 September 1999 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Juan Marchetti of Argentina. The agenda of the meeting was contained in airgram WTO/AIR/1161.
DRAFT DECISION OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERVICES ON THE CERTIFICATION OF RECTIFICATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS TO SCHEDULES OF SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS
The Chairman recalled that he had undertaken to take up again the question of the draft decision of the Council for Trade in Services on the certification of rectifications or improvements to schedules. He opened the debate in informal mode on document Job No. 5203 dated 7 September 1999 containing the last draft version of this text. The result of this debate is reflected in document Job No. 5203/Rev.1.
SCHEDULING GUIDELINES
World Trade
Organization RESTRICTED S/CSC/M/11/Corr. 1
20 September 1999 (99-3875) Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 19 JULY 1999
Note by the Secretariat
Corrigendum
The last sentence in bracket, at the end of paragraph 3 of document S/CSC/M/11, should be deleted. dated 15 April 1999 and to paragraph 31 of document S/CSC/M/9, dated 1 June 1999". __________
DRAFT PROCEDURES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE XXI OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN SERVICES
The Chairman indicated that the consultations on Article XXI procedures held over the last two years had finally come to a fruitful conclusion and that he was in position to propose to Members of the Committee to recommend to the Council for Trade in Services to adopt the draft procedures by a decision.
Before proposing to the Committee to recommend to the Council the adoption of the procedures, the Chairman recalled that following the numerous consultations held on the question of the procedures for the modification of the schedules of commitments, he had undertook to provide a note that would accompany the formal adoption by the Committee of the procedures. While some delegations considered that there should be a mandatory provision requiring recourse to the arbitrator before retaliation in every case, other delegations were of the view that there was no provision in GATS Article XXI requiring this “second” recourse to the arbitrator. Hong Kong, China also pledged for an early adoption of the procedures for rectification and sought confirmation that the procedure for modification did not need more than an adoption by the Council for Trade in Services to enter into force. Hong Kong, China indicated that this paper was useful as the guidelines should to be as extensive as possible. The European Communities recalled that as far as the draft model schedule for maritime transport was concerned it was true that the ultimate version contained proposals on multimodal transport that had not been discussed in depth by lack of time, but that there was a very large consensus on the earlier version of the text, which could be considered for inclusion in the annex. Norway considered that this annex was containing two types of documents: background documents which are in certain manner part of the scheduling guidelines on the one hand and on the other hand examples of possible scheduling or mixes of scheduling and classification recommendations. New Zealand considered that this question deserved further thoughts, on the one hand the legal status of MFN guidelines was weaker than the one of scheduling guidelines, on the other hand they were an important document to understand the construction of MFN exemptions, the question of the forum for that discussion was a relevant one. 4056: divergent points of view on the attachment of the guidelines for listing MFN exemptions, opinion that the question of scheduling of MFN exemption could be carried out in the context of the general work of the Committee on scheduling, support by some delegations to clarify the meaning pre and post entry and discriminatory and non discriminatory measures. the Secretariat briefly presented the basic thrusts of document S/CSC/W/22: listing of the technical differences between the word processing capabilities of the word processors Word and Word Perfect used for the treaty copies and those of the Sybase data base software used for the consolidated schedules, mock schedule of an imaginary country presented in the two versions, Word and Sybase, suggestion of procedures and calendar for the verification and printing of the electronic schedules, description of the searches allowed by Sybase. OTHER BUSINESS
Canada inquired about the state of work of the Secretariat on the relationship between old and new commitments as suggested by Canada at the previous meeting.
World Trade
Organization RESTRICTED S/CSC/M/10
15 July 1999 (99-2937) Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 14 JUNE 1999
Note by the Secretariat
The Committee on Specific Commitments held its tenth meeting on 14 June 1999 under the Chairmanship of Mr. It had been prepared at the request of the Committee and attempted to sum up the positions expressed by Members on the suggested revision of the scheduling guidelines (the suggestions are contained in document S/CSC/W/19). On paragraph 7, his delegation supported the idea of developing an alphabetical index and attaching various sectoral guidelines, but was reluctant as to the attachment of the guidelines for MFN exemptions. The relationship between new and old schedules should be studied, given the implications for classification and scheduling and the need to ensure that new commitments actually improved on existing commitments.
