The WTO and regulatory freedom: WTO disciplines on market access, non-discrimination and domestic regulation relating to trade in goods and services

Journal of International Economic Law

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 953-987

  Vranes, Erich ^a  

^a VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 73849143391     PISSN: 13693034     EISSN: 14643758     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jiel/jgp034     Document Type: Article

References (174)

1. JHH Weiler, 'Epilogue: Towards a Common Law of International Trade' in JHH Weiler (ed) The EU, the WTO, and the NAFTA. Towards a Common Law of International Trade? (OUP, Oxford 2000) 201, 205.
2. On the other exceptions to Article XI cf below, n 19.
3. Cf below, Section II.
4. On this and the following cf, eg Weiler (n 1) 201 ff;
5. Markus Krajewski, National Regulation and Trade Liberalization in Services (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2003) 6-7;
6. Joost Pauwelyn, 'Rien ne Va Plus? Distinguishing Domestic Regulation from Market Access in GATT and GATS', Duke Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 85, October 2005, 131 ff accessed 21 September 2009;
7. Jan Wouters and Dominic Coppens, 'GATS and Domestic Regulation: Balancing the Right to Regulate and Trade Liberalization' in Kern Alexander and Mads Andenas (eds) The World Trade Organization and Trade in Services (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden 2008) 207, 209-10.
8. Weiler (n 1) 202 ff.
9. Cf, eg WTO Secretariat, Article VI:4 of the GATS: Disciplines on Domestic Regulation Applicable to All Services, Note by the Secretariat, WTO Doc S/C/W/96, 1 March 1999, para 6; Pauwelyn (n 4) 134.
10. For a recent contribution cf, eg Erich Vranes, Trade and the Environment. Fundamental Issues in International Law, WTO Law and Legal Theory (OUP, Oxford 2009) 256-82 with extensive further references.
11. Cf, eg Weiler (n 1) 202 ff.
12. Cf Vranes (n 8) 257-60, 399-400.
13. Weiler (n 1) 205-6;
14. Krajewski (n 4) 7 et passim;
15. Wouters and Coppens (n 4) 210.
16. Cf above.
17. Cf, eg WTO Secretariat, Article VI:4 of the GATS: Disciplines on Domestic Regulation Applicable to All Services, Note by the Secretariat, WTO Doc S/C/W/96, 1 March 1999, para 6, which refers to the WTO TBT Agreement's approach to trade in goods (which is also concerned with a multilateral review of non-discriminatory measures) as 'domestic regulation' approach.
18. Cf Krajewski (n 4) 6;
19. Wouters and Coppens (n 4) 209.
20. Weiler (n 1) 231;
21. Joel P Trachtman, 'Lessons for GATS Article VI from the SPS, TBT and GATT Treatment of Domestic Regulation', SSRN Working Paper (2002) 20-2 (available at http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=298760);
22. Gabrielle Marceau and Joel P Trachtman, 'GATT, TBT and SPS: A Map of Domestic Regulation of Goods' in Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (eds), The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2003 (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2004) 275, 289.
23. Krajewski (n 4) 6-7.
24. On this principle and the 'regulatory philosophy' of the GATT more generally cf, eg, Michael J Trebilcock and Robert Howse, The Regulation of International Trade (Routledge, London 1999) 25 ff, 112 ff;
25. John H Jackson, The World Trading System. Law and Policy of International Economic Relations (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1997) 139 ff;
26. and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System: International Law, International Organizations and Dispute Settlement (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, London 1997) 10 ff.
27. Subsections II.A. and B. are based on Vranes, Trade and the Environment. Fundamental Issues in International and WTO Law (habilitation thesis, manuscript submitted at Vienna University of Economics and Business, Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien) 2006, 315-9.
28. See below, Subsection B.
29. Article XI forms part of a nuanced rule-exception regime, which is laid down in Articles XI-XIV. Articles XI:2 and XII set forth exceptions to the prohibition contained in Article XI:1. When restrictions are exceptionally permitted, they must, as a rule, be applied on a non-discriminatory basis; there are, however, exceptions also to the latter principle which are laid down in Article XIV. On this cf, eg, Sebastian Puth, WTO und Umwelt. Die Produkt-Prozess-Doktrin (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 2003) 277;
30. Mitsuo Matsushita, Thomas J Schoenbaum and Petros C Mavroidis, The World Trade Organization (2nd edn OUP, Oxford 2006) 272 ff.
