 |
|
|
 |
|
home > resources > publications > wto analytical index > page j |
|
SUBJECT INDEX J |
|
The texts reproduced here do not have the legal standing of the original documents which are entrusted and kept at the WTO Secretariat in Geneva. | ATC safeguard measures (ATC 6), TMB discussion, phase-out programme (ATC 3.2(b)) ATC 28 Enabling Clause notifications GSP schemes GATT 31 special treatment of least-developed country Members GATT 40 Japan — Agricultural Products II (AB), WT/DS76/AB/R, DSR 1999:I burden of proof panel’s right to seek information and advice (DSU 13/SPS 11.2), relevance DSU 421, 1000 prima facie case, need for SPS 158 scientific evidence, sufficiency (SPS 2.2) SPS 17 harmonization of SPS measures (SPS 3), measures which result in a higher level of protection (SPS 3.3), rational relationship between measure and available information as SPS 72 information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (DSU 13/SPS 11.2) burden of proof and DSU 421, 1000 limitations on panel’s role SPS 24, 196 panel’s rights, right to assess facts SPS 24 interpretation of covered agreements, ordinary meaning, “sufficient” SPS 9 judicial economy, “positive solution to dispute” requirement (DSU 3.7) and DSU 1039 publication of measures such as laws, decrees or ordinances (transparency of SPS Regulations (Annex B) (para. 1, footnote 5)) SPS 176, 225 legal instruments as “measure” DSU 173 relationships within and between agreements SPS 2.2/SPS 3.3, 5.1 and 5.7 SPS 10 SPS 2.2/SPS 5.1 and 5.2 SPS 31, DSU 1039 request for establishment of panel, requirements (DSU 6.2), identification of specific measures at issue, legal instrument as measure DSU 173 risk assessment, need for (SPS 5.1–5.3 and Annex A, para. 4) elements/three-pronged test (Annex A, para. 4) SPS 103 n. 120 “scientific justification” (SPS 3.3) and SPS 72 scientific evidence, need for sufficient (SPS 2.2) burden of proof SPS 17 patent insufficiency SPS 11 provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence (SPS 5.7) obligation to seek to obtain additional information for more objective assessment of risk SPS 166 “provisional” SPS 163 as qualified exemption SPS 162 requirements, cumulative nature SPS 163 review within “a reasonable period of time” SPS 167 rational or objective relationship between SPS measure and scientific evidence, need for SPS 13 ad hoc determination SPS 14 “sufficiency”, as relational concept SPS 9–11 context (SPS 3.3, 5.1 and 5.7) SPS 10 SPS Agreement burden of proof measures “not more trade restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of … protection” (SPS 5.6) SPS 158 scientific evidence, sufficiency (SPS 2.2) SPS 17 SPS measures, appropriate level of protection (SPS 5.5–5.6) measures “not more trade restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of … protection” (SPS 5.6) burden of proof SPS 158 cumulative nature of obligations SPS 148 requirements (SPS 5.6, footnote 3) SPS 148 standard/powers of review (panel) (DSU 11), “objective assessment of the facts”, evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel, egregious error, need for DSU 353 transparency of SPS regulations (SPS 7 and Annex B), publication of measures such as laws, decrees or ordinances which are generally applicable (para. 1, footnote 5) SPS 225 Japan — Agricultural Products II (Panel), WT/DS76/R, DSR 1999:I expert review groups, rules and procedures (DSU, Appendix 4) appointment procedures SPS 193 methods for obtaining advice SPS 194 publication of measures such as laws, decrees or ordinances (transparency of SPS Regulations (Annex B) (para. 1, footnote 5)), failure to publish as breach of SPS 5.7 obligations SPS 176 relationships within and between agreements SPS 2/SPS 5 SPS 161 SPS 2.2/SPS 5.6 SPS 161 risk assessment, need for (SPS 5.1–5.3 and Annex A, para. 4), competence (panel) SPS 23 scientific evidence, need for sufficient (SPS 2.2), provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence (SPS 5.7) SPS 35–6 SPS Agreement, burden of proof, scientific evidence, sufficiency (SPS 2.2) SPS 17 SPS measures, appropriate level of protection (SPS 5.5–5.6) measures “not more trade restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of … protection” (SPS 5.6) alternative measure “significantly less restrictive to trade” SPS 154 “appropriate level”, determination Member’s right SPS 150 sufficient scientific evidence (SPS 2.2) and SPS 