TN/DS/29  
 
2 May 2017  
(17-2392)  Page: 1/9 
Dispute Settlement Body Special Sessio n    
 
 SPECIAL SESSION  OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT B ODY 
REPORT BY THE  CHAIRMAN , AMBASSADOR DR STEPHEN NDUNGU K ARAU ,  
TO THE TRADE NEGOTIA TIONS COMMITTEE  
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  This report , which I submit under my own responsibility  and without prejudice to Members' 
positions , addresses the work completed during my period as  Chair of the Dispute Settlement 
Body in Special Session . I served as Chair  from May 2016 to February 2017.   
2  APPROACH  TO THE NEGOTIATIONS  
2.1  Post-election consultations  
2.1.  After my election as Chair, I held extensive consultations with individual Members and groups 
of Members. These consultations centred on areas of focus for the next phase of work in the DSU 
negotiations, and also touched on issues of current interest, such as dispute settlement workload 
and the  reappointment of Appellate Body members.  
2.2.  In my consultations, Members expressed a fairly wide spectrum of opinion on the 12 issues 
discussed in the  August 2015 and  July 2008 report s1 of the previous Chair, Ambassador Ronald 
Saborío Soto , and the extent to  which they remain relevant. Some Members expressed interest in 
continuing work on the basis of all 12 issues, whereas other Members indicated that some issues 
may need to be updated or could potentially be eliminated. Several Members were open to 
consider ing ne w issues.  
2.3.  I also posed questions about possible creative new approaches that could be considered with 
a view to overcoming difficulties faced in the past, and what Members would like to see achieved 
in the DSU negotiations for MC11. In terms of MC11 , some Members cautioned against target 
dates for outcomes, while others considered that such dates could be helpful to achieve progress. 
Several Members favour ed an incremental approach that could focus, at least for the next phase of 
work, on a balanced sub-set of issues, including those perce ived to be less controversial.  
2.4.  In general, Members recognized the value of past work done in these negotiations. Despite 
differences of views about achievable outcomes, all Members I consulted confirmed their 
willingness to continue to engage actively in the negotiations going forward.  
2.5.  After careful assessment of the views shared with me in the consultations , I determined that 
it was most productive to  build on the previous extensive work of the Dispute Settlement B ody in 
Special Session organized around t he 12 issues , and at the same time to try a somewhat new 
approach.  
2.2  Scope  and focus  of work  
2.6.  I thus informed Members that I wished  to focus initially on the 12 issues. I indicated my 
intention to work on  these issues  sequentially . I also explained that I intended  to allocate a  fixed 
period of time for  the work on  each issue . Consistent with this approach of sequential and focused 
work organized around the 12 issues , the negotiating group would  therefore proceed to work on 
                                                
