|
I. Preamble back to top
A. Text of the Preamble
The Parties to this Agreement,
Recognizing that their relations in the field of trade and economic
endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising standards of
living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume
of real income and effective demand, and expanding the production of and
trade in goods and services, while allowing for the optimal use of the
world’s resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable
development, seeking both to protect and preserve the environment and to
enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent with their
respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic
development.
Recognizing further that there is a need for positive efforts designed
to ensure that developing countries, and especially the least developed
among them, secure a share in the growth of international trade
commensurate with the needs of their economic development,
Being desirous of contributing to these objectives by entering into
reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the
substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the
eliminations of discriminatory treatment in international trade
relations,
Resolved, therefore, to develop an integrated, more viable and durable
multilateral trading system encompassing the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, the results of past liberalization efforts, and all
of the results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations,
Determined to preserve the basic principles and to further the
objectives underlying this multilateral trading system,
Agree as follows:
B. Interpretation and Application of the
Preamble
1. Legal relevance of the Preamble
(a) Environmental context
1. The
Appellate Body on US — Gasoline emphasized the importance of the
Preamble of the WTO Agreement in the context of environmental issues:
“Indeed, in the preamble to the WTO Agreement
and in the Decision on Trade and Environment, there is specific
acknowledgement to be found about the importance of coordinating
policies on trade and the environment. WTO Members have a large measure
of autonomy to determine their own policies on the environment
(including its relationship with trade), their environmental objectives
and the environmental legislation they enact and implement. So far as
concerns the WTO, that autonomy is circumscribed only by the need to
respect the requirements of the General Agreement and the other covered
agreements.”(1)
WTO structure
All WTO members may participate in all councils,
committees, etc. except Appellate Body, Dispute Settlement panels,
Textiles Monitoring Body, and plurilateral committees.
Key
 |
Reporting to General Council (or a subsidiary) |
 |
Reporting to Dispute Settlement Body |
 |
Plurilateral
committees inform the General Council or Goods Council of their
activities, although these agreements are not signed by all WTO
members |
 |
Trade Negotiations Committee reports to General Council |
(b) Integrated WTO system
2. The Appellate Body Report on
Brazil — Desiccated Coconut invoked the
Preamble in the context of the integrated WTO system that replaced the
old GATT 1947:
“The authors of the new WTO regime intended to
put an end to the fragmentation that had characterized the previous
system. This can be seen from the preamble to the WTO Agreement which
states, in pertinent part:
Resolved, therefore, to develop an integrated,
more viable and durable multilateral trading system encompassing the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the results of past trade
liberalization efforts, and all of the results of the Uruguay Round of
Multilateral Trade Negotiations.”(2)
(c) Interpretation of Article
XX(g) of the
GATT 1994
3. For the
purpose of interpreting the meaning of “exhaustible natural resources”
in paragraph (g) of Article XX of the GATT 1994
in US — Shrimp, the
Appellate Body referred to the Preamble:
“The words of Article
XX(g), ‘exhaustible
natural resources’, were actually crafted more than 50 years ago. They
must be read by a treaty interpreter in the light of contemporary
concerns of the community of nations about the protection and
conservation of the environment. While Article XX was not modified in
the Uruguay Round, the preamble attached to the WTO Agreement shows that
the signatories to that Agreement were, in 1994, fully aware of the
importance and legitimacy of environmental protection as a goal of
national and international policy. The preamble of the WTO Agreement
— which informs not only the GATT 1994, but also the other covered
agreements — explicitly acknowledges ‘the objective of sustainable
development’:
‘The Parties to this Agreement,
Recognizing that their relations in the field of
trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising
standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily
growing volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding the
