U-Z

US — 1916 Act (WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R)   back to top

acquis (GATT/WTO) (WTO XVI:1) J.2.1.9, L.1.1, M.1.1–2

additional procedures (WP 16(1))

consolidation of proceedings W.2.6.1.6, W.2.11.2.2

joint oral hearing W.2.11.2.2

Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD)/GATT 1994 VI relationship

AD Agreement as agreement on implementation of the GATT VI A.3.64.2

AD Agreement and GATT 1994 as integral part of WTO Agreement A.3.64.1

applicability of the GATT VI as implying applicability of AD Agreement A.3.64.2

“may levy” (GATT VI:2) as limitation to Member’s choice whether or not to impose AD duty (AD 9) A.3.65.2

scope of the GATT VI as clarified by AD 18.1 (specific action against dumping) A.3.65.3–5

competence (panels)

objections, requirements, timeliness J.2.1.8

obligation to examine, at any stage during proceedings J.2.1.8

conditional appeal C.5.1

conformity of domestic laws, regulations and administrative procedures with AD provisions, obligation to ensure (AD 18.4) A.3.62.1

dispute settlement procedures, applicability to A.3.62.1

“laws, regulations and administrative procedures”, determination of legal status as by reference to WTO law L.1.1–3

consultation and dispute settlement (AD 17), GATT XXII and XXIII compared A.3.54.1, A.3.55.2, L.1.2

determination of dumping (AD 2), injurious effect on domestic industry, relevance (AD 2/GATT VI:1) A.3.1.1

DSU, applicability (DSU 1.1)

consultation and dispute settlement in anti-dumping (AD 17) L.1.2

obligation to ensure conformity (AD 18.4) A.3.62.1

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

panel’s discretion on matters of procedure (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3) D.2.2.11

participation in panel proceedings by third parties D.2.2.11

dumping, constituent elements (AD 2/GATT VI:1)

injurious effect on domestic industry A.3.65.1

intention of dumping, relevance A.3.1.1, A.3.61.1, A.3.65.1

GATT 1947, continuing relevance under WTO, decisions, procedures and customary practices (WTO XVI:1) J.2.1.9, L.1.1, M.1.1–2

interpretation of covered agreements

acquis (GATT/WTO) (WTO XVI:1) J.2.1.9, L.1.1, M.1.1–2

context (VCLT 31(2)), GATT VI/AD, interrelationship A.3.64, A.3.64.1–2, A.3.65.1–7

legal basis of claim (AD 17)

GATT XXII and XXIII compared A.3.54.1

legislation as such A.3.54.1, J.2.1.10

legislation as such, right to challenge A.3.54.1, A.3.55.2, A.3.56.4, A.3.56.6–7, J.2.1.9–11, L.1.2

mandatory/discretionary legislation, distinguishability L.1.1

executive discretion M.1.4

oral hearing (WP 27), joint oral hearing W.2.11.2.1

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1)

action under other relevant provisions of the GATT 1994 distinguished (AD 18.1, Footnote 24) A.3.61.2, A.3.61.4

requirements

accordance with provisions of the GATT VI as interpreted by AD Agreement A.3.61.3, A.3.65.5–7

civil and criminal proceedings and penalties, whether A.3.65.7

intention of dumping, relevance A.3.61.1

measure against dumping/subsidy, design and structure of measure as evidence of protective application A.3.65.6

measure specific to dumping/subsidy A.3.61.1–3, A.3.65.6

presence of constituent elements of dumping/subsidy A.3.61.1

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2)

AD “measure” qualifying for DSB proceedings (AD 17.4) A.3.56.4–7

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1) A.3.56.4–5

third party rights T.8.2

panel proceedings (DSU 10 and Appendix 3), panel’s discretion, enhancement in accordance with due process D.2.2.11, T.8.2

US — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China) (WT/DS379/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure, documents (WP 18), filing time-limits/importance of compliance with (WP 18(1)) W.2.6A.1.5–6

acquis (GATT/WTO) (WTO XVI:1), AB/panel reports as part of I.3.3.10

amicus curiae briefs, NGO/association/private individual briefs, consultation with parties A.2.1.17

burden of proof, government entity status (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) S.2.3A.7, S.2.3A.9

calculation of subsidy in terms of benefit to recipient (SCM 14)

government loan (SCM 14(b)) S.2.22B.1–9

mandatory nature of SCM 14 guidelines/investigating authorities’ right to choose S.2.22.8

