RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/CSC/W/34
16 July 2002
(02-3945)
Committee on Specific Commitments
ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS UNDE R ARTICLE XVIII OF THE GATS
Note by the Secretariat1
1. This note responds to a request by the Committee on Specific Commitments at its meeting
held on 11 March 2002.  It describes the negotiating history of Article XVIII of the GATS, the
existing additional commitments, and the sectoral approaches that have emerged to date.
I. BACKGROUND TO ARTICLE XVIII
2. In pursuing the progressive liberalization of trade in services, the GATS defines measures
which constitute restrictions on such trade.  In designing the structure of the Agreement, the drafters
aimed at the liberalization of such restrictions th rough the provisions of Part III of the Agreement,
which consists of Articles XVI (Market Access), XVII (National Treatment) and XVIII (Additional
Commitments).  Those provisions aim at establishing legal obligations in relation to the use of (orrather refraining from the use of) trade restrictive measures.
3. In drafting Part III of the GATS, the aim was to capture all types of trade restrictions and
establish a mechanism for scheduling specific commitments on them.  In Articles XVI and XVII,
specific commitments are defined in a way that allows  the identification of trade restrictions (in other
words limitations).  Therefore, if a Member undertakes a full market access or a national treatment
commitment, it must not apply any measure which would be inconsistent with the provisions of those
articles.  Nonetheless, the drafters realized that there may be other types of restrictions which wouldnot be captured by the disciplines of Articles XV I and XVII.  In other words, they would not be
discriminatory and therefore escape the provisions of  Article XVII, nor would they be of the six types
of measures refered to in sub-paragraphs 2(a) to (f) of Article XVI.  It was considered that such
measures would mainly, but not exclusively, relate to qualifications, standards and licencing matters.
At the same time, it was not possible to arrive at a clear definition of the restrictive nature of suchmeasures so that disciplines similar to those of Articles XVI and XVII could be established.  It was
therefore considered best to simply provide a legal framework for Members to negotiate and schedule
specific commitments which they would define, on a case-by-case basis, in relation to any measures
which do not fall within the scope of Article XVI or XVII.  That framework was provided in
Article XVIII, which states:
“ Members may negotiate commitments with respect to measures affecting trade in
services not subject to scheduling under Articles XVI or XVII, including those
regarding qualifications, standards or licensing matters.  Such commitments shall beinscribed in a Member's Schedule.”
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.S/CSC/W/34
Page 2
Since Article XVIII does not contain any legal obligations in itself, commitments inscribed under it
must take the form of undertakings, with full description of the obligations established therein.
4. It should be noted that the conception of Article XVIII was linked to that of paragraph 4 of
Article VI which establishes a work programme for the development of disciplines to ensure that
measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensingrequirements and procedures do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services.  So far under
this mandate, Members have only agreed on a set of disciplines on the accountancy sector, contained
in document S/L/64.  They have only been adopted as a "text" but have not been given legal effect.  A
decision in that regard is to be taken at the end of the current round of negotiations.  The legal
obligations contained in those disciplines are of a very similar nature to the types of commitments that
maybe negotiated under Article XVIII.  It should be noted, however, that the scope of Article XVIII
goes beyond that of Article VI:4.  The former provides the possibility for negotiating commitments onmatters other than qualifications, standards or licensing.  The following sections of this note will
provide illustrative examples in this regard.
5. While Article XVIII provided a legal framework for Members to address restrictive measures
not falling within the scope of Article XVI or XVII, it was considered that a more long term systemic
solution would be desirable.
II. EXISTING ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS
A. O
VERVIEW
6. Additional commitments have been undertaken by 72 Members in a number of services
sectors.2  The majority of these commitments relate to telecommunications, maritime and financial
services.  Additional commitments on professional and distribution services are also found in a fewschedules.  In recording their additional comm itments, Members have used different methods.
Sometimes they simply described the undertakings in  individual text entries into the fourth column of
their schedules.  More often, however, they have described the undertakings in a separate annex or
note to the schedule incorporated into the fourth colu mn by reference.  Specific entries in column tend
to be more Member specific, while entries through an “annex”  tend to be more standardized.
7. The types of measures addressed by inscriptions in the additional commitments column vary.
In the telecommunications sector, the most common inscriptions relate to competitive safeguards;
provisions for independent regulators; interconnection; universal service obligations; allocation and
use of scarce resources; and licensing provisions.  In other sectors, the most frequent inscriptions
relate to licensing provisions (conditions, requirements and/or procedures), services/product approval
procedures; “access to and use of” infrastructural services; future undertakings or elimination of
measures (with or without dates); use of firm names; and final-user price-setting mechanisms.
8. Other, less frequent, inscriptions in the fourth column of schedules provide for the future
review of policies; best endeavour clauses regarding licensing procedures; future undertakings
conditional upon passing of legislation; description of current policy; areas where foreign suppliers
are or may be permitted; contractual arrangements between suppliers; and temporary movement of
personnel of a firm.  For ease of reference, examples of individual text entries and their possiblecorrelation to GATS provisions is found in Attachment 1.
                                                     
2 The sectors concerned are accounting, auditing  and book-keeping; architectural; distribution;
engineering and integrated engineering; entertainment; financial; medical and dental; legal; maritime services;
taxation; and  telecommunications.S/CSC/W/34
Page 3
B. SECTORAL APPROACHES
(i) The case of telecommunications - the Reference Paper
9. The origins of the Reference Paper go back to 1992 during the Uruguay Round.  At that time,
delegations began informal discussions on the idea of extending negotiations on basic
telecommunications beyond the close of the Uruguay Round. In 1993, the Group of Negotiations onServices ("GNS") mandated an informal group to conduct consultations on the idea among the trade
and telecom officials of interested participants.  Early in its consultations, the group decided that the
best means of reaching a consensus on whether to negotiate after the close of the Round would be to
arrive at a common understanding on the services and issues that would to be subject to negotiations.
To accomplish this, the group decided to formulate a model schedule.  Although laid out in the form
of a GATS schedule, the model was intended to illustrate the scope of negotiations, rather than to
prescribe any particular level of liberalisation.
10. In the resulting draft, the group included a numb er of regulatory issues, sometimes referred to
as a “shopping list”, that were entered in the ad ditional commitments column of the model. The list
did not, at that time, elaborate on the substance of possible undertakings. It included:  the separation
of regulatory and operational functions; safeguards against anti-competitive practices; procedures or
requirements related to licensing, the allotment of radio frequencies, numbering and identificationcodes, type approval and interconnection; pricing related measures, such as cost-oriented pricing;
participation in the standards setting process; and rights of way for the construction of infrastructure.
3
Most of these topics can be found in the Reference Paper as it exists today.
Drafting of the Reference Paper
11. The Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications ("NGBT"), set up pursuant to the
Ministerial Decision on Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications, first met in May 1994.
Throughout 1994 and early 1995, meetings of the Group included discussion of regulatory issues.4
These were addressed under a recurring agenda item known as “outstanding technical and conceptualissues”.  During this period, communications from the United States and the European Communities
5
and non-papers from Canada6 offered perspectives on these issues.
12. Embarking on the next phase of negotiations, participants agreed to begin submitting initial
offers in July 1995. The offers of Japan and the United States were the first to include attachments
with proposed undertakings on regulatory issues . Japan also submitted an informal paper on
scheduling issues that included discussion of a number of the regulatory issues.7 By September 1995,
three more offers containing entries related to regulatory issues were tabled – those of Australia,
                                                     
3See Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications, Note by the Secretariat,  TS/NGBT/W/1, 2 May 1994,
which includes this version of the draft model schedule as an attachment.
4See summary records and also Synopsis of  Participants' Views on Outstanding Issues, Note by the
Secretariat S/NGBT/W/8, 29 June 1995 and Review of Outstanding Issues, Note by the Secretariat,
TS/NGBT/W/2, 8 July 1994 and a later update of the “Synopsis” that reflected discussions through July 1994,S/NGBT/W/8/Rev.1,  12 September 1995.
5Communication from the United States, Pro-competitive Regulatory and other Measures for Effective
Market Access in Basic Telecommunications Servi ces,  S/NGBT/W/5, 9 February 1995 and Communication
from the European Community and its Member States, GATS Coverage of Telecom Regulatory Issues,
S/NGBT/W/6, 21 April 1995.
6Informal Communication from Canada, Canadian Non-papers on Basic Telecommunications
Regulatory Issues, 13 April 1995.  Included papers on “Interconnection/Equal Access” and “CompetitionSafeguards”.
7Informal Communication from Japan, Draft Scheduling Guide on Basic Telecommunications,
Job No. 2437, 11 July 1995.S/CSC/W/34
Page 4
Canada and the Slovak Republic.8  As there did not yet exist a common text, the regulatory entries in
these offers were drafted independently by the delegations concerned, and thus varied. In November
1995, Venezuela also submitted a communication on regulatory considerations.9
13. In mid 1995, some delegations began holding consultations among themselves to explore
further how to deal with regulatory issues.  Initially, such consultations were between the US and theEC, or among “Quad” countries (US, EC, Japan a nd Canada). By the autumn of 1995, it had become
accepted wisdom that such consultations would have little chance of succeeding unless a
representative cross-section of NGBT participants were engaged. Subsequent informal consultations
among delegations were therefore plurilateral in nature, on the basis that any NGBT participant that
had tabled an offer would be invited to join.  These consultations evolved into an unofficial drafting
group known as the “Group of 12” but which ultimately included 16 participants (counting the EU
singly) from both developed and developing countries and representing most geographic regions.
14. The group’s proposed text, entitled the “Reference Paper”, was first presented as a non-paper
to a formal meeting of the NGBT in December 1995.
10 It was made clear that the paper represented a
draft, open to consideration and further elaboration by all participants in the negotiating group.
Subsequent informal consultations on the text were conducted under the auspices of the NGBT.  In
the informal as well as formal NGBT meetings in January and February 1996, the text was furtherconsidered and drafting suggestions by NGBT participants were accepted.  By the end of March 1996,
the text was considered by the NGBT to have reached its final form, but was still a non-paper.
11 The
following excerpt from the meeting minutes illustrates why this approach was used:
In discussion of the reference paper the point was made that it had no legal status and was to be
used as a guideline for the scheduling of additional commitments. The observation was also
made that there would be no binding commitment arising from the paper "per se"; only that
which was explicitly inscribed in the schedule of commitments would be of a legally bindingnature.  …  The Chairman concluded that the paper would retain its present status as a non-
paper, to be used as a guideline for the scheduling of commitments
.12
Status of the Reference Paper
15. Throughout most of the discussions of regula tory issues in the NGB T the main idea was to
address regulatory concerns through additional commitments in schedules. However, other options
were considered. Chief among these was the possibility of including the regulatory disciplines as an
additional annex to the GATS. The arguments in favour of this approach were that a common and
predictable set of disciplines would apply to all WTO Members that had assumed commitments in
basic telecommunications, and that request-offer negotiations would thereby be free to concentrate onmarket access.  Two drawbacks were perceived.  First, there was concern that drafting an annex
acceptable to all Members could result in weaker disciplines.  For example, Members that were not
yet planning to open their markets and for whom the regulatory disciplines were of much less
                                                     
