RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/CSC/M/25
30 January 2003
(03-0634)
Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24 OCTOBER 2002
Note by the Secretariat 1
1. The Committee on Specific Commitments held a meeting on 24 October 2002.  The agenda
for the meeting is contained in WTO/AIR/1934.  The Chairperson stated his intention to inform
Members under the agenda item Other Business about two letters from the Chairpersons of theSpecial Session of the Committee on Trade and De velopment and the Working Group on Trade and
Transfer of Technology, as well as on the planned workshop on the scheduling of commitments and
preparation of offers.
A. CLASSIFICATION ISSUES
2. The Chairperson stated that the Secretariat had prepared, upon request by the Committee, a
compendium of existing classification proposals, contained in JOB (02)/143.  Members had felt that
such a compendium could help them take stock of classification proposals in individual sectors, and
would provide a useful tool to facilitate discussions and help to identify commonalties andincompatibilities among the various classification approaches suggested.  He recalled that some
delegations had underscored at previous meetings that each Member remained free to use the
classification(s) it deemed appropriate.  He noted that the compendium reflected a Member's thinking
at the time a specific proposal had been made and did not include any subsequent refinements that had
not been submitted in writing.
3. A representative of the Secretariat stated that the compendium consisted of excerpts of the
synopsis of negotiating proposals that had been submitted to the Special Session of the Council for
Trade in Services and, upon request by individual Members, classification proposals circulated earlier
in the CSC.  The compendium did not contain any analysis of the proposals.
4. The Chairperson recalled that some delegations had reiterated their interest in discussing
proposals concerning the classification of postal, environmental, and legal services.  Very recently, a
communication from the European Communities on the coverage of CPC 84 – Computer and RelatedServices - had been received and was contained in document S/CSC/W/35.
5. The representative of the European Communities stated that this submission addressed
questions that had been raised in the context of discussions on his delegation's earlier negotiating
proposal on computer services, many of which related to the importance of clarifying the coverage of
the sector.  Drawing a precise demarcation was difficult due to the rapid evolution of technology.However, there was no need to reclassify the sector as CPC 84 contained all necessary elements.  It
was desirable to come to an agreement on the scope and coverage of CPC 84 on the basis of a
functional definition, which would enhance legal certainty and enable Members to identify all
services covered by CPC 84.  The latest proposal was presented with the objective of initiating a more
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.S/CSC/M/25
Page 2
focussed debate.  He considered that it was helpful for Members to indicate in their schedules of
commitments under CPC 84 whether they agreed with the proposed clarification of the coverage of
the sector.  In submitting the proposal, the EC was not seeking changes in the existing classification,
but was hoping to give more clarity to it.
6. The representative of Thailand stated that the compendium was a useful document; as a next
step, Members should clarify the relationship between their proposals and corresponding CPC
numbers.  She was encouraged by the number of proposals made by developing countries.  In some
instances, based on bilateral discussions, she felt that the proposals did not fully reflect Members'
latest thinking on an issue.  She suggested that  the Committee hold an informal meeting dedicated to
classification issues before the deadline for initial offers.
7. The representative of Hong Kong, China stated that his delegation agreed with the principle
contained in the EC proposal to try to reach a clear understanding on the scope and coverage of CPC
84 for computer and related services in order to ensure legal certainty and clarity of commitments.  He
concurred that it was perhaps useful to engage in a classification of the sector that was neither too
detailed nor too technical, and not too technology-dependant as technical changes should not render it
obsolete.  He sought clarification on the distinction between the concepts of 'enabling service' and
"core service" in paragraph 9 of the EC proposal.   Turning to the compendium prepared by the
Secretariat, he considered it a starting-point and expected that the Committee remain open for
Members to bring up classification issues for discussion on a multilateral basis.  He considered the
compendium as an evolving document that could be revised to reflect new classification elements
brought up by delegations; it would be useful if a technical analysis of the classification proposals
could be conducted as the discussions on classification issues progressed in the context of thenegotiations.  He concurred with Thailand that technical discussions on the basis of the compendium
would be beneficial.
