./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/C/W/156
4 July 2000
(00-2741)
Council for Trade in Services Original:  English
COMMUNICATION FROM JAPAN
Review of Article II Exemptions
Additional Questionnaire on the List of MFN Exemptions
with Regard to the Meeting of 29 May 2000
The attached paper has been received from the delegation of Japan with the request that it be
circulated to Members of the Council for Trade in Services.
_______________
As a follow-up to the Special Session which was held on 29 May 2000, the following shows
Japan's additional questions with regard to the responses given by Members during that Session.  We
should be grateful if we could receive replies from all concerned.
1. Concerning the questions to the US (137, 149, 154, 156, 158, 161, 162, 167, 169, 170, 171,
172 and 173), the US did not provide any replies during the Special Session on 29 May.  However, it
is understood that the above questions are the most essential in order to fulfill the purpose of the
Review, as provided for in Article 4(a) of the "Annex on Article II Exemptions": that a review shall
"examine whether the conditions which created the need for the exemption still prevail".  In other
words, these questions are within the purpose of the Annex (i.e. not "beyond the purpose of theAnnex" as stated by the US) on the understanding that we require objective information for
"educational" purposes.  Thus, Japan believes that a contribution from the US, with reference to
questions, is necessary in order to make this series of the Session meaningful.  Again, Japan would
like to ask the US to provide the relevant information in, as far as possible, written form .
2. With regard to the questions to Egypt (23) and to Israel (306), we were unable to receive any
replies during the previous session.  We would, therefore, like to ask Egypt and Israel to provide their
response in, as much as possible, written form.
3. Concerning the questions to Canada (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 188), to Chile (18), EC (33, 34, 38,
49, 50, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 222), to Poland (89, 90, 91,92) , to Sweden (111, 112, 113, 114),
to Costa Rica (255, 256) and  to Turkey (295, 296), we were not given an adequate explanation.  We
would, therefore, like to ask those Members to pr ovide a more precise explanation, for instance,
together with concrete examples.
4. With regard to the question to Singapore (101), we highly appreciated Singapore's detailed
explanation regarding the bilateral Investment Guarantee Agreements (IGAs) on the basis of
reciprocity.  Has the increase in investment been enhanced as a result of the Investment GuaranteeAgreements?S/C/W/156
Page 2
5. With regard to the question to the EC:  Italy (31), the EC explained that the reciprocity
requirement, referring to the authorization for the pu rchase of real estate in Italy by foreign natural
persons and juridical persons, could be a means to promote less restrictive measures in those countries
which do not allow foreign citizens to purchase real estate or which limit the exercise of such right.  If
that is the case, why do the other Member States of the EC not apply this measure?  We would like toknow why only Italy can enjoy the reciprocal benefits explained above?
6. With regard to the question to Switzerland (130), Switzerland explained that the concept of
traditional recruiting areas for immigrants was no longer exclusive, nor exhaustive, and that the Swiss
immigration policy was clearly evolving towards a broader criteria, such as qualification, training, or
other specific reasons, rather than simply on the criteria of origin.  Switzerland also provided the
following countries, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, as examples benefiting from such new
phenomena.  We would like to know what kind of  criteria has been newly applied for selecting
additional countries to the EC and the EFTA countries, which already benefit from traditional
recruiting?  Are there any similarity in comparison to the EC and the EFTA?
7. With regard to the question to Singapore (182), Singapore explained that all foreign law firms
and lawyers practising foreign law in Singapore are now required to apply for statutory registration
with the Attorney General after the Legal Profession International Services Rules came into force on5 May 2000.  For the sake of transparency, we would be grateful if Singapore would let us know,  the
exact requirements and procedures for statutory registration.  We would also be grateful if Singapore
could explain the reason why those requirements and procedures cannot be applied to all Members on
an MFN basis.
__________