RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/DS/M/13 
2 April 2004 
 (04-1508) 
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body  
28 May 2003  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 28 May 2003  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Péter Balás (Hungary) 
 
 
 Prior to the adoption of the agenda , the Chairman  welcomed participants to the thirteenth 
meeting of the Special Session and said that the ag enda for the meeting contained three items, namely 
(i) action pursuant to paragraph 30 of the Doha  Ministerial Declaration concerning the Dispute 
Settlement Understanding;  (ii) report to the TNC;  and (iii) "Other Business".  He asked whether any 
delegation would like to raise any matter under "Oth er Business".  As there was no request from the 
floor, the item relating to "Other Business" w as removed from the agenda.  The agenda was 
subsequently adopted, as amended. 
 
I. DISCUSSION OF THE CHAIRMAN'S TEXT 
1. The Chairman  said that he expected a thorough discussi on of his text under this agenda item.  
He said that there were some errors in the text as it had been put together in ha ste.  He drew Members' 
attention in that regard to paragraph 13 of Artic le 3 and said that there was an omission in this 
paragraph and that and there were some words whic h should not have been included.  The paragraph 
should read as follows: "[a]ny time-period in th is Understanding may be extended by mutual 
agreement of the parties to the dispute concerned, except for the following [...].  A corrigendum would 
soon be issued to that effect.  He said that the c onsultations he had held in recent days had resulted in 
the removal of some square brackets around some pr oposals, although some still remained.  The text 
had not changed significantly.  There had been re latively few changes in the first section of the 
revised text, although a number of changes had been  made from Article 22 onwards.  Contrary to his 
expectations, each stage of the process had taken a l onger time to complete.  This was partly due to 
the large number of proposals submitted by Members as well as the late submission of some of these 
proposals pushing back the date of their examination by the Special Session.  He said that he had done 
his best to capture the views of delegations by including proposals which enjoyed broad consensus 
during the negotiations.  He cautioned Members that no proposal in the text had been expressly agreed 
to by Members. 
2. The representative of Malaysia  recalled that his delegation had stated at the previous meeting 
of the Special Session that they could accept th e text as basis for further work. The document 
reflected the views of Members, as it excluded prop osals which many delegations, including Malaysia 
had difficulties with.  Although the text excluded proposals which Malaysia was willing to accept, it 
was prepared to support it in the spirit of compromise .  There was the need fo r realism given the short 
time available for the negotiations to be concluded.  The text, however, needed to be refined further 
for it to be acceptable.  Some of the proposals needed to be examined further to assess their 
implications.  Malaysia was also concerned abou t some proposals, particularly those relating to TN/DS/M/13 
Page 2  
 
 Articles 6, 8 and 18 of the DSU.  The Chairman s hould report on the status of the negotitions to the 
TNC indicating that there was still a number of i ssues to be addressed but that time had run. 
3. The representative of Uruguay
 said that it had taken almost a year and half of intense 
negotiations to reach the present stage.  Members had all worked hard to fulfil the mandate given by 
Ministers.  From the very beginning of the negotiations, Uruguay and other Members had expressed 
the view that the DSU had generally worked well and that Members should focus on real problems 
that had been identified by them and where there appeared to be the greatest convergence of views 
and the greatest possibilities of reaching consensus.  He said that Uruguay had also pointed out that in 
view of the short time-frame, there was the need for r ealism and flexibility on the part of Members.  It 
had suggested in that connection that Members draw  up a list of potential issues to be negotiated at 
the beginning of the process, as th e Doha mandate referred to making clarifications and improvements 
to the DSU and not creating a new Understanding.  Regrettably, this advice was ignored and a 
different path chosen.  He thanked the Chairman  for text which he had circulated under his own 
responsibility and said that he would be sending it to  his authorities.  He said that his delegation 
considered the text to be a working document with  no legal status, as it had been submitted by the 
Chairman under his own responsibility.  The text included some proposals which, in Uruguay's view, 
should have had square brackets around them, as th ey had not been sufficiently discussed and had 
attracted sharply contrasting views from Members indica ting that they were not yet ripe for a decision 
and that further clarification of the underlying c oncepts was required.  These included Articles 8.10, 
10.3, 17.1 and 17.4 (third sentence), 18.2 (third and fourth sentences) and 28.  He concluded by 
saying that Uruguay might have further comments after reviewing the text thoroughly. 
4. The representative of Canada  said that his country had been  an active participant in the 
negotiations right from the outset and had expected an ambitious result by the end of May.  Unfortunately, it appeared that agreement coul d not be reached at the present meeting on the 
Chairman's text.  This did not signal the end of  the process, as the Doha mandate only spoke of 
aiming to complete the negotiations by 31 May 20 03.  Although, there were still some outstanding 
issues to be resolved, considerable progress had be en made.  There appeared to be convergence of 
views on a number of important issues which should facilitate the process of consensus-building.  It was essential for the negotiations to continue after 31 May.  Canada was ready to engage and would 
be seeking agreement on a number of essential improvements to the dispute settlement system, 
including sequencing, enhanced transparency, rema nd, the protection of confidential information and 
an improved panel roster system.  There was the n eed to capitalize on the work done to date, with a 
view to completing the work assigned by Ministers as soon as possible. 
