77. The representative of Chile, responding to the comments made by Hungary and Switzerland, said that Chile did want to comply with the obligations as contained in Article 23.4 as expeditiously as possible, and in the most simple and easy way as possible. However, it was not prepared to accept additional obligations through these negotiations. Therefore the responsibility for the limited progress of these negotiations did not lie with Chile, but with those who tried, through the back door, to put more obligations on Members. He would challenge any delegation to say that Chile was not complying with its obligations. He noted that Hungary and Switzerland were seeking an agreement which would have impact on non-participating Members. In this connection, he said that he could understand the delegation of Djibouti when it said that it did not understand these negotiations. Least-developed country Members, which did not have any obligations until 2006, found themselves in a position where they witnessed the negotiation of a system in which they might not be interested in participating but which contained obligations binding upon them, whether they liked it or not. In international law, to impose obligations on third countries not participating in a legal system would be "illegal". It would be contrary to any domestic legal system and to international law. He doubted that it was possible to continue in a negotiating process which was not legal and which was in fact contrary to the legal system established and built up within the WTO. He supported the comments made by the United States regarding the effects on non-participating Members. If this was not sufficient, it would be necessary to have a study on what would constitute a multilateral agreement or not. He wondered how one should consider the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which had 121 Contracting Parties: a plurilateral or multilateral treaty? For Chile, it was quite clear that within the legal order of the WTO the fact that a system of registration had only effect on those wishing to participate through notification would not in any way diminish the multilateral character of that system, which would be open to participation by all countries. He cited the example of anti-dumping rules: they were binding on those countries who wished to apply anti-dumping duties but countries were not obligated to have anti-dumping legislation. This was the case of Switzerland, who did not want to apply anti-dumping duties. The agreement did not lose its multilateral character because it did not have any effect on countries which had not included this possibility in their domestic legislation.
