ON THIS PAGE:

> Japan — Agricultural Products II
> Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II
> Japan — Apples

Japan — Agricultural Products II (WT/DS76/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof B.3.1.6

panel’s right to draw on arguments and facts adduced by respondent B.3.1.6, S.4.7

panel’s right to seek information and advice (DSU 13/SPS 11.2), relevance B.3.1.6, B.3.2.3, S.4.7, S.7.3.8

prima facie case B.3.2.3

panel’s duty not to make case for complaining party B.3.1.6

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (DSU 13).

burden of proof and B.3.1.6, B.3.2.3, S.4.7, S.7.3.8

expert evidence (DSU 13.2) S.7.3.7

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (SPS 11.2)

burden of proof and B.3.1.6, B.3.2.3, S.4.7, S.7.3.8

panel’s obligation to seek (SPS 11.2) S.4.6

interpretation of covered agreements, guidelines, narrow/broad interpretation S.6.3.6, S.6.19.1

judicial economy J.1.7

publication of measures such as laws, decrees or ordinances (SPS Agreement, Transparency of SPS Regulations (Annex B) (para. 1, footnote 5)) P.5.4.0, S.6.24

SPS Agreement, 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) S.6.18.2

SPS Agreement, basic rights and obligations (SPS 2), underlying nature of provision S.6.3.4-5

SPS Agreement, risk assessment, need for (SPS 5.1-5.3 and Annex A, para. 4)

measures based on, need for (SPS 5.1) S.6.14.3

rational relationship between measure and risk, need for S.6.14.3

“sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2) and S.6.3.4-6, S.6.14.3

SPS Agreement, sufficient scientific evidence, need for (SPS 2.2) S.6.3.4-6

precautionary principle (SPS 5.7) T.6.19, T.6.3.6

provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence (SPS 5.7) S.6.3.6, S.6.19

obligation to seek to obtain additional information S.6.21

for more objective assessment of risk S.6.21.1

requirements, cumulative nature S.6.19.2-3

review within a “reasonable” period of time S.6.22

rational or objective relationship between SPS measure and scientific evidence, need for S.6.3.5

ad hoc determination S.6.3.5

“sufficiency”, as relational concept S.6.3.4

SPS Agreement, Transparency of SPS Regulations (Annex B), publication of measures such as laws, decrees or ordinances which are generally applicable (para. 1, footnote 5) P.5.4.0, S.6.24

standard of review (DSU 11), “objective assessment of the facts”, evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel, egregious error, need for S.7.3.9

 
Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II (WT/DS8/AB/R; WT/DS10/AB/R; WT/DS11/AB/R)     back to top

decisions, procedures and customary practices under GATT 1947 (WTO XVI:1) S.8.1, W.4.2

directly competitive or substitutable products (GATT III:2)

criteria

cross-price elasticity N.1.5.1

end-uses N.1.5.1

market place N.1.5.1

physical characteristics N.1.5.1

tariff classifications N.1.5.1

determination on case by case basis N.1.5.1

final resolution of dispute, adoption of panel or AB report by DSB (DSU 16.4, 19.2, 21 and 22) S.8.1

GATT 1947

continuing relevance under WTO G.2.1.1

decisions, procedures and customary practices (WTO XVI:1) W.4.2

GATT 1994, WTO Agreement, incorporation into (WTO Annex 1A) G.2.1.1

decisions of Contracting Parties to GATT 1947 (WTO Annex 1A, 1(b)(4)) G.2.1.1

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)] I.3.1.2

interpretation of covered agreements, guidelines

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) I.3.7.2, N.1.1.2

flexibility/certainty of the law, balance I.3.1.2

Harmonized System of customs Classification and Explanatory Notes N.1.3.2.2

legitimate expectations, relevance, panel reports and S.8.1

narrow/broad interpretation N.1.3.1.1

text/plain language I.3.2.1

interpretation of covered agreements, means

context N.1.4.1

GATT III:1/GATT III as a whole N.1.1.2-3

subsequent practice which establishes parties’ agreement on interpretation (VC 31(3)(b)) I.3.9.1-2