5. The representative of Morocco
, speaking on behalf of the African Group, thanked the 
Chairman and the Secretariat for circulating th e text and said that the African Group would be 
examining it in detail before drawing any conclu sions.  As a preliminary comment, he said that 
African countries participated actively in the negotiati ons with a view to increasing their participation 
in the dispute settlement system.  It was therefore disappointing that the proposals of the African 
Group were not sufficiently reflected in the text.  It  was the expectation of African countries that their 
proposals would be taken into consideration in the re port by the Chairman to the TNC.  He said that 
the African Group was of the view that the mandate of the Special Session would expire at the end of 
the month and that the General Council seemed to be the appropriate body to extend it. 
6. The representative of Thailand  expressed his delegation's appr eciation for the text and said 
that his delegation shared the Chairman's view th at issues not included in the text required further 
discussions.  While considerable progress had been made, it was quite clear that the Doha mandate 
had not been fulfilled.  The text was far from co mplete and as such Thailand could not join any 
consensus to adopt it.  An extension of the ma ndate would allow a thorough discussion of all the 
proposals on the table and also give delegations ti me to reflect further on certain aspects of the 
Chairman's text.  It was preferable to have a comprehensive result which would actually improve the  TN/DS/M/13 
 Page 3 
 
 
 functioning of the dispute settlement system.  Instea d of engaging in a length y debate on the scope of 
the Doha mandate, it would be be tter if delegations focussed on how to frame their recommendations 
to the TNC and the General Council.  He said that Thailand was ready to engage constructively in the 
next phase and looked forward to working clo sely with the Chairman and other Members. 
7. The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for their 
hardwork and strenuous efforts to move the pro cess forward.  He said that his government was 
disappointed that it had not been possible for a consen sus to be reached on the Chairman's text.  While 
the text contained some commendable improvements,  including the enhancement of third-partry 
rights, there were some elements which needed further reflection and fine-tuning.  A principal 
objective of Chinese Taipei in the negotiations was to  improve access to the dispute settlement system 
by all Members, particularly the least experienced.  Care must be taken to ensure that the negotiations 
did not result in an overly complex process which would make the system much more complicated and put it out of reach of many Members.  Some proposals in the text, particularly those on remand authority and sequencing, appeared to head in th at direction.  The proposed procedures were too 
detailed and complex and might not lend themselves to  easy application.  Given the stalemate in the 
negotiations, Chinese Taipei was prepared to c ontinue the negotiations beyond the May deadline on 
the basis of the Chairman's text.  Considerable progress had been made in the negotiations and every 
effort should be made to build on the convergence wh ich had been achieved in some areas.  There was 
the risk of losing the momentum and the goodwill that had been generated, should there be an 
interruption in the negotiations until a new mandate  was obtained from the Ministerial Conference.  
With that in mind, Chinese Taipei could support the proposal made by a number of delegations that a 
report on the status of the negotiations should be made  to the TNC to be followed by a request to the 
General Council for an extension of the mandate. 
8. The representative of Israel
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat as well as other 
Members for working very hard to bring the negotiati ons to this point.  He restated Israel's position 
that it was prepared to accept th e Chairman's text as a basis for further negotiations.  Regarding 
proposals not reflected in the text but which the pr oponents would wish to see included, he said that 
because of the impending Cancún Ministerial Conference, it might be advisable to use the period immediately after Cancún until December 2003 to e xplore the possibility of widening and deepening 
the results which had been attained thus far.  With respect to the extension of the mandate to continue 
the negotiations beyond May 2003, he said that th e General Council appeared to be the most 
appropriate body to which such a request should be addressed. 
9. The representative of Colombia
 expressed her delegation's appreciation to the Chairman and 
the Secretariat for the time and effort they had invested in the negotiations.  She said that her 
delegation had taken careful note of the explanati ons provided by the Chairman regarding Members' 
positions on the text.  While the text could not be ad opted at the present meeting, it was apparent that 
there was convergence on a number of issues which should be built on.  She said that her delegation 
would not be making any specific comments on the te xt, as they had just received it.  The process on 
the whole was inclusive and transparent, but the l ast few weeks had highlighted the problems faced by 
small delegations. 
10. The representative of Chile  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat as well as other 
Members for investing so much time and effort in the negotiations.  It was to be expected that the text 
could not reflect the positions and expectations of all Members.  It had to strike a careful balance 
between the interests of all Members.  There w ould be other opportunities to further improve the 
DSU.  It was necessary to capitalize on the good work done  thus far and build on it.  The report to the 
TNC should highlight the considerable progress that  had been made, including the convergence of 
views in a number of areas.  Members had show n their commitment to the negotiations and their 
preparedness to continue working beyond May 2003 so as to achieve further progress.  While the 
Chairman's text was a good basis for further work , it would be necessary to have a more focussed TN/DS/M/13 
Page 4  
 
 approach in the future.  The parameters ought to be  clearly defined so that focussed discussions could 
take place on the various elements and lead to r esults which woud strengthen the dispute settlement 
system. 