8. The representative of Chinese Taipei also  requested the delegation of the European
Communities to elaborate on the distinction between "enabling service" and "core service".  Secondly,
she considered that some computer and related services were overlapping with certain value-addedtelecom services, and was interested how the classification would address this overlap.  Many
computer-related services were delivered electronically, which created some difficulty in
distinguishing modes 1 and 2.
9. The representative of Switzerland stated that the compendium would be very useful for
negotiators, and it showed that in many sectors a lot remained to be done.  For example, there was no
common basis at present for a classification of the extremely important energy services sector.  He
suggested that those Members that were trying to find a common approach for classification of theenergy sector inform other Members on their discussions.
10. The representative of Oman agreed, in principle, with the proposal tabled by the European
Communities on computer and related services.   Turning to energy services, an examination of the
different negotiating proposals had shown that the sector was treated differently compared with other
sectors.  The various proposals focused on reclassification of the energy services sector and aimed atbroadening its coverage through inclusion of services related to, or necessary for, the production of
energy, such as construction services, business services, management consulting services, computer
services, distribution services, etc.  While many of these services were also related to other sectors,
such as telecom services and financial services, proposals on these sectors did not include a myriad of
other related services.  Oman was opposed to any reclassification of energy services.  The existingclassification was satisfactory and did not require change.
11. The representative of Argentina sought clarification with regard to the statement made in
paragraph 4 of the EC submission, that the EC did not deem it fit to list the services covered byS/CSC/M/25
Page 3
CPC 84.  In paragraph 8, however, when referring to the desirability of a functional classification, it
had listed several services which would be included.  He also wondered what the understanding
sought by the EC on the coverage of CPC 84 implie d for commitments of those countries that would
not subscribe to that understanding.  He agreed that a functional definition of computer and related
services was needed, but he was not convinced that the present proposal was as functional as wasrequired.  The basic functions of the service were limited to storage, processing and support services.
A functional definition would hence have to be based on these three essential jobs performed by
computer services.  He concurred with previous speakers on the need to clarify the terms 'enabling
services' and 'content services'.  He supported the call for an in-depth debate on classification issues in
the near future.
12. The representative of the United States agreed with Thailand that the compendium did not in
all cases necessarily reflect the state of play of discussions of the particular proposals.  Concerning the
classification of express-delivery services, his delegation was pursuing a different approach from what
was currently contained in the compendium.  Turning to the new proposal from the European
Communities, he considered it helpful if some real -world examples of services and the distinction
between "enabling" or "core" services could be provided.  He agreed with the perspective taken by the
EC in paragraph 7 of their proposal that, mainly due to technological developments, companies oftenoffered services covered under computer and related services as a package of related services.  For
this reason, his delegation believed that countries should aim to take commitments on the category as
a whole.  The distinctions currently made in CPC 84 or even those proposed by the EC in paragraph 8
of its submission were somewhat artificial.
13. The representative of Canada stated that there was a need to have a better understanding of
the coverage of computer and related services.  The emergence of a number of electronically
delivered services, such as data warehousing, on-line shopping and web-hosting raised a number of
complex issues for Members' consideration.  In some instances, clarification of how W/120 applied to
those services was required, but this did not need to involve revamping the classification system.
Perhaps a better understanding of the types of services, which were frequently bundled together wasneeded.  However, such bundling happened in other sectors as well.  She stated that, generally,
Canada's priorities were the preservation of legal certainty of existing commitments and of the GATS
itself.  Her delegation would only consider changes to classification if it became apparent that a truly
new service was not covered by existing classification.
14. The representative of Guyana noted that new activities were also covered by the W/120 list.
Each sub-sector in that list had a category called "Other" which should capture any new activities in a
given sub-sector.  He was of the view that the pr ovisional classification system was quite visionary.
Members needed to exhaust all opportunities to capture activities within that classification system
before branching off into a new or additional system.
15. The representative of the European Communities stated that his delegation pursued
discussions on classification in every appropriate forum, including in the CSC which was the proper
forum for having multilateral discussions on classification.  He encouraged other delegations to putquestions to the EC in case further clarification was needed.
