RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/SG/Q1/NOR/1
30July1996
ORGANIZATION(96-3040)
Original: English Committee onSafeguards
NOTIFICATION OFLAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLE 12.6OFTHE AGREEMENT
Replies ofNORWAY1toquestions posed by
JAPAN,2KOREA3,AUSTRALIA4andtheUNITED STATES5
Thefollowingcommunication,dated26July1996,hasbeenreceivedfromthePermanentMission
ofNorway.
_______________
A. General statement
Ingeneral Norway hasfollowed acautious lineregarding theuseoftrade policy measures
overtheyears. Nosafeguard measure hasbeenapplied onimports fromGATT Members during the
lasttenyears. There arenosafeguard cases pending.
Nevertheless, Norway isveryconcerned about thequality ofthemultilateral trade system.
Asasmall, openeconomy, highly dependant onforeign trade, Norway isinneedofasystem which
provides predictability andtransparency. Theexamination ofourlegislation inthisround gives the
opportunity tocontribute toreaching thatgoal.
Thequestions received concern thelegal status oftheWTO Agreements intheNorwegian
legal system. Against thisbackground itmight beuseful tooutline certain general aspects ofthe
Norwegian implementing legislation.
Firstly,itisnecessarytodescribetherelationshipbetweenNorwegianlawandpublicinternational
law. Generally, itisusual todistinguish between monistic anddualistic States. Inmonistic States,
treaties which bindtheState aredeemed totakeimmediate effect asinternational rules oflaw.
Indualistic States, suchasNorway, aspecial actofimplementation is,inprinciple, required
inorder fortheTreaty toapply aspartofdomestic law.However, suchspecial actsofimplementation
arenotnecessary ifdomestic legislation isalready inharmony withtheobligations oftheTreaty.
Themethods forimplementing treaties innational lawareusually called "transformation",
"incorporation" and"ascertainment ofnormative harmony". Transformation entails thereproduction
ofatreaty inlegislation, intheform ofatranslation withthose adaptations thatmaybenecessary.
1G/SG/N/1/NOR/3.
2G/SG/W/81,3G/SG/W/86,4G/SG/W/95,5G/SG/W/104.G/SG/Q1/NOR/1
Page2
Incorporation entails thelegalenactment ofatreaty asapartofthenational law,initsoriginal form
andlanguage; "embodiment" could beusedasajointconcept onbothtransformation andincorporation.
Ascertainment ofnormative harmony entails ascertaining thatthenational lawisinharmony withthe
treaty.
Itshould beadded thatneither customary international lawnortheWTO Agreement inquestion
gives ananswer astowhich ofthese methods ofimplementation theindividual stateshallapply.
Theso-called presumption principle isalsoofrelevance. Thenotification saysthatthenational
legislation wasdrafted "(...) ontheunderstanding thattheapplicable Norwegian lawsandregulations
shallbeinterpreted andimplemented inamanner consistent withthecorresponding rules under the
WTO Agreement."
Theabove quotation reflects thepresumption principle; Norwegian lawisthusinterpreted
andapplied bybothadministration andthecourts withthepresumption thatitisconsistent withpublic
international lawandtheobligations oftreaties towhich Norway isaparty.
With thisinmind, itcould bestated -withtheuseoftheabove defined concepts -thatthe
WTO Agreement onSafeguard Measures isimplemented intoNorwegian internal lawbyan
embodiment-technique, i.e.bothtransformed andincorporated intodomestic law. TheNorwegian
legislation thusrepresents atranslated andverycondensed version ofthemain provision ofthe
Agreement.
Secondly,someinformationshouldbeaddedonthechangesintheNorwegianlegislationenacted
bytheStorting inNovember 1995. Asstated inthethirdparagraph ofthenotification, theNorwegian
Government sought certain adjustments toSection 4oftheIntroductory Provisions ofthecustoms tariff,
inorder toremove anyambiguities. Onthisbackground, thewording ofsection 4waschanged, and
anincorporating clause wasadded.
