RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/CSC/W/33
3 June 2002
(02-3042)
Committee on Specific Commitments
INCORPORATION OF COMMITMENTS
RESULTING FROM CURRENT SERVICES NEGOTIATIONS INTO
MEMBERS' GATS SCHEDULES
Note by the Secretariat
1. This note has been prepared in response to a request by the Committee on Specific
Commitments at its meeting on 11 March 2002. The note begins by describing past GATS practice in
incorporating new commitments.  In the light of this  practice, the note then explores the two options
that have emerged during discussions in the Committee, without prejudice to other approaches
Members may wish to consider.  In examining the two options, the note addresses the issues raised
during the discussions, identifies other issues to be considered, and points to potential benefits anddrawbacks.  The note is a first attempt to explore incorporation issues, and should not be considered
exhaustive.
I. PAST PRACTICE
2. Since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round in 1994, many Members have made changes to
their original Uruguay Round or accession schedules of commitments.  These changes have mostlyresulted from the extended negotiations, agreed to by Ministers in Marrakesh, on the movement of
natural persons (1995), maritime services (1996), financial services (1995 and 1997), and basic
telecommunications (1997).  These extended negotiations were conducted on the basis of Ministerial
Decisions and Annexes to the GATS.  Some of thes e instruments allowed the withdrawal of Uruguay
Round commitments that fell within the scope of the negotiations.  They explicitly stated that
Members were authorized to do so notwithstanding Article XXI of the GATS.
3. The changes resulting from the extended Uruguay Round negotiations were incorporated into
Members' schedules by way of successive protocols or notifications.
1  The types of changes
introduced ranged from complete withdrawals or re visions of commitments, to insertions of complete
sections of schedules relating to one sector.  The legal instruments incorporating the changes
(protocols or notifications) always indicated the relationship between pre-existing schedules and the
new schedules. In some cases the new instrument replaced the pre-existing one ("replacementmethod"), while in other cases the new instrument supplemented or partially modified the pre-existing
schedule ("accumulation method").  The replacement method resulted in all of a Member's
commitments in force in a sector being embodied in a single instrument.  The accumulation method
resulted in all of a Member's commitments in force in a sector being contained in more than one
instrument, which then needed to be read together.
4. Although most changes to schedules have resulted from the Uruguay Round extended
negotiations, others have been proposed and incorporated through individual certification procedures.
Some fifteen Members have introduced changes to their commitments in this way, outside the context
of negotiations.  Presently, all changes incorporated into Members’ schedules are physically contained
in separate documents linked in various manners to the original schedule of a Member.  More details
                                                     
1 The term "protocol" is used to describe a legally binding international agreement that is less
comprehensive than a "treaty" or "convention".  A protocol is often used to supplement obligations in a treaty.S/CSC/W/33
Page 2
on the incorporation methods used, and their practical implications for Members, are contained in
Attachment 1 to this note.
5. Only 58 Members maintain GATS commitments in a single document.2  For each of the 86
Members that have made changes to their original Uruguay Round or accession schedules, the total
number of documents containing commitments that are,  or have been, in force varies between two and
seven.3  This multiplicity of documents might result in difficulties in determining the legal status of a
Member's commitments under the GATS.  In such cases, to obtain a complete and accurate picture of
such legal status it is necessary to look at the original schedule, together with subsequent documents
modifying it, and assess how the various documents relate to each other.  Current commitments are
identifiable only by the date of 4, or specified in, the legal instru ment incorporating the commitments.
Resolving these difficulties requires a familiarity with GATS negotiating history, the various types of
legal instruments and document symbols.  A list of documents relating to Members' commitments isfound in Attachment 2 of this note.
II. POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOR CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS
6. In discussing incorporation of commitments a distinction should be made between the
protocol which incorporates the results of the negotiations, and the schedules of commitments
attached to it.  If past practice is followed, the commitments resulting from the current services
negotiations will be incorporated into the GATS through a Protocol (the “Sixth Protocol”)
 5, to which
resulting schedules of specific commitments will be annexed.  Naturally, the question of the
relationship between commitments in the old schedules and those in the new schedules will arise.  It
would therefore be desirable that the Sixth Protocol make explicit whether the commitments in the
new schedules supplement or revise commitments in the old schedules, or whether they simplyreplace them.
7. During discussions in the Committee, Members raised the question of the preservation of
legal certainty of existing commitments.  In principle, the new schedule would not be expected to
reduce  the level of a commitments in an old schedule.  The mandate for the negotiation of specific
commitments is indicated in paragraph 1 of GATS Article XIX, which states that
"… Members shall enter into successive rounds of negotiations, beginning
not later than five years from the date of entry into force of the WTO
Agreement and periodically thereafter, with a view to achieving a
progressively higher level of liberalization .  Such negotiations shall be
directed to the reduction or elimination  of the adverse effects on trade in
services of measures as a means of providing effective market access."
(emphasis added)
Using almost identical language, paragraph 1 of the Guidelines and Procedures for the Negotiations
states that “the negotiations shall aim to achieve  progressively higher levels of liberalization  of trade
in services through the reduction or elimination  of the adverse effects on trade in services of measures
as a means of providing effective market access.”  (emphasis added)
                                                     
2 As of May 2002.
3 This number does not take into account MFN exemptions lists (EL/ documents) and their
supplements.
4 Date of entry into force, or acceptance of, a Protocol, the date indicated in the legal instrument
concluding an individual certification procedure, or the date indicated in a notification pursuant to one of theAnnexes.
5 The numbering of protocols under the GATS merely reflects their chronological order.S/CSC/W/33
Page 3
8. Viewed in this light, commitments in old schedules could not normally be undermined at the
conclusion of the current negotiations without recourse to Article XXI.  This view is supported by
past practice with respect to the Uruguay Round extended negotiations referred to in the first section
of this note.  In cases of extended negotiations where Members wished to allow for changes of any
possible nature , including withdrawals , the relevant negotiating mandate included explicit language
authorizing modifications and withdrawals notwithstanding Article XXI of GATS.  No such provision
exists for the current negotiations.6
9. While the general principle seems clear, Members could decide that the Sixth Protocol should
provide explicitly for the preservation, as a minimum, of the pre-existing level of commitments.
