<<

. 47
( 53 .)



>>

Hoskyns and Michael Newman (Manchester, England: Manchester Uni-
versity Press, 2000), 39; John Carvel, “Sweden Plans Law to Blunt EU
Secrecy,” The Guardian, November 9, 1994, 12. Norwegians rejected EU
membership in a 1994 referendum.
36. Re¬‚ection Group, Report on Agenda for the 1996 Intergovernmental Con-
ference (Brussels: European Council, 1995).
37. Ibid. The 1995 Re¬‚ection Group report had observed that “many of us
propose that the right of access to information be recognized in the Treaty
as a right of the citizens of the Union.”
38. Article 45 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which added Article 191a to the
Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). The Amsterdam
Treaty also renumbered articles of the TEC, so that Article 191a became
Article 255. The Amsterdam Treaty entered into force in May 1999,


285
Notes to Pages 177“180


triggering a two-year period within which a disclosure regulation was
to be adopted.
39. Declaration 35 of the Final Act of the Treaty of Amsterdam. See also Ulf
¨
Oberg, “Public Access to Documents after the Entry into Force of the
Amsterdam Treaty,” European Integration Online Papers 2, no. 8 (1998):
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1998“1008.htm, 17. It was unclear whether this
provision of the new disclosure regulation gave member states an abso-
lute veto over disclosure of records. See Ian Harden, “Citizenship and
Information,” European Public Law (2001), 26.
40. The Santer Commission resigned in March 1999.
41. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation Regarding Public Access
to Documents, COM(2000) 30 ¬nal/2 (Brussels: European Commission,
2000).
42. Soderman, “The EU™s Transparent Bid for Opacity.”
¨
43. For an illustration of the reaction, see Select Committee on the European
Union, Sixteenth Report, 1999“2000 (London: House of Lords, 2000). The
new regulation was adopted by the EU Council in May 2001: Regulation
(EC) 1049/2001, May 30, 2001.
44. Strictly, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was served
by a small secretariat, also referred to by the acronym GATT.
45. Ralph Nader and Lori Wallach, “GATT, NAFTA, and the Subversion of
the Democratic Process,” in The Case against the Global Economy, ed.
Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books,
1996).
46. Chakravarthi Raghavan, “NGOs Launch “Shrink or Sink” Campaign
against WTO,” Third World Network, April 6, 2000, Web: http://www. twn-
side.org.sg/title/launch.htm.
47. Oxfam UK, Discussion Paper: Institutional Reform of the WTO (Oxford,
UK: Oxfam Uk, 2000), 4.
48. World Trade Organization, Singapore Ministerial Declaration (Geneva:
World Trade Organization, 1996).
49. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, Annex III(A). The TPRM
was actually begun on an interim basis in 1989 and later included in the
1995 Agreement establishing the WTO.
50. Asif Qureshi, “Some Lessons from ˜Developing Countries™ Trade Policy
Reviews in the GATT Framework: An Enforcement Perspective,” World
Economy 18, no. 3 (1995): 489“503, 493“494.
51. Donald B. Keesing, Improving Trade Policy Reviews in the World Trade
Organization (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics,
1998); Joseph F. Francois, Maximizing the Bene¬ts of the Trade Policy
Review Mechanism for Developing Countries (Tinbergen Institute and
CEPR, 1999), 6.
52. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Article X.
53. Sylvia Ostry, “WTO Membership for China,” ed. Patrick Grady and
Andrew Sharpe (Kingston, Ontario: John Deutsch Institute, 2001).
54. General Agreement on Trade in Services, Articles III and III bis.
55. Agreement on Government Procurement, Articles XVIII and XIX.