production of and trade in goods and services, while allowing for the
optimal use of the world’s resources in accordance with the objective
of sustainable development, seeking both to protect and preserve the
environment and to enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent
with their respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic
development, …’ (emphasis added)
From the perspective embodied in the preamble of
the WTO Agreement, we note that the generic term ‘natural resources’
in Article
XX(g) is not ‘static’ in its content or reference but is
rather ‘by definition, evolutionary’. …
Given the recent acknowledgement by the
international community of the importance of concerted bilateral or
multilateral action to protect living natural resources, and recalling
the explicit recognition by WTO Members of the objective of sustainable
development in the preamble of the WTO Agreement, we believe it is too
late in the day to suppose that Article
XX(g) of the GATT 1994 may be
read as referring only to the conservation of exhaustible mineral or
other non-living natural resources.”(3)
4. On this
topic, the Appellate Body on US — Shrimp further stated:
“At the end of the Uruguay Round, negotiators
fashioned an appropriate preamble for the new WTO Agreement, which
strengthened the multilateral trading system by establishing an
international organization, inter alia, to facilitate the
implementation, administration and operation, and to further the
objectives, of that Agreement and the other agreements resulting from
that Round. In recognition of the importance of continuity with the
previous GATT system, negotiators used the preamble of the GATT 1947 as
the template for the preamble of the new WTO Agreement. Those
negotiators evidently believed, however, that the objective of ‘full
use of the resources of the world’ set forth in the preamble of the
GATT 1947 was no longer appropriate to the world trading system of the
1990’s. As a result, they decided to qualify the original objectives
of the GATT 1947 with the following words:
… while allowing for the optimal use of the
world’s resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable
development, seeking both to protect and preserve the environment and to
enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent with their
respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic
development, …’
We note once more that this language demonstrates
a recognition by WTO negotiators that optimal use of the world’s
resources should be made in accordance with the objective of sustainable
development. As this preambular language reflects the intentions of
negotiators of the WTO Agreement, we believe it must add colour, texture
and shading to our interpretation of the agreements annexed to the WTO
Agreement, in this case, the GATT 1994. We have already observed that
Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994 is appropriately read with the
perspective embodied in the above preamble …’.
It is proper for us to take into account, as part
of the context of the chapeau, the specific language of the preamble to
the WTO Agreement, which, we have said, gives colour, texture and
shading to the rights and obligations of Members under the WTO
Agreement, generally, and under the GATT 1994, in particular.”(4)
(d) Special needs of developing countries
5. The
Panel on India — Quantitative Restrictions invoked the Preamble in the
context of recognising the need to address the concerns of developing
countries:
“At the outset, we recall that the Preamble to
the WTO Agreement recognizes both (i) the desirability of expanding
international trade in goods and services and (ii) the need for positive
efforts designed to ensure that developing countries secure a share in
international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic
development. In implementing these goals, WTO rules promote trade
liberalization, but recognize the need for specific exceptions from the
general rules to address special concerns, including those of developing
countries.”(5)
6. The
Panel on Brazil — Aircraft (Article 21.5 — Canada) referred to the
Preamble in reference to Article 27 of the SCM Agreement and the
interests of developing countries:
“The preamble to the WTO Agreement recognises
‘that there is need for positive efforts
designed to ensure that developing countries, and especially the
least-developed among them, secure a share in the growth in
international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic
development.’
This overarching concern of the WTO Agreement
finds ample reflection in the SCM Agreement. Article 27 of that
Agreement recognizes that ‘subsidies may play an important role in
economic development programmes of developing country Members’ and
provides substantial special and differential treatment for developing
countries, including in respect of export subsidies.”(6)
2. Relationship with other WTO Agreements
(a) GATT 1994
(i) Article XX(g)
7. See
paragraphs 3–4 above.