Members could, on the other hand, at the end of the negotiations decide collectively that less
favourable treatment with respect to a commitment contained in the old schedule could be provided in
a new schedule, and the Sixth Protocol could include language to that effect.  Illustrating this point,paragraph 7 of the Marrakesh Protocol permits the schedules of four Members to contain certain
commitments which result in treatment less fav ourable than that provided by commitments in
previous schedules.  The Marrakesh Protocol specifies that "the Members to whom the schedule
relates shall be deemed to have taken appropriate action as would have been otherwise necessary
under relevant provisions of Article XXVIII of  GATT 1947 or 1994."  Members could, if they
wished, introduce into the Sixth Protocol a general provision of this type covering all Members'
schedules.
10. With respect to the content of the schedules to be attached, two alternatives have emerged
from discussions in the Committee.  First, a Member could submit a schedule reflecting only the  new
commitments resulting from the negotiations, which would be linked to its pre-existing schedulescontaining all other existing unmodified commitments ("accumulation method").  Second, a Member
could submit a single schedule reflecting all existing commitments, including the ones resulting from
the present negotiations ("replacement method").
11. These two options will now be examined in rela tion to the (i) method of incorporation; (ii)
relationship between new and pre-existing commitments; (iii) changes in classification; (iv)implications of the new scheduling guidelines; and (v) introduction of technical refinements.
A. A
CCUMULATION OF SCHEDULES
(i) Method of incorporation
12. Members could choose to follow the approach used in the Third and Fourth Protocols,
namely, to attach to the Sixth Protocol a ne w schedule for each Member containing only the changes
to commitments in old schedules (the original schedule and subsequent instruments).  Commitments
contained in old schedules would, to the extent they were not changed, continue to exist.  However,the distinction between unmodified pre-existing commitments and new or improved commitments on
which this method is based might not be straightforward.
13. Unlike the extended services negotiations, or the individual certifications, which were
confined to a single service sector or mode of supply, the present negotiations cover all sectors and
modes.  Therefore, potential improvements to existing commitments could affect the complete
schedule of a Member.  Thus, the goal of simplifying the incorporation of commitments by confining
the subject of an initial or final offer to new or improved commitments might be hindered by the wide
scope of the negotiations, and the linkages derived from the structure of the schedules. Even for the
                                                     
6 An interesting parallel exists in the GATT, which was highlighted by the panel in Japan – Measures
Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper.   The panel that GATT Article XXVIII bis  (equivalent to
GATS Article XIX) "as a general rule does not provide a means to modify or withdraw tariff concessions .”
(emphasis added) - WT/DS/44/R, adopted 22 April 1998.S/CSC/W/33
Page 4
Member making the changes, the accumulation of schedules could complicate a proper assessment of
the overall level of commitments achieved.
14. With respect to the physical presentation of ne w commitments, an offer in the format of a
draft schedule showing only new commitments and the improvements to existing ones could be
submitted by each Member.  In the case of improvements, it would be necessary to replicate to somedegree the existing commitments that are being impr oved.  The extent of the existing commitments
replicated in the offer draft schedule would depend on what a Member considers necessary to
demonstrate the improvement.  This could incl ude showing a whole sector, only the subsector
involved, all modes of supply or only the ones to be modified.  Deletions of existing text could be
indicated by strike-out, and additions by bolded text.  However, to assess the overall level of
commitments in the draft schedule to be attached to the Sixth Protocol with respect to the existing
commitments, Members would have to compare the proposed draft schedule with relevant existingschedules.  Once the offer was final, the mark-ups (struck-out and bolded text) would be deleted and
clean schedules would be attached to a Sixth Prot ocol.  This approach of showing changes could be
used regardless of whether the incorporation method was by accumulation or replacement of
schedules.
(ii) Relationship between new and pre-existing commitments
15. In the case of accumulation, a link between commitments in old and new schedules is needed.
It would be necessary therefore to define clearly  in the Sixth Protocol how the new commitments in
each attached schedule would affect existing commitments.  Therefore, in presenting an offer that
modifies existing commitments, it would be desirable for the Member to indicate in detail the
relationship between the proposed changes in the offer and the existing commitments.  Once the offerbecomes final, this relationship would need to be made explicit in the language of the Sixth Protocol
incorporating the new schedule.
16. A question raised during the Committee discussions concerned the preservation of the legal
certainty of existing commitments.  Since the method of accumulation of schedules implies that some
commitments would be left unaltered in old schedules, and not replicated in new schedules to beattached to the Sixth Protocol, the issue of preserving commitments would seem relevant only in the
case of changes to existing commitments.  Changes brought about by the new schedule would
presumably override the original inscriptions on the same subject.  The principle in Article 30 of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, design ed to resolve conflicts between provisions of
successive treaties on the same subject-matter, gives some guidance on this issue.
7 Whether a proposed
change in an offer constitutes an “improvement” and thereby does not impair the existing
commitment is a question subject to Members' determination throughout the negotiations;  in thatsense there is a built-in mechanism for the preservation of existing commitments.
(iii) Changes in classification
17. The use of the Services Sectoral Classification List (W/120) in inscribing commitments is
voluntary, and nothing obliges Members to inscribe new commitments following it.  From the point of
view of classification, the legal certainty of commitments depends largely on how well a sectoralentry is defined.