16. As a preliminary reaction to the questions raised on the proposal on computer and related
services, he stated that it was important to distinguish conceptually between "enabling" and "content"
or 'core' services to clarify the scope of coverage and, therefore, have more legal security and
certainty.  For instance, developing an e-banking platform should be considered a computer service,but the service that was rendered over this e-bankin g platform was a banking service.  Likewise, web-
site development was a computer service whereas the content or the service that was delivered by the
web-site itself would be a core or content service classified elsewhere.  Arriving at precise definitions
in concrete cases was a very delicate exercise, and his delegation welcomed suggestions by otherS/CSC/M/25
Page 4
delegations.  Turning to the potential overlap with telecommunication services, he considered it not
too difficult to distinguish between telecommunications which was defined as the transmission of a
signal, and computer services, for instance data processing including on-line data processing.
Regarding the difficulty of distinguishing between mode 1 and mode 2 in computer services, he
thought that this issue was not related to classification, and had not been dealt with in the ECcontribution.  It would best be addressed in the negotiations and through consistent commitments
across the two modes of supply.  His delegation proposed a functional definition, and paragraph 8 of
the paper did not list all computer services covered, but only basic functions that computer services
were using.  In the proposed text for an understanding, these basic functions related to the sector as a
whole, which was appropriate since most comput er services were now combinations of basic
functions that fell into different subcategories of CPC 84.
17. The representative of Mexico, as a preliminary comment, pointed out that parts of the
proposed classification that related to maintenance and repair or training would be relevant in many
sectors.
18. The representative of Hong Kong, China stated that he appreciated that classification issues
would be pursued in both bilateral and plurilateral contexts.  Of course, each Member remained free
to schedule its commitments according to whatever cl assification it would like to chose.  However, he
believed that it would not be desirable to have considerable diversity of classifications in the
schedules of commitments, as this would make it almost impossible for delegations, except those with
very great capacity, to track exactly what those commitments in individual schedules meant.  This
could constitute a problem for both governments and businesses.  Therefore, the multilateral process
in discussing classification was very important as well, and it was desirable that Members continuedto feed classification issues, including those arriving from their bilateral and plurilateral discussions,
into the CSC to facilitate a broad common understanding among the membership.
19. The Chairperson suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to
the item of classification at the next meeting.  He suggested to convene an informal meeting on
classification issues in the near future to allow for a more in-depth discussion.  At present, he did notconsider it necessary to ask the Secretariat to produce any refinement to the compendium.  This could
be done at a later stage, pending an identification of necessary additional information by delegations.
20. The Committee so agreed.
B. MATTERS RELATING TO THE SCHEDULING OF COMMITMENTS
1. Incorporation of New Commitments into Members' Schedules
21. The Chairperson recalled that Members had held fruitful discussions on ways of incorporating
new commitments resulting from the current negotiations into schedules of commitments, based on
two Secretariat notes, document S/CSC/W/33 and Job (02)/88.  At the end of the discussion, Members
had instructed the Secretariat to prepare consolidated schedules for all Members except those who
indicated to the Secretariat that they preferred to undertake the consolidation themselves. He believed
that it was the Committee's common understanding at the last meeting that the consolidated schedules
were meant to facilitate the preparation of offers, as they would allow delegations to present theiroffers in one document.  As the consolidated schedules were prepared in Word format, delegations
would easily be able to incorporate their offers into these documents.  The consolidated schedules
were obviously not legal documents and delegations would need to double-check whether their
commitments - as well as those of their trading partners - were reflected accurately.  He requested the
European Communities, India, and the United States, who had opted to undertake the consolidationthemselves, to update the Committee on progress in the consolidation of their schedules.S/CSC/M/25
Page 5
22. The representative of India stated that his capital was doing its best to complete the
consolidation of India's schedule so that other delegations could have a look at it in time.  He recalled
two other issues that had been discussed in the Comm ittee at its previous meetings, i.e. the issue of the
legal status of existing commitments, as well as the accuracy of draft consolidated schedule and the