8Communication from Australia, Draft Offer on Basic Telecommunications, S/NGBT/W/12/Add.6,
6 September 1995; Communication from Canada, Draft Offer on Basic Telecommunications,S/NGBT/W/12/Add.7, 11 September 1995; and Communication From Slovak Republic, Draft Offer on BasicTelecommunications, S/NGBT/W/12/Add.8, 25 September 1995.
9Communication From Venezuela, Some Principles for the Design of a Global Regulatory Framework,
S/NGBT/W/17, 24 November 1995.
10Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications, Report on the Meeting of 15 December 1995,
S/NGBT/11, 22 December 1995.
11Subsequently issued as Job No. 2104, Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications, Reference
Paper, 24 April 1996.
12Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications, Report on the Meeting of 22 March 1996,
S/NGBT/14, 29 March 1996, paragraph 5.S/CSC/W/34
Page 5
relevance, might nonetheless find it difficult to allow strong provisions to be included.  Second, there
was a sense that the NGBT, which did not comprise all WTO Members, did not have the authority or
mandate to amend the GATS. This was of particular concern because the NGBT was operating
outside the context of a full trade round in which it might otherwise have been possible for an annex
proposal to form part of a final package.
16. Possible ways to reflect the regulatory disciplines in Members' schedules were also
considered.  It was noted, however, that including them in, for example, a cover page, a head note, or
an attached explanatory note might not be construed as having legally binding status.13  It became
accepted, therefore, that the disciplines of the Reference Paper would be negotiated as additional
commitments under Article XVIII.
17. Finally, since the Reference Paper was considered a guide or model, the negotiated additional
commitments might consist of  all or only some of the provisions of the Reference Paper. However,they could also consist of Reference Paper provisions with modifications, or of alternative texts
drafted by the government concerned.  It would al so be possible for a government to choose not to
schedule any regulatory disciplines.  As reflected in the Fourth Protocol, regulatory disciplines were
scheduled by the majority (66 out of 69) of the participants.  Another six participants appear to have
scheduled regulatory commitments of their own drafting and a few scheduled the Reference Paperwith some type of modification.  At present,  79 of the 85 Members with basic telecommunications
commitments include additional commitments on regulatory disciplines in their schedules.
14
Scope and coverage of the Reference Paper
18. The Reference Paper states  in its “scope” that it contains “definitions and principles on the
regulatory framework for the basic telecommunications services”.  It defines the terms “users”,
“essential facilities” and “major supplier”. It also uses the term “public telecommunications transport
networks and services”(PTTNS), which is define d in the GATS Annex on Telecommunications.  The
regulatory issues covered by the reference paper are: competitive safeguards, interconnection,
universal service, licensing, independent regulators, and scarce resources.
19. The Reference Paper contains principles which are not entirely new, and which are related to
certain GATS Articles.  In many of its provisions, the Reference Paper calls for transparency and non-
discrimination.  In this sense, it reiterates the principles of Article III of the GATS, on transparency,
as well as Articles II and XVII (on MFN and National Treatment, respectively). In substance,
however, its main thrust is to safeguard competition and promote reasonable and fair regulation.  In
this regard, it develops further the principles and obligations found in Article VI on domestic
regulation, and in Article VIII on monopolies and exclusive service suppliers.
20. The GATS focuses on obligating governments to discipline their own behaviour as reflected
in measures taken by them affecting trade in services.  Article VIII is unique, however, in that it
obligates governments to take direct responsibility, in their policies and practices, for the behaviour of
suppliers to whom they have extended, formally or in effect, exclusive rights. As a result, Article VIII
obligations extend, in an indirect manner, to certain suppliers.  In many respects, both the Annex onTelecommunications and the Reference Paper extend this concept beyond monopoly suppliers,
                                                     
13See, for example, Communication from the United States, Scheduling Regulatory Principles,
S/NGBT/W/18,  23 January 1996.
14The added commitments come from the certification of unilateral submissions of telecom
commitments by Members that did not participate in the Fourth Protocol, certification of improvements byMembers included in the Fourth Protocol, and schedules submitted in the protocols of accession of new
Members.S/CSC/W/34
Page 6
making governments accountable for the behaviour of other suppliers in situations where such
suppliers may be capable of posing barriers to trade.
21. Both the Reference Paper and the Annex on Telecommunications also deal in large part with
forms of “access” to suppliers of  public15 basic telecommunications, or PTTNS.  However, the scope
of the Reference Paper is narrower than the Annex on Telecommunications in terms of the suppliers itobliges governments to subject to disciplines (only major suppliers for the former; any PTTNS for the
latter).  Nevertheless, in relation to the suppliers it addresses, the Reference Paper provides for
stronger obligations and contains higher levels of specific detail than the Annex.
Principal differences with GATS provisions
22. With regard to competition safeguards, competition aspects of GATS Article VIII
(monopolies and exclusive Providers) address only situations in which a Member’s suppliers haveexclusive rights and Article IX (business practices) represents only an obligation to enter into
consultations upon request. Negotiators recognised th at these two provisions would not be adequate in
liberalising situations where a dominant supplier (initially, the former monopoly) would exert control
over most of the market and available network facilities.  Accordingly, the competition provisions of
the Reference Paper (Section 1) are an extension of  Article VIII-like disciplines beyond the coverageof monopolies, applying them to dominant (“major”) suppliers. The examples of anti-competitive
practices cited in Section 1.2 of the Reference Paper (such as “anti-competitive cross-subsidisation”)
likely constitute the type of practices that Article VIII is intended to address, but only in respect of
suppliers with monopoly rights over at least some of the services concerned.
23. The primary objective of the interconnection provisions of the Reference Paper (Section 2) is
to safeguard competitive conditions in situations where a dominant supplier can exert control over its
competitors. This situation was singled out in this regard because negotiators widely recognised it as
one of the most significant means available to dominant operators to thwart new competitors and,
consequently, to diminish the value of market-access commitments made in Schedules. These
provisions offer disciplines with a high degree of technical and regulatory detail specific to a range ofissues suppliers face in obtaining interconnection.  For example,  governments who commit on the
reference paper are obliged not only to ensure that “major” suppliers conduct interconnection in a
non-discriminatory, reasonable, transparent, and tim ely manner at any feasible point in the network,
but also to ensure that providing poor quality connections, self-dealing, unreasonable prices, and
“bundling” of interconnection offers are not used by a supplier to circumvent the requirements.
24. The interconnection provisions of the Reference Paper also oblige governments to offer
recourse to a body with authority to resolve suppliers’ disputes regarding interconnection.  Theprovisions differ from Article VI:2 in that they provide recourse for a dispute that would commonly
(though not always) arise among non-governmental entities;  Article VI:2, on the other hand, concerns
recourse in relation to a government’s own administrative decisions.
25. Section 3 of the Reference Paper concerns the requirements imposed by governments on
service supplier to achieve universal service.  Aside from Reference Paper provisions, the only GATSobligations that would presumably apply to universal service obligations ("USOs") would  be MFN
treatment, transparency, and Article VI:1 on administering measures in a reasonable, objective and
impartial manner.  While the transparency-related provisions of the reference paper might appear to
be redundant with the GATS Article III, its reference to non-discrimination would appear to oblige
governments to administer USOs in a manner consistent with both MFN and national treatment.Furthermore, its obligation to administer USOs in a “competitively neutral” manner might be
                                                     