                                                     
7 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 30, paragraphs 2 and 3, states that:  "(2)
When a treaty specifies that it is subject to, or that it is not to be considered as incompatible with, an earlier or
later treaty, the provisions of that other treaty prevail.  (3) When all the parties to the earlier treaty are parties
also to the later treaty but the earlier treaty is not terminated or suspended in operation under Article 59, theearlier treaty applies only to the extent that its provisions are compatible with those of the latter treaty."S/CSC/W/33
Page 5
18. In the case of improvements to existing commitments, what must be maintained is the  actual
scope of the services as described, whatever the classification system may be.  In practice, most, but
not all, Members' schedules have followed the W/120 and Provisional CPC classification in nearly all
sectors.  Nonetheless, the method of sectoral classification initially used has in some cases
subsequently changed.8
19. As for classification changes, two scenarios can be envisaged:  a complete collective or
individual migration into a new classification system, or selective departures from the current
classification in certain sectors or subsectors.  Bearing in mind previous discussions in the Committee,
the prospects of a complete collective migration to a new services classification is not likely at
present.  Nevertheless, a complete migration to a different services classification decided by an
individual Member in its own schedule may be possible as long as the sectoral scope of existing
commitments is not undermined.  Such an exercise would require that the modifying Member providea correspondence between the classifications used in its existing schedule and those used in its new
one, to enable Members to verify that the actual scope of existing commitments was preserved by the
classification change.  Ensuring that the scope of a commitment remains the same as before would be
the responsibility of Members to verify.  The method of accumulation of schedules, as opposed to
replacement of schedules, would not however lend itself easily to such a complete migration, since acomplete change in classification would entail changes for the whole schedule.
20. Selective departures from current classifications in certain sectors or subsectors likewise
could be introduced by any Member following the same  principles of preservation of scope of existing
commitments, and freedom in relation to sectors or subsectors not covered by existing schedules.  A
neutral change in classification could be deemed a technical change, which is possible at any timeunder the certification procedures contained in document S/L/84.
9  As stated in the Scheduling
Guidelines, should a Member decide to follow its own classification, appropriate concordance with
the CPC should be provided.  If this is not possible, a Member should give a sufficiently detailed
description to avoid any ambiguity as to the scope of  its commitment.  The legal nature of a schedule,
as well as the need to evaluate commitments, require the greatest possible degree of clarity in thedescription of each sector or sub-sector scheduled.
10
21. Should a Member decide to depart from the classification used in its schedule (for instance
reallocation of entries, further aggregation or disaggregation, or use of CPC rev.1), it would need to
ensure that the proposed change be neutral to, or improve, the existing sectoral scope and modal
binding.  To facilitate the verification of the neutrality of a change (such as a migration from
Provisional CPC to CPC Rev.1), a correspondence could be indicated in the offer in italics and
brackets.  Should a Member decide to relocate a subsector under a different sector, this could also beindicated through the same mark-up technique. At the end of the process, while draft schedules would
be cleaned up before being attached to the Sixt h Protocol, the mark-up documents would remain in
the WTO document system, should it be necessary later to track down the location of a commitment.
Nonetheless, the accumulation method might render su ch an exercise difficult, at least in terms of
verifying the outcome of such changes, since mu ltiple documents can be confusing and difficult to
track.
                                                     
8 Examples can be found regarding financial services commitments, where some Uruguay Round
schedules seemed to follow the W/120 and CPC classification and in 1997 seemed to use the definitions of theAnnex on Financial Services.
9 "Procedures for the Certification of Rectifications or Improvements to Schedules of Specific
Commitments - Adopted by the Council for Trade in Services on 14 April 2000", dated 18 april 2000.
10 See Guidelines, for the Scheduling of Specific Commitments under the GATS (S/L/92), paragraphs
23 to 25.S/CSC/W/33
Page 6
(iv) Implications of the new scheduling guidelines
22. The accumulation method requires the coexistence of “old” and “new” schedules, and these
could potentially be drawn up under different sets of guidelines.  It might therefore be helpful for
Members to understand better the relationship between the revised scheduling guidelines contained in
document S/L/92 (the "2001 Guidelines"), and the previous version contained in documentMTN.GNS/W/164 and Addendum 1 (the "1993 Guidelines").
23. The text of the 2001 Guidelines resulted from the merger of two previous documents (W/164
and its addendum) containing the original guidelines.  In carrying out the merger, Members
introduced clarifications of the existing guidance as well as certain aspects of the schedules, such as
footnotes, headnotes and attachments.  No major substantive changes were introduced as a result of
the revision.  Additionally, Annex 2 of the 2001 Guidelines attaches a number of documents to assist
in scheduling.  As stated in its footnote 1, the le gal status of those attachments and their relevance to
particular sectors vary.   In the process of merging the two documents containing the 1993 Guidelines,
changes in text were necessary to avoid duplications.  Significant insertion or deletion of text was rare
and focussed on clarifications of pre-existing points.  Other minor changes resulted from the need to
update the 1993 Guidelines, for example in references to Uruguay Round documents.
 11
24. In following the accumulation method, any improvements to the scheduling technique under
the 2001 Guidelines could only be possible in relation to the “new schedule”. Thus, “old"
commitments remaining in existing schedules could not be updated according to the improved
techniques.  Inconsistencies regarding the scheduling technique could result in interpretation
problems.
(v) Introduction of “ technical refinements”
25. The possibility of introducing “technical refinements” to commitments has been raised during
discussions.  Normally, this term should be equivalent to “changes of a technical character” that do
not alter the scope or substance of pre-existing commitments.  Such technical changes could be
introduced by a Member into its own schedule at any time.  Should the accumulation method be
chosen, such changes would however be confined to the content of the  new schedule.  Discussionshave also raised the question of the distinction be tween “technical refinements” and “improvements”.
In a scheduling context, however, since a Member may at any time introduce technical refinements or
improvements into its own schedule, making such a distinction serves no practical purpose.  Of
course, other Members would always be in a position to verify the nature of any such changes before
their entry into force in order to ensure that they  are indeed technical refinements or improvements.
B. R
EPLACEMENT OF SCHEDULES
(i) Method of incorporation
26. The second possibility available to Members is to pursue a unified approach and attach to the
Sixth Protocol consolidated schedules containing all commitments undertaken by each Member.