Asaresult, theclause nowmakes itclearthatthecompetence oftheNorwegian authorities
shallbeexercised inconformity withtheWTO Agreement. Thus, thepublic authorities, incasuthe
Government, theMinistries, thecustoms officers etc.,exercise theirpowers within thelimitations set
forth bytheAgreement. Ifpublic authority isexercised contrary tothatwhich isrequired inthe
Agreement, thedecision inquestion willbeconsidered unlawful duetothefactthattheactual
administrative body wentoutside itslegalcompetence.
Theimportance ofthislimitation isdemonstrated when adecision isappealed bylegal
proceedings being instituted intheordinary courts oflaw.According toNorwegian law,acourt may
findanadministrative decision invalid i.a.incaseswhere thedecision contains anerrororisincomplete,
orduetolackoflegalcompetence. Thus, thelegalcompetence oftheactual administrative body is,
inprinciple, acondition ofvalidity. Asstated inthenotification, anadministrative decision mayalso
befound invalid because ofsuchfactors asthemisuse ofpowers, theinfringement ofprocedural
requirements orfactual errors.
Ifthedecision isfound invalid bythecourt, anycustoms duties collected, must berepaid.
Thepublic administration mayalsobeordered topaycompensation fortheinjury caused byaninvalid
decision.
Thirdly, itcould beadded thatNorwegian legislation hashadnospecific procedures regarding
safeguard actions. Measures would, however, betaken onthebasisoftheprovisional lawonregulation
onimports of13December 1946. Thelastsafeguard action implemented under GATT Article XIX
onthebasis ofthatlaw,wasin1978.G/SG/Q1/NOR/1
Page3
Astheabove lawreflects pastcircumstances andpolicies, certain amendments tothelawhave
beenproposed totheStorting. ThenewActbefore theStorting would replace theexisting lawof1946
onimport andexport bans. Thepurpose oftheActistoformally bring Norwegian legislation inthis
areaintolinewithpresent practice while taking dueaccount ofinternational trade policy obligations
under theWTO Safeguards Agreement.
B. Questions submitted
Answers toquestions submitted byJapan:
1. Please identify thecompetent authority incharge ofconducting safeguards investigation.
Thecompetent authority incharge ofconducting safeguards investigations istheRoyal Ministry
ofFinance andCustoms, incooperation withtheRoyal Ministry ofForeign Affairs.
2. Whomayapply fortheinitiation oftheinvestigation? Could itbeinitiated exofficio?
National manufacturers mayapply fortheinitiation ofasafeguard investigation. Norwegian
authorities could alsoinitiate suchinvestigations exofficio .
3. When aretheprocedures ofinvestigation expected tobeestablished?
TheGovernment isconsidering certain procedural amendments tothelegislation. TheWTO
willbenotified ofanychange.
4. CantheGovernment ofNorway takesafeguard measures without consultation withtheStorting
unlike thecaseofimposing ananti-dumping orcountervailing dutyreferred toinparagraph 4
ofthenotification?
According toparagraph 4oftheintroductory provisions oftheNorwegian customs tariff, the
Government must consult theStorting when implementing safeguards measures -asisthesituation
asregards anti-dumping orcountervailing duties.
5. What sortofsafeguard measures cantheGovernment ofNorway take? Isitlimited to
customs-related safeguard measures?
TheGovernment cantakecustoms-related safeguard measures according toparagraph 4of
theintroductory provisions oftheNorwegian customs tariff. TheGovernment canalsotakeother
safeguard measures, suchasimport restrictions, quotas etc.,according totheProvisional lawonimport
regulation of13December 1946. Such safeguard measures willbeexecuted within thelimitations
setforth bytheAgreement.
Answers toquestions submitted bytheRepublic ofKorea:
1. Canitbeunderstood thatNorway willimplement onlycustoms-related safeguard measures,
andnoquota-related measures?
Norwaymayimplementbothcustoms-relatedsafeguardmeasuresandothersafeguardmeasures,
suchasimport restrictions, quotas etc.Thelatter must bebased ontheProvisional lawonimport
regulation of13December 1946. Such safeguard measures willbeexecuted within thelimitations
setforth bytheAgreement.G/SG/Q1/NOR/1
Page4
2. Cansafeguard duties beimposed forproducts other thanthose subject toinvestigation?
Safeguard duties (except provisional measures) canbeimposed onlyforproducts subject to
investigation.
