RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/DS/M/12 
19 January 2004 
 (04-0154) 
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body 
20, 21 and 23 May 2003  
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 20, 21 and 23 May 2003  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Péter Balás (Hungary) 
 
 
 Prior to the adoption of the agenda , the Chairman  welcomed participants to the twelfth  
formal meeting of the Special Session and said that  the agenda for the meeting reflected two items, 
namely (i) discussion of the "Chairman's Text" and ( ii) "Other Business".  He recalled that at the 
informal meeting of the Special Session on 5 May,  he had informed Members of his intention to 
circulate under his own responsibility a "Chairman's Te xt" for their consideration, and said that this 
text had now been circulated as Job(03)/91 in all the three working languages of the WTO and was available in the meeting room.  He also said that  two new documents had been circulated: a revised 
proposal by Jordan circulated as TN/DS/W/55 and a proposal by China circulated as TN/DS/W/56.  
He said that given the short time available until the end of May, it would be more productive if 
Members concentrated on his text under Agenda item 1.   He said that delega tions could make general 
statements on future work programme and provide sp ecific comments on the draft "Chairman's Text".  
He said that it was his intention to switch the mee ting to an informal mode, so that Members could 
offer detailed comments on the text and also have a frank exchange of views.  He said that after the 
meeting, he would be meeting informally with Memb ers in different formats and configurations with 
a view to building consensus on so me elements in the text.  He said that he did not intend to raise any 
issue under "Other Business" and asked if any dele gation intended to do so.  As there was no request 
from the floor, the item relating to "Other Business" was removed from the agenda.   
 
I. DISCUSSION OF THE "CHAIRMAN'S TEXT" 
1. The Chairman
 said that the draft text reflected proposals on which there was a high level of 
convergence among Members.  To attract as much suppor t as possible, the text had attempted to strike 
a careful balance between the interests of Member s.  He said that in proposing the text, he was 
mindful of the fact that the Dispute Settlement U nderstanding (DSU) had worked  quite well and that 
the purpose of the negotiations was not to create a new system, but to clarify and introduce changes 
that would effectively improve the functioning of th e system.  He said that the proposed elements in 
the text covered all the stages of the dispute settle ment process and should result in an improvement in 
the operation of the Dispute Settlement Understa nding (DSU) through clarifying certain provisions 
and introducing new rules and procedures.  Among th e proposed elements were (i) specific provisions 
regulating the suspension or termination of the proce dures at various stages;  (ii) the introduction of 
an interim review stage and remand at the Appellate  Body stage;  (iii) enhancement of third-party 
rights, both at the panel and Appellate Body st age, as well as improved conditions for Members 
seeking to be joined in consultations;  (iv) clarif ication the sequencing issue and enhanced procedures 
at the implementation stage; (v) enhancemen t of provisions relating to compensation; 
(vi) strengthening of notification requirements fo r mutually agreed solutions;  (vii) improved 
transparency and access to non-confidential versi ons of submissions;  a nd (viii) strengthening of 
special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions for developing countries at various stages of the TN/DS/M/12 
Page 2  
 
 proceedings.  The developmental c ontent of the proposed text was quite significant.  Apart from the 
proposed enhancement of S&D provisions, many of the systemic clarifications and improvements 
would benefit the weakest participants in the syst em.  Indeed, quite a number of the proposed texts 
were influenced by proposals from developing countries.  The text did not purport to be comprehensive.  In fact, it did not include several proposals tabled by part icipants for the simple 
reason that they did not yet have a high level of support.  The introductory note made it clear that 
further work would even be required in respect of  some proposals in the text.  These included how to 
handle business confidential information and the devel opment of guidelines for the award of litigation 
costs. 
2. The representative of Costa Rica
 welcomed the draft "Chairman's Text" and said that it 
reflected the discussions that had been held to date and that it appeared to c ontain the elements needed 
to reach an agreement by the end of May, in confor mity with the mandate given by the Ministers at 
Doha.  He said that Costa Rica supported the adoptio n of the text, although it did not include certain 
proposals that it had put forward.  The text was ba lanced and it should be possible for a consensus to 
be reached on it in the coming days.  The mandate given by Ministers was about to expire making it 
important for an agreement to be  reached as soon as possible and im plemented shortly thereafter as 
envisaged in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.   An agreement on the DSU would send a positive 
signal regarding the determination of Members to make progress in all areas and reaffirm the 
Organization's role as the principal forum for trade negotiations. 
3. He said that his delegation was conscious of  the need for further work on some of the 
proposals included in the draft text.  With respect to proposals not reflected in the text, he said that his 
delegation had an open mind and could support negotiations on them at  a later date.  He said that a 
decision to extend the timeframe for the negotiatio ns should not prejudge acceptance of the proposed 
text.  Put in another way, prior agreement on th e substance of the proposals should not be a pre-
condition for accepting any results that might be achieved at the end of May.  He stressed the 
importance of keeping the DSU negotiations outside the single undertaking and said that his 
delegation could be relied on to play a constructive role in the negotiations. 
4. The representative of Colombia  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for preparing and 
circulating the draft text.  She said that the text could be conveniently divided into two sections.  The 
first section contained the introduction to the text  and the Chairman's general observations on the 
process, as well as his interpretations of the pos itions adopted by Members in the course of the 
negotiations.  It also provided guidance enabling reader s to put things in perspective and gain a better 
understanding of the document.  The second section was more substantive as it set out the changes 
which the Chairman wished to see introduced based on participants' contributions.  She said that her 
delegation could support the main elements covered in  this section of the document.  It was balanced 
and should contribute to the strengthening of the dispute settlement system.  While the text sought to strengthen the multilateral nature of  the dispute settlement system by, for example, advocating for 
greater rights for third parties, it also at the same time increased the parties' control over the process 
and allowed them flexibility as regards both time -frames and the suspension of the disputes at 
different stages of the process. 
5. She said that while Colombia supported the proposals put forward by the Chairman, it was 
conscious of the need for further technical work to  finalize some of these proposals.  Turning to the 
specifics, she said that her delegation would like a clar ification of the scope of the third paragraph of 
the introductory section.  It was particularly important  to know whether the reference to "work" in that 
section meant the conclusion of the entire work unde r the Doha mandate.  It was the understanding of 
her delegation that the Chairman was seeking an ex tension of the time-frame for the conclusion of the 
negotiations, in order to allow consideration of the pr oposals put forward in the draft text.  If that was 
the case, the extension should probably be made before the end of May.  TN/DS/M/12 
 Page 3 
 