Consolidated schedules would contain existing “unmodified” commitments and  “improved or new”
commitments resulting from the current negotiations.  The result would be a single instrument
reflecting the complete legal situation at the end of the negotiations, and replacing all earlierMembers' schedules once it entered into force.
27. Discussion by Members of the issue of consolidated services schedules started in 1996.  In
1999, Members asked the Secretariat to begin consolidating schedules in electronic format.  The
                                                     
11 For a complete overview of the changes introduced, mark-up documents showing the changes are
available to Member on request.  Contact person:  Ms. Jasmin Tacoa (jasmin.tacoa-vielma@wto.org)S/CSC/W/33
Page 7
Secretariat prepared various notes identifying relevant issues.12  In fulfilling its mandate, the
Secretariat merged all the commitments in fo rce as of December 1999 for each Member in an
electronic format suitable for a database.  An explanation of the main differences between the
electronic version of the schedules and the treaty copies is provided  in document S/C/W/94.   For the
purpose of this note the main differences consist of minor formatting changes and legal status.  Thedraft consolidated schedules prepared by the Secretariat were presented to each Member for reviewing
and approval.  This task was completed in December 2000, and the consolidated schedules were made
available to delegations in the Members' WTO website and on CD-ROM.  Recent accessions have not
yet been incorporated in the same format.  Important shortcomings of existing electronic consolidated
schedules stem from the database software used.  The software does not provide the word processing
capabilities required for modifying schedules, and is only available in the English language.  This,
together with the formatting changes, mean that the schedules could not be used by Members as draftschedules on which to base their offers.
28. The present negotiations are an opportunity to create consolidated schedules with legal value.
The merging of commitments, should Members deem it appropriate, could either start in draft form
with the submission of initial offers, as has been suggested in discussions, or at any time during the
negotiations or at their conclusion.  The possible benefit of consolidating at the outset is that it wouldallow the draft consolidated schedule to be used as a working document in the presentation of offers,
thereby providing the opportunity to verify all the technical aspects of the schedules throughout the
negotiations up to their attachment to the Sixth Protocol.  Moreover, conducting the negotiations on
the basis of a draft offer in consolidated form would allow participants to negotiate on the basis of a
single comprehensive document.
29. The preparation of draft consolidated schedules would require a compilation or merger of
commitments in force to be done electronically for each Member.  The compilation of a draft
consolidated schedule could be prepared by each Member or, if Members wished, the Secretariat
could assist.  Ensuring the accuracy of such merging would be essential, relying on verification by
other Members.  For that purpose draft consolidated schedules could be circulated through thedistribution of paper copies as well as electronically.  Should the Secretariat be entrusted with
preparing the draft consolidated schedule for each Member, or those that might request it, each
Member would need to verify its own schedule as prepared by the Secretariat, following a procedure
similar to that employed with the existing consolidated schedules.
13  The existing database of
consolidated schedules, where the task of identifying relevant instruments has been done, could serve
as the background against which Members could compare a newly consolidated draft schedule.
Modern word processing capabilities allow the comparison of documents electronically, which mightbe an asset should one need to compare a draft consolidated schedule and an offer based upon it.
30. Once a Member has its own draft consolidated schedule in electronic format, the improved or
new commitments constituting its offer could be entere d in that draft consolidated schedule.  Changes
could be clearly indicated by using the strike-out and bolded text technique referred to above.  This
would facilitate the understanding of the changes and would allow for progressive checking ofconsolidated commitments and improvements by Members.
31. The question of assistance by the Secretariat in this process was raised in discussions.  The
definition of the role of the Secretariat, if any, is  an issue for Members to decide either collectively or
individually.  Should Members decide to task the Secretariat with preparing a compilation of
commitments in force for each Member, or for thos e who choose such assistance, that decision might
have human resource implications that would need to be addressed.  Such an assessment cannot be
done in the abstract.
                                                     
12 See S/CSC/W/3, 5, 8, 14 and 22.
13 See S/CSC/W/8,  paragraph 10, explaining the verification procedure.S/CSC/W/33
Page 8
(ii) Relationship between new and pre-existing commitments
32. In a replacement scenario, such as the Second and Fifth Protocols relating to financial
services, a new schedule of commitments would, upon its entry into force, supersede the pre-existing
one. The Sixth Protocol itself would define the scope of the "replacement".  If Members were to
proceed in this way, they would, at the end of the current negotiations, attach to the Sixth Protocolnew comprehensive schedules consolidating all their commitments including pre-existing, newly
negotiated as well as any other technical rectification or refinement a Member may deem appropriate.
This would not necessarily mean that existing sche dules with commitments currently in force would
be completely irrelevant in relation to the commitmen ts they contain.  They could constitute a proper
source for interpreting commitments in new consolidated schedules in the future.  In the early years of
the GATT the question of giving legal status to consolidated schedules was discussed.  The Working
Party on Schedules recommended that “the contracting party to which the consolidated schedulerelates, should be expected to accept the understanding that earlier schedules  and – as has always
been the case in the past  - negotiating records would be considered a proper source in interpreting
concessions  contained in legal consolidated schedules”.
14(emphasis added)
33. Given that this method implies the transposition or compilation of commitments in force into
a new instrument replacing existing ones, it would be necessary to ensure that the new consolidatedschedules do not contain any errors that might undermine pre-existing commitments.  This could be
addressed, to a large extent, by starting the consolidation process as early as possible in order to
provide ample opportunities for verification.  As mentioned earlier, such a process could even start as
early as the submission of initial offers by end of March 2003.
34. The main benefit of this approach stems from the opportunity of consolidating what has been
achieved through successive negotiations in one schedule.  This would help ensure the legal certainty
and clarity of commitments.
(iii) Changes in classification
35. The discussion of this matter under section A(iii) of this note would also be relevant under
this section.  A draft consolidated schedule would seem to allow for more flexibility and clarity inintroducing changes in classification, since all comm itments would be confined to a single document,
where an overall assessment of changes and possible linkages can be made.
