WT/REG452/2  
 
15 September 2022 
(22-6753) Page: 1/11 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English/Spanish  
 
 
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND COSTA RICA, 
EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS, NICARAGUA AND PANAMA (THE REPUBLICS OF  
CENTRAL AMERICA)   
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES  
 The following communication, dated 8 September  2022, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegations of  the Republic of Korea,  Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama 
(the Republics of Central America).  
 
_______________  
 
 
Questions from Brazil  
 
1.1.  The Agreement does not provide for bilateral agricultural safeguards. Could the 
Parties please clarify the rationale for not including such provisions in the agreement?  
Response from Korea  
 
 The inclusion of bilateral agricultural safeguard  measures under each FTA  is determined based 
on the extensive research into trade situation between the Parties. Generally, we can study the 
export and import volumes, the competitiveness of export products and any other data that can be 
used for the evaluation of the impact of t he FTA in advance.  
 
Response from El Salvador and Honduras  
 
 The Parties did not deem appropriate to incorporate bilateral agricultural safeguards on the 
text of the Agreement. Therefore, originating goods are subject to the timeframes and conditions 
established on the Tariff Relief Schedule for each Party.  
 
Response from Costa Rica  
 
 The establishment of bilateral safeguard measures with special conditions and specific 
application for agricultural goods is not a common practice in Costa Rica's bilateral a nd regional 
trade agreements.  As a result of the balance reached with South Korea, it was not necessary to 
include measures of this nature.   
 
Response from Panama  
 
 Taking into account the reality of the agricultural productive sectors and the branches of 
national production of sensitive items, the parties do not consider that the exchange of sensitive 
agricultural goods between the parties requires the application of a special agricultural safeguard 
mechanism.  
 
Bilateral Safeguards  
 
1.2.  Regarding bilateral sa feguards, paragraph 3.48 of the report indicates that the surge 
must be the result of the tariff liberalization. Could the parties indicate how the causal 
link between these two elements is determined?  WT/REG452/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 According to the  Article 7.1 of the Agreement, an impose of a bilateral safeguard measure 
requires increased imports  of a good  as a result of the reduction or elimination of a customs duty 
under the agreement  and such imports constitute a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat 
thereof, to a domestic industry producing a like or directly competitive good.  
 
 The investigat ing authority may determine whether the causal link is established between the 
tariff reduction or elimination and the increase of the imports, by examining any patterns or trends 
in sales volume of both the imported good and the domestic like or directly competitive good. Time -
series analysis may be used to see if there is sufficient evidence to decide the tariff liberalization has 
led to the increase of the imports.  
 
Response from El Salvador and Honduras  
 
 The provision of Article 7.1 of the Agreement p rovides that a Party may impose a safeguard 
measure on an originating good, when as a result of the reduction/elimination of a customs duty, 
the imports of the product are in such increased quantities (in absolute or relative terms) and under 
such conditio ns as to constitute a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to the 
domestic industry.  
 
 The Agreement does not elaborate on which manner the causal link between the increase of 
the imports of an originating good and that cause substantially serious injury must be determined. 
Such manner shall be established by each country Party of the Agreement in accordance with its 
applicable domestic legislation considering WTO principles and jurisprudence.  
 
Response from Costa Rica  
 
 The pr ovisions of Article 7.1 of the Agreement, which addresses the nexus between tariff 
liberalization and the increase in imports, do not elaborate further on this issue. However, it is clear 
that the application of this type of measures is feasible for goods that in accordance with the 
provisions of the Agreement are subject to a process of elimination (at any pace) of tariffs on 
imports.  
 
Response from Panam a 
 
 There is no specific methodology, but the analysis may include elements such as a coincidence 
in time between the liberalization and the surge of imports under preferential conditions, the overall 
development of import trends and in particular, the volume and conditions of other, non -preferential 
imports.  
 
1.3.  Regarding antidumping and countervailing measur es, how will the Parties assure 
that, in multiple origins investigations, the preferential treatment to the other Party 
referred to in the topics 3.52b.ii, 3.52c and 3.52d will not violate the obligation of non -
discrimination between origins provided for i n the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and the WTO Antidumping Agreement?  
Response from Korea  
 
 The origin of the final goods is determined according to the rules of origin criteria as set out 
in Section A of Chapter 3. In case where multiple number of countries are involved throughout the 
production of the good under investigation, the investigation is carried out on a country basis in 
accordance with the WTO Anti -dumping Agreement.  
 