31. Cf Puth (n 19) 234-6;
32. Pauwelyn (n 4) 134;
33. Hans Rudolf Trüeb, Umweltrecht in der WTO (Schulthess, Zurich 2001) 115 ff.
34. Cf also Gerd Winter, 'Welthandelsrecht und Umweltschutz' in Klaus-Peter Dolde (ed) Umweltrecht im Wandel (Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 2001) 71, 79 ff;
35. Pauwelyn (n 4) 134 ff.
36. Weiler (n 1) 201 ff;
37. Pauwelyn (n 4) 134 ff;
38. Matsushita, Schoenbaum and Mavroidis, above, n 19, 269 ff.
39. Cf Weiler ibid;
40. Pauwelyn (n 4) 134 ff; this difference is also emphasized, in the context of the GATS, by the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, GATT DOC MTN.GNS/W/164 of 3 September 1993, para 5; with respect to the similar issue under the GATS cf Panagiotis Delimatsis, 'Don't Gamble with GATS-The Interaction Between Articles VI, XVI, XVII and XVIII GATS in the Light of the US-Gambling Case' (2006) 40 JWT 1059, 1070; on the broadly similar GATS context cf below, Section III.C.2.
41. Emphasis added.
42. Panel report, EC-Asbestos, para 8.93;
43. see also the panel report, India-Automotive, paras 7.259-7.261.
44. Panel report, Canada-FIRA, para 5.14;
45. concurring, panel report, US-Malt, para 5.63.
46. Cf the panel report, US-Section 337, para 5.11.
47. Cf also Puth (n 19) 236.
48. Cf Vranes (n 7) 319-50 with extensive further references.
49. This may explain why the US-Shrimp case was addressed under Article XI instead of Article III (see WTO panel report, United States-Import Prohibition on Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/R, adopted on 6 November 1998 and WTO Appellate Body report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted on 6 November 1998);
50. on this cf also Robert Howse and D Regan, 'The Product/ Process Distinction-An Illusory Basis for Disciplining "Unilateralism" in Trade Policy' (2000) 11 EJIL 249, 251, who refer to a strategic decision of the USA not to invoke the Note ad Article III, but to rely on Article XX on the basis of the facts of the case.
51. Cf the WTO panel report, India-Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector, WT/DS146/R, adopted on 5 April 2002, para 7.296 and fn 433;
52. on this cf also Wolfgang Weiss and Christoph Herrmann, Welthandeslrecht (Beck, Munich 2003), para 474;
53. William J Davey, 'WTO Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to GATT 1994' in Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (eds) The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2003 (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2004) 191, 191 ff;
54. Pauwelyn (n 4) 145 and fn 52.
55. On the conditions of judicial economy as construed by the Appellate Body cf the WTO Appellate Body report, Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/ AB/R, adopted on 6 November 1998, para 223 and the WTO panel report, United States- Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/R, adopted on 20 April 2005 (US-Gambling), paras 6.15 ff with further references.
56. Cf GATT, Analytical Index, Guide to GATT Law and Practice, Vol. 1 (1995) 136, which refers to the Havana Reports, 62, para 42 and to E/CONF.2/C.3/A/W.30, 2.
57. Cf also Committee on Trade and Environment, Taxes and Charges for Environmental Purposes. Border Tax Adjustment. Note by the Secretariat, WTO Doc WT/CTE/W/47, 2 May 1997, para 55;
58. Paul Demaret and P Stewardson, 'Border Tax Adjustments Under GATT and EC Law and General Implications for Environmental Taxes' (1994) 28 JWT 37;
59. Puth (n 19) 257 ff.
60. Cf ECJ, joined cases 2 & 3/69 Diamantarbeiders (1969) ECR 211, paras 15 ff;
61. on this and further case law cf also Meesenburg, 'Commentary on Article 25' in Jürgen Schwarze (ed) EU Kommentar (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2000) 411, paras 21 ff;
62. Rudolf Streinz, Europarecht (6th edn C. F. Müller, Heidelberg 2003) 307-8.
63. Just as in the case of the interrelation between Articles III:4 and XI:1, particular problems emerge in the relationship between Articles II and III:2 as respects non-product related process and production methods (PPMs). These issues are analyzed in detail in Vranes (n 7) 319-50.
