WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/DS/W/1
13 March 2002
(02-1295)
Dispute Settlement Body
Special SessionOriginal:  English
CONTRIBUTION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
AND ITS MEMBER STATES TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT UNDERSTANDING
Communication from the European Communities
The following communication has been received from the Permanent Delegation of the
European Commission.
_______________
Introduction
The experience of the last six years (244 cases as of 4 February 2002) has revealed that the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereafter "DSU"),
while generally working in a satisfactory manner, can and sometimes needs to be improved on a
number of issues.
In recognition of this fact, the 4th Ministerial Conference decided that:
"30.  We agree to negotiations on improvements and clarifications of the Dispute
Settlement Understanding. The negotiations should be based on the work done thus
far as well as any additional proposals by Members, and aim to agree on
improvements and clarifications not later than May 2003, at which time we will take
steps to ensure that the results enter into force as soon as possible thereafter."
Among the work done so far are the discussion papers submitted by the EC on 21 October
1998 and 23 July 1999, and the text co-sponsored by the EC and its member States before the Third
Ministerial Conference, circulated as document WT/MIN(99)/8 of 22 November 1999.
While these documents were produced in the context of the Decision on the Application and
Review of the DSU, which is no longer relevant  for the mandate given at Doha, the EC and its
member States believe that they remain to a large extend relevant for possible improvements to the
DSU. In particular, the EC and its member States continue to support the substance of the text that
they sponsored before the 3rd Ministerial Conference, unless otherwise indicated below.
It should be recalled at the outset that the purpose of a dispute settlement procedure is the
amicable – and quick – resolution of a dispute. In this context, the WTO Members should always
endeavour to solve the dispute at the earliest possible stage, if possible at the consultation stage but
also via recourse to good offices or mediation by th e Director-General, as provided in Article 5 of the
DSU. The EC and its member States consider that  any improvements of the DSU should contribute
towards this overall goal of facilitating the earliest possible resolution of disputes. Should earlyTN/DS/W/1
Page 2
resolution or timely compliance not prove possible, preference should be effectively given to trade
compensation over trade-restrictive suspensions of concessions.
This contribution describes by main themes the issues for which the EC and its member States
believe that an improvement is still required. Proposed textual amendments are included in the Annex.These proposals are without prejudice to further submissions that may be presented in the course of
the negotiations.
I. MOVING FROM AD HOC  TO MORE PERMANENT PANELISTS
A. R
EASONS FOR CHANGE
The EC and its member States are of the view that changing the way panelists are selected
and providing them a more permanent basis for their work is likely to lead to faster procedures and
increase the quality of the panel reports.
The first reason is that there is a growing quantitative discrepancy between the need for
panelists and the availability of ad hoc panelists.
On the demand side, it is now clear that there are many more panels under the WTO than
under the GATT. Furthermore, the total duration of the cases is increasing, because of the frequent
recourse to compliance panels and to arbitration on the suspension of concessions, procedures which
are now normally handled by the original panelists.
On the supply side, it has proved more and more difficult to find qualified panelists who are
not nationals of Members involved, be it as a complainant, a defendant or a third party.
The result of the discrepancy between demand and supply has been an increasing delay in the
selection of panelists, and an increasing recourse to the Director-General of the WTO for theappointment of panelists.
The time that can be gained in constituting the panel could be allocated to other parts of the
procedure.
Second, recent developments concerning the actual consideration of cases by panelists put a
greater strain on panelists selected on an ad hoc  basis. Indeed, the actual conduct of a dispute
settlement procedure has become much more sophisticated than before and has substantially increased
the workload of panelists.
It is not only because of procedural developments, such as preliminary rulings and the
handling of business confidential information, that cases take more time to handle. It is also due to theincreased complexity of the substance of the cases brought before the panels, both from a factual and
a legal point of view, and because of the increased complexity of the assessment conducted by
panelists.
Moving to a system of permanent panelists would most likely result in less reversals of panel
reports by the Appellate Body than is currently the case, thereby reducing the total timeframe of the
procedure, the workload of the Appellate Body and the costs for all the parties.
Thirdly, it would enhance the legitimacy and credibility of the panel process in the eyes of the
public, as the possibility of conflicts of interests would be eliminated and the independence of thepanelists would be protected as is the case in domestic proceedings or in the Appellate Body.TN/DS/W/1
Page 3
Fourthly, it would increase the involvement of  developing countries in the panel process.
Under the current system, only 35% of the panelists having served since 1995 come from a
developing country. Such a figure would increase with a more permanent roster of panelists that, as is
the case with the Appellate Body1, would be broadly representative of the WTO Membership.
In conclusion, moving from a system of ad hoc  selection of panelists to a more permanent
selection process would lead to faster proceedings and better and more consistent rulings.
It would not constitute a radical change from the principles of the DSU: in effect, it would
amount to reducing the size of the "roster of panelists" and to streamlining the selection process on the
basis of that roster. In addition, it would be fully in line with the evolution of the dispute settlement
system since the Uruguay Round.
B. MOVING TO A SYSTEM OF PERMANENT PANELISTS
In its October 1998 document, the EC made reference to a roster of between 15 and 24
permanent panelists. Given the level of panel activity, these figures are still broadly accurate and are
based on a reasonable estimate of the overall expected workload of panels in any given year and thetime permanent panelists would actually devote to panel work.
On this latter point, it seems preferable at this stage to provide for a full-time activity, in order
to ensure panelists of high quality and expertise and avoid as far as possible potential problems of
conflict of interest.
As far as qualifications are concerned, permanent panelists should have either demonstrated
expertise in international trade law, economy or policy, and/or past experience as a GATT/WTO
panelist.
The EC and its member States consider that on balance, it is not necessary to require that
panelists cover specifically all possible sectors of expertise existing under the WTO Agreements.
Indeed, even if one was able to define in advance the exact expertise that will be required (and not
simply "trade in goods" as is currently the case for the indicative list of panelists), it would mean that
the few panelists selected for a specific field would always be the only ones to adjudicate those issues,
and that others would risk being underemployed if no cases involving their speciality were brought.
Furthermore, the allocation of a too large number of panelists among "micro-chapels" would
be at odds with the need to ensure consistency in the rulings of the panels.
In line with the rules applicable to the members of the Appellate Body, government affiliation
should not be permitted.