related transparency issue.  A number of delegations, including his own, had emphasized theimportance of clarifying the legal status of existing commitments and the desirability of having
recourse to pre-existing schedules in case of future disputes.  Paragraph 32 of the Secretariat note
S/CSC/W/33 refered to this important issue.  Further, the Secretariat note stated in paragraph 29 that
ensuring the accuracy of the consolidated schedules was essential, and a number of delegations had
underlined the need for a strict process of verification of draft consolidated schedules to detect at the
outset any error that could undermine existing commitments later on.  It was his understanding that
the draft consolidated schedules would be given to Members for rechecking or verification and wouldthereafter be circulated so that they could be examined by other delegations.  For sake of
transparency, the schedules that were consolidated by Members on their own, like the schedule of his
delegation, should also be circulated to all delegations to allow for examination.  He suggested that
the Secretariat also looked at the draft consolidated schedules of these three Members, so that any
omission or error could be brought to the attention of the authorities concerned.  This would ensurethat the draft consolidated schedules of all Members were accurate from the outset.  In this context, he
took note of paragraph 16 of the Secretariat note, in which it was mentioned that any doubt by
participants about the accuracy of any entry in a consolidated schedule could be addressed in the
course of the request-offer phase, and that there would be a multilateral verification of all schedules at
the end of the negotiations.  His delegation believed that independently of the request-offer process,any Member could at any time raise any questions in the CSC concerning the accuracy of the
consolidation of any Member's schedule.
23. A representative of the Secretariat, in reply to a question by the representative of Guyana,
stated that the Secretariat would be happy to review any of the schedules of the three Members who
were undertaking the consolidation themselves upon request of the Member concerned.  With regardto the earlier discussions on the status of old schedules in relation to new schedules, he thought that
there had been a certain degree of understanding that perhaps there was no need for a precipitated
decision in that respect, particularly since any such decision would eventually be reflected in the final
protocol which would be drawn up at the end of th e negotiations and which would specify clearly the
relationship between the old schedules and the new schedules annexed to that protocol.
24. The representative of Uruguay supported India's comments regarding the legal certainty of
old and new schedules.  At present, the only schedules with legal value were the ones containing the
legally binding commitments, as ratified and offici ally presented to the WTO.  In consolidating
Members' commitments in one single schedule, the Secretariat was merely drawing up a tool to assist
delegations in preparing their offers in electronic format;  the Secretariat work did not have any legal
standing.
25. The representative of India stated that he did not intend to seek any decision today in the
Committee regarding the relationship of old and new schedules of commitments.  He took note that
the consolidated schedules, which the Secretariat was preparing for delegations, were no legal
documents at this stage; however, at the end of the negotiations, the consolidated schedules would
become legal documents and the idea was that Members should have throughout the whole process
time to detect any error or omission.  It was in that context that he had highlighted the importance ofaccuracy of these draft schedules from the beginning.
26. The representative of the European Communities stated that it was his understanding that the
consolidated schedules would upon their entry into force at the end of the negotiations supersede the
preceding schedules and that it was up to Members to avoid any errors that would undermineS/CSC/M/25
Page 6
preexisting commitments.  He did not see any need to ensure continuous recourse to old
commitments.
27. The representative of Chinese Taipei, taking note of the statement by the European
Communities, suggested that perhaps there should be a procedure to solve discrepancies arising from
old and new commitments.
28. The representative of Canada, supported by the representative of Mexico , suggested that a
period of time could be made available for Members to undertake an informal verification of the
consolidated schedules in order to minimize confusion. Perhaps the schedules could be made
available to Members who could in turn indicate whether they had identified any errors in the
consolidated schedules.  He believed that in any case of dispute, there could still be recourse to
existing commitments.
29. The representative of Mauritius agreed that the consolidated schedules were a tool for
delegations and would not have any legal status.  If the consolidated schedules were to be checked,
this should be done through examination, rather than verification, as the latter was always followed by
a certification procedure.