 
 6. The Chairman  confirmed that Colombia's understanding was correct as he was only seeking 
the adoption of the section of the document headed "Chairman's proposals" starting on page three of 
the document. 
7. The representative of Uruguay  said that since the negotiations were started fifteen months ago 
all those who had been involved – Members, Chairm an and the Secretariat – had worked hard with a 
view to fulfilling the mandate given by Minist ers under paragraph 30 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration.  There were only nine days left to th e end of May and as such the circulation of the draft 
text (JOB(03)/91) by the Chairman as the possibl e outcome of the negotiations was very timely.  
Given that the document had been circulated by the Chairman under his own responsibility, it should 
not be assumed that the proposed texts had been agreed to by Members, including those without 
square brackets around them.  He said that althoug h his delegation had some  reservations against 
some elements in the text, they considered it as a good basis upon which Members could build and 
possibly adopt by the end of May 2003.  He referred to the introductory note to the Chairman's text 
and requested clarification of the statement wh ich linked acceptance by certain Members of the 
proposed text to an agreement to conduct future ne gotiations on proposals of interest to them which 
were not reflected in the text.  It was not clear what was meant by future negotiations.  Were they 
expecting the deadline of May 2003 to be extended to a llow negotiations to conti nue after that date or 
were they referring to negotiations that could be unde rtaken in a couple of years?  He said that as far 
as Uruguay was concerned, the relevant test was not  whether the proponents attached importance to 
their own proposals, but whether they had managed to convince other Members of the value of their 
proposals making it possible for consensus to be achieved on them. 
8. The representative of Thailand   welcomed the circulation of Chairman's text as very timely.  
He said that it was his delegati on's understanding that the text did not represent the final outcome of 
the negotiations, but rather a partial outcome base d on the discussions to date.  He said that his 
delegation was in agreement with the view that mo re time would be needed to complete the work 
mandated by Ministers.  To that end, he suggest ed that a new mandate should be obtained as soon as 
possible, so as to allow work to continue.  To ensure the timely discussion of proposals, it would be 
advisable if a deadline was set for the submission of proposals by participants.  The systematic 
discussion of tabled proposals would make it possible for a comprehensive agreement to be reached at 
the conclusion of the negotiations. 
9. The representative of Mexico  thanked the Chairman for circulating the text and said that it 
contained several elements which his delegation could support.  He  welcomed in particular the 
proposed decisions on greater rights for third parties, lapse of authority for consultations and the 
possibility for the parties to the dispute to suspend panel and Appellate Body proceedings.  He said 
that his delegation, however, had strong reservations against the text in at least three fundamental 
respects.  First, the text did not resolve the probl em of the lack of incentives to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  As things stood, it could be said that a waiver had been 
granted from the relevant WTO rules and procedures .  This was unquestionably the greatest challenge 
facing the dispute settlement system, yet instead of resolving it, the text appeared to have made 
matters worse.  The proposed rules on compensati on were, for example, too complicated and might 
frustrate parties' efforts in that regard.  Second, in other areas such as Article 21 bis, the text 
introduced new ambiguities and complicated procedures which, in Mexico's view, did not justify the marginal benefits that they generated for the system .  He added that these concerns were in addition to 
the numerous drafting problems that his delegation ha d with the text.  Third, the text incorporated 
some proposals, including those relating to remand authority and interim reports at the Appellate 
Body stage, which clearly required further discussion  before a consensus could be reached on them.  
In other areas, the text merely codified current pr actice meaning that it added very little by the way of 
substance.  He concluded by saying that whereas it was important to meet the deadline of May 2003, 
it was more important to reach an agreement which would actually make an improvement to the 
operation of the DSU. TN/DS/M/12 
Page 4  
 