15 “Public” is defined in the Annex on Telecommunications as being “required, explicitly or in effect,
by a Member to be offered to the public generally”.S/CSC/W/34
Page 7
construed as being covered by the Article VI:1 requirement to be impartial, although making the
concept explicit may provide added legal certainty.  Finally, the most notable addition to GATS
disciplines in respect to USOs is that negotiators were able to agree to a necessity test.  Section 3
states that “[s]uch obligations will not be regarded as anti-competitive per se , provided they … are not
more burdensome than necessary for the kind of universal service defined by the Member”.
26. Licensing provisions of the Reference Paper (Section 4) require governments to make
publicly available the “period of time normally required to reach a decision” and to provide an
applicant, upon request, the reasons for denial of a license.  In both of these respects, the Reference
Paper goes beyond what was achieved in GATS Article VI:3 and, as such, probably also represents a
head start on Article VI:4 work in relation to this sector.  Moreover, in requiring the public
availability of “terms and conditions of individual licenses”, the Reference Paper goes beyond the
obligations of Article III on transparency. This is because individual licenses probably would not beconsidered measures “of general application” to which Article III  applies.
27. The Reference Paper provision on independent regulators (Section 5) requires that a
regulatory body be “separate from, and not accountable to, any supplier” and that its decisions and
procedures “shall be impartial with respect to all market participants”.  The most directly relevant
GATS provision in this respect is Article VI:1, which already requires Members to administermeasures in a reasonable, objective and impartial manner. However, Article VI:1 would not, in itself,
necessarily require altering what had been a common practice wherein the former monopoly supplier
also served as regulator.  Moreover, the Reference Paper provision goes on to restate the Article VI:1
obligation of impartiality in a separate sentence, clarifying that separation of functions is a necessary
but not sufficient condition. Even structurally independent operators would be held accountable forimpartiality under the terms of the Reference Paper, as well those of Article VI:1.
28. In a similar vein, the Reference Paper provisions on the allocation and use of scarce resources
(Section 6) concern the administration of procedures usually undertaken by governments.
16  In calling
for the procedures to be “carried out in an objective, timely, transparent and non-discriminatory
manner, the provisions are probably largely redundant with respect to GATS Articles II, III, and VI:1.However, there remains value-added in relation to GATS general obligations, if the reference to “non-
discriminatory” is construed also to require national treatment with respect to such procedures.  In
addition, timeliness is not specifically required in any of the related GATS provisions.  It is also
possible, with respect to allocation and use of frequencies, that this Reference Paper provision may
relate to technical standards addressed by Article VI:4. If so, it does not go far in the direction of
developing Article VI:4 disciplines, since it mainly  calls for the procedures to be carried out in an
objective manner.
29. Finally, the inter-relationships cited above illustrate that the Reference Paper commitments
operate in conjunction with, rather than in substitution for, any related GATS obligations. Therefore,
Members which have committed to regulatory principles incur these obligations in addition to their
GATS obligations. This would be consistent with the rationale for the existence and use of
Article XVIII.  Moreover, there are no provisions of the Reference Paper that seek to detract from orprovide exceptions to the general obligations of the GATS. It is also true that some general provisions
of the GATS oblige Members with no Reference Paper commitments to comply with obligations that
are similar to, though perhaps not as far-reaching as, those in the Reference Paper. While this would
be especially true for such Members with commitments on basic telecommunications, even for those
who do not, MFN and transparency obligations in GATS can have important implications forregulation of telecommunication regimes.
                                                     
16In some cases, monopoly telecom operators had responsibility for assigning numbers or allocation
and assignment of frequencies, particularly - but not only  - when such operators were government entities.  With
corporatisation and privatisation of operato rs, this practice is less common today.S/CSC/W/34
Page 8
(ii) The case of  Maritime Transport Services – Maritime Model Schedule
30. The origins of the draft maritime model schedule go back to the second half of 1992, when
the European Communities took the initiative to start  plurilateral consultations in order to define what
was then termed an "ideal schedule".  The objective was twofold: First, to agree on an ideal level of
commitments and, second, to define better those commitments, since the W/120 and CPC system wasthought  not to cover adequately all maritime specificities.
31. The first column contained a specific definition of "maritime transport" services and
"multimodal" services and a specific list of auxiliary services.  Further distinctions were contained in
the second and third columns, between types of tr affic, the situation of crew and onshore personnel,
and between companies establishing with the intention to fly the national flag and those establishing
without this intention.  Finally, the fourth co lumn contained additional commitments regarding
"access to/use of" port services, and multimodal transport services. The proposal  of the EuropeanCommunities was then endorsed by the "Quad" countries and, at a later stage, became the basis of a
Secretariat informal note.
32. Four successive versions of the draft model schedule have been drafted to date.  The first is
contained in an informal note from the European Communities on maritime transport services to the
Group of Negotiations on Services (GNS), dated 3 August 1993.  Three additional versions arecontained in informal notes by the Secretariat to the Negotiating Group on Maritime Transport
Services ("NGMTS"), the first with no Job number, dated 10 June 1994; Job No. 2845 of 26 October
1994, and Job No.1872 of 15 April 1996.
17
33. The following description will focus only on the additional commitments aspects of the
maritime model schedule.  More detailed descriptions of the negotiating history and of the content ofthe maritime model schedule are contained in document S/CSC/W/11 ("a brief analysis of cases of ad-
hoc scheduling in past services negotiations", of 9 October 1997, paragraphs 19-22), as well as in the
two background documents  on maritime transport produced by the Secretariat: S/C/W/62, dated
16 November 1998, and S/CSS/W/106, dated 4 October 2001.
34. Additional commitments on "access to/use of" port services and on "multimodal" transport
are contained in all four existing versions.  Whereas "access to/use of" port services  provisions were
inserted in extenso  in the fourth column from the first version, the "multimodal" provisions appeared
in the first three versions in the form of  a "N ote to the Schedule", annexed to it through a cross-
reference in the Additional Commitments column (i.e. "see note"), a technique also used for the
telecommunication Reference Paper.  However, this approach was changed in the last version, where
the provisions appear in extenso  in the fourth column but remain bracketed.  The text of these
provisions, in their latest version, reads as follows :
"Port services : The following services at the port are made available to international
maritime transport suppliers on reasonable and non discriminatory terms and conditions:
1. Pilotage
2. Towing and the tug assistance
3. Provisioning, fuelling and watering4. Garbage collecting and ballast waste disposal
5. Port Captain's services
6. Navigation aids
7. Shore-based operational services essential to ship operations including
communications water and electrical supplies
                                                     
17 All these  documents are available on request  from the Secretariat.S/CSC/W/34
Page 9
8. Emergency repair facilities
[9. Anchorage, berth and berthing services]"
Multimodal transport :
"[Where road, rail, inland waterways [and][coastal and inland shipping] [and related
auxiliary] services are not otherwise fully covered in this schedule, a multimodaltransport operator shall have the ability to rent, hire or charter trucks, railway
carriages [ships] or barges and related equipment, for the purpose of onward
forwarding of international cargoes carried by sea, or have access to and use of these
forms of transport services for the purpose of providing multimodal transport
services.]"
35. The common rationale for the additional commitments provisions for port services and for
multimodal transport was that they were key infras tructural services for maritime transport, key
components of the maritime transport chain (at an intermediary stage for port services and at a
downstream stage for multimodal services) and both were liable to create bottlenecks in doing
business.  In order to provide modern and efficient maritime transport services, shipowners ormaritime transport service suppliers, do not necessarily have to own or control "port services"
providers - which were mostly public entities in 1993 - or "multimodal transport" suppliers, which
would imply heavy investments in non-core business.   They needed, however, to ensure that these
services supplied by third parties (be they the go vernment/local authorities, or private local/foreign
third parties) were available on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions to prevent
bottlenecks or giving an unfair advantage to other maritime transport suppliers, be they other foreign
suppliers – the MFN aspect - or national suppliers of the country concerned – the national treatmentaspect.
36. More specifically, the "access to/use of" port services provisions were drafted because the
original proponents of the maritime model schedule feared that it could be argued that port services
were not covered by the general access provision of GATS Article XXVIII:(c)
18, which states that
"measures by Members affecting trade in services" include measures in respect of … (ii)  the access toand use of, in connection with the supply of a serv ice, services which are required by those Members
to be offered to the public generally ".  In the view of some, it could be argued that maritime transport
suppliers, even taken as a whole, were not "the public", and that "port services" were not "offered
generally ".  The existence of comparable specific provisions for the "access to the network" in the
Annex on Telecommunications initially, and later in the Telecommunications Reference Paper,  wasalso referred to in that regard.
37. In spite of several detailed debates and working papers, both during the Uruguay Round
negotiations and during negotiations in the NGMTS, the provision on "access to port services" has
remained unchanged and still contains brackets  for "anchorage, berth and berthing services ".  The
relevance of these "access to infrastructural services" provisions for other sectors where infrastructuralconstrained are relevant or sectors faced with scarce resources problems (e.g. grids for electricity,
pipelines for gas and oil, slots for air transport, routes for railways, etc.) has been discussed several
times since, both in Secretariat background documents and in Member's negotiating proposals.
38. As far as "multimodal" transport services are concerned, the intent of the drafters, as it
appears throughout the negotiating history, was to bring within the scope of the model schedulemeasures by Members forbidding foreigners any mu ltimodal abilities including the simple possibility
to contract with local land transport providers (truckers, railway operators, inland waterways
operators).  These type of measures would prevent the supply of the modern "door-to-door" maritime
                                                     
