RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/DS/M/30 
26 June 2006 
 (06-3097) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
Special Session  
 
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 22 February 2006  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Ronald Saborío Soto (Costa Rica) 
 
 
 The Chairman-designate  welcomed delegations to the thirty-third meeting of the Special 
Session and said that in the absence of the outgoing Chairman, and with his approval, he was going to open the meeting in his capacity as Chairman-designate.  He said that the airgram for the meeting had 
been circulated in WTO/AIR/2759 and that the draft agenda (TN/DS/W/83) contained three items, namely:  (i) organization of work; (ii) discussion of  contributions by delegations; and (iii) "Other 
Business".  With respect to the first agenda item, he proposed that the Special Session of the Dispute 
Settlement Body begin its work by confirming him as  the next Chairperson and then discuss the work 
programme for the coming months.  As regard s the second agenda item, he said that no new 
contribution had been received from Members.  He proposed the deletion of this item, unless any Member wanted to discuss a specific contribution.  Regarding "Other Business", he said that he did 
not intend to raise any issue under this agenda item and asked if any Member wished to do so.  As 
there was no response from Members, he also proposed  the deletion of this item from the agenda.  
The agenda of the meeting was adopted as amended.   
1. Organization of work 
1. The Chairman-designate referred to the consensu s reached in the General Council on the slate 
of names to be appointed as Chairpersons of WTO bodies on 8 February and asked whether Members 
could formally confirm him as the Chairperson of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body. 
As there was no opposition from the floor, he thanked Members for his appointment and said that he would do his best to advance the work of the Speci al Session.  He said that the dispute settlement 
mechanism was the bedrock of the multilateral trading system and that a strengthened mechanism was in the interests of all Members, developed and devel oping alike.  He paid tribute to his predecessors – 
Ambassadors Balás and Spencer – and said that he would build on the good work done by them.  He 
noted, however, that there was still a lot of work to  be done to bring the negotiations to a successful 
conclusion.  He expressed the hope that Members wo uld continue to be active in the negotiations, and 
said that he had already been encouraged by the informal contacts with delegations.  There was the 
clear determination to work towards the rapid conclusion of the negotiations, as instructed by 
Ministers at Hong Kong.  The negotiations were now in their final phase and it would be helpful if the 
Special Session could take stoc k and agree on its work programme for the coming months. 
2. He said that his informal contacts with delegati ons prior to the meeting had revealed that a 
substantial amount of work had been done since the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference on the basis 
of a "bottom-up", Member-driven process which was strongly encouraged by his predecessor, 
Ambassador David Spencer.  It was his understanding that further work was continuing among TN/DS/M/30 
Page 2  
 
  delegations which could lead to the tabling of new and revised contributions.  He encouraged 
Members to consult informally with each other wi th a view to narrowing their differences on the 
issues under negotiation.  He stressed, however, that  the formal process should also move forward in 
parallel with the informal process.  This was necess ary not only for transparency purposes, but also to 
ensure that adequate progress was made in the negotiations.  The informal process was meant to 
facilitate consensus and not to replace the formal process.  It was important at this stage of the 
negotiations for Members to have a clearer idea of  where things stood so as to enable them to 
intensify their efforts to bring the negotiations to  a successful close as soon as possible.  In that 
regard, it would be extremely useful to have so me markers along the way.  He referred to the 
timelines document (Job06/13) circulated by the Dir ector-General and said that delegations were 
encouraged in this document to submit revised proposals on specific issues at the latest by  
March/April 2006.  Although the specified dates were indicative, they provided useful guidelines that 
could assist Members to work towards a rapid conc lusion of the negotiations.  He urged delegations 
which were working on contributions to finalize th em as soon as possible, preferably before the April 
meeting of the Special Session. 