1 See TN/DS/27 of 6 August 2015  and TN/DS/25, Appendix A, of 21 April 2011.  TN/DS/2 9 
 
- 2 - 
 
  the next issue even if work on a particular issue  did not result  in sufficient progress  during the 
allocated period of time. I observed , however,  that if some  Members wished to undertak e 
additional efforts in parallel with the negotiating group's focused work on the next issue  and those 
Members  were able  to identify  a proposal  acceptable to Members , I would explore with the group 
how best to take on board any such proposal .    
2.7.  I also indicated that  as Chair  I would  propose for focused work  only those c omponents of a 
specific issue that present a sufficiently strong possibility for convergence on an outcome. I noted  
that in the interest of efficiency, components omitted from focused work, and any unfinished 
business relating to a component that would be discussed, could be addressed by the negotiating 
group  after completion of focused work on all 12 issues.   
2.3  Preparation and final approval of possible outcomes  
2.8.  I proposed  that the negotiating group  work towards prepar ing a series of  possible outcomes 
in the  form of final negotiated text on components of specific issues . Such text could either 
constitute an amendment of the DSU or form part of a DSB decision clarifying the DSU.  
2.9.  I further proposed that the final approval of any possible outcomes be left for l ater at the 
political level, i.e. the Ministerial Conference or the General Council . I noted  that it could be helpful 
for the Ministerial Conference or the General Council to simultaneously receive several possible 
outcomes for joint consideration. Members  could thus  approv e all, some, or none of the possible 
issue-specific outcomes  submitted for joint consideration .  
2.10.   I emphasized that  under this approach  participation  by a Member  in the preparation  of a 
possible outcome would be without prejudice to that Member's final position on approving the 
outcome. I therefore called upon  Members to engage  constructively even on issues on which they 
are not necessarily seeking outcomes.  
2.4  Sequencing of work  
2.11.   I announced that the negotiating group could usefully begin its  sequential and focused work 
with issues for which there was a high level of convergence or a high level of maturity, whether in 
terms of draft legal text or conceptual discussion. I indicated that in determining the level of 
convergence or maturity, I wou ld be guided by the previous Chair's report of 6 August 2015 as 
well as my previous consultations with Members.  
2.12.   On that basis , during my period as Chair the negotiating group initially  conduct ed focused 
work on mutually agreed solutions, followed by third -party rights.   
3  FOCUSED WORK  
3.1  Structure of work  
3.1.  I held an opening and closing meeting for  each of  the two issues on which the negotiating 
group conducted focused work. The opening meetings served to confirm the proponents' interest 
in the relevant issue an d to launch the discussion either on the basis of existing materials or 
materials updated in advance of the meeting.  In between, for each issue I conducted a minimum 
of two Chair's consultations open to all interested participants. In advance of the two closing 
meeting s, I circulated  under my own responsibility  a Chair's text  for Members to consider  and, on 
a without prejudice basis , express a view  upon during the closing meetings .  
 TN/DS/29 
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.2  Mutually agreed solutions  
3.2.  Focused work on the issue of  mutually agreed sol utions ( MAS) was conducted on the basis  of 
the most recent draft legal text on MAS .2  
3.3.  It emerged during the discussions that the text still raised concerns for some Members. First, 
some Members had reservations about the option of each party to the dispute  making a separate 
notification. These Members expressed the view that the content of the notification should be 
agreed by the parties. In their view, if and when a mutually agreed solution  could be found , the 
parties should have no difficulties agreeing o n making a joint notification about the terms of that 
solution . Other Members , however,  submitted that there could be circumstances under which a 
party to a mutually agreed solution would wish to separately notify its terms and potentially at a 
greater lev el of detail than the  other party . For this reason , many Members also did not support a 
proposal to qualif y the draft text by adding that the parties should agree on the level of detail to 
be provided in  notifications.   
3.4.  Second, it was  noted that the term "a matter" as opposed to "the matter" in the first 
sentence of the draft text could be read to imply a requirement to notify also partial solutions to a 
dispute . One Member considered that such a requirement might dissuade parties  from reaching a 
mutually agreed solution.   
3.5.  In addition , the question  was raised in which  factual  situations parties would be required to 
notify a solution under Article 3.6  of the DSU. In response, it was observed that the draft text 
under discussion did not seek to clarify Artic le 3.6 in this respect . 
3.6.  These remaining points of difference n otwithstanding, there was general confirmation of 
interest in  increasing the transparency  of the terms of mutually agreed solutions through a 
requirement to notify their terms "in detail".  
3.7.  Moreover, t here was general convergence among Members that it was useful to  clarify that 
each of the parties to a mutually agreed solution has the obligation to notify  it, notwithstanding 
different views as to the possibility of separate notifications .  
3.8.  Simila rly, there was general  convergence  on the  desirab ility of setting a fixed deadline for 
notify ing mutually agreed solutions. Several developing country Members indicated, however, that 
the 14 -day deadline set out in the most recent draft text was too short . This concern met with 
broad support , and there was general willingness to  extend the deadline.  A few Members 
indicated , however,  that any extension of the deadline should be limited and that it would raise a 
concern if parties were given more than a month  to notify a mutually agreed solution .  
3.9.  Certain  drafting  and consistency  points  were also  discussed . A few Members supported 
inserting in the most recent draft text  a reference to "consultation " provisions as well as  dispute 
settlement provisions.  No Membe r raised any concern in this respect .  
3.10.   Taking account of the views expressed by Members, on 29 November 2016  I circulated an 
updated Chair's text for Members' consideration on a without prejudice basis.3 That text introduced 
two new proposed changes  beyond  those already present in the most recent draft text : (i) 
insertion of a reference to "consultation" provisions to clarify that solutions mutually agreed at that 
stage of dispute settlement are covered, and (ii) extension of the new deadline for notifying 
mutually agreed solutions from 14 days to 30 days.  
3.11.   At the closing meeting  on MAS , Members did not indicate specific concerns about the 
changes reflected in the Chair's text. Nevertheless, some Members indicated that  in view of some 
of the points  raised by  Members , they needed to reflect  further  before they could indicate whether 
they could support the  Chair's text as  a possible outcome on MAS. Several Members also 
reiterated concerns about the option  of the parties notifying mutually agreed solutions separ ately 
and with potentially different levels of detail.  
                                                
