RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/CSC/M/13
23 March 2000
(00-1034)
Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24 AND 28 FEBRUARY 2000
1. The Committee on Specific Commitments held its thirteenth meeting on 24 and
28 February 2000.  The agenda for the meeting is contained in WTO/AIR/1246.  No items were raised
under other business.
I. DRAFT DECISION OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERVICES ON THE
CERTIFICATION OF RECTIFICATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS TO SCHEDULES
OF SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS
2. The Chairman introduced a revised version of the draft decision (Job No. 5203/Rev.2), which
reflected the debate held in informal consultations on 17 February 2000.  Some delegations made
comments on the new text, which seemed to enjoy wide support.  However, one substantive issue,
concerning the timeframe of the procedure, remained open.  The Chairman therefore decided to
suspend discussions on this item and revert to it in informal consultations in order to find a solution.
II. SCHEDULING GUIDELINES – NOTE BY THE CHAIRMAN
3. Regarding the outstanding issues in the process of revision of the scheduling guidelines, the
Chairman introduced two documents: Job No. 4056/Rev.1, dated 31 January 2000, which updated Job
No. 4056 by adding the remarks made by delegations at the past two meetings and Job No. 772, which
contained comments and suggestions by the Chairman on the outstanding issues.  He introduced the
latter document in his responsibility as Chairman of the Committee in order to try to simplify and
prioritise work on the issue of the scheduling guidelines.
4. He suggested that, rather than going once again through document Job No. 4056/Rev.1, it
might be desirable to focus the debate on concrete drafting proposals and to start distinguishingbetween outstanding issues that could reasonably be solved and those which were either too difficult
or too marginal to be addressed usefully.  Therefore he suggested that Members structured their
discussions around the items listed in document Job No. 772.  As the document was two weeks old, he
said he understood that some reactions could be of a preliminary nature.
5. The paper was well received by delegations who agreed it represented a useful tool to
advance work in this area.  In particular, delegations accepted the Chairman's idea, expressed in
paragraph 29 of the Note, of agreeing on a list of outstanding issues to be addressed with priority,
while putting aside for the time being other less impor tant or more controversial outstanding issues.
Some delegations noted, however, that before some more controversial issues were put aside, it would
be important to hear the views of all delegations on these matters.  The representative of  Japan agreed
that it was useful to focus discussions on the outstanding issues listed in the Chairman's Note,
however, noting that his delegation still had some comments to make on the emerging points of
common understanding (reported in document Job No. 4055/Rev.1), he reserved the right to do that at
a later stage.S/CSC/M/13
Page 2
I. GUIDELINES FOR THE LISTING OF MFN EXEMPTIONS
6. The delegations of Australia and Hong Kong, China  noted that, although there were benefits
in attaching guidelines for the listing of MFN ex emptions to the scheduling guidelines, they were
ready to put this issue aside in the discussion of the scheduling guidelines, provided that other
Members would demonstrate similar flexibility on other issues.  Australia proposed that the issue of
guidelines for the listing of MFN exemptions could be taken up in the on-going review of Article II
exemptions in the Services Council.  The delegation of  Colombia noted that, although it would be
useful to have guidelines for the listing of MFN exemptions, it was a good idea first to bring the work
on the scheduling guidelines to a rapid conclusion.
7. The delegations of the European Communities and Norway  said that the time was not right
for the review of the guidelines for the listing of  MFN exemptions.  Before considering any work in
this area, it would be better to wait for the end of the review of Article II exemptions in the ServicesCouncil.  The Republic of Korea agreed that it was appropriate to put this issue aside for the time
being, but expressed doubts on whether the guidelines for the listing of MFN exemption should bedealt with as a separate item.  The representative of the United States agreed with the Chairman that
the guidelines for the listing of MFN exemption should be put aside, but, regarding Australia's
proposal to take up this issue in the on-going review of Article II exemptions in the Services Council,
he said that he did not see the connection between the two exercises.  The representative of Venezuela
said that in the view of her delegation there wa s no need for guidelines for the listing of MFN
exemptions as paragraph 2 of Article II was already clear enough in this respect.  The Chairman
concluded that the issue of guidelines for the listing of MFN exemptions could be put aside for thetime being.  The Committee would revert to this issue in future, if necessary, probably not before the
conclusion of the review of Article II exemptions in the Services Council.
