WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS200/13
3 August 2000
(00-3188)
UNITED STATES – SECTION 306 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974
AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Communication from the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body
The Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body sent the following reply, dated 17 July 2000, to
the communication from Japan contained in document WT/DS200/12.
_______________
Thank you for your letter of 10 July enquiring about the US's responses to requests made by
various WTO Members to be joined into ongoing consultations (pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU)
in the dispute mentioned above.
Enclosed are photocopies of responses sent by the United States to the Members who had
requested participation in the consultations pursuant to Article 4.11, as copied to me.1
With reference to your comments regarding the need to circulate not only requests for
consultations (Article 4.3 of the DSU) and requests to be joined in consultations (Article 4.11 of the
DSU), but also the various responses to such requests to be joined into consultations, I have looked
into the matter and advised the Secretariat that it shou ld resort to its previous practice of circulating a
Note identifying Members accepted to participate in consultations pursuant to Article 4.11 of the
DSU, where such information has been made available to the Secretariat.  You recall that pursuant to
the wording of Article 4.11, third-party Members may participate in such cons ultations only with the
approval (acceptance) of the defending Member.  Members which are refused the right to participate
in such consultations may always, of course, request their own consultations with the defendant, whomay then decide to coordinate the consultations in both disputes.
I agree with you that transparency would be further increased if all responses were circulated
in their entirety and that the DSB has an interest in finding out which Members have been invited for
such consultations.  However, although a practice has developed of notifying the Chairman of theDSB or the Secretariat of (negative and positive) responses, there is no obligation to notify the DSB
of any refusal to have a third-party join into consultations.  In this context and in light of the
Secretariat's overload of translation work and the important number of such requests to be joined in
consultations, I hope you will agree that the circulation of even just the names of Members accepted
to join in consultations will be a considerable practical improvement.
I hope this suggestion is to your satisfaction.  If not, I should be happy to discuss the matter
further with you.
__________
                                                     
1 Available in the Legal Affairs Division, Office 2140.