You are on page 1of 5

Good morning members of the Panel, this is agent no.

2 on behalf of the respondent and I will be dealing with the 2nd issue. The next issue is that Randornzks RBB Policy Directive 2024 justifies Art VI , Art XVI:1 , Art XVI:2 AND Art XI. i. The RBB Directive Policy Is Consistent with Art. VI:1 GATS. In this regard what the agent puts forth is that there has been. No Violation of Art. VI:1 GATS. The RBB Directive Policy does not violate Art. VI:1 GATS, because: First, it is not a measure of general application; And second, even if so, it is administered in a reasonable, objective and impartial manner.

Randornzks Decision To Enact the RBB Directive Policy Does Not Constitute A Measure of General Application. The Decision is not a measure of general application under Art. VI:1. A measure applies in a general manner if it addresses a multitude of unidentified persons and to a loose number of cases.1 In the present case, the RBB Directive pertains to a specific service supplier, namely the Kiwi Inc. entity. A.2 Randornzks Decision to Enact the RBB Directive Policy is Administered in a Reasonable, Objective and Impartial Manner. Even if the Panel regards the Randornzks decision to enact the RBB Directive Policy as a measure of general application, it is administered reasonably, objectively and impartially. The administration of a measure must be reasonable in relation to the aim of the measure. The term reasonable means, inter alia, as much as is appropriate or fair. The administration of a measure must be reasonable in relation to the aim of the measure.2 In the present case, there is no evidence that the decision-making of the Randornzk Government was not carried out in a reasonable manner. The decision of the Randornzk government to enact the RBB Directive Policy on the Reality GP (HMD) was a precautionary measure to caution its citizens about the fact that while transacting with an online merchant located outside Randornzks territory, the laws of Randornzk would not
1 2

US-Cotton Underwear, AB Report, para. 21. Argentina-Hides and Leather, Panel Report, para. 11.94.

apply, and therefore it could not interfere for the protection of the interests of its citizens. It was bonafide attempt by the Randornzk government to ensure a fair and equitable transaction experience. ii. Randornzk Does Not Violate Art. XVI:1, XVI:2(a) and XVI:2 (c) GATS. The RBB Directive Policy does not violate Art. XVI:1, XVI: 2(a) and XVI: 2(c) GATS because: First, the RBB Directive Policy cannot be challenged under GATS; Second, Art. XVI GATS is not applicable in the present case; Third, there is no less favourable treatment for foreign services and service suppliers than provided for in its Schedule; And fourth, there is neither a limitation on the number of suppliers nor on service volume. A. It does not violate Art XVI:1 GATS. A.1 The RBB Directive Policy Cannot Be Challenged Before a WTO Panel. The mandatory-discretionary-doctrine is a general principle of international law that is well established in WTO jurisprudence3. Discretionary law cannot constitute an infringement of WTO obligations unless its application is in violation of WTO provisions4. In the instant matter, the enactment of the RBB Directive Policy is a statutory regulation pertaining to terms of agreement between the participating parties, which are Randornzk and Roderlam. The parties have undertaken a schedule of commitment, which are purely discretionary and incidental upon the parties only. A.2 . Art. XVI GATS is Not Applicable in the Present Case. Even if the Panel were to review the Randornzks compliance with WTO law, the market access obligation of Article XVI GATS does not apply. The RBB Directive Policy enacted by Randornzk falls within the scope of Art. VI GATS and is therefore not a market access regulation but a domestic regulation.

USTobacco, Panel Report, para. 118; US-Superfund, Panel Report, para. 5.2.10; US-Malt, Panel Report, para. 5.39; US-Non-Rubber-Footwear, Panel Report, paras. 4.1-4.14; EEC-Parts and Components, Panel Re-port, para. 5.26; Bhuiyan, JIEL Vol. 5 No. 3 (2002), p. 574; Davey, JIEL Vol. 4 No. 1 (2001), p.102. 4 US-1916 Act, AB Report, para. 60; Naiki, JIEL Vol. 7 No.1 (2004), p. 24; Brownlie, p. 35.