3. He proposed that the Special Session should be fully engaged in text-based negotiations by 
the summer.  In that regard, it would be pref erable to have a bottom-up approach under which 
delegations would be the main drivers.  They ha d a responsibility to provide the necessary inputs 
which would form the basis of the final agreement.  He said that he would, however, remain active in 
the process and assist delegations whenever required.   He proposed that the Special Session hold its 
next meeting on 13-14 March to resume its consid eration of contributions by Members.  Following 
past practice, there would be a formal and an inform al segment of the meeting.  He suggested that the 
Special Session should meet at least once a m onth until the summer.  He invited comments from 
Members on his proposed approach and requested Me mbers which were working on contributions to 
give an indication as to when these would be fi nalised for presentation to the Special Session. 
4. The representative of Norway
 congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and assured 
him of the support of Norway in his new role.  He said that Norway had participated actively in the 
DSU negotiations since they started before the Seattle  Ministerial Meeting, and it was the intention of 
Norway to continue doing so.  He recalled that at Marrakesh in 1994, Ministers had mandated a full 
review of the dispute settlement rules and procedures to be completed within four years after the entry 
into force of the WTO.  The process commenced in  1998, and almost succeeded with the submission 
of the "co-sponsors text" to the Seattle Minister ial Conference in 1999.  Had the Conference not 
broken down, Members would have probably adopted th e text.  The major issu es at that time were 
"sequencing", "third party rights" and "time-frames".  These issues surfaced as a result of the "Banana " dispute and helped focus the attention of Members on the shortcomings of the DSU.  
However, Members did not have a uniform view on how these problems should be resolved.  Expectations of finalizing the review at the Seattle  Ministerial Conference did not materialize.  There 
was a further opportunity to finalize the review by  adopting the new "co-sponsors text" before the 
Doha Ministerial Conference, but Members decided against that and instead provided a new mandate 
in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.   
5. Taking into account the work already done, Ministers mandated that the DSU negotiations 
should be completed by May 2003 and excluded the negotiations from the "single undertaking" on the  
grounds that a strengthened dispute settlement system  was in the interest of all Members and should 
not be linked to other negotiating areas.  Being outsi de of the "single undertaking" did not mean that 
the DSU negotiations were not subject to the overa ll deadline of the DDA negotiations.  It was clear 
from paragraph 1 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declar ation that Ministers wanted all negotiations to 
be completed by 31 December 2006.  It was theref ore necessary for Members to have an agreed text 
by the end of the year or something close to that whic h could be finalised by Ministers.  To realise this 
objective, a process of "reverse engineering" was need ed to get Members to their final destination.  
There was a need for textual proposals from Members which would culminate in the circulation of a  TN/DS/M/30 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Chairman's text for the consideration of Members.  Generally, there were few opportunities for Chairs 
to present compromise texts.  Members would be willi ng to give no more than two chances.  The first 
Chair presented two texts in 2003, but a consensus could not be built around any of them.  It would 
therefore be advisable for the Chair to present a text when the negotiations were sufficiently 
advanced.  While the "Balás-text" contained some useful elements, there was no point in trying to 
resurrect it.  Rather, the Chairman would have to d ecide after a careful consideration of the proposals, 
which elements should go into his text bearing in  mind the reasons why the "Balás-text" failed to 
command a consensus and the negotiations  that have taken place since then. 
6. Since 2003, the negotiations had focussed on certa in systemic issues.  The negotiations had 
thus far been based on proposals and revised text s presented by the group of seven countries (G-7) 
and other Members.  The G-7, of which Norway was a member, had chosen to concentrate on a few 
topics selected on the basis of tightly defined criteria.  Firstly, they had to be of systemic importance and bring about real improvements to the dispute settlement system for the benefit of Members.  
Secondly, they could not be agreed or implemente d easily by Members.  Put differently, they could 
not be applied or negotiated easily on an ad-hoc  basis between the parties to a particular dispute.  
Thirdly, they had to be "doable" in the shor t term, based on the relative level of support and 
opposition that had been expressed by Members in the past.  The guiding principle of the G-7 was that any changes to the DSU should be kept as simple  as possible and as few as possible – as that would 
make them easier to explain and understand.  No rway still believed that these principles should guide 
the Special Session in its quest to establish a package of reforms to the DSU by the end of the year.   