II. F
OOTNOTES , HEADNOTES , ATTACHMENTS AND DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE
8. The representative of New Zealand agreed with the proposed language in paragraph 6 of the
Chairman's Note, regarding the legally binding nature of all entries in the schedules.  He was more
hesitant on the suggestions made in paragraphs 7 to 9, which appeared to undermine the principlere-affirmed in paragraph 6.  The delegations of Canada, the European Communities
, Mexico  and
Switzerland agreed with the Chairman that everything that was inscribed in the schedules should be
considered as legally binding and that in principle the use of footnotes and headnotes should be
avoided or limited.  Switzerland proposed to add some language to paragraph 6, spelling out that
footnotes and headnotes inscribed in schedules were to be considered as legally binding.  Mexico said
that it was clear that everything that was inscribed in the schedules was legally binding and that there
was no need for new language in the guidelines about this.
9. The delegations of Japan, Republic of Korea , Norway , Switzerland  and the United States
were hesitant about the language in paragraph 8, which in their view appeared to undermine the
current role of headnotes.   Switzerland noted that  in the existing schedules there were hardly any
headnotes fulfilling the criteria outlined in paragraph 8.  The above delegations felt that a more
pragmatic approach to headnotes was desirable.  The representatives of Cuba and Uruguay  said that
their delegations needed some more time to consider the proposals made on these issues and reserved
their rights in this respect.  In response to some delegations, who had asked about the retroactive
effect of possible modifications in the scheduling guidelines, the Chairman recalled that as stated in
paragraph 6 of document S/CSC/W/19 "… according to the basic principles of international law therevised guidelines would not have any retroactive effects on the interpretation of existingcommitments ".  He also took note of the fact that, while some degree of consensus existed on the
legally binding nature of all entries in the schedules (paragraph 6), more work was needed on the
issues raised in paragraphs 7 to 9.  He suggested that delegations revert to this issue as from the next
meeting.S/CSC/M/13
Page 3
III. MEANING OF MARKET ACCESS RESTRICTIONS
10. The representative of Mexico said that there was no need to distinguish between pre- and
post-establishment measures and agreed with the proposal, made by the Chairman in paragraph 12 of
his Note, to retain the current wording of the scheduling guidelines on this matter.  The United States
proposed to substitute "they" with "such measures" in the second line of paragraph 13 and "national
treatment principle" with "national treatment standard of Article XVII" at the end of the paragraph.
The European Communities and Hong Kong, China  supported the Chairman's proposal and the
changes suggested by the United States.  Japan supported the Chairman's proposals and the changes
proposed by the United States, provided that the last sentence of paragraph 13 read "national
treatment provision of Article XVII ".  The Representative of Switzerland said that the Chairman's
proposed additional language in paragraph 13 might create confusion and was probably unnecessary.However, if this view was not shared by others, he would not insist on this point.  The Chairman
suggested that delegations revert to this issue at the next meeting.
IV. SCHEDULING OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
11. The delegations of Hong Kong, China and New Zealand  noted that minimum requirements
had an impact on small and medium enterprises and that, where they existed, it would be useful to list
such measures in the schedules as restrictions.  Bo th delegations, however, said that they would join a
consensus and agreed to put this issue aside for the time being.  The Chairman proposed that the
Committee suspend discussions on this issue in the immediate future and come back to it at anappropriate time.  Mexico suggested that rather th an postponing discussions, this was an issue worth
taking up in the Services Council.
V. RELEVANT COLUMN AND MODE FOR THE SCHEDULING OF NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS
12. The delegations of Hong Kong, China and Norway  agreed with the suggestion by the
Secretariat that this was a question which deserved discussion by Members.  The Chairman proposed
that the Committee deal with this issue as from its next meeting.
VI. INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "TOTAL " " LIMITATIONS OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF
TRANSACTIONS OR ASSETS "
13. Several delegations suggested that discussions on this item should be postponed.  Mexico felt,
however, that the issue was worth being discussed in the Services Council.
VII. ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF NATIONAL TREATMENT RESTRICTIONS
14. There was general support for an illustrative list of national treatment restrictions in the
guidelines, although delegations suggested that it might be desirable to have a more generic list than
the current examples of concrete measures.  Mexico said that, as the list was illustrative, it would be
useful to have more examples than the current ones.  The delegation of India said that, as there was no
agreed definition of subsidies, its preference was for the exclusion of subsidies from the examples inthe list.  The Chairman suggested that delegations  revert to this issue as from the next meeting.