2 See Appendix and JOB/DS/14, p. 2.  Article 3.6 of the DSU contains the current provis ions of the DSU 
on mutually agreed solutions.  
3 See Appendix.  TN/DS/2 9 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.3  Third -party rights  
3.12.   Based on my prior consultations with Members and my assessment of work  under my 
predecessor , I determined that  the negotiating group would conduct focused work on three  
components of  the issue of third -party rights:  (i) the right to join in consultations as third parties, 
(ii) enhanced third -party rights in panel proceedings, and (iii) the timing of the notification of 
interest to participate in panel proceedings as a third party.  
3.13.   Focused work on the issue of third -party rights was conducted on the basis of the previously 
available draft legal text on third -party rights4 as well as new proposals submitted in the course of 
the consultations on third -party rights.5  
3.14.   Taking account of the  views expressed by Members in the co urse of our focused work, on 
15 February 2017 I circulated a Chair's text for Members' consideration on a without prejudice 
basis.6 That text identifies a possible common baseline reflecting the progress and convergence  
that was achieved during the focused work on the three component s. I indicated to Members that 
this text should not be taken as representing a conclusion by the Chair that further improvements 
in respect of these component s would not be possible. Provisio ns regarding protection of certain 
confidential information submitted to a panel by the parties were placed in square brackets, as this 
was reserved for future work on the issue of strictly confidential information.  
3.3.1   Right to join in c onsultations  
3.15.   It became  clear from t he negotiating group's focused work on this component that the most 
recent draft legal text raised concerns for some Members. In particular, several  Member s were 
concerned about automatic acceptance of Members as third parties  in consultations  in the absence 
of timely rejection by the Member  to which the request for consultations was addressed  (the 
responding party). In these Members ' view , automatic acceptance after expiry of a  strict deadline 
could raise practical difficulties for the respond ing party, and it could undermine a key function of 
consultations , which is to help the parties to settle their  dispute .  
3.16.   At the same time , there was broad convergence among Members on three  points . First, 
there was broad agreement that it would be useful to specify an explicit time -period within which 
the responding party should respond to a Member 's request to be joined in consultations . In this 
regard, Members discussed what length of time would be appropriate to provide responses, taking 
account of  any administrative constraints that some Members may face.  There was also discussion 
of the suggestion by a few Members that the draft text refer to a "reasonable" time -period  rather 
than specify a number of days. Some Members suggested that any explicit time -period should 
start to run from the date of the applicant Member's request , but other  Members preferred that 
the date by which a response should be provided be calculated by reference to the date of 
consultations. Second, although a few Members preferred a  binding deadline, there was broad 
support for a  soft (indicative) deadline . Third, while a few Members considered it sufficient that 
responses be provided only in cases of acceptances, many participants considered that  response s 
should be provided in writ ing and for both acceptances and rejections .   
3.17.   The text that I circulated  on third -party rights in consultations would  enhance transparency 
by introducing a  soft ( indicative ) deadline  for responding parties to provide written information on 
their acceptanc es and rejections of requests made by other Members to be joined in consultations.  
The deadline is expressed as a number of days  counted from the date of consultations, that takes 
into account the 10 -day deadline (within which applicant Members must make r equests to be 
joined in consultations) in Article 4.11 of the DSU and the 30 -day deadline (within which a 
responding party must enter into consultations) in Article 4.3 of the DSU.   
3.18.   At the closing meeting, several Members stated  that the Chair's text reflected Members ' 
convergence  and constitute d an improvement  over the existing Article 4.11 of the DSU . Some  
Members indicated that they broadly agreed with the text as proposed . Other Members raised 
                                                
4 As contained in JOB/DS/14, p p. 3 and 5 -6. Articles 4.11 and 10 of the DSU contain the current 
provisions of the DSU that are relevant to the three components of third -party rights on which th e negotiating 
group conducted focused work . 
5 As contained in  JOB/DS/21, JOB/DS/21/Rev.1, and JOB/DS/22.  
6 See Appendix.  TN/DS/29 
 