11. The representative of India
 thanked the Chairman and the Secr etariat for putting so much time 
and effort into the negotiations.  He said that si nce its establishment in February 2002, the Special 
Session of the Dispute Settlement Body had come a long way.  The active participation in the 
negotiations by different segments of the membersh ip of the WTO was a testament to the importance 
attached to the dispute settlement system.  The large number of proposals was also evidence of 
Members' keen interest in the negotiations.  Indi a and other Members had e ngaged constructively in 
the process and examined proposals with an open mind.   Notwithstanding the lack of a consensus on 
the text, it was clear from the discussions that Memb ers wanted to build on the progress achieved thus 
far and complete the work as soon as possible.  Indi a was determined to play a constructive role in 
further negotiations so as to ensure progress.  Regard ing the text, he said that his delegation had some 
preliminary comments.  Given the far-reaching nature of some proposals and the limited time available for the negotiations to be completed, it was to be expected that there would be differences in 
opinions and that choices had to be made by Memb ers based on the level of convergence of views on 
the various proposals.  The aim should be to come up with a package that clarified and improved the 
DSU and made it more meaningful to all Members.   The text mostly included issues on which there 
was a convergence of views.  To that extent, it reflect ed the state of discussions  thus far.  The text 
had, however, left out some proposals which would have added enormous value to the DSU.  These 
included the proposals by Mexico and Brazil.  Given that the whole text had not been agreed, it was 
not necessary to put square brackets around some proposals, as it gave the impression the others had 
been agreed.  As far as India was concerned, a ll the proposals in the text had the same status. 
12. He said that while the text could serve as a b asis for further negotiations, his delegation had 
serious conceptual difficulties with some of the pr oposals, including the following:  (i) indefinite 
extension of time periods by mutual agreement of the parties (Article 3(13));   (ii) the proposal under 
Article 15(2) that a meeting of the panel after th e issuance of the interim report could be requested 
only by the parties to the dispute and not by any pa rty, as was the case at present;  (iii) the proposal 
regarding suspension/termination of the work of pane l at any time before the circulation of the final 
report to members (Article 12(xii) & (xiii)) and th e corresponding provision with regard to suspension 
of work of the Appellate Body;  (iv) the proposal regarding the issuance of  interim reports to the 
parties by the Appellate Body (Article 17(5)(b)); and the proposal regarding the number of Appellate 
Body members (Article 17(1)).  He said that his delegation was also disappointed that many of the 
proposals that would have made the DSU more meaningful and accessible to developing countries 
had not been properly reflected in the text.  Although  the proposal by a group of developing countries 
was reflected in the text, it was done in such a way as to make developing countries liable to pay 
litigation costs to developed-country Members.  This  was not the intention of the co-sponsors of the 
proposal.  Notwithstanding all these reservations, India remained willing and committed to working 
with the Chairman and other Members in order to  complete the negotiations as soon as possible.  
Given the importance of these negotiations, future  meetings of the Special Session should be 
scheduled in a such a way as to facilitate maximum participation by Members, particularly capacity-
constrained small delegations. 
13. The representative of Pakistan
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for the time and 
effort that they have invested in these nego tiations.  He also commended Members for their 
constructive participation in the negotiations.  He  said that while his delegation was willing to accept 
the text as a basis for further negotiations, it was concerned that it did not reflect most of the proposals tabled by least-developed and developing countries.  Fo r the text to be broadly acceptable, it needed 
to be improved upon and reflect as much as possible the diverse interests of Members.  It was the 
expectation of Pakistan that the revised text would take account of the proposals of developing 
countries.  TN/DS/M/13 
 Page 5 
 
 
 14. The representative of Costa Rica  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for their hardwork 
and dedication over the past year and a half.  The te xt reflected the state of discussions thus far and 
contained proposals on which there was a convergen ce of views.  The text contained the necessary 
elements needed to reach an agre ement in pursuance of the mandate given by the Ministers at Doha.  
The proposed outcome of the negotiations was substantial and Costa Rica could accept it as an 
excellent basis for an agreement, even though it was conscious that it omitted certain valuable 
proposals, including certain elements of the Mexican proposal which would have resulted in an improvement in the functioning of the DSU.  Given that it would not be possible to reach agreement within the set time-frame, Costa Rica was prepared to continue negotiating beyond 31 May with the 
expectation that Members would soon reach a c onsensus.  Members should build on the good work 
done thus far and seek to reach an agreement as soon  as possible.  He said in that regard that Costa 
Rica was prepared to be flexible and could consid er a range of possibilities for continuing the further 
our work, provided that the negotiations were kept  separate in the sense of excluding them from the 
single undertaking. 
15. The representative of Indonesia
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for their hard work 
and dedication.  He said that the failure to reach ag reement on the text should be seen as the collective 
failure of Members, as the WTO was a Member-driven institution.  Regarding the text itself, he said 
that his delegation was in the process of review ing it and would be providing its comments later.  