VIII. DISCRIMINATORY SUBSIDIES UNDER MODES 1 AND 2
15. As this issue related to the illustrative list of national treatment restrictions, the Chairman
proposed that it should be taken up together with the illustrative list.S/CSC/M/13
Page 4
IX. MEASURES INCONSISTENT WITH BOTH ARTICLES XVI AND XVII
16. The delegations of Australia, Hong Kong, China , and Mexico  supported the Chairman's
proposal.  The United States also supported Chairman 's proposal, but added that there was no need for
an amendment to the GATS.  Canada was of the opinion that this issue should be taken up in the
Services Council rather than in the Committee on Specific Commitments, but offered flexibility if
there was a consensus for discussing this issue in the Committee.  Japan expressed support for
continuing discussions on this issue.  Uruguay noted that, in any event, the guidelines could not
change the provision in Article XX:2 and that the language proposed by the Chairman could be
inserted in the guidelines only as a clarification.  The representative of Switzerland said that the
proposal by the Chairman was too risky as it raised doubts regarding the validity of Article XX:2 ofthe GATS.  He proposed the following alternative language: "When measures are inscribed in the
column relating to Article XVI that, contrary to Article XX:2, are not intended to be inconsistent withArticle XVII, Members should indicate that this is the case in the market access column (e.g. by
stating "notwithstanding Article XX:2, does not limit national treatment")" .  The  Chairman suggested
that these issues, including the Swiss proposal, be taken up as from the next meeting.
X. POSSIBILITY OF AN ADDITIONAL COMMITMENT LIMITED TO ONE MODE OF SUPPLY
17. Mexico said that the existing text of the guidelines on this issue was already clear and saw no
need to add additional language.  The Chairman prop osed to put this issue aside for the time being
with a view to reverting to it at a later stage.
XI. REFERENCE TO CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
18. The Chairman proposed to put this issue aside for the time being and revert to it at a later
stage.
XII. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN MODES OF SUPPLY
19. The representative of Norway noted that this issue was also relevant to the work programme
on electronic commerce and to the work of the Committee on Financial Services.  He suggested that
the Committee on Specific Commitments discussed it as a separate item from the scheduling
guidelines.  The delegations of Brazil and Uruguay  pointed out that this was a technically complex
issue and that further discussions might benefit from a paper by the Secretariat.  The  Chairman
replied that, although in principle there was no objection to a paper by the Secretariat on modes 1 and2, such a paper would clarify and summarize previous papers, rather than add new elements to the
discussion.  The delegations of Colombia and of the United States
, while not opposing this proposal,
wondered whether it was appropriate to attach previous papers by the Secretariat on the issue ofmodes 1 and 2 to the scheduling guidelines.  The representative of Hong Kong, China noted that this
was a complex technical subject, which deserved further discussion, but that it would be better to put
it aside for the time being.  The Chairman noted that  this issue had also been discussed in other fora
and suggested that the Committee could come back to it at a later stage, possibly under a separate
agenda item.
XIII. LACK OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
20. The representative of New Zealand said that this issue had generated a lot of interest, and that
his delegation was available to continue to discuss it with any other interested Member.  He agreed,
however, with the Chairman's proposal to put it as ide for the time being in the discussion of the
scheduling guidelines.  Norway noted that having an asterisk after "unbound" for purposes of
transparency might be inconsistent with the statement that everything which is in the schedules hadlegal value.  The Chairman noted that, although there was a considerable interest in this matter, noS/CSC/M/13
Page 5
consensus existed among delegations on a solution.  He suggested that the Committee put this issue
aside for the time being and revert to it at a later stage.
XIV. MEANING OF "NO LIMITATION "
21. The representative of Canada said that, as for the discussion under point IX, this issue was for
the Services Council to discuss rather than for the Committee on Specific Commitments.  The
representative of Switzerland said that the language relating to Article XX:2, which he had proposed
under point IX, was also relevant for this issue.  The Chairman proposed to revert to this item,including the points made by Switzerland, as from the next meeting.
XV. M
ODE 4 COMMITMENT WITHOUT SPECIFIED DURATION
22. The representative of Hong Kong, China said  that his delegation shared the observations
made by the Chairman in the first part of paragraph 25 of his Note, but not in the second part.  The
current second last sentence of paragraph 4 of MTN.GNS/W/164 appeared to give too favourable aninterpretation to the many entries that did not have a specific duration.  Regarding the redrafting
proposed by the Chairman in his Note, he said that his delegation did not find the new language
acceptable, since without a DSU case it would not be possible to decide whether nullification or
impairment had happened.  His delegation preferred something which drew attention to the problem
of lack of specified duration and the interest in legal certainty.  He proposed to re-word the last twosentences of paragraph 4 along the following lines: " However, many Members have not indicated the
specific duration of temporary stay of a foreign service supplier and this could lead to legal
uncertainty as to the scope of their commitments.  Bearing in mind that Article XX:1(a) of the
Agreement states that "each schedule shall specif y ... the terms, limitations and conditions on market
access", Members should include the duration of temporary stay ."