- 5 - 
 
  points of drafting . Specifically, s ome Members  were concern ed that the draft text could be read to 
suggest  that notification of responses to the DSB was no longer  obligatory . A few Member s raised 
a concern  that the  draft text may not unambiguously indicate that a failure by the responding 
party to respond within t he deadline does not  give the applicant Member the right be joined in the 
consultations .  
3.3.2   Notification of third-party interest  at the panel stage  
3.19.   During the negotiating group's focused work on notifications of third -party interest , there 
was broad converge nce on codifying the current practice of requesting  Member to notify  their 
interest in participating as third part ies within 10 days of panel establishment . Members broadly 
supported the idea of specifying a  time-period within which a Member could secure  its participation 
as a third  party at the panel stage without requiring the parties' or panel's agreement.  While one 
developing country Member preferred a longer deadline , other Members considered the 10 -day 
period to be  sufficient given that the establishm ent of panels comes well after the circulation by 
the WTO of a request for establishment of a panel and a request for consultations . 
3.20.   Many Members considered , however,  that it was necessary to  also provide for some 
flexibility  in connection with any deadlin e that would be specified , including because of the 
situation of developing country Members, such that a Member could in certain circumstances 
participate as a third party even if it did not notify its interest within 10 days. However , there 
remained significant points of difference  among Members in this respect. Several Members 
indicated  that any flexibility should not i nterfere unduly with  the composition of panels or the 
conduct of panel  proceedings . For some  Members , any flexibility  should therefore  be subject to the 
parties' agreement, whereas other Members considered that the panel should decide after 
consulting the parties , possibly based on criteria to be included in the DSU , whether a Member 
having notified its interest outside the 10 day -period cou ld participate as a third party.  Another 
Member suggested that the panel be given a decision -making role in such cases only if the parties 
disagree over whether another Member could participate as a third party.     
3.21.   The text  that I circulated  on notificati ons of third -party interest  would enhance clarity by 
codifying the current practice based on the statement made by the Chair of the GATT Council at 
the Council's meeting of 21 June 1994.  At the GATT Council meeting of 21 June 1994, the Council 
agreed with a proposal by the Chair to agree to the following practices , without prejudice to the 
rights of contracting parties under established dispute settlement procedures: "Delegations in a 
position to do so, should indicate their intention to participate as a th ird party in a panel 
proceeding at the Council session which establishes the panel. Others who wish to indicate a third 
party interest should do so within the next ten days."7 
3.22.   At the closing meeting, no Member raised concerns about providing greater clarit y by 
codify ing the existing practice  of requesting notification of third -party interest within 10 days after 
panel establishment . One Member suggested that, as in the GATT Council Chair's statement, it 
could be made explicit that third-party notifications can be made at the DSB meeting establishing 
a panel or subsequently in writing. A developing country Member  continued to  prefer a l onger 
time-period. Moreover , several Members reaffirmed their  interest in explicitly clarifying what 
happens if a Member fail s to notify its interest within the 10 -day soft (indicative) deadline  (e.g. 
whether participation as a third party is subject to the parties' agreement or whether the panel 
should decide after consulting the parties) .  
3.3.3   Enhanced third -party  rights at the pa nel stage  
3.23.   During the negotiating group's focused work on third -party rights at the panel stage, there 
was general convergence around the possibility of enhancing third -party rights to include the right 
to receive all  written  submissions  of the parties  and to be present at all substantive meetings of a 
panel  with the parties . While there was no specific objection to third parties having such enhanced 
access to panel proceedings, one Member considered that proposals previously discussed by the 
negotiating gro up on public transparency , including with regard to the opening of substantive 
panel meetings for public observation and publication of the parties' written submission,  would 
provide the same degree of access to third parties  and all other Members . In addi tion, there was 
                                                
7 See Statement by the Chairman of the Council, GATT document C/COM/3; Minutes of GATT Council 
meeting of 21 June 1994, GATT document C/M/273, p. 15.  TN/DS/2 9 
 
