WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/COMTD/39
24 July 2002
(02-4099)
Committee on Trade and Development
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE XVIII, SECTION C, OF GATT 1994
Background Note
I. BACKGROUND
1. This note, prepared under the guidance of the Chair of the Committee on Trade and
Development (CTD), is intended to provide background information on the manner in which Article
XVIII:C has been applied since the WTO came into being.  It does not address the practice under
GATT 1947.
II. RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND ALLOCATION OF FUNCTIONS IN RELATION
TO ARTICLE XVIII:C OF GATT 1994
2. The text of Article XVIII:14 provides, inter alia , that "the contracting party concerned shall
notify the CONTRACTING PARTIES of the special difficulties which it meets (…) and shall indicate
the specific measure affecting imports which it proposes to introduce in order to remedy these
difficulties".  Neither the text of the WTO Agreement, Article XVIII of GATT 1994 or the 1979Decision on Safeguard Action for Development Purposes
1 otherwise provide specific guidance on the
notification of such measures.
3. There is no designated body to which Article XVIII:C notifications should be sent.  The
Council for Trade in Goods (CTG), which operate s "under the general guidance of the General
Council", is responsible for "oversee(ing) the functioning of the Multilateral Trade Agreements in
Annex 1A".2  This includes GATT 1994, of which Article XVIII:C is part.   The CTD, on the other
hand, is competent, under its terms of reference, to "consider any questions which may arise withregard to either the application or the use of special provisions in the Multilateral Trade Agreements
and related Ministerial Decisions in favour of developing country Members and report to the General
Council for action".
3
4. At the CTD’s last meeting in 1995, the Chairman of the CTD "recalled that the CTD was
responsible for the notification requirements of Article XVIII:A, C and D, Part IV and the EnablingClause", and suggested that the CTD address at its first meeting in 1996 the notification requirements,
in the hope that the discussion "would clarify which notification obligations were relevant to the CTD,
and whether there was the need to have standard formats for notifications".
4  The issue does not
appear to have been further discussed in the CTD at that time.  Article XVIII was raised again at the
40th session of the CTD, held on 25 April 2002, in the context of the outstanding implementation
issues.5  Tiret three of JOB(01)/152/Rev.1 states that:
                                                     
1 Decision of 28 November 1979, L/4897.
2 Article IV.5 of the WTO Agreement.
3 WT/L/46, 23 February 1995.
4 WT/COMTD/M/4, § 55.  See also WT/COMTD/M/3, 23 October 1995, § 7.
5 JOB(01)/152/Rev.1 of 27 October 2001.WT/COMTD/39
Page 2
 "A complete review of Article XVIII shall be undertaken with a view to ensure that it
subserves the original objective of facilitating the progressive development of
economies in developing countries and to allow them to implement programmes and
policies of economic development designed to raise the general standard of living of
their people."
5. In that context it was also recalled that tire t 1 of JOB(01)/152/Rev.1 states that  "only the
Committee on Balance-of-Payments shall have the authority to examine the overall justification  of
BOP measures" and that the Committee on Balance-of-Payments was considering section B of Article
XVIII and would report to the General Council at the end of the year.
III. FORUM FOR SPECIFIC INVOCATION OF ARTICLE XVIII:C
6. Article XVIII:C of GATT 1994 has been invoked on three occasions since the entry into force
of the WTO Agreement.
1. Malaysia – polypropylene and polyethylene (1995)
7. Malaysia submitted a notification in pursuance of Article XV III:C and the 1979 decision on
"safeguard action for development purposes",6 after Singapore had requested consultations under
Article XXIII:1 of GATT 1994 on the same measures7.  This notification was circulated in the WT/L
series ("General documents").
8. Malaysia had argued that this matter had a developmental perspective and should fall within
the competence of the CTD.  Informal consultations were conducted by the Chairman of the CTG,
with the understanding that in authorizing the Ch airman to undertake these consultations, "the Council
for Trade in Goods would have requested Malaysia to consult on its notification under Article XVIII,
paragraph 15, without prejudice to the outcome of the informal consultations".  It seems that no
delegation other than Malaysia raised the issue of  the appropriate forum for discussion.  Malaysia
subsequently modified the notification; thereupon, the Chairman CTG  indicated that it was no longer
necessary to pursue consultations and that "it was his understanding that Malaysia's notification underArticle XVIII:C had become obsolete, thus being without any effect".
8
2. Colombia – imports of salt (1998)
9. Colombia made a notification under Article XVIII:C to the CTD concerning measures it
proposed to take on the import of salt.9
10. One country raised the matter in the CTG, requesting it to schedule multilateral consultations
in accordance with Article XVIII, paragraph 16 and bilateral consultations under paragraph 18.10
Colombia noted that the notification had been made to the CTD and "that it would be appropriate for
any explanations or answers to questions raised by WTO Members to be given in that forum".  It
indicated its willingness to provide further details and explanations to anyone who asked, either
bilaterally or within the framework of the CTD.11  The CTG took note of statements made by several
                                                     
6 WT/L/32.
7 WT/DS1/1.
8 G/C/M/3, § 3.3.
9 WT/COMTD/N/8, 30 April 1998 and Corr. 1.
10 G/L/248 and G/C/M/35, § 2.2.
11 G/C/M/35, § 2.3-2.6.WT/COMTD/39
Page 3
delegations, the Chairman having observed that "nothing prevented a delegation from requesting that
an item be inscribed on the agenda of a Council meeting".12
11. It appears that this item was not reverted to furt her, either in the context of the CTD or in the
CTG.
3. Bangladesh – Chicks, eggs, cartons and salt (2002)
12. Bangladesh addressed a letter, on 21st December 2001, to the Director-General of the WTO
indicating that it proposed to invoke Section C of Article XVIII of GATT 1994 and the Decision of
28 November 1979 on Safeguard Action for Developmen t Purposes with regard to certain measures
affecting chicks, eggs, cartons and salt.13  The Director-General referred the matter to the Council for
Trade in Goods, resulting in the notification of 16 January 2002.  There was a request for
consultation.
13. On 2 May 2002, the Council for Trade in Goods agreed to request Bangladesh to consult with
it in accordance with Article XVIII paragraph 16.  This was agreed on the understanding that this
procedure would be without prejudice to any future determination which Members might make as to
the identification of the relevant WTO body for handling Article XVIII:C issues. 14
__________
                                                     
12 Ibid, § 2.11.
13 See G/C/7.
14 G/C/M/60.