30. A representative of the Secretariat confirmed that no confusion could arise about the legal
status of the documents produced by the Secretariat, which were referred to as draft consolidated
schedules.  These documents were only working tools and would retain that status until they entered
into force after the conclusion of the negotiations, with all the changes that would be made as a result
of the negotiations.  Concerning the route to take with regard to the incorporation of new
commitments at the end of the present round of negotiations, he recalled that the Committee had
stated its preference for a consolidation approach (by which all commitments undertaken by aMember were consolidated in one final schedule) over an accumulation approach (by which the new
commitments were added in a new schedule a nd accumulated with the different pre-existing
schedules).  Once Members had agreed to consolidation, the practical question arose of how best to
proceed.  Members had decided that it was most practical to begin submitting offers in one single
document, because there would be ample opportunity for verification and examination of howexisting commitments were reflected in the new documents.  There was usually a separate verification
exercise at the end of each negotiation where all schedules of Members were carefully scrutinized to
verify how the negotiated commitments were reflected.  Of course, Members could decide at any time
on any additional steps if they so wished.
31. The Chairperson summarized that delegations ag reed that the consolidated schedules had no
legal status.  He echoed the statement made by the Secretariat that from the time the schedules were
issued to the moment Members were submitting their initial offers on the basis of these schedules,there was time to check whether the consolidation reflected their commitments accurately.  It was up
to Members to make changes to the consolidated schedules where the consolidation by the Secretariat
contained any errors.  He suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to
the item at a future meeting.
2. Approaches to the Scheduling of Additional Commitments under Article XVIII of the
GATS
32. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had requested the Secretariat to prepare a note
on approaches that Members had taken in the past to the scheduling of additional commitments under
Article XVIII.  The note was contained in docum ent S/CSC/W/34 of 16 July 2002 and was intended
to assist Members in addressing this sub-item.  Discussion on the item had been postponed at the lastmeeting due to time constraints.S/CSC/M/25
Page 7
33. A representative of the Secretariat stated that it was the objective of the note to assist
Members in clarifying and analyzing some of the intricacies involved in Article XVIII in particular,
but also with regard to some other aspects of the structure of the GATS itself.  The note contained
some analysis with which not all Members might necessarily agree, and he therefore reminded
delegations that it was a principle that the Secretariat did not interpret the agreement and that the noteshould not be taken as an attempt to do so.
34. The representative of Hong Kong China note d the statement in paragraph 5 that "while
Article XVIII provided a legal framework to address restrictive measures not falling within the scope
of Articles XVI or XVII, it was considered that a more long-term systemic solution to Article XVIII
would be desirable".  He enquired whether this assessment was based on a systemic point of view of
the architecture of the GATS, or on the practica l experience with existing additional commitments
under Article XVIII.  He wondered what would be the features of a more long-term systemic solution.
35. The relationship between Article XVIII and Article VI:4, or related GATS provisions, was
complementary rather than mutually exclusive.  In particular, the very difference of Article XVIII
commitments from disciplines under Article VI:4  made it impossible for Article XVIII commitments
to fully substitute obligations under disciplines to be developed under Article VI:4, and vice versa.  It
appeared that additional commitments under Article XVIII could serve the useful purposes ofreinforcing, elaborating or extending basic GATS obligations.  Recognising this complementarity, it
appeared that, for the purpose of addressing measures in respect of qualifications, standards and
licensing, it would be more efficient or economical to address those measures of a horizontal nature
by way of Article VI:4 disciplines.  This would avoid reinventing the wheel for every sector, and
would relieve Members from consulting a host or individual schedules.  At the same time there mightstill be a role for additional commitments for issues going beyond Article VI:4.  The pursuit of
stronger sector-specific disciplines via additional commitments was also important in addressing trade
barriers or concerns, as in the case of the reference paper on basic telecommunications.  He was not
suggesting any hierarchical structure between the Articles XVIII and VI:4.  However, he felt that
there was a need to think about the economy of negotiations, especially for delegations with relativelysmaller negotiating capacity.