160–1 standard/powers of review (panel) (DSU 11), risk assessment (SPS Agreement), exclusion SPS 23 Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II (AB), WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, DSR 1996:I decisions, procedures and customary practices under GATT 1947 (WTO XVI:1) panel reports, legal status, as acquis (WTO Art. XVI:1) WTO 216, GATT 111 n. 190 panel reports (adopted) WTO 159, 216, 222, GATT 111 n. 190, DSU 73, 80 GATT 1994 constituent elements (GATT 1994 Art. 1), “other decisions of the Contracting Parties to GATT 1947” (Art. 1(b)(iv)), adopted panel reports, whether GATT 1 General Council (WTO IV:2), functions, interpretation of WTO Agreement WTO 159 interpretation of covered agreements applicable law customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)] GATT 222 DSU 3.2 AD 150 n. 193 guidelines effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile), meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase WTO 13, GATT 141, DSU 52 flexibility/certainty of the law, balance DSU 19 legitimate expectations, relevance WTO 222 panel reports and GATT 111, DSU 73 narrow/broad interpretation GATT 157, 162 object and purpose GATT 152 security and predictability (DSU 3.2) DSU 19 text/plain language (VCLT 31(2)) DSU 25 means “any subsequent practice … which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation” (VCLT 31(1)(b)), panel reports DSU 30 interpretative notes (Ad articles) GATT 151, 190, 215 supplementary means (VCLT 32), as rule of customary international law DSU 33 responsibility for (WTO IX:2) General Council (WTO IV:2) WTO 159 Ministerial Conference WTO 159 “like product” (GATT III:2 and III:4) determination of “likeness”, on case by case basis GATT 166 directly competitive or substitutable products distinguished GATT 158, 213 GATT III:4 compared GATT 240 narrow interpretation, need for GATT 157, 162 relevant factors Border Tax Adjustment, Working Party on GATT 157, 162, 166 consumer preferences GATT 166 cross-price elasticity GATT 194 nature of product GATT 206 physical properties GATT 166, 206 tariff bindings GATT 170 tariff classifications GATT 147, 169–70, 206, 239 national treatment, general principle (GATT III:1) applicability to products not subject of tariff concession under GATT II GATT 120 interpretation of GATT III as a whole and effectiveness principle GATT 141 GATT III:1 as context GATT 141 interpretation of WTO Agreement as a whole and GATT 300 “so as to afford protection” GATT 116 equality of competitive conditions, protection of competitive relationship GATT 135 omission from GATT III:2, first sentence, relevance GATT 152 national treatment, tax discrimination (GATT III:2) customary rules of interpretation of public international law and GATT 222 determination of violation, requirements aims and effects test/policy purpose GATT 128, 130–1, 184 “like product” and “in excess of” GATT 152, 175 “not similarly taxed” GATT 191 as separate elements GATT 191 tax on imported product in excess of domestic product “not similarly taxed” distinguished GATT 214–16 first and second sentences distinguished GATT 145, 191, 236 general principle (GATT III:1) and GATT 141 Interpretative Note Ad Article III:2, relevance GATT 151, 190, 215 “not similarly taxed” “so as to afford protection” distinguished GATT 219 threshold/de minimis differential GATT 214–15 “so as to afford protection” GATT 191 design and structure of measure as evidence of protective application GATT 220 intention, relevance GATT 224 “not similarly taxed” distinguished GATT 219 tariff roles as evidence of GATT 223 tax differentials as evidence of protective application GATT 221 panel reports, legal status, “other decisions of the Contracting Parties to GATT 1947” (GATT 1994 Art. 1(b)(iv)), whether GATT 1 precedent, decisions, procedures and customary practices under GATT 1947 (WTO XVI:1) GATT 152 relationships within and between agreements GATT III/WTO Agreement GATT 300 GATT III:1/GATT III as a whole GATT 141 Working Procedures (appellate review (DSU 17.9 and ABWP)), written responses (ABWP 28) DSU 881 Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II (Panel), WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R, WT/DS11/R, DSR 1996:I directly competitive or substitutable products (GATT III:2), as dynamic relationship (including possibility of latent demand) GATT 202 interpretation of covered