This was not to suggest that a package should only focus on issues presented by the G-7.  The overall 
objective should be to agree on changes of syst emic importance and not on issues of a more house-
keeping or "cosmetic" nature.  It was also advisable to concentrate on a selected number of topics of importance to the Membership at large.  There w as merit in asking Members to present their proposals 
after first discussing them informally with other interested Members and getting their reactions. In 
that context, a useful contact point would be the "Mexican Group" which used to be called the "off 
campus group".  This group was open to all Memb ers and they could get useful comments on their 
proposals before formally submitting them to the Sp ecial Session.  It would not be advisable for 
Members to resubmit old proposals from the pre- 2003 process which did not command broad support 
of the membership. 
7. As regards the future process, he said that Norway believed that the Special Session should 
meet formally at regular intervals, perhaps on a mo nthly basis.  There was al so a need in the near 
future for informal "Room D" or "Room F" meetings  held back-to-back with the formal meetings of 
the Special Session.  The purpose of these informal meetings would be to assist the Chairman in 
evaluating the degree of support for the various proposals and to discuss their ramifications with 
Members.  Unlike other negotiating groups, the info rmal meetings of the Special Session could be 
open-ended as there were no fixed groups with opposing views in the DSU negotiations.  It was the 
common objective of all Members to strengthen the di spute settlement system, except that there were 
different views as to how this overarching objective could be achieved.  There was, however, the 
realization that drafting could not be done in big me etings and that it was pref erable to carry out this 
exercise within a small group of dedicated people w ho were willing to invest the time and resources 
for such an exercise.  As regards background docum ents, some negotiating groups used intermediate 
tools such as "compilations of proposals", "compendi a of proposals" or "consolidated texts".  These 
texts were either just simple compilations of all proposals put together by the Secretariat, or based on 
the work in informal groups set up by the Chairpers ons.  In the agriculture negotiations, for example, 
the Chairperson had presented on his own responsib ility "approximations" of what he believed were 
the important issues and the direction the texts shoul d take.  In the context of the Special Session, 
there had been consolidated negotiating texts put toge ther by a Member or a group of Members, based 
on their best assessment of what the outcome could l ook like.  While all of these tools were available 
to the Special Session, Norway was of the view that a mere compilation of proposals submitted by 
Members would serve no useful purpose.  Such a docu ment had been circulated in the past by the TN/DS/M/30 
Page 4  
 
  Secretariat; while it was useful as a reference docum ent, it was too unwieldy and did not narrow the 
gaps in Members' positions.  It was doubtful if a similar document would serve any useful purpose at 
this stage of the negotiations.  It would be more usef ul to aim for a sort of "consolidated text" by July, 
to serve as a basis for the final negotiations this co ming fall.  It was an open question whether the text 
should be prepared by the Chairman, based on the in formal process, or whether it should emerge from 
a group of Members or a single Member.  Following past practice, the Chairman could designate 
"friends" to assist him in this task, as well as in moving forward on particular subjects. 
8. With respect to setting a deadline for the subm ission of proposals, Norway was not sure 
whether there was a need to do so.  It was impe rative for proponents of proposals which had not been 
discussed since 2003 to submit revised textual proposal s as soon as possible for them to be discussed 
by the Special Session.  Untimely submission of proposals would not allow the Special Session to 
consider and include them in the final package.  It could be envisaged that  there would be numerous 
drafting suggestions to amend what was already on th e table and some of these could come at the very 
end.  Any proposed changes to the system had to be carefully evaluated.  When the negotiations 
started in 1998, Members had had only four years of experience with the DSU.  The situation now 
was very different, as Members were now very fa miliar with the system and knew which areas had to 
be strengthened.  While some problems had been solv ed by practice, others were still subject to "grey 
area" agreements not envisaged under the DSU.  So me problems remain unresolved and could only be 
resolved through changes to the DSU itself.  It wa s Norway's expectation that Members could agree 
by the end of this year to make a few improvements that were necessary, while at the same time ensuring that any changes did not undermine the effectiveness of the DSU or changed its character.  
