Resolutions/Circulars/Notices

 

07-12-2004

RESOLUTION Mr. Akhtar Hussain President and Mr. Munib Ahmed Khan, Honorary Secretary Sindh High Court Bar Association, Karachi strongly condemned the kidnapping of Judicial Officers while they were on their way from Rato Dero to Shikarpur. They have strongly criticized law enforcement agencies for their failure to give protection even to the Judicial Officer what to talk of common citizen and it has further shaken the confidence of the people on the administration which has failed to give protection to life and liberty of the citizen. The Bar President and Secretary showed apprehension that some local police officials may be in league with the culprits and demanded thorough probe and exemplary punishment to the persons involved in the crime. Sindh High Court Bar Association President and Secretary also appealed to the Chief Justice of High Court of Sindh and the Chief Justice of Pakistan to take notice of the matter. They have urged with Provincial and Federal Government at high level to take up the issue on top priority and all the Federal and Provincial Law enforcement agencies be mobilized for safety and release of Judicial Officers at the earliest.                                                                 (MUNIB AHMED KHAN)                                                                        HONORARY SECRETARY

06-12-2004

RESOLUTION The World Trade Organization (WTO) Regime is about to be extended to Pakistan in less than a month’s time. The effect of WTO Regime on our economy as a whole and on the manufacturing and trading sector of the country is multidimensional. The Government and the Trading Community of the Country does not appear to have fully understood and studied the implication and impact of WTO Regime on the trading and manufacturing sector of the  country and are thus ill-braced to meet the challenges likely to arise as a result of extension of WTO Regime in January 2005. One of the important aspects under WTO agreement is the mechanism provided for “Dispute Resolution” which is the theme of my presentation.  The World Trade Organization (WTO) came into existence as a result of 7 years of intense negotiations between the trading nations of the World after the stormy session of Uruguay Round in 1994, on 1st January 1995. The establishment of WTO was a quantum leap and a single most important achievement of the 20th Century in the field of global economic system which heralded a new era of integrated Multilateral Trading System by merging national economies into a global economy. WTO is the successor of General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT) which came into existence in the aftermath of the World War II in 1947 to provide protection against economic upheaval and obstructed flow of goods at global level experienced during the war. GATT however, lacked organizational status. WTO on the other hand is an organization backed by enforceable Rules which brought it on the level of World Bank and IMF. WTO covered new areas of trade like agriculture, textile, technology, intellectual property rights, trade related investments, services etc. The main thrust of WTO is liberalization of trade and to provide Rule based free excess to market with necessary safeguard and a mechanism for dispute settlement. The Uruguay round of negotiations laid emphasis on three areas: General Agreement on Trade in Service, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and Understanding on Rules and Procedure Governing the Settlement of Disputes (URPSD). The agreement on TRIPS in fact is an attempt to strengthen Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).  The developed and industrialized countries of the world have been clamoring for quite some time regarding inadequacy of laws protecting IPRs enforced in the developing and underdeveloped countries. One of the arguments advanced by the developed countries in favour of TRIPS is that the developing countries should re-evaluate their  perceptions and the costs and benefits involved in the enforcement of Agreement on Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights as the liberalization of the IPRs would ultimately bring the benefits like latest technology and foreign direct investment,  new inventions fostered by higher levels of Research and Development (R&D) at domestic and international levels, and greater technology and  foreign direct investment inflows which would ultimately add to the level of development of the developing countries. The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights lays down the obligations of the Member States in the areas of copy-rights, Trade Marks, Industrial Designs and Patents, Lay out Designs of Integrated Circuits, etc., with reference to Paris Convention of 1967, Bern Convention of 1971, the Rome Convention and the Treaty on Intellectual Property In Respect of Integrated Circuits. It is therefore, necessary that as a first step to meet the challenges of WTO Regime a review of all existing laws relating to Intellectual Property Rights enforced in Pakistan is undertaken in the light of the provisions contained in the agreement on TRIPS. Another important progress made in the Uruguay Round of Talk was the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.  The WTO has framed its own Rules for settlement of disputes arising between the members of WTO. These Rules known as Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing Settlement of Disputes (URPSD) are binding on the members of WTO. These Rules provide a mechanism and detailed procedure for settlement of dispute between the members of WTO. A Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) is created under these Rules to administer the rules and procedure contained in URPSD. The DSB is authorized to establish panels & Appellate Body, adopt panel and Appellate Body reports, maintain surveillance of implementation of rulings and   recommendations, and authorize suspension of concessions and other obligations under the “covered agreements”. While dealing with a dispute under the provisions of a Plurilateral Trade Agreement the DSB allows participation of only those parties in the decisions or actions taken by the DSB who are parties to that Agreement.  