(ii) Article XXIV
8. The
Panel on Turkey — Textiles also referred to the Preamble in the context
of the discussion regarding GATT Article XXIV stating that it does not
constitute a shield from other GATT/WTO prohibitions or the introduction
of measures considered to be ipso facto incompatible with GATT/WTO:
“At the conclusion of the Uruguay Round Members
reiterated the same general objective and principles in the GATT 1994
Understanding on Article XXIV:
‘Reaffirming that the purpose of such agreements
should be to facilitate trade between the constituent territories and
not to raise barriers to the trade of other Members with such
territories; and that in their formation or enlargement the parties to
them should to the greatest possible extent avoid creating adverse
effects on the trade of other Members;’
and in the Preamble to the WTO
Agreement:
‘Being desirous of contributing to these
objectives by entering into reciprocal and mutually advantageous
arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other
barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in
international commerce …’ (emphasis added)
We also recall the Singapore Ministerial
Declaration:
‘7. … We reaffirm the primacy of the
multilateral trading system, which includes a framework for the
development of regional trade agreements, and we renew our commitment to
ensure that regional trade agreements are complementary to it and
consistent with its rules’
From the above cited provisions, we draw two
general conclusions for the present case. Firstly, the objectives of
regional trade agreements and those of the GATT and the WTO have always
been complementary, and therefore should be interpreted consistently
with one another, with a view to increasing trade and not to raising
barriers to trade, thereby arguing against an interpretation that would
allow, on the occasion of the formation of a customs union, for the
introduction of quantitative restrictions. Secondly, we read in these
parallel objectives a recognition that the provisions of Article XXIV
(together with those of the GATT 1994 Understanding on Article XXIV) do
not constitute a shield from other GATT/WTO prohibitions, or a
justification for the introduction of measures which are considered
generally to be ipso facto incompatible with GATT/WTO. In our view the
provisions of Article XXIV on regional trade agreements cannot be
considered to exempt constituent members of a customs union from the
primacy of the WTO rules.”(7)
(b) SCM Agreement
9.
See
paragraph 6 above.
II. Article I
back to top
A. Text of
Article I
Article I: Establishment of the Organization
The World Trade Organization (hereinafter referred
to as “the WTO”) is hereby established.
B. Interpretation and Application of
Article I
1. Article I
10. The World Trade
Organization (WTO) was established at the conclusion of the Uruguay
Round of multilateral trade negotiations. The name “World Trade
Organization” was established at the meeting of the Trade Negotiating
Committee on 15 December 1993.(8)
11. The World Trade
Organization and the World Tourism Organization reached an agreement in
order to avoid confusion with respect to the use of the acronym “WTO”.
According to this agreement, the World Trade Organization will use a
distinct logo and will avoid using the acronym in the context of tourism
services. The agreement further provides for cooperation between the
Secretariats of the two organizations on practical issues arising in
this context.(9)
III. Article II
back to top
A. Text of
Article II
Article II: Scope of the WTO
1. The WTO
shall provide the common institutional framework for the conduct of
trade relations among its Members in matters related to the agreements
and associated legal instruments included in the Annexes to this
Agreement.
2. The
agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annexes 1, 2 and
3 (hereinafter referred to as “Multilateral Trade Agreements”) are
integral parts of this Agreement, binding on all Members.
3. The
agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annex 4
(hereinafter referred to as “Plurilateral Trade Agreements”) are
also part of this Agreement for those Members that have accepted them,
and are binding on those Members. The Plurilateral Trade Agreements do
not create either obligations or rights for Members that have not
accepted them.
4. The General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 as specified in Annex 1A
(hereinafter referred to as “GATT 1994”) is legally distinct from
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, dated 30 October 1947,
annexed to the Final Act Adopted at the Conclusion of the Second Session
of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Employment, as subsequently rectified, amended or modified
(hereinafter referred to as “GATT 1947”).