The DSU was unique and safeguarding its core principles should be paramount. 
9. The representative of Mexico
 congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and offered 
Mexico's full support, particularly as a bridge to communicate with other Members.  Referring to the 
statement by Norway, he said that while the DSU ne gotiations officially began at the end of 2001, but 
in reality they had started in 1997.  Members had therefore been negotiating for nine years.  While 
considerable progress had been made in the negotiati ons, the fact remained that an agreement still had 
not been reached.  Members had differing points of  views on the substantive issues under negotiation.  
It was Mexico's considered view that there were tw o types of contributions that could be very useful 
to the process.  In that regard , he recalled the statement made by  Mexico in November 2003 that the 
negotiations should focus on the systemic problems of  the dispute settlement system, rather than on 
trivial issues which might come up from time to time.   The analysis of Mexico had highlighted the 
major problems that had been encountered in the p ast with the system.  He  stressed the need for 
greater political involvement in the negotiations.  The progress which had been made in the negotiations at the technical level had not been matc hed at the political level.  This imbalance had to 
be addressed if the negotiations were  to be brought to a successful conclusion by the end of this year.  
He said that Mexico was in agreement with Norw ay that although the DSU negotiations were outside 
the single undertaking, they had to be concl uded within the time-frame of the overall DDA 
negotiations.  He further agreed with Norway that all proposals to amend the DSU had to be evaluated 
carefully.  While some proposals would command br oad support among delegations , others might not.  
The overall objective should be to make the n ecessary changes which would strengthen the dispute 
settlement system for all Members. 
10. The representative of th e European Communities
 (EC) congratulated the Chairman on his 
appointment and said that he could count on th e full support of the EC in moving forward the 
negotiations.  The negotiati ons were in their final phase and needed  to be completed within the overall 
timeframe for the DDA negotiations, even though they  were outside the single undertaking.  Given 
the limited time availabl e, Members should endeavour to build on  the informal work done within the 
Mexican Group.  Referring to the Chairman's statem ent, he said that while the dates of March and 
April 2006 were indicative for the submission of pr oposals, they should be taken seriously if the  TN/DS/M/30 
 Page 5 
 
 
  negotiations were to be concluded in December 2006.  He agreed with Mexico that the negotiations 
had to be given a higher political profile if substantive results were to be achieved. 
11. The representative of Ecuador  congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and pledged 
the support of Ecuador in the execution of his duti es.  He said that Ecuador had been active in the 
DSU negotiations and intended to continue doing so. He recalled that Ecuador had tabled a number of 
proposals and said that it was determined to work w ith other Members in order to build a consensus 
around them.  Ecuador's experience with one important case had convinced it that some DSU provisions had to be amended to make them more  useful for developing countries to defend their 
rights and legitimate expectations under the WTO Agreem ent.  It would be useful if the Secretariat 
could prepare a text reflecting the proposals on the table, including those submitted by Ecuador for the 
consideration of the Special Session.   This document could serve as a very useful tool in the further 
negotiations among Members.  While Ecuador had not been a frequent user of the dispute settlement 
system, it attached great importance to the negotia tions and believed that the outcome should reflect 
the interests of all Members. 
12. The representative of Japan
 welcomed the appointment of the Chairman and pledged Japan's 
full support in advancing the nego tiations. As regards the time-fra me for the negotiations, she said 
that the DSU negotiations had to be comple ted within the overall timeframe for the DDA 
negotiations, even though that they were outside the single undertaking.   She also endorsed the bottom-up approach advocated by the Chairman as  the most optimal way of building consensus 
around any text.  She said that Japan had tabled a number of proposals and was working on a joint proposal with the EC which they soon hoped to table before the Special Session.  It was the intention 
of Japan and the EC to discuss the proposal info rmally with Members before submitting it to the 
Special Session.  Such discussions were very im portant and facilitated the process of consensus 
building.  She encouraged delegations wishing to  submit proposals to follow the same procedure. 
