WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/TE/W/13
8 October 2002
(02-5411)
Committee on Trade and Environment
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS (STOS)
Submission by the Republic of Korea
Paragraph 31(i)
I. INTRODUCTION
1. At the second meeting of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment
(CTESS) held from 11-12 June 2002, a number of Members expressed their support for the proposal
by Australia that CTESS divide its work under Paragraph 31(i) into three phases, starting from
identifying the specific trade obligations (STOs) in MEAs and WTO rules relevant to those
obligations.  Korea also supports the Australian approach.  In particular, identifying specific trade
obligations and the relevant WTO rules will help Members develop a perspective for the scope andorientation of discussion.
2. This submission is intended to help facilitate further discussion by making preliminary
identification of the STOs as set out in MEAs and ascertaining some issues for further consideration.
3. This submission does not intend to address the issues of the definition of MEAs or the
consistency of STOs with WTO rules. Without prejudice to Korea’s position on these issues, thissubmission employs as its basis of analysis the li st of MEAs contained in the Secretariat document
entitled as “Matrix of Trade Measures Pursuant to Selected MEAs” (WTO/CTE/W/160/Rev.1).  Thus
some MEAs, which have been adopted but not in force yet, are included in this analysis.  Some
MEAs, which are regional in terms of objectives and participation, are also included.
1
4. Section 2 of this submission presents Korea’s view  with regard to the criteria for identifying
the STOs.  The premise is that those trade obligations, which allow for Parties’ discretion as to the
acceptance of the obligations as well as the implementing measures, should not be regarded as  STOs.Section 3 contains the summary result of the identification of STOs on the basis of the criteria
discussed in Section 2.  Section 4 will discuss some issues related to how to treat Conference of Party
(COP) decisions which Korea believes need furt her discussion at the CTESS in the process of
identifying STOs.
5. The methodology and the results of the analysis in this submission are preliminary in nature.
Korea reserves the right to amend or supplement them at a later stage.
                                                     
1 It should be noted that at the second meeting of the CTESS, Korea expressed a view that MEAs
covered by paragraph 31(i) need to have global status comp arable to that of the WTO.  Korea also stated that it
would be easier for participants to agree on MEAs with a global objective than on the ones which are onlyrelevant in a regional context (Paragraph 28, TN/TE/R/2).TN/TE/W/13
Page 2
II. CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING STOS
6. In order to identify STOs, it is necessary first to have a clear idea on what STOs stand for.
Korea believes that the term, “specific trade obligations,” should be interpreted on the basis of its
ordinary meaning. In this regard, this submission begins its analysis by quoting the
Webster Dictionary's definitions of the three key words of “specific,” “trade” and “obligation” to lookfor their ordinary meanings.
7. First, the Webster Dictionary2 defines “obligation” as “something which a person is bound to
or not to do as a result of an agreement or responsibility.”  An obligation binds Parties to abide by
their agreement and renders them liable to coercion and punishment for neglecting it.  An obligation
does not allow for discretion on the part of the Parties. In this light, Korea believes that provisions of
MEAs that allow for Parties' discretion as to whether to implement them do not constitute obligations.
In other words, Korea is of the view that trade measures authorized, not required by MEA, cannot be
considered as obligations envisaged in Paragraph 31(i).3
8. Second, the Webster Dictionary defines “specific” as “clearly distinguished, stated or
understood.”  “Specific” does not leave room for ambiguity, discretion or misunderstanding. To be
“specific,” therefore, a provision must be precise, definite and explicit in its totality.  In this light,
Korea believes that “specific” trade obligations are trade obligations that set forth not only a result
which must be achieved ( obligation de résultat)  but also measures which must be used to achieve it
(obligation de comportement ). In other words, the obligations that lay out only the objective, while
leaving the implementing measures to Parties' discre tion, cannot be regarded as STOs. In this respect,
Korea agrees to Argentina’s interpretation of the “specific obligations.”
9. Lastly, the Webster Dictionary defines “trade” as “the business of distribution, selling and
exchange.”  Of course, “trade” in the context of Paragraph 31(i) does not refer to ordinary trade but
international trade.  For practical purposes, however, it would be convenient to presume that all of themeasures listed in WT/CTE/W/160/Rev.1 would meet the trade-relatedness requirement without
going into further analysis of the meaning of international trade.
III. IDENTIFICATION OF STOS
10. Using the criteria set out above, Korea carried out a preliminary exercise of identifying STOs
in the MEAs listed in WT/CTE/W/160/Rev.1. The results are summarized in the following table:
                                                     
2 The New International Webster’s Dictionary for the English Language, 1995 Edition, Trident Press
International.
3 Reference is made to OECD’s categorization of trade measures as contained in OECD study
“Typology of trade measures based on environmental product standards and ppm standards”
(COM/ENV/TD/93/89). The study classifies trade measures into four types: MEA-obligation measures, MEA-
authorization measures,  MEA-related measures and national law measures.  According to the study, MEA-authorization measures are taken by individual counties based on an authorization in an MEA; MEA-relatedmeasures are measures which are discretionary or suggested in the MEA.TN/TE/W/13
Page 3
MEA Article(s) STO Why
7(1) NoGives Parties a sovereign right to regulate plant importing.
IPPC
7(2) YesStipulates Parties’ obligation to take  precisely specified measures such as
publishing and transmitting phytosanitary requirements.
ICCATICCAT does not contain trade measures, but resolutions taken by the
Parties do contain trade restrictions, which can be STOs (See
Paragraph 11).