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis

factual basis, sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement C.4.39–40, P.4A.23, P.4A.24

prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.23

countervailing duties (SCM Part V)

balance between rights and obligations relating to S.2.1.6–7, S.2.3A.5

compliance with GATT VI:3 and SCM Agreement (SCM 10) S.2.27.8

as remedy to offset benefits of subsidies S.2.1.6–7

determination of dumping (AD 2)

sales transaction not “in the ordinary course of trade”

double remedies (GATT VI:5) S.2.44.4

NMEs (GATT VI:1, second Ad Note) S.2.44.4

double remedies (concurrent imposition of AD and CV duties) (GATT VI:5) S.2.27.4–17

accession protocol (China)

absence of reference to, relevance S.2.27.12

continuing possibility of application of countervailing duties to China as NME, effect A.0.2.2, I.3.10.33, S.2.27.12, S.2.27.13

applicability to domestic subsidies S.2.44.3

double counting as S.2.44.1

as context for SCM 19.3 S.2.44.3

exclusion (SCM 10) S.2.27.8

NME methodology S.2.27.14, S.2.27.15, S.2.27.16, S.2.27.17, S.2.36.13, S.2.44.1, S.2.44.2

supplementary means of interpretation (VCLT 31 and 32), relevance I.3.10.33, S.2.27.13

goods and services/adequacy of remuneration as benefit (SCM 14(d)) S.2.24.8–12

alternative market benchmark/proxy, out-of-country benchmark S.2.22B.4, S.2.22B.7, S.2.24.8–12

private prices/government role in market S.2.24.9

government loan (SCM 14(b)), benchmark elements S.2.22B.1–9

adjustments to ensure as full comparability as possible S.2.22B.6

“commercial” S.2.22B.2

“comparable” S.2.22B.1

alternatives to fully comparable loan S.2.22B.5

“could actually obtain” S.2.22B.3

government’s monetary policy obligations and intervention distorting market distinguished S.2.22B.7, S.2.22B.9

“market”

out-of-country market S.2.22B.4

SCM 14(d) compared S.2.22B.4, S.2.22B.7, S.2.22B.9

“government”/“public body” (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) S.2.3A.1–9

ILC Articles on State Responsibility

customary international law status I.3.9B.1, S.2.3A.6

as relevant rules of international law (VCLT 31(3)(c)) I.3.9B.1–2, S.2.3A.6

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9)

collection “in appropriate amounts” (AD 9.2/SCM 19.3)

“appropriate amount” A.3.40.2

“in each case” S.2.27.5

injury, relevance/continuation of injury requirement S.2.27.7

non-discrimination obligation S.2.27.5

SCM 19.4, relevance S.2.27.6, S.2.27.10

SCM as a whole S.2.27.10

non-discrimination obligation S.2.27.5

interpretation of covered agreements

absence of provision, relevance S.2.44.3

article as a whole S.2.10A.2.1

context (VCLT 31(2))

any agreement made between the parties (VCLT 31(2)(a)) or accepted by parties (VCLT 31(2)(b)), predecessor agreement distinguished I.3.3.11, I.3.10.33, S.2.27.13

article as a whole S.2.3A.1, S.2.3A.3–5

jurisprudence including WTO case law, relevance I.3.3.10

dictionaries S.2.3A.1, S.2.27.5

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile), meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase S.2.3A.1

good faith (VCLT 31)/reliance on assumption of compliance I.3.2.14

multiple meanings I.3.11.6

narrow/broad interpretation S.2.3A.5

object and purpose, absence of provision/preamble S.2.1.6

preamble/chapeau as guide S.2.10A.2.1

relevant rules of international law (VCLT 31(3)(c)) I.3.9B.1–2

ILC Articles I.3.9B.1–2

“rules of international law” (ICJ 38(1)) I.3.9B.1

treatment of same subject matter as treaty term being interpreted I.3.9B.1

same or closely related phrases in different agreements

AD 9.2/SCM 19.3 A.3.40.2

GATT VI:5/SCM 19.3 and 19.4 S.2.44.3

same or closely related phrases in same agreement, SCM 14(b)/SCM 14(d) S.2.22B.4

structure of agreement S.2.3A.1

supplementary means (VCLT 32), circumstances of conclusion of treaty (VCLT 32), predecessor agreement as I.3.3.11, I.3.10.33, S.2.27.13