B. Interpretation and Application of
Article II
1. Article II:2
(a) Single undertaking
12. In Brazil
— Desiccated Coconut, the Appellate Body referred to Articles II:2 and
II:4 and Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement, as well as the
DSU to illustrate
the “single undertaking” nature of the WTO Agreement(10): “[t]he
single undertaking is further reflected in the provisions of the WTO
Agreement dealing with original membership, accession, non-application
of the Multilateral Trade Agreements between particular Members,
acceptance of the WTO Agreement, and withdrawal from it.(11) Within this
framework, all WTO Members are bound by all the rights and obligations
in the WTO Agreement and its Annexes 1, 2 and
3.”(12)
13. In Argentina
— Footwear (EC), the Appellate Body also referred to Articles II:2 and
II:4 of the WTO Agreement as a basis for the following finding:
“The GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards
are both Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods contained in Annex 1A
of the WTO Agreement, and, as such, are both ‘integral parts’ of the
same treaty, the WTO Agreement, that are ‘binding on all Members’.(13)
Therefore, the provisions of Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the
provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards are all provisions of one
treaty, the WTO Agreement. They entered into force as part of that
treaty at the same time. They apply equally and are equally binding on
all WTO Members. And, as these provisions relate to the same thing,
namely the application by Members of safeguard measures, the Panel was
correct in saying that ‘Article XIX of GATT and the Safeguards
Agreement must a fortiori be read as representing an inseparable package
of rights and disciplines which have to be considered in conjunction.’
Yet a treaty interpreter must read all applicable provisions of a treaty
in a way that gives meaning to all of them, harmoniously.(14) And, an
appropriate reading of this ‘inseparable package of rights and
disciplines’ must, accordingly, be one that gives meaning to all the
relevant provisions of these two equally binding agreements.”(15)
2. Article II:4
14. The Appellate Body
on Brazil — Desiccated Coconut, see paragraph 2
above, and Argentina — Footwear (EC), see paragraph 13 above, referred to this Article in their
rulings.
IV. Article III
back to top
A. Text of
Article III
Article III: Functions of the WTO
1. The WTO
shall facilitate the implementation, administration and operation, and
further the objectives, of this Agreement and of the Multilateral Trade
Agreements, and shall also provide the framework for the implementation,
administration and operation of the Plurilateral Trade Agreements.
2. The WTO
shall provide the forum for negotiations among its Members concerning
their multilateral trade relations in matters dealt with under the
agreements in the Annexes to this Agreement. The WTO may also provide a
forum for further negotiations among its Members concerning their
multilateral trade relations, and a framework for the implementation of
the results of such negotiations, as may be decided by the Ministerial
Conference.
3. The WTO
shall administer the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (hereinafter referred to as the “Dispute
Settlement Understanding” or “DSU”) in Annex 2 to this
Agreement.
4. The WTO
shall administer the Trade Policy Review Mechanism (hereinafter referred
to as the “TPRM”) provided for in Annex 3 to this Agreement.
5. With a view
to achieving greater coherence in global economic policy-making, the WTO
shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the International Monetary Fund
and with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and
its affiliated agencies.
B. Interpretation and Application of
Article III
1. Article III:1
(a) “implementation, administration and
operation … of the Multilateral Trade Agreements”
15. As regards
facilitating the implementation, administration and operation of the
Multilateral Trade Agreements, see the relevant Chapters on the relevant
WTO agreements.
2. Article III:2
(a) “forum for negotiations among its
Members”
(i) 1996 Singapore Ministerial Conference
16. At the 1996
Singapore Ministerial Conference (see Section V.B.1
below), Ministers
adopted the recommendations below as part of their declaration:
“We, the Ministers, have met in Singapore … as
called for in Article IV of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization, to further strengthen the WTO as a forum for negotiation,
the continuing liberalization of trade within a rule-based system, and
the multilateral review and assessment of trade policies, and in
particular to:
- assess the implementation of our commitments
under the WTO Agreements and decisions;
- review the ongoing negotiations and Work
Programme;
- examine developments in world trade; and
- address the challenges of an evolving world
economy.
