. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG273/3 
15 April 2011 
 (11-1952) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:   English 
  
 
ECONOMIC PARTNERHSIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN JAPAN AND SWITZERLAND 
(GOODS AND SERVICES) 
 
Questions and Replies
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 14 April 2011,  is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of Japan and Switzerland.   This document reproduces the follow-up
 questions addressed to the Parties following the 
60th Session of the CRTA and the responses submitted. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Questions from the Delegation of the United States  
 
Services and Investment  
 
1. In response to question 24 of WT/REG273/2/Rev.1, Switzerland indicates that it reserves 
the right to introduce discriminatory measur es regarding cross-border trade for selected sectors 
such as communication, entertainment and in ternet based services where technical progress 
may imply new challenges of regulatory nature.  Could Switzerland please explain exactly what 
types of regulatory challenges it envisag es would be created by technical progress in 
communication, entertainment and internet-based  services, and why it believes meeting these 
challenges will require discrimination on the basis of nationality?   
 Regulatory challenges may arise from new types of services, independently of the technology 
used.  Because regulatory measures cannot capture well enough all features of  new services, market 
players could make use of such services to circumve nt existing legislation.  Switzerland reserves the 
right to complement such legislation and make th em more modern and up-to-date.  Such measures 
could take the form of a local presence require ment, which would be tantamount to a national 
treatment limitation, and thus be di scriminatory for cross-border trade. 
 
2. Additionally, as indicated in question 27 of WT/REG273/2/Rev.1, the 
Factual Presentation indicates that there m ay be overlap between the commitments under 
Chapter 6 of the Agreement (trade in services) and Chapter 9 (investment).  Could the Parties please explain what the extent of this overlap is?  More specifically, do the Parties, as drafters of 
the Agreement, intend for the scope of the obli gations in Articles 46.2(f) and 47 taken together 
to be broader than, narrower than, or perfectly coterminous with the obligations in Article 87, 
as those obligations apply to Mode 3 service suppliers? 
 Since obligations and commitments under two Chapters are different, it is not possible to 
clearly demarcate the scope of the obligations in  Articles 46.2(f) and 47 on the other hand, and those 
in Article 87.  Chapter 9 applies to measures adopted  or maintained by a Party relating to investments WT/REG273/3 
Page 2  
 
  of the other Party and to their investments in a ll sectors of the economy, while Chapter 6 applies to 
the trade in services including the mode 3, a part of  which is covered by Chapter 9 if it falls under its 
scope.  In the application of this Agreement, ther e may be overlaps between these Chapters.  In order 
to address such overlaps, paragraph 3 of Article 84 cl arifies the relationship between them in the event 
of any inconsistency. 
 
3. With regards to its response to question 28, could Japan please confirm that local 
governments in Japan may currently have measures in place that do not conform to the TRIMs 
Agreement, since we understand that Article 96 of the EPA simply incorporates the TRIMS 
Agreement into the EPA, and that under the EPA, Japan has reserved for its local governments 
the right to maintain, continue, or renew measur es that therefore do not conform to the TRIMs 
Agreement?  
 Japan recognizes that there is not any measure by a local government that may not conform to 
the TRIMs Agreement.  In case that local governme nts might have measures that do not conform to 
the TRIMs Agreement, Japan will take such reasonabl e measures available to it to ensure observance 
of the provisions of the TRIMs Agreement by the local governments. 
 
4. In response to question 29, the Parties also indicated that for practical reasons, they 
limited the scope of their domestic regulations obligations to only those sectors in which they 
have undertaken GATS commitments.  We would be interested in hearing what specific practical obstacles prevent the Parties from en suring that regulatory measures are administered 
in a reasonable, objective and impartial manner?   
 In so far as paragraph 1 of Article 48 is con cerned, there are no specific practical obstacles.  
 
5. Finally, as noted in question 30, Japan's A nnex III reservation permits it to adopt or 
maintain any measure relating to supply of serv ices in any mode of supply in which it was 
previously not technically feasible.  Similarly,  Switzerland's Annex III reservation permits it to 
adopt or maintain any measure in respect of the manner in which a service is supplied.  How are 
these reservations not in conflict with the principle of technological neutrality?   
 The principle of technological neutrality is en shrined in Article 74 wh ich concerns measures 
governing electronic commerce. The idea behind this pr ovision is to ensure that legislation relating to 
electronic commerce is not tougher than other legislation when it comes to the supply of services, for 
instance electronic selling. 
 
__________