 10. The representative of Poland
 welcomed the Chairman's text and commended the approach 
taken as pragmatic, considering the large number of  proposals tabled by Members, whose views had 
been shaped by their experiences with the operation of the DSU since 1995.  The text was generally 
balanced, as it recognized the differing positions  and interests of various segments of WTO 
membership.  The text was also positive in that  it recognized the need to provide special and 
differential treatment to developing countries.  Refe rring to the Chairman's statement that the text was 
only a partial result, he said that his delegation w as of the view that the draft text provided a good 
basis for further work until the end of May 2 003 and beyond, should the mandate be extended. 
11. The representative of th e European Communities  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat 
for preparing and circulating an impressive text which reflected a number of the proposals tabled by 
Members.  He said that the EC was, however, disappointed that some of its proposals meant to 
address issues of fundamental importance were not re flected in the text.  Am ong such proposals were 
those related to the composition of panels and multilate ral control over sanctions.  He said that the EC 
was of the view that these proposals should remain on the table and should be the focus of negotiations in the near future.  While the EC had wanted a text which went further than what was 
being proposed by the Chairman, it was prepared to accept it as a partial result, with the expectation 
that negotiations would continue on issues in respec t of which consensus could not be found at this 
time.   The adoption of the Chairman's text at the end of May 2003 and a decision to continue with the 
negotiations would send a positive signal about the commitment of Members to these negotiations. 
Turning to the specifics of the text, he said that th e EC was in agreement with most of its elements, 
although it was aware that some of them required further work.  The EC had some doubts, however, 
about the appropriateness of permitting a review of an  Appellate Body report.  Such a procedure could 
undermine the effectiveness of the Appellate Body and may give rise a number of problems.   He 
concluded by saying that the EC was ready to work  very hard and constructively with the Chairman 
and Members, in order to come to a result which would be broadly acceptable to the membership by 
the of May 2003. 
12. The representative of Chile
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for preparing and 
circulating the draft text and said that his delegation was prepared to accept it as a partial result of the 
negotiations.  He said that the text was being analys ed in his capital, but he would like to give the 
following preliminary comments:  (i) it was quite substantial as it reflected a number of proposals 
tabled by participants;  (ii) it filled in a number of gaps and clarified a number of provisions in the 
DSU;  (iii) it made improvements in a number of areas long recognized by Members as needing such 
changes demonstrating the maturity of these i ssues and a convergence of views among Members; 
(iv) the non-inclusion of certain proposals in the text demonstrated that they were not yet ripe for a decision;  (v) it conformed to the mandate given by Ministers at Doha;  (vi) Chile was in support of clarifying the sequencing of Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU and also the creation of a procedure making it possible to determine compliance.  He said that while his delegation was supportive of 
remand authority for the Appellate Body, it had some doubts about the proposed wording in the text. 
13. Regarding proposals in the text which required further work, he said that it was the 
expectation of his delegation that they could be cl arified in the next few days considering that the 
mandate would expire on 30 May 2003.  He said that  Chile was prepared to work constructively with 
other Members in that regard.  With respect to propo sals not reflected in the text, he said that some of 
them were very positive and could be supported by his delegation.  He said that his delegation was, 
however, aware that it might be difficult in the re maining time to forge a consensus around some of 
them.  While his delegation favoured the continua tion of negotiations on these issues, it was aware 
that the decision on whether or not to continue with  the negotiations had to be made by a higher body.  
Given the limited time available, it would be more productive if Members concentrated on the 
Chairman's text with a view to reaching con sensus on it.  The task ahead was a difficult one 
considering that they were some Members who still had difficulties with some of the proposed 
decisions in the Chairman's text.  It was very im portant to map out the steps which should be taken by  TN/DS/M/12 
 Page 5 
 
 
 the Special Session to ensure that  an agreement was reached that would be acceptable to all Members 
in the remaining few days.  He said that Chile w as committed to the process and would participate in 
the work constructively. 
14. The representative of Norway  welcomed the Chairman's text and said that previous attempts 
to clarify and improve the DSU had yielded no positive  results.  A lot of effort had been expended on 
the current exercise and it was his delegation's wish that Members would be able to reach agreement 
on the text.  While the text might have fallen short of the expectations of some Members, there was 
the need for flexibility and realism.  Norway had,  for example, wanted the text to include the 
proposals on a system of permanent panellists, greater openness of the system and proposals aimed at strengthening the implementation phase of the dis pute settlement process, but it was mindful of the 
fact that they did not command enough support amo ng the wider membership.  It was imperative for 
Members to lower their expectations and realize what  was feasible at this stage.  Efforts should be 
concentrated on reaching a compromise on the Chairm an' text, while leaving open the possibility for 
conducting further negotiations to clarify and improve the DSU at a later time.  Regarding the 
proposals in the text which required further technical work, he said that his delegation was prepared to 
work closely with other Members and the Chairman with a view to reaching an agreement on them.  
He said that his delegation would soon be making some drafting suggestions in that regard.  He 
concluded by saying that the Chairman's text was balanced and that Norway was prepared to accept it 
as the outcome of the negotiations. 
15. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 welcomed the Chairman's text and said that it was a 
balanced document which reflected Members view s expressed during the discussions.  He said that 
his delegation was willing to accept the text, but warned  that time was of the essence if the mandate of 
Ministers was to be fulfilled.  He said that hi s delegation was still analyzing the text, but could 
support most of the proposals, especially those on special and differential treatment for developing 
countries.  He said that his delegation would s oon be making some drafti ng suggestions and seek 
clarification of certain parts of the text.  As re gards whether an extension of the mandate would be 
necessary, he said that his delegation's views were iden tical to that of Chile.  It was better to harvest 
what was already on the table as it represented a cred ible package that would clarify and improve the 
functioning of the DSU.  With respect to proposals not reflected in the Chairman's text, he said that 
his delegation had an open mind a nd could support further negotiations on these proposals.  However, 
there should not be a linkage between further nego tiations on these issues and the adoption of the 
Chairman's text by the end of May 2003.  It was important to bear in mind that the decision on 
whether or not to continue the negotiations had to be  made by either the TNC or the General Council.  
Given time considerations, it would be preferable if Members concentrated on the Chairman's text with a view to forging a consensus around it. 
16. The representative of Malaysia
 welcomed the Chairman's text and said that the proposed 
decisions were realistic.  While the package was not perfect, his delegation was willing to accept it.  
He said that his delegation would have, however, wa nted to see reflected in the text a number of 
proposals, including the proposal by Malaysia, I ndia and a group of developing countries on the 
interpretation of the word "seek" in Article 13.1 of  the DSU and some elements of the joint proposal 
by Chile and the United States.  He said that th e text did not also reflect faithfully the proposals 
presented by some developing countries, including the one on litigation costs.  The proposal was 
meant to benefit only developing countries but give n the way it had been drafted, all Members would 
be eligible for litigation costs.  This proposal need ed to be refined to reflect the intention of the 
proponents.  The language of some the proposals shou ld also be improved to make them acceptable to 
Malaysia.  It was imperative for Members to show fl exibility so that the pack age could be adopted at 
the end of May.  As regards proposals not reflected in  the text, he said that negotiations could be held 
on them after the conclusion of the Doha Devel opment Agenda negotiations.  With respect to 
proposals included in the text but requiring furthe r technical work, he said that his delegation was 
willing to work very hard with other Members to en sure that appropriate la nguage was agreed before TN/DS/M/12 
Page 6  
 