64. Preamble, paras 2-5.
65. Article 2.2 and Annex 3, Article E.
66. Cf Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.
67. For a more detailed discussion cf below, Section III.B.2.
68. Cf Working Party on Professional Services, The Relevance of the Disciplines of the Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and on Import Licensing Procedures to Article VI.4 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Note by the Secretariat, 11 September 1996, WTO Doc. S/WPPS/W/9.
69. Ibid.
70. '. . . from the territory of one Member into the territory of any other Member' (Article I:2(a)).
71. '. . . in the territory of one Member to the service consumer of any other Member' (Article I:2(b)).
72. '. . . by a service supplier of one Member, through commercial presence in the territory of any other Member' (Article I:2(c)). Commercial presence is further defined in Article XXVIII(d) as meaning 'any type of business or professional establishment, including through (i) the constitution, acquisition or maintenance of a juridical person or (ii) the creation or maintenance of a branch or a representative office, within the territory of a Member for the purpose of supplying a service.'
73. '. . . by a service supplier of one Member, through presence of natural persons of a Member in the territory of any other Member' (Article I:2(d)).
74. Cf below, Sections IV.B-E.
75. Cf the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, GATT Doc MTN.GNS/W/164 of 3 September 1993, fn 2.
76. Cf the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, GATT Doc MTN.GNS/W/164 of 3 September 1993, para 3;
77. the schedules are explained in more elaborate form in Rudolf Adlung, 'Liberalisierung und (De-) Regulierung von Dienstleistungen in der Welthandelsorganisation: Versuch einer Zwischenbilanz aus der Sicht der Europäischen Gemeinschaft' in Peter-Christian Müller-Graff (ed) Die Europäische Gemeinschaft in der Welthandelsorganisation. Globalisierung und Weltmarktrecht als Herausforderung für Europa (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2000) 131 ff.
78. Services Sectoral Classification List, GATT Doc MTN.GNS/W/120, of 10 July 1991 (reproduced as Attachment 8 to the 2001 Scheduling Guidelines, WTO Doc S/L/92, of 28 March 2001).
79. Cf the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, GATT DoC MTN.GNS/W/164 of 3 September 1993, para 16.
80. Cf also Krajewski (n 4) 77.
81. The Scheduling Guidelines advise Members to use uniform terminology in scheduling commitments, suggesting that they inscribe 'none' in their schedule, where they do not intend to introduce any limitations, and to use the term 'unbound', where they wish not to make a commitment. When they intend to inscribe limitations to commitments, Members are called upon to describe each such measure concisely (see the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, GATT DoC MTN.GNS/W/164 of 3 September 1993, paras 23 ff).
82. Cf the panel report, US-Gambling, paras 6.34 ff;
83. and the Appellate Body report, US-Gambling, paras 159 ff.
84. Ibid.
85. Appellate Body report, US-Gambling, paras 171 ff.
86. Cf the panel report, US-Gambling, paras 6.72 ff;
87. Krajewski (n 4) 76-7.
88. Scheduling Guidelines, GATT Doc MTN.GNS/W/164 of 3 September 1993; Services Sectoral Classification List, GATT Doc MTN.GNS/W/120, of 10 July 1991 (reproduced as Attachment 8 to the 2001 Scheduling Guidelines, S/L/92, of 28 March 2001).
89. Appellate Body report, US-Gambling, paras 171 ff.
90. Appellate Body report, US-Gambling, para 193;
91. the opposite view is taken by Krajewski (n 4) 77.
92. Panel report, US-Gambling, para 6.87.
93. 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, para 16.
94. Panel report, US-Gambling, paras 6.72 ff, 6.87, 6.93.
95. Panel report, US-Gambling, paras 6.87, 6.135-6.137;
96. Appellate Body report, US- Gambling, paras 203-4.
97. Cf, eg, Werner Zdouc, 'WTO Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to the General Agreement on Trade in Services' in Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (ed) The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2003 (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2004) 381;
98. Krajewski (n 4) 100 ff.
99. This follows from the wording of Article VI:1, VI:3 and VI:5. Although it is disputed whether the disciplines to be developed under Article VI:4 are meant to apply to all sectors or only to sectors where specific commitments have been undertaken, a series of arguments-in particular, the context of Article VI:4 and the wording of Article VI:5 ('pending the entry into force of disciplines developed in these sectors [ie sectors with specific commitments] pursuant to paragraph 4')-militate for the latter alternative; see Krajewski (n 4) 137-9.
