WT/REG/W/126  
WT/COMTD/W/232  
 
2 February  2018 
(18-0745) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Committee on Trade and Development  Original: English  
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES  TO THE DELEGATIONS O F ARGENTINA, BRAZIL,  
CHILE, MEXICO, PARAG UAY AND URUGUAY REGA RDING DOCUMENT WT/CO MTD/N/53  
 
 The following communication has been received from the delegation of the United States  on 
1st February  2018 for circulation to WTO Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
The United States welcomes the initial steps taken by some LAIA members in June 2017 to 
notify agreements among them to the WTO, in particular the circulation on June 19 of the 
document WT/COMTD/N/53. We believe this is a positive step towards resolving concerns and 
confusion expressed by many WTO Members over the transparency obligations that may apply to 
agreement s concluded among LAIA Members.  
 
However, the format and content of this document raise a nu mber of significant questions 
for the United States, and we submit the following questions to the delegations of Argentina, 
Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, and Uruguay.  
 
1.1.  Can the Parties clearly explain what they were intending to notify with document 
WT/C OMTD/N/53, the RTAs referenced or subsequent modifications to referenced RTAs? If the 
intention was to notify subsequent modifications to previously concluded RTAs, then the underlying 
RTAs must first be notified. For example, N/53 references Protocol 77 t o AAP.CE 2, but AAP. CE 2 
has never been notified.  
1.2.  Document WT/COMTD/N/53 has been circulated as a single notification, however the cover 
note clearly states "annexed hereto are sixteen (16) individual notifications, one for ea ch of the 
agreements concluded …", can the Parties explain why the sixteen individual notifications were 
circulated as a single notification in direct c ontradiction to the cover note?  
1.3.  The table on page 2 of the notification  indicates that of the sixteen "individual notifications"  
there are only five separate agreements, and not every submitting Member is a party to every 
agreement, can the Parties please explain why these five agreements were grouped into one 
notification?  
1.4.  It appears that the basis for including 16 instruments in one sub mission was the time period 
under which they were concluded, rather than any other feature related to the agreements 
themselves (such as common signatories, or relationship to previously concluded agreements), 
could the Parties explain why they chose to no tify a year’s worth of separate agre ements under 
one notification? The Parties may wish to recall that Paragraph 14 of the Transparency Mechanism 
states that the required notifica tion " shall take place as soon as pos sible after the changes occur".  
1.5.  From the  chart on page 2 of the document it appears that of the sixteen agreements 
referenced in the document, there are five actual RTA agreements in total. The MERCOSUR 
Agreement AAP.CE 18 was modified 11 times during the one year period covered in the document;  
The Mercosur agreement was previously notified to the WTO. Mercosur -Chile was modified twice 
during the time period referred to, the other three agreements were modified only once. It does 
not appear that the other four agreements have ever been notified to the WTO. Can the Parties 
explain why WTO Members are presented with one document number that refers to a variety of WT/REG/W/126 • WT/COMTD/W/232  
 
- 2 - 
 
  instruments that do not include the same sets of parties and that include references to previously 
notified  and non -notified agreements?  
1.6.  With respect to the instruments concluded under the Mercosur Agreement, (AAP.CE.18), can 
the submitting Members explain why these documents (AAP.CE.116 -126) were not submitted in a 
way that links them to the existing documentation relat ing to the Mercosur Agreement? 
Documents related to Mercosur are found in the s eries WT/COMTD/1 and WT/REG238.  
1.7.  With respect to the information provided for Brazil -Uruguay on page 3 of the document, the 
data element for entry into force is noted as pending. Do the parties inte nd to submit a notification 
upon entry  into force of this agreement?  
1.8.  The agreement identified as AAP.CE 18.116 on page 5 of the notification also lacks an entry 
into force date. Can the Parties explain the status of this agreement? How will Members be made  
aware of the entry into fo rce date once that is known?  
1.9.  Additionally, can the Parties explain the meaning of the phrase "without prejudice to 
notifications submitt ed individually by LAIA members"  in this paragraph? Do the Parties consider 
this notification  to be provisional? Do the Parties intend to submit other notifications regarding 
these agreements? The cover note describes these as "individual " so what other situation is 
intended to be covered by the without prejudice cavea t included in the cover note?  
The United States requests that the inconsistencies identified in these questions be 
addressed in a corrigendum which clarifies for the Membership what WT/COMTD/N/53 is intended 
to notify.  The United States also requests that the separate instruments be n otified separately, as 
is the standard practice in the CRT A and in other WTO Committees.  
 
The United States welcomes the willingness signalled  by the parties in WT/COMTD/N/53 to 
provide additional information on these notifications. The United States belie ves that further 
discussion o n this document and the implications it may have on other notified and non -notified 
agreements is needed.  
__________