A distinction between Art. VI and XVI GATS is inevitable, since they are mutually exclusive5, and has to be drawn by considering whether the measure is a quantitative or a qualitative restriction6. Art. VI:4 and VI:5 GATS allows a member to maintain trade-restrictive measures. Applying Art. XVI GATS to domestic regulation would undermine the concept of necessity and the Members sovereignty and thus contradicts the fundamental principle of the GATS.7 The policy was enacted in order to immune the citizens against the ongoing financial frauds. Even then, the prerequisite for online transactions with merchants located outside Randornzk was a mere disclaimer. A.3. Randornzk Accords No Less Favourable Treatment than Provided for in its Schedule. Even if the Panel were of the opinion that Art. XVI GATS applies, Randornzk does not accord less favourable treatment than provided for in its Schedule, because: First, the measure is sheltered by Randornzks Schedule, as gaming services fall within the other audio-visual services sector, which reads as unbound. Second, Randornzk has made good faith efforts to comply with its commitments. Randornzk has given sufficient grounds for enacting the RBB Directive Policy, as the transaction with any online merchant located outside the territory of Randornzk, would mean that its laws would not apply on any such merchant. B Randornzk Complies with Art. XVI:2 GATS. Randornzk does not violate Art. XVI:2 GATS because it neither limits the number of service suppliers nor the service volume. Randornzk did not set up a numerical quota. The RBB Directive Policy neither states percentages nor absolute numbers to limit the number of service operations or service output.

US-Gambling, Panel Report, para 6.305; not reassessed by the AB; Krajewski, pp. 139-141; Low/Mattoo, in: Sauv/Stern (eds.), GATS 2000, p. 455. 6 US-Gambling, AB Report, paras. 248, 255.
7

Krajewski, p. 140.

iii The RBB Directive Policy does not violate Art. XI of GATS. Art. XI provides that a Member shall not apply restrictions on international transfers and payments for (current as well as capital) transactions relating to its specific commitments. In the present case, it was in June, 2024, concerned with the high level of online financial fraud, that the RBB issued the RBB Policy Directive 2024. Therefore, it is manifest that the RBB issued was a precautionary measure being adopted by the Randornzk government, as against the prevailing online financial frauds. Certain safeguards, as enshrined in RBB Directive Policy, were taken by Randornzk Government, both against, domestic as well foreign suppliers, and what can be inferred from these safeguards is that they were done in order to protect people from being victims of online financial frauds. Hence it can be construed that these safeguards were necessary for the prevention of deceptive and fraudulent practices and the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data and the protection of confidentiality of individual records and accounts8, which have been provided for in Art XIV of the GATS Agreement which is an exception to the obligation enshrined in Art. XI of GATS. Even though such measures can, strictly speaking, amount to restrictions of international transfers and payments, they prevail for public policy reasons by operation of Arts XIV and XIVbis over the rules of Art. XI. Accordingly, in its obiter dictum to Art. XI, the Panel in the US Gambling case confirmed that Article XI does not deprive Members from regulating the use of financial instruments, such as credit cards, provided that these regulations are consistent with other relevant GATS provisions, [].9 Liberalization of international transfers and payments is not an independent goal of the GATS, but only an ancillary means to liberalize trade in those services for which specific commitments have been made.10Also, the fact that the safeguards were against both, domestic as well as foreign suppliers, hence the question of discrimination among members does not arise.11

8 9

Art. XIV (c) US Gambling, WT/DS285/R, para. 6.442. 10 Williams, Fordham L. Rev. 70 (2001), 561, 613. 11 Art. XII. 2 (a)

A Para. 2 lit. a of the Annex on Financial Service. The RBB policy directive was enacted as a measure for prudential reasons in the financial sector. As defined in para. 2 lit. a of the Annex on Financial Services, measures for prudential reasons include any regulations (1.) to protect any person to whom the financial service provider owes a fiduciary duty or (2.) to ensure the integrity or stability of the financial system. The provisions of the RBB Directive Policy provide certain measure to be taken in order to protect consumers from online financial frauds. The RBB Policy does not prohibit the online merchants located outside Randornzk from carrying out trade, but all that the RBB Policy provides for is that a disclaimer which informs the buyers that the laws of Randornzk shall not apply on such transactions. It is not applied in a manner which constitutes means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination since it is based on the necessary interpretation of the government protecting individuals interests and applies in a fair and just manner.

You might also like