100. On this interplay see below, Section III.C.
101. Cf also Krajewski (n 4) 127-8.
102. On this cf below, Section IV.E. Cf also Pauwelyn (n 4) 152 ff;
103. contra (regarding Article VI:1) Chr Ohler, 'Handel mit Dienstleistungen' in W Weiß and Chr Herrmann, Welthandelsrecht (2003) 345 para 879;
104. Patrick Low and Aaditya Mattoo, 'Is There a Better Way? Alternative Approaches to Liberalization under GATS' in Pierre Sauvé and Robert M Stern (ed) GATS 2000. New Directions in Services Trade Liberalization (Center for Business and Government, Harvard University, Boston, MA 2000), 449, 455.
105. Cf above, Section II.C.
106. On these issues cf also the contributions in Aaditya Mattoo and Pierre Sauvé (eds), Domestic Regulation and Service Trade Liberalization (World Bank, Washington, DC 2003);
107. Krajewski (n 4) 130 ff
108. and Wouters and Coppens (n 4) 219 ff.
109. Cf WTO Secretariat, Article VI:4 of the GATS: Disciplines on Domestic Regulation Applicable to All Services, Note by the Secretariat, WTO Doc S/C/W/96, 1 March 1999, para 4 ('qualification requirements, that is to say substantive requirements which a professional service supplier is required to fulfil in order to obtain certification or a licence; qualification procedures, administrative or procedural rules relating to the administration of qualification requirements; licensing requirements, comprising substantive requirements other than qualification requirements, which a service supplier is required to comply with in order to obtain a formal permission to supply a service; licensing procedures, administrative procedures relating to the submission and processing of an application for a licence and technical standards, requirements which may apply both to the characteristics or definition of the service and to the manner in which it is performed.'); for a fuller description cf also WTO Secretariat, The Relevance of the Disciplines of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and on Import Licensing Procedures to Article VI:4 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, Note by the Secretariat, WTO Doc S/WPPS/W/9, 11 September 1996, para 4.
110. It is important to understand the consequence of the incorporation of the non-violation standard in Article VI:5 of the GATS: due to its presence in Article VI:5, measures falling under Article VI:5 of the GATS tend to come under rather lenient scrutiny (it has to be recalled, in this regard, that Article VI:5 applies solely to sectors where a Member has undertaken specific market access and/or non-discrimination commitments. With respect to measures in such sectors, it may be difficult to argue that they 'could not reasonably have been expected of that Member at the time the specific commitments in those sectors were made' (Article VI:5(a)(ii)). Hence, it is important to correctly determine whether a measure should be seen as having to be examined under Article VI:5 of the GATS and/or under possibly stricter disciplines such as Articles XVI and XVII.
111. Cf Krajewski (n 4) 152.
112. This view is taken, eg, by the WTO Secretariat, cf WTO Secretariat, Article VI:4 of the GATS: Disciplines on Domestic Regulation Applicable to All Services, Note by the Secretariat, WTO Doc S/C/W/96, 1 March 1999, para 11; see also Trachtman, Lessons (2002) 16-7;
113. Krajewski (n 4) 153;
114. Pauwelyn (n 4) 137, 167 and at fn 92;
115. however, when one takes the view that the possibility of non-violation complaints serves the function of avoiding circumventions of WTO law (cf Michael J Hahn, Die einseitige Aussetzung von GATT-Verpflichtungen als Repressalie (Springer, Berlin 1996) 204 ff), then a complaint could exceptionally be possible, namely when the respondent WTO Member has maintained existing measures that impinge on specific commitments and were not sufficiently recognizable for other Members.
116. Cf also the 2001 Scheduling Guidelines, para 8; the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, para 4 and the Committee on Specific Commitments, WTO Doc JOB(03)/213 of 20 November 2003, para 3 (attached as Annex I to Council for Trade in Services, Consideration of Issues Relating to Article XX:2 of the GATS, WTO Doc S/C/W/237 of 24 March 2004);
117. see also Pauwelyn (n 4) 148 ff.