3. Thesecond paragraph ofsection 4provides thatsafeguard duties maybeimposed forproducts
fromspecific exporters orforproducts fromspecific countries. Does thismean thatimport
duties canberaised discriminately withregard tospecific exporters orcountries? Ifso,can
itbeunderstood thatalltherelevant provisions intheAgreement onSafeguards, including
itsArticle 5.2,willbeadhered to?
Thesecond paragraph ofsection 4wasamended from1January 1996, according toaPlenary
decision oftheStorting. Theamendment hasbeennotified totheWTO (document G/SG/N/1/NOR/3).
Answer toquestion submitted byAustralia:
Q. Thesecond substantial paragraph ofthenotification advises thatthedecision adopted bythe
Storting "was made ontheunderstanding thatNorwegian laws andregulations shall be
interpreted andimplemented inamanner consistent withthecorresponding rules under the
WTO Agreement". What isthelegal significance oftheunderstanding andisitenforceable
inadomestic court?
Thequoted sentence -"ontheunderstanding thatNorwegian lawsandregulations shallbe
interpreted inamanner consistent withthecorresponding rulesunder theWTO Agreement" -reflects
theso-called presumption principle .Thelegalsignificance oftheprinciple anditsroleinthedomestic
court,isdescribedinthegeneralstatement.Thenewlegislation,however,explicitlysaysthatapplication
ofsafeguard measures shallbeinconformity withtheAgreement.
Answers toquestions submitted byUnited States
1. WillNorway waittoapply safeguard measures untilafteritdevelops andpublishes procedures
forinvestigations? Ifnot,whatinvestigation procedures willbefollowed, andhowwould such
aninvestigation beconsistent withArticle 3.1oftheAgreement onSafeguards, which references
GATT Article X?
Asalready stated Norway hasnotdeveloped specific procedures forinvestigation ofsafeguard
cases. However, according totheincorporation clause nowadded totheNorwegian legislation, such
investigations must beconducted inconformity withArticle 3.1oftheSafeguards Agreement, and
GATT Article X,aswell. Ifandwhen specific procedures areissued, theWTO willbenotified.
2. Under section 4,musttheNorwegian authorities determine thatincreased imports area"result
ofunforeseen developments andoftheeffect ofobligations incurred byNorway under [GATT]"
inorder torender anaffirmative injury determination?
TheNorwegian administrative authorities mustactinaccordance withtheAgreement, asstated
insection 4,paragraph 2.
3. Are"customs-related safeguard measures" referred toinsection 4limited toincreased tariffs?
Isthistheonlyrelief possible under section 4?G/SG/Q1/NOR/1
Page5
Thenotified legislation limitsafeguard measures toincreased tariffs. However, measures of
anon-duty character, suchasimport restrictions, quotas etc.,maybetaken under theProvisional law
onimport regulation.
4. Does paragraph 2ofsection 4permit relief tobeimposed onanon-MFN basis?
Before itsrevision, thelegislation could giverisetosome ambiguities. Therevised notified
legislation makes itclearthatmeasures applied mustbeinconformity withtheAgreement, i.e.Article 5
withregard tothequestion posed. Seealsodescription oftheincorporation clause inthegeneral
statement.
5. Paragraph 2ofsection 4provides fornotification oftheStorting ofanydecision toimpose
duties. Isawritten opinion explaining thebasis forthedecision made public?
There arenospecific provisions inthedomestic legislation requiring suchanopinion. However,
according totheincorporation clause which hasnowbeenadded tothelegislation, adecision andan
explanation would bemade public totheextent theAgreement requires it(seeArticle 3andArticle 4
litrac)oftheAgreement).
6. Arethere procedures forimplementing theprovisions ofArticles 6and7oftheAgreement on
Safeguards pertaining toprovisional safeguards measures, mid-term review ofmeasures, and
extension ofmeasures?
Norway hasnotdeveloped specific procedures forprovisional safeguard measures norfor
duration/reviews. Ifandwhen suchprovisions areissued, theWTO willbenotified.