The DSB is under obligation to keep the relevant WTO Councils and Committees informed and posted about every development in dispute related to the provisions of the respective covered agreements. The DSB is authorized to meet as often as necessary to carry out its functions within the time frame provided by URPSD.   The rules and procedure prescribed under URPSD for settlement of dispute apply to all disputes brought before the DSB except to the extent it is otherwise provided in the consultation and dispute settlement provisions of the “covered agreements”. The dispute settlement system of WTO is a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. It is designed to preserve the rights and obligations of Members under the covered agreements, and to rectify the existing provisions of those agreements in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law. Recommendations and rulings of DSB cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements. The  prompt settlement of situation in which a Member considers that any benefit accruing to it directly or indirectly under the  covered agreements are being impaired by the measures taken by another Member is essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and maintenance of a proper balance between the rights and obligations of Members. All solutions to matters formally raised under the consultation and dispute settlement provisions of the covered agreements, including arbitration awards, shall be consistent with those agreements and shall not nullify or impair benefits accruing to any Member under those agreements, nor impede the attainment of any objective of those agreements. Mutually agreed solutions to matters raised under the consultation and dispute settlement provisions of the covered agreements shall be notified to the DSB and the relevant Councils and   Committees, where any member may raise any point relating thereto. The aim of dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution to a dispute. A solution mutually acceptable to the parties to a dispute and consistent with the covered agreements is to be clearly preferred. In the absence of a mutually agreed solution, the first objective of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure the withdrawal of measures concerned found to be inconsistent with the provisions of any of the covered agreements. The provisions of compensation are resorted to only if the immediate withdrawal of the measure which is inconsistent with a covered agreement is impracticable, as a temporary measure pending the withdrawal of the measure. The Member invoking the dispute settlement procedure should resort to the procedure asking for suspension of the application of concession or other obligations under the covered agreement only as a last measure. In case there is an infringement of the obligation assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment. A presumption therefore, arises that a breach of the rules has an adverse impact on other Members parties to the covered agreement, and in such cases it is up to the Member against whom the complaint is brought to rebut the presumption. The provisions of URPSD are without prejudice to the rights of Members to seek authoritative interpretation of provisions of a covered agreement through decision-making process under the WTO Agreement or a covered agreement which is a Plurilateral Trade Agreement.  The request for conciliation and use of the dispute settlement procedure is not intended to be or considered contentious act and all Members engaged in these procedure are required to act in good faith in an effort to resolve the dispute. Therefore, the complaints and counter complaints with regard to distinct matters should not be linked. The rules and procedure of URPSD apply only to new requests made on or after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement. With respect to dispute for which the request for consultations was made under GATT 1947 or under any other predecessor agreement to the covered agreement before the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement, the relevant dispute settlement rules and procedures applicable immediately prior to the date of entry into force of WTO Agreement shall continue to apply.  The covered agreements mentioned in Appendix 1 to URPSD are: (i) Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, (ii) Multilateral Trade Agreements (Multilateral Trade Agreement on Trade in Goods, General Agreement on Trade in Services and Agreement on Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights); and (iii) Plurilateral Trade Agreements (Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft, Agreement on Government Procurement, International Dairy Agreement and International Bovine Meat Agreement). Another category of “covered agreements” mentioned in Appendix 2 to the URPSD are those which contain special or additional rules and procedures on dispute settlement. These “covered agreements” are: (i) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitory Measures, (ii) agreement on Textiles and Clothing, (iii) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, (iv) Agreements on Implementation of Article VI & VII of GATT 1994, (v) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, (vi) General Agreement on Trade in Services, and (vii) Decisions on Certain