“taken into account” (VCLT 31(3)) I.3.9B.2

title I.3.3.12

investigation of conditions for safeguard measures, requirements (SG 3.1/SG 4.2(c)), evaluation of all factors, obligation of competent authorities to seek information additional to that supplied by interested parties S.2.3A.8

judicial economy

risks S.2.10A.2.2

ruling on one element of dispute rendering consideration of other elements moot S.2.36.12–13

NMEs

double remedies S.2.27.14, S.2.27.15, S.2.27.16, S.2.27.17, S.2.36.13, S.2.44.1, S.2.44.2

surrogate values (GATT VI:1, second Ad Note) S.2.44.4

panel reports, as part of the GATT/WTO acquis I.3.3.10

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.23

quantitative restrictions, general elimination (GATT XI), applicability of “quantitative” in title to references to “prohibitions” and “restrictions” throughout GATT XI I.3.3.12

SCM Agreement

interpretation

context

article as a whole (SCM 1.1(a)) S.2.3A.1, S.2.3A.3–5

article as a whole (SCM 19) S.2.27.7

object and purpose, balanced framework of rights and obligations relating to countervailing duties S.2.1.6–7, S.2.3A.5, S.2.27.11

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1), requirements, presence of constituent elements of dumping/subsidy A.3.61.1, A.3.61.7–9, S.2.36.4, S.2.36.12–13

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

claim of failure by panel to comply with DSU obligations as autonomous claim S.7.2.21

“critical and searching” requirement, obligation to test reasonableness of the methodology S.7.4.19

“reasoned and adequate” test (investigating authorities’ explanations) S.7.4.17–21

“critical and searching” requirement S.7.4.17, S.7.4.18, S.7.4.21

ex post rationale, exclusion S.7.4.17

obligation to test reasonableness of the methodology in light of the alternatives S.7.4.18, S.7.4.19, S.7.4.20, S.7.4.21

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1))

by a “public body” (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) S.2.3.3, S.2.3A.1–9

authentic languages compared I.3.11.6

burden of proof S.2.3A.7, S.2.3A.9

“government agencies” (AG 9.1) compared I.3.11.6

governmental authority test S.2.3A.7, S.2.3A.8, S.2.3A.9, S.2.8.13

investigating authorities duty to seek out relevant information S.2.3A.8

“private body” (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iv)) distinguished S.2.3A.3, S.2.8.13

“public” S.2.3A.1

“government revenue … forgone or not collected” (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(ii)) S.2.3A.1, S.2.3A.3

ILC Articles on State Responsibility as relevant rules of international law for purposes of interpretation (VCLT 31(3)(c)) I.3.9B.1–2, S.2.3A.6

payments to a funding mechanism or entrustment or direction to a private body (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iv)) S.2.3.3, S.2.3A.3

“directs” S.2.3A.3

evasion of SCM obligations I.3.2.14

link between government and specific act, need for S.2.3.3

“which would normally be vested in …” S.2.3A.4, S.2.8.14–15

subsidy specific to certain enterprises (SCM 2.1) (determination of specificity) S.2.10A.2.1–5

“certain enterprises”

“certain” S.2.10A.2.4

“enterprise” S.2.10A.2.4

“group” S.2.10A.2.4

determination of status as subsidy under SCM 1.1 as starting point S.2.10A.1

explicit limitation (SCM 2.1(a)) S.2.10A.2.2

“explicit” S.2.10A.2.3

limitation of access to either financial contribution or corresponding benefit, sufficiency S.2.10A.2.5

interrelationship between SCM 2.1(a) and SCM 2.1(b) S.2.10A.2.2

judicial economy, risks S.2.10A.2.2

“notwithstanding any appearance of non-specificity” (SCM 2.1(c)) S.2.10A.2.2

objective criteria/conditions, effect (SCM 2.1(b)) S.2.10A.2.2

“principles” (SCM 2.1, chapeau), significance of use of S.2.10A.2.1, S.2.10A.2.6

relevant factors S.2.10A.2.2

Tokyo Round Subsidies Code, status I.3.3.11, I.3.10.33, S.2.27.13

Working Procedures Appellate Review) (DSU 17.9), applicability of Rules adopted on 16 August 2010 W.2.1.3

US — Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (WT/DS282/AB/R)   back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact, compliance/consistency with treaty obligations S.3.3.18

completion of legal analysis, in case of panel’s failure to examine applicability of covered agreement C.4.30

dumping, constituent elements (AD 2/GATT VI:1), injurious effect on domestic industry/causal link A.3.65.9–11

duration and review of AD duties and price undertakings/CV measures (AD 11/SCM 21), termination “immediately” following determination that duty no longer warranted (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2) A.3.44B.3

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21), sunset review (AD 11.3), effect of breach A.3.45.3

implementation of panel/AB recommendations, right of panel/AB to make suggestions for (DSU 19.1)

in absence of violation of WTO obligations I.0.4

discretionary nature of right I.0.3

judicial economy, wrongful failure to rule on claim distinguished I.0.3

mootness of panel findings M.3.7

sunset review (AD 11.3)

applicability of AD 2.4 (calculation of dumping margin) A.3.49.3

applicability of AD 3 (determination of injury) A.3.52B.3–4

causal link, need for A.3.46.4, A.3.47A.3, A.3.52A.5–7, A.3.65.11

continuation of duty, as exception to mandatory rule A.3.45.2

cumulative assessment of volume and prices (AD 3.3) A.3.21.6

investigatory/adjudicatory functions, proactive role of investigating authorities A.3.52.12–13

“likelihood” test

continuance or recurrence of injury, time-frame A.3.52A.9

cumulative assessment A.3.48A.7

likelihood-of-dumping and likelihood-of-injury tests, as separate inquiries A.3.52A.8

“positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.47.3–5, A.3.48A.4, A.3.48A.5, A.3.52.9–13

relevant factors, WTO-inconsistent methodology A.3.49.3, A.3.51.5

threshold finding, relevance A.3.48A.5–6

methodology, absence of provision A.3.48.3, A.3.48A.5–6

US — Carbon Steel (WT/DS213/AB/R, WT/DS213/AB/R/Corr. 1)   back to top

burden of proof B.3.1.13

legislation as such challenge B.3.1.13

presumption of consistency of measure with WTO obligations M.5.8

clarity/ambiguity of measure M.5.8

prima facie case, text of legislation, sufficiency B.3.1.13

competence (panels)

objections, requirements, timeliness D.2.2.18, J.2.1.14, T.6.1.8

obligation to examine

at any stage during proceedings D.2.2.18, J.2.1.14, T.6.1.8

ex proprio motu J.2.1.14

competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2/DSU 11), correct interpretation and application of covered agreements I.3.10.10

countervailing duties (SCM Part V)

balance between rights and obligations relating to S.2.1.1, S.2.1.6

duration (SCM 21.1) S.2.30.1

level

limitation to amount of existing subsidy S.2.30.1

“to the extent necessary” (SCM 21.1) S.2.30.1

preconditions (SCM 19.1)

benefit S.2.30.1

standard of proof (SCM 22.1) S.2.33.1

as remedy to offset benefits of subsidies S.2.1.1, S.2.1.6

review of need for continued imposition (SCM 21.2), obligatory nature S.2.31.5

termination, automaticity (SCM 21.3) I.3.10.11, S.2.31.5, S.2.32.1–7

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), “injury” (SCM 15, Footnote 45) S.2.24A.1

developing countries (special and differential treatment (SCM 27)) S.2.35.2.1

de minimis subsidization threshold (SCM 27.10 and 27.11) S.2.35.2.1

domestic court decisions, acceptability as evidence B.3.1.13, M.5.8

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), terms of reference, role R.2.1.6, T.6.1.10

duration and review of AD duties and price undertakings/CV measures (AD 11/SCM 21) S.2.30.1, S.2.31.4–5

burden/standard of proof S.2.31.4

termination “immediately” following determination that duty no longer warranted (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2) S.2.31.4