Suffice it to say that the text was a good basis for furt her negotiations.  He said that in its examination 
of the text, Indonesia would be seeking to establis h whether the proposed changes were consistent 
with other provisions of the DSU and those of othe r agreements.  Given the importance of the dispute 
settlement mechanism, it was very unfortunate that  Members could not reach a consensus.  Indonesia 
was not a frequent user of the dispute settlement syst em and as such did not have very high ambitions 
in these negotiations.  It was, however, willing to c onsider other Members' priorities in the spirit of 
compromise and flexibility.  The decision as to wh ether to adopt the present package should not be 
linked to an agreement to continue the negotiations  beyond May and adopt the results as a whole.  The 
package was important for developing countries as it could facilitate their use of the dispute 
settlement system.  Adoption of the package would send a positive signal to the outside world that the WTO and its Members were committed to buildi ng and enhancing the capacity of developing 
counhtries in this area.  With respect to the next step in the negotiation process, Indonesia was of the 
view that the Chairman should submit a factual report to the TNC for its consideration.  The good work done thus far must be preserved and built upon. 
16. The representative of Egypt
 said that given the fact that the text had just been distributed, his 
delegation was not in a position to comment on it.  They had sent it to Cairo and would provide their 
comments later.  As a preliminary comment, Egypt had serious conceptual difficulties with certain 
proposals in the text, including those relating to, for example, Artices 10, 12, 17 and 18.  The text did not fully reflect the special and differential tr eatment provisions being sought by developing 
countries.  He said that Egypt was prepared to  support an extension of the time-frame for the 
completion of negotations until the end of the y ear.  It was important for the results of the 
negotiationbs to remain outside the single undertaking. 
17. The representative of Hungary
 expressed her delegation's appreciation to the Chairman and 
the Secretariat for the good work that had been done by them over the past year and half.  It was 
regrettable that an agreement could not be reached on the text by Members. Hungary considered the 
text to be a good basis for the further negotiations and believed that it should be built on by Members.  
It reflected proposals on which there was a converg envce of views.  These included proposals on 
enhanced third party rights, clarified procedures at  panel and Appellate Body stages, remand authority 
for the Appellate Body, resolution of the sequenc ing issue, improved transparency and enhanced 
special and differential treatment provisions for de veloping countries.  As some of these proposals 
needed to be developed and furthe r refined, Hungary was of the opinion that the negotiations should 
continue beyond May 2003 with a view of making progress on these issues as well as other TN/DS/M/13 
Page 6  
 
 outstanding issues, including proposals not reflected in  the text.  Hungary had a special interest in the 
proposal on a system of permanent panelists and woul d like it to be taken up in further negotiations.  
She said that Hungary was ready to play a constructive role in the further negotiations and looked forward to working with the Chairman and other Members. 
18. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 expressed his delegation's appreciation to the 
Chairman and the Secretariat as well as other par ticipants in the negotiations for their commitment 
and hard work over the past 14 months.  He said that  the text needed to be further examined but it 
appeared to be a good basis for further work.  It was the understanding of Hong Kong, China that 
some delegations were disappointed that their proposal s were not reflected in the text.  While this was 
understandable, it was unavoidable that choices had to  be made.  Given the large number of proposals 
that were tabled and the far-reaching nature of so me of them and the short time available, it was 
necessary to focus on those proposals around which ther e was a convergence of views.  As regards the 
scope of the mandate, he said that Hong Kong, China had taken note of the differences in the views of 
Members regarding the necessity or otherwise of obtai ning an extension in order to continue with the 
negotiations after May 2003.  The discussion appear ed to be unnecessary as there seemed to be no 
objection to the Special Session continuing with its work after May 2003.  The issue could be referred 
to either the TNC or the General Council  for a deci sion.  The Doha mandate was very clear that the 
DSU negotiations had to be outside the single und ertaking and the results implemented earlier if 
possible.  If there was going to be an extension of the mandate, it would be preferable to have a clear 
time-frame.  Hong Kong, China coul d go along with the suggestion that the negotiations should be 
concluded in December 2003.  In any event, it woul d be better if the nego tiations were concluded 
before 1 January 2005. 
19. The representative of Brazil  said that Ministers mandated a review of the DSU because they 
thought that certain aspects could be clarified a nd improved upon.  The basic objective was to come 
up with a text which would be better than the DSU.  The task of clarifying and improving the DSU was not an easy one and the efforts of the Chairm an and the Secretariat as well as those of Members 
should be commended.  It was regrettable that th e mandate could not be fulfilled within the time-
frame given by Ministers.  This result was to  be expected as Members had not moved from their 
positions.  On the sequencing issue, for example, some Members had stated that they could not support any solution which would have an impact  on the overall time-frame for settling disputes, 
while others had stated that the negotiations woul d not be complete without a multilateral resolution 
of this issue.  Yet others had also stated that the issue was now redundant, as parties were dealing with 
this issue through bilateral agreements.  Some Me mbers had taken the view that the objective of the 
negotiations was to make structural or fundamental  changes to the DSU, while others had taken the 
view that the purpose of the negotiations was not to create a new DSU, but to make necessary changes 
which would result in an improvement in the functioning of the DSU.  Long discussions had been held on a number of subjects, including compensati on and retaliation, third-party rights, transparency 
and expedited procedures, yet no significant progress had been made.  Members had maintained their 
long-held views without showing much flexibility.  Members seemed to be of the view that as the 
DSU had been working quite well, it was probably unnecessary to introduce new rules which might 
actually complicate the process and make its use more difficult.  It was important for this basic issue 
to be resolved, otherwise future attempts would e nd up with the same fate.  Turning to the text, he 
said that Brazil considered it to be a working document which could be built upon by Members.  
