JOB/SERV/269  
 
27 September  2017 
(17-5179) Page: 1/4 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  Original: English  
 
 
QUESTIONS ON DOMESTIC REGULATI ON 
SUBMISSION BY THE AF RICAN GROUP  
The following submission, dated 27 September 2017, is being circulated to the Members of the 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation, at the request of the delegation of Rwanda on behalf of the  
African Group.  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  This communication is an African Group contribution to the ongoing discussion on regulatory 
disciplines in the WPDR. Discussions on domestic regulation have picked up pace in the WTO 
since 2011; this is refl ected in the seven textual submissions tabled since September 20161. The 
recent discussions have been useful in some respects, but they have highlighted Members ' 
different perspectives and approaches to domestic regulati on under GATS Article VI.4.  
1.2.  To conti nue its constructive engagement, t he African Group submits a list of questions to the 
proponents to elaborate more and clarify our understanding on the proposed regulatory disciplines 
in the WPDR. The responses aim to assist Members in assessing the impact  of the proposed 
regulatory disciplines.  
1.3.  The African Group 's position is informed by the African Union 's Agenda 2063: The Africa We 
Want. The African Ministers of Trade Declaration on WTO Issues2 of November 2016 (AMOT 
Declaration) stressed that 'the work  we undertake in multilateral trade and rule -making support 
Africa 's continental integration agenda and, at a minimum, not undermine it. ' The AMOT 
Declaration restated that 'any outcome on GATS Article VI.4 disciplines on domestic regulation 
does not invol ve implementation of new and/or onerous administrative requirements or 
requirements that intrude into the do mestic policy -making processes '. Our preliminary assessment 
indicates that the provisions are intended to prescribe or impose particular regulatory approaches. 
In our view, this would significantly constrain African Members ' right to regulate for legitimate 
public policy objectives.  
1.4.  The African Group have always approached domestic regulation from a perspective that gives 
paramount importance and affi rmation to, amongst other things, the right to regulate and the 
interlinkages between regulations and broader domestic economic imperatives. In building the 
Africa we want, the African Group places great importance on having further clarity from the 
propon ents in the development of future disciplines on domestic regulation.  
 
 
                                                
1 Administration of Measures (JOB/SERV/239/Rev.2), Development of Measures (JOB/SERV/250/Rev.1 and 
JOB/SERV/252/Rev.2), Transparency (JOB/SERV/251/Rev.2), Technical Standards  (JOB/SERV/257/Rev.2) and 
Gender Equality  (JOB/SERV/258/Rev.3), Developmen t for LDCs  (JOB/SERV/261).  
2 WT/L/1004  JOB/SERV/269  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  GENERAL QUESTIONS  
a. In accordance with GATS Article VI.4, which disciplines do you think are necessary, and 
why?  
b. What were the circumstances or specific issues that led to the suspensi on of the 
domestic regulation (DR) negotiations in the past, and have those circumstances 
changed?  
c. Is there a clear economic rationale for adopting DR disciplines, and what is the evidence  
that benefits from the proposed disciplines will accrue to all Mem bers?  
d. Is there any evidence of the costs entailed by introducing these new obligations, and 
who would bear those costs?  
e. Is there any consideration that there are different capabilities amongst Members, and 
amongst their firms and stakeholders, to take gr eater advantage of these proposed new 
disciplines?   
f. Have the proponents undertaken an economic impact assessment that demonstrates 
that their stakeholders are losing out on economic opportunities in the absence of 
multilateral DR disciplines?   
g. In which M ember s have your stakeholders experienced problems that the disciplines are 
seeking to address, and has there been any attempt to resolve them bilaterally? Have 
domestic remedies been exhausted?  
h. In instances where you have felt aggrieved, has the issue be en taken up with the 
competent authorities in the Member?  
i. To what extent has the application of GATS Article VI.5 been insufficient in meeting the 
objectives being sought?  
j. How will these disciplines contribute to supporting structural transformation and 
industrialisation for Africa?  
k. Can proponents indicate the basis for making their proposal/s differently from the 
approaches taken in 2009 – 2011 where separate rules were considered for licensing 
requirements and procedures and qualification requirements a nd procedures?  
l. Can proponents clarify whether their proposals would impose obligations only on existing 
commitments?  
m. Are there linkages between the proposed DR disciplines and e -commerce and 
investment?  
n. What are the proponents ' perspectives on DR in an i ncreasingly digital world economy, 
how do each of the DR elements relate to e -commerce, and what are the implications?  
 
3  QUESTIONS ON ADMINIS TRATION OF MEASURES  
a. What is the scope of these provisions, and how does this scope relate to the 
Development of Meas ures and Transparency  provisions?  
b. Some proponents have recently introduced changes to their skilled visa policies. To what 
extent would these proponents themselves be infringing on the proposed DR disciplines, 
in terms of the General Provisions where it sa ys 'These disciplines apply to measures by 
Members relating to  licensing requirements and procedures, qualification requirements JOB/SERV/269  
 
- 3 - 
 
  and procedures, and technical standards affecting trade in services where specific 
commitments are undertaken '? 
c. How do you defi ne 'authorisation'?  
d. How do technical standards and licensing requirements operate in Mode 1 in relation to 
the proposed DR disciplines?  
 
4  QUESTIONS ON TRANSPA RENCY  
a. Under which mandate are you seeking to address 'transparency ' in DR disciplines?  
b. What do the se provisions have to do with trade?  
c. What is the relationship between GATS Article III and the Transparency  provisions?  
d. Under which mandate are the proponents seeking to expand GATS Article III?  
e. Do all the proponents currently have a prior comments syst em in place in all services 
sectors to allow all interested persons and other Members to comment? Who will benefit 
from these provisions, and will benefits be shared equitably?  
 
5  QUESTIONS ON DEVELOP MENT OF MEASURES  
5.1  Gender Equality  
a. How would gender issue s be taken up in DR disciplines and trade agreements?  
b. What is the economic rationale for this provision?  
c. In what way, does gender fall under the remit of trade policy?  
d. Could those principles and approaches be extended to other poor, disadvantaged or 
margi nalised groups or regions in Members?  
5.2  Development of Measures  
a. Have these provisions been subjected to its own necessity test?  
b. Does the 'right to regulate ' override the substantive disciplines being proposed?  
c. If not, does the right to regulate for legiti mate public policy objectives, including for non -
trade reasons, override the substantive disciplines being proposed?  
d. Does the state retain discretion in developing measures to achieve a particular set of 
domestic objectives, which are not trade -related bu t considered discriminatory by the 
proposed DR disciplines?  
e. Why do proponents feel that thei r domestic models of so -called ' good regulatory 
practice ' should be extended to all WTO Members, who have different levels of 
development, and more wide -ranging dom estic development objectives and priorities?  
f. How do you define 'objective and transparent criteria ', 'impartial ', 'reasonable ', 'do not in 
themselves unduly prevent fulfilment of requirements '?  JOB/SERV/269  
 
- 4 - 
 
  6  QUESTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT  
a. What development provisions do the proponents envision for all developing countries 
under the proposed regulatory disciplines ? 
b. Do you believe that an exemption for LDCs is sufficient in, and of itself, to cause the 
development of the services industry of LDCs?   
c. Will the intended outcomes o n any domestic regulatory disciplines apply automatically to 
the preferential treatment notified under the waiver mechanism? If not, why not?  
d. What are the intended benefits to the LDCs in light of the preferential treatment under 
the waiver mechanism?  
 
__________