Further, it should be provided that panelists s hould not participate in the consideration of any
disputes that would create a direct or indirect conflict of interest, along the lines of Article 17.3 DSU.
Decisions on including an individual in the roster of permanent panelists would be taken by
the DSB, upon proposal by the Members. A selection process will have to be defined. To better
preserve the independence of the panelists, a non-renewable term of six years for example could be
considered, with appropriate phase-in provisions for the first panelists. Ideally, the respective terms of
the panelists and of the Appellate Body members should not coincide.
                                                     
1 Of the 47 reports issued by the Appellate Body, 45 or 96% were issued by a division having at least
one member from a developing Member, and 24 or 51% were issued by a division having two of its three
members from a developing country.TN/DS/W/1
Page 4
Obviously, the parties to the dispute will not at all be involved in the selection of the three
panelists sitting in a specific case. In line with the practice of the Appellate Body, panelists would be
appointed by lottery, depending on the availability of candidates. In case of a direct or indirect
conflict of interests, the panelist would have to disqualify himself from the procedure, and a newdrawing would be made.
II. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
A. T
HE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTICLE 21.5 AND ARTICLE 22 DSU
A first item that had attracted a lot of attention in 1999 is the " sequencing " issue, i.e. the
chronological order in which the multilateral determ ination of consistency with a covered agreement
of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB on the one side, andthe multilateral procedure for the suspension of concessions or other obligations on the other side,
takes place.
In light of the practice followed consistently since then, it would appear that Members now
broadly agree that completing the procedure established under Article 21.5 DSU is a pre-requisite forinvoking the provisions of Article 22 DSU, in case of disagreement among the parties about
implementation. The problem is therefore clearly less acute than in the past.
With this in mind, the EC remains however in fa vour of clarifying the language of the DSU,
to ensure legal certainty and predictability of the system for all its Members.
This clarification should be done first by taking into account the practice followed by the
Members when dealing with the sequencing issue. The EC and its member States therefore consider
that, in accordance with the consistent practice of all WTO Members, the compliance procedure must
include a systemic right of appeal against rulings of compliance panels.
Furthermore, the EC and its member States believe that consultations are an essential part of
any dispute settlement procedure, and that therefore consultations should be held before any request
for the establishment of an Article 21.5 panel.
B. M
AKING TRADE COMPENSATION A MORE REALISTIC ALTERNATIVE TO SUSPENSION OF
CONCESSIONS OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS
Under Article 3.7 DSU, the first objective of th e dispute settlement mechanism in the absence
of a mutually agreed solution to a dispute is to secure the withdrawal of WTO-inconsistent measures.
That key objective should never be forgotten.
If however immediate compliance is not possible, Article 3.7 DSU gives preference to
temporary trade-enhancing compensation over trade- restricting suspension of concessions or other
obligations.
It is logical that trade compensation should always be preferred to suspension of concessions
or other obligations, which is only a last-resort instrument:  the authorization to suspend concessionsruns against a basic principle of the WTO, i.e. predictability of the trading system.
Therefore, the use of suspension of trade concessions involves a cost not only for the
defending party, but also for the economy of the complaining Member. As shown by past experience,
this is especially the case when that complaining Member is a developing country.TN/DS/W/1
Page 5
However,  the reality is that trade compensation is currently not a realistic option before the
application of trade sanctions.
Indeed, the structure of the DSU is such that Members are induced to request suspension of
concessions first. First, Article 22.2 DSU gives only 20 days after the end of the reasonable period oftime to conclude negotiations of compensation. More importantly, it is only in requesting the
suspension of concessions and in triggering an Article 22.6 DSU arbitration that the parties will know
the level of nullification and impairment: in ot her words, the main element for the negotiation of
compensation can only be obtained in requesting the authorization to apply sanctions.
A substantial improvement of the DSU should be possible on this point.
One possibility would be to allow the complaining party to obtain an independent decision
from a WTO arbitrator about the level of nullification and impairment before the request for
suspension of concessions is submitted.
An arbitration on the level of nullification and impairment may thus happen:– before the end of the reasonable period of time, when the non-complying party
indicates that it will not be able to comp ly with the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB, and the complaining party requests arbitration on the level of nullification
and impairment,  or
– after the end of the reasonable period of time, when both parties agreed that there has
not been implementation, or after the compliance panel established under Article 21.5
DSU has completed its task and has found that the implementing party has not
complied with its WTO obligations.
If, in the absence of an agreement on compensation, the complaining party requests ultimately
the authorization to suspend concessions, an arbitration under Article 22.6 DSU would still take place,
but the task of the arbitrator would be limited to verifying whether the level of the proposed
suspension of concessions is equivalent to the pre-determined level of nullification and impairment
and/or whether the rules on cross-retaliation have been respected. As the performance of that activity
would not be time-consuming, the time gained in th at part of the procedure could be used for the
earlier quantification exercise.
Another possibility to enhance compensation would be to encourage the non-complying party
to offer to the prevailing party a compensation package for a value equal to the level of nullification
and impairment, provided that the complainant decides to present such a request (such request shouldnormally be made after a quantification of the level of nullification and impairment has taken place).
Further refinements of this procedural step could be considered, such as the presentation of a
compensation package whose value is higher than the level of nullification and impairment, so as to
allow the complaining party to choose within th at package up to the level of nullification and
impairment. Such a procedural step should however be limited in time, so as to avoid anyunreasonable delay in the overall procedure and therefore any weakening of the objective of
compliance.
C. 
EXEMPTING GOODS EN ROUTE FROM THE SCOPE OF THE SUSPENSION OF CONCESSIONS OR
OTHER OBLIGATIONS
Because the suspension of trade concessions usually takes the form of prohibitive duties, it
would be appropriate to provide for a specific exemption for goods en route.  For example, CanadaTN/DS/W/1
Page 6
exempted from the 100% duties the goods in transit to Canada on or before the date of entry into force
of the suspension of concessions in the EC – Hormones (DS48)  case.
D. MODIFICATION OF THE SUSPENDED CONCESSIONS OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS AFTER THE
AUTHORIZATION BY THE DSB
The EC and its member States remain firmly convinced that any amendment to the DSU
should address the " carousel " issue.