While it included proposals on which there was a c onvergence of views, it excluded some important 
proposals which could actually improve the functioni ng of the DSU.  Some elements in the text 
needed to be refined for them to be broadly accep table to the membership.  He said that Brazil was 
open to discussing extension of the mandate which w ould run out on 31 May.  This should enable 
Members to continue their work and make substa ntive progress which would eventually serve as the 
basis of an agreement.  TN/DS/M/13 
 Page 7 
 
 
 20. The representative of Korea  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for their commitment 
and hard work and said that Korea considered th e text to be a good basis for further work.  It 
accurately reflected the state of the discussions and th e level of support for the various proposals.  It 
was regrettable that a consensus could not be reached on the text, notwithstanding the intensive 
consultations which were conducted in the last few weeks.  Ko rea was ready to continue working 
beyond 31 May as it believed that the DSU could be  further improved, although it had been working 
quite well since its inception.  Among issues of impor tance to Korea were the clarification of the 
relationship between Articles 21 and 22 (seque ncing issue), improving and strengthening 
implementation and streamlining time-frames.  Korea w as also interested in continuing discussions on 
certain aspects of the Chairman's text. 
21. The representative of Switzerland  expressed his delegation's gratitude to the Chairman and 
the Secretariat for their hard work and commitment to the negotiations.  He said that the text could 
serve as a basis for further work.  It was a matter of regret that agreement could not be reached on the 
text at the present meeting.  Switzerland was of th e view that paragraph 30 of the Doha mandate was 
flexible and did not prevent Members from conti nuing with the negotiations after May 2003.  It was 
important to focus on substance rather than procedure.   It would be essential in the next stage of the 
negotiations to focus on proposals which were potentia lly ripe for a consensus.  The proposals in the 
Chairman's text fell in this category.  They ha d been comprehensively discussed and improved in the 
pas couple of weeks and months.  It was the exp ectation of Switzerland that Members would soon be 
able to reach a consensus on most of the proposal s contained in the Chairman's text.  Switzerland 
would have preferred if the text included cer tain proposals which could have made a positive 
contribution to the functioning of the DSU.  Notwithstanding their omission, Switzerland was 
prepared to work very hard and make the necessary concessions to ensure progress in the 
negotiations.  It would be encouraging if all Members could display flexibility and a greater 
willingness to accommodate the interests of other Members.  He said that Switzerland was in 
agreement with the view that the DSU, as further shaped and devel oped by panels and the Appellate 
Body, had been functioning mostly well.  This, how ever, did not mean that it could not be improved 
upon.  From a systemic viewpoint, most of the changes being proposed in the Chairman's text would be extremely useful and strengthen the DSU to th e benefit of all Members.  A successful outcome 
would send a positive signal to the outside world a nd re-energize the negotia tions under the DDA.  
Switzerland was conscious of the fact that the modi fications contained in the Chairman's text would 
not resolve all the shortcomings and deficits of th e current DSU.  It would as such only be a partial 
result.  Progress needed to be made on important proposals such as the professionalization of the 
panel system by setting up a system of permanent panelists.  He said that Switzerland was convinced 
that, with the necessary good will and good faith by  all delegations, a substantive result could be 
achieved which would clarify and improve th e DSU for the benefit of all Members. 
22. The representative of New Zealand
 said that the negotiating process had been a worthwhile 
exercise.  Members now had a much clearer idea of many of the concepts that had been put forward 
and had before them the Chairman's text which cont ained proposals, such as those on enhanced third- 
party rights and remand authority, that would brin g practical and useful improvements to the DSU.  
There was still a great deal of work to be done.  The Chairman's text was a good basis for further 
work.  There were a number of proposals, includi ng increased transparency and expedited procedures 
for safeguard cases which New Zealand would like to  see reflected in the text.  He said that New 
Zealand would be willing to con tinue negotiating after May 2003. 
23. The representative of Jamaica  thanked the Chairman and the S ecretariat for their hard work 
and dedication to the negotiations.  She said that  Jamaica was pleased to see that some issues of 
interest to it were reflected in the Chairman's text .  Jamaica was acutely aware that while there was a 
convergence of views on certain proposals, there was no consensus on the text as a whole.  It was, 
therefore, necessary for further wo rk be carried out with a view to achieving progress and fulfilling TN/DS/M/13 
Page 8  
 
 the mandate given by Ministers.  She said that  Jamaica was willing to wo rk beyond May 2003 and 
looked forward to working with the Chairman and other Members. 
24. The representative of Mexico
 expressed his delegation's gratitude to the Chairman and the 
Secretariat for their commitment and dedication to the negotiations.  He said that his delegation had 
not had the chance to examine the text and as such  was not in a position o provide detailed comments 
on it.  He recalled that Mexico had stated that  it had some fundamental problems with the earlier 
version.  This did not, however, mean that the review  exercise should be halted.   It was too important 
for the multilateral trading system for it to be droppe d.  A strengthened dispute settlement system was 
necessary for the credibility of the multilateral trading system.  The basic issue was how to proceed in 
the face of the stalemate in the negotiations.  Mexico  was inclined to think that it would perhaps be 
better to leave matters as they were and later take up the issue in the TNC where ways of re-
energizing the negotiations might be discussed.  It  would be extremely helpful if Members could 
decide on what they really want.  Once this was est ablished, it would be easier to work towards it.  