18 Previously draft Article XXXIV.S/CSC/W/34
Page 10
transport, which is tending to replace the traditional "port-to-port" approach.  These measures also
confine the maritime transport services to the "b lue sea side",  which is in most instances
unprofitable19.  That is why the text of the "multimodal" provisions (that has evolved over time)  is
centered on the ability to rent, hire or charter local land transport equipment.
39. Several Members have undertaken additional commitments on "access to/use of" port services
and "multimodal" transport.20
(iii) The Case of Financial Services
Situation under the Fifth Protocol to the GATS
40. Except for the special case of the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services,
some of whose provisions, when incorporated in a schedule, would constitute additional
commitments, only a few WTO Members explicitly undertook additional commitments during thenegotiations on financial services concluded on 12 December 1997 by means of the Fifth Protocol to
the GATS. These WTO Members are Brazil, the European Communities, Japan, and the United
States
21.
41. Additional commitments undertaken by Japan, on the one hand, and the European
Communities and the United States on the other, were the outcome of negotiations among these threetrading partners. As a result of those negotiations
22, Japan agreed to include as additional
commitments part of the provisions contained in the 1995 Financial Services Agreement and the 1996
Insurance Agreement signed with the United States, thus giving the benefit of those provisions to all
WTO Members on a Most-Favoured-Nation basis23, and subject therefore to the WTO dispute
settlement mechanism.
1. Japan's additional commitments
42. Japan's additional commitments on insurance reflect precise elements related to the regulatory
practices in that country, as contained in the 1996 Agreement with the United States, and cover the
following elements:
(a) Deregulation in the so-called "primary sectors" (i.e. standard life and non-life
insurance products)24;  and
                                                     
19 See OECD document DSTI/DOT MTC(2001)3, 11 January 2001.
20 A detailed description of those commitments, as well elements on the economics and the regulatory
framework of port services and multimodal transport, can be found in documents S/C/W/62 (paragraphs 31-37,38 and 57-60) and S/C/CSS/W/106 (paragraphs 91-107, 108-113 and Annexes 3, 7 and 8).
21 The schedules are the following: Brazil (GATS/SC/13/Suppl.3); the EC
(GATS/SC/31/Suppl.4/Rev.1); Japan (GATS/SC/46/Suppl.3); and the US (GATS/SC/90/Suppl.3).
22 For an interesting account of these negotiations among the US, the EC and Japan, see R. Brian
Woodrow, The 1997 World Trade Organization Accord on Financial Services: Its Impact and Implications for
the World Insurance Industry, the Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, Vol. 25, No.1, January 2000, pp. 78-
103. See also Inside US Trade, 18 July 1997 and 15 December 1997.
23 The three US-Japan bilateral agreements are the following: the 1994 Insurance Agreement
("Measures by the Government of the United States and the Government of Japan regarding Insurance",
Washington D.C., 11 October 1994); the 1996 Insurance Agreement ("Supplementary measures by thegovernment of the United States and the Government of Japan regarding Insurance", Washington D.C.,24 December 1996); and 1995 Financial Services Agreement ("Measures by the Government of Japan and theGovernment of the United States Regarding Financial Services", Washington D.C., 13 February 1995).
24 The Japanese insurance market is divided into three sectors. The first sector consists of standard life
insurance products; while the second sector consists of standard non-life insurance products, such asS/CSC/W/34
Page 11
(b) Entry into the so-called "third sector" by subsidiaries of life and non-life insurance
companies25.
43. Deregulation measures in the primary sectors scheduled as additional commitments include:
(a) Loosening restrictions for the introduction of a specific distribution method for
automobile insurance called "direct response system" ("Tsushin-Hanbai");26
(b) Loosening restrictions on the payment of premium for automobile insurance through
the use of credit cards;
(c) Accelerating the approval and introduction of sixteen specialized insurance
products27, through their inclusion in the list of products to which the notification
system applies;28
(d) Committing, by no later than 1 July 1998, to remove the obligation that insurers use
premium rates established by industry groups known as "rating organizations";
(e) Committing, when the necessary legislation be introduced, to allow for the flexibility
to differentiate, on the basis of the risk insured, the premium rates, as well as the
forms and distribution of products;  and
                                                                                                                                                                    
automobile, general liability, fire and marine insurance policies. These two sectors combined are called the
"primary" sector. In addition to the primary sector, a "t hird" sector of the Japanese insurance market includes
certain life and non-life niche products, such as cancer, medical and personal accident insurance, which are notclassified into the first or second insurance s ectors. See US General Accounting Office (GAO), The Japanese
Insurance Market, GAO/NSIAD-99-108BR, March 1999; and The Marine and Fire Insurance Association of
Japan, Inc., Follow-up meeting of Japan-US Insurance Talks ( Newsletter No. 49, May-July 1998);
25 In 1994 and 1996, the US and Japan signed agreem ents to reduce barriers that impede market access
for competitive foreign insurance providers in the Japanese market. The 1994 and 1996 agreements alsogenerally preserved foreign companies' presence in the third sector by linking liberalization in that sector tosubstantial deregulation of the larger, primary sector. See US General Accounting Office (GAO), op.cit ., March
1999.
26 According to Japan's schedule, "A direct response system ("Tsushin-Hanbai") for automobile
insurance is defined as a distribution method whereby insurance service suppliers offer their products toconsumers through advertising media, such as newspapers and magazines, and through direct mail or telephonecalls; accept applications of consumers delivered via ma il or telephone calls; and enter into contracts with
consumers through an exchange via mail or telephone calls, without meeting the consumers".
27 Medical malpractice liability insurance ("Ishi Baisho Sekinin Hoken"), advanced loss of machinery
profit insurance ("Sogyo Kaishi Chien Hoken"), delayed start of construction insurance ("Kaigyo ChienHoken"), civil engineering completed risks insurance ("Doboku Kozobutsu Hoken"), nuclear energy insurance("Genshiryoku Hoken"), umbrella liability insurance ("Kigyo Hokatsu Baisho Sekinin Hoken"), environmentliability insurance ("Kankyo Osen Baisho Sekinin Hoken"), erection insurance ("Kumitate Hoken"), moveablecomprehensive insurance ("Dosan Sogo Hoken"), computer comprehensive insurance ("Kompyuta Sogo
Hoken"), boiler and turbo-set insurance ("Boiler Turbo-se t Hoken"), transit insurance ("Unsoh Hoken"), credit
card theft insurance ("Credit Card Tonan Hoken"), general liability insurance ("Baisho Sekinin Hoken"),construction all-risk insurance ("Kensetsu Koji Hoken"), and surety bonds ("Hosho Shoken")
28 The "notification system" was introduced as part of the Japanese Insurance Business Law effective
from 1 April 1996. Under this system, an insurance company shall notify the Financial Supervisory Agency
(FSA) should it wish to make an alteration to the particulars stipulated in the so-called "fundamental
documents" (i.e., the statement showing the method of operations, general policy conditions, and the statementshowing the basis of  the calculation of premiums and underwriting reserves). The notification system appliesonly to cases where, as stipulated in the Enforcement Regulation of the Insurance Business Law, no problemarises in protecting the interests of policyholders, etc. Alterations notified shall take effect within a 90-dayexamination by the FSA. See The Marine and Fire Insurance Association of Japan, Inc., Expansion of the
notification system to other non-life insurance products, Newsletter No 54, Aug-Oct. 1999.S/CSC/W/34
Page 12
(f) Allowing for flexibility to differentiate, on the basis of the risk insured, the premium
rates, and  the forms and distribution of products, including a direct response system,
for automobile insurance.
44. Additional commitments regarding entry into the so -called "third sector" stipulate that the so-
called "measures to avoid radical change in the third sector" would be eliminated two and a half yearsafter specific deregulation criteria in the primary sector were met,
29 thus allowing non-life subsidiaries
of life insurance companies and life subsidiaries of  non life insurance companies to enter each other's
markets. Specifically, the measures to avoid radical change in the third sector that would be
liberalized were of two types:
(a) The prohibition for non-life insurance subsidiaries of life insurance service suppliers
to sell various types of personal accident insurance (personal accident insurance
based on a single policy written for and/or endorsed by non-profit inter-industryassociations or foundations for managers of corporations; domestic and overseas
travel accident insurance through travel agents; personal accident insurance for
students marketed through or endorsed by schools; personal accident insurance
through direct response methods; group personal accident insurance; and maturity
refund personal accident insurance);
(b) The prohibition for life insurance subsidiaries of non-life insurance service suppliers
to sell stand-alone cancer insurance and stand-alone medical insurance.
45. Apart from the additional commitments on insurance, Japan's schedule covers fund
management activities that were part of the so-called 1995 Financial Services Agreement signed with
the United States.  These additional commitments provide for:
(a) commitment, by March 1999, to eliminate the ceiling of half of total assets of
Employees' Pension Funds (EPFs) whic h can be managed by discretionary
investment management service suppliers;
(b) the abolition of asset allocations guidelines applicable to individual pension fund
management service suppliers with respect to the management of fund assets of thePension Welfare Service Public Corporation (PWSPC) and of the assets of EPFs;
(c) the possibility that investment trust management services and discretionary
investment management services be supplied by one entity;
(d) the participation of investment advisory companies in the management of PWSPC
fund assets;  and
(e) the acceleration of the introduction of new securities products or innovations to
securities products.
46. The commitments relating to measures deregulating the primary sector in Japan, such as those
listed in paragraph 4 above, appear to in the domestic regulatory domain and, therefore, within the
scope of Article XVIII of the GATS. However, other additional commitments by Japan, such as the
liberalization of entry into the so-called third sector, seem to address measures that could be subject to
scheduling under Article XVI of the GATS. It could be argued in that regard, that the measures toavoid radical change in the third sector, which were to be eliminated, were actually restrictions on the
                                                     