13. The representative of Hong Kong, China 
congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and 
said that her delegation was confident that he w ould guide Members to conclude the negotiations.  
Although Hong Kong, China was not a frequent user of the dispute se ttlement system, it attached 
great importance to it given its role in ensuring pr edictability to the multilateral trading system.  A 
number of good suggestions had been made on how  to move forward the negotiations and Hong 
Kong, China would like to make two observations.  First, it was imperative that the Chairman injected 
a sense of urgency into the negotiations considerin g that Members had been negotiating for a long 
time.  Second, it would be important for the Chai rman to encourage Members to move from their 
well-known positions in search of compromises th at would allow a rapid conclusion of the 
negotiations. 
14. The representative of Argentina  congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and said that 
he could count on Argentina's full support in his ne w role.  He endorsed the statements made by 
Norway and Mexico and said that it was important for the Special Session to build on the informal 
work done thus far by Members.  It was also importa nt at this stage of the negotiations to encourage 
delegations to come forward with elaborate proposals together with legal texts, where possible, in relation to elements which had not been discussed in  detail by the Special Session.   It would be 
helpful if Members knew what was on the table in  relation to issues such as implementation and 
special and differential treatment.  This would a llow a thorough and constructive discussion of all the 
relevant issues and pave the way for an agreement. 
15. The representative of Switzerland
 welcomed the appointment of the Chairman and pledged 
Switzerland's support in the discharge of his func tions.  He said that notwithstanding the intensive 
consultations in the past year, Members were yet to engage in text-based negotiations.  He endorsed 
the statement made by Norway and said that Switzer land would continue to participate actively in the TN/DS/M/30 
Page 6  
 
  negotiations in order to ensure a strengthened di spute settlement system for the benefit of all 
Members. 
16. The representative of India
 congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and thanked him 
for his opening statement and the proposed work pr ogramme.  He said that India was fully committed 
to working towards a rapid conclusion of the negotia tions as instructed by Ministers at Hong Kong.  
In that regard, India was ready to engage cons tructively and did not have any rigid views on the 
organization of future work.  India's main objec tive was to achieve substantive progress in the 
negotiations and was willing to work in any format th at might be decided by the Chairman. He stated, 
however, that the DSU negotiations were not part of the single undertaking and as such no linkage should be made with other DDA negotiating issu es.  The time-frame for concluding the DSU 
negotiations had to be est ablished independently of the overall ti me frame of the DDA negotiations.   
Ministers had not instructed that the DSU negotiatio ns should move in concert with other negotiating 
issues.  While India appreciated the concerns of other Members, including Mexico and Norway that 
the DSU negotiations could not possibly continue af ter the conclusion of the DDA negotiations, India 
was of the view that Members should concentrate on systemic and doable issues and explore the 
possibility of having an early harvest of these issues.   
17. Apart from its views on the relationship between  the DSU negotiations and other negotiating 
issues, India was prepared to be flexible on the or ganization of work.  It would be necessary at some 
point to take stock of Members’ positions on when and how to move towards a text-based negotiation.  
While the Special Session had received and discussed constructively a number of  contributions from 
Members and groups of Members in the last two year s, it was clear that these were not the totality of 
contributions that could constitute the scope of a po ssible text for the improvement and clarification of 
the DSU. It would be helpful if the Special Session could get as many contributions as possible from Members on various elements which would contribute  to the strengthening of the dispute settlement 
system.  He said that in view of the need to co nclude the negotiations as rapidly as possible, India was 
working constructively with a number of other c ountries in different groupings with a view to 
presenting additional contributions to the Special Session.  India was also working with some 
developing-country Members to present revised propo sals dealing with the development dimension of 
the dispute settlement mechanism.  He undertook to inform the Special Session of any developments. 