Two principles should guide the future work that would be undertaken.  It would be important to focus on the fundamental areas wher e there were problems in the DSU.   These included the lack of 
adequate access to the system by developing countries and the growing list of cases where 
implementation had not taken place.  It would also be important to establish very simple and clear rules so as to avoid ambiguities. 
25. The representative of Argentina
 thanked the Chairman and the S ecretariat for their hard work 
and commitment to the negotiations.  He said that  notwithstanding the tremendous efforts that had 
been deployed by the Chairman in  recent weeks, it was unfortunate that agreement on the reform of 
the DSU had once gain eluded Members.  While th e DSU had worked quite well, it was obvious that 
it could be improved in certain respects.  A stre ngthened dispute settlement system was a central 
element in guaranteeing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system.  He said that 
Argentina had always attached the highest priority to the proper functioning of the dispute settlement 
system.  It had in that context been flexible and willing to accommodate the interests of other 
Members so that progress could be made in the negotiations.  A successful outcome would have sent a 
positive signal to the outside world about the co mmitment of Members to the dispute settlement 
system and also the DDA negotiations.  For progress to be made, Members needed to demonstrate more realism and flexibility.  Argentina was ready to play a constructive role in the next phase of 
work which should build on the elements containe d in the Chairman's text.  As mandated by 
Ministers, the DSU negotiations should remain outside of the single undertaking. 
26. The representative of Cuba
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for the good work that 
they had done over the past fifteen months.  Sh e said that her delegation was in the process of 
examining the revised text and would later provide its comments.   She recalled that Cuba had 
indicated in comments on the earlier version that it  was prepared to accept the Chairman's text as a 
basis for further work, although it was concerned that it had omitted several proposals tabled by 
developing countries.  These proposal s were intended to enable deve loping countries to participate 
more effectively in the dispute settlement system.  It was the expectation of Cuba that work would 
continue after May 2003 on the basis of the Chairman's text.  She supported the statement by India that care must be taken in the scheduling of future  meetings of the Special Session in order to allow 
small delegations to participate effectively in them. 
27. The representative of Paraguay
 expressed his delegation's appreci ation for the hard work and 
commitment of the Chairman and the Secretariat to the negotiations.  He said that his delegation was 
in the process of examining the revised text a nd would later provide its comments.  Given the 
importance of the dispute settlement system, it wa s unfortunate that Members could not fulfil the 
mandate given by Ministers.  He recalled that Paraguay had submitted a pr oposal in September 2002 
and said that it was his expectation it would be considered again in the next phase of work.  TN/DS/M/13 
 Page 9 
 
 
 28. The representative of the United States  said that, at this phase of the negotiations, it wanted to 
thank the Chair and the Secretariat for all their hard  work in these negotiations, in particular during 
the intensive discussions held over the past several days.  The Members had presented the chair with a 
difficult task, and the United States appreciated the commitment and energy that he had shown.  As 
the United States indicated at the outset of this  process, the Ministerial Declaration presented a 
challenge to Members, particularly in aiming to co mplete the negotiations by the end of May.  Time 
had shown that this was an ambitious target.  Wh ile much progress had been made, Members were not 
there yet.  It was a tribute to the value of the dispute settlement system that so many Members had 
shown an active interest in these negotiations and had proposed so many ways to clarify or improve it.  
Some of these were quite far-reaching or complex,  and it was no surprise that Members had wanted 
sufficient time to discuss and understand the proposals and to work through their potential 
implications.  When it came to the DSU, it was more important to get it right than to get it fast.  The 
objective was to clarify and improve the DSU, not  to create more confusion or problems through 
hasty drafting or changes that were not fully devel oped.  The United States thanked the Chair for the 
revised draft that had been provided at the present meeting.  The United States had made its position 
clear at the previous meeting of the Special Session in terms of how it viewed these negotiations 
overall, as well as the draft Chair's text at that tim e.  The current draft was an improvement over the 
draft that Members had the previous week.  However,  it continued to be true that while there were 
promising elements in the text, there were also elements that were problematic even when taken 
alone.  In addition, a few additional components of the elements that were in the text would need to be 
included if Members were to improve the DSU.  The United States was in agreement with other 
delegations that more work needed to be done, an d it also accepted that this would require further 
discussions beyond May, both to continue discussions on elements included in the draft text and to work on additional elements to improve the DSU.  It  recalled that the Ministerial Declaration simply 
called on Members to aim to reach agreement by th e end of May.  The United States saw no bar to 
continuing to work past May.  It looked forwar d to working with the Chair and other Members in 
making further progress in these negotiations. 