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3)

domestic court decisions B.3.1.13, M.5.8

opinions of legal experts B.3.1.13, M.5.8

practice in application of laws B.3.1.13, M.5.8

teachings of publicists B.3.1.13, M.5.8

text of legislation B.3.1.13, M.5.8

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

expert evidence (DSU 13.2), “from any relevant source” S.4.13, S.7.3.15

panel’s rights, not to seek S.4.13, S.7.3.15

interpretation of covered agreements

absence of provision, relevance I.3.3.1–I.3.3.3, S.2.21.2

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT] I.3.1.5

context (VCLT 31(2)) I.3.3.1–I.3.3.3

object and purpose S.2.1.1

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion as evidence of object and purpose S.2.1.1

preparatory work (VCLT 32), evidence to support claim, need for I.3.10.11

same or closely related phrases in different agreements I.3.3.1–I.3.3.2, S.2.32.2

cross-referencing, role I.3.3.2, S.2.21.2, S.2.32.2

supplementary means (VCLT 32) I.3.10.10–I.3.10.11

need to identify as such I.3.10.10

text/plain language I.3.1.5

investigation of dumping (AD 5)/subsidy (SCM 11)

termination (AD 5.8/SCM 11.9)

de minimis standard, applicability S.2.21.1–3

sunset review (SCM 21.3) distinguished S.2.21.1–3

limitation of provisions to investigation phase S.2.21.1

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel) R.2.2.15

rectification at subsequent stages, arguments in written or other submission or statement R.2.2.15, T.6.2.4

summary, sufficiency R.2.1.6

listing of articles of agreement allegedly breached R.2.2.16, T.6.2.5

reference to GATT II R.2.2.15

legislation as such, right to challenge, burden of proof B.3.1.13, M.5.8

“matter referred to the DSB” (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1), identification of specific issues and legal basis of claim/complaint as dual requirements (DSU 6.2) R.2.1.6, T.6.1.9

necessity test, “to the extent necessary” (SCM 21.1) S.2.30.1

public notice and explanation of determinations on AD investigation/CV duties (AD 12/SCM 22) S.2.33.1

conclusion or suspension of investigation, required information (SCM 22.5), reasons for acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments, need for S.2.34.1

request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2)

compliance, importance of, scrutiny by panel R.2.1.6, T.6.1.10

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), scrutiny by panel T.6.1.10

SCM Agreement, object and purpose, balanced framework of rights and obligations relating to countervailing duties S.2.1.1, S.2.1.6

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2)

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1) R.2.1.6, R.2.3.11, T.6.1.9

“certain aspects of sunset review procedure”, sufficiency R.2.3.11, T.6.3.4

legal basis of claim distinguished T.6.1.9

“specific”, “sufficient to present the problem clearly” R.2.2.16

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), discretion in selection of relevant evidence S.7.3.14

subsidies, prohibited (SCM Part II), amount of subsidy, relevance S.2.2.4, S.2.24A.1

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

applicability “for purposes of this agreement” S.2.2.4

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) S.2.30.1

sunset review (AD 11.3)

“likelihood” test, continuance or recurrence of injury S.2.32.1–7

SCM Agreement, sunset review (SCM 21.3), identity of provisions I.3.3.1–I.3.3.2

sunset review (SCM 21.3)

burden/standard of proof

in case of “duly substantiated request” by domestic industry S.2.32.6

original investigation requirements (SCM 11 and 12) distinguished S.2.33.1

review on initiative of investigating authorities S.2.32.6–7

de minimis standard

absence of reference to, relevance I.3.3.1–I.3.3.2, S.2.21.2, S.2.32.2, S.2.32.5

termination of investigation provisions (SCM 11.9) distinguished S.2.21.1–3

time-bound limitation on countervailing duties (SCM 11.9) I.3.10.11, S.2.31.5, S.2.32.1–7

original investigation requirements distinguished S.2.32.3–4, S.2.32.7, S.2.33.1

“likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidization and injury” test (SCM 21.3) S.2.32.1–7

sunset review (AD 11.3), identity of provisions I.3.3.1–2

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7)

as definition of jurisdiction/legal claims at issue R.2.1.6, T.6.1.10

due process R.2.1.6, T.6.1.10

obligations, to scrutinize request for establishment of panel for compliance with DSU 6.2 R.2.1.6, T.6.1.10

