. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/W/151 
23 April 2004  
 
(04-1846) 
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:   English 
   
SUBMISSION ON REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
 
Paper by Chile
 
   The following submission, dated 23 April 2004, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Chile. 
_______________ 
 
 
PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS 
 
 1. The mandate of Paragraph 29 states that negotia tions should aim at “clarifying and improving 
disciplines and procedures under existing WTO provisions  applying to regional trade agreements”.  
This should be seen in the light of the imprecision and vagueness of present disciplines of GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V and of the increasing number of Regional Trade Agreements 
(RTAs). 
2. The mandate reflects the shared interest of all Members to have clear and better rules.  Most 
members are now involved in RTAs with an incr easing impact on trade flows. If members fail to 
achieve a consensus on such rules, the risk is that eventually a me mber will bring a complaint against 
a RTA that affects its commercial inte rest forcing the dispute settlement system to interpret the rules.  
Thus, negotiations must move beyond transparency.  
3. As a point of departure, we should ask ourselves whether the Committee on Regional Trade 
Agreement (CRTA) will ever be in a position to “appr ove” or “not to disapprove” a particular RTA.  
Even with very clear rules, if there is the slightest  doubt or concern, it will probably lead one or more 
members to prevent a consensus. Th e parties to an agreement, in tu rn, could hardly be expected to 
agree to a consensus “disappr oving” of their agreements. 
4. Would it not be more appropriate for the CRTA to conduct a thorough examination of a 
notified RTAs and simply take note of members’ statements and the Secretariat Report? Provided, of course, that increased transparency with better examin ation procedures and clear and improved 
disciplines are achieved , it would then be up to any member w ho considers that there is nullification 
or impairment of its rights to pursue the matter under the DSU. 
5. On matters of substantive disciplines, we s hould aim at having reasonable standards that 
RTAs should meet. This requires to work on the inte rpretation of concepts such as: “substantially all 
the trade”, “other regulation of commerce”; “prefere ntial rules of origin”; relation between the various 
WTO rules on RTAs (GATT Article XXIV, GATS Article V, Enabling Clause). 
6. In addition, it should be made clear that in th is negotiation nothing should affect or diminish 
the rights that developing countries enjoy under th e Enabling Clause.  Thus the agreements notified 
under the Enabling Clause could benefit from improve d transparency and examination in the CRTA, 
but they would not be subject to the disciplines of  GATT Article XXIV as far as tariff preferences are TN/RL/W/151 
Page 2  
 
concerned.  In this regard, it is useful to r ecall that the Enabling Clause refers only to tariff 
preferences,
1 while increasingly agreements between de veloping countries cover non-tariff measures, 
as well as services, investment and intellectual property. 
 
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
1 Paragraph 2.c of the Enabling Clause states: “Regional or global arrangements entered into amongst 
less developed contracting parties for the mutual reducti on or elimination of tariff s and, in accordance with 
criteria or conditions which may be prescribed by the Contracting Par ties, for the mutual reduction or 
elimination of non-tariff measures, on product imported from one another”.