36. In the case of selective departures from a given classification already in use by a Member in
its schedules, for existing entries it would be necessary to ensure that reallocation of a subsector (due,
for example, to changes in sector or disaggregation) would not undermine the sectoral scope or the
modal bindings relating to it.  Properly showing the reallocation and providing correspondence tables
between the classification in use and the one to adopt, containing the definitions of the subsectorsinvolved, would enable Members to ascertain whether the change is neutral or enhances the sectoral
scope.
(iv) Implications of the new scheduling guidelines
37. In a draft consolidated schedule, introducing improvements in the scheduling technique in
relation to all commitments would be possible.   This would achieve consistency among all
commitments, unlike in the case of accumulation.  The benefit of practical experience with the
schedules gained by Members to date might allow the correction of scheduling technique problems
that were not apparent at the time of inscribing existing commitments.  Such enhancement may result
in increased understanding of services schedules.
                                                     
14 See GATT, Analytical Index: Guide to GATT Law and Practice, Updated 6th Edition (1995),
Consolidated Schedules, page 105.S/CSC/W/33
Page 9
(v) Introduction of "technical refinements"
38. Following the discussion on the same point above, a draft consolidated schedule would allow
more flexibility in introducing changes of a technical nature, such as clarifications (e.g. adding criteria
to economic needs tests) or streamlining of language, to pre-existing commitments.S/CSC/W/33
Page 10
ATTACHMENT 1
DETAILED EXAMINATION OF PAST PRACTICE IN INCORPORATION OF COMMITMENTS
1. It is helpful to take a closer look at how modifications to GATS schedules have been carried
out.  This attachment will therefore look at (a) the legal basis for the modifications introduced; (b) the
nature of the instrument incorporating the changes; (c) the relationship between pre-existing schedules
and those instruments modifying them; and (d) the practical implications flowing from the different
incorporation methods.
(i) Negotiations on Movement of Natural Persons
2. The Ministerial Decision on Negotiations on the Movement of Natural Persons adopted at
Marrakesh states in paragraph 1 that "negotiations on further liberalization of movement of naturalpersons for the purpose of supplying services shall continue beyond the conclusion of the Uruguay
Round, with a view to allowing the achievement of  higher levels of commitments by participants
under the General Agreement on Trade in Services."  (emphasis added) This Decision also refers in
paragraph 4 to the incorporation of the resulting commitments into Members' schedules, stating that
"commitments resulting from these negotiations shall be inscribed in Members' Schedules of specificcommitments."
3. Upon conclusion of these negotiations in 1995, the results consisting of commitments by six
Members were incorporated into their respective schedules through the Third Protocol to the GATS.
The first paragraph of that Protocol states: "The commitments on Movement of Natural Persons
annexed to this Protocol relating to a Member shall … replace or supplement  the relevant entries on
movement of natural persons in the Schedule of Specific Commitments of that Member." (emphasis
added)  This language results in two different scenarios: some of the Members concerned have two
co-existing instruments (the original schedule and the new schedule supplementing it ), while others
have only one (the new schedule replacing and thus superseding the original one).  For the purpose of
this note, the first approach could be termed "accumulation", while the second could be termed“replacement”.
(ii) Negotiations on Maritime Transport Services
4. Three GATS instruments specifically relate to the extended negotiations in this sector.  The
Annex on Negotiations on Maritime Transport Services states in paragraph 3 that "... a Member may
improve, modify or withdraw  all or part of its specific commitments in this sector without offering
compensation, notwithstanding the provisions of Article XXI." (emphasis added)  The second related
instrument, the Ministerial Decision on Negotiations on Maritime Transport Services, states inparagraph 1 that "Negotiations shall be entered… aiming at commitments  in international shipping,
auxiliary services and access to and use of port facilities, leading to the elimination of restrictions
within a fixed time scale." (emphasis added)  This decision contains a direct reference to Uruguay
Round commitments, and the types of modifications  that could be introduced in the extended
negotiations.  Paragraph 5 states:  "At the conclusion of the negotiations, Members  shall be free to
improve, modify or withdraw  any commitments made in this sector during the Uruguay Round
without offering compensation, notwithstanding the provisions of Article XXI of the Agreement …"
(emphasis added)  As to incorporation of results, paragraph 6 states that "Any commitments resulting
from the negotiations … shall be inscribed in the Schedules annexed to the General Agreement on
Trade in Services and be subject to all the provisions of the Agreement."S/CSC/W/33
Page 11
5. The third related instrument is the decision by  the Council for Trade in Services on Maritime
Transport Services adopted on 28 June 1996 (S/L/24).  Paragraph 1 of this decision states that
Members decided "to suspend the negotiations … and to resume them  with the commencement of
comprehensive negotiations on services, in accordance with Article XIX of the GATS …".  In relation
to Uruguay Round maritime commitments, paragraph 2 states that "Members  wishing to exercise
their rights under paragraph 3 of the Annex  on Negotiations on Maritime Transport Services may do
so during a period of 30 days from the date of this Decision."  Furthermore, this decision allows
further amendments regarding maritime commitments , including withdrawals, within the context of
the current negotiations, under Article XIX.  Paragraph 6 states that "Notwithstanding Article XXI, a
Member  may improve, modify or withdraw all or part of its specific commitments in this sector,
during a period of sixty days the end of which shall coincide with the conclusion of the negotiations
referred to in paragraph 1."
6. At the end of the negotiating period in 1996, six Members introduced modifications of a
different nature - withdrawals, introduction of technical rectifications, or complete revisions to
maritime commitments.  The incorporation of these changes into original Uruguay Round schedules
was conducted through notifications (S/L/ documents) by each of the concerned Members specifying
the modifications to be inscribed in their Schedu les of Specific Commitments annexed to the GATS.
In some cases these notifications incorporated into a Member's schedule maritime commitments that
were physically contained in  other documents presented in the course of the negotiations.  Therefore,
to determine the status of commitments of a Member  in this sector one would have to look at the
original Uruguay Round schedule and any possible modification made through a notification in 1996,
the latter possibly referring to a third document.