29 The deregulation criteria, to be accomplished as a prerequisite for the liber alization of the third
sector, are indicated in paragraph A.5.c) of Japan's additional commitments.S/CSC/W/34
Page 13
types of legal entity (subsidiaries of life and non-life insurance companies) through which certain
insurance services (such as various forms of personal accident, and stand-alone cancer and medical
insurance) could be provided.30
47. Partially in return for the concessions made by Japan, the European Communities and the
United States also took on additional commitments. However, the EC and US commitments do notimply positive undertakings or obligations. Rather, they largely take note of actions already taken,
clarify how certain regulations are applied, or promise to make "best endeavours" in certain areas.
2. EC additional commitments
48. Additional commitments adopted by the European Communities cover insurance services,
banking services and investment services in securities. They can be classified basically into two
categories: clarifications regarding the scope and application of EC law, and "best endeavours"
undertakings.
49. Clarifications  were provided by the EC only with resp ect to insurance services, by noting that
under the EC law in force on 31 December 1997, motor insurance premiums may be calculated taking
several risk factors into account;  the prior approval by national supervisory authorities of policy
conditions and scales of premiums that an insurance undertaking intends to use is generally not required;
and the prior approval by national supervisory author ities of increases in premium rates in generally not
required.
50. In addition, the EC made the following best endeavours   commitments:
(a) to consider within 6 months complete applications for licenses to conduct direct
insurance underwriting business and, in cases where such applications are refused, to
notify the undertaking in question and give the reasons for the refusal of theapplication;
(b) to respond without undue delay to requests for information by applicants on the status
of complete applications for licenses to conduct direct insurance underwriting
business;
(c) to examine any questions pertaining to the smooth operation of the internal market in
insurance, and consider any issues that might have an impact on the internal market in
insurance;
(d) to consider within 12 months complete applications for licenses to conduct banking
activities and, in cases where such applications are refused, to notify the undertaking
in question and give the reasons for the refusal of the application;
(e) to respond without undue delay to requests for information by applicants on the status
of complete applications for licenses to conduct banking activities;
(f) to consider within 6 months complete applications for licenses to conduct investment
services in the securities field and, in cases where such applications are refused,
notify the undertaking in question and give the reasons for the refusal of the
application; and finally
                                                     
30 These insurance services could have been listed in the sector column, and restrictions on the type of
legal entity in the market access column.S/CSC/W/34
Page 14
(g) to respond without undue delay to requests for information by applicants on the status
of complete applications for licenses to co nduct investment services in the securities
area.
51. Leaving aside the issue of the real value of best endeavours engagements, it can be concluded
that additional commitments by the European Comm unities address regulatory issues not subject to
scheduling under Articles XVI and XVII of the GATS, such as the time period for consideration of
complete applications for licenses; or the provision, upon request and without undue delay, of
information on the status of complete applications. Even the clarifications provided on the scope of
EC law deal with domestic regulatory issues, such as the methodology for calculation of insurance
premiums, and the absence of prior approval requirements for insurance policy conditions, scales of
premiums, and increases in premium rates.
3. US additional commitments
52. Additional commitments by the United States are contained in two attachments, covering
insurance services (Additional Commitments Paper I), and banking and other financial services
(Additional Commitments Paper II).  Most commitm ents on insurance services are acknowledgements
of facts by the federal government, since insurance companies are regulated principally by the states
(i.e. at sub-federal level), and are chartered under the laws of a single state, known as the state ofdomicile. Those commitments include the following:
(a) welcoming efforts by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners
(“NAIC”) to promote the harmonization of state insurance regulation, through such
steps as its Accreditation Program and the preparation of model insurance laws;
(b) noting that under the Accreditation Program, the NAIC selects an independent team
of auditors to (i) review the compliance of states with the laws, regulations, and
regulatory and organizational practices contained in the NAIC accreditation
standards; and (ii) report to the NAIC, which determines whether a state qualifies for
accreditation under the standards;
31
(c) noting that NAIC Model Laws are designed to facilitate legislative and regulatory
action on common problems among the states and are intended to save duplication of
effort on the part of the states;
(d) encouraging the NAIC to continue its effort to work with state governments on these
programs;
(e) welcoming the adoption in October 1993 of a model law on the initial entry of non-
US insurance providers without their prior establishment in another state;
(f) welcoming consideration by the NAIC of the issue of the time period for review of
licensing applications of insurance providers, from the perspective that regulatory
authorities should make administrative decisions on completed applications of
insurance providers within a reasonable time;
(g) welcoming efforts by the NAIC to review with the states the question of citizenship
requirements for the boards of directors of foreign insurance providers;
                                                     
31 The commitments add that as of 11 October 1994, 37 states were accredited by the NAIC through
this programme.S/CSC/W/34
Page 15
(h) noting the concern raised by another Member that different state regulations for
foreign insurance providers on lines of products permitted, trustee assets
requirements, deposit requirements, remittance ceiling and reinsurance trust funds
affect foreign insurance providers’ ability to enter the insurance market of the United
States.
53. Leaving aside the question of the disciplining value of these commitments, it is interesting to
note the nature of the US additional commitments on insurance services. Many of the commitments
deal with domestic regulatory issues, such as the ones involved in the NAIC Accreditation Program,32
or the best endeavour commitment to consider the issue of the time period for review of licenseapplications of insurance providers. However, some of the commitments seem to address issues
subject to scheduling under Articles XVI and XVII of the GATS. In particular, the expression of
satisfaction with regard to the NAIC October 1993 model law  on the initial entry of non-USinsurance providers without their prior establishment in another state seem to be directly related to
market access and/or national treatment issues. Similarly, the best endeavour commitment to consider
the question of citizenship requirements for the boards of directors of foreign insurance providers
address an issue related to national treatment.
54. The US additional commitments on banking and other financial services constitute statements
of support for Glass-Steagall reform on a national trea tment basis and promise to work with Congress to
accomplish that objective; welcome further initiatives by states to provide access on a non-
discriminatory basis; or seem to confirm how certain  pieces of legislation are applied. The latter include
the following:
(a) The Government of the United States has taken action to remove impediments to the
offering of securities in the United States by foreign and domestic issuers.  The
National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 pre-empts state regulation of
offerings of certain securities, including those listed on the New York Stock
Exchange, the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated
Quotation/National Market System, and securities issued by registered investmentcompanies.  This legislation eliminates duplicative state and federal securities
legislation in the area of securities registration.
(b) Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act authorizes the SEC to permit a foreign
investment company to register and publicly of fer its shares in the United States if the
SEC makes the following prudential findings:
1. that it is both legally and practically feasible for the SEC and US investors
effectively to enforce the provisions of the Investment Company Act againstthe investment company,  and
2. that it is consistent with the requirements set forth in the Investment Company
Act.
                                                     