36. Turning to Attachment I, he noted that in some cases commitments under Article XVIII were
inscribed in the language of a restriction, for example "that the foreign service supplier must be a
world class operator with extensive international experience."  He wondered whether Article XVIII
commitments could be used to schedule such restrictions and what their legal status was.  Generally
speaking, it would appear that Article XVIII was designed for scheduling additional commitments in a
positive manner, and that the Article could not be used to sanction any restrictions.  In particular, itcould not be used to override commitments under Artic le XVI and XVII.  In his delegation's view, if a
restriction was not entered in the column designated for scheduling limitations under Articles XVI
and XVII, it could not be applied through Article XVIII in a way that would contravene the Member's
obligation under Article XVI and XVII.  In cases where an additional commitment addressed
measures subject to scheduling under Article XVI and XVII, he wondered whether thosecommitments had any legal effect.  He was not sure as to the reasons for such scheduling.  If there had
been a misunderstanding of the relationship between Article XVIII and Articles XVI and XVII, he
considered that the relevant commitments could be regarded as a misplacement that could be rectified
by way of technical rectification.
37. Under the assumption that disciplines were developed under Article VI:4, he wondered
whether a Member could absolve itself from those disciplines by scheduling restrictions in respect of
qualifications, standards or licensing matters as additional commitments under Article XVIII.
38. The representative of China made a number of editorial comments on the Secretariat note, the
first relating to a category of Members on page 16, which the note identified as "acceding countries."S/CSC/M/25
Page 8
As all Members mentioned under that heading had already completed their accession, she suggested
that the title be changed to "recently acceded Members" or "acceded Members".  Likewise, she
suggested that the reference to "individual acceding countries" in paragraph 58 should be changed to
"acceded Members".  Another editorial comment related to Attachment 2 of the document in which
the table contained erroneously a category "country" where it should read "Member".
39. The Chairperson thanked China for its comments and stated that the proposed corrections
would be reflected in the minutes of the meeting.
40. The representative of Japan stated that his delegation was still analyzing the note and
reiterated the comments by the Secretariat as to the status of the document.
41. The representative of Chines Taipei stated that her delegation had faced some scheduling
difficulties during its accession process, in particular with regard to questions relating to Articles VI
and XVIII.  With regard to the Secretariat's reference in paragraph 63 that certain measures scheduledunder additional commitments would better fit into the market access or national treatment column,
she wondered how exactly these limitations should have been couched.
42. The representative of Macao, China supported the points raised by Hong Kong, China.
Additional commitments should play a role in comp lementing commitments that were not elsewhere
scheduled in Articles XVI and XVII.  They should not go beyond or intend to have overriding effecton obligations arising from other GATS provisions, such as Articles II, III, VI and VIII.
43. A representative of the Secretariat stated that the reference to the term "long term systemic
solution" in paragraph 5 of the Secretariat note related to the point that was made in the previous
paragraph about the origins of Article XVIII and paragraph 4 of Article VI.  Both Articles had been
agreed upon during the drafting of the GATS at exactly the same time.  The drafters had succeeded toa large extent in bringing trade restrictive measures under the purview of Articles XVI and XVII.
However, it had been apparent that some restrictive measures, which could not be defined
exhaustively in advance, were not captured by the disciplines of those two articles.  Therefore, it was
agreed - through paragraph 4 of Article VI - to begin a work programme, but also, at the same time, to
provide a legal framework through Article XVIII that would allow Members to negotiatecommitments on any specific measures or any specific regulatory problems that they wished to
address on a more urgent and individualized basis.  The scope of Article XVIII was therefore wide.
Article XVIII explicitly addressed the same scope as Article VI:4, namely the three types of
qualification requirements, standards and licensing, but it also went beyond those three types of
measures.  On the other hand, Article XVIII excluded from its scope any measures that fell within
Articles XVI or XVII.  It was therefore clear that Article XVIII was designed particularly to address
problems that were not otherwise addressed by Articles XVI or XVII.  The reference to the systemicdesirability for a long term solution for problems related to trade restrictive measures was a reference
to the Article VI:4 work programme.