… Bearing in mind that an important aspect of
WTO activities is a continuous overseeing of the implementation of
various agreements, a periodic examination and updating of the WTO Work
Programme is a key to enable the WTO to fulfil its objectives. In this
context, we endorse the reports of the various WTO bodies. A major share
of the Work Programme stems from the WTO Agreement and decisions adopted
at Marrakesh. As part of these Agreements and decisions we agreed to a
number of provisions calling for future negotiations on Agriculture,
Services and aspects of TRIPS, or reviews and other work on
Anti-Dumping, Customs Valuation, Dispute Settlement Understanding,
Import Licensing, Preshipment Inspection, Rules of Origin, Sanitary and
Phyto-Sanitary Measures, Safeguards, Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures, Technical Barriers to Trade, Textiles and Clothing, Trade
Policy Review Mechanism, Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights and Trade-Related Investment Measures. We agree to a process of
analysis and exchange of information, where provided for in the
conclusions and recommendations of the relevant WTO bodies, on the
Built-in Agenda issues, to allow Members to better understand the issues
involved and identify their interests before undertaking the agreed
negotiations and reviews. We agree that:
- the time frames established in the Agreements
will be respected in each case;
-
the work undertaken shall not prejudge the scope
of future negotiations where such negotiations are called for; and
-
the work undertaken shall not prejudice the
nature of the activity agreed upon (i.e. negotiation or review)”.(16)
(ii) 1998 Geneva Ministerial Conference
17. At the 1998 Geneva Ministerial Conference (see
Section V.B.1 below), Ministers adopted several recommendations to put
before the General Council as a part of their declaration:
“We recall that the Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization states that the WTO shall
provide the forum for negotiations among its Members concerning their
multilateral trade relations in matters dealt with under the agreements
in the Annexes to the Agreement, and that it may also provide a forum
for further negotiations among its Members concerning their multilateral
trade relations, and a framework for the implementation of the results
of such negotiations, as may be decided by the Ministerial Conference.
In the light of paragraphs 1–8 above, we decide that a process will be
established under the direction of the General Council to ensure full
and faithful implementation of existing agreements, and to prepare for
the Third Session of the Ministerial Conference. This process shall
enable the General Council to submit recommendations regarding the WTO’s
work programme, including further liberalization sufficiently
broad-based to respond to the range of interests and concerns of all
Members, within the WTO framework, that will enable us to take decisions
at the Third Session of the Ministerial Conference. In this regard, the
General Council will meet in special session in September 1998 and
periodically thereafter to ensure full and timely completion of its
work, fully respecting the principle of decision-making by consensus.
The General Council’s work programme shall encompass the following:
(a) recommendations concerning:
(i) the issues, including those brought forward by
Members, relating to implementation of existing agreements and
decisions;
(ii) the negotiations already mandated at
Marrakesh, to ensure that such negotiations begin on schedule;
(iii) future work already provided for under other
existing agreements and decisions taken at Marrakesh;
(b) recommendations concerning other possible
future work on the basis of the work programme initiated at Singapore;
(c) recommendations on the follow-up to the
High-Level Meeting on Least-Developed Countries;
(d) recommendations arising from consideration of
other matters proposed and agreed to by Members concerning their
multilateral trade relations.
The General Council will also submit to the Third
Session of the Ministerial Conference, on the basis of consensus,
recommendations for decision concerning the further organization and
management of the work programme arising from the above, including the
scope, structure and time-frames, that will ensure that the work
programme is begun and concluded expeditiously.
The above work programme shall be aimed at
achieving overall balance of interests of all Members.”(17)
(iii) Doha Ministerial Conference
18. At the Doha Ministerial Conference (see
Section V.B.1 below), Members adopted a decision to launch a new round
of negotiations, known as the “Doha Round”.(18) As regards the
declarations and decisions adopted at the Doha Ministerial Conference,
see paragraph 38 below and Section XXVII
below. The Doha Declaration
provided general guidelines for the organization of the new Round.
19. On 1 August 2004, the General Council adopted
a decision known as the “July Package”, which, inter alia, amended
the scope of the Doha negotiations. The text of the July Package can be
found in Section XXVIII below.
3. Article III:3
(a) “Shall administer the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes”
20. As regards the administration of the
DSU, see
Article 2 of the Chapter on the DSU. In addition, see the activities of
the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body in Section XI.B.2
below.(19)
4. Article III:4
(a) “Shall administer the Trade Policy Review
Mechanism”
21. Regarding the administration of the
TPRM, see
Section III (paragraph C) of the Chapter on the TPRM.
