Exclusions from scope

Exclusions

Other exclusions

Article 2. Exclusions

Article 2 Exclusions

Exclusions and other limitations

Article 2. Exclusions (continued)

Article 2. Exclusions (continued)

Draft article 18, paragraph 2, provided for exclusions from the scope of application of the draft convention, whereas draft article 9, paragraph 6, referred to exclusions agreed between the parties.

Scope of the cover and exclusions

Article 9. Specific exclusions and inclusions

No exclusions with regard to supervision are envisaged for this sector.

The reservation to article 11 was based on the premise that the article did not allow for exclusions he did not agree that article 11, paragraph 1 did not permit exclusions.

This is due to some ambiguity as to both the positive scope of application of the latter and the explicit exclusions from its scope.

There was no reason for the reservation, in his view, unless exclusions were excessive.

States that had concerns regarding those matters could make exclusions under draft article 18.

Mr. Chong (Singapore) said he agreed with the representative of the United States that the Working Group, at its forty fourth session, had decided against a large number of global exclusions, preferring to leave States free to make their own exclusions.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) said that in order to keep the scope of application of the draft convention as broad as possible only minimal exclusions were established under draft article 2, while States could make additional exclusions under draft article 18.

So, it's these exclusions to the golden rule that amount to a lot of the world's trouble.

Ireland's Equality Act had fewer exclusions in the 2004 revision than it had had in earlier legislation.

In his view, exclusions should not be permitted where consensus had been reached on a draft article.

Mr. Mazzoni (Italy) said that it should be made clear that States were entitled to make exclusions in that regard.

Some agreements allow countries to exclude whole sectors from their coverage (while the GATS allows no a priori exclusion), while others tend to contain sectoral exclusions that are wider than those in the GATS.

Thus, in addition to exclusions in article 2, States would be able to exclude other matters under articles 18 and 19.

Other key market access areas are so called product exclusions (the fact that the distribution of certain products is sometimes excluded from commitments), for example as regards alcohol, tobacco, or pharmaceutical or certain agricultural (raw) products.

Several exclusions exist in principal the Convention applies to listed chemicals that may cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.

The investment on people, the construction of an active welfare state through the modernisation of the European social model, with cohesion and a labour market without exclusions.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) reiterated the Working Group's conclusion after lengthy debate that several specific exclusions should be deleted from draft article 2 on the grounds that States wishing to exclude them would be free to do so under draft article 18.

The broad formulation of the chapeau of draft article 2, paragraph 1, was one of the reasons why the Working Group had decided to remove some of the earlier explicit exclusions.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) said that his delegation did not support the proposal to retain draft paragraph 6, not because it did not agree with exclusions but simply because exclusions were already provided for in draft article 2, paragraph 2, which stated that the convention did not apply to any transferable document or instrument that entitled the bearer or beneficiary to claim the delivery of goods or the payment of a sum of money.

Notwithstanding such exclusions of open ended application, States could declare under draft paragraph 3 that they would apply the convention to specific instruments in addition to those listed in draft paragraph 1.

Given that the application of rules of electronic commerce was in its early stages, many exclusions by Contracting States were likely at the outset but the need for them would decrease over time.

It was therefore essential for the commitments entered into at Doha and Monterrey to lead to a world trading system which did not place the poor countries in a subordinate position or impede their economic self determination and which barred from financial policies all exclusions and conditions which obstructed or restricted development.

Following the enactment of the Equality Act 2004, he had sought legal advice with regard to the reservation on article 11, paragraph 1, which was being maintained because of very limited exclusions in the Employment Equality Act 1998.

It would not only afford legal certainty to courts but would also obviate the need for a large number of exclusions under draft article 18, paragraph 2, resulting in a tattered patchwork of reservations to the draft convention.

However, the concluding consensus had been that the paragraph had to be retained, since States would otherwise be unlikely to accede to the convention and it would be almost impossible to draw up a common list of exclusions.

Turning to the issue of domestic workers, he said that while discrimination under Irish legislation did include gender as a ground in its own right, one of the exclusions under the Employment Equality Act related to domestic work.

For instance, the commentary should confirm that consumer to consumer contracts were excluded from the scope of the draft convention under draft article 2, paragraph 1 (a). However, the Working Group had deliberately decided against listing specific exclusions in order to allow each State to decide for itself what areas it wished to exclude under article 18.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) said that, since draft article 18, paragraph 2, provided States with unlimited scope to make such exclusions as they deemed appropriate, paragraph 1 fulfilled no function other than to indicate explicitly what those possibilities were.

Mr. Chung Wan yong (Republic of Korea) said that he did not see any need to limit party autonomy under draft article 3, given that paragraph 2 of draft article 18 already allowed States to make exclusions by means of declarations.

Now is the chance to look forward and enlist the global community with no exclusions, although with differentiated responsibilities in the pursuit of a more secure world, one that avoids the dire risks of environmental degradation and social conflict implied by inaction.

The Chairman said he took it that the Commission wished to insert a clarification in the commentary to the effect that exclusions under draft article 18 could relate to any matters dealt with in the draft convention that created difficulties for States.

Any distinctions, exclusions or preferences made in the context of the refusal to hire an individual that are based on ethnicity, race, skin colour, sex, age religion, political beliefs, place of birth, foreign ancestry or social origin and that lead to the infringement of equal opportunity in labour are prohibited.

His delegation also supported the deletion of draft paragraph 1 (c) to further reduce the number of regimes of application, although it continued to support party autonomy under draft article 3, which implied that the convention contained no peremptory norms and that the parties were free to make such exclusions as they saw fit.

Some delegations had opposed their exclusion because they thought the draft convention should be applicable to those areas others had felt that explicit exclusions were unnecessary inasmuch as family and succession matters fell outside the Commission's trade law mandate. The commentary should make it clear that such matters did not fall within the scope of the draft convention.