29. The representative of Norway
 expressed his delegation's appreciation for the hardwork and 
commitment of the Chairman and the Secretariat to  the negotiations.  He also thanked Members for 
participating constructively in the negotiations and said that a lot of  effort had been expended with a 
view to reaching an agreement before the end of Ma y.  It was unfortunate that the differences in 
Members' positions could not be bridged, not withstanding the last two weeks of intensive 
consultations.  Even if negotiations were intensified in the last remaining days of May, it was unlikely 
that they would produce any meaningful results.  It was up to each delegation to reflect on why 
agreement could not be reached.  It would not be pr oductive to have an exte nsive debate on the scope 
of paragraph 30 of the Doha Ministerial Declarati on and draw any implications of the missed deadline 
for either the DSU negotiations or for the entire DDA negotiations.  By virtue of paragraphs 45 and 46 
of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, it was up to the TNC to assess the implications of the missed 
deadline, provide the necessary guidance and take appropr iate decisions.  It should be borne in mind, 
however, that any changes to the DSU should not be treated as part of the "single undertaking".  It 
would be advisable for the Chairman to attach his revised proposal to the report that he would be 
submitting to the TNC.  While Norway had not ha d the chance to review the revised proposal, it 
believed that the text could serve as a basis for future work. 
30. The representative of Australia  expressed his delegation's appr eciation for the hardwork and 
dedication of the Chairman and the Secretariat and said that like other Members, Australia was 
disappointed that the mandate given by Ministers could not be fulfilled.  He said that while the Chairman's text was very useful, Australia conti nued to have some doubts a bout certain elements.  
The most important one was the issue of sequencing.  The Chairman's proposal was overly 
complicated and could give rise to problems later.  This issue could be resolved through the adoption 
of very simple procedures as had been suggested by Australia.  He said that Australia shared the 
concerns of countries which had registered their displeasure about the non-inclusion of certain TN/DS/M/13 
Page 10  
 
 important proposals in the text.  As regards the way forward, he said that Australia was prepared to 
have a discussion in due course in the TNC or in the General Council.  It was quite clear Members 
realized the importance of continuing the negotiations  and bringing them to a successful conclusion.  
While certain aspects of the DSU could be improve d, it should be borne in mind that the DSU had 
generally worked well.  Making dramatic chang es could complicate the system and make it user-
unfriendly which would not be in any country's inte rests.  On the issue of extending the mandate of 
the Special session and fixing another deadline, he  said that it would be advisable if Members 
reflected further on this issue.  It was not in doubt that the negotiations on the DSU were not part of the single undertaking and as such the time when they would be concluded was immaterial.  The only 
real deadline was the end of the negotiations.  This  did not mean that they would be taken into 
account in determining whether there was a balanced outcome.  
31. The representative of China
 thanked the Chairman and the S ecretariat for their hardwork and 
dedication and said that the large number of propo sals underscored the importa nce attached to these 
negotiations by Members.  The operation of the DS U for the past eight years had revealed some 
shortcomings of the DSU.  Some of the experien ces had been acquired through the involvement of 
cases initiated under the DSU.  It was these types of experiences which Members had to think about in 
trying to fulfil the mandate given by Ministers under paragraph 30 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration.  The challenge was to come up with  a balanced result which reflected the different 
interests and the concerns of Members.  Whil e the Chairman's text contained some useful 
improvements, it only addressed a few of the concerns of Members.  It was questionable whether this text fulfilled the mandate given by Ministers in th e Doha declaration.  The special and differential 
treatment provisions in the DSU were weak, but re grettably the Chairman's text did not contain 
adequate provisions which would facilitate access and greater use of the system by developing 
countries.  The proposals tabled by least-dev eloped and other developing countries were not 
sufficiently reflected in the text.  He said that li ke other delegations, China was disappinted about the 
partial outcome of the negotiations and could not join  others in adopting the text.  He stressed that it 
was envisaged in paragraph 30 of the Doha Declarat ion that there would be a comprehensive package 
addressing the concerns of all Members,in particular those of least-developed and developing countries.  He said that China had no objection to the extension of the mandate and looked forward to 
working constructively with the Chairman and other participants in the negotiations with a view to 
obtaining a comprehensive outcome in the near future. 
32. The representative of Ecuador
 thanked the Chairman and the S ecretariat for their hard work 
and dedication to the negotiations.  He said that it was abundantly clear that Members did not want to 
put aside the good work that had been done.  They ha d demonstrated their intention to build on it with 
a view to reaching a comprehensive result in the near future.  The fact that an agreement had not been 
reached did not mean that the DSU could not be am ended or improved.  Progress had been made in 
that direction and the efforts should be maintained .  He said that Ecuador would provide its comments 
later on the way forward when the matter was taken up in the General Council.  He said that Ecuador 
was ready to engage constructively in the next ph ase of work and looked forward to working with the 
Chairman and other participants in order to fulfil the mandate given by Ministers. 
33. The representative of Japan  said that her delegation appreciated the leadership that had been 
shown by the Chairman throughout the process, as we ll as his patience and hard work.  She said that 
Japan was of the view that the DSU had been f unctioning well and that any proposed changes should 
be carefully evaluated.  She recalled that her de legation had stated that it had some conceptual 
difficulties with the Chairman's text and further sai d that Japan was prepared to continue working 
after the May deadline.  It was not productive at th is stage to have a full debate on the scope of 
paragraph 30 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.   The Special Session had done a lot of good work 
that Members should endeavour to build on in order to strengthe n the dispute settlement system, 
which was a central element in providing security an d predictability to the multilateral trading system.  TN/DS/M/13 
 Page 11 
 
 
 34. The representative of European Communities  thanked the Chairman for his hard work and 
dedication and said that the EC attached great impor tance to the dispute settlement system, as it was 
the cornerstone of the WTO system.  While the DS U had generally worked quite well, there were 
some improvements which could be made.  The EC shared the view that any proposed changes should 
be carefully evaluated before they  were implemented.  The EC was disappointed that agreement could 
noit be reached on the text at the present meeting.   Substantial progress had been made and Members 
should build on it with a view to achieving an agreemen t as soon as possible.  The EC was prepared to 
continue working after the May deadline using the Ch airman's text as a basis for further negotiations.  