Indeed, there must be a specific provision in the DSU that makes clear that a Member does
not have the ability to modify unilaterally the list of concessions or other obligations for which a DSB
authorization has been granted under Article 22.7 DSU.
The text sponsored by the EC and its member States before the 3rd Ministerial Conference
included a provision to that effect ("footnote 11").
Thailand and the Philippines have recently submitted a proposal as document
WT/MIN(01)/W/3, which provides a useful contribution for further discussions on this issue.
In any event, any amendment of the DSU must achieve the key objective of the EC and its
member States. Additional proposals may be presented as the negotiations proceed.
E. TERMINATION OF THE SUSPENSION OF  CONCESSIONS OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS AFTER THE
AUTHORIZATION BY THE DSB
The current text of the DSU does not provide any specific procedure in case a Member
implements the recommendations and rulings of th e DSB after another Member has been authorized
to suspend concessions or other obligations.
An expedited compliance panel procedure should be provided to that effect, as proposed in
the text sponsored by the EC and its member States before the 3rd Ministerial Conference.
That text should be completed by a specific arbitration procedure for the re-computation of
the level of nullification and impairment, should the panel conclude that the Member concerned has
not fully implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
III. TRANSPARENCY
Dispute settlement mechanisms established under international public law normally provide
for public access to their proceedings. This is the case for the International Court of Justice, the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or the European Court of Human Rights for example.
The WTO dispute settlement mechanism differs from the international practice on this issue.
Because " the aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution to a
dispute " (Article 3.7 DSU), continuing to keep panel or Appellate Body proceedings not accessible to
the public should not be a priori excluded, to the extent one of the parties to a dispute consider that
this can help to resolve the dispute, for the same reasons that consultations can remain confidential. It
should indeed be remembered that some disputes have found a solution before the circulation of the
panel report.
The DSU should therefore provide sufficient flexibility for parties to decide whether certain
parts of the proceeding before the panel or the Appellate Body should be open to the public forTN/DS/W/1
Page 7
attendance. At the same time, third parties should also have the right to decide whether their
interventions should take place in open or closed sessions.
The precise modalities for opening panel and Appellate Body proceedings to the public would
have to be developed but in any event, the panel or the Appellate Body should be able to imposelimited and justified restrictions on the opening of the proceedings, especially when dealing with
business confidential information.
IV. REGULATION OF AMICUS CURIAE SUBMISSIONS
The DSU as interpreted by the Appellate Body now allows the submission of amicus curiae
briefs on a case by case basis
2.
The EC and its member States consider that it is necessary to define better the framework and
the conditions for allowing such amicus curiae  briefs in potentially all cases. Indeed, the acceptance
of amicus curiae  submissions should not lead to a delay in the proceeding, nor create substantial
additional burdens for the developing Members.  At the same time, sufficient time should be given for
the amicus curiae  submissions to be meaningful and for the parties to review those briefs to the extent
they were accepted by the panel or the Appellate Body.
Moreover, the procedural two-stage approach described by the Appellate Body should be
retained, i.e. an application for leave and an effective submission. Amicus curiae  submissions should
be directly relevant for the factual and legal issues under consideration by the panel, or the legalissues raised in the appeal.
More generally, this does not prevent panels from being more pro-active in seeking
information relevant for an objective assessment of the matter. The EC and its member States are
indeed of the view that recourse by panels to the expertise of competent international organizations isof utmost importance for the proper functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system. Panels should
be encouraged, in such circumstances, to make full use of their right to seek information, including
through the use of existing cooperation mechanisms with these organizations.
V. FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OF THE DSU
Experience has revealed that other, more technical issues should be addressed.
• In Article 4 DSU, a provision should be added to enable a Member to formally withdraw a
request for consultations. Furthermore, consultations which have not been followed by arequest for the establishment of a panel within a certain time frame ( e.g. 18 months) should be
considered as withdrawn.
The purpose of these proposals is to allow Members to "clean" dormant cases which are still
technically open but where parties do not want to proceed any further.
• The withdrawal of the request for the establishment of a panel should also be provided
explicitly and regulated in Article 6 DSU.
• As a way to make early settlements more attractive, it would seem appropriate to provide that
compliance with mutually agreed solutions can be examined via the procedures of
                                                     
2 This issue has to be distinguished from the right of any WTO Member to participate in dispute
settlement proceedings as third parties. As indicated in the Annex, the EC and its member States support a
substantial enhancement of their rights in the procedure.TN/DS/W/1
Page 8
Articles 21.5 (or proposed 21bis) and 22 DSU to the extent that they have been notified in full
to the DSB. For the complaining party, this would have the advantage of avoiding to restart a
complete procedure in case the non-respect of a mutually agreed solution constitutes a
violation of the covered agreements.
• In Article 10.2 DSU, the time frame for notifying a third party interest should be mentioned
explicitly, i.e. 10 days. This would clarify the current situation based on "past practice". It
should be noted that short time limits are necessary in the current system, because the
notification of third parties interests is a pre-requisite for the composition of the panel
(because panelists may not be nationals of thir d parties). This would of course change with
permanent panelists.
• Additional improvements enabling the Appellate Body to cope with its workload would have
to be considered. In view of the volume of its work and on the basis of past experience, it
would appear desirable to convert the mandate of the Appellate Body Members into a
full-time appointment for a given period of time.
• Recent experience makes clear that the DSU must contain a remand authority for the
Appellate Body, as it is the task of panels to establish clearly and unequivocally issues of
facts. The proposal made by the EC and its member States in 1998 needs therefore to befurther considered.
• The time frame for the completion of the arbitration under Article 21.3(c) DSU should start
from a more logical date than the date of the adoption of the report, for example by providinga 45-day period from the date of the appointment of the arbitrator.
• Article 22.6 DSU contains a 60-day deadline for the completion of an arbitration on
suspension of concessions starting from the end of the reasonable period of time. A newstarting point for the time period should be provided in case no such reasonable period of time
exists.
• More generally, the Working Procedures could be more developed, on the basis of the
experienced gained so far, in order to ensure increased consistency in the way panels conduct
the proceedings. As for the Appellate Body, Anne x 3 could be wholly or partially converted
into Working Procedures for panels, which could be modified by the DSB.TN/DS/W/1
Page 9
AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES
GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
1. A new paragraph 13 will be added to Article 3 (first sentence of the amendment already
contained in WT/MIN(99)/8)
Any time period in this Understanding may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties to
the proceeding concerned. In that context, Members shall give special attention to the
particular problems and interests of developing country Members.