common practice, need for I.3.9.1

consistency of practice, need for I.3.9.1

panel reports, whether I.3.9.2, S.8.1

supplementary means (VC 32) I.3.10.1

as customary international law I.3.10.1

“like product” (GATT III:2)

criteria N.1.3.2.1-2

determination on case by case basis N.1.3.1.1-2, N.1.3.2.1-2

directly competitive or substitutable products distinguished N.1.3.1.1-2, N.1.5.1

discretionary element N.1.3.2.2

Harmonized System of Customs Classification, relevance N.1.3.2.2

narrow interpretation, need for N.1.3.1.1

national treatment, general principle (GATT III:1)

interpretation of GATT III as a whole and

effectiveness principle N.1.1.2

GATT III:1 as context N.1.1.2-3

“so as to afford protection” N.1.1.1-3

equality of competitive conditions N.1.1.1, N.1.1.2

protection of competitive relationship N.1.1.1, N.1.1.2

omission from GATT III:2, first sentence, relevance N.1.1.3

national treatment, tax discrimination (GATT III:2)

determination of violation, requirements

“like product” status, determination on case by case basis N.1.3.1.1-2

tax of imported product in excess of domestic product, “in excess of” N.1.4.1, N.1.4.2

Members’ right to determine basis of taxation subject to compliance with WTO obligations T.3.1

“not similarly taxed” N.1.7.1-2

determination on case by case basis N.1.7.2

“in excess of” distinguished N.1.7.1

threshold/de minimis differential N.1.7.2

“so as to afford protection” N.1.1.3

design and structure of measure as evidence of protective application N.1.8.2

intention, relevance N.1.8.1

magnitude of differential as evidence of protective effect N.1.8.3

panel reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 16.4), as final resolution of dispute S.8.1

legal status

adopted reports S.8.1

unadopted reports S.8.1

precedent

decisions, procedures and customary practices under GATT 1947 (WTO XVI:1) S.8.1, W.4.2

panel reports

adopted reports S.8.1

“subsequent practice”, whether I.3.9.2, S.8.1

standard of review (DSU 11), “objective assessment of matter before it”, error of law, failure to incorporate into conclusions all products referred to in terms of reference T.6.3.1

Working Procedures (appellate review), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.2

WTO Agreement, object and purpose (preamble) N.1.4.1

 
Japan — Apples (WT/DS245/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof B.3.1.4, B.3.1.7

prima facie case B.3.2.8-11

hypothetical claims, need to address B.3.2.9-11

panel ruling in favour, need for B.3.2.9

proof of fact distinguished B.3.2.8

standard of proof B.3.2.9-10

responding party’s obligation in respect of own case B.3.1.4

interpretation of covered agreements, means, context, treaty/treaties as a whole S.6.20.1

judicial economy, “positive solution to dispute” requirement and S.6.14.5

notice of appeal, requirements (AB/WP 20(2)), statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (AB/WP 20(2)(d)), allegation of panel’s failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11), need for specific reference W.2.7.5.2

SPS Agreement, risk assessment, need for (SPS 5.1-5.3 and Annex A, para. 4)

ascertainable/theoretical risk distinguished (SPS 5.1) S.6.10.4

quantitative threshold, relevance S.6.12.4

elements (Annex 1, para. 4)

evaluation according to SPS measures S.6.12.4

“which might be applied” S.6.12.4

“likelihood” S.6.12.4

specificity of assessment, need for (SPS 5.1 and 5.2) S.6.13.3-4, S.6.20.1

causal relationship, need to identify S.6.13.3 n. 372

country-specific analysis, need for S.6.13.4 n. 379

SPS Agreement, sufficient scientific evidence, need for (SPS 2.2) S.6.3.7

provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence (SPS 5.7) S.6.20

“insufficiency” S.6.20.1-2

“relevant” S.6.20.1

rational or objective relationship between SPS measure and scientific evidence, need for

ad hoc determination S.6.3.7

proportionality and S.6.3.7

standard of review (DSU 11)

“objective assessment of the facts”

evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel, independence in evaluating S.7.3.18

substitution of AB’s assessment, exclusion S.7.3.19

“sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2) and S.6.3.7

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.