23. As regards the reference to the language of the Annex on the Movement of Natural Persons in
the Chairman's Note, he said that it seemed to be a bit out of context.  If Members wished to see it
retained in some form, he proposed to add a third sentence along the following lines: " Attention is
also drawn to paragraph 4 of the Annex on Movement of Natural Persons regarding the application
of measures which may nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any other Member under the termsof a specific commitment. "
24. The Chairman noted that the main problem identified for mode 4 commitments was the lack
of a specified duration and suggested that delegations revert to this item and to the  Hong Kong, China
proposal as from the next meeting.
XVI. CUSTOMS DUTIES AND REGULATION OF CROSS BORDER MOVEMENTS OF GOODS
25. The Chairman noted that delegations had expressed little interest in this issue and proposed to
put it aside for the time being and eventually revert to it at a later stage.
XVII.  FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROLS
26. The Chairman noted that delegations had expressed little interest in this issue and proposed to
put it aside for the time being and eventually revert to it at a later stage.
XVIII.  CONCLUSIONS ON CHAIRMAN 'S PROPOSED METHOD OF FUTURE WORK
27. In the light of the proposals made in his Note and of the discussions held during the meeting,
the Chairman proposed that from the next meeting, Members concentrate their discussions on the
scheduling guidelines on the following items:S/CSC/M/13
Page 6
II. FOOTNOTES , HEADNOTES , ATTACHMENTS , ETC.;
III. MEANING OF MARKET ACCESS RESTRICTIONS ;
V. RELEVANT COLUMNS AND MODE FOR THE SCHEDULING OF NATIONALITY
EQUIREMENTS ;
VII. ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF NATIONAL TREATMENT LIMITATIONS ;
IX. MEASURES INCONSISTENT WITH BOTH ARTICLES XVI AND XVII (ARTICLE XX :2);
XIV. MEANING OF “NO LIMITATION ”;  AND
XV. MODE 4 COMMITMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIED DURATION .
28. The Committee so agreed.
III. CLASSIFICATION ISSUES
29. The discussion on classification was held in informal mode.  A summary of the discussion is
contained in document Job No. 205/Rev.6.  At the end of the discussion, the Chairman indicated that
in order to advance work in classification Member s might consider introducing some changes in the
method of work.  In that regard, he proposed that Members consider the possibility of holding
informal meetings for interested delegations on th e various sectors.  The meetings, open to all
Members, would be held back to back with the formal meetings of the Committee, according to a
calendar known in advance.  The meetings would be  chaired in principle by the Chairman of the
Committee, who would report back to the Committee on the activities performed and the progress
made in those meetings.  All working documents would be circulated to the Members of the
Committee.  The proposal was well received;  Members encouraged the Chairman to consult with the
next Chairman of the Committee and with delegations on this matter.  The delegation of  Mexico
could not agree at this meeting to such a proposal, but had no objections that the Chairman began
consultations on this matter.
IV. ELABORATION OF CONSOLIDATED ELECTRONIC SCHEDULES
30. The Chairman recalled that at its last meeting held on 22 September 1999, the Committee had
agreed on the format and on the procedure for the verification of the electronic schedules.  The
Committee had also approved an extension of the deadline from 60 to 75 days as of reception of the
schedules.  As a consequence of these decisions, on 20 December 1999, the Secretariat sent to
delegations the electronic version of the schedules to be verified with the original schedule.
31. The Chairman reminded delegations that the effective date of expiry of the 75-day period
was 4 March 2000 and that the procedure chosen by the Committee was that of implicit approbation.
This meant that without comments by a delegation before the expiry date, the electronic version
would be considered accurate and therefore ready for inclusion in the cd-rom.  He noted that so farvery few delegations had come back to the Secretariat to propose changes or indicate agreement to the
electronic version.  This could mean there were no problems with the electronic version, but also that
Members had not yet completed the verification.  He urged delegations to consider this matter
expeditiously, as there was a little more than one week left to make observations.
__________