32 In June 1990, the NAIC established its voluntar y accreditation program to improve state oversight of
insurers’  solvency. The program’s overall goal is to achieve a consistent, state-based system of solvency
regulation throughout the country. The specific objectives  of the accreditation program are to identify the basic
authorities needed for solvency regulation at the state level and thereby to provide baseline requirements foreffectively regulating the solvency of multistate in surers. NAIC’s accreditation program emphasizes adequate
solvency laws and regulations, efficient and effective financial analysis, examination processes andcommunication, and appropriate organizational and personnel practices. See US General Accounting Office(GAO), Insurance Regulation - The NAIC Accreditation Program can be improved,  Report  GAO-01-948,
August 2001.S/CSC/W/34
Page 16
(c) The Government of the United States no tes that the Federal Reserve, working in
cooperation with other domestic supervisory authorities, has established an enhanced
framework for the regulation and supervision of US operations of foreign banks,
which endeavours to coordinate annual examinations of foreign banks and provide
uniform guidance with respect to examination policies.
55. Leaving aside the question of the disciplining value of these commitments, it is interesting to
note that some of the US additional commitments on banking and other financial services seem to be
related to market access and national treatment rather than Article XVIII-type of issues. Specifically,
the issues of interstate acquisitions of banks on national treatment basis, or the removal of
impediments to the offerings of securities in the US by foreign and domestic issuers, might be related
to market access and national treatment, respectively.
56. Brazil was the other Member that made use of the additional commitments column in its
schedule under the Fifth Protocol, promising to undertake commitments regarding commercial
presence in three insurance subsectors (work accident,  reinsurance, and retrocession) within two years
after the enactment of legislation regulating such presence. In addition, Brazil stated in the additional
commitments column that for the services of cred it cards and factoring, national treatment would be
granted in commercial presence, if these services were defined as financial services in futurelegislation.
57. It is not clear to what extent these entries in the fourth column of the Brazilian schedule
constitute additional commitments as envisaged in Article XVIII of the GATS. These subsectors are
either subject to a monopoly (e.g. work accident insurance), or the schedule already indicates in the
market access column that future regulation will allow the supply by private institutions(e.g. reinsurance and retrocession services). Therefore, to the extent that the entries in the fourth
column of the Brazilian schedule seem to be promises of future commitments on market access and
national treatment, rather than domestic regulatory issues as requested by Article XVIII, they should
have been more appropriately scheduled in the market access column.
The Acceding Countries
58. Leaving aside the commitments on regulatory principles that could have been undertaken by
individual acceding countries as part of the reports of the working groups dealing with their respective
accessions, only Albania, the People's Republic of China, and Chinese Taipei made use of the
additional commitments column in its schedu le with regard to financial services.
59. Albania promised to afford market access on a national treatment basis to foreign financial
service suppliers upon the occurrence of the earlier of two events - the establishment of prudential
regulation with respect to the activities in question, or the actual appearance of such activities, with
official authorization or acquiescence, in the domestic market - for the following financial services:
- trading in derivatives products (including but not limited to futures and
options);
- trading in exchange rate and interest  rate instruments, including such as
swaps, forward rate arrangements, etc;
- trading in transferable securities; trad ing in other negotiable instruments and
financial assets, including bullion;S/CSC/W/34
Page 17
- participation in issues of all kinds of securities, including underwriting and
placement as agent (whether publicly or privately) and provision of service
related to such issues;
- money broking;  and
- asset management, such as cash or portfolio management, pension fund
management, custodial and trust services.
60. In addition, with respect to settlement and clearing services of financial assets (including
securities, derivative products, and other negotiable instruments), Albania stated in the additional
commitments column that the Bank of Albania would offer the service of clearing for a period of
5 years from the day of accession and after that other entities would be allowed to offer such service.
Nevertheless, the Bank of Albania would retain the monopoly over inter-banking payments system
and RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement).
61. Again, to the extent that these entries constitu te commitments with respect to market access
and national treatment, or limitations on the number of suppliers of a certain financial service
(e.g. inter-banking payments system and RTGS), they seem to have been wrongly included in the
fourth column of Albania's schedule. Rather, they should have been more adequately scheduled in the
market access column.
62. China made the following additional commitmen t with respect to leasing services: "For
financial leasing services, foreign financial leasing corporations will be permitted to provide financial
leasing service at the same time as domestic corporations". Again, this seems to be a commitment
related to market access issues.
63. Additional commitments by Chinese Taipei cove r regulatory issues such as product approval
procedures (including deadlines), insurance rate formulas, insurance policy clauses, application forms,
and the opening by Chinese residents of foreign currency accounts abroad. The latter seem to be more
directly related to market access and national treatment issues under mode 2.
64. The details of the additional commitments undertaken by Chinese Taipei are shown in the
following table:
Table 1. Additional commitments by Chinese Taipei
All financial services sectors
included in the scheduleApplications for new products will be reviewed and responded to within
three months of receipt of the completed documentation; andapplications for products that have  already been approved for other
financial institutions will be reviewed and responded to within 15 daysof receipt of completed documentatio n. It is the ongoing intention of
Chinese Taipei to further expedite and streamline the general approval
procedures for new and existing products
Insurance and insurance relatedservices1. All rate formulas, policy clauses, insurance application forms
and other relevant materials pr escribed by the Ministry of
Finance (MOF) and amendments to such items may be filedwith MOF for recordation prior to their use and may be usedthereafter unless MOF disapproves within 15 days after receipt
in the case of products that have already been approved for
other financial institutions; and within 90 days after receipt inthe case of new products.S/CSC/W/34
Page 18
2. The official version of insurance policies may be issued in
English language, but a translation of the policy into theChinese language must be attached.
Banking and other financial services
(excluding insurance, securities and
futures)Chinese Taipei permits the opening, at customer request, of foreign
currency deposit accounts abroad and the transfer of funds to these
accounts pursuant to the prudential regulations of competent authoritiesof Chinese Taipei.
Specifically, this means that Chinese Taipei residents are permitted to
seek information from the local branch of foreign banks on opening
accounts abroad.  The local branch of  the foreign banks are allowed to
provide information upon request, including application forms and toprovide information on filling out such forms.The application forms have to be sent directly by the customer to theparent bank outside Chinese Taipei for processing and approval.  The
foreign bank is not permitted to solicit such business through any
channels, including advertising promotion or the posting of informationin Chinese Taipei.
The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services
History and background
65. Both the Annex on Financial Services and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial
Services (hereinafter the "Understanding") were heavily negotiated texts. They can trace their origins
back to the early 1990s while the Uruguay Round was underway and the framework of what was to
become the GATS was not completely clear. Serious discussions on financial services began with theestablishment of the Working Group on Financial Services Including Insurance in June 1990. The
Group held four formal meetings between June and October that year
33. During that time, only three
formal papers were submitted by delegations to the Working Group: a proposal for a financial
services annex by the European Communities; and position papers by SEACEN countries34 and the
United States35.
66. The Working Group's mandate was basically to conduct an examination of the main
characteristics of the financial services sector and of elements which could warrant particular attentionin considering both the need for, and the possible contents of, a sectoral annex or annotation. As
negotiations progressed, it became clear that some sort of financial services annex would be needed.
In parallel to those formal meetings of the Working Group, an informal group (known as the "Fu
lung" group, after the restaurant where they used to meet) started to draft a sort of financial services
annex. This group consisted initially of the major OECD countries, but was progressively expanded toinclude some Latin American and SEACEN countries. During some time, these countries worked
under the assumption that what was needed was a stand-alone agreement on financial services, in
order to cover both the sector specificities as well as the market access issues.
                                                     
33 Meetings' reports can be found in documents MTN.GNS/FIN/1 to 4.
34 SEACEN stands for South-East Asian Central Banks, and was composed at the time by Indonesia,
Korea, Nepal, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.
35 The references to these documents are the following: Communication from the European
Communities (MTN.GNS/FIN/W/1); Communication from the United States (MTN.GNS/FIN/W/2); and
Communication of the delegation of Malaysia, on behalf of the SEACEN countries (MTN.GNS/FIN/W/3).S/CSC/W/34
Page 19
67. Discussions at that time covered a broad range of issues, such as scope and definition;
transparency;  prudential regulation (covering both issues relating to prudential carve-out as well as
harmonization of prudential rules); market access (including the right of establishment and cross-
border trade in financial services); national treatment; progressive liberalization; payments and
transfers; monopoly rights; and financial services provided to public entities. The "Fu lung" groupcontinued its consultations and came up with a non-paper that was actually submitted informally by
the delegation of Canada at the last meeting of the Working Group, in October 1990.
36
68. Sectoral working groups ceased to exist in October 1990, and were folded into one entity,
called the "Sectoral Ad-hoc Working Group". At that stage, the decisive point at issue was, as
reported by the Chairman of the Sectoral Ad-hoc Working Group to the GNS in November 1990, the
absence of an "agreement at this stage on the inclusion in a possible annex of provisions relating to
specific commitments ".37 (emphasis added)  Virtually all developing countries opposed the inclusion
of specific commitments in the annex text, mostly as a matter of principle, but particularly since it was
associated with ideas like sectoral non-application by which the benefit of commitments could be
limited to a selected group. As a result, the Sectoral Ad-hoc Group produced a report that set aside the
market access elements and identified two sets of issues:  (1) particular concerns in the financial
sector that might be addressed through amendments to the framework text, such as services suppliedin the exercise of governmental authority; transparency (including confidentiality of information);
domestic regulation; harmonization and mutual recognition; monopolies and exclusive service
providers; measures to safeguard the balance-of-payments; provisions on payments and transfers; and
definitions;
38 and (2) specific provisions that might be covered by a possible annex or annotations on
financial services to supplement the framework, such as on scope, prudential regulations, transfersand processing of information, institutional provisions, and definitions.
39
69. Since no annex was included in the Brussels text of the GATS, two groups of countries
submitted annex proposals to the Ministerial Conference: the first one was presented by Canada,
Japan, Sweden and Switzerland40, which contained market-access commitments; and the second one
was submitted by SEACEN countries41, which addressed certain financial sector concerns, such as
prudential regulation, but excluded market-access commitments.
70. Work continued during 1991 with a view to  resolving the impasse by working on the
framework provisions and possible elements of a financial services annex. As the financial services
working group had ceased to exist, work took place under the direct auspices of the GNS, but in
informal drafting sessions among key trading partners. In another attempt to reach a compromise
solution, Canada, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland submitted a new proposal in July 199142, according
to which participants in the negotiations would be  enabled to choose either to adopt the level of
liberalization specified in their previous proposal or to schedule commitments according to the
approach laid out in the framework agreement. It was also made clear in that new proposal that the
choice with respect to how a country undertakes its specific commitments on financial services would
not "in and of itself, create any presumption as to the degree of liberalization to which that Party is
committing itself under the Agreement".
                                                     