286
Notes to Pages 180“183


56. Reference paper on principles of the regulatory framework for basic
telecommunications services, April 1996, Article 4.
57. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Articles 2.9 and 10.
58. The EU is a member of the WTO, representing all EU member states;
hence “Quad.”
59. World Trade Organization, Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction
of WTO Documents, WT/L/160/Rev.1 (Geneva: World Trade Organization,
1996).
60. The phrase is used in the United Kingdom™s new Freedom of Information
Act, 2000.
61. For a complaint about the unfairness of this policy, see Oxfam UK, Dis-
cussion Paper: Institutional Reform of the WTO, 4.
62. WTO Agriculture Committee, Summary Report of the Meeting Held on 25“
26 March 1999, G/AG/R/18 (Geneva: World Trade Organization, 1999),
9“10.
63. John Weiner and L. Brennan Van Dyke, A Handbook for Obtaining Doc-
uments from the World Trade Organization (Geneva: International Centre
for Trade and Sustainable Development, 1997).
64. See, for example, the following proposal made jointly by Canada and
the United States: United States, Submission Regarding Informal Con-
sultations on External Transparency, WT/GC/W/413/Rev.1 (Geneva: World
Trade Organization, 2000).
65. WTO Secretary General Michael Moore conceded in 2002 that an inten-
sive four-year review of the 1996 policy had produced “little movement”
on reform: World Trade Organization, Press Release: Moore Pledges to
Build on Doha Success in 2002 (Geneva: World Trade Organization,
2002).
66. World Trade Organization, Revised Procedures for the Circulation and De-
restriction of WTO Documents, WT/L/452 (Geneva: World Trade Organiza-
tion, 2002).
67. World Trade Organization, Minutes of Meeting of the General Council Held
on 13“14 May 2002, WT/GC/M/74 (Geneva: World Trade Organization,
2002).
68. Comment by Mexico: World Trade Organization, Minutes of Meeting of the
General Council, 26 June 1996, WT/GC/M/12 (Geneva: World Trade Orga-
nization, 1996). Comment by India: World Trade Organization, Minutes
of Meeting of the General Council, 18 July 1996, WT/GC/M/13 (Geneva:
World Trade Organization, 1996).
69. WTO General Council, Minutes of Meeting Held on 18 and 19 July 2001,
WT/GC/M/66 (Geneva: World Trade Organization, 2001).
70. World Trade Organization, Report of the Appellate Body: United
States “ Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,
WT/DS58/AB/R (Geneva: World Trade Organization, 1998). U.S. environ-
mental groups also leaked a restricted copy of the panel™s draft report
upholding the complaint.
71. Coalition for Open Trade, “Public Participation Barred Once Again in
WTO Dispute Settlement,” Tradewatch Bulletin, March 6, 2000.


287
Notes to Pages 183“185


72. United States Trade Representative, 1998 Annual Report of the President
of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program (Washington, DC:
Of¬ce of the United States Trade Representative, 1998).
73. United States Mission, Communication to the Working Group on the Inter-
action between Trade and Competition Policy (Geneva: United States Per-
manent Mission to the WTO, 1999).
74. Senator Max Baucus, Letter to the Honorable Robert B. Zoellick, United
States Trade Representative (Washington: Of¬ce of Senator Max Baucus,
2002). For a statement of the Bush administration™s position, see United
States, Communication from the United States on the Improvement of the
Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO Related to Transparency,
TN/DS/W/13 (Geneva: World Trade Organization, 2002).
75. WTO General Council, Minutes of Meeting of the General Council, 24 April
1998, WT/GC/M/28 (Geneva: World Trade Organization, 1998). See also
Oxfam UK, Discussion Paper: Institutional Reform of the WTO, 25.
76. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, “DSU
Review: Developing Countries Reject US Proposal on Transparency,”
Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, September 18, 2002.
77. The Business Times, “Asean Rejects US Call for NGO Access to WTO
Dispute,” The Business Times, September 17, 2002.
78. World Trade Organization, Report of the Appellate Body: European Com-
munities “ Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products,
WT/DS135/AB/R (Geneva: World Trade Organization, 2001).
79. World Trade Organization, Minutes of Meeting of the General Council Held
on 22 November 2000, WT/GC/M/60 (Geneva: World Trade Organization,
2000).
80. Petros Mvroidis, Amicus Curiae Briefs before the WTO: Much Ado About
Nothing. Working paper (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School, 2001).
81. Chakravarthi Raghavan, “Continuing Conceptual Divides at the WTO,”
Third World Network, March 2, 2000, Web: http://www.twnside.org.sg/
title/divides.htm.
82. World Trade Organization, Report by the Chairman, Special Session on the
Dispute Settlement Body, TN/DS/10 (Geneva: World Trade Organization,
2004).
83. Ian Bowles and Cyril Kormos, “The American Campaign for Environmen-
tal Reforms at the World Bank,” Fletcher Forum of World Affairs Journal
23 (1999): 211“224, 213.
84. Bruce Rich, Mortgaging the Earth: The World Bank, Environmental Impov-
erishment, and the Crisis of Development (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994),
111. Two of these organizations were relatively new: the NRDC was estab-
lished with Ford Foundation support in 1970, and the EPI in 1972.
85. In the United States, the Environmental Policy Institute attempted to
draw attention to the Akosombo Dam: Philip Shabecoff, “Actual Price of
High Dams Also Includes Social Costs,” New York Times, July 10, 1983,
22. However, there were many other comparable cases. For a history
of the antidam movement, see Sanjeev Khagram, “Toward Democratic
Governance for Sustainable Development: Transnational Civil Society


