|
> Disputes in the WTO
> Find disputes cases
> Find disputes documents
> Disputes chronologically
> Disputes by subject
> Disputes by country
NOTE:
This summary has been prepared by the WTO Secretariat’s Information and
Media Relations Division to help public understanding about developments
in WTO disputes. It is not a legal interpretation of the issues, and it is
not intended as a complete account of the issues. These can be found in
the reports themselves and in the minutes of the Dispute Settlement
Body’s meetings.
|
DS339,
DS340 and
DS342: Implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in
the case “China — Measures affecting imports of automobile parts”
According to Article 21.3 of the
Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), within 30 days after adoption of a
panel or Appellate Body report, the member concerned has to inform the
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of its intention regarding implementation.
At the DSB meeting held for this purpose on 11 February 2009, China informed
delegations that it intended to implement the DSB’s recommendations and
rulings in this case and had begun evaluating options for doing so. Given
that immediate compliance was impractical, China would require a reasonable
period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings. In that regard,
China was prepared to consult with Canada, the US and the EC with a view to
reaching agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation in
accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU.
Canada, the EC and the US welcomed China's statement that it intended to
implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this case and urged it to
secure compliance as soon as possible. They said that they were ready to
meet with China, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, to discuss the
reasonable period of time for compliance.
Canada and the EC, however, expressed concern about the statement made by
China at the DSB meeting on 12 January 2009 that given that the Appellate
Body (AB) did not review the Panel’s alternative findings on Article II of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), these findings could not
form part of the rulings and recommendations adopted by the DSB. They said
that China’s position improperly conflated the right of a party to seek
review of a panel's findings with the status of those findings when the
report of the Appellate Body had been adopted by the DSB.
Canada and the EC said that the AB had not modified the Panel's finding that
the Chinese measures were inconsistent with Article II. On the contrary, it
had explicitly rejected a request by China to declare those findings as
“moot and of no legal effect”. They maintained, therefore, that there was no
basis for China to assert that these findings were not part of the DSB's
recommendations and rulings in this case.
Brazil said that it participated as a third-party in this case, and took
note of China's statement.
China said that it had no intention of re-opening the debate; it referred
delegations to its statement at the DSB meeting on 12 January 2009, and said
that it found it difficult to understand why the Panel’s “alternative
finding” was part of what was adopted. China said that the concerns
expressed would be conveyed to its authorities.
Next meeting back to top
The next regular meeting of the DSB
is due to take place on 19 February 2009.
|
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.
|