Dispute Settlement Procedures for the GATS. The WTO Rules for settlement of dispute apply in so far they do not come in conflict with the special or additional rules and procedure set out in the agreements mentioned in Appendix 2 to URPSD and in the event of conflict between the two the later apply. The DSB when seized of a dispute constitute a panel to deal with the dispute (Article 6). But before that a party to the dispute is entitled to avail Consultation, Good Office and Mediation process provided under the Rules (Articles 4 and 5 of URPSD). The Panel    proceeds in the dispute either on the basis of a standard Terms of Reference prescribed under the Rules unless parties agree otherwise within 20 days from the establishment of Panel or on the basis of a term of Reference drawn by the Chairman of the DSB in consultation with the parties to the dispute. The members of Panel are selected from amongst the persons whose list is maintained by the Secretariat of WTO. The Panels are normally composed of 3 panelists unless the parties to the dispute within 10 days of the establishment of the panel agree to a panel composed of 5 panelists. The names of the panelists are proposed by the Secretariat and the parties to the dispute cannot oppose the nominations except for some compelling reasons. If there is no agreement on the names of the panelists within 20 days of the establishment of panel, the Director General at the request of either party and in consultation with the Chairman of DSB  and Chairman of relevant Council or Committee, determines the composition of the  panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director General considers most  appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after  consulting the parties to the dispute. The Panelists serve at the Panel in their individual capacities and not as government representatives, or representatives of any organization, and therefore, Members are not entitled to give them instructions or seek to influence them as individuals with regards to matters before the panel. If the dispute before the panel is between Members of a developing country and the developed country, then if the member of developing country so request the panel includes at least one panelist from a developing country Member. The expenses including travel and subsistence allowance of panelists are met from the WTO budget in accordance with the criteria to be adopted by the General Council based on the recommendations  of Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration. In case a dispute before DSB involve applications of rules and procedures under more than one “covered agreement” and there is conflict between special or additional rules and procedures of such agreements the parties to the dispute are required to agree on a common rule and procedure to be adopted for resolution of dispute within 20 days of the establishment of the panel. In the event of failure of the parties to agree to a common rule and procedure for resolution of the dispute the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body in consultation with parities to the dispute determines the rules and procedures to be followed within 10 days after receipt of the request by either Member. However, in determining the rules and   the procedures to be flowed in the proceedings before the DSB the Chairman is guided by the principle that special or additional rules contained in a “covered agreement” are preferred where possible and rules and procedure set out under URPSD are followed to the extent necessary to avoid conflict. In case of Multiple Complaints where more than one member requests the establishment of a panel related to the same matter, as far as possible a single panel is established to examine these complaints taking into account the rights of all Members concerned. If for some reasons more than one panel is constituted every effort is made to see that same persons serve as panelists on these panels and the timetable for the panel process in such dispute is harmonized. The Panel in regulating its procedure follows the Rules prescribed in Appendix 3 to URPSD and fixes a time table for the panel process allowing sufficient time to the parties to prepare their submission. If the parties to the dispute fail to develop mutually satisfactory solution, the panel in the light of the rebuttal submissions and oral arguments of the parties issues a descriptive section of its draft report to the parties to the dispute inviting their comments in writing within a fixed time frame and after expiry of this period the Panel issues its interim report containing both the descriptive sections and the panel’s findings and conclusions. With the issuance of interim report the Panel sets a time frame within which a party may submit a written request for review of any specific aspect of the interim report prior to circulation of the final report. If no such request or comment is received within the time fixed by the Panel, the interim report is considered as the final panel report and circulated promptly to the Members. The panel submits its findings in the form of a written report to the DSB setting the findings of fact, the applicability of relevant provisions and the basic rationale behind any findings and recommendations that it makes. Generally a period of six months is allowed to the panel to conduct its examination from the date the composition and terms of reference of the panel has been agreed upon and the date the final report is issued to the parties to the dispute. However, in cases of urgency including disputes relating to perishable goods, the panel is required to make every effort to issue its report to the parties to the dispute within 3 months. In case the panel is of the view that it cannot issue its report within 6 or 3 