./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/52
3 February 1999
(99-0391)
Dispute Settlement Body
8 December 1998
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 8 December 1998
Chairman:  Mr. Kamel Morjane (Tunisia)
1. Extension of the deadline for the review of the DSU
(a) Statement by the Chairman
The Chairman said that the purpose of the meeting was to take a decision concerning the
continuation of the ongoing DSU review.  In the light of the discussion, at the present meeting, he
wished to make the following proposal:
"In the light of the requirement that a full review of the dispute settlement rules and
procedures take place within four years after the entry into force of the Agreement Establishing theWorld Trade Organization, the Dispute Settlement Body has conducted extensive discussions in
informal meetings.  However, as the discussions have not been completed and there remain a number
of suggestions by Members that have yet to be considered, there is a concensus to continue
discussions beyond the end of this year.  The DSB therefore has agreed to propose to the General
Council that it decide to continue and to complete  the review process including the preparation of the
report by the end of July 1999".  He requested that the DSB agree to this proposal and that it be
referred for consideration by the General Council.
The representative of Thailand said that his delegation could accept the Chairman's proposal.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation had carefully examined the
Chairman's proposal.  Although Hong Kong, China pr eferred that the review period be extended only
for three months, in the spirit of compromise, it was willing to accept the Chairman's proposal.  He
then drew attention to the follow ing points:  (i) his delegation considered that the Dispute Settlement
Understanding was a fundamental cornerstone of the WTO and, therefore, the 1999 work programme
for the DSU review should only be limited to those matters on which it was expected that a consensus
could be reached.  Those points on which it was clear that no consensus could be reached should begiven less attention.  Furthermore, the 1999 work programme should be more intensive as compared
to that of 1998 in order to be able to complete the review of the DSU by the end of July 1999;  and (ii)
his delegation considered that the Ministerial Decision did not require that a decision concerning the
review should be taken by the Ministerial Conference and that under the Marrakesh Agreement, the
General Council had the full authority to take up this  task at its first meeting after the completion of
the DSU review.  During the extended review period his delegation would work on the basis of the
above understanding.
The representative of the Philippines said that his delegation accepted the Chairman's
proposal on the understanding that it would not prevent the DSB, at any time, to decide on any matterWT/DSB/M/52
Page 2
related to this decision.  In his delegation's view, the General Council had only the authority that had
been delegated to it under Article IV:2 of the WTO Agreement.  In cases in which it had been
indicated that a decision was to be taken by the Ministerial Conference, no authority had been
delegated to the General Council.
The representative of Mexico wished to know if a decision whether to continue, modify or
terminate the DSU rules and procedures would be taken by the Third Ministerial Conference.
The Chairman said that delegations were entitled to make statements to indicate their
interpretation of the text of the Ministerial Decision.  However, the points raised at the present
meeting would be examined at a later stage.
The DSB took note of the statements, agreed  to the Chairman's proposal and agreed  that it be
referred for consideration by the General Council.
__________