5. Article III:5
(a) “The WTO shall cooperate
… with the IMF
and … World Bank”
(i) General
22. At its meeting of 7, 8 and 13 November 1996,
the General Council adopted the decision approving agreements with the
IMF and the World Bank.(20)
23. The agreement between the WTO and the IMF was
signed on 9 December 1996.(21)
24. The agreement between the WTO and the World
Bank was signed on 28 April 1997.(22)
(ii) Observer status
25. The IMF and the World Bank have observer
status in the WTO as provided for in their respective agreements with
the WTO. See also paragraphs 135–137
below.
(iii) Cooperation agreements do not modify, add to
or diminish rights and obligations of Members
26. In Argentina
— Textiles and
Apparel, the
Appellate Body upheld the Panel’s finding “that there is nothing in
the Agreement Between the IMF and the WTO, the Declaration on the
Relationship of the WTO with the IMF or the Declaration on Coherence
which justifies a conclusion that a Member’s commitments to the IMF
shall prevail over its obligations under Article VIII of the GATT
1994.”(23)
The Appellate Body explained:
“The 1994 Declaration on Coherence is a
Ministerial decision that articulates the objective of promoting
increased cooperation between the WTO and the IMF in order to encourage
greater coherence in global economic policy-making. This objective is
more explicitly recognized in the treaty language of the WTO Agreement
in Article III:5, which states:
‘With a view to achieving greater coherence in
global economic policy-making, the WTO shall cooperate, as
appropriate,
with the International Monetary Fund and with the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development and its affiliated agencies.’ (emphasis
added)
In furtherance of the WTO’s mandate to ‘cooperate,
as appropriate’ with the IMF, the Agreement Between the IMF and the
WTO was concluded in 1996.(24) This Agreement provides for specific means
of administrative cooperation between the two organizations. It provides
for consultations and the exchange of information between the WTO
Secretariat and the staff of the IMF in certain specified circumstances,
and grants to each organization observer status in certain of the other’s
meetings.(25)
The Agreement Between the IMF and the WTO,
however, does not modify, add to or diminish the rights and obligations
of Members under the WTO Agreement, nor does it modify individual States’
commitments to the IMF. It does not provide any substantive rules
concerning the resolution of possible conflicts between obligations of a
Member under the WTO Agreement and obligations under the Articles of
Agreement of the IMF or any agreement with the IMF. However, paragraph
10 of the Agreement Between the IMF and the WTO contains a direction to
the staff of the IMF and the WTO Secretariat to consult on ‘issues of
possible inconsistency between
measures under discussion’.
In the 1994 Declaration on the Relationship of the
WTO with the IMF, Ministers reaffirmed that, unless otherwise provided
for in the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of
Multilateral Trade Negotiations, ‘the relationship of the WTO with the
International Monetary Fund, with regard to the areas covered by the
Multilateral Trade Agreements in Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement, will be
based on the provisions that have governed the relationship of the
CONTRACTING PARTIES to the GATT 1947 with the International Monetary
Fund.’ We note that certain provisions of the GATT 1994, such as
Articles XII, XIV, XV and
XVIII, permit a WTO Member, in certain
specified circumstances relating to exchange matters and/or balance of
payments, to be excused from certain of its obligations under the GATT
1994. However, Article VIII contains no such exception or permission.”(26)
(iv) No requirement for WTO panels to consult with
IMF
27. In Argentina
— Textiles and
Apparel, rejecting
the claim that the Panel did not make “an objective assessment of the
matter” as required under Article 11 of the DSU, by not acceding to
the parties’ request to seek information from the IMF so as to obtain
its opinion on certain issues, the Appellate Body stated that “[a]s 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.”(27) On this issue, see the Chapter on the DSU,
Section XXIII.B.2.
28. The Declaration on the Relationship of the WTO
with the IMF is annexed to the WTO Agreement, see Section XX
below.
(b) “with a view to achieving greater coherence
in global economic policy-making”
(i) General
29. The Managing Director of the IMF, the
President of the World Bank and the Director-General of the WTO jointly
issued a report on Coherence(28) on 21 October 1998, pursuant to paragraph
5 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration.