On the relationship between old and new commitments, the Secretariat noted that all new commitments had to comply with the objective, spelled out in Article XIX, of a higher level of liberalization. Concerning paragraphs 9 and 10, the representative of Switzerland indicated that his delegation was not convinced of a proposal by Egypt which would create a fifth column, not legally binding, providing explanations for transparency purposes. Ideally, footnotes should be merged in schedules when they related to both market access and national treatment, and headnotes if they defined scope or coverage. On a preliminary basis, the representative of the European Communities indicated that this question was more complex than it appeared on the surface, given the existence of protocols and phased-in commitments. It might even be necessary to include additional categories in Article XVI as the actual list did not fully capture all relevant obstacles: for instance, the requirement that clearing services might only be provided by an official body would neither fall under Article XVI nor Article XVII although it limited business opportunities. In addition, he proposed redrafting the last but one sentence in the following manner: "Nor should they be scheduled under Article XVI as long as they do not contain a numerical limitation; a numerical limitation on the membership of professional organizations would require scheduling under Article XVI". The example used for performance requirements would possibly fall under the proposed new category under Article XVI:2 ("measures having equivalent effect to the limitations listed under Article XVI") and did not necessarily affect national treatment. With regard to paragraph 32, he suggested that the Secretariat drafted a paper on the distinction between modes 1 and 2 on the one hand and modes 3 and 4 on the other, and set up an illustrative list of examples. Finally, with regard to a request by Canada for a Secretariat paper on the relationship between old and new commitments, it had been agreed that the Secretariat should give thought to the issues involved without necessarily producing a submission for the next meeting. The Secretariat indicated that it would circulate to Members the draft schedules with an accompanying letter explaining the technical constraints of the compilation process (eg no italics, no underlining, footnotes pushed into a fifth column) as well as possible uncertainties encountered during this process. The representatives of Canada and Hong Kong, China suggested that before any mass-mailing took place, a draft format should be circulated to Members to inform them of the basic lay-out of the electronic version.
World Trade
Organization RESTRICTED S/CSC/M/9
1 June 1999 (99-2206) Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27 APRIL 1999
Note by the Secretariat
The Committee on Specific Commitments held its ninth meeting on 27 April 1999 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Canada also considered that several of the suggestions for revision in the Secretariat document appeared to reinterpret the GATS Articles and expressed concern about making any revisions to the scheduling guidelines that may have the effect of reinterpreting the GATS Articles. The Secretariat stated that these guidelines did not have the same status as the guidelines governing the drafting of specific commitments (lack of formal character indicated at that time by a "green band") and indicated that no further work had been undertaken in that respect. Japan agreed with the statement by the Secretariat according to which references in a schedule to a measure inconsistent with one of the general obligations and disciplines in Part II of the Agreement would be inconsistent with the GATS. On paragraph 18, Canada felt that the level of detail of the suggested drafting regarding licensing requirements was unnecessary and would not solve the problem of distinguishing between Articles XVII and VI. In the event that they would be considered as a restriction, those Members might need to introduce new restrictions in their schedules, and one should find ways to address that problem as it might deteriorate the level of commitments. On the illustrative list of national treatment examples suggested in paragraph 24, Canada indicated that the focus of the revisions should not be on simply listing broad categories of measures relating to national treatment, but on identifying the discriminatory elements that might arise from each of the measures listed. The Chairman suggested to Members to reflect on a compromise proposal to be included in the scheduling guidelines: continue scheduling measures contrary to both articles in the market access column, in order to respect Article XX:2, while indicating by a typographical convention that the measures were contrary to both market access and national treatment. The United States suggested waiting until other bodies such as the Financial Services Committee had come to a conclusion on that issue, which was more than a pure technical question. On paragraph 34 relating to the combination of horizontal and sectoral entries, the United States was not convinced of the need for the first indent of the suggested drafting as it did not capture the issue of Article XX:2. On paragraph 38 dealing with the relationship between entries in the market access and national treatment columns, Canada indicated that the CSC should not attempt to clarify the legal relationship of commitments under Articles XVI and XVII via the scheduling guidelines. Canada indicated that it needed to understand the range of measures covered by the term "restriction on international transfers and payments" in order to determine if there was an overlap with measures deemed restrictions on market access or national treatment. After a short debate on how to proceed, the Chairman suggested that the Secretariat produce an informal document on the basis of S/CSC/W19 which would summarize after each paragraph the comments made by delegations during the two discussions of the paper.
