Because it's difficult for readers to follow the comments section, I wanted to elevate this question from the comments to a post:
Perhaps one of the lawyers at this blog, would elucidate what seems a tricky one: The TF involves in effect amendments or changes to, among others, rights and obligations of Members, under three articles of the GATT 1994, and the rights of an importing country under the Pre-Shipment Agreement (whose objective is to help customs authorities, to prevent fraudulent disclosures at the point of customs import, something that the exporters don't like. However, rather than presenting to Members specific amendment to each of the provisions of GATT 1994, and pre-shipment inspection agreement, and have each of it ratified or accepted by two-thirds majority of membership, the Bali decision requires the TF as such to be presented to Members for acceptance or approval to be made a part of Annex 1A of the Marrakesh Treaty. How valid would such a procedure be under public international law? And what would it mean in terms of rights and obligations, taking note of the over-riding interpretative note to Annex IA (page 20 of legal texts). In the Indonesia car dispute case (which did not go to the AB, since the IMF loan conditionality to the Suharto govt, required that government to implement that panel ruling and not go in Appeal (some rule of law indeed!), the panel disregarded the interpretative note on Indonesia's Rights under GATT 1994, and its obligations under TRIMS. Under the interpretative note, the GATT rights should have prevailed over any obligations of TRIMS. Will that precedent be repeated in any future dispute under TFA.
