|
ON THIS PAGE:
> Argentina — Textiles and Apparel, para. 74
> Argentina — Textiles and Apparel,
paras.
84-85
> India — Quantitative Restrictions, paras.
149, 151-152
|
I.2.1 Argentina —
Textiles and Apparel,
para. 74 back to top
(WT/DS56/AB/R, WT/DS56/AB/R/Corr.1)
We agree, therefore, with the Panel that there is “nothing in the
Agreement Between the IMF and the WTO, the Declaration on the
Relationship of the World Trade Organization with the International
Monetary Fund and the Declaration on the Contribution of the World Trade
Organization to Achieving Greater Coherence in Global Economic
Policy-Making” that modifies Argentina’s obligations under Article
VIII of the GATT 1994. We also agree with the Panel that there is “… no exception in the WTO Agreement that would excuse Argentina’s
compliance with the requirements of Article VIII of GATT”. …
I.2.2 Argentina — Textiles and Apparel,
paras. 84-85
back to top
(WT/DS56/AB/R, WT/DS56/AB/R/Corr.1)
The only provision of the WTO Agreement that requires consultations
with the IMF is Article XV:2 of the GATT 1994. This provision requires
the WTO to consult with the IMF when dealing with “problems
concerning monetary reserves, balances of payments or foreign exchange
arrangements”.…
As in the WTO Agreement, there are no provisions in the Agreement
Between the IMF and the WTO that require a panel to consult
with the IMF in a case such as this. Under paragraph 8 of this latter
Agreement, in a case involving “exchange measures within the Fund’s
jurisdiction”, the IMF “shall inform in writing the relevant WTO
body (including dispute settlement panels) … whether such measures
are consistent with the Articles of Agreement of the Fund”. This case
does not, however, involve “exchange measures within the Fund’s
jurisdiction”. Paragraph 8 also provides that the IMF “may
communicate its views in writing on matters of mutual interest to the [WTO]
or any of its organs or bodies (excluding the WTO’s dispute
settlement panels) … ” (emphasis added). Evidently, the IMF
has not been authorized to provide its views to a WTO dispute settlement
panel on matters not relating to exchange measures within its
jurisdiction, unless it is requested to do so by a panel under Article
13 of the DSU.
I.2.3 India — Quantitative Restrictions, paras. 149, 151-152
back to top
(WT/DS90/AB/R)
On the basis of these provisions, the Panel submitted to the IMF a
number of questions regarding India’s balance-of-payments situation.
The Panel gave considerable weight to the views expressed by the IMF in
its reply to these questions. However, nothing in the Panel Report
supports India’s argument that the Panel delegated to the IMF its
judicial function to make an objective assessment of the matter. A
careful reading of the Panel Report makes clear that the Panel did not
simply accept the views of the IMF. The Panel critically assessed these
views and also considered other data and opinions in reaching its
conclusions.
We conclude that the Panel made an objective assessment of the matter
before it. Therefore, we do not agree with India that the Panel acted
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU.
The question whether Article XV:2 of the GATT 1994 requires panels to
consult with the IMF and to consider as dispositive specific
determinations of the IMF was debated at length by the parties before
the Panel. However, the Panel did not consider it necessary, for the
purposes of this dispute, to decide this issue. As this finding of the
Panel is not appealed, we abstain from taking any position on it.
|
The texts reproduced here do not have the legal standing of the original
documents which are entrusted and kept at the WTO Secretariat in Geneva.
|