2N o Describes only the general principles of the Convention
3, 4, 5, 6 YesStipulate precise and obligatory requirements concerning export and
import documentation. CITES
8, 14 NoAllow for Parties’ discretion as to the implementation measures to be
taken.
CCAMLRCCAMLR does not contain trade measures, but trade-related measures
have been adopted in the Conservation Measures that are binding tocontracting parties. Most conserva tion measures are precisely mandated
obligations, which can be STOs.
MP 4Y e sStipulates precisely the measures to be taken, namely import and export
ban of trade in ozone-depleting substances.
4.1.b, 4.1.c Yes Describe very specific and mandatory PIC procedure.
4.1.a No Describes Parties’ right.
4.2.e, 8 ?The term "environmentally sound manner" is not specific.  However,
Conference of the Parties (COP) decision elaborates on the term (SeeParagraph 12).
4.5, 4.6 YesStipulate precise, obligatory measures (restriction on import and
documentation requirement).Basel
Convention
6Y e sStipulates Parties’ obligation to prohibit or restrict trade with specific
procedural requirements.
8(j) NoGives a general description of the objectives of the Convention;  allows
for Parties’ discretion regarding implementation measures.
CBD
10(b) NoIs mandatory in nature but not specific, as Parties can have discretion
concerning implementation measures relating to the use of biological
resources.
15 NoIs not specific concerning the PIC procedures (in comparison to those in
the Basel Convention and the PIC Convention). COP decision on the
Bonn Guidelines is not mandatory.
16,19 NoAre currently not specific. However, future COP decision can elaborate
them.   
22 NoStipulates general principles.TN/TE/W/13
Page 4
2.4 NoGives Parties a general authorization.
7, 8, 9,
10,11
(1,2,5), 15YesDescribe specific and mandatory Advance Informed Agreement
(AIA) procedures.
11.4 NoLeaves specific measures for Living Modified Organisms – Food/Feed
Processing (LMO-FFP) to Parties’ domestic law.
10.6,11.8 No Give Parties a right.
13, 14, 26 No Are non-mandatory, since the Party of import "may" take measures.
16 NoIs not specific in comparison to Article 15, which is elaborated by Annex
III.Bio-
safety
Protocol
18 ?Describes relatively specific obligation regarding documentation but
leaves more specific elements to COP decision (See Paragraph 12).
UN
FCCC4.2(a) NoAllows for Parties’ discretion regarding implementation measures, with a
broadly stated requirement to adopt national policies and corresponding
measures.
2.1, 2.3 NoAllow for Parties’ discretion regarding implementation measures for
quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment.
Kyoto
protocol
6, 12, 17 ?Provide general principles of the Flexibility Mechanisms.  Detailed
elements of the Mechanisms are prov ided in the Marrakesh Accord, which
future COP will adopt (See Paragraph 14).
ITTA 1N oAllows for Parties’ discretion regarding implementation measures.
17.4 NoLacks specificity in types of implementation measures to deter activities
of fishing vessels. UN
Fish Stocks
Agreement 23.1, 23.3 NoOffer a port State options for implementation measures.
5, 6, 7, 8,
10.4, 10.9,11.2, 12.1,
13.2YesDescribe precise and mandatory PIC procedures.
PIC
13.3 NoIs not mandatory since Parties "may" require labeling.
9N oDescribes the procedure for de-listing a chemical from Annexes.
13.3 NoIs not mandatory since Parties "may" require labeling
15.4 No Gives full discretion to Parties in taking "stricter measures."
3.1, 3.2 YesStipulate explicit and mandatory restrictions. In addition,
“environmentally sound disposal” mentioned in Article 3.2 is specified inParagraph 1(d) of Article 6.
4 No Stipulates register of specific exemptions. POPs
8N oDescribes Party’s right to list POPs in the Annexes.
*For the full titles of the MEAs, please refer to WT/CTE/W/160/Rev. 1TN/TE/W/13
Page 5
IV. ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
11. The analysis above shows that, in some cases, the criteria established in Section 2 alone are
not sufficient enough to provide guidance for identifying STOs.  Those cases mostly involve COP
decisions or resolutions, which suggests that identifying STOs is closely linked to the definition of
MEAs.
12. For example, Article 4.2.e and 8 of the Basel Convention contain the ambiguous words
“environmentally sound way,” which is not operati onal by itself. However, a COP decision elaborates
it. Further, Article 18 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety provides for basic elements of
“behavioral obligation,” while mandating the COP to elaborate more on those obligations.    
13.  There are differing opinions on whether trade obligations contained in COP decisions should
be treated as STOs.  If Members follow a strict interpretation of “set out in MEAs,” trade obligations
stipulated in COP decisions should not be regarded as STOs. Yet COP decisions are playing anincreasingly important role since most MEAs lay out only a basic framework and concrete rights and
obligations of the Parties take shape through COP decisions.  In addition, there are cases where the
MEAs concerned declare that COP decisions are their integral part.
14. Among COP decisions, the Marrakesh Accord is a unique case. Articles 6, 12 and 17 on the
Flexibility Mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC do not stipulate any specificobligations. Specific elements of the Mechanisms are provided in the Marrakesh Accord, which future
COP is expected to adopt.  It seems that the Acco rd is not mandatory in legal point of view, but in
participating in the Flexibility Mechanisms, the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol cannot avoid abiding by
the specific trade obligations set out therein. Then, the question arises whether such “ de facto”
obligations stipulated in the Accord are STOs.
__________