288
Notes to Pages 185“187


Organizing around Big Dams,” in The Third Force, ed. Ann Florini
(Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2000);
Patrick McCully, Silenced Rivers (London: Zed Books, 2001); Rich, Mort-
gaging the Earth: The World Bank, Environmental Impoverishment, and
the Crisis of Development.
86. Rich, Mortgaging the Earth: The World Bank, Environmental Impoverish-
ment, and the Crisis of Development, 107“108.
87. Khagram, “Toward Democratic Governance for Sustainable Develop-
ment: Transnational Civil Society Organizing around Big Dams,” 97.
88. Ian Bowles and Cyril Kormos, “Environmental Reform at the World
Bank,” Virginia Journal of International Law 35 (1995): 777“839, 837.
Summers made the comment in 1994, while Undersecretary of the Trea-
sury for International Affairs.
89. Ibid., 789.
90. Ibid., 790“797. In 1988 and 1989, Congress had also amended the Inter-
national Financial Institutions Act to emphasize the need for disclosure
of project information.
91. General Accounting Of¬ce, Multilateral Development Banks: Pub-
lic Consultation on Environmental Assessments, GAO/NSIAD-98-192
(Washington, DC: General Accounting Of¬ce, 1998), 52.
92. Rich, Mortgaging the Earth: The World Bank, Environmental Impoverish-
ment, and the Crisis of Development, 123.
93. Bowles and Kormos, “Environmental Reform at the World Bank,” 789.
94. In 1990, Congress temporarily withheld part of funds requested for a
General Capital Increase agreed to by the Bank™s Executive Board in
1988. In 1992, an appropriation for the Global Environmental Facility,
partly administered by the Bank, was withheld because of noncompli-
ance problems: Ibid., 798 and 801.
95. Ibid., 833. There had also been pressure for improved disclosure dur-
ing the preceding round of negotiations over replenishment in 1989:
Bowles and Kormos, “Environmental Reform at the World Bank,”
826.
96. Bowles and Kormos, “The American Campaign for Environmental
Reforms at the World Bank,” 220.
97. The ¬rst center was established in Washington; the next were located
in its Paris and Tokyo of¬ces. Today, most World Bank ¬eld of¬ces have
Public Information Centers.
98. Chris Chamberlain, Ful¬lling the IDA-12 Mandates: Recommenda-
tions for Expanding Public Access to Information at the World Bank
(Washington, DC: Bank Information Center, 1999).
99. World Bank, Addition to IDA Resources: Thirteenth Replenishment
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2002), vi.
100. World Bank, The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2002), 2.
101. Graham Saul, The Ongoing Struggle for World Bank Transparency: The
Outcome of the Information Disclosure Policy Review (Washington, DC:
Bank Information Center, 2001).


289
Notes to Pages 187“188


102. In 2004, the Bank contemplated a pilot project that would allow the
release of some draft documents: World Bank, Memorandum on World
Bank Disclosure Policy: Additional Issues (Washington, DC: World Bank,
Of¬ce of the Vice President and Corporate Secretary, 2004).
103. Toby McIntosh, Analysis of Transparency Issues at the World Bank
(Washington, DC: freedominfo.org, September, 2002 [Accessed January
20, 2003]), available from http://www.freedominfo.org/ifti/worldbank/
20020900.htm.
104. Toby McIntosh, “World Bank to Release Board Minutes, Make Other
Modest Reforms,” freedominfo.org, March 18, 2005, Web: http://www.
freedominfo.org/ifti/worldbank/20050318.htm. The Bank agreed to the
release of “limited information” about meetings, such as the list of those
attending, the broad subject of brie¬ngs, decisions reached, and voting
by directors. Board members are given the opportunity to vet the minutes
before their release.
105. Alan Beattie, “World Bank Set to Allow Some Public Access,” Financial
Times, August 31, 2001, 7.
106. Saul, The Ongoing Struggle for World Bank Transparency: The Outcome
of the Information Disclosure Policy Review.
107. Toby McIntosh, Release of Secret Loan Document in Uruguay Fuels
Public Debate (Washington, DC: September, 2002 [Accessed December
15, 2003]), available from http://www.freedominfo.org/ifti/worldbank/
20030100 1.htm.
108. McIntosh, “World Bank to Release Board Minutes, Make Other Modest
Reforms.” World Bank, World Bank Disclosure Policy: Additional Issues,
R2003-0112/10 (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005), 1“3.
109. Saul, The Ongoing Struggle for World Bank Transparency: The Outcome of
the Information Disclosure Policy Review. In 2002, an Inspection Panel
report on Uganda™s Bujagali Project found evidence that the intent of
disclosure requirements had not been followed; the case is complicated
because funding in that case was provided by another arm of the World
Bank, the International Finance Corporation: Inspection Panel, Investi-
gation Report: Uganda Bujagali Project. An earlier controversy over IFC
support of Chile™s Bio Bio dam project also involved allegations of inap-
propriate redactions to a publicly disclosed document: Financial Times,
“Chile Dam Row Shows IFC™s Problems with Projects,” Financial Times,
August 8, 1997, 4.

<<

. 47
( 53 .)



>>