2. In paragraph 7 of Article 4, the numeral " 60" shall be deleted wherever it occurs and the
numeral " 30" shall be inserted in its place. The following footnote shall be inserted at the end of this
paragraph (amendment already contained in WT/MIN(99)/8) :
Where one or more of the parties is a developing country Member, the time periodestablished in paragraph 7 of Article 4 shall, if the parties agree, be extended by up to
30 days.  Any other party to the dispute shall accord sympathetic consideration to a requestby a developing country Member for such an extension.
3. In paragraph 10 of Article 4, the word "should" shall be deleted and the word "shall" shall be
inserted in place thereof (amendment already contained in WT/MIN(99)/8).
4. A new paragraph 12 will be inserted in Article 4, which reads as follows :
12. A request for consultations may be withdrawn at any point of time. A request for
consultations shall be deemed to have been wi thdrawn by the complaining party if that Party
has not submitted a request for the establishment of a panel within 18 months after the date of
receipt of the request for consultations by the defending party.
5. Paragraph 1 of Article 6 shall be amended to read as follows (amendment already contained
in WT/MIN(99)/8):
1. If the complaining party so requests, the DSB shall establish a panel at the meeting at
which the request first appears as an item on the DSB's agenda, unless the DSB decides by
consensus not to establish a panel.
The existing footnote to Article 6.1 shall be retained at the end of paragraph 1.
6. A new paragraph 3 will be inserted in Article 6, which reads as follows :
3. A request for the establishment of a panel may be withdrawn at any point of time by
the complaining party before the issuance of the final report. If the request is withdrawn, the
authority for establishment of the panel shall lapse.
7. Article 8 is amended to read as follows :
1. Panels shall be composed of three individuals included on the roster of panelists
established by the DSB.
The roster shall include a number of persons as determined from time to time by the General
Council, which number shall not be less than 20 persons, three of whom shall serve on anyTN/DS/W/1
Page 10
one case.  Panelists shall serve on panels in rotation.  Such rotation shall be determined in
the working procedures of panels referred to in paragraph 4.
2. The DSB shall include persons on the roster for six-year terms and no person shall be
re-appointed. However, the terms for the initial inclusion on the roster shall be either [three,four, five or six years], with an equal number appointed for each period, as determined by lot
[and with those appointed for [three or four] years eligible exceptionally for re-appointment
to six- year terms].
3. The roster shall comprise persons of recognized authority, with demonstrated
expertise in international trade law, economy or policy and the subject matter of the covered
agreements generally, and/or past experience as a GATT/WTO panelist. It shall be broadly
representative of membership in the WTO.  All persons included on the roster will perform
their task on a full-time basis, and shall stay abreast of dispute settlement activities and other
relevant activities of the WTO.  They shall not participate in the consideration of any disputes
that would create a direct or indirect conflict of interest.
They shall be unaffiliated with any government.
Panelists shall serve in their individual capac ities and not as government representatives, nor
as representatives of any organisation. Members shall therefore not give them instructions nor
seek to influence them as individuals with regard to matters before a panel.
4. Within three months after establishment of  the initial roster, the panelists included on
the roster shall draw up working procedures for panels as necessary to the extent not already
provided for in the DSU.  Such procedures shall be drawn up in consultation with the
Chairman of the DSB and the Director-Gener al, and submitted to the DSB for adoption.
5. Panelists shall be provided with appropriate administrative and legal support as it
requires.
6. The expenses of panelists, including travel and subsistence allowance, shall be met
from the WTO budget in accordance with criteria to be adopted by the General Council,
based on recommendations of the Committee  on Budget, Finance and Administration.
8. In paragraph 2 of Article 10, the terms " within 10 days " shall be inserted after " to the DSB ".
9. Paragraph 3 of Article 10 shall be amended to read as follows (amendment already contained
in WT/MIN(99)/8):
3. Each third party shall receive a copy of al l documents or informat ion submitted to the
panel, at the time of submission, except for certain factual confidential information
designated as such by the disputing party that submitted it, and except for any submission
following the interim panel report. Without prejudice to paragraph 2 of this Article, a third
party may observe any of the substantive meetings of the panel with the parties, except for
portions of sessions when such factual confidential information is discussed.TN/DS/W/1
Page 11
10. The following new Article shall be inserted after Article 13:
Article 13bis
Amicus curiae submissions
1. The panel or the Appellate Body may permit unsolicited amicus curiae submissions,
provided that the panel or the Appellate Body have determined that they are directly relevant
to the factual and legal issues under consideration by the panel or the Appellate Body and
that they comply with the rules of this Articl e. In such a case, the panel or the Appellate Body
shall consider the submissions in question, while not being obliged to address, in its report,
the factual or legal arguments made in such briefs.
2. Any person, whether natural or legal, other than a party or third party to the dispute,
wishing to make an amicus curiae submission to the panel or the Appellate Body, must apply
for leave to file such a submission from the panel or the Appellate Body within 15 days from
the date of the composition of the panel or within 5 days from the date of the notice of appeal,
respectively.
3. An application for leave to file such a submission shall:(a) be made in writing, be dated and signed by the applicant, and include the address
and other contact details of the applicant;
(b) be in no case longer than three typed pages;(c) contain a description of the applicant, in cluding a statement of the membership and
legal status of the applicant, the general objectives pursued by the applicant, thenature of the activities of the applicant, and the sources of financing of the applicant;
(d) demonstrate the direct interest that the applicant has in the factual or legal issues
raised in the dispute;
(e) identify the specific issues of facts and law which the applicant intends to address in
its submission and, in the case of a applica tion submitted to the Appellate Body, the
legal interpretations developed by the panel that are the subject of the notice of
appeal;
(f) indicate why it would be desirable, in the interests of achieving a satisfactory
settlement of the matter at issue, in accordance with the rights and obligations ofWTO Members under the DSU and the other covered agreements, for the panel or
Appellate Body to grant the applicant leave to file a submission in this appeal;  and
(g) contain a statement disclosing whether the applicant has any relationship, direct or
indirect, with any party or any third party to this dispute, as well as whether it has, orwill, receive any assistance, financial or otherwise, from a party or a third party to
this dispute in the preparation of its application for leave or its written brief.