 28 May.  Should that not be possible, Malaysia wa s prepared to consider a limited extension of the 
mandate of the Special Session so as to finish this  work.  The text should have been presented earlier 
to Members for their consideration.  He asked th e Chairman to clarify his introductory statement 
relating to the status of the text.  The impression had been created that the text was not definitive.  As 
far as Malaysia was concerned, the text represented the results of the negotiations. 
17. The representative of Ecuador
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for preparing and 
circulating the text.  He said that like other delega tions, he wished this document had been distributed 
earlier to give Members ample time to analyze it.  He asked the Chairman to clarify his introductory 
statement relating to the desire of some Members to  continue negotiating on issues not reflected in the 
text.  He said that more clarity was needed in te rms of the objective of the exercise.  He urged 
Members to show flexibility in order for progress to be made. 
18. The representative of Argentina  welcomed the text and said that it was realistic and provided 
a good basis for reaching an agreement at the end of May.  He said that his delegation was broadly 
supportive of many elements of the text, although it had some differences of opinion with regard to 
some of the proposals.  He said that more work needed to be done on the text before the end of 
May 2003.  He said that his delegation shared the vi ew that if an agreement was reached before the 
end of May 2003, it would be a significant boost for the operation of the DSU.  The DSU had generally worked well DSU and care must be take n to ensure that any changes would actually 
improve the functioning of the DSU.  The proposed te xt was promising in that regard and every effort 
must be made to ensure that a consensus was reached before the end of May 2003.  He said that his 
delegation was willing to work constructively with ot her Members to ensure the attainment of this 
objective. 
19. The representative of Pakistan
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for preparing and 
circulating the text which appeared to very balan ced and realistic.  He said that his authorities were 
analyzing the document and as such he would only be  offering some preliminary comments.  He said 
that his delegation was willing to accept the text, although it was conscious of the need for further 
work on some aspects.  He said in that connection that his delegation shared the views just expressed 
by Malaysia concerning the proposal tabled by a gr oup of developing countries covering issues, such 
as the interpretation of the Article 13 of the DSU.  As regards the extension of the mandate of the 
Special Session, he said that as a small delegation which was resource-constrained, they could agree 
to the extension of the time-frame on condition that the negotiations focussed on the Chairman's text.  
He also said that his delegation shared the con cerns expressed by a number of delegations, including 
Uruguay and Malaysia relating to the status of the text. 
20. The representative of New Zealand  thanked the Chairman for producing the text and said that 
it clearly signalled a new and important stage in th e negotiations.  He said that his delegation was in 
agreement with the view that the text on balance reflected the outcome of the discussions so far.  
While the package of results might seem insuffici ent to some delegations, New Zealand remained 
convinced of the need to set aside some proposals in order to make progress, especially considering 
the tight time-table.  He added that his delegati on attached particular importance to some of the 
proposals that were not reflected in the Chairman's text, particularly those that sought to improve the 
transparency of the system and thereby enhance its credibility.  He said that his delegation was willing 
to agree to an extension of the deadline if th at was what was required to make progress on these 
important issues. He stated in that connection that his delegation was interested to participate in any 
discussions on how such a process might be establishe d in due course.  The immediate focus should, 
however, be on the text.  Members should be realis tic about what could be achieved by the end of 
May 2003.  He reiterated his delegation's view that the package which covered, inter alia , third-party 
rights, remand authority for the Appellate Body and the sequencing issue, was not insufficient and 
should make an important contribution to the functi oning of the DSU. He said that his delegation was  TN/DS/M/12 
 Page 7 
 
