 RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPDR/M/78/Corr.1  
 
20 May 2022 
(22-3919) Page: 1/2 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29 MARCH  2022 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Corrigendum2 
 
Please note the following corrections  in bold and strike out : 
 
 
On page 1, following the fourth paragraph, the report should read : 
 
"The representative  of Ukraine  made  a statement  about  the current  situation  in her country , and its 
effects  on Ukraine 's participation  in the WTO.  It was already  the 34th day of war started  by the 
Russian  Federation  against  Ukraine  and its people.  For more than a month  already,  Russia  had 
continued  to commit  an unprecedented  aggression  against  her country,  an attack  on the sovereignty  
and the territorial  integrity  of Ukraine  in bruta l violation  of international  law.  
 
The representative  of the Russian  Federation  raised  a point  of order.  She noted  that the 
comments  of the previous  speaker  did not fall within  the competence  of the WTO,  the 
issues  were  not part of the mandate  of the WPDR,  and were  not relevant  to the meeting's  
agenda,  as reflected  in document  WTO/AIR/WPDR/16  and Corr.1  and agreed  by all the 
Members  at the beginning  of the meeting.  
 
The Chairman  said that he would  allow  Ukraine  to continue.   
 
The representative  of Ukraine  stated  that her government  – being  devoted  to the core 
principles  and values  of the WTO,  as well as to the multilateral  trading  system  in general  – was 
convinced  that the military  aggression  of one WTO Member  towards  another  WTO Member  was 
putting  the trading  system  in an unpreceden ted situation  that could  not allow Members  to conduct  
business  as usual.  Russia 's military  aggression  was destroying  the development  of infrastructure  
and the economy.  Effects  on trade,  prices,  and the global  flow of goods  and services  could  already  
be observed.  The full scale war launched  by Russia  had strong  and long-term economic  and trade  
consequences,  which  needed  to be acknowledge d and address ed. Bearing  all this in mind,  Russia 's 
aggression  had created  an uncertain  situation  directly  related  to the process  of implementation  of 
Ukraine 's commitments  under  the GATS  with regard  to all modes  of supply  and most - if not all - 
services  sectors.  In the current  situation,  Ukraine  was not in a position  to provide  usual  business  
conditions  for services  suppliers  and consumers  of other  WTO Members.  Therefore,  Ukraine  hoped  
that WTO Members  would  continue  to stand  in solidarity  with Ukraine  and its people  and would  
impose  trade  restrictive  measures  against  the aggressor  state in order  to stop the unjustified  attack. 
Moreover,  Ukraine  urged  all WTO Members  to consider  taking  further  action  with a view to 
suspending  the participation  of the Russian  Federation  in the WTO for its violation  of the purpose  
and principles  of the Organization.  Ukraine  was very grateful  to all WTO Members  that had stood  
with Ukraine  in response  to this terrible  war and were refusing  to engage  with Russia.  
 
The representative  of the Russian  Federation  raised  a point of order.  She noted that the comments  
of the previous  speaker  did not fall within  the competence  of the WTO,  the issues  were not part of 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice to 
the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 In English only.  S/WPDR/M/78/Corr.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  the mandate  of the WPDR , and were not relevant  to the meeting 's agenda , as reflected  in document  
WTO/AIR/WPDR/16  and Corr.1  and agreed  by all the Members  at the beginning  of the meeting. " 
 
 
On page 3, the last paragraph before item 1 should read :  
 
"The representative of the Russian Federation  expressed her  disappoint ment that this meeting of 
the WPDR  had started with a violation of the procedure that require d Members to follow the agenda  
as adopted . Unfortunately, Members had raised issues that were beyond  the scope of the WTO . 
Lamentably, the meeting  had started with disinformation, which was actively being used to 
manipulate public opinion and incite hatred towards Russians . Previous speakers had not 
succeeded much in truthfulness and objectivity.  Many Members had called themselves 
supporters of the multilateral system  at a recent General Council meeting , and had co-sponsored a 
statement  on immediate action to support the multilateral trading system in preparation for a 
successful MC12 .3 However, those same M embers call ed for an economic war against Russia, 
introduce d aggressive restrictive discriminatory measures , which were  ineffective as a political tool, 
and led to damage s to the world economy, to an increase in business costs, to disruptions in supply 
chains, and to shocks in various markets. The friends of the  multilateral trading  system were not 
those who sought further turbulence to trade, but those who abide d by its rules and remember ed 
that trade , even in the most difficult times , had been  able to play a stabilizing role.  The Russian 
Federation called on Members to respect the rules of procedures and not t urn this formal meeting  
of the WPDR  into a talk show. " 
 
On page 13 , paragraph 1.42 should read : 
 
"1.42 The Russian Federation noted that it had acceded the WTO in 2012 when the negotiating 
function had already been under pressure from serious divergence s among Members  and needed 
to be driven . At the same time, the urgency  to negotiate up -to-date trade rules, especially in such 
an important economic sector like services, was clear. The Russia n Federation had decided to  join 
the Joint Initiative  on Services Domestic Regulation since it was convinced that  disciplines on 
transparency, legal certainty, and predictability that would aim  to reduce unnecessary regulatory 
barriers for businesses and consumers around the globe , were closely in line with t he spirit of th e 
WTO and did not contradict the mandate of GATS Article VI:4. The Russian Federation did not  
consider that the disciplines could  affect any existing rights and obligations of Members under the 
GATS. Members ' right to regulate and to introdu ce new regulations in order to meet national policy 
objectives, especially in developing countries, as a key principle of the GATS remain ed 
unquestionable. This was very important not only in the context of domestic regulation, but also 
when negotiating  any new rules on trade in services.  Moreover, the Russian Federation noted that 
the activities of WPDR were to some extent unique , perhaps more than in other subsidiary 
bodies of the Council for Trade in Services,  and its mandate provided space for  further  
negotiati ng work. To develop rules was a clear mandate of the WPDR.  In this regard, she 
echoed the Initiative 's Coordinator to encourage all Members to consider what provisions on services 
domestic regulation could be discussed in the WPDR  on a multilateral basis . While tThe Reference 
Paper on Services Domestic Regulation already provided  a good set of rules  and 
recommendations . However, it was like a snapshot made in a certain period, the period of 
the outgoing era in trade policy.  Iit was  not necessarily  exhaustive  nor constant . Indeed, in  
many regional agreements and at the national level, there were already examples of  different  and 
more ambitious provisions  on domestic regulation in services  sectors ." 
 
 
__________  
 
3 WT/GC/W/841/Rev.3 .  