Respons e from El Salvador and Honduras  
 
 Article 7.7 of the Agreement provides, inter alia , that "... the Parties retain their rights and 
obligations under Article VI of GATT 1994, the AD Agreement and the SCM Agreement...".  
 
 In a similar manner, the aforementioned A rticle provides that "...The Parties agree that anti -
dumping and countervailing duties should be used in full compliance with the relevant WTO WT/REG452/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  requirements and should be based on a fair and transparent system as regards proceedings affecting 
originating go ods from the other Party...".  
 
 Accordingly, each country Party shall ensure that an investigation of anti -dumping or 
countervailing duties involving goods of multiple origins ensures non -discrimination between such 
origins, in accordance with its applica ble domestic legislation and WTO principles, rights and 
obligations.  
 
Response from Costa Rica  
 
 The referred provisions of the treaty do not modify or alternate in any way the uniform 
application without variations of the parameters and conditions required by the WTO agreements on 
antidumping and subsidies and countervailing measures, for the determination of the existence of 
such unfair trade practices and for the proceeding of the application of the respective corrective 
trade measure.  The elements referred to in the provisions of the Agreement mentioned in the 
question correspond rather to mechanisms of communication, coordination and management with 
the other Party, typical of the structuring of the channels of interaction established with partners of 
bilateral or regional trade agreements, duly covered by the ends of the general exception established 
in Article XXIV of the GATT 1994.  
 
Response from Panama  
 
 With respect to antidumping and countervailing measures, the parties recognize the principle 
of non -discrimination; however, it is important to note that the principle allows for certain 
exceptions, including those measures adopted by the parties within the framework of free trade 
agreements.  
 
1.4.  Could the parties please explain why the  dispute settlement provisions inscribed 
under Chapter 22 are not applicable to Chapter 5 (SPS) of the Agreement? What kind of 
mechanism to solve problems on SPS related to the implementation of the agreement and 
remedies are foreseen by the Parties?  
Respo nse from the Republic of Korea  
 
 As stipulated in Article 5.7 of the FTA between the Republic of Korea and the Republics of 
Central Americas, neither party shall have recourse to Chapter 22 (Dispute Settlement) for any 
matter arising under the Chapter 5 (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure s). The SPS -related issues 
can be solved through technical consultations among the SPS experts of relevant Parties. WTO 
dispute settlement mechanism is more objective and receptive to domestic stakeholders.  
 
Response from El Salvador and Costa Rica  
 
 The P arties did not deem it pertinent to submit to Chapter 22 of Dispute Settlement any matter 
arising under Chapter 5 (SPS); however, the Parties established provisions to facilitate the exchange 
of information between competent authorities and cooperation rel ating to sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures. Such exchange may take place at the bilateral level or within the framework of the 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Matters. Within said Committee a subsidiary working 
group may be established for techni cal discussion, in order to address sanitary and phytosanitary 
matters of mutual interest to the Parties.  
 
Response from Panama  
 
 The Treaty establishes a Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Matters, composed of 
representatives of the competent authori ties of each Party, which, among its powers, may consult 
on sanitary and phytosanitary matters related to the development or application of sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures that affect or may affect trade between the Parties or that may arise.  
 
 
 
 
 
 WT/REG452/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Questions from Canada  
 
Movement of natural persons  
 
1.5.  Paragraph 4.23. of the Secretariat 's Report states: "No reference is made in the 
Agreement to the length of stay for each category of natural person."  
a. Can the Parties please confirm that durations of stay for covered business 
persons under the Agreement are governed by respective domestic regimes? If 
so, please identify the relevant regulations.  
Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 Korea confirms that durations of stay for covered business persons under the Agreement are 
regulated by the Immigration Act and its subordinate rules. (Enforcement decree and rules under 
the Act.)  
 
Response from El Salvador  
 
 It is confirmed that duration of stay of business persons covered under the Agreement is 
governed by respective domestic legislations. In the case of El Salvador, being the Special Law on 
Migration and Foreigners, approved by Legislative Decree N° 286 of April 2nd 2019, and the 
Regulation of the Special Law on Migration and Foreigners, approve d by Legislative Decree N° 35 of 
May 24th 2019.  
 
