RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE S/CSC/W/14
26March 1998
ORGANIZATION(98-1209)
Committee onSpecific Commitments
ELECTRONIC SCHEDULES: ASSIGNATION OF
EFFECTIVE DATES TOCOMMITMENTS
Note bytheSecretariat
1. Atthelastmeeting oftheCommittee theSecretariat indicated thatitwasnotyetabletopresent
toMembers adraftformat fortheelectronically maintained schedules duetodifficulties inassigning
dates tocommitments. Itwillberemembered thatinearlier discussions oftheproposal toestablish
electronic schedules, theSecretariat hadsuggested thatitwould beuseful toinclude inthemthedates
onwhich commitments hadbeenassumed. However, further work onthesubject hasrevealed that
therearedifficulties inassigning dateswhich cannot beovercome intheshortterm. Thisnoteexplains
these difficulties andsuggests thatinthelightofthemtheideaofindicating thedateofcommitments
intheelectronic schedules should besetaside forthetimebeing.
2. Asalready explained inparagraph 7ofdocument S/CSC/W/5, thevalue ofassigning dates
tocommitments stems inparticular fromthede-consolidation provisions ofArticle XXI:1(a)1,which
saysthatacommitment maybemodified orwithdrawn onlyafterthelapse ofthree years from the
dateofitsentry intoforce. Intheevent ofdisagreement about theright tomodify orwithdraw a
commitment itwould benecessary toestablish thedateofitsentry intoforce. Asimilar needmight
ariseinrelation toArticles XXIII:3 andVI:5(ii), where thedateofacommitment could affect the
duration ofthe"reasonable expectations" ofaMember. Article VI:5(ii) refers specifically tothetime
atwhich commitments were made.2
3. Thedifficulty inincluding dates inelectronic schedules canbeexpressed asfollows: once
acommitment ismodified anewcommitment enters intoforce, andittooissubject tothethree-year
"freeze" inArticle XXIbefore itcanbechanged again. What thenistheextent ofthe"freeze"? Is
itonlythespecific limitation which hasbeenmodified -forexample thereduction ofabound equity
limitinmode 3-isitalllimitations scheduled under thatmode orisitthesectoral entry initsentirety?
Depending ontheview taken onthisquestion theMember concerned would bebound tomaintain
unchanged forthree years either thewhole sector, themodal entry orthenewly established equity
limit. Itisinthiscontext thattheassignment ofdates, either toanindividual limitation, amodal entry
oranentire sector, would haveimportant implications. However, thisissuehasnotyetbeendiscussed
byMembers, anditwould notbeappropriate fortheSecretariat tomake theassumptions which would
beinvolved inassigning dates tocommitments.
4. Oneanswer tothisproblem, ofcourse, would betoleave ittoconsultation andifnecessary
todispute settlement. Disagreements about theoperative dateofacommitment forArticle XXIpurposes
1"AMember maymodify orwithdraw anycommitment initsschedule atanytimeafterthree years haselapsed from
thedate onwhich thatcommitment entered intoforce ..."
2Seerelevant Jurisprudence intheGATT context inAnalytical Index pages 663-665.
./.S/CSC/W/14
Page2
areunlikely tobefrequent, andinthelastresort panels would havetoresolve them casebycase.
Thedecision nottoinclude dates intheelectronic schedules would havenolegalconsequences, since
itisagreed thattheelectronic schedules themselves willhavenolegalstatus. Definitive attribution
ofadate,ifthere weredisagreement, would inanycaseentail examination ofthetreaty copies ofthe
schedules.
5. TheCommittee istherefore requested toagree thatdates ofcommitments willnotbeincluded
intheelectronic schedules: itwillbepossible toreconsider suchadecision ifandwhen agreement
isreached ontheissue described above.
6. Atsome stage theCommittee willnodoubt wishtogivethought tothepossibility ofarriving
atanagreed definition ofthescope ofacommitment forthepurposes ofArticle XXI, independently
oftheelectronic schedules, sincesuchanagreement could avoid future misunderstandings. Thequestion
ishowever rather complex, anditshould notbeassumed thatresolution willbeeasy. Thecharts below
illustrate theeffects, interms oftheextent ofthe"freeze", ofthethreealternative possibilities mentioned
inparagraph 3above. Themost important difference between these alternatives liesinthedegree
offlexibility theyimply forinvocation ofArticle XXI. Itisclearforexample thatifthewhole sectoral
entry isfrozen asaresult ofanysignificant modification init(alternative (iii)), modifications would
belessfrequent thanifalternative (i),thesmallest meaningful unit,werechosen. Buttheimplication
ofchoosing alternative (i)would bethatthere might beseveral effective dates within agiven sectoral
ormodal entry. Ingeneral, thealternative (i)approach would bemore complicated interms of
administration.
(i)Specific limitation: (ii)Modal entry: (iii)Sectoral entry:
sector M.A N.T A.C sector M.A N.T A.C sector M.A N.T A.C
.... 1)......
2)......
3)..............
-........
-........
4)1)......
2).......
3).......
4)........................... 1)......
2)......
3)..............
-........
-........
4)1)......
2).......
3).......
4)........................... 1).......
2)......
3)..............
-.........
-.........
4)1)......
2)......
3)......
4).....................
__________