118. The fact that the list in Article XVI:2 is exhaustive has been recognized in WTO dispute settlement practice, cf the panel report, US-Gambling, para 6.298; this is also confirmed in the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, pursuant to which '[t]he list is exhaustive and includes measures which may also be discriminatory according to the national treatment standard (Article XVII)' (1993 Scheduling Guidelines, GATT DOC MTN.GNS/W/164 of 3 September 1993, para 4);
119. see also Council for Trade in Services, Consideration of Issues Relating to Article XX:2 of the GATS-Report by the Chairman of the Committee on Specific Commitments, WTO Doc S/C/W/237 of 24 March 2004, Annex I, Job/03/213 of 20 November 2003, para 2.
120. Cf the panel report, US-Gambling, para 6.325.
121. Cf also Pauwelyn (n 4).
122. Cf above, Section IV.C.
123. Cf above, Section IV.A, and the Appellate Body report, US-Gambling, paras 171 ff.
124. On the alternative reading and its consequences cf in the following.
125. This view is also taken, eg, by the WTO Secretariat, cf WTO Secretariat, Article VI:4 of the GATS: Disciplines on Domestic Regulation Applicable to All Services, Note by the Secretariat, WTO Doc S/C/W/96, 1 March 1999, para 14.
126. On the requirement 'reasonably expected' cf above, Section III.B.2.
127. Cf Article VI:5(a)(ii) of the GATS.
128. Cf Erich Vranes, Trade and the Environment. Fundamental Issues in International and WTO Law (habilitation thesis, manuscript submitted at Vienna University of Economics and Business, Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien) 2006, 467-70; a similar argument has meanwhile been made by Wouters and Coppens (n 4).
129. Cf the 2001 Scheduling Guidelines, para 11 and the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, para 5;
130. see also Pauwelyn (n 4) 152 ff;
131. Krajewski (n 4) 136.
132. Cf the 2001 Scheduling Guidelines, para 10; Pauwelyn (n 4) 155 ff.
133. Cf above, Ch. 1 Section V.
134. Cf also the distinction between domestic regulations and market access measures as discussed by Weiler (n 1) 201 ff
135. and Pauwelyn (n 4) 152 ff et passim;
136. see also the panel report, US- Gambling, para 6.303.
137. Panel report, US-Gambling, para 6.304.
138. Ibid, para 6.330 (italics added).
139. Ibid, paras 6.326 ff;
140. see also Pauwelyn (n 4) 161 ff.
141. Cf, eg, Delimatsis (2006) 1071; cf the similar critique by Wouters and Coppens (n 4) 233 ff.
142. Regarding the panel's similar approach to Article XVI:2(c) cf Panel report, US-Gambling, paras 6.339 ff.
143. Appellate Body report, US-Gambling, paras 226 ff.
144. Ibid, para 227.
145. Ibid, para 238;
146. regarding the Appellate Body similar approach to Article XVI:2(c) cf ibid paras 240 ff.
147. Cf the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, para 5 and the 2001 Scheduling Guidelines, para 11. 100 On these points, cf also Pauwelyn (n 4) 152 ff and 161 ff;
148. and the US appeal, summarized in the Appellate Body report, US-Gambling, paras 21 ff;
149. see also Krajewski (n 4) 84, who points out that the Article XVI prohibition does not extend to ' de facto market access restrictions', but is confined to measures that fall into the exhaustive list of definitions in this provision.
150. Cf Erich Vranes, 'The Definition of "Norm Conflict" in International Law and Legal Theory' (2006) 17 EJIL 395, 395-418;
151. see also Ewald Wiederin, 'Was ist und welche Konsequenzen hat ein Normkonflikt?' (1990) 21 Rechtstheorie 311;
152. Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law. How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law (CUP, Cambridge 2003);
153. cf also Erich Vranes, 'Normkonflikt und Kompetenzkonflikt- Rechtstheoretische Anmerkungen zur völkerrechtlichen Fragmentier- ungsdiskussion', in Georg Nolte and Peter Hilpold (eds) Auslandsinvestitionen-Entwicklung großer Kodifikationen-Fragmentierung des Völkerrechts (Lang, Frankfurt 2008) 185-206.
154. Cf again the Appellate Body report, US-Gambling, paras 171 ff.
155. Scheduling Guidelines, para 10.
156. Cf above, Section II.
157. Erich Vranes, Trade and the Environment. Fundamental Issues in International and WTO Law (habilitation thesis, manuscript submitted at Vienna University of Economics and Business, Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien) 2006, 476-7;
158. a similar argument has meanwhile been made by Wouters and Coppens (n 4).