Tokyo Round Subsidies Code, status I.3.10.11

US — Certain EC Products (WT/DS165/AB/R)   back to top

burden of proof

prima facie case B.3.2.7

evidence and arguments in support of claim, need for B.3.2.7

competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2/DSU 11)

clarification of existing provisions C.3.1.1

right to develop own legal reasoning including arguments not adduced by parties (jura novit curia) C.2.2

consultations (DSU 4)

establishment of panel as prerequisite C.7.4

measure at issue (DSU 4.4), measure subsequent to request for consultations C.7.4

DSU, applicability (DSU 1.1), obligatory recourse to (DSU 23) R.2.2.12

interpretation of covered agreements, applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], DSU 3.2 C.3.1.1

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel) R.2.2.12

claims and arguments distinguished T.6.2.13

summary, sufficiency, reference to DSU 23 as including reference to DSU 23.1 and 23.2 R.2.2.12, T.6.2.12–2.15

mootness of panel findings M.3.2

ultra vires statements M.3.2

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2)

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1), specific measure the subject of consultations, need for identity with T.6.3.3

measure subsequent to date of request for consultations T.6.3.3

suspension of concessions (DSU 22), authorization, need for (DSU 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c)) S.9.1

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), as definition of jurisdiction/legal claims at issue, legal claim included in terms of reference, limitation of jurisdiction to M.3.2

unilateral action by Member, prohibition (DSU 23) R.2.2.12

US — Clove Cigarettes (WT/DS406/AB/R)   back to top

AB reports, legal effect/status, limitation of binding effect to particular dispute between the parties I.3.9A.3

amicus curiae briefs

NGO/association/private individual briefs A.2.1.18–19

consultation with participants A.2.1.18–19

WHO offer of technical assistance S.3.1.12

burden of proof, “reasonable interval” (TBT 2.12) T.4.6.4–8

decision-making/exclusive authority of Ministerial Conference and General Council to adopt WTO/MTA interpretations (WTO IX:2)

binding effect W.4.1A.3

Doha Ministerial Decision, status as authoritative interpretation T.4.6.1, W.4.1A.5–6

procedures W.4.1A.2–7

“exercise of authority on basis of recommendation of Council overseeing [Agreement under consideration]” W.4.1A.2, W.4.1A.4, W.4.1A.5

Members sitting as Ministerial Conference or General Council, limitation to W.4.1A.2

rationale/importance of strict compliance W.4.1A.2–3, W.4.1A.5

three-fourths majority W.4.1A.2, W.4.1A.4

“shall not undermine the amendment provisions in [WTO X]” W.4.1A.2

Doha Ministerial Decision

as authorative interpretation (WTO IX:2) W.4.1A.5–6

as subsequent agreement (VCLT 31(3)(a)) T.4.6.1, T.4.6.4

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), evidence pre-dating establishment of panel (TBT 2.1) T.4.2A.5.9

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT] W.4.1A.7

context (VCLT 31(2))

article as a whole T.4.2A.4.1

treaty/treaties as a whole T.4.2A.4.1

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile), meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase T.4.2A.5.3

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion as evidence of object and purpose, preamble as evidence of T.4.0.1–2, T.4.2A.2.2

same or closely related phrases in different agreements, GATT III:4/TBT 2.1 T.4.2A.4.2, T.4.2A.4.5, T.4.2A.4.6

subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation or application of the treaty (VCLT 31(3)(a))

“agreement” I.3.9A.4, T.4.6.1

as authentic element of interpretation (ILC commentary) I.3.9A.5

interpretation by Ministerial Conference and General Council (WTO IX.2) as I.3.9A.3–4, T.4.6.1, T.4.6.4

“like product” (TBT 2.1) T.4.2A.4.1–14

competitive relationship, need for T.4.2A.4.1–3, T.4.2A.4.10

substitutability T.4.2A.4.12

context/object and purpose of TBT as determining factory T.4.2A.4.6

criteria

consumer tastes and habits T.4.2A.4.8, T.4.2A.4.13

consumer tastes and habits distinguished T.4.2A.4.8

GATT III:1 compared T.4.2A.4.12

GATT III:4 compared T.4.2A.4.2, T.4.2A.4.5, T.4