He said that it would be important in the next ph ase of work to also consider other proposals not 
reflected in the Chairman's text.  For the EC, the most important "systemic" issue in these negotiations 
was improvement of the panel composition process.  The EC also shared the view of other delegations 
that the issue of th effectiveness of DSU remedi es was also important as well as increasing access to 
the system by developing countries.  In that contex t, the EC was prepared to consider constructively 
possible modalities for the partial recovery of litigati on costs.  For progress to be made on this issue 
and other issues, it was necessary for Members to  show flexibility and a greater willingness to 
accommodate the concerns of other Members.  Proponents should be ready to reformulate their 
proposals in a manner that responded to the comments and concerns of other Members.  Participants 
should engage constructively in the negotiations bearing in mind the systemic importance of the 
dispute settlement system to Members.  Member s should be guided by the priinciple of seeking 
effective and lasting improvements to the DSU.  Th e EC was ready to engage constructively in the 
next phase of work.  Taking into account the concerns  of small delegations, it might be preferable for 
the next phase of work to start after the Cancún Mini sterial Conference.  The EC was also open to any 
additional guidance that might be provided by the TNC or the General Council. 
35. The Chairman  thanked Members for their kind words about him and said that without the 
great efforts of Members, including small delegations , it would not have been possible to get to this 
stage.  He said that substantial pr ogress had been made as evidenced by the text under consideration.  
The package was incomplete for two reasons, namely th e fact that some of the elements in the text 
had to be developed further and also the non-inclusio n of certain proposals in the text.  He reiterated 
that progress had been made and that it was for Memb ers to build on it.  He said that the report he 
would be preparing for the TNC would describe the process followed in the negotiations and the 
various elements which had been considered at each stage of the process.  It would point out that a 
large number of proposals were received from a cr oss-section of the membership underscoring the 
importance attached to the negotiations by Member s.  The report would include a list of issues on 
which there was a broad consensus and those around which a consensus could not be forged.  With 
respect to the report, he said that while agreement could not be reached on it, a significant number of 
Members expressed the view that they were prepared  to accept it as a basis for further work.  The text 
contained a number of special and differential tr eatment provisions which should facilitate greater 
access and participation of developing countries in the dispute settlement system.  The other special 
and differential treatment provisi ons could not be included the text, as they did not enjoy broad 
support among the membership.  He alluded to the concerns expressed by some Members pertaining to the non-inclusion of certain proposals in the text  and their warning that it would be difficult for 
them to accept a package that did not reflect these proposals.  These countries were firmly of the view 
that further work should not be based exclusively on  the Chairman's text, but also other proposals on 
the table.  This view was not shared by other Members, who stated that the Chairman's text should be 
the sole basis for the further negotiations.  He high lighted the fact that a number of delegations had 
expressed the view that the DSU negotiations were outside the single undertaking and that the fact 
that the deadline had not been met did not change anything.  He proposed that in order to maintain the momentum, the Special Session should have a meeting before the summer break to take stock and 
deliberate on the way forward.  He said that  the i ssue of the mandate of the Special Session would be 
taken up by the General Council at its July meeting and probably by Ministers at the Cancún meeting. TN/DS/M/13 
Page 12  
 
 36. The representative of Malaysia
 asked the Chairman why he t hought the issue might be on the 
agenda of Cancún Ministerial Confer ence.  He said that he thought there was broad agreement that the 
issue should be referred to the Gene ral Council for its consideration. 
37. The Chairman  said that he was not prejudging the course of action that would be taken by the 
General Council, but that it was a possibility that the issue might be referred to the Ministers at 
Cancún for their consideration. 
38. The representative of Norway  said that it would be unnecessary for the Chairman to attach the 
compilation of proposals to his report to the TNC.  It  would be advisable if it was referenced in the 
report.  In relation to views expressed by Memb ers on the scope of the mandate and whether the 
Chairman's text was a good basis for further negotiati ons, he said that it would be better if the report 
was succinct and merely stated that divergent view s were expressed by Members.  As regards the 
need to hold further meetings of the Special Sessi on, he said that decision should be made by a higher 
body. 
39. The representative of Uruguay  thanked the Chairman for sharing with delegations the 
elements that his report would cover and said that it was appropriate for the Chairman to submit the 
report to the TNC under his own responsibility.  It would be up to the TNC to decide on the 
appropriate course of action.  It was clear from th e discussions that no delegation had objected to the 
continuation of work after May, so it was not necess ary to create problems where they did not exist.  
The report should be as factual as possible reporting on the status of work and it should be left to the 
TNC to decide on the best possible course of action. 
 
__________