18. The representative of Australia
 congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and pledged 
Australia's full support in the execution of his func tions.  Regarding the proposed work programme 
outlined by the Chairman, she said that Australia  was supportive of the bottom-up approach and was 
committed to engaging constructively in the negotia tions.  The DSU had worked quite well and there 
was no need to make significant changes.  There were areas where it could be improved and made more effective.  In that context, Australia had tabled a number of proposals, including on time-saving 
possibilities.  It was necessary for Members to ha ve text-based negotiations as soon as possible.  
While the DSU negotiations were not formally pa rt of the "single undertaking", there was the 
expectation that they would be concluded about the sam e time as the rest of the negotiations.  It would 
be important for the Special Session to build on the good work done within the Mexican Group in 
order to ensure substantive progress a nd rapid conclusion of the negotiations. 
19. The representative of the United States
 welcomed the appointment of the Chairman and 
looked forward to working with the Chairman.  He thanked the Chairman for his thoughtful suggestions on the way forward, which the United States had listened to with great interest.  The 
United States said that it shared with the Chairman  the importance of the bottom-up approach and saw 
great value in Members working closely togeth er in the bottom-up process towards improving and 
clarifying the DSU.  The United States stated th at it would like to build on the momentum in the 
Special Session, and in the WTO more broadly,  to "work towards a rapid conclusion of the 
negotiations", as Ministers had said in Hong Kong.  The United States looked forward to working  TN/DS/M/30 
 Page 7 
 
 
  closely with other delegations, and the Chairman, towards the goal of concluding these negotiations 
this year. 
20. The representative of Malaysia  congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and endorsed 
the statements made by previous delegations, incl uding Argentina, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland 
regarding the future work programme and said that  Malaysia was committed to working with him and 
other delegations to bring the negotiations to a cl ose as rapidly as possible.  She said that Malaysia 
was working on a revised version of its earlie r submission on preventive measures and hoped to 
present it to the Special Session for its consideration ve ry soon.  She further stated that Malaysia was 
working with other Members, including India to  present revised proposals on the development aspects 
of the negotiations. 
21. The representative of Korea  welcomed the appointment of the Chairman and said that Korea 
was confident that he would inject some dynamism  into the negotiations.  As a country which had 
benefited from the multilateral trading system, Kor ea attached a lot of importance to the dispute 
settlement system and the negotiations to clarify and improve it. Korea woul d continue to engage 
constructively in the negotiations and work with  other Members to conclude them as rapidly as 
possible.  Although the DSU negotiations were outside the single undertaking, it did not mean that 
Members could continue negotiating forever. A sen se of urgency needed to be injected into the 
negotiations, otherwise Members woul d not be able to come to any agreement.  To conclude the 
negotiations as rapidly as possible, it was im perative that the Special Session focussed on a 
manageable set of issues, otherwise the negotiations would drag on indefinitely. 
22. The representative of Brazil  welcomed the appointment of the Chairman and said that under 
his able leadership, Brazil was confident substa ntive progress would be made in the negotiations 
leading to their conclusion by the end of this year .  He pledged Brazil's fu ll support and cooperation in 
the discharge of his duties.  Regarding the future work programme, he said that it would be more productive to focus on the substantive issues rather  than having a discussion on whether or not the 
DSU negotiations were part of the single undertaking.  It was clear that they were not and that should 
not be disputed.  However, there was the expecta tion that the DSU negotiations should be concluded 
by the end of the year just like the rest of the negotiations.  He said that Brazil attached a lot of 
importance to the bottom-up approach and believed that the Special Session should focus on issues 
that had been thoroughly discussed and which were likely to command a consensus among Members.  
He mentioned implementation and issues of intere st to developing countries as deserving special 
consideration.  He concurred w ith delegations which had urged text-based negotiations as soon as 
possible.  The experience thus far had indicated that such an exercise could focus the minds of 
Members and help bridge existing gaps in positions .   He stated that Brazil had an open mind and 
could accept the proposed work programme outlined by the Chairman in his introductory statement.  
He further stated that Brazil was determined to work  constructively with other Members so as to agree 
on a package of measures which would strengthen the dispute settlement system from a systemic 
point of view. 
