WTO Transparency Debate

| | | |

WTO Transparency Debate

The EU on October 6 tabled proposals for improving the functioning of the WTO. The US and Australia tabled proposals associated with external transparency the week of October 8. Canada joined with a proposal the following week.

While more external transparency in Geneva is essential, many delegations have stressed the importance of efforts at the national level. In the US view, "Broad-based domestic discussions of developments in the WTO and the responsibilities flowing from membership can help deepen understanding of the organization." The U.S. proposal seeks to draw Members into discussion by recommending that they share their approaches for engaging their respective publics on developments in the trading system. The U.S. urges a WTO information exchange of individual members' experiences as a way of facilitating work at the national level. The US argued that, "…there is a growing public interest in the work of the WTO, and such a sharing of information will be useful to Members in reflecting on how best to respond."

The US proposal recalls previous appeals for transparency by urging that some of the WTO council and committee meetings be opened up on an experimental basis to the public, just as the plenary sessions of the Ministerial Conference have been opened to observers.

Taking on board a Canadian suggestion for opening up meetings of the Trade Policy Review Body, the US identifies the possibility of webcasting at least some meetings of the TPRB. Presumably, this will start with the Canadian TPR in December 2000. The EU proposal also suggests opening the TRPB meetings to NGOs.

The US echoes an earlier request to open up dispute settlement proceedings, and to allow NGOs to provide amicus briefs in proceedings. These proposals have met with passive resistance by other Members. The European Union proposal for example does not even mention dispute settlement.

The US notes WTO outreach efforts with NGOs, but observes that, "providing timely information about WTO activities to interested members of the public, including small and medium-sized enterprises, remains a challenge." The US notes that, "many documents pertaining to the WTO's core activities are not made available to the public in a timely manner. The WTO's document policy falls short of what is needed to ensure that the work of the WTO is fully understood - and appreciated." In this context, the US repeats calls for speedier document derestriction and dissemination, including an upgrading of the WTO website. According to the U.S. proposal, such steps would open the WTO to the public, and help other members with smaller delegations in Geneva. Canada and EU offerings are broadly consistent with the US position.

On dispute settlement, the US holds that Members should ensure all parties' submissions to panels and the Appellate Body are made available to the public, including a mechanism to permit non-governmental stakeholders to present their written views on disputes, and permit the public to observe WTO panel and appellate proceedings. Audio and videotaping and webcasting could facilitate this effort.

In particular, the US says,

"Increased transparency of the dispute settlement process is critical to the future of the WTO. If WTO dispute settlement proceedings are to play the role of ultimate guarantor of the system, they must be open to observation by the public, and open to receiving input from the public. Openness of this sort is essential to ensuring public support for the legitimacy of WTO dispute settlement. As the WTO takes on more complex and controversial cases, there is an ever-increasing need for such transparency. The lack of openness and public access to WTO dispute settlement makes it harder - not easier - to settle disputes between WTO Members."

The proposal notes that national courts, and international bodies such as the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice have open hearings for state-to-state disputes. WTO panels appear out of step, and should do the same.

In contrast, the Australian proposal cautions, " A key issue here, however, it [sic] to ensure that attempts to increase external transparency avoid impacting negatively on internal transparency among Members. Specifically, there is a need to guard against the possibility that, through enhanced transparency, non-governmental persons or organisations acquire rights/access to the dispute settlement system superior to those of Member governments. Yet some have expressed concern that this may be the situation in relation to amicus briefs/third party Member rights before panels and the Appellate Body."

Profile Services Search Trade Analysis Updates
Contacts Trade News Policy Street Link To Us Site Search