4. The panel or the Appellate Body will review and consider each application for leave
to file a submission and will, within 7 days from their receipt in the case of a panel, andwithin 3 days in the case of the Appellate Body, render a decision whether to grant or deny
such leave. That decision shall be notified fort hwith to the applicant by facsimile or electronic
mail.TN/DS/W/1
Page 12
5. Any person, other than a party or a third party to this dispute, granted leave to file an
amicus curiae submission, must make its submis sion to the panel within 15 days from the date
of receipt of the notification, and to the Appellate Body within 3 days from such date.
6. A submission filed with the panel or the Appellate Body by an applicant granted leave
to file such a brief shall:
(a) be dated and signed by the person filing the submission;(b) be concise and in no case longer than 20 typed pages, including any appendices;  and
(c) set out a precise statement, strictly limited to legal arguments in the case of a
submission to the Appellate Body, supporting the applicant's position on the issues of facts
and law with respect to which the applicant has been granted leave to file a submission.
7. The parties and the third parties to the dispute shall be given 10 days from the date of
receipt of any submission filed by an applicant granted leave under this Article to comment
on and respond to such submissions.
11. Paragraph 1 of Article 15 shall be deleted and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15 shall be
renumbered as paragraphs 1 and 2.  In the first sentence of the present paragraph 2 of Article 15, thefirst sentence shall be amended to read as follows (amendment already contained in WT/MIN(99)/8):
2. The panel shall issue an interim report to the parties, including the descriptivesections and the panel's findings and conclusions .
12. Present paragraph 2 of Article 15 shall be amended by deleting therefrom the sentence " At the
request of a party, the panel shall hold a further meeting with the parties on the issues identified in
the written comments. " (amendment already contained in WT/MIN(99)/8)
13. In paragraph 1 of Article 17, the second sentence shall be amended to read as follows:
It shall be composed of at least seven persons, three of whom shall serve on any one case. The
total number of Appellate Body members may be modified from time to time by the General
Council.
14. In paragraph 10 of Article 17, the first sentence shall be amended to read as follows:
The proceedings of the Appellate Body shall be confidential. However, the parties may agree
within 5 days from the date of the notice of appeal that the hearing shall be open to the public
in whole or in part.
15. Paragraph 12 of Article 17 shall be amended to read as follows :
12. The Appellate Body shall address each of the issues raised in accordance with
paragraph 6 during the appellate proceeding. If the report of the panel or compliance panel
does not contain sufficient undisputed factual findings so as to enable the Appellate Body to
perform its task, the Appellate Body shall remand the case to the panel or, where appropriate,the compliance panel, with the necessary findings of law and/or directions so as to enable the
panel to perform is task. The request shall be forwarded to the Chair of the DSB.TN/DS/W/1
Page 13
16. The following new Article shall be inserted after Article 17 :
Article 17 bis
Remand procedure
When the Appellate Body makes a remand under paragraph 12 of Article 17, the DSB shall
establish the panel, consisting of the members of the original panel1, within 10 days after the
request has been forwarded to the Chair of the DSB.
The terms of reference of the panel established under this paragraph shall be
"To examine, in the light of the releva nt provisions in (name of the covered
agreement(s) cited by the parties to the dispute), the matter referred to the DSB under
paragraph 12 of Article 17 in document … and to make such findings, in accordance
with the findings of law and/or directions made by the Appellate Body under that
provision, as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the
rulings provided in that/those agreement(s)".
17. In paragraph 2 of Article 18, the last sentence shall be amended to read as follows
(amendment already contained in WT/MIN(99)/8):
Each party and third party to a proceeding shall also, if requested by a Member, provide anon-confidential summary of the information contained in its submissions that could be
disclosed to the public, no later than 15 days after the date of either the request or the
submission, whichever is later, or such other deadline as is agreed by the party and the
requesting Member.
18. In paragraph 2 of Article 21, the word "should" shall be deleted and the word "shall" shall be
inserted in place thereof (amendment already contained in WT/MIN(99)/8).
19. Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 21 shall be amended to read as follows :
(c) a period of time determined through binding arbitration. Any party may request such
arbitration within 60 days after the date of the adoption of the recommendations and rulings
by the DSB. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator within 10 days after referring the
matter to arbitration, the arbitrator shall be app ointed from the roster of panelists provided
for in Article 8 by the Director-General within a further 10 days, after consulting the parties.The arbitrator shall issue its award to the parties within 45 days from the date of its
appointment. In such arbitration, a guideline for the arbitrator should be that the reasonable
period of time to implement panel or Appellate Body recommendations should not exceed 15
months from the date of adoption of a panel or Appellate Body report.  However, that time may
be shorter or longer, depending upon the particular circumstances.
20. The following footnote shall be added to the third sentence of paragraph 3 of Article 21 after
the term "reasonable period of time" (amendment already contained in part in WT/MIN(99)/8) :
For purposes of this Understanding, the 'reasonable period of time' shall include thetime-period specified under paragraph 7 of Article 4 and paragraph 9 of Article 7 of theAgreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures .
                                                     
1 If any member of the original panel is not available, a replacement shall be appointed within 5 days
after the date of establishment of the panel from the roster of panelists provided for in Article 8.TN/DS/W/1
Page 14
21. Paragraph 5 of Article 21 is amended to read as follows (amendment already contained in
WT/MIN(99)/8) :
During the reasonable period of time, each party to the dispute shall accord sympathetic
consideration to any request from another party to the dispute for consultations with a view toreaching a mutually satisfactory solution regarding the implementation of the
recommendations or rulings of the DSB.
22. Paragraph 6 of Article 21 is amended to read as follows (amendment already contained in
WT/MIN(99)/8) :
6. (a) The DSB shall keep under surveillance the implementation of adopted
recommendations or rulings.  The issue of implementation of the recommendations or rulingsmay be raised at the DSB by any Member at any time following their adoption.
(b) The Member concerned shall report on the status of its implementation of the
recommendations or rulings of the DSB at each DSB meeting,
2 where any Member may raise
any point pertaining thereto, beginning 6 months after the date of adoption of therecommendations or rulings of the DSB, until the parties to the dispute have mutually agreed
that the issue is resolved or until the DSB finds pursuant to Article 21bis that the Member
concerned has complied. At least 10 days prior to each such DSB meeting, the Member
concerned shall provide the DSB with a detailed written status report concerning its progress
in the implementation of the recommendations or rulings.