23. The representative of Costa Rica
 congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and pledged 
his delegation's full support in the discharge of his du ties.  It was the expecta tion of Costa Rica that 
the Chairman would build on the good work d one by his predecessors, Ambassadors Balás and 
Spencer, and guide Members to conclude the negotia tions as rapidly as possible.  He said that Costa 
Rica attached importance to the dispute settlement system and was committed to working with other 
Members to fulfil the Doha and Hong Kong mand ates.  He endorsed the suggestions made by 
Members at the present meeting and said that they could assist the Special Session to progress in its work and fulfil the relevant ministerial mandates.  He stressed the importance of all delegations 
participating actively in the negotiations and said th at this would be in keeping with the bottom-up 
approach. TN/DS/M/30 
Page 8  
 
  24. The representative of Venezuela
 congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and assured 
him of Venezuela's full cooperation in his new tasks.   He said that Venezuela was confident that he 
would guide the Special Session to a successful conclusion of the negotiations.  Regarding the 
proposed time-frame for the negotiations, he said his delegation was flexible and could go along with 
it.  He noted that the fact that the DSU negotiations  and the rest of the negotiations were expected to 
be concluded by the end of year did not mean that  they were not outside the single undertaking.  In 
that regard, he endorsed the statement made by India.   He also endorsed the statement by Mexico that 
Members should in their future work focus on sy stemic issues which would strengthen the dispute 
settlement system.  The analysis presented to the DS B by Mexico sometime ago highlighted the real 
problems facing the dispute settlement system.  He ag reed with Argentina that some of the priority 
issues that had to be addressed by the Special S ession included compliance issues and special and 
differential treatment for developing countries.  While  Venezuela had not been a frequent user of the 
dispute settlement system, it attached great impor tance to it and was one of the first developing 
countries to have made use of the system.  Ten y ears had passed since the creation of the dispute 
settlement system and a lot of experience had been  accumulated over the years.  Every effort should 
be made to conclude the negotiations so as to stre ngthen the dispute settlement system for the benefit 
of all countries.  He said that Venezuela would cont inue to participate actively in the negotiations and 
work with other Members to fulfil the mandates given by Ministers. 
25. The representative of Guatemala  welcomed the appointment of the Chairman and said that 
Guatemala was confident that he would inject some dynamism into the negotiations and guide 
Members to conclude the negotiations as rapidly as possible.  One dispute had kept Guatemala from 
participating actively in the DSU negotiations, but it was determined to increase its participation this 
year.  To that end, she said that Guatemala would lik e to participate in all relevant informal processes 
dedicated to moving forward the DSU negotiations. She further said that Guatemala was willing to 
work with countries such as Ecuador, India, Argen tina and Malaysia to refine their proposals on 
issues of interest to it. 
26. The representative of Israel  congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and said that 
Israel was looking forward to working closely with him and other Members to bring the negotiations to a successful and rapid conclusion.  Although Isr ael had not been a frequent user of the dispute 
settlement system, it attached great importance to it.  The DSU negotiations were excluded from the 
single undertaking primarily because of its systemic  importance to the multilateral trading system.  
The time-frame for the DSU negotiations should be established independently of the time-frame for 
the rest of the negotiations.  She endorsed th e comments by Norway on the way forward in the 
negotiations. 
27. The representative of Egypt
 welcomed the appointment of the Chairman and pledged Egypt's 
full support in the discharge of his duties.  He  expressed support for the bottom-up approach and said 
that further work should be conducted on the basis of proposals submitted to the Special Session by 
Members.  While the DSU negotiations were outside  of the single undertaking, they should not lag 
behind the rest of the negotiations.  He said th at Egypt had co-sponsored a number of proposals, 
including on special and differential treatment for developing countries and w as willing to work with 
the other co-sponsors to revise them for submission to the Special Session. 