agreements, means, “any subsequent practice … which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation” (VCLT 31(1)(b)), panel reports DSU 30 “like product” (GATT III:2 and III:4), GATT III:4 compared GATT 161 national treatment, general principle (GATT III:1), applicability to products not subject of tariff concession under GATT II GATT 120 national treatment, tax discrimination (GATT III:2), determination of violation, requirements, burden of proof GATT 155, 192 Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II (Article 21.3), WT/DS8/15, WT/DS10/15, WT/DS11/13, DSR 1997:I arbitration (DSU 22.6), right to participate in DSU 596 implementation of recommendations and rulings of the DSB (DSU 21) impracticality of immediate compliance/reasonable period of time (DSU 21.3, chapeau) “reasonable period” complexity of implementation process DSU 584 contentiousness, relevance DSU 584 “particular circumstances” DSU 584 Japan — Apples dispute (WT/DS245) arbitration (DSU 22.6), timing in relation to Article 21.5 arbitration (“sequencing”), ad hoc procedural agreements, agreement not to object to Article 22.6 arbitration DSU 633 expert evidence, Article 21.5 proceedings DSU 639 review of implementation of DSB rulings (DSU 21.5) ad hoc procedural agreements appointment of panelist DSU 638 experts DSU 639 Japan — Apples (AB), WT/DS245/AB/R, DSR 2003:IX information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (DSU 13/SPS 11.2) expert evidence (DSU 13.2) establishment of prima facie case and SPS 25–6 expert evidence/Member’s scientific evidence, primacy SPS 26, DSU 348 panel’s rights, to assess facts SPS 24 notice of appeal, requirements (ABWP 20(2)), notification of allegation of panel’s failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11) DSU 867 relationships within and between agreements, SPS 5 1/SPS 5 7 SPS 164 risk assessment, need for (SPS 5.1–5.3 and Annex A, para. 4) ascertainable/theoretical risk distinguished (SPS 5.1), scientific prudence SPS 117 “likelihood”, according to SPS measures which might be applied SPS 220 methodology, parties’ right to choose SPS 224 specificity of assessment, need for (SPS 5.1 and 5.2) SPS 221, 224 “sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2) and, divergence of expert views, relevance SPS 26 scientific evidence, need for sufficient (SPS 2.2) provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence (SPS 5.7) scientific uncertainty, relevance SPS 165 standard/powers of review (panel) (DSU 11) “objective assessment of the facts”, evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel, discretion in assessment of evidence DSU 348 “objective assessment of matter before it”, expert evidence, panel’s obligation to make independent assessment SPS 26, DSU 348 Japan — Apples (Panel), WT/DS245/R, DSR 2003:IX burden of proof allocation, responding party SPS 19 onus probandi actori incumbit SPS 19, DSU 991 scientific evidence, sufficiency (SPS 2.2) SPS 17–20, DSU 1010 evidence (panel procedures) (DSU 12), time limits for submission, panel’s right to admit “late” evidence, opportunity to comment, need for DSU 372 interpretation of covered agreements guidelines, effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile), meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase SPS 12 specific terms and phrases, “likelihood” (SPS Annex A, para. 4) SPS 219bis proportionality, risk based on scientific evidence SPS 16 relationships within and between agreements SPS 2.2/SPS 4 SPS 29 SPS 2.2/SPS 5.4 and 5.6 SPS 34 SPS 2.2/SPS 5.7 SPS 37 request for establishment of panel, requirements (DSU 6.2), legal basis of claim, arguments distinguished DSU 284 risk assessment, need for (SPS 5.1–5.3 and Annex A, para. 4) ascertainable/theoretical risk distinguished (SPS 5.1), scientific prudence SPS 117 “likelihood” 4.219bis according to SPS measures which might be applied SPS 220 proportionality and SPS 16 scientific evidence available at the time, limitation to SPS 96 scientific evidence, need for sufficient (SPS 2.2) equivalence (SPS 4), relevance SPS 29 proportionality/risk equation SPS 16 provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence (SPS 5.7) SPS 36 rational or objective relationship between SPS measure and scientific evidence, need for, ad hoc determination SPS 15 “scientific evidence” SPS 12 SPS Agreement burden of proof scientific evidence, sufficiency (SPS 2.2) SPS 18 