(iii) Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications
7. The Ministerial Decision on Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications, which provided for
extended negotiations in the sector, states in paragraph 1 that "Negotiations shall be entered … with a
view to the progressive liberalization of trade in basic telecommunications".  Regarding the
incorporation of the results into Members' original schedules, paragraph 6 states: "Any commitmentsresulting from the negotiations, including the date of their entry into force, shall be inscribed in the
Schedules annexed to the General Agreement on Trade in Services and shall be subject to all the
provisions of the Agreement."
8. Negotiations were conducted accordingly and concluded on 15 February 1997.  The results,
consisting of 55 schedules, were attached to the Fourth Protocol to the GATS.  In establishing the
relationship with original Uruguay Round schedules, paragraph 1 of the Fourth Protocol states that
"Upon the entry into force of this Protocol, a Schedule of Specific Commitments … concerning basictelecommunications annexed to this Protocol relating to a Member shall, in accordance with the terms
specified therein, supplement or modify  the Schedule of Specific Commitments …"
9. As in the case of movement of natural persons, this language addressed the relationship
between pre-existing basic telecommunications co mmitments and the new commitments attached to
the Protocol.  However, it differs from the language of the Third Protocol in that it does not includereplacements.  As a result,  the Members concerned have their telecommunications commitments
contained in two co-existing instruments .  Like the majority of the schedules attached to the Third
Protocol, no other language is contained on the cover page of the actual schedules attached to the
Fourth Protocol specifying what commitments ha d been supplemented or modified.  Therefore, it
would be necessary to compare the relevant section of the original Uruguay Round schedule and thenew schedules, and identify what has been modified or supplemented based on the actual terms of the
entries, to the determine the status of commitments on basic telecommunications of a particular
Member.  However, some guidance to that effect can be drawn from the separate version of the
individual schedules, documents GATS/SC/Suppl.,  where the cover page includes some language
such as "this text is inserted as", "this text supplements entries relating to", or "this text replaces andS/CSC/W/33
Page 12
supplements".  Even with this guidance, it is n ecessary to determine what has been replaced and
supplemented by looking at the actual entries.
(iv) Negotiations on Financial Services
10. The Second Annex on Financial Services, in its second paragraph, states that
"Notwithstanding Article XXI, a Member may, during a period of …, improve, modify or withdraw  all
or part of the specific commitments on financial services inscribed in its Schedule." (emphasis added)
Likewise, the Ministerial Decision on Financial Services adopted at Marrakesh, providing for
extended negotiations in the sector, states in paragraph 1 the same range of possible modifications to
financial services commitments without offering  compensation, notwithstanding the provisions of
Article XXI.
11. Upon conclusion of the negotiations in 1995, the results consisting of 29 schedules were
incorporated into the original Uruguay Round schedules through the Second Protocol to the GATS.The first paragraph of that Protocol states that "A Schedule of Specific Commitments … concerning
financial services annexed to this Protocol relating to a Member shall, upon the entry into force of this
Protocol for that Member,  replace the financial services sections  of the Schedule of Specific
Commitments … of that Member." (emphasis added)  This language established the relationship
between pre-existing schedules and those attached to the Protocol.  It stipulated that the schedulesannexed to the Protocol would supersede their pre-existing counterparts.  This enabled Members to
have all financial services commitments in a single instrument.
12. Moreover, further modifications of commitments in this sector were introduced in accordance
with the Second Decision on Financial Services, adopted by the Council for Trade in Services on 21
July 1995 (S/L/9).  Its first paragraph states that " Notwithstanding Article XXI  of the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), a Member may during a period of sixty days beginning on 1
November 1997, modify or withdraw  all or part of the Specific Commitments on Financial Services
inscribed in its Schedule."  This further period of negotiations produced 56 financial services
schedules that were incorporated through the Fifth Protocol to the GATS.  The first paragraph of this
Protocol states that "A Schedule of Specific Co mmitments … concerning financial services annexed
to this Protocol relating to a Member shall, upon the entry into force of this Protocol for that Member,
replace the financial services sections of the Schedule of Specific Commitments … of that Member.”
In establishing a "replacement" relationship with pre-existing commitments, the Fifth Protocol also
rendered the schedules attached to it the only instrument with commitments in the sector for the
Members concerned.  In practice, the schedules attached to the Fifth Protocol replaced either the
financial services section contained in original Uruguay Round Schedules for some Members or the
financial services schedules attached to the Second Protocol for others.  Some of the schedulesattached to the Second or Fifth Protocol have not yet entered into force.  Thus, for the Members
concerned the financial services commitments may continue to be those contained in the pre-existing
financial services section or have not been incorporated at all.
13. By incorporating amendments through the "r eplacement" of previous instruments, the
financial services protocols have made it possible for the commitments of Members in this sector tobe contained in a single instrument (the Urugua y Round schedule, the Second Protocol or the Fifth
Protocol).  In this sense, the financial servi ces commitments undertaken during the Uruguay Round,
during the 1995 and the 1997 negotiations have now been merged or consolidated.  To determine the
status of commitments in the sector for each Member it  is necessary to identify the instrument in force
and take account of the original Uruguay Round schedule horizontal section, unless otherwisespecified in the financial sector schedule.S/CSC/W/33
Page 13
(v) Individual Procedures
14. In accordance with well established GATT practice that any Member has the right to submit
improvements or rectifications to its schedule of concessions at any time, an  ad hoc  procedure
enabled Members between 1997 and 2000 to rectify or improve existing GATS commitments. The
procedure, subsequently adopted by the Council for Trade in Services in document S/L/84, consistedof a process by which Members would approve individual requests for the introduction of changes to
existing schedules deemed as improvements of commitments, or changes of a purely technical
character that do not alter the scope or the substance of the existing commitments.   In other words,
the process consisted of a determination of the nature of the changes conducted by Members through
a system of individual verification, and tacit approval, of proposed changes.  Once the approval had
been given, the incorporation would take affect according to the terms specified in the request
- deletions of existing entries, additions to the existing schedule, or a replacement of sections of it.The changes to the treaty copy would be certified by  the Director-General in order to conclude the
formal procedure.