Response from Costa Rica  
 
 Yes, the durations of stay for covered businesspersons under the Agreement are governed by 
respective domestic regimes. The most relevant regulations for Costa Rica can be found in  the next 
link: https://www.migracion.go.cr/Paginas/Leyes -y-Reglamentos.aspx   
 
Response from Panam a 
 
 It is confirmed that the duration of stay of business persons covered by the Agreement is 
governed by the respective national legislations. In the case of Panama it can be verified in the 
following link: https://www.migracion.gob.pa/   
 
Response from Nicaragua  
 
 The durations of stay fo r covered business persons under the Agreement are governed by the 
provisions the domestic legislation of each Party. In the case of Nicaragua, the relevant legislation 
is he General Migration and Immigration Law (Law No. 761), from March 31, 2011), its Re gulation 
(Decree No. 31 -2012), from Sept 20, 2012 and reforms.  
 
Response from Honduras  
 
 In the case of Honduras, it is governed by the Immigration and Foreigner Law approved 
through Decree No.208 -2003 dated March 3, 2004.  
 
b. If the Parties answer yes to the previous question, can the Parties please identify 
the maximum durations of stay for each category of business person covered 
under the Agreement (i.e. business visitors, traders and investors, and intra -
corporate transfere es) according to these regulations?  
Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 The maximum length of stay is as follows: Ninety days for business visitors; 5 years maximum 
for traders, investors and ICTS and under 5 years it can vary depending on the types of visa they 
hold. 
 
 
 WT/REG452/2  
 
- 5 - 
 
  El Salvador  
 
A. Up to 90 days extendable  
B. Up to 90 days extendable  
C. Up to 90 days extendable  
 
Response from Costa Rica  
 
 The Agreement does not include commitments regarding durations of stay for covered 
businesspersons. Hence, the information regarding the requirements for entry and maximum length 
of stay for different categories of businesspersons can be found in this webs ite: 
https://www.migracion.go.cr/SitePages/Inicio.aspx   
 
Response from Panama  
 
 See the following link: https://www.migracion.gob.pa/   
 
Response  from Nicaragua  
 
 A. 90 days extendable up to 180 days.  
 B. 90 days extendable up to 180 days.  
 C. 90 days extendable up to 180 days.  
 
Response from Honduras  
 
 A. maximum of five (5) years . 
 B. maximum of five (5) years . 
 C. maximum of five (5) years . 
 
c. Do the Parties foresee any changes to these regulations in the near future?  
Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 No changes are expected at the present moment.  
 
El Salvador, Honduras and Panamá  
 
 Currently it is not a matter of renegotiation or revision for the Parties of the Agreement.   
 
Costa Rica  
 
 Currently, we do not foresee any relevant changes to the regulations governing these topics 
in the near future.  
 
Nicaragua  
 
 Currently, no relevant changes in domestic legislation that govern these issues are planned in 
the near future.  
 
Liberalization commitments  
 
1.6.  Paragraph 4.34.c states: "minority affairs/disadvantaged groups, allowing the 
Parties to adopt or maintain any measure that grants rights or preferences to 
disadvantaged social or ec onomic groups or native groups."  
 Can the Parties comment on how they foresee gender being considered within this 
reservation?  
 
 
 
 
 WT/REG452/2  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 Gender has never been included within the reservations of Korea 's existing FTAs. We would 
like to ask any reasons or backgrounds behind this question. In addition, we would like to know 
perspective or experience of Canada on including gender within the reservations of their FTAs.  
 
Response from El Salvador  
 
 Considering the content of thi s reservations, it is foreseen that each Party will determinate 
according to its domestic legislation, whether they adopt or maintain any measure related to gender 
equality as a subject related to disadvantaged social or economic groups. In the case of El Salvador, 
there are specialized regulations and institutional policies which promote gender equality, forwarding 
women participation in productive and business activities.   
 
Response from Costa Rica  
 
 For Costa Rica, this provision is included in Annex II of their services list of the Agreement 
allowing the country to adopt or maintain any measure that grants rights or preferences to 
disadvantaged social or economic groups or native groups. Similar to the case of El Salvador, in 
Costa Rica there have been r ecent developments in regulations and policies to foster access of these 
groups to the formal economy, including the promotion of gender equality in different areas such as 
health, labor and political rights, among others.  
 
