RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG134/M/2 
7 February 2006 
 
 (06-0496) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Forty-First Session Original:  English 
 
 
 
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 
UNITED STATES AND JORDAN, GOODS AND SERVICES 
 
Note on the Meeting of 24 January 2006  
 
Chairman: Mr. A. Egger (Switzerland) 
 
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/2734. 
2. Under Agenda Item C.XII of its 41st Session, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
(hereinafter CRTA or the Committee) took up the second round of examination of the Free Trade 
Agreement between the United States and Jordan, Goods and Services. 
3. The Chairman  noted that the proceedings of the firs t round examination of both the Goods 
and Services Aspects of this Agreement, which took place in the 36th Session of the Committee in 
March 2004, could be found in do cument WT/REG134/M/1.  Since then, the Parties had provided 
replies to questions put by delegations which had been circulated in document WT/REG134/5. 
4. The following items were discussed: 
 A. Item C.XII-A – Goods Aspects 
 B. Item  C.XII-B – Services Aspects  A. G
OODS ASPECTS  
5. Given that the Committee had already had a round of discussion under each of the headings 
of the Standard Format, document WT/REG134/3, the Chairman  proposed to open the floor for 
comments and questions by broad Section. 
6. Under Section I ("Background Information"), the representative of Japan  said that after the 
first round of examination, his delegation had submitted a written question about the timing of 
notification of the Agreement to the WTO which she could not find in the answers circulated by the 
Parties.  The representative of the United States  clarified that the reply had been placed under the 
Services Aspects, in question 9, in document WT/REG134/5. 
7. The representative of the European Communities  noted that under Article 17 of the 
Agreement, different dispute settlement mechanisms c ould not be used at the same time in the same 
conflict.  He asked the Parties what was the re lationship between the multilateral and the bilateral 
systems for dispute settlement and, more specifically , whether this Article implied giving up the use 
of multilateral dispute settlement once the bilateral id ea had been concluded or, on the contrary, if the 
exclusion was only intended while the proceedings we re taking place.  He also noted that there were 
no provisions about which dispute settlement mechan ism, bilateral or multila teral, should be used 
first, so he asked the Parties if there was any ki nd of preference between the two.  On the question 
about the dispute settlement procedures, the representative of the United States  replied that the choice WT/REG134/M/2 
Page 2  
 
  of forum provision was not unique to that Agreement, but to all their FTAs.  Noting that a similar 
question had been asked in the NAFTA review, she explained that the provision addressed a problem then foreseen, at a time when th e United States had several disputes with some of their trading 
partners.  The corresponding parties had decided that  it could be too cumbersome to have the WTO 
ruling on, for example, the NAFTA, or NAFTA arbitrators deciding on the WTO forum.  They had 
not wanted to hand those decisions to third parties,  but rather come to a general rule themselves in 
order to provide for orde rly and effective dispute settlement, a nd it had been working reasonably well. 
8. The representative of the European Communities
 noted that in the last examination the Parties 
had informed that the Qualified Industrial Zone pr ogrammes had not expired with the entry into force 
of the Agreement, so he asked the Parties to  elaborate on the compatibility of these Qualified 
Industrial Zone with WTO regulations.  He then refe rred to the answer to question 5 on safeguards in 
document WT/REG134/5, where he understood that the Parties had based part of their answer on a 
panel report (the so-called United States Line Pipe  case), while they acknowledged that its findings 
had been basically struck down by the Appellate Bo dy; he asked the Parties to confirm that they had 
the same reading as he did on the validity of that panel decision.  He also noted that the Agreement 
did not include a specific section for geographical i ndications (GIs) as the TRIPs Agreement did, but 
only referred to GIs protected through trade marks;  he asked whether the Agreement prevented or 
limited in any way the rights of the Parties for establishing or maintaining a sui generis  system of GIs 
protection, and if the Parties actually provided for th e co-existence of GIs and trade marks in certain 
cases.  Finally, he said that his delegati on would provide the questions in writing. 
9. The representative of the United States  said that she understood that written answers would be 
given to all the questions.  With respect to the answer provided to question 5 in document 
WT/REG134/5, she however clarified that the answer  was reciting a part of the United States Line 
Pipe Decision that was not specifically over-ruled. 
10. The Chairman  said that this round of examination had allowed the Committee to clarify a 
number of questions although there were a number of  questions open for written replies.  He proposed 
that any additional questions be submitted to the Secretariat by 17 February and that the Parties 
respond in writing by 10 March, so that once the rep lies had been circulated to Members, any requests 
for additional information could be dealt with wit hout holding another round of formal examination, 
and the Secretariat could start drafting the report for this examination.  It was so agreed . 
11. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
B. SERVICES ASPECTS  
12. Given that the Committee had already had a round of discussion under each of the headings 
of the Standard Format, document WT/REG134/4, the Chairman  proposed to open the floor for 
comments and questions by broad Section. 
13. Under Section III ("General Provisions of the Agreement"), the representative of Australia  
noted from the Standard Format that the Agreement appeared to cover substantially all sectors; he 
wondered if all reservations in the schedule of co mmitments had been eliminated, and requested the 
Parties to list all the sectors covered by the Agr eement.  He also asked  whether the Agreement 
contained a ratchet mechanism to automatically bind  further liberalization of commitments that were 
not included in the current positive list.   The representative of the United States  was confused about 
the question because she said that they did list the commitments that were made by each side in the 
Standard Format.  The Chairman  intervened to say that the information was contained under Section I 
("Background Information on the Agreement,  Scope") of document WT/REG134/4.  The 
representative of the United States  confirmed that the reply to question 11 in WT/REG134/5 listed the  WT/REG134/M/2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  eleven broad service sectors that the Parties had committed to liberalize; she added that she would 
answer the question on the ratchet mechanism in writing. 
14. The Chairman  said that this round of examination had allowed the Committee to clarify a 
number of questions although there were a number of  questions open for written replies.  He proposed 
that any additional questions be submitted to the Secretariat by 17 February and that the Parties 
respond in writing by 10 March, so that once the rep lies had been circulated to Members, any requests 
for additional information could be dealt with wit hout holding another round of formal examination, 
and the Secretariat could start drafting the report for this examination.  It was so agreed . 
15. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
__________