months in case of urgency it is required to communicate to DSB in writing the reasons for the delay together with an estimated time for issuance of its report but in no case this period is to exceed nine months. If a party to the dispute is a developing country and the relevant time to develop a mutually satisfactory solution has expired the Chairman of DSB in consultation with the parties may consider extension of time. Similarly, where the panel is examining a complaint against a developing country member, it shall accord sufficient time to the developing country member to prepare and present its argumentation. The Panel Report in dispute where one or more of the parties is a developing country, shall explicitly indicate the form in which account has been taken of relevant provisions on differential and more favorable treatment for developing country Members that form part of the covered agreement which have been raised by the developing country Member in course of the dispute settlement procedure. The Panel may suspend its work at the request of complaining party for a period not exceeding 12 months. In the event of suspension of work by the panel the time frame mentioned in the rules for submission of final report by the Panel shall stand extended by the amount of time that the work remained suspended.  If the work remains suspended beyond the period of 12 months the authority for establishment of the panel shall lapse. The Panel while dealing with a dispute has right to seek information and technical advice from any individual or body which it deems appropriate. If the required information is available from an individual or body within the jurisdiction of a Member, the Panel shall first inform the authorities of that Member. A Member is required to respond promptly and fully to any request by a panel for such information as the panel may consider necessary and appropriate. However, confidential information so provided is not revealed without formal authorization from the individual, body or authorities of the Member providing the information. The Panel may also seek information on technical matter by obtaining advisory report in writing from an expert review group. The deliberations   of the Panel are confidential and its reports are drafted without the presence of the parties to the dispute in the light of information provided and statements made. The final report includes discussion of arguments, if any, made at the interim review stage. The panel report is considered for adoption by the DSB only after expiry of 20 days from the date it is circulated to the Members. The Members having objection to the panel report may submit their written submission explaining their objection for circulation at least 10 days prior to the DSB meeting at which the panel report is to be considered.  The DSB may adopt a panel report in its meeting convened within 60 days of the circulation of the report to the Members unless a party to the dispute formally notifies the DSB of its intention to appeal against the panel report or the DSB by consensus decides not to adopt the report. Where a party notifies its intention to appeal against the panel report it will not be adopted by DSB until after completion of the appeal.  A standing Appellate Body is established by the DSB consisting of seven persons who are appointed for a period of four years and each one of them can be reappointed once after expiry of his period of appointment. Three members of the Appellate Body serve on any one case. Members of the Appellate Body serve on rotation in accordance with the working procedure of Appellate Body. The Appellate Body is comprised of persons of recognized authority, with demonstrated expertise in law, international trade and the subject matter of covered agreements generally. They are unaffiliated with any government. The Appellate Body Membership is broadly representative of membership of WTO. The members of the Appellate Body can not   participate in the consideration of any dispute that would create a direct or indirect conflict of interest. As a general rule, the proceedings of Appellate Body does not  exceed 60 days from the date a party to the dispute formally notifies it decision to appeal to the date the Appellate Body circulates its report. If the Appellate Body is of the opinion that it cannot provide its report within 60 days, it shall inform the DSB in writing of the reasons of delay together with an estimate of the period within which it will submit its report but in no case this period can exceed 90 days. The grounds of appeal are limited to issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretation developed by the panel. The expenses of persons serving on the Appellate Body, including travel and subsistence allowance are met from the WTO Budget in the same manner as the expenses of the panelists. The Appellate Body draws it working procedure in consultation with the Chairman of DSB and the Director General,   and communicates to the Members for information. The proceedings of the Appellate Body are confidential. The Reports of the Appellate Body are drafted without the presence of the parties to the dispute. The Appellate Body may uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of the Panel. The Reports of the Appellate Body are adopted by the DSB and accepted unconditionally by the parties to the dispute unless the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the Appellate Body Report, within 30 days following its circulation to the Members. Where a panel or Appellate Body concludes that a measure is inconsistent with a covered agreement, it shall recommend that the Member concerned to bring the measure in conformity with the agreement. In addition to its recommendations, the panel or Appellate Body may suggest ways in which the