(c) (i) Upon compliance with the recommendations or rulings of the DSB
the Member concerned shall submit to the DSB a written notification on compliance.
(ii) If the Member concerned has not submitted a notification under
subparagraph (c)(i) by the date that is 20 days before the date of expiry of the
reasonable period of time, then not later than that date the Member concerned shall
submit to the DSB a written notification on compliance including the measures that it
has taken, or the measures that it expects to have taken by the expiry of the
reasonable period of time.  Where the notification refers to measures that the
Member concerned expects to have taken, the Member concerned shall submit to the
DSB a supplementary written notification no later than the expiry of the reasonableperiod of time, stating that it has, or has not, taken such measures, and indicating any
changes to them.
(iii) Each notification under this subparagraph shall include a detailed
description as well as the text of the relevant measures the Member concerned hastaken.  The notification requirement of this subparagraph shall not be construed to
reduce the reasonable period of time established pursuant to paragraph 3 of
Article 21.
23. The following new Article shall be inserted after Article 21 (amendment already contained in
WT/MIN(99)/8, except for the consultation and appeal steps):
                                                     
2 The parties to the dispute may agree to waive this requirement for a particular DSB meeting.TN/DS/W/1
Page 15
Article 21bis
Determination of Compliance
1. Where there is disagreement between the complaining party and the Member
concerned as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken tocomply with the recommendations or rulings of the DSB, such disagreement shall be resolved
through recourse to the dispute settlement procedures provided for in this Article. 
2bis 3
2. The complaining party may request consultations under this Article at any time after:
"(i) the Member concerned states that it does not need a reasonable period of
time for compliance pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 21;
"(ii) the Member concerned has submitted a notification pursuant to
paragraph 6(c) of Article 21 that it has complied with the recommendations or
rulings of the DSB; or
"(iii) ten days before the date of expiry of the reasonable period of time;
whichever is the earlier.  Such request shall be made in writing.The Member to which the request is made shall, unless otherwise agreed, reply to the request
within 5 days after the date of its receipt and shall enter into consultations in good faith
within 12 days from the date of circulation of the request so as to allow third parties to
request to join the consultations.
3. If the Member does not respond or does not enter into consultations within the time
periods mentioned in paragraph 2, or if at the end of the consultations referred to in the same
paragraph, either party consider that the consultations have failed to settle the dispute, the
complaining party may immediately request the establishment of a compliance panel
consisting of the members of the original panel
4.
4. When requesting the establishment of a compliance panel, the complaining party
shall identify the specific measures at issue and provide a brief summary of the legal basis ofthe complaint, sufficient to present the problem clearly.  Unless the parties to the compliance
panel proceeding agree on special terms of refere nce within 5 days from  the establishment of
the compliance panel, standard terms of reference in accordance with Article 7 shall apply to
the compliance panel.
5. The DSB shall meet 10 days after such a request unless the complaining party
requests that the meeting be held at a later date. At that meeting
5, the DSB shall establish a
compliance panel, unless the DSB decides by consensus not to establish such a panel.
                                                     
2bis The procedures provided for in this Article shall apply to measures referred to in paragraph 9 (as
amended) of Article 22.
3 This is without prejudice to the right of the parties to have recourse to normal dispute settlement
procedures under this Understanding or to the procedures under Article 5 or Article 25.
4 If any member of the original panel is not available, a replacement shall be appointed within 5 days
after the date of establishment of the compliance Panel from the roster of panelists provided for in Article 8.
5 In the case of a compliance Panel established pursuant to paragraph 9 of Article 22, the DSB shall
establish the compliance Panel at the meeting requested by the Member concerned pursuant to that paragraph.TN/DS/W/1
Page 16
6. The compliance panel shall circulate its report to the Members within 90 days of the
date of its establishment.
7. On or after the date of circulation of the report of the compliance panel, any party to
the compliance panel proceeding may request a meeting of the DSB to adopt the report, and
the DSB shall meet 10 days after such a request unless the party requesting the meeting
requests that the meeting be held at a later da te.  At that meeting, the compliance panel report
shall be adopted by the DSB and unconditionally accepted by the parties to the compliance
panel proceeding unless a party to the compliance panel proceeding formally notifies the
DSB of its decision to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report.  This
adoption procedure is without prejudice to the right of Members to express their views on a
compliance panel report.
8. In case the report of the compliance panel is appealed, the Appellate Body
proceedings, as well as the adoption of the Appellate Body report, shall be conducted in
accordance with Article 17.
9. If the compliance panel or the Appellate Body report finds that the Member
concerned has failed to bring the measure found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement
into compliance therewith or otherwise comply with the recommendations or rulings of the
DSB in the dispute within the reasonable period of time, then :
(i) the Member concerned shall not be entitled to any further period of time for
implementation following adoption by the DS B of the report of the compliance panel
and, where the report of the compliance panel has been appealed, the report of the
Appellate Body; and
(ii) after circulation of the compliance panel or the Appellate Body report, a
complaining party that was a party to the compliance proceeding may request
authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to the Member concerned of
concessions or other obligations under the covered agreements pursuant to
Article 22.  The DSB shall grant authorization to such request only after the adoption
of the compliance panel or Appellate Body report.
10. The compliance panel shall establish its own working procedures. The provisions of
Articles 1 through 3, 8 through 14, 18, 19, 21.1, 21.2, 21.7, 21.8, 23, 24, 26 and 27.1 of the
DSU shall apply to the compliance panel proceedings except to the extent that (i) such
provisions are incompatible with the time frame provided in this Article, or (ii) this Article
provides more specific provisions."
24. The following sub-paragraphs shall be inserted at the end of paragraph 1 in Article 22:
At any point of time before the submission of the request for authorization for suspension of
concessions or other obligations referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, the parties may
agree to request an arbitration to determine th e level of nullification or impairment caused by
the measure found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement.
Such arbitration shall be carried out by the original panel, if members are available.  The
Director-General shall determine whether the members of the original panel are available. If
any members of the original panel are not available, and the parties to the arbitration do notagree on a replacement, at the request of any party the Director-General shall appoint aTN/DS/W/1
Page 17
replacement arbitrator6 from the roster of panelists provided for in Article 8 within 5 days
after the matter is referred to the arbitration, after consulting with the parties to the
arbitration.