World Trade
Organization RESTRICTED S/CSC/M/8
15 April 1999 (99-1537) Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23 MARCH 1999
Note by the Secretariat
The Committee on Specific Commitments held its eighth meeting on 23 March 1999 under the Chairmanship of Mr. PROCEDURES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE XXI OF THE GATS
The Chairman indicated that his last compromise proposals on the draft procedures for the implementation of Article XXI of the GATS were contained in document Job No. A consensus seemed to emerge on the so–called option three, whereby Members would adopt the neutral language proposed while at the same a Chairman's note explaining in a succinct, factual and balanced way the differences of interpretation on the scope of Article XXI 4. Specific provisions had to be developed in the procedures to take into account the special and differential treatment for developing countries and in particular least developed countries rather than a simple general reference to their situation to be taken into account. It was still unclear if the four columns format, the distinction between Articles XVI and XVII and the bottom-up approach would remain as they stand now or if for instance formula approaches or top-down approaches would be retained. On paragraph 7, answering a query, the Secretariat explained that the alphabetical index referred to would be a simple table whereby Members could find for instance in which paragraph a word such as "residence" had been mentioned, this in order to be able to identify all relevant rules regarding the scheduling of residency requirements. On the italicised part of paragraph 17, Hong Kong, China supported the idea of giving more details on the criteria of economic need test but expressed the opinion that Members would certainly be reluctant to do so in certain areas such as mode 4. The United States indicated that they were not convinced by the argument that the composition of management of a commercial presence should be scheduled under national treatment and mode 3 rather than as a restriction on market access under Article XVI:2(e). Hong Kong, China also indicated that the examples needed further examination and suggested that the example of the residency requirement for two directors might well be a legitimate measure under Article VI; it would be better to give an example requiring the residency of all directors. Japan expressed concern about formal amendment and Hong Kong, China felt it better to avoid formal amendment through Article X of the WTO agreement, such as an interpretation or the use of the scheduling guidelines. The United States however suggested that the entry "unbound*" served a useful purpose in so far as it distinguished areas where a Member chose not to make a commitment from areas where it might be willing to make a commitment if and when the mode of delivery were to become technically feasible. Hong Kong, China requested that the Note should deal with the question of the meaning of modes 1 and 2 in the national treatment column. On the question of grandfathering Hong Kong, China clarified that it was not requesting a paper by the Secretariat at this stage but that this was a question worth thinking about.
He suggested the following course of action: first, to concentrate work on the problems of classification identified during the exchange of information, to ask the Secretariat to prepare an update of document Job No 5353 in order to include in it the results of the debate of the sessions of the Council held in October, November and December 1998 and finally to request the Secretariat to produce after each meeting of the Committee devoted to classification questions a compilation of the commentaries made by Members with special emphasis on the solutions or approaches suggested. It was also agreed that the note of the Secretariat should deal with scheduling problems that were not fully addressed by the existing scheduling guidelines (such as the lack of technical feasibility or licensing requirements) and would be of an informal technical nature, OTHER BUSINESS
The Chairman indicated it would consult on the date and agenda (notably in terms of sectors to be studied) of the next meeting.
World Trade
Organization RESTRICTED S/CSC/M/6
12 November 1998 (98-4544) Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 OCTOBER 1998
Note by the Secretariat
The Committee on Specific Commitments held its sixth meeting on 16 October 1998 under the Chairmanship of Mr Juan Marchetti of Argentina. He therefore introduced the informal document of the Secretariat compiling the points regarding classification made during that exercise (Job N°5353) and asked for comments on these documents and more generally on the way to fulfill the mandate given by the Council. He suggested that the most useful approach might be to develop general definitions of sectors or subsectors on which all could agree and which might be used in schedules, perhaps in the form of head notes. Hence while reserving its position on the final outcome of the work, he indicated that Japan would not oppose the continuation of the work provided that the following principles were respected: if changes were to be made they must: 1) be kept to the minimum necessary, 2) be written in a clear manner indicating the concordances and differences with the former definitions, and 3) not entail any changes in or reinterpretation of existing commitments. New Zealand approved the Australian idea of a technology neutral approach and pointed out that up to now the discussion on new services had failed to produce results due to the absence of concrete examples and to the difficulty of distinguishing in the abstract between a new technology or a new way to deliver a service and a new service strictly speaking. Australia indicated that it agreed with most of the ideas expressed by New Zealand, in particular on the need to establish a presumption of compatibility of unspecified licencing entries with Articles XVI and XVII and the need not to leave the question of technical feasibility to the decision of individual Members but rather to achieve a commonly agreed list, taking into account the specificities of different sectors and modes and their technological evolution. The Chairman suggested two possible approaches to the discussion of the scheduling guidelines: the Committee might undertake a collective reading of the guidelines, paragraph by paragraph, and the Secretariat might be asked to produce a factual note on the difficulties or questions it had encountered in the interpretation and the use of the guidelines.