15. To date, 14 individual procedures have been  conducted.  Of those, six procedures have
incorporated telecommunication and one financial services commitments into original Uruguay
Round Schedules.  Three procedures have replaced  the Telecom commitments that had been annexed
to the Fourth Protocol and four either rectified or replaced  the financial services commitments
annexed to the Fifth Protocol.S/CSC/W/33
Page 14
ATTACHMENT 2
DOCUMENTS CONTAINING MEMBERS' SC HEDULES OF SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS
AND MFN EXEMPTIONS LISTS15
FINANCIAL
95TELECOM
97FINANCIAL
97CERTIFIED
COUNTRY # GATS/SC/# GATS/EL/# MTS
GATS/SC
/#/SGATS/
ELNAT
PER.
GATS/SC GATS/SC
/#/SGATS/
EL/#GATS/SC GATS/
ELGATS/SC
/#/SEL
Albania 131 131
Angola 115 115
Antigua &
Barbuda2 S.1 EL/2
Argentina 4 S.116EL/4
Australia 6 6 S.1/ R.1 S.2 S.3 S.4 S.1
Austria 7 7 S/L/2717SC/31/S.1/
R.118SC/31/S.3
19SC/31/S.420S.4/R.121
Bahrain 97 S.1
Bangladesh 8 S.1 EL/8
Barbados 9 S.122
Belize 10 S.1
Benin 11 11
Bolivia 12 12 S.1 S.223
Botswana 109
Brazil 13 13 S.1/R.124S.2 S.1 S.325
Brunei
Darussalam95 95 S.1
Bulgaria 122 122 S.1 S.2
Burkina Faso 14
Burundi 116
Cameroon 15 15
Canada 16 16 S/L/3426S.1/R.1 S.1/R.1 S.2/R.1 S.3 S.4 S.2 S.4/R.1
CAR 17
Chad 108
Chile 18 18 S.1/R.1 S.2 S.3
China 135 135
Chinese, Taipei 136 136
Colombia 20/C.1 20 S.127S.1 S.2 S.3/C.1
Congo 21 21
Costa Rica 22 22 S.1
Côte d'Ivoire 23 23 S.1 S.128S.229S.1
Croatia 130 130
Cuba 24 24
Cyprus 25 25 S.2 S.130
S.2/ R.131
Czech Rep. 26 26 S.1/R.1 S.1 S.2 S.3
Djibouti 104
Dominica 27 S.1
Dominican
Republic28 28 S/L/2732S.1 S.2 S.333
                                                     
15 The document symbols are: GATS/SC/# ; GATS/SC/#/Suppl.# ; GATS/EL/#  and
GATS/EL/#/Suppl. 3
16 The correct Symbol in English is GATS/SC/4/Suppl.1/Rev.1.
17 Maritime- EC communication of withdrawal of commitments in Austria's Uruguay Round Schedule
18 Financial- GATS/SC/31/Supp.1/rev.1 modified GATS/SC/7
19 Telecom-GATS/SC/31/S.3 supplemented entries in GATS/SC/7
20 Financial – replaced GATS/SC/S.1/R.1
21 Financial – modified GATS/SC/31/Supp.4 attached to Fifth Protocol
22 Telecom – modified Uruguay Round Schedule
23 Financial – Not ratified as of April 02
24 Financial – Not ratified
25 Financial – Not ratified as of April 02
26 Maritime – Contains schedule that revised Uruguay Round Commitments
27 Financial – not attached to the Second Protocol
28 Financial – introduced according to paragraph 2 of S/L/9
29 Financial services – modified Uruguay Round Schedule
30 Telecom – modified Uruguay Round Schedule
31 Financial – rectified the schedule attached to Fifth Protocol, i.e. GATS/SC/Supp.2
32 Maritime- revised Uruguay Round scheduleS/CSC/W/33
Page 15
FINANCIAL
95TELECOM
97FINANCIAL
97CERTIFIED
COUNTRY # GATS/SC/# GATS/EL/# MTS
GATS/SC
/#/SGATS/
ELNAT
PER.