The arbitration shall be completed and the decision of the arbitrator shall be circulated to
Members within 45 days after the date of the request. The award of the arbitrator shall be
final, and parties shall accept it as the level of nullification and impairment for purposes of
future proceedings under paragraph 6 of this Article related to that measure.
25. Paragraph 2 of Article 22 shall be amended to read as follows (amendment already contained
in WT/MIN(99)/8, except for the mutually agreed solutions and the compensation step) :
2. If:
(i) the Member concerned does not inform the DSB pursuant to paragraph 3 of
Article 21 that it intends to implement the recommendations or rulings of the
DSB;
(ii) the Member concerned does not submit within the required time period a
notification pursuant to paragraph 6(c) of Article 21 stating that the Member
concerned has complied; or
(iii) the compliance panel or the Appellate Body report pursuant to Article 21bis
finds that the Member concerned has failed to bring the measures found to be
inconsistent with a covered agreement into compliance therewith or
otherwise comply with the recommendations or rulings of the DSB;
(iv) the compliance panel or the Appellate Body report pursuant to Article 21bis
finds that the Member concerned has acted inconsistently with a covered
agreement by not complying comply with those terms and conditions of a
mutually agreed solution notified under Article 3.6 that are subject to the
disciplines of a covered agreement; then
such Member shall, if so requested by the comp laining party, enter into consultations with a
view to agree on a mutually acceptable trade compensation.
Within 30 days from the request, the Member c oncerned shall submit to the other Member a
proposal for mutually acceptable trade compensation. When an arbitration referred to in
paragraph 1 has taken place, such proposal shall be consistent with the award of the
arbitrator.
If no proposal for compensation has been submitted within the time period referred to in the
previous sub-paragraph or if no agreement has been reached within 30 days from the
submission of the proposal for a mutually acceptable compensation, the complaining Party
shall be entitled to request authorization from the DSB  to suspend the application to theMember concerned of concessions or other obligations under the covered agreements. A
meeting of the DSB shall be convened for this purpose 10 days after the request, unless the
complaining party requests that the meeting be held at a later date
7. The parties to the dispute
are encouraged to consult before the meeting to discuss a mutually satisfactory solution.
                                                     
6 The expression "arbitrator" shall be interpreted as referring either to an individual or a group.
7 In the case of paragraph 2 (ii) above, such DSB meeting shall not be convened before the expiry of
the reasonable period of time.TN/DS/W/1
Page 18
26. Paragraph 6 of Article 22 shall be amended to read as follows (amendment already contained
in WT/MIN(99)/8, except for the shorter deadline in paragraph c):
6. (a) When the complaining party has made a request for authorization to suspend
concessions or other obligations pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, the DSB shall grantauthorization to such request at the meeting requested by the complaining party unless the
DSB decides by consensus to reject the request.  However, if the Member concerned objects
to the level of suspension proposed, or claims that the principles and procedures set forth in
paragraph 3 have not been followed where the complaining party has requested authorization
to suspend concessions or other obligations pursuant to paragraph 3(b) or (c), the matter
shall be referred to arbitration.
(b) Such arbitration shall be carried out by the original panel, if its members are
available.  The Director-General shall determine whether the members of the original panel
are available.
8  If any members of the original panel are not available, and the parties to the
arbitration do not agree on a replacement, at the request of any party the Director-General
shall appoint a replacement arbitrator9 from the roster of panelists provided for in Article 8
within 5 days after the matter is referred to the arbitration, after consulting with the parties to
the arbitration.
(c) The arbitration shall be completed and the decision of the arbitrator shall be
circulated to Members within 45 days after the referral of the matter, except when anarbitration procedure under paragraph 1 of this Article has taken place, in which case the
report shall be circulated within 30 days.  The complaining party shall not suspend
concessions or other obligations during the course of the arbitration.
27. Paragraph 8 of Article 22 is amended by inserting the following sentence after the first
sentence :
Products which were en route on or before the date of application of the suspension of
concessions or other obligations shall be e xempted from the applic ation of the domestic
measure implementing such suspension.
28. Article 22 is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph 8.  The existing
paragraph 9 shall be renumbered as paragraph 10 (amendment already contained in WT/MIN(99)/8,
except sub-paragraph d).
9. (a) After the DSB has authorized the suspension of concessions or otherobligations pursuant to paragraph 6 or 7 of this Article, the Member concerned may request
a termination of such authorization on the grounds that it has eliminated the inconsistency or
the nullification or impairment of benefits under the covered agreements identified in therecommendations or rulings of the DSB.  The Member concerned shall include with any such
request a written notice to the DSB describing in detail the measures it has taken, providing
the text of the relevant measures, and requesting a meeting of the DSB.
The DSB shall meet 20 days after such a request unless the Member concerned requests that
the meeting be held at a later date.  At such meeting the DSB shall withdraw the authorization
for suspension of concessions and other obligations unless the DSB decides by consensus not
                                                     
8 In order to avoid delay, the Director-General shall make this determination sufficiently in advance of
the DSB meeting at which the matter is to be referred to arbitration.
9 The expression "arbitrator" shall be interpreted as referring either to an individual or a group.TN/DS/W/1
Page 19
to withdraw the authorization, or unless the complaining party objects to such withdrawal, in
which case subparagraph (b) shall apply.
(b) Where there is disagreement between a complaining party and the Member
concerned as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken tocomply with the recommendations or rulings of the DSB in the dispute, such disagreement
shall be resolved through recourse to the dispute settlement procedures provided for in
Article 21bis.  If as a result of recourse to the dispute settlement procedures provided for in
Article 21bis, the measures taken to comply by the Member concerned are found not to be
inconsistent with a covered agreement and comply with the recommendations or rulings of
the DSB in the dispute, then on or after the date of circulation of the report of the Compliance
Panel or the Appellate Body, the Member concerned may request a meeting of the DSB towithdraw the authorization for the suspension of concessions or other obligations.  The DSB
shall meet 10 days
10 after such a request unless the Member concerned requests that the
meeting be held at a later date.  At such mee ting the DSB shall withdraw the authorization for
suspension of concessions and other obligations unless the DSB decides by consensus not to
do so.11
(c) The complaining party shall not maintain the suspension of concessions and otherobligations after the DSB withdraws the authorization.