44. He added that Article XVIII was only a le gal framework which did not contain any
obligations as such.  Whatever was negotiated under that Article would have to be specified precisely
in the schedule of the Member concerned.  It was true that Article XVIII was designed to capturecommitments undertaken in a positive manner, but sometimes even positive commitments were
expressed in the form of a restriction, e.g. in case of a minimum capital requirement that could be
scheduled under Article XVIII.  The commitment would have the effect that the minimum capital
requirement could not be increased beyond the scheduled level and could therefore not make the
regulatory situation more restrictive than contained in the schedule.  Members could make a specificundertaking either with regard to not tightening a restriction not falling under Articles XVI or XVII or
they could undertake a positive action in the form of a promise to undertake regulatory changes.  It
was explicit that Article XVIII excluded from its scope measures falling within the scope of ArticlesS/CSC/M/25
Page 9
XVI and XVII.  The fact that several schedules contained entries that appeared to create a confusion
in that respect should not influence this basic understanding as set out unequivocally in Article XVIII.
45. Turning to the question of the relationship between Article XVIII and the results of the future
work programme under Article VI:4, he stated that if one assumed that Article VI:4 disciplines would
be of the same nature as other general obligations and disciplines in Part II of the Agreement, then thegeneral principle would apply that schedules of co mmitments were designed only to add to legal
obligations contained in the treaty Articles, but not to subtract from them.  In other words, a schedule
could not be used to reduce the level of general obligations set out in the Agreement elsewhere.
46. The representative of Hong Kong, China thanke d the Secretariat for the clarifications given,
which confirmed his delegation's understanding that additional commitments under Article XVIII
could only add to liberalization or reduce the level of restrictions in a certain sector, but could not be
used to increase restrictions.  The example of the capital requirement illustrated that point, as withoutthe additional commitment the Member would be free to impose any capital requirement that was
deemed appropriate.
47. The Chairperson thanked delegations for the discussion and suggested that the Committee
revert to the item at its next meeting.
48. The Committee so agreed.
C. DATE OF NEXT MEETING .
49. The Chairperson proposed that, in accordance with the practice of grouping meetings of
subsidiary bodies close to those of the Council for Trade in Services, the next meeting be held during
the week before the formal Services Council meeting in December.
50. The Committee so agreed.
D. OTHER BUSINESS
51. The Chairperson recalled that during its meeting of 28 January–1 February 2002, the TNC
had agreed that "….the review of all special and differential treatment provisions with a view to
strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and operational provided for in
paragraph 44 of the Ministerial Declaration shall be carried out by the Committee on Trade andDevelopment in Special Sessions."  Pursuant to that mandate the Chairperson of the Special Session
of the CTD, Ambassador Smith of Jamaica, had re quested "information on any discussions or other
developments relating to special and differential treatment that have taken place in this Committee".
This information was to be conveyed to the Special Session of the CTD by the end of November
2002.  The Chairperson stated that he intended to write a letter containing factual information on
special and differential treatment related issues wh ich might have arisen in the Committee.  The letter
would be without prejudice to the position of any Member on the issue of special and differentialtreatment.
52. He also had received another letter, from Ambassador Jóhannesson (Iceland), Chairman of
the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Techno logy, with the request to inform him of any
discussions, submissions and/or other developments relating to trade and technology transfer that had
taken place in the CSC.  He suggested to inform the Chairman, in a factual manner, on any issuesrelated to trade and transfer of technology that that may have arisen in the Committee, without
prejudice to the position of any Member on this issue.S/CSC/M/25
Page 10
53. A representative of the Secretariat updated delegations on the preparation for the workshop on
scheduling of commitments and preparation of offers which Members had requested the Secretariat to
organize at the last meeting.  Following an in troductory session, the workshop would be conducted in
breakout sessions in the three official WTO languages and be built around practical and interactive
exercises in small groups.  The third day would be left for bilateral consultations with the Secretariatto address any specific issues, problems or need for further clarifications that participants might have.
Funding for participation of one capital-based official per developing country had been secured.  Due
to room and resource constraints, he proposed that Members limit the number of participants to two
per delegation.
__________