30. The General Council authorized the Chairman to
hold special informal meetings regarding coherence issues, on 15 and 16
February 1999, pursuant to the request of either the delegations or the
Director-General.(29) The General Council held additional meetings on 13
May 2003(30) and 22 October
2004(31) and discussed issues on coherence.
31. For the text of the Declaration on the
Contribution of the WTO to Achieving Greater Coherence in Global
Economic Policymaking, see Section XIX below.
(ii) Annual reports
32. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Declaration of
the General Council on “Agreements between the WTO, the IMF and the
World Bank”, the Director-General issues an annual report to Members
on the activities carried out by the WTO under its cooperation
agreements with these aforementioned institutions.(32)
Footnotes:
1. Appellate Body
Report on US — Gasoline, p. 30. back to text
2. Appellate Body Report on
Brazil — Desiccated Coconut, p. 17. back to text
3. Appellate Body Report on
US — Shrimp, paras.
129–131. back to text
4. Appellate Body Report on
US — Shrimp, paras.
152, 153 and 155. back to text
5. Panel Report on
India — Quantitative
Restrictions, para. 7.2. back to text
6. Panel Report on Brazil — Aircraft (Article
21.5 — Canada), para. 6.47, fn 49. back to text
7. Panel Report on
Turkey — Textiles, paras.
9.161–9.163. back to text
8. GATT doc. MTN.TNC/40. back
to text
9. GATT doc. MTN.TNC/W/146, p. 4. back
to text
10. Appellate Body Report on
Brazil — Desiccated Coconut, pp.
12–13. back to text
11. (footnote original) WTO
Agreement,
Articles XI, XII, XIII,
XIV and XV, respectively. back
to text
12. Appellate Body Report on
Brazil — Desiccated Coconut, p. 12. back to text
13. (footnote original) WTO Agreement,
Article II:2. back to text
14. (footnote original) We have recently
confirmed this principle in our Report in Korea — Dairy, para. 81. See
also Appellate Body
Reports on US — Gasoline, p. 23; Japan — Alcoholic
Beverages II, p. 12; and India — Patents (US), fn. 25. back to text
15. Appellate Body Report on
Argentina — Footwear (EC), para. 81. back to text
16. WT/MIN(96)/DEC paras. 1 and 19. back
to text
17. WT/MIN(98)/DEC/1, paras. 9–11. back
to text
18. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1
back
to text
19. See WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, para. 30; and
para.
57 of this Chapter. back to text
20. WT/GC/M/16, section 7. The text of the
decision to approve these Agreements is in WT/L/194. The WTO
Director-General issued a report on the implementation of the
cooperation agreements with the IMF and the World Bank on 13 November
1997. The text of the report is in WT/GC/W/68. back
to text
21. The text of the Agreement with the
International Monetary Fund is in Annex I to WT/L/195. back
to text
22. The text of the Agreement with the World
Bank is in Annex II to WT/L/195.
back to text
23. Appellate Body Report on
Argentina — Textiles and Apparel, para. 70. back to text
24. (footnote original) Done at Singapore,
9 December 1996. back to text
25. (footnote original) Excluding the DSB
and dispute settlement panels, except where “matters of jurisdictional
relevance to the Fund are to be considered”. The WTO may invite a
member of the staff of the Fund to attend a meeting of DSB “when the
WTO, after consultation between the WTO Secretariat and the staff of the
Fund, finds that such a presence would be of particular common interest
to both organizations.” Agreement Between the IMF and the WTO,
para. 6. back to text
26. Appellate Body Report on
Argentina — Textiles and Apparel, paras.
70–73. back to text
27. Appellate Body Report on
Argentina — Textiles and Apparel, para. 85. back to text
28. The text of the report can be found in
WT/GC/13. back to text
29. WT/GC/M/35, section 3. back
to text
30. WT/GC/M/79. back to
text
31. WT/GC/M/89. back to
text
32. WT/TF/COh/S/3–6, 8 and 10. back
to text
|