 
 prepared to work constructively with other delegati ons to ensure that an agreement on the text was 
reached before May 2003. 
21. The representative of Switzerland  welcomed the text and said that his delegation could 
support most of the proposed decisions.  He said that like other delegations , Switzerland would have 
liked the  text to include certain proposals of inte rest to it which could have strengthened the operation 
of the DSU.  He said that his delegation was realisti c and supportive of the Chairman's efforts to have 
a clean text by 28 May 2003.  The successful c onclusion of the DSU negotiations would provide a 
boost for the DDA negotiations.  He said that Switzer land was conscious of the fact the adoption of 
the Chairman's text would not resolve all the shor tcomings and deficits of the current DSU and as 
such it could support the extension of the manda te for the negotiations.  The adoption of the 
Chairman's text should not depend on whether it in cluded certain proposals of interest to certain 
delegations. 
22. The representative of Israel  welcomed the text and said that with it, Members had the real 
possibility of fulfilling the mandate given by Minister s eighteen months ago at Doha, Qatar.  She said 
that on analyzing the text, her delegation found it to be balanced and could support most of its 
elements.  She said that her delegation would later offer some comments on certain aspects of the text.  
Referring to the Chairman's introductory note, she said that her delegation was prepared to work 
constructively with other delegations  so as to complete work on the issues requiring further technical 
elaboration before the end of May 2003.  As rega rds the extension of the mandate of the Special 
Session, she said that her delegation had an open mind and could support the continuation of 
negotiations on the DSU.  In the event of a positive d ecision being taken, Israel agreed with the view 
expressed earlier that the negotiations should be out side the single undertaking and not linked to the 
Doha Development Ag enda negotiations. 
23. The representative of Korea  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for preparing and 
circulating the text with a view to fulfilling the ma ndate given by Ministers at Doha.  He said that 
Korea was of the view that the DSU had worked quite well and that only necessary changes should be 
made to it.  The level of ambition in the negotiatio ns should accordingly be modest.  He said that it 
was heartening to see a text on the table after almost 15 months of negotiations.  The text accurately reflected the views of Members in the sense that it only included proposals which had attracted broad 
support from Members during the discussions, including those on enhancement of third party rights both at the panel and Appellate Body stages, impr ovement of panel and Appellate Body procedures, 
including the possibility for the pa rties to suspend or terminate proceedings, improvements at the 
implementation phase, including resolving the seque ncing issue, making compensation an attractive 
remedy, and enhanced disciplines for mutually agr eed solutions.  The text was comprehensive and 
could serve as a basis for an agreement by the end of  May 2003.  It would, however, appear that more 
time would be needed to finalize it.  Some of the proposals, including those on remand authority, 
introduction of an interim review stage at Appella te Body proceedings and the handling of business 
confidential information required careful consideration.   It remained to be seen what could be agreed 
to before the end of May.  As regards the extensi on of the mandate to continue negotiations on issues 
not reflected in the text, he said that Korea had an open mind and could agree to such an extension.  However, there should not be any linkage between the results of the current negotiations and the 
future negotiations that might be held.  He said th at Korea was willing to play a constructive role in 
the process and assist in whichever way that it could. 
24. The representative of the United States
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for all their 
hard work in these negotiations to date.  It rec ognized the challenges that the Members had presented 
to them, and appreciated their willingness to take on those challenges.  It thanked them for the draft 
chairman’s text that had been provided on Friday.  The United States was still reviewing that text and 
only had preliminary remarks at the present m eeting.  The United States had three general 
impressions.  First, it approached this exercise fr om the perspective of how will the overall system TN/DS/M/12 
Page 8  
 
 function.  It agreed with the chairman that  the current DSU essentially worked well.  Taken 
altogether, it feared that the revised DSU proposed  in the text would be more cumbersome and 
burdensome and delay the resolution of disputes.  Se cond, while there were promising elements in the 
text, there were also elements in the text that we re problematic even when taken alone.  Plus, a few 
components of the elements in the text would need to be included if the DSU was to be improved.  
Third, the United States noted that there was a si gnificant amount of new proposed text presented in 
the draft.  There had been drafting changes introduced  in many places even where there did not appear 
to be any intention to change the concept underlyi ng a proposal.  All of this would take time to 
review.  In particular, the many changes to th e texts that had been developed and extensively 
discussed and on the table since before Seattle in troduced new issues and concerns.  These changes 
would require some time to work through to unders tand all their implications and avoid creating new 
problems through unclear drafting.  Each Member would need at the end of the day to look at the total 
package of amendments and decide for itself if the package represente d an improvement to the DSU.  
In reviewing the draft text, the United States found th at it was not obvious that this would represent an 
improvement, on balance, over the current DSU and had a number of specific concerns.  The draft 
text would appear to make disputes more comp licated and unwieldy, with more steps in the 
proceedings and more complicated rules for those st eps.  Many disputes would also have more third 
parties and therefore less time at meetings for th e parties to present their case.  Injured Members 
would have to wait longer for any relief – a rough cal culation indicated that this could be seven to 
nine months longer.  During those extra months, the Member’s trade continued to suffer from the nullification and impairment of benef its to which the Member was entitled. 
25. He further stated that the United States di d not see much if any improvement in the 
transparency of dispute settlement proceedings .  As the United States had indicated from the 
beginning of these negotiations, increasing transpar ency was an important improvement to the DSU 
and long overdue.  An absence of transparency w ould be counter-productive to the long-term viability 
of the system.  Surely Members could be ready to implement improvements here, even on a 
provisional basis.  The draft text also fell short in improving flexibility and helping Members enhance 
their ability to resolve disputes.  In many of th e proposals, the issue of which Member would be 
entitled to particular treatment would be increasingly important, if not crucial.  The text however did 
not offer additional definition or guidance on this issue.  As the United States understood it, the 
chairman was proposing an approach under whic h Members would provisionally accept a partial 
package by the end of May with continuing work on other issues.  While the United States was not 
sure that much more needed to be included, this  core package would enter into effect only once all 
work had concluded.  The United States had some qu estions about this appro ach.  As delegations had 
remarked, a change to one part of the DSU could a ffect other parts.  It would seem likely then that 
continuing work on other issues coul d require re-visiting parts of an y provisionally accepted package.  
The United States also found it hard to understand how Members could evaluate the core package 
without knowing the other elements that might be  agreed.  At the same time, the United States 
recognized that this text was the first attempt to help Members conclude  these negotiations and it 
respected the many difficulties involved in producing it.  There were elements in the draft that the 
United States believed could be developed further and it was willing to work on these.  The United 
States looked forward to working with the chairman and other Members in making further progress in these negotiations.  The question that Members needed  to rightly ask was, how do we move forward? 
-- as it seemed increasingly difficult to see how work on  even the promising elements of the draft 
could be concluded this month.  And the United St ates accepted that work on additional elements to 
improve the DSU would need to extend beyond May.  It recalled that the Ministerial Declaration simply called on Members to "aim to" reach agre ement by the end of May.  The United States was 
willing to show some flexibility on how to proceed from here.  It was interested in hearing others’ 
views on the best way to continue this work and on the draft text. 
26. The representative of Singapore  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for preparing and 
circulating the text and recalled that  her delegation had stated in the past that it would be in favour of  TN/DS/M/12 
 Page 9 
 