36 See the report of the meeting held on 19 and 20 October 1990, MTN.GNS/FIN/4.
37 See the Report by the Chairman of the Sectoral Ad Hoc Working Group to the GNS, dated
6 November 1990 (MTN.GNS/W/110).
38 For a complete listing and the drafting suggestions made, see Attachment I to document
MTN.GNS/W/110.
39 For a complete listing and the drafting suggestions made, see Attachment II to document
MTN.GNS/W/110.
40 See Communication from Canada, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland, MTN.TNC/W/50.
41 See Communication Malaysia (Draft SEACEN Financial Services Annex), MTN.TNC/W/52.
42 See Communication from Canada, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland, MTN.TNC/W/50/Add.1S/CSC/W/34
Page 20
71. Toward the end of 1991, in preparation for what would later become the "Dunkel Text",
negotiations intensified with a view to reaching consensus on what an eventual Annex on Financial
Services might contain. In October 1991, Canada, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland again tabled a
proposal for an annex, addressing sectoral specific issues of the type raised by SEACEN countries. At
the same time, on 14 October 1991, the GNS Co-chairman for financial services submitted a draft textcontaining two parts: the first one containing drafting suggestions for specific issues that could be
dealt with in an Annex on Financial Services attached to the framework agreement; and the second
one dealing with specific commitments issues that required a decision by the GNS with respect to its
placement in the whole context.
43 This paper was subsequently revised in the light of consultations,
until the GNS co-chairman took the decision, on his own responsibility, to include the liberalization
commitments in the Dunkel text package as an "Understanding". That was the origin of the separation
between the provisions that would be included as part of the GATS, via the Annex on FinancialServices, and the provisions on specific commitments that Members would be free to adopt (i.e. the
"Understanding").
Scope and coverage of the Understanding
72. The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services (hereinafter "the Understanding")
is a unique legal instrument in the WTO, that was included in the Final Act but is not formally part of
the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). As stated in the introduction to the
Understanding, Members "have been enabled to take on specific commitments with respect to
financial services under the GATS on the basis of an alternative approach to that covered by the
provisions of Part III" of the Agreement". Theref ore, the Understanding provides a formula approach
to scheduling commitments under Articles XVI, XVII, and XVIII of the GATS with regard to
financial services for the Members that voluntary choose to adopt it. Despite being a formula
approach, and an "alternative to Part III" of the GATS, it remains possible for Members scheduling on
the basis of the Understanding to make market access and national treatment limitations, as under
Part III.  Specific commitments undertaken pursuant to the Understanding
44 apply on a most-favoured
nation basis.
Box 1. Structure of the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services
Standstill
Market Access
Monopoly rights
Financial Services purchased by Public Entities
Cross-border Trade
Commercial Presence
New Financial Services
Transfers of Information and Processing of Information
Temporary Entry of Personnel
Non-discriminatory Measures
National Treatment
Definitions
                                                     
43 See the report of the meeting contained in document MTN.TNC/46.
44 The Understanding has been adopted by 31 Members: Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic,
European Communities (15), Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Slovak
Republic, Sri Lanka (excluding insurance services), Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States.S/CSC/W/34
Page 21
73. In spite of providing for an alternative approach to that contained in Part III of the GATS, the
Understanding's provisions are not divided into those falling under Article XVI, those falling under
Article XVII, and Additional Commitments45. In fact, the Understanding's disciplines are spelled out
following the structure outlined in Box 1 and addresses issues related not only to provisions in Part III
of the Agreement, but also to provisions in Part II (General Obligations and Disciplines) and Part VI(e.g. definitions). A comprehensive analysis of the Understanding is beyond the scope of this note.
However, some of its provisions are worth analyzing, even though they might not be fully related to
the scheduling of additional commitments as envisaged in Article XVIII of the GATS, but to
alternative ways of assuming certain commitments in the WTO.
74. The provision on monopoly rights goes beyond Article VIII of the GATS, as it requires
scheduling existing monopoly rights and endeavours to eliminate them or reduce their scope. As such,
there is nothing in this provision that could not be handled through specific commitments underArticle XVI of the GATS. However, the Understanding also extends this obligation to activities
conducted by a public entity for the account or with the guarantee or using the financial resources of
the Government,
46 which normally fall outside the scope of the GATS because they are considered as
services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority, unless conducted in competition with
other financial service suppliers.
75. The provision on financial services purchased by public entities goes beyond Article XIII of
the GATS, since it requires that Members adopting the Understanding provide financial service
suppliers of any other Member with MFN treatment and national treatment as regards the purchase or
acquisition of financial services by public entities. Access to procurement markets has often been
considered a "market access" issue, and therefore it would be subject to scheduling underArticles XVI and XVII if it were not for the ex ception contained in Article XIII of the GATS. It
would not be appropriate to consider the commitm ents undertaken by some Members on the purchase
of financial services by governments as "additional commitments" in the sense of Article XVIII, since
Article XIII clearly exempts government procuremen t from the application of Articles II, XVI and
XVII of the GATS.
76. Regarding the obligations on monopolies and government procurement just reviewed,
Members having adopted the Understanding have in fact undertaken specific commitments on issues
outside the scope of the GATS (i.e., the application of the MFN principle to government procurement,
and the exclusion of activities conducted by a public entity for the account or with the guarantee or
using the financial resources of the Government). In other words, those Members have expanded the
scope of the GATS as it applies to them. Members mi ght wish to consider the implications of such an
approach.
77. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Understanding address non-discriminatory measures. It is
however only a best endeavour commitment ("Members shall endeavour…") to remove or limit any
significant adverse effects on financial service suppliers of any other Member of:
(a) non-discriminatory measures that prevent financial service suppliers from offering in
the Member's territory, in the form dete rmined by the Member, all the financial
services permitted by the Member;
                                                     
45 Some Members have stated that "The obligatio ns under the Understanding are addressed in this
Schedule additionally to those covered by the provisions of Part III of the Agreement and the Annex onFinancial Services" (Australia, GATS/SC/6/Suppl.4). It is not clear what the expression "additionally" means inthis context since the whole Understanding provides for an alternative to Part III and, besides, Part III of theGATS does not impose in itself any discipline.
46 Paragraph 1(b)(iii) of the Annex on Financial Services.S/CSC/W/34
Page 22
(b) non-discriminatory measures that limit the expansion of the activities of financial
service suppliers into the entire territory of the Member;
(c) measures of a Member, when such a Member applies the same measures to the supply
of both banking and securities services, and a financial service supplier of any other
Member concentrates its activities in the provision of securities services;  and
(d) other measures that, although respecting the provisions of the Agreement, affect
adversely the ability of financial service suppliers of any other Member to operate,
compete or enter the Member's market.
78. As can be seen, some of those provisions seem to address measures falling under Article XVI
of the GATS, such as those related to the offering of financial services (subparagraph a) above), or the
expansion of the activities of financial service suppliers (subparagraph b) above). Depending on their
content and application, the other measures (subparagraphs c) and d) above) could be consideredequivalent to "additional commitments" under the GATS.
79. The provision on transfers of information and processing of information provides that
Members adopting the Understanding shall not preven t "transfers of information or the processing of
financial information, including transfers of data by electronic means, or that, subject to importation
rules consistent with international agreements, prevent transfers of equipment, where such transfers ofinformation, processing of financial information or transfers of equipment are necessary for the
conduct of the ordinary business of a financial service supplier". As such, this provision aims at
ensuring that financial service suppliers are not prevented from conducting business because of
restrictions in the access to certain inputs, such information, or necessary equipment. Since it
addresses the "transfer of equipment", this provision goes beyond what could be scheduled underitem 5(xv) of the classification contained in the Annex on Financial Services
47. In addition, the same
Understanding's provision states that "nothing in this paragraph restricts the right of a Member to
protect personal data, personal privacy and the confidentiality of individual records and accounts so
long as such right is not used to circumvent the provisions of the Agreement". This provision is
similar to the one contained in Article III bis of the GATS, although the wording seems to be more
precise.
80. One of the provisions on national treatment seems to be relevant for this discussion, since it
provides that "under terms and conditions that accord national treatment, each Member shall grant to
financial service suppliers of any other Member established in its territory access to payment and
clearing systems operated by public entities, and to official funding and refinancing facilities available
in the normal course of ordinary business". This provision goes beyond Article VIII of the GATS in
disciplining the behaviour of (eventually monopolistic) payment and clearing systems operated bypublic entities. This provision has some similarity with paragraph 5 of the Annex on
Telecommunications.
                                                     
