WT/REG391/3  
 
1 May 2019 
(19-2998) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English  
 
FREE TRADE  AGREEMENT BETWEEN CHINA  AND GEORGIA  
(GOODS AND SERVICES)  
QUESTIONS AND REPLIE S 
The f ollowing communication, dated 1 May 2019, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of  China and Georgia.  
 
 This document reproduces the follow -up question s addressed to the Parties following 
the 92nd Session of the CRTA and the response s submitted.  
_______________  
 
 
Questions from the delegation of the United States  
 
Technical Barriers to Trade  
 
1.1.  With respect to the provisions relating to technical barriers to trade and specifically 
the language found in the agreement in Article 6.6 regarding standards that are 
considered as international standards under the agreement (paragraph 3.27 of the factual 
presentation) the United States notes that the Parti es recognize the importance of 
international standards in the agreement, but we have questions about what Article 6.6 
is intended to accomplish, and in our view appears to limit what standards would be 
recognized as international standards for the purposes  of implementing the agreement to 
the narrow set of bodies reference in that Article.   
a. Can the Parties confirm that Article 6.6 of the Agreement does NOT establish a 
closed list of what is considered a relevant international standard?   
Joint response from the Parties  
 
 According to Article 6.6 of the Agreement, for the purpose of applying Chapter  6 of Technical 
Barriers to Trade , standards issued, in particular, by the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU) and Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) shall be considered 
relevant international standards in the sense of Article 2.4 of the  Agreement  of Technical Barriers to 
Trade (TBT Agreement) . Howe ver, Article 6.6 of the Agreement  does not establish a closed  list of 
what are considered relevant international standards.  
 
b. Can the Parties also confirm that they apply the TBT Committee Decision on 
International Standards in determining what is consider ed a relevant 
international standard in the sense of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement?   
 The Parties  affirm their rights and obligations with respect to eac h other under the 
TBT Agreement , according to Article 6.4, Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement in particular . Where 
technical regulations are required and relevant international standards exist or their completion is 
imminent, China and Georgia, upon consensus, will use them, or relevant parts of them, as a basis 
for their technical regulations in line  with Article  2.4 of the TBT Agreement.   
 
 WT/REG391/3  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Computer and related services  
 
1.2.  Can China explain the meaning of its footnote on computer and related services with 
respect to "content service"?  What is a "content service"? And what specifically are they 
excluding in the computer and related services sector with this footnote, which is  not in 
its GATS schedule.  
Joint response from the Parties  
 
 As a technical illustration, the footnote aims to clarify that the content services , like 
audiovisual services, news agency services, etc., shall be excluded from computer and related 
services, so as to avoid the duplication of the same service sector in the Schedule , according to the  
Guidelines for the Scheduling of Specific Commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in 
Services ( S/L/92 ). 
 
__________