scientific evidence, sufficiency (SPS 5.7) SPS 168 SPS measures, appropriate level of protection (SPS 5.5–5.6), measures “not more trade restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of … protection” (SPS 5.6), SPS 2.2 and SPS 34 transparency of SPS regulations (SPS 7 and Annex B), notification procedures changes requiring notification SPS 229 Japan — Film (Panel), WT/DS44/R, DSR 1998:IV burden of proof national treatment, regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4) GATT 231 onus probandi actori incumbit GATT 652–4 interpretation of covered agreements ordinary meaning “measure” (GATT XXIII:1(b)) DSU 199 “specific measures” (DSU 6.2) DSU 204 “like product” (GATT III:2 and III:4), competitive relationship, need for, GATT XXIII:1(b) compared GATT 269, 279 national treatment, regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4) burden of proof GATT 231 “laws, regulations or requirements”, “measures” (GATT XXIII:1(b)) distinguished GATT 252 “less favourable treatment”, equality of competitive conditions as test GATT 266 non-violation claims (GATT XXIII:1(b)) “any measure government measures, limitation to GATT 657 measure currently in force, limitation to GATT 658 non-binding action GATT 656 “benefit”, legitimate expectation of improved market access as norm GATT 659–62 “benefit”/legitimate expectation of improved market access as arising out of successive rounds of negotiation GATT 659–62 reasonable anticipation and GATT 663–8, 672 burden of proof GATT 652–5, DSU 807 as exceptional remedy GATT 645–6, DSU 807 “measure” affecting the competitive relationship, GATT III:4 compared GATT 269 government action, limitation to DSU 198–200 “law, regulations or requirements” (GATT III:4) compared GATT 252 measure in “conflict” with GATT provisions, applicability to, concurrent application to measures falling under other provisions of GATT GATT 648 nullification or impairment, need for GATT 671–2 competitive relationship as key factor GATT 671 object and purpose GATT 647 publication and administration of trade regulations (GATT X), laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings, of general application (GATT X:1) GATT 367 quantitative restrictions, elimination (GATT XI), “prohibition or restriction” (GATT XI:1), private action, relevance GATT 405 relationships within and between agreements, GATT III:4/GATT XXIII:1(b) GATT 69, 252, 279 request for establishment of panel, requirements (DSU 6.2) identification of specific measures at issue government action, limitation to DSU 198–200 administrative guidance DSU 199 GATT practice DSU 199 measures implementing measure specifically referred to, sufficiency DSU 204 terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), terminated measures DSU 258 JITAP: see Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Programme (JITAP), identification of ways of enhancing and rationalizing (Doha Declaration) joint action (GATT XXV), GATT practice GATT 727 joint action (GATT XXXVIII), GATT practice GATT 751 Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Programme (JITAP), identification of ways of enhancing and rationalizing (Doha Declaration) WTO 90 judicial and administrative assistance, non-applicability of GATS II (MFN) provisions GATS 1, 20 judicial economy: see also order of analysis; relationships within and between agreements discretionary nature DSU 1035–6 precise recommendations and rulings by DSB and DSU 1040 explicit reference to, relevance DSU 1037 GATT practice DSU 1030 legal basis (DSU 11) DSU 1030–3 limitation of consideration to claims essential to resolution of dispute (DSU 3.2) GATT 307, TRIMs 30, AD 622 n. 796, DSU 23, 260 “positive solution to dispute” requirement (DSU 3.7) and DSU 1031, 1037, 1038–9 prior decision on another point rendering discussion otiose GATT 550–1, AG 171, 228, 236–7 judicial restraint GATT 453 July package: see Doha Round/Work Programme (Declaration, paras. 17–52), July package (2004) jurisdiction: see competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2); request for establishment of panel, requirements (DSU 6.2); standard/powers of review (AB) (issues of law and legal interpretations) (DSU 17.6); standard/powers of review (panel) (AD 17.6); standard/powers of review (panel) (DSU 11); terms of reference of panels (DSU 7)
|
contact us : World Trade Organization, rue de Lausanne 154, CH-1211 Geneva 21, Switzerland