(d) When the situation referred to in sub-paragraph (b) occurs, if the measures taken to
comply by the Member concerned are found not to be consistent with a covered agreement or
not to comply with the recommendations or rulings of the DSB in the dispute, any party mayrequest an arbitration to determine the level of nullification or impairment caused by the
measures concerned.
Such arbitration shall be carried out by the original panel, if members are available. The
Director-General shall determine whether the members of the original panel are available. Ifany members of the original panel are not available, and the parties to the arbitration do not
agree on a replacement, at the request of any party the Director-General shall appoint a
replacement arbitrator
12 from the roster of panelists provided for in Article 8 within 5 days
after the matter is referred to the arbitration, after consulting with the parties to the
arbitration.
The arbitration shall be completed and the decision of the arbitrator shall be circulated to
Members within 45 days after the date of the reque st. The award of the arbitrator shall be final.
If the level of nullification and impairment determined by the arbitrator under this paragraph
differs from the level determined under paragraph 6 of this Article, the Member concerned may
request a meeting of the DSB to modify the aut horization for the suspension of concessions or
other obligations.  The DSB shall meet 10 days after such a request unless the Memberconcerned requests that the meeting be held at a later date.  At such meeting the DSB shall
accordingly modify the authorization for suspension of concessions and other obligations
unless the DSB decides by consensus not to do so.
The complaining party shall bring the suspen sion of concessions and other obligations into
conformity with the authorization of the DSB.
                                                     
10 In the case of an appeal, the DSB shall meet for this purpose on or after the date of the adoption of
the Appellate Body report pursuant to Article 17.14.
11 The DSB shall not consider the request for the withdrawal of the authorization for the suspension of
concessions until after it has adopted the report of the compliance Panel or the Appellate Body.
12 The expression "arbitrator" shall be interpreted as referring either to an individual or a group.TN/DS/W/1
Page 20
29. The following new Article shall be inserted after Article 22 :
Article 22bis
Examination of mutually agreed solutions
1. Where there is disagreement between the complaining party and the Member
concerned as to whether the latter has acted inconsistently with a covered agreement by not
complying with the terms and conditions of a mutually agreed solution notified under
Article 3.6 that are subject to the disciplines of a covered agreement, such disagreement shall
be resolved through recourse to the dispute settlement procedures provided for in
Article 21bis.
2. If the compliance panel or the Appellate Body report pursuant to Article 21bis finds
that the Member concerned has acted inconsistently with a covered agreement by not
complying with the terms and conditions of a mutually agreed solution notified under Article
3.6 that are subject to the disciplines of a covered agreement, the complaining party may
request under Article 22 authorization from the DSB  to suspend the application to theMember concerned of concessions or other obligations under the covered agreements.
30. Paragraph 4 of Article 25 is amended to read as follows:
Articles 21, 21bis and 22 of this Understanding shall apply mutatis mutandis to arbitration
awards.
31. Paragraph 2 of Appendix 3 shall be amended to read as follows:
In its proceedings the panel shall follow the relevant provisions of this Understanding.  In
addition, the following working procedures shall apply. These working procedures may be
amended from time to time by the DSB.
32. Paragraph 2 of Appendix 3 shall be amended to read as follows:
The panel shall meet in closed session.  The parties to the dispute, and interested parties,
shall be present at the meetings only when invited by the panel to appear before it.
However, the parties may agree within 10 days from the date of establishment of the panel
that the panel hearing shall be open to the public in whole or in part.
33. In paragraph 3 of Appendix 3, the last sentence shall be amended to read as follows
(amendment already contained in WT/MIN(99)/8) :
Each party and third party to a proceeding shall also, if requested by a Member, provide anon-confidential summary of the information contained in its submissions that could be
disclosed to the public, no later than 15 days after the date of either the request or the
submission, whichever is later, or such other deadline as is agreed by the party and the
requesting Member.
34. Paragraph 6 of Appendix 3 shall be amended to read as follows :
All third parties which have notified their interest in the dispute to the DSB shall be invited in
writing to present their views during a session of the first substantive meeting of the panel set
aside for that purpose.  That session shall be divided in two parts, one open to the public, oneTN/DS/W/1
Page 21
closed to the public; each third party shall indicate in which part of the session it wants to
present its views within 10 days from the date of establishment of the panel. All third parties
may be present during the entirety of this session.
35. In Appendix 3, the following paragraph sh all be inserted following paragraph 10.
Paragraphs 11 and 12 shall be renumbered as 12 and 13 respectively (amendment already contained in
WT/MIN(99)/8) :
11. The descriptive part of the panel report shall include a brief summary of the facts and
the procedural history of the case.
36. Paragraph 12(a) of Appendix 3 shall be ame nded to read as follows (amendment already
contained in WT/MIN(99)/8):
"(a) Receipt of first written submissions of the parties:
(1) complaining party: ____ 3-4 weeks13
(2) party complained against: ____ 4-5 weeks "
37. The following conforming changes on time frames need to be made in light of the other
changes in the text (amendment already contained in WT/MIN(99)/8):
Present paragraph 12 of Appendix 3 shall be amended as follows:
(1) Items (e) and (f) shall be deleted and the following items redesignated accordingly.(2) Item (g) (prior to redesignation) shall be amended by deleting "2-4 weeks" and
inserting "4-8 weeks".
(3) Item (h)(prior to redesignation) shall be amended by deleting "1 week" and inserting
"10 days"
(4) Item (i)(prior to redesignation) shall be deleted and the following items redesignated
accordingly.
(5) Item (j) (prior to redesignation) shall be amended by deleting "2 weeks" and inserting
"10 days"
(6) Item (k) (prior to redesignation) shall be amended to be to read as follows:
(k) Circulation of the final report to the Members: ____3 days"
Based on a total reduction of time (up to approximately 47 days), the time frames in
Article 20 (the reference to "nine months" and to "12 months"), the periods in 21.4 (the
reference to "15 months" and to "18 months") shall be reduced by one month.
The new footnotes shall be inserted into the text of the DSU at the places indicated above and
all footnotes shall be renumbered accordingly.
__________
                                                     
13 Up to 6 weeks if the complaining party is a developing country Member.