159. Cf also Pauwelyn (n 4) fn 92, according to whom a scheduled limitation will also prevail as lex specialis over Article VI:5 and eventual future VI:4 disciplines.
160. This conflict constellation-'prohibition under Article VI:5 versus permission under Article XVI'-appears theoretical, since 'licensing and qualification requirements and technical standards' in the sense of Article VI:5 that are coupled with market access restrictions in the sense of Article XVI are prohibited by Article XVI, which sets out a per se prohibition on such measures.
161. On Article XX:2 of the GATS and its impact in this context cf in the following; on the discussions on this provision see also Committee on Specific Commitments, WTO Doc JOB(03)/213 of 20 November 2003, paras 9 ff with further references (attached as Annex I to Council for Trade in Services, Consideration of Issues Relating to Article XX:2 of the GATS, WTO Doc S/C/W/237 of 24 March 2004).
162. Cf above, Section IV.D; see also the 2001 Scheduling Guidelines, para 8; the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, para 4 and the Committee on Specific Commitments, WTO Doc JOB(03)/213 of 20 November 2003, para 3 (attached as Annex I to Council for Trade in Services, Consideration of Issues Relating to Article XX:2 of the GATS, WTO Doc S/C/W/ 237 of 24 March 2004).
163. Cf the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, para 4 ('The list [in Article XVI:2] is exhaustive and includes measures which may also be discriminatory according to the national treatment standard').
164. Committee on Specific Commitments, WTO Doc JOB(03)/213 of 20 November 2003, para 3 (attached as Annex I to Council for Trade in Services, Consideration of Issues Relating to Article XX:2 of the GATS, WTO Doc S/C/W/237 of 24 March 2004).
165. Pauwelyn (n 4) 148 ff.
166. This can be depicted as follows: {Table presented}
167. Cf Article XX:2 ('Measures. . . shall be inscribed');
168. see also the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, para 25, pursuant to which the entry of 'measures maintained which are inconsistent with Articles XVI and XVII. . . should describe each measure concisely. . . . It would not be correct merely to enter in a column words such as 'bound', 'freeze' or 'standstill'.
169. Committee on Specific Commitments, WTO Doc JOB(03)/213 of 20 November 2003, para 8 (attached as Annex I to Council for Trade in Services, Consideration of Issues Relating to Article XX:2 of the GATS, WTO Doc S/C/W/237 of 24 March 2004);
170. see also Committee on Specific Commitments, Communication from Switzerland, WTO Doc JOB(03)/214 of 27 November 2003, para 3 (attached as Annex I to Council for Trade in Services, Consideration of Issues Relating to Article XX:2 of the GATS, WTO Doc S/C/W/237 of 24 March 2004).
171. Cf the WTO documents cited in the preceding footnote; the WTO Secretariat appears to take the view that Article XX:2 of the GATS deals with constellation (9) in the text above; on this cf Committee on Specific Commitments, WTO Doc JOB(03)/213 of 20 November 2003, para 11 (attached as Annex I to Council for Trade in Services, Consideration of Issues Relating to Article XX:2 of the GATS, WTO Doc S/C/W/237 of 24 March 2004).
172. Article XX:2 second sentence.
173. It should be noted, however, that the exact legal import of Article XX:2 is debated (cf the WTO documents cited in the preceding footnotes in the present subsection). According to the WTO Secretariat, Article XX:2 directly addresses constellation (9) (cf again, Committee on Specific Commitments, WTO Doc JOB(03)/213 of 20 November 2003, para 11 (attached as Annex I to Council for Trade in Services, Consideration of Issues Relating to Article XX:2 of the GATS, WTO Doc S/C/W/237 of 24 March 2004)). If one takes this view, it may be possible to argue that a limitation under Article XVI does not save a discriminatory market access measure from Article XVII disciplines.
174. Cf Committee on Specific Commitments, WTO Doc JOB(03)/213 of 20 November 2003, para 11 (attached as Annex I to Council for Trade in Services, Consideration of Issues Relating to Article XX:2 of the GATS, WTO Doc S/C/W/237 of 24 March 2004): 'The Secretariat has noted that the wording and context of Article XX:2 within the GATS suggest that the paragraph is a scheduling convention and might be applicable only to situations in which bindings with limitations were inscribed in both columns'.