- 6 - 
 
  broad convergence around making explicit third parties' right to respond to questions from the 
panel .  
3.24.   A group of Members also made a new  proposal  that would build upon  the above -mentioned 
enhanced third -party rights. Under the proposal,  third parties would  continue to have the 
opportunity to make an oral statement at the first substantive meeting  of a panel , but would  
provide their written submissions at a later stage of the panel proceedings. Specifically , third 
parties would make a writte n submission after  receiving  the written rebuttal s of the parties , but 
prior to the second substantive meeting  of the panel . The proponents explained that this was 
intended to maintain the same number of opportunities for active third-party participation, while 
allowing third parties to participate more meaningful ly at a later stage of the panel proce eding s.  
3.25.   However , several Members raised concerns about providing any additional opportunities for 
active third -party participation, or about allowing the same  opportunities for active  participation 
later in panel proceedings , citing burdens that this c ould place on the parties to the dispute  or the 
possibility of new arguments being raised by third parties at a very late stage in the proceedings . 
Several Member s also stressed the importance of maintaining the balance between the rights and 
interests of the parties and those of third parties. At the same time, other Members recognized the 
value of active third-party participation and considered that there were  potential advantages in 
allowing third parties to actively participate after the first substantive meeting  of a panel .  
3.26.   The text that I circulated on enhanced third-party rights at the panel stage would increase 
clarity by codifying certain aspects of establ ished dispute settlement practice at the panel stage . It 
would further improve access for third parties  at the panel stage  by increasing the opportunities 
for observation of substantive panel meetings and receipt of written submissions  of the parties . 
3.27.   At the closing meeting, there was general support for the suggested  draft text. At the same 
time, one Member reiterated its view that existing  proposals on public transparency  would make it 
unnece ssary to provide for the right of third parties to be present at  all substantive meetings of a 
panel with the parties and to receive all written submissions of the parties . Another Member stated 
that the text could raise a possible concern because  it brought the rights of third parties close to 
those of parties.   
3.3.4   Enha nced third -party rights at the appellate review stage  
3.28.   Although this was not one of the components of the issue of third -party rights on which the 
negotiation group conducted focused work, at the request of several Members  the group  under 
"other business"  discussed the participation of Members as third participants  on appeal .     
3.29.   According to these Members, it was important to provide for the possibility for Members to 
join as third participants at the appellate review stage even if they were not third parti es at the 
panel stage. They noted that the issues discussed on appeal could be partly different, and there 
could be legitimate reasons for not participating at the panel stage, such as recent accession of the 
Member.  
3.30.   Many Members supported this proposal. Other Members raised  concerns, however. One 
Member indicated that this should be contemplated  only as a transparency -enhancing measure, 
and the participation of additional Members  should therefore be  limited to receiving document s 
and passively observing th e hearing. Another Member considered that this would be appropriate 
only if the parties agreed to additional third participants. Other  Member s were  not in favour, 
submitting  that new third participants would increas e the workload of the parties and  that th e 
parties  would need to address what could be new arguments for the first time during the Appellate 
Body hearing.   
3.31.   As this was not one of the components selected for focused work  and there was limited 
convergence , I did not circulate a Chair's text on thi s component for Members' consideration.  
 TN/DS/29 
 
- 7 - 
 
  4  OUTLOOK FOR FUTURE W ORK 
4.1.  In my assessment, the new approach to the negotiations has served  Members and the Chair 
well. It has notably allowed Members to have structured and focused discussions, better 
understand  each other's positions  and explore available flexibilit ies, as well as  promptly receive 
updated Chair's texts . I therefore suggest that the approach  be continued  under my successor  and 
applied to the remainder of the 12 issues.  
4.2.  Althou gh during my period as C hair we did not reach agreement on possible outcomes that 
could  later be consider ed for final approval at the political level, we succeeded in re -injecting 
momentum into the negotiations, and we did make significant substantive  progress  on the two 
issues t hat we addressed . However, it also became clear  that to achieve  any results, Members  
must be prepared to be realistic ; concentrat e on what is doable; and be open to delivering results 
through incremental steps.  With this caveat, I remain convinced  that mea ningful results  are within 
reach of Members  in these negotiations.  
 
 
 
 
__________  TN/DS/2 9 
 
- 8 - 
 
  APPENDIX  
CHAIR'S TEXTS BASED ON WORK CONDUCTED FR OM MAY 2016 TO FEBRU ARY 2017  
The following Chair's texts on mutually agreed solutions and components of third -party rights w ere 
presented under the Chair's own responsibility and without prejudice to Members' final positions.  
 