Member concerned could implement the recommendations. In order to ensure prompt compliance with the ruling and recommendations of DSB for the benefit of all the Members a DSB meeting is held within 30 days after the adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report in which the Member concerned informs the DSB of its intention in respect of implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. If it is impracticable to implement the recommendations and ruling immediately, the Member concerned is allowed a reasonable time to do so. The reasonable time is the period proposed by the Member concerned and approved by DSB; or a period of time mutually agreed by the parties to the dispute within 45 days after the date of adoption of the recommendations and ruling; or in the absence of such agreement a period of time determined through arbitration within 90 days after the date of adoption of the recommendations and rulings but in such arbitration proceedings the reasonable period of time cannot exceed 15 months from the date of adoption of a panel or Appellate Body report. The DSB keeps under surveillance the implementation of adopted recommendations or rulings. The issue of implementation of the recommendation or rulings may be raised at the DSB meeting by any member at any time following their adoption. Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of recommendations and ruling shall be placed on the agenda of the   DSB meeting    after six moths following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB’s agenda until the issue is resolved. If the matter is one which is raised by a developing country Member, the DSB shall consider what further action it might take which would be appropriate to the circumstances. If the case is one brought by a developing country Member, in considering what appropriate action might be taken, the DSB shall take into account not only the trade coverage of measures complained of, but also their impact on the economy of developing country Members concerned.   If  the  member concerned fails to bring the measure found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement into compliance therewith or otherwise comply with the recommendations and rulings within a reasonable period of time as determined under the rules, such member shall, if so requested , and not later than   the expiry of the reasonable period of time, enter  into negotiations with any party having invoked the dispute settlement procedures, with a view to developing mutually acceptable                                  compensation. If no satisfactory compensation is agreed within 20 days after the date of expiry of the reasonable period of time, any party having invoked the dispute settlement procedures may request authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to the Member concerned of concessions or other obligations under the covered agreements. The general principles applicable to such suspensions are: (a) the complaining party first seek to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector(s) as that in which the panel or Appellate Body has found a violation or other nullification or impairment; (b) if that party considers that it is not practicable or effective to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector(s), it may seek to suspend concessions or other obligations in other sectors under the same agreement; (c) if the party considers that it is not practicable or effective to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to other sectors under the same agreement, and that the circumstances are serious enough, it may seek to suspend concessions or other  obligations under another covered agreement. The term “agreement” here means: (i) in respect of goods the agreements mentioned in Annex 1A of WTO Agreement taken as a whole as well as the Plurilateral Trade Agreements in so far as the relevant parties to the dispute are parties to these agreements; (ii) with respect of services, The General Agreements on Trade in Services (GATS); and (iii) with respect to intellectual property rights, the Agreements on TRIPS. On receiving a request for suspension of concessions or obligations the DSB shall within 30 days of the expiry of reasonable period grant the authorization unless DSB by consensus reject the request. The level of suspension of concessions or other obligations authorized by the DSB shall be equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment. However, if the Member concerned objects to the level of suspension proposed, or claims that the principles and procedures prescribed in this behalf have not be followed, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. Such arbitration shall be carried out by the original panel, if members are available, or by an arbitrator appointed by the Director General and shall be completed within 60 days after the expiry of the reasonable period of time. Concessions and obligations cannot be suspended during the course of arbitration. In the proceedings the arbitrator will only determine: (a) whether the level of such suspension is equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment; (b) whether the proposed suspension of concessions or other obligations is allowed under the covered agreement; and (c) whether principles and procedures set forth in this behalf have been followed. The decision of the arbitrator will be final and binding on the parties. The DSB will be informed of the arbitrator’s decision promptly and upon request, grant authorization to suspend concession or other obligations where the request is consistent with the decision of the arbitrator, unless the DSB decides by consensus to reject the request. The suspension of concessions or other obligations are temporary measures and remain enforced until such time