 
 adopting a credible package by the end of May.  A quick review of the text had indicated that there 
were some areas which were problematic, but on balance Singapore was prepared to accept it as the 
outcome of the negotiations.  She said that some elem ents had to be worked on further as envisaged in 
the chairman's introductory note.  It was doubtful if  the remaining work could be completed before 
the end of May.  She said that like Malaysia, he r delegation was prepared to agree to a limited 
extension of the mandate in order to allow comp letion of the outstanding work.  As regards the 
possibility of conducting further ne gotiations on proposals not reflected in the text, she said that 
Singapore was flexible, but that there should not be  any linkage between the results of the current 
negotiations and the future negotiations. 
27. The representative of Indonesia  welcomed the text and said that it was still being analyzed by 
his delegation and as such he woul d only be giving preliminary comments.  On the whole, the text 
was balanced and provided a good basis for reaching an agreement before the end of May.  The DSU 
had generally worked well since its inception and did not  need to be remodelled.  the changes must be 
as modest as possible.  With that mind, it was the considered view of Indonesia that the Chairman's 
text would make a positive contribution to the func tioning of the DSU.  While some Members would 
have wanted the text to be much more ambiti ous, it should be remembered modest improvements 
were better than no improvements at all.  There was no guarantee that an extension of the mandate 
would result in an agreement on a comprehensive package.  The positions of Members on certain 
issues were so entrenched that it was difficult to see how they could be bridged anytime soon.  As a 
non-frequent user of the dispute settlement system, Indonesia would like to see the strengthening of special and differential treatment provisions in the DSU so as to allow developing countries to 
participate more effectively in the system.  He we lcomed in that regard the special and differential 
treatment provisions contained in the Chairman's text.  He said that Indonesia was also content with the inclusion of proposals aimed at resolving the sequencing issue and strengthening third-party rights 
both at panel and Appellate Body stages.  As regard s the possibility of an extension of the mandate, 
he said that Indonesia could agree to an extension of  the mandate to negotiate issues not reflected in 
the text, but that there should not be any linkage between the results of the current negotiations and 
any future negotiations.  He said that it might be appropriate to seek guidance from Ministers on 
whether or not the mandate should be extended.  He  urged Members to show flexibility and a greater 
willingness to accommodate the interests of other Members in order for progress to be made. 
28. The representative of Brazil
 welcomed the text and said that it was a good basis for reaching 
agreement at the end of May.  It was only natural for the document not to meet the expectations of all 
Members given the differing levels of ambition.  He  said that the package was quite substantial and 
could make an important contribution to the functioni ng of the DSU.  It was the expectation of Brazil 
that a consensus could be achieved at the end of Ma y or shortly thereafter.  Turning to the specifics, 
he said that Brazil was glad to see most of the pr oposals it supported were reflected in the text.  These 
included proposals on the sequencing issue, enhancemen t of third-party rights, enhanced transparency 
in some areas, remand authority, compensati on and a validity period for consultations.  
Notwithstanding these positive elements, there were al so some problematic aspects of the text.  A 
number of areas needed to fine-tuned to enable th em make a positive contribution to the functioning 
of the DSU.  He said that Brazil was not convinced about the need to introduce an interim stage in 
Appellate Body proceedings.  This proposal need ed careful scrutiny, so also was the proposal on 
remand authority for the Appellate Body.  The underlying reason behind the proposal on 
compensation was appealing but it was not clear how  it would work in practice.  The details as 
elaborated in the text needed further reflection.   He  said that Brazil also shared the concerns raised by 
some Members regarding litigation costs.  He furthe r said that Brazil would have wanted the text to 
include certain proposals which would have signi ficantly improved the functioning of the dispute 
settlement system and which appeared to enjoy broa d support during the discussions.  He said that the 
scope of the text was satisfactory, as the purpose of the negotiations was merely to improve and 
clarify the DSU and not to completely re-invent  the DSU.  While Brazil was willing to support a 
limited extension of the mandate to enable further technical work on the text to be completed, it had TN/DS/M/12 
Page 10  
 