28. The representative of New Zealand  congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and said 
that New Zealand was looking forward to worki ng with him and other Members to bring the 
negotiations to a successful conclusion.  Notwith standing the goodwill and constructive approach of 
delegations, substantive results had been elusiv e underscoring the challenge facing the Special 
Session.  The momentum generated after the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference should be 
maintained in order to conclude the negotiations by the end of this year.  Members had a common 
objective and their positions on the issues under negotia tion were not markedly different.  Yet, it had 
been difficult to make the necessar y compromises that would pave the way for an agreement.  It was  TN/DS/M/30 
 Page 9 
 
 
  necessary to maintain the bottom-up approach and build on the informal work done by Members 
through informal groupings such as the Mexican Gr oup.  Testing proposals in such settings and 
getting reactions from Members increased the chances of convergence being built around them.  Regarding the frequency of meetings between now and July, she said that New Zealand could go 
along with the proposal of the Chairman.  She ag reed with Norway that a mere compilation of 
Members' proposals would not be very helpful at this stage of the negotiations. 
29. The representative of Canada
 congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and pledged 
Canada’s full support in the discharge of his duties.  He said that while the DSU negotiations might be 
outside the single undertaking, it was necessary to have a notional deadline, otherwise the negotiations would drag on endlessly.  From a pr actical point of view, the DSU negotiations should 
also be concluded by the end of the year. 
30. The representative of China
 welcomed the appointment of the Chairman and said that China 
was looking forward to working with him and other Members to bring the negotiations to a successful 
conclusion as rapidly as possible.  Like Argentina, Brazil and India, China also attached a lot of 
importance to the development dimension in these negotiations. 
31. The representative of Nicaragua  congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and said that 
Nicaragua was willing to work with him and other Me mbers to conclude the negotiations as rapidly as 
possible.  While the DSU negotiations were outside of  the single undertaking, they could not continue 
beyond the timeframe set for the rest of the negotiatio ns.  It was thus necessary for the negotiations to 
be intensified with a view to concluding them by the end of the year.  Nicaragua attached importance 
to implementation issues and special and differe ntial treatment for developing countries and would 
like to be invited to any inform al consultations on these issues. 
32. The representative of Chile  congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and pledged 
Chile's full support in the discharge of his functions .  He said Chile was ready to work with him and 
other Members to bring the negotiations to a successf ul conclusion.  As regards the proposed work 
programme, he said that Chile was ready to work in various configurations in order to achieve 
substantive progress in the negotiations.  He ag reed with Norway and New Zealand that a 
consolidated text would be more useful than a compilation of proposals at this stage of the 
negotiations. 
33. The Chairman  thanked Members for their kind words of encouragement and said that he was 
hopeful that with their support and constructive enga gement, the Special Session would be able to 
fulfil its objectives.   The interventions by Member s had confirmed the desirability of maintaining the 
bottom-up approach and the necessity of building on the informal work done through groupings such 
as the Group of Seven Countries and the Mexican Gr oup.  Testing proposals in such informal 
groupings and getting feedback fro m Members before submitting them formally to the Special 
Session increased their chances of being accepted by th e wider membership.  One main advantage of 
groupings such as the Mexican Group was that it was open to all delegati ons, both developed and 
developing alike.  It would be extremely helpful if as many delegations as possible could participate 
in their work.  He welcomed the announcement by a number of delegations that they were in the 
process of revising their previously submitted proposals to the Special Session.  He said that there was 
overwhelming support for the Special Session to have text-based negotiations and encouraged 
Members to submit legal texts together with thei r proposals.  A consolidation of such legal texts 
would be a good basis for further work.  The H ong Kong mandate was unequi vocal; the negotiations 
had to be concluded as rapidly as possible.  It was appropriate to assert that the negotiations were in 
the final phase.  The momentum generated by the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference should be 
maintained.  He proposed that the next meeting of the Special Session be held on 21-22 March 2006 
and said that he would be holding informal consulta tions with Members in different configurations.  
He encouraged Members to consult with each other with a view to moving forward the negotiations.  TN/DS/M/30 
Page 10  
 
  He stated that the following dates have been tentat ively reserved for future meetings of the Special 
Session:  24-25 April; 22-23 Ma y, 30 June and 3 July. 
__________