MUTUALLY AGREED SOLU TIONS  
The Chair's  text on mutually agreed solutions  shows the most recent draft legal text for a possible 
amendment to Article 3.6 o f the DSU (JOB/DS/14, p. 2) from before May 2016 with  bold text  to 
indicate the Chair's proposed additions and strikethrough to indicate the Chair's proposed 
deletions.  
 
 
Article 3.6  
 
Where the parties to a dispute reach a mutually agreed solution with res pect to 
a matter raised under the consultation and  dispute settlement provisions of the 
covered agreements, each party shall notify the solution to the DSB and relevant 
Councils and Committees. The parties shall submit jointly or, if a party so prefers, 
separately, the notification in writing within 14 30 days after reaching the solution and 
shall set out in detail the terms of the solution. Any  Member may raise any point 
relating to the solution in the DSB and the relevant Councils and Committees.  
 
 
 
THIRD -PARTY RIGHTS  
The Chair's  text on components of third -party rights  shows the relevant current provisions of the 
DSU (Articles 4.11 and 10.2 and 10.3) with  bold text  to indicate the Chair's proposed additions 
and strikethrough to indicate the Chair's propos ed deletions.  
 
 
Article 4.11  
 
 Whenever a Member other than the consulting Members considers that it has a 
substantial trade interest in consultations being held pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 
XXII of GATT 1994, paragraph  1 of Article XXII of GATS, or the corresponding 
provisions in other covered agreements4, such Member may notify the consulting 
Members and the DSB, within 10 days after the date of the circulation of the request 
for consultations under said Article, of its desire to be joined in the co nsultations.   
Such Member shall be joined in the consultations, provided that the Member to which 
the request for consultations was addressed agrees that the claim of substantial 
interest is well -founded.   In that event they shall so inform the DSB.   The M ember to 
which the request for consultations was addressed should inform [the 
Member requesting to be joined in consultations][the applicant Member] and 
the DSB in writing no later than [5] days prior to the date of consultations 
whether it accepts the req uest to be joined in consultations.  If the request to be 
joined in the consultations is not accepted, the applicant Member shall be free to 
request consultations under paragraph 1 of Article XXII or paragraph  1 of Article XXIII 
of GATT 1994, paragraph 1 of  Article XXII or paragraph 1 of Article XXIII of GATS, or 
the corresponding provisions in other covered agreements.  
_______________  
4 (unchanged footnote)  TN/DS/29 
 
- 9 - 
 
   
Article 10.2  
 
Any Member having a substantial interest in a matter before a panel and having 
notifie d its interest to the DSB (referred to in this Understanding as a "third party") 
shall have an opportunity to be heard by the panel and to make written submissions to 
the panel.   These submissions shall also be given to the parties to the dispute and 
shall be reflected in the panel report.  
 
(a) Any Member interested in participating as a third party before a panel 
shall notify its interest to do so to the DSB and each party. Such Member 
should notify its interest within a period of no more than 10 days afte r the 
date of establishment of the panel.  
 
(b) Each third party has the right to:  
 
(i) be present at any substantive meeting of the panel with the parties to 
the dispute preceding the issuance of the interim report to the parties[, 
except for portions of s uch meetings when information designated by a 
Member as strictly confidential in accordance with the procedures referred to 
in paragraph 4 of Article 18 is discussed];  
 
(ii) make a written submission prior to the first substantive meeting;  
 
(iii) make an o ral statement to the panel, and respond to questions from the 
panel, at a session of the first substantive meeting set aside for that purpose;  
and 
 
(iv) respond in writing to questions from the panel  arising out of the session 
set aside for third parties  at the first substantive meeting.  
 
Article 10.3  
 
         Third parties shall receive the submissions of the parties to the dispute to the 
first meeting of the panel.  
 
(a) Each party to the dispute shall make available to each third party its 
written subm issions to the panel (other than any submission made 
subsequent to the issuance of the interim report to the parties) at the time 
such submissions are made[, except for information designated by a Member 
as strictly confidential in accordance with the proc edures referred to in 
paragraph 4 of Article 18*].  
_______________  
[* This provision does not preclude third parties from receiving information 
designated by a Member as strictly confidential if this is expressly provided 
for in the specific procedures ado pted by the panel in accordance with 
paragraph 4 of Article 18 for the purposes of that dispute.]  
 
(b) Each third party shall make available its submissions to each party to 
the dispute and to every other third party at the time such submissions are 
made.  
 
(c) The panel shall reflect the submissions of third parties in its report.  
 
 
 
 
 
__________