 serious doubts about the usefulness of granting an ex tension to enable negotiations on proposals not 
reflected in the text to continue.  Opinions on some of these issues were sharply divided and the 
proponents had so far failed to convince the great er majority of Members of the value of their 
proposals making it unlikely for an agreement to be r eached on them anytime soon.  It might be better 
for these issues to be addressed at later stage durin g the Doha Development Agenda negotiations or 
even after its conclusion to give Members more time to reflect on them.  He reaffirmed Brazil's 
support for the text and said that Brazil was willing to assist in whatever that it could so as to ensure 
progress in the negotiations. 
29. The representative of India
 welcomed the text and said that his delegation was willing to 
accept it as the basis of an agreement at the end of May.  He said that his delegation was, however, 
disappointed that the text did not include some of the proposals tabled by a group of developing 
countries, including that of his own.  He expressed support in that regard for the statement made by 
Malaysia.  He also said that it would have been preferable if the text contained some elements of the Mexican proposal, which addressed some of the fundamental problems faced by the DSU.  He said that his delegation also shared the view that it was incumbent on Members to carefully assess the legal 
and practical implications of the package before presenting any definitive views.  In the absence of 
such a careful assessment, it was to be expected that disputes would in evitably arise in the future on 
the scope of the mandate.  It was imperative that th ere was absolute clarity on what would be agreed 
at the end of the process.  He said that his authoriti es were analyzing the text and that they would soon 
be providing their detailed comments on certain aspects of the text.  He asked for clarification of the 
distinction between bracketed proposals and un-bracketed proposals in the text.  He said that his 
delegation had serious conceptual difficulties with some of the un-bracketed proposals and would 
welcome an opportunity of a formal meeting to expr ess their views on specific aspects of the text.  He 
said that contrary to the impression created, there was still a considerable am ount of work to be done 
before the text could be considered to be in its  final form and broadly acceptable to Members.  He 
asked the Chairman to bear in mind the other equa lly important activities going on in the WTO before 
scheduling meetings before the end of May.  As regards the possibility of holding further negotiations 
on issues not reflected in the text, he said that his delegation was reflecting on the issue and would 
provide its comments at a later after taking into account the suggestions made by other delegations. 
30. The representative of Paraguay
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for preparing and 
circulating the document and said that some of its elements required further consideration.  He said 
that Paraguay had always been in favour of tran sparency in the negotiations and would like to be 
invited to all meetings of the negotiating group in the future.  He said that Paraguay could support the 
extension of the mandate to allow completion of  the technical work on some of the proposed 
elements. 
31. The representative of Chinese Taipei  welcomed the text and said that her delegation was 
prepared to accept it as the results of the negotiations at  the end of May.  She said in that regard that 
her delegation was in agreement with the views e xpressed by Hong Kong, China, Singapore and other 
delegations.  She said that her delegation was prepar ed to support an extension of the mandate to 
allow further technical work to be carried out  on certain elements of the proposed text. 
32. The representative of Haiti   thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for preparing and 
circulating the text and said that as the text was be ing analyzed by the LDC Group, he would only be 
offering some preliminary comments.  He said that  the text appeared to be a good basis for reaching 
an agreement at the end of May, although further work was needed in order to achieve the mandate 
given by Ministers.  He said that LDC Group was determ ined to play a constructive role in the process 
so as to ensure substantive progress was made in the negotiations. 
33. The representative of Canada  expressed his delegation's appreciation for the text and said that 
as it was recently received by his delegation, he would only be making preliminary comments.  The  TN/DS/M/12 
 Page 11 
 
 
 text reflected proposals such as sequencing and enhan ced third-party rights in respect of which there 
was a broad consensus during the discussions.  The Chairman deserved to be commended for helping 
Members to narrow their differences  on these issues.  With respect to other proposals, including those 
with square brackets around them, he said that his delegation was willing to wo rk with other Members 
to achieve substantive progress between now and th e end of May. He said that his delegation was 
even prepared to continue working beyond 31 May in order to achieve significant improvements on a 
number of issues, including the protection of  business confidential information, enhanced 
transparency and remand authority for the Appellate Body. 
34. The representative of Jordan   thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for producing the text 
and said that it covered elements which would resu lt in an improvement in the functioning of the 
DSU.  He said, however, that his delegation shared  the view that a thorough assessment needed to be 
undertaken to evaluate the potential legal and prac tical implications of the text.  It would be 
necessary, for example, to determine whether the te xt would be able to solve some of the pressing 
problems facing the dispute settlement system.  Given the enormity of the task at hand, an extension 
of the time-frame might be inevitable. He said that Jo rdan was prepared to support an extension of the 
mandate and would urge other Members to do the sam e.  In requesting the extension of the mandate 
from either the TNC or the General Council, it would be helpful if the request was accompanied by a 
clean text.  The further work should be completed with in a short time-frame in order to ensure that the 
results remained outside the single undertaking.  He said that Jordan was willing to play a constructive 
role in the further process. 
35. The representative of Japan  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for preparing and 
circulating the text and said that she would at this  stage be offering only preliminary comments, as her 
authorities were in the process of analyzing the docum ent.  She said that the text reflected proposals 
which had commanded broad support du ring the negotiations.  It would, however, be necessary for a 
thorough assessment to be undertaken to establish the practical and legal implications of the text.  
There were some concepts that n eeded further clarification and some  which had to be fined-tuned to 
make them broadly acceptable to delegations.  She said that Japan had conceptual difficulties with 
some of the proposals and would raise them when the meeting switched to an informal mode.  As 
regards the possibility of agreeing to an interim pack age by 28 May, she said that while her delegation 
appreciated the Chairman's best efforts in that rega rd, they would like to discuss and reflect further on 
some technical details and assess their implications. 
36. The representative of Cuba  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for producing the text 
and said that it was a good basis for reaching an agreement at the end of May.  She said, however, that 
her delegation would have wanted the text to include more special and differential treatment 
provisions for developing countries in order to facilitate their access and greater use of the dispute settlement system.  She said that her authorities were examining the text and that they would at a later 
stage provide comments on specific aspects of the te xt.  She said that they would also address the 
inconsistencies between the English and Spanish vers ions of the text.  As regards the possibility of 
extending the mandate for a limited duration, she sai d that her delegation was favourably disposed to 
it, as more time would be needed to work on th e technical aspects of some proposals and also to 
assess the implications of the text.  She urged th e Chairman to take into account the particular 
situation of small delega tions before deciding on any schedule of meetings. 
37. The representative of Bulgaria
 thanked the Chairman for his hard work and commitment to 
the negotiations and said that he would only be making preliminary comments on the text, as it was 
being analyzed by his authorities.  He said that his delegation could probably accept most of the proposals, although there were others which appeared to be problematic.  As regards extension of the 
mandate, he said that his delegation was willing to consider it.  On the issue of the scope of the text, 
he said that he could not prejudge the position th at would be taken by his authorities.  As a 
consequence, he was not able to say whether or not  his delegation would be able to accept the text as a TN/DS/M/12 
Page 12  
 