47 Provision and transfer of financial information, an d financial data processing and related software by
suppliers of other financial services.S/CSC/W/34
Page 23
ATTACHMENT 1
Examples of Inscriptions found in the Additional Commitments Column
The following examples of “individual inscriptions” (those unrelated to an annex) found in
schedules have been grouped by subject matter and related GATS provisions have been indicated,
where applicable, for ease of reference.
(a) Publication of measures of general application - Art. III
• The Government will publish the rules and regulatory policy regarding further competition in
the field of basic telecommunication services.
• Where a licence is required, the following will be made publicly available: (a) all the
licensing criteria and the period of time normally required to reach on decision concerning an
application for a licence and (b) the terms and conditions of individual licenses.
(b) Decision review procedures  - Art. VI: 2(a)
• Appeals against the decisions of the Aut hority may be filed in the High Court.
(c) Authorization procedures - Art. VI: 3 and 4
• Applications for new products will be reviewed and responded to within three months of
receipt of the completed documentation; and applications for products that have already been
approved for other financial institutions will be reviewed and responded to within 15 days ofreceipt of completed documentation.
• Applicants will be informed of results in writing no later than 30 days after submission of
their applications.
• The Authorities will make their best endeavours to consider within 6 months complete
applications for licenses… to respond without undue delay to requests for information by
applicants…
• Appropriate authorities will fully utilize the existing mechanisms available to them to respond
expeditiously to accommodate innovations in securities products, while ensuring the mostappropriate supervision of markets from prudential viewpoints.
(d) Qualification requirements and procedures and licensing requirements   – Art.VI:4
• The foreign service supplier must be a worldclass operator with extensive international
experience.
• With respect to the assets of Employees' Pension Funds (hereinafter referred to as "Funds")
qualified by appropriate authorities to be managed by discretionary investment management
service suppliers, the eight-year qualification requirement with respect to the requiredduration of the Funds following their establishment is reduced to three years.S/CSC/W/34
Page 24
• Regulatory Authority may grant licences for satellite based services on following conditions:
(a) Frequency clearance by Board, (b) Security and sovereignty regulations, (c) Availabilityof ITUT/R standards, (d) resolution of cro ss-border communication issues; and (e) resolution
of Customs procedures.
• The Government will grant recognition of AFLA  to the following: i. the service provider is
qualified as a lawyer in his/her home jurisdiction(s), and ii. the service provider as practiced
as a qualified lawyer for at least 5 years in his/her home jurisdiction(s)….
• Licensing conditions, for all subsectors, may provide the application of the universal service
principles as defined by the regulatory authority.
• For the liberalization of these services, the Government requires any telecommunications
services supplier to: … contribute to the national training and research endeavour in the
telecommunications field.
(e) Procedures to verify competence of professionals  – Art. VI:4 and 6
• Foreign architects licensed under their home country's law may acquire an architect license by
passing a simplified examination which covers only two of the regular test's six subjects:
architectural laws and regulations and architectural design.
• The qualifying examination to determine the comp etence and ability to supply the service for
the purposes of registration with the professional bodies will be conducted in the English
language.
(f) Post-dated undertaking or elimination of measures
• There is a ceiling of 1/2 of total assets with respect to the assets of Funds, which can be
managed by discretionary investment management service suppliers. The ceiling will be
eliminated by March 1999. [Art. XVI:2(b)]
• Upon accession to the WTO, issuance of licenses to those foreigners who have passed the
national CPA examination shall be accorded national treatment. [Art.XVII]
• The value-added tax (VAT) on cinema tickets will be reduced to 0% by September 2000.  The
5% local tax on cinema tickets will be eliminated by September 2000.
• In this framework, by 31 December 1997 at the latest the authorities will set up a regulatory
structure aimed at fostering sound and fair competition among operators.
• Supply of services by foreign architects through joint contracts with architects licensed under
national law will be allowed from January 1, 1996. [Art. XVI:2(e)]
(g) Conditional undertakings
• The government will introduce into its schedule  commitments relating to the participation of
foreign capital in the reinsurance market, within two years after the adoption by the NationalCongress of legislation permitting such participation. [Art. XVI:2(f)]S/CSC/W/34
Page 25
• Subject to the adoption of the necessary legislative amendment by Parliament, the
Government will remove the relevant limitation under the national treatment column.[Art.XVII]
• The Government is in the process of review in the context of the draft Telecom Bill.  If the
outcome of this review is favourable, the Government will submit an improved commitment
on private voice telephone services.
• The Government  will afford market access on a national treatment bases to foreign financial
services suppliers upon the occurrence of the earlier of either of the following events…
[Art. XVI and XVII]
• If, in future, legislation permits non-national investors to own a greater percentage of equity
with respect to projects or an economic activity in this sector, such liberalization will
immediately be bound in the schedule of specific commitments. [Art.XVI:2(f)]
(h) Future review of current policies
• At the expiration of this period, the Governme nt will conduct a review of its policy to
determine whether to license additional suppliers of such services.
• The Government will re-examine and publish the rules and regulatory policy regarding
further competition in the field of basic communication services towards the year 2003.
• Authorities to examine feasibility of additional suppliers by 31/12/2003.
(i) “Access to and use of “ services
• The following services at the port are made available to international maritime transport
suppliers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions.
• Interconnection of Closed Users Groups' networks to the Public Telecommunications
Transport Networks and Services (PTTNS) will be ensured on a non-discriminatory basis,
subject to conditions established in the applicable regulations.
• Where not otherwise made available to international maritime transport suppliers pursuant to
Article XXVIII (c) (ii), no measures shall be applied which deny reasonable and non-discriminatory access to the following services…
• The Telecommunications Law … authorizes the Minister of Communications, inter alia to
order one operator to allow interconnection of its network to the facilities of another operator;both operators are to negotiate the proper system of reimbursement.
(j) Use of firm name prescriptions
• Use of firm name is unrestricted, provided that…
• Use of firm name: permitted.S/CSC/W/34
Page 26
(k) Final-user price setting mechanisms
• Prices and conditions of telecommunications services to final users will be established by free
negotiation except in the cases provided for in the Telecommunications Law.
• Basic telecommunication service tariff is decided by the government.
(l) Scarce resources
• The frequency allocation Board established under the law is responsible to allocate and assign
frequency spectrum for telecommunication, broadcasting public and private wireless servicesand classify radio telecommunication services.
(m) Statements on current practices/policies
• Network operations and services supply require licences or permissions issued by the
regulatory authority.
• The regulatory body is separate from and not accountable to any supplier of basic
telecommunications services. The decisions of and the procedures used by regulators shall be
impartial with respect to all market participants.
• Supporting services are performed by the State Port Authority. These services are included in
the law on privatization of strategic enterprises and is expected their liberalization.
• Following services have been licensed to the private operators and further licensing could be
possible…
(n) Services/activities permitted to foreign supplier
• (i) Practice of international law: permitted to the extent incorporated in home-country law.
(ii) Practice of 3rd-country law: not permitted.  (iii)Practice of host-country law: notpermitted.  (iv)Association with local lawyers: partnership with local lawyers permitted.
(v) Employment of local lawyers: permitted.  (vi) Use of firm name: permitted.
• The foreign bank is not permitted to solicit su ch business through any channels, including
advertising promotion or the posting of information in the country.
• Foreign service suppliers are permitted to provide the full range of related subordinate
services, including after sales services, as defined in Annex 2, for the products they distribute.
• The local branch of the foreign banks are allowed to provide information upon request,
including application forms and to provide information on filling out such forms.
• Accounting firms providing services in CPC 862 can engage in taxation and management
consulting services. They will not be subject to requirements on form of establishment inCPC 865 and 8630.
• Host country law and international law are opened to the Members of the regulated legal and
judicial profession.S/CSC/W/34
Page 27
(o) Contractual arrangements [Art.XVI:2(e)]
• The following services may be supplied to an accounting firm or office through a membership
contract.
• Supply of services by foreign architects through joint contracts with architects licensed under
national law will be allowed from 1 January 1996.
• Associations with … are permitted.
• Foreign accounting firms are permitted to affiliate with national firms and enter into
contractual agreements with their affiliated firms in other WTO Members.
(p) Others
• The reference paper will be incorporated in the legislation to be adopted soon by the National
Assembly.
• Temporary movement of natural persons who are qualified as CPAs under their home
country's laws and are employed by international accounting firms for the purpose of
supplying the services mentioned above is allowed. Entry and stay of these persons is limited
to a one-year period that may be extended if extension is deemed to be necessary.
[Art.XVI:2(d)]S/CSC/W/34
Page 28ATTACHMENT 2
Additional Commitments  - List of Members
Professional Services48Communication
COUNTRY GATS/SC 1.A.a 1.A.b 1.A.c 1.A.d 1.A.e 1.A.f 1.A.h 2.C. 2.D.Distribution Financial Recreational
(10A)Maritime
Albania 131 XX X
Antigua & Barbuda 2 X
Argentina 4 X
Australia 6 X X
Austria (EC) 7 XX
Bangladesh 8 X
Belize 10 X
Bolivia 12 X
Brazil 13 X•X•
Brunei Darussalam 95 X
Bulgaria 122 X
Canada 16 X X X
Chile 18 X
China 135 X XX X X X
Chinese, Taipei 136 X XX
Colombia 20/C.1 X
Côte d'Ivoire 23 X
Croatia 130 XX
Czech Rep. 26 X
Dominica 27 X
Dominican Republic 28 X
Egypt 30 X
El Salvador 29 X
EC (12) 31 X XX
Estonia, Rep of. 127 X
Finland (EC) 33 XX
Georgia 129 X
Ghana 35 X X
Grenada 96 X
Guatemala 36 X
Hong Kong, China 39 X X
Hungary 40 X
Iceland 41 X X
India 42 X
Indonesia 43 X X
Israel 44 X
                                                     
48 Services sectors/subsectors indicated are those contained in the W/120.  See list at the end of this attachment.
• Schedule has not entered into force.S/CSC/W/34
Page 29Professional Services48Communication
COUNTRY GATS/SC 1.A.a 1.A.b 1.A.c 1.A.d 1.A.e 1.A.f 1.A.h 2.C. 2.D.Distribution Financial Recreational
(10A)Maritime
Jamaica 45 X
Japan 46 X XX X
Jordan 128 XX X
Kenya 47 X
Korea, Rep of 48 XX X X X
Kyrgyz 125 X
Latvia 126 X
Lithuania 133 X
Malaysia 52 X XXXXX X X
Mauritius 55 X
Mexico 56 X
Moldova 134 X
Morocco 57 X
New Zealand 62 X
Norway 66 X X
Oman 132 X X
Pakistan 67 X
Panama 124 X
Peru 69 X
Philippines 70 X49
Poland 71 X
Romania 72 X
Senegal 75 X
Singapore 76 X X
South Africa 78 X
Sri Lanka 79 X
Suriname 80 X
Sweden (EC) 82 X
Switzerland 83 X
Thailand 85 X X
Trinidad & Tobago 86 X
Tunisia 87 X
Turkey 88 X
Uganda 89 X
United States 90 X XX
Venezuela 92 X
                                                     
49 Regulatory principles are contained in a headnote to the schedule without reference to the additional commitments column.S/CSC/W/34
Page 30
W/120 Services sectors/subsectors included:
1. BUSINESS SERVICES
A. Professional Services
a. Legal Services
b. Accounting, auditing and book-keeping services
c. Taxation Services
d. Architectural services
e. Engineering services
f. Integrated engineering services
h. Medical and dental services
2. COMMUNICATION SERVICES
C. Telecommunication services
D. Audiovisual services
10. RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL AND SPORTING SERVICES
(other than audiovisual services)
A. Entertainment services (including th eatre, live  bands and circus services)
                                                     
__________