GATS/SC GATS/SC
/#/SGATS/
EL/#GATS/SC GATS/
ELGATS/SC
/#/SEL
Ecuador 98 98 S.1 S.2
Egypt 30 30 S.1 S.2
El Salvador 29 29 S.1 S.2
EC & its
Member States31 31 S/L/26 S.1/R.1 S.234S.335S.4 S.4/R.136
Estonia, Rep of. 127 127
Fiji 32
Finland 33 33 SC/31/S.1/
R.137SC/31/S.3
38SC/31/S.439S.4/R.140
Gabon 34 34
Gambia 112
Georgia 129 129
Ghana 35 S.1 S.2
Grenada 96 S.1
Guatemala 36 36 S.1 S.1/ R.141
Guinea Bissau 110
Guinea 102
Guyana 37
Haïti 111
Honduras 38 38 S.1 S.1
Hong Kong,
China39 39 S/L/3042S.1 S.1/R.1 S.2 S.3
Hungary 40 40 S.1 +C.1 S.2 S.3 S.1
Iceland 41 41 S/L/2943S.1 S.2
India 42 42 S.1 S.2 S.3 S.1 S.4 S.2
Indonesia 43 43 S.1 S.1 S.2 S.3
Israel 44 44 S.1 S.2
Jamaica 45 45 S.1 S.244
Japan 46 S.1/R.1 S.2 S.3
Jordan 128 128
Kenya 47 S.1 S.245
Korea, Rep of 48 48 S/L/3146S.1/R.147S.1 S.2 S.3 S.3/R.148
Kuwait 49 49 S.1 S.2
Kyrgyz 125
Latvia 126 126
Lesotho 114
Lithuania 133 133
Liechtenstein 83-A 83-A
Macau, China 50 S.1
Madagascar 51
Malawi 100
Malaysia 52 52 S/L/3249S.1 S.1 S.2 S.3
Maldives 101
Mali 53 53
Malta 54 54 S.1
Mauritania 113
Mauritius 55 EL/5550S.1 S.2 S.1
Mexico 56 56 S.1/R.1 S.2 S.3
Moldova 134 134
                                                                                                                                                                    
33 Financial – Not ratified as of April 02
34 Natural Persons- supplemented entries in Uruguay Round Schedule
35 Telecom- supplemented entries in documents GATS/SC/31, …SC/7, …SC/33,…SC/82
36 Financial – replaced GATS/SC/31/Su pp.4 attached to Fifth Protocol
37 Financial- GATS/SC/31/Supp.1/Rev.1 modified GATS/SC/33
38 Telecom - GATS/SC/31/S.3 supplemented entries in GATS/SC/33
39 Financial – replaced GATS/SC/S.1/R.1
40 Financial – modified GATS/SC/31/Supp.4 attached to Fifth Protocol
41 Telecom – modified Uruguay Round schedule (revision of previous document GATS/SC/Supp.1
never in force)
42 Confirms Uruguay Round commitments
43 Maritime – integrated commitments in S/NGMTS/W/27 to the Uruguay Round Schedule
44 Financial – Not ratified as of April 02
45 Telecom- modified Uruguay Round Schedule
46 Maritime – confirms Uruguay Round commitments
47 Horizontal and Financial – modifies Uruguay Round schedule
48 Financial-replaced Fifth Protocol schedule
49 Maritime – confirms Uruguay Round commitments and adds a phrase making technical clarification
50 Financial – S/L/55 introduced in 95 but not attached to the Second ProtocolS/CSC/W/33
Page 16
FINANCIAL
95TELECOM
97FINANCIAL
97CERTIFIED
COUNTRY # GATS/SC/# GATS/EL/# MTS
GATS/SC
/#/SGATS/
ELNAT
PER.
GATS/SC GATS/SC
/#/SGATS/
EL/#GATS/SC GATS/
ELGATS/SC
/#/SEL
Mongolia 123
Morocco 57 57 S.1/R.1 S.2 S.2/R.1
Mozambique 58
Myanmar 59
Namibia 60
New Zealand 62 62 S.1 S.2
Nicaragua 63 6351S.1 EL/63
Niger 64 64
Nigeria 65 S.1
Norway 66 66 S/L/3352S.1/R.1 S.2/R.1 S.3 S.4
Oman 132
Pakistan 67 67 S.1/R.1 S.253S.1 S.3 S.2 S.2/R.154
Panama 124 124
Papua New
Guinea118 S.1
Paraguay 68
Peru 69 69 S.1 S.2 S.1
Philippines 70 70 S.1/R.1 S.1 S.2 S.355S.2
Poland 71 71 S.1 S.2 S.356
Qatar 120
Romania 72 72 S.1 S.2
Rwanda 107
Saint Lucia 73
St Vincent &
Grenadines74
St Kitts and
Nevis119
Senegal 75 75 S.1 S.2 S.1
Sierra Leone 105 105
Singapore 76 76 S.1/R.1 S.1 S.2 S.3
Slovak Rep. 77 77 S.1/R.1 S.157S.2 S.3
Slovenia 99 99 S.1
Solomon
Islands117 117
South Africa 78 78 S.1 S.2 S.3
Sri Lanka 79 S.1 EL/79 S.2
Suriname 80 S.158
Swaziland 81 81
Sweden 82 82 SC/31/S.1/
R.159SC/31/S.3
60SC/31/S.461S.4/R.162
Switzerland 83 83 S.1/R.1 S.1/R.1 S.2/R.1 S.3 S.4 S.2 S.3/R.1
Tanzania 84
Thailand 85 85 S.1/R.1 S.1 S.2 S.3 S.2
Togo 106
Trinidad &Tobago86 86 S.1
Tunisia 87 87 S.1 S.2
Turkey 88 88 S.1 S.1 S.2 S.2 S.3 S.3
Uganda 89 S.1 and
S.1/R.163
United Arab
Emirates121 121
United States 90 90 S.164S.1 S.2 S.2 S.3 S.3
Uruguay 91 91 S.165
                                                     
51 Financial- EL/63 introduced in Fifth Protocol
52 Maritime – incorporated S/NGMTS/W/4/Rev.1 into Uruguay Round schedule
53 Telecom –supplemented Uruguay Round Schedule
54 Telecom – replaced GATS/SC/67/Supp.2
55 Financial – Not ratified as of April 02
56 Financial – Not ratified as of April 02
57 Financial- deleted on 21 March 1996 S/L/18
58 Telecom – modified Uruguay Round Schedule
59 Financial- GATS/SC/31/Supp.1/Rev.1 modified GATS/SC/82
60 Telecom - GATS/SC/31/S.3 supplemented entries in GATS/SC/82
61 Financial – replaced GATS/SC/31/Supp.1/Rev.1
62 Financial – modified GATS/SC/31/Supp.4 attached to Fifth Protocol
63 Telecom – GATS/SC/89/Supp.1 modified Uruguay Round schedule and GATS/SC/89/Supp.1/R.1
replaced it.
64 Financial – SC and EL not attached to the Fifth ProtocolS/CSC/W/33
Page 17
FINANCIAL
95TELECOM
97FINANCIAL
97CERTIFIED
COUNTRY # GATS/SC/# GATS/EL/# MTS
GATS/SC
/#/SGATS/
ELNAT
PER.
GATS/SC GATS/SC
/#/SGATS/
EL/#GATS/SC GATS/
ELGATS/SC
/#/SEL
Venezuela 92 92 S.1 S.1 S.2/R.1 S.3 S.2
Dem. Rep.
Congo (Zaire)103
Zambia 93
Zimbabwe 94
__________
                                                                                                                                                                    
65 Financial – Not ratified as of April 02