Response from Panam a 
 
 Panama, a s indicated by C osta Rica and E l Salvador , retains the right to maintain or adopt 
measures that favo ur socially and/or economically disadvantaged groups. With respect to women's 
participation in trade, Panama has identified specific barriers to which it ha s implemented its action 
plan through the Gender Parity Initiative, which, through a public -private partnership, seeks to close 
economic gender gaps and accelerate the equal integration of women in all fields. 
 
Response from Nicaragua  
 
 This reservation allows Nicaragua, in accordance with its national legislation, to adopt or 
maintain any measure that grants rights or preferences to socially or economically disadvantaged 
minorities and the indigenous population. Regarding the gender approach,  Nicaragua currently has 
a legal framework that guarantees the incorporation of said approach and ensures the equal 
participation of men and women in public policies, through actions, programs and projects of the 
country that contribute to the participatio n active in the decisions, provision and control of the means 
of production for men and women that allows them equal access, opportunities and treatment to 
economic development, and equal labour rights, responsibility in positions, and social benefits, 
including areas of health and political rights.  
 
Response from Honduras  
 
 Honduras has the Law on Equal Opportunities for Women approved by Decree No. 43 -2000, 
which aims to integrate and coordinate actions to eliminate all types of discrimination against women 
and obtain equality between men and women in the eyes of the law.  
 
Domestic regulation  
 
1.7.  Paragraph 4.110. states: "Article 10.7 on domestic regulation replicates the 
provision of GATS Article VI as regards information to be pro vided to the applicant who 
has requested an authorization to supply a service; this does not apply to services sectors 
exempted under Annexes I and II."  
 Can the Parties explain how the principles of Domestic Regulation Chapter differs 
from those of the Jo int Statement Initiative on Domestic Regulation?  
 
 
 
 WT/REG452/2  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Response from the Republic of Korea  
  
 For clarification, Domestic Regulation is stipulated in Article 10.7 and there is no separate 
Domestic Regulation chapter in the Agreement. The basic principles of DR in GATS VI are reflected 
in both the Agreement and the Joint Statement Initiative. However, the Reference Paper of the Joint 
Statement Initiative covers a broader range of Domestic Regulation than the Agreement, with more 
specific articles, such as elec tronic applications and acceptance of copies, authorization fees and etc.  
 
Response from El Salvador  
 
 The principles regulated in Article 10.7 are in accordance with Article VI GATS, as well as with 
the Joint Statement Initiative on Domestic Regulation in  the Field of Services. Such principles are 
related to ensuring that measures in regards of requirements and procedures for certificates of 
competence, technical standards and requirements of licenses do not constitute unnecessary 
barriers to trade in serv ices.  
 
 The Joint Statement Initiative develops in more detail aspects about measures related to 
requirements and procedures of licenses, requirements and procedures for certificates of 
competence and technical standards of countries members of the WTO, including among said 
aspects: submission of requests, deadlines, electronic requests, processing, fees, along with others.  
 
Responses from Costa Rica and Panama  
 
 The principles of Domestic Regulation included in Article 10.7 of the Agreement are in line 
with those of the Joint Statement Initiative on Domestic Regulation. Nevertheless, the Reference 
Paper of the JSI on DR develops further these principles, by building upon and expanding the 
commitments Parties have agreed in GATS (which is the basis o f Article 10.7) aiming to improve 
Member 's regulatory frameworks with a view to facilitating services trade and economic 
development.  
 
Response from Nicaragua  
 
 Article 10.7 of the Agreement includes the provisions of Article VI of the GATS in Services, in  
particular aspects on measures related to requirements and licensing procedures, qualification 
requirements and procedures, and technical standards.  
 
 The Joint Declaration Initiative  extends the commitments assumed by the Parties to the GATS, 
which const itutes the bases of the article 10.7 of the Agreement, in order to improve the regulatory 
frameworks of the WTO Members and facilitate trade in services and economic development in 
general.  
 
Questions from Mexico  
 
Provisions on Trade in Goods  
 
1.8.  paragraph 3. 23: Article 2.15 provides that TRQ administration should be conducive 
to full TRQ utilization and may be the subject of consultations upon written request of 
either Party. The TRQ is administered by Korea's Fishery Trade Association through an 
auction syst em. 
Could you provide more information on the auction system?  
 
Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 Entrusted by the Korean government, Korea's Fishery Trade Association distributes TRQ 
importing rights through the auction system with open competitive method. Those who tender the 
auction system shall present their ideal purchasing prices per ton and ideal quantities. Those with 
the highest prices will consecutively join the list of successful bidders.  
 
 
 
 WT/REG452/2  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Anti-dumping and countervailing measures  
 
1.9.  Paragraph 3.52, subparagraphs (c) and (d)): Beyond the WTO disciplines, the 
Agreement also provides for the following:  
 c. best endeavour clauses to consider the public interest before the application 
 of countermeasures and to hol d a hearing with the interested parties; and  
 d.  careful examination of any application for initiation of an anti -dumping 
 investigation on a good that had been subject to anti -dumping measures in the 
 previous year.  
 
 Could the Parties indicate whether t here are criteria or guidelines for considering 
the public interest?  
Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 The Customs Act of Korea (No.18583) Article 53.2 would be interpreted to be a legal basis for 
consideration of public interest. Please be noted that the following is not an exhaustive list. Also, the 
current name of the authority of imposing import duty is  the Ministry of Economy and Finance.  
 
 If necessary to consider enhancement of the competitiveness of the relevant industry, 
domestic market structure, price stabilization and trade cooperation with trading partners, 
etc. when assessing any anti -dumping duties, the Minister of Strategy and Finance may 
investigate such matters and reflect the outcomes of such investigation.  
 
Response from Costa Rica  
 
 Consideration of the public interest in Costa Rica is made on a case -by-case basis by the 
competent autho rities, based on available official information.  
 
Responses from El Salvador and Honduras  
 
 Under the Agreement it is not established or developed any criteria or guidelines with regards 
to public interest. Therefore, it shall be an aspect to be considered  in accordance with domestic 
legislation of each Party in the context of anti -dumping and countervailing measures investigations.  
 
Response from Panam a 
 
 In the case of Panama, the analysis must be carried out on a case -by-case basis, based on 
verifiable information available to the interested parties, taking into account the effect that the 
imposition of the measure has had or is likely to have.  
 
1.10.   Could the Parties clarify what is meant by the application of "countermeasures"?  
Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 The countermeasures seem to be indicating both anti -dumping measures and countervailing 
measures in the agreement. (e.g. Article 7.11 or 7.12) There is no case in which "the 
countermeasures " is used in the text.  
 
Response from Costa Ric a 
 
 The term "countermeasures" does not appear in Chapter 7 of the Agreement, but is coined by 
the drafters of this Factual Presentation  to refer to an anti -dumping or countervailing duty when 
describing the situation in Articles 7.11: Consideration of Pub lic Interests and 7.12: Hearing.  
 
Response from El Salvador and Honduras  
 
 According to Chapter 7 of the Agreement, the application of "countermeasures " it is referred 
to the imposition of anti -dumping or countervailing duties.  WT/REG452/2  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Response from Panama  
 
 The application of a countermeasure is the adoption and execution by a State of a temporary 
measure that seeks to ensure compliance with a previously imposed  resolution or recommendation, 
in order to compensate or indemnify the damage or harm caused by the other party.  
 
1.11.   Furthermore, could the Parties clarify whether the term "careful examination" 
includes specific methodologies or criteria that must be observe d in the context of an 
application for initiation of an investigation on a good that had been subject to anti -
dumping measures in the previous year? If so, what are they, in general terms?  
Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 According to the Article 7.13 , careful examination is required when considering initiation of an 
anti-dumping investigation on a good on which the existing anti -dumping measures have been 
terminated as a result of a review within 12 months. The investigating authority would be require d 
to consider whether the industry and market situation remains essentially unchanged compared to 
the circumstance under which the decision to terminate the anti -dumping measures has been made. 
The investigating authority may find whether the situation has  been changed to justify any new 
initiation of the anti -dumping investigation or not. Such finding should be based on sufficient factual 
evidence submitted by interested parties, or other facts available.  
 
Response from Costa Rica  
 
 The term "examine carefully " in Article 7.13 ("Investigation after Termination Resulting from 
a Review") is not further developed in the Agreement as to the methodology or criteria to be 
followed. In practice, the Investigating Authority applies this type of provis ions in accordance with 
national legislation and making a detailed analysis on the basis of verifiable information available.  
 
Responses from El Salvador and Honduras  
 
 The Agreement does not detail how a Party should conduct such careful examination regarding 
the request to initiate an anti -dumping investigation on an originating good from another Party; 
therefore, such aspects shall be developed in accordance with the l egislation of each Party.  
 