 basis for an agreement at the end of May.  He reca lled, however, that Bulgaria had always stated that 
it would like to see a critical mass of improvements be fore it could accept any agreement.  He further 
stated that a comprehensive agreement was pr eferable, as under the constitutional procedures of 
Bulgaria each agreement would have to receive par liamentary assent.  He assured that Bulgaria was 
willing to play a constructive role in the pr ocess to ensure the succ ess of the negotiations. 
38. The representative of China
 expressed his delegation's appreciation to the Chairman and the 
Secretariat for preparing and circulating the text and said that he would only be making preliminary 
comments, as his authorities were examining it.  He said that the text was broadly acceptable to China 
and that every effort should be made in the re maining time to narrow the differences in the positions 
of Members on certain issues.  A careful reading of  paragraph 30 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration 
would seem to indicate that Ministers intended the negotiations to produce comprehensive results and 
not interim results.  From that point of view, it would be preferable if every effort was made to fulfil 
the mandate of Ministers by addressing the concerns and interests of all Members, particularly least-developed and developing countries.  He said that China was willing to play a constructive role in the 
process so as to ensure the success of the negotiations. 
39. The representative of Australia
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for producing the 
text and said that she would be making some prelim inary comments.  The text as it stood needed more 
work to ensure that it was coherent and that all elem ents of the DSU worked t ogether as they should.  
She said that the DSU had worked well and that ca re should be taken in making any changes.  With 
that in mind, Australia was prepared to consider an extension of the May deadline if that was what 
was required to get an agreement on an appropriate package of impr ovements and clarifications.  It 
was doubtful if the changes proposed in the text w ould actually improve the functioning of the DSU.  
Australia shared the view that some of the cha nges might make the process more complicated and 
cumbersome than it already was.  The text on se quencing was, for example, cumbersome and too 
detailed than was necessary to address the problem.  She cast doubts on the usefulness of agreeing to a 
partial result at this stage, as it could make an assessment of the overall balance of the complete 
package difficult and decrease the fl exibility that Members could have otherwise shown.  She said 
that her delegation was in agreement with Member s which had stated that careful consideration 
should be given to how to move the process forwar d.  She concluded by saying that her delegation 
was looking forward to further discussions on the text in the coming days. 
40. The Chairman  thanked delegations for their gener ous comments and said that he would 
attempt to respond to some of them.  While there we re variations in the assessments of delegations, it 
could be said that overall the text was acceptable to  many delegations as a basis for an agreement at 
the end of May.  He said that it was perfectly u nderstandable that some de legations had only provided 
preliminary comments on the text.  Some of the issu es covered in the text were complex and it was 
normal that some delegations would require more time to evaluate their implications.  He said that if 
an agreement was to be reached at the end of May,  delegations would have to work efficiently and 
diligently.  He suggested that it might be useful if  delegations met in an informal mode to discuss 
further the text.  Such a meeting should prove usef ul as delegations could ask questions and clarify 
their positions on certain aspects of the text.  He sai d very disparate views had been offered as to the 
work that needed to be undertaken between now and the end of May and also the status of the 
outcome of the process.  He said that some of the comments were very useful and he would reflect further on them and see what lessons could be dr awn from them.  Instead of having a full-blown 
debate on whether the text would be a partial or a provisional result, it would be better if delegations 
focussed on the text as it was, with all its shortc omings and problems, and explore the possibility of 
forging a consensus around it. 
41. In response to specific comments from delega tions, the Chairman recalled that in the 
introductory note to the text, he had stated that some of the proposals required further technical work 
and that it might not be possible to complete this wo rk by the end of May. Some delegations had also  TN/DS/M/12 
 Page 13 
 
 
 indicated that unless further negotiations were undert aken on some issues not reflected in the text, 
they would not be in favour of adopting the text at the end of May.  He said that among the issues which required further clarificatory and tec hnical work were those on business confidential 
information and litigation costs.  If Members so wished, they could reach an agreement on the 
underlying concepts at this stage and continue work ing on the details or entrust that responsibility to 
the DSB.  Regarding the link between continuing nego tiations on issues not reflected in the text and 
the adoption of the text at the end of May, he said that he was conscious of the importance attached to 
some of these proposals by the proponents and that he  would suggest that due account be taken of this 
fact by the Special Session. 
 
__________