as the measure found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement has been removed, or the Member required implementing recommendations or ruling provides a solution to the nullification or impairment of benefits, or a mutually satisfactory solution is reached. The DSB shall continue to keep under surveillance the implementation of adopted recommendations or rulings, including those cases where compensation has been provided or concession or other obligations have been suspended but the recommendations to bring the measures in conformity with the covered agreement have not been implemented. The dispute settlement provisions of the covered agreements may be invoked in respect of measures affecting their observance taken by regional or local governments or authorities within the territory of a Member. When the DSB has ruled that a provision of a covered agreement has   not been observed, the responsible Member shall take such reasonable measures as may be available to it to ensure its observance. The provisions of the covered agreements and URPSD relating to compensation and suspension of concession or other obligations apply in cases where it has not been possible to secure such observance. At all stages of determination of the causes of a dispute and of dispute settlement procedure involving the least developed country Member, particular consideration shall be given to the special situation of the least developed country Members. In this regard, Members shall exercise due restraint in raising matters under these procedures involving a least developed country Member. If nullification or impairment is found to result from a measure taken by a least developed country Member, the parties shall exercise due restraint in asking for compensation or seeking authorization to suspend the application of  concessions or other obligations pursuant to these procedures. In dispute settlement cases involving the least developed country Member, where a satisfactory solution has not been found in the course of consultations the Director General or the Chairman DSB shall, upon a request by a least developed country Member offer their good offices, conciliation and mediation with a view to assisting the parties to settle the dispute, before a request for panel is made. The Director General or the Chairman DSB, in providing the above assistance, may consult any source which either deems appropriate. The parties may mutually agree to arbitration within WTO as an alternate expeditious course of dispute settlement by clearly defining the issues except as otherwise provided in URPSD. In such a case the parties shall also agree on the procedure to be followed. Agreements to resort to arbitration shall be notified to all Members sufficiently in advance of the actual commencement of the arbitration process. Other members may become party to the arbitration proceeding subject to the agreement of the parties which have agreed to have recourse to arbitration. The parties to the proceeding shall agree to abide by the arbitration award. Arbitration award shall be notified to the DSB and the Council or Committee of any relevant agreement where any Member may raise any point relating thereto. The provisions contained in URPSD regarding Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rulings, compensation and suspension of concessions apply mutatis mutandis to the arbitration awards.   Where provisions of paragraph 1(b) or 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 are applicable to a covered agreement and the dispute is brought by a party before the panel or Appellate Body complaining that any benefit accruing to it directly or indirectly under the covered agreement is being nullified or impaired or the attainment of any objective of that Agreement is being impeded as a result of the application of any measure by a Member, the panel or Appellate Body will make ruling and recommendations determining only whether or not it conflicts with the provisions of the Agreement and the special procedure stated in Article 26 URPSD will apply to the case. The developing and under developed countries of the world have been expressing skepticism about WTO Regime and considered it a ploy of the West and developed countries to establish their economic  dominance  over the developing and under  developed countries by creating corporate  Regimes. The recent WTO Rulings declaring illegal the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties by USA under Byrd Amendment, the US cotton-farm subsidy programme, ban on internet gambling imposed by US, the US tariff on Canadian lumber and temporary tariff on imported steel, and the subsidized export of sugar by European Union has demonstrated that WTO is determined to work in the true sprit of trade liberalization independently which is welcome sign and will help in building  the confidence of  developing and under developed countries in the just and fair working of WTO. With the extension of WTO Regime in January 2005, many controversies and disputes with regard to the enforcement of the provisions of various covered agreements are likely to arise. In order to meet these new challenges it is necessary that the trading community and the legal practitioners in the country undertake  timely an in-depth study of the rules and procedure of dispute resolutions under WTO alongside the provisions of various covered agreements to deal effectively with new scenarios .                                                                                                                JUSTICE® SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI                                                         FORMER CHIEF JUSTIC OF PAKISTAN Note: This paper was read at the  Seminar organized by Memon Professional Forum on 1st December, 2004.