Response from Panama  
 
 For Panama, the procedure for a detailed examination and the initiation of an investigation or 
the establishment of an extension, will be those established in Decree Law No. 7 of February 15, 
2006 "Which e stablishes rules for the protection and defense of national production and dictates 
other provisions" and Executive Decree No. 1 of January 8, 2009 "Which regulates Decree Law 7 of 
February 15, 2006, which establishes rules for the protection and defense o f national production and 
dictates other provisions".  
 
Questions from the delegation of the United States  
 
Intellectual property rights  
 
1.12.   Paragraph 5.28.c describes the discipline on "restricting the use by third persons 
of the subject matter of a subsistin g patent for generating information in the context of 
marketing approval of a pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical product " as being related 
to Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. However, rather than being related to Article 39.3, 
is this discipline n ot related to Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, which covers exceptions 
to the rights conferred by a patent?  
Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 Article 15.15 of the Korea -Central America FTA is more closely related to Article 30 of the 
TRIPS Agreement than Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, as this Article provides for exceptions 
to patent rights.  
 WT/REG452/2  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.13.   Paragraph 5.29 states that Articles 15.69 and 15.70 of the Free Trade Agreement 
between the Republic of Korea and the Republics of Central America "provide  for effective 
action against infringement in the digital environment. " 
 Please explain how each of these provisions provides for effective action against 
infringement in the digital environment.  
 
Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 Article 15.69 of the Korea -Central America FTA protects against copyright infringement in the 
digital environment by requiring each Party to maintain the type of limitations of responsibility of 
service providers under their domestic legislation. Korea sti pulates the provision of limitations on 
the liability of service providers under Article 102 of the Copyright Act. Under Article 15.70 of the 
Korea -Central America FTA, Parties respond to copyright infringements by consulting with the other 
Parties whether  "efforts " have been undertaken to adopt effective measures to curtail repetitive 
infringement of copyright and related rights on the Internet or other digital networks.  
 
Labour  
 
1.14.   Paragraph 5.43 reads, "The Parties commit not to relax or fail to enforce labour 
laws as an incentive to trade and investment promotion. They also commit not to use such 
laws, regulations, practices and labour policies for trade protectionist purposes. " 
 Would the Parties to this agreement please explain the importance a nd rationale for 
including such language in this bilateral agreement.  
 
Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 The text is to prohibit an impact on trade and investment that results from not having 
effectively enforced national labor laws, regulations, pract ices and labor policies. In addition, it 
explicitly states that it should not be used for trade protectionist purposes to ensure to create a 
virtuous cycle from export to production, to employment and to growth through FTA.  
 
 The text is the same as Artic le 19.3 Application and Enforcement of Labor Laws of KOR -US 
FTA. 
 
Response from Costa Rica  
 
 The countries commit to not establishing regulatory conditions that may impair labor rights, 
which in turn may result in unequal treatment, affecting the flow of t rade and investment in their 
territories.  
 
1.15.   Paragraph 5.45 provides for the establishment of a Labour Committee as part of 
this agreement.  
 Could the Parties please elaborate on how the Labour Committee will operate?  
Response from the Republic of Korea  
 
 The Labor committee is a cooperation channel comprised of representatives responsible for 
labor affairs from both Parties. The Committee is in charge of discussing matters of mutual interest 
and monitoring the implementation of Chapter 16 (Labor), including labor cooperation activities 
specified in Article 16.6: Cooperation.  
 
 If a Party thinks that the matter needs further discussion, that Pa rty may request that the 
Labor Committee is convened to consider the matter by delivering a request to contact point of the 
other Party. The Committee convene promptly and endeavor to agree on a resolution of the matter.  
 
 
 
 
 WT/REG452/2  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Response from Costa Rica  
 
 According to Article 16.4: Institutional Structure, the Labor Committee is created to discuss 
matters of common interest and supervise the Chapter's implementation, including cooperation 
activities listed in Article 16.6.  
 
 Some other activities that this  committee may oversee are:  
 
a. establish an agreed work program of cooperation activities;  
b. monitoring and evaluating agreed cooperation activities;  
c. act as a forum for dialogue on labour issues of mutual interest;  
d. evaluate operation and results of this Chapte r; and  
e. take any other action considered for the appropriate implementation of this Chapter.  
 
 This committee will be used as a tool for dialogue and consultations in case of doubts about 
the implementation of the chapter, as the Parties agreed not to subje ct this chapter to the dispute 
settlement mechanism of the Agreement.  
 
__________