WTO服務貿易特定承諾委員會1998年10月16日例會
一、本次會議由阿根廷駐WTO代表團二等秘書Mr. Juan Alberto Marchetti擔任主席，討論議題包括：
服務業個別產業之新分類與定義、各國服務業特定承諾表電子版彙整表、改進特定承諾表之格式等議案。 由於各國對本案的歧見仍大，包括美、加等國強調CPC, rev. 1的分類僅供參考，並無法律拘束力；紐、澳等國認為應配合現代科技的進步先行採認新版的分類標準，俾利新回合談判之依據；而日本則強調服務業的特定承諾涉及各國的權義，故不宜隨時更新其定義而破
World Trade
Organization RESTRICTED S/CSC/M/5
6 May 1998 (98-1803) Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 2 APRIL 1998
Note by the Secretariat
1. Canada complained that the length and late circulation of these documents had made it difficult to review them, and questioned their value, in particular that of the sectoral studies, for the practical problems addressed by the Committee. W/16 seemed excessively academic, and the conclusion in its fourth paragraph that a switch to CPC rev1 would seem to offer only marginal benefits seemed to be premature and unsupported by factual evidence. That explained why some countries had chosen not to use the CPC as the basis for scheduling and why scheduling in some sectors had been done on a sui generis basis. Some services activities which were not listed in W/120 were now listed in rev1 and could therefore be integrated. Japan said that several factors had to be taken into account: the influence of rev1 on W/120, technological changes that may require frequent updating of the nomenclature, and on the other hand, the need for legal stability. New Zealand indicated that its analysis of the documents confirmed its view that a full conversion to rev1 would have minimal value for GATS purposes, especially in view of the high level of aggregation of commitments. The provisional CPC was merely an individual option for members, and so would be the use of CPC rev1, with a legal challenge and negotiation mechanism to ensure that commitments would not be downgraded. Finally in response to the various observations made the Secretariat said that the papers submitted by the Secretariat, particularly the sectoral studies, were not intended for discussion by the Committee but were a purely factual analysis of the differences between the two versions of the CPC. Secondly, if for a given mode a service had been scheduled as unbound due to technical infeasibility, the fact that the service had later become technically feasible for this mode would not create a commitment; in these circumstances the entry would simply become "unbound" and a possible commitment would fall to be discussed in future negotiations. He then introduced Secretariat document S/CSC/W/14 which explained the difficulties in assigning the effective dates of commitments in the schedules and therefore proposed, contrary to its earlier suggestion, that such dates should not be included, at least for the time being, in the electronic schedules. The United States found the question important, as shown by the negotiations on accession and financial services, but were nevertheless concerned that an illustrative list would run the risk of misleading acceding countries or regulators about a rule which is in itself straightforward: Articles XVI and XVII were the only elements available on that question and they were clear in themselves a list of examples would not add anything valuable to them. For the European Communities the recurrent scheduling of licensing requirements during the financial services negotiation proved their earlier point that such an illustrative list would be counterproductive, as it was likely that future disciplines on Article VI would simply disallow those kind of entries where the absence of criteria meant that decisions were merely discretionary, or would make it clear that they did not have to be scheduled where they had no restrictive effect. Hong Kong, China pointed out that the mode 1- mode 2 distinction in particular was a real problem, especially in the context of electronic commerce, but was not sure that an illustrative list was the best way to address it. On licensing requirements, New Zealand suggested that the Committee should draw up a check list of questions which would help a Member to determine whether or not a particular licensing requirement should be scheduled. This discussion would aim at a common understanding on a short list of sectors and subsectors where certain modes of supply are generally considered as unfeasible, though this would not preclude some activities within such sectors and subsectors being considered technically feasible. On the technical feasibility question Hong Kong, China recalled that according to the scheduling guidelines "where the mode of supply thought to be inapplicable is in fact applicable, or becomes so in the future, the entry means unbound" and indicated that it would revert to this question. The Secretariat indicated that it also had felt that the ad hoc procedures now being followed should be reviewed and revised; for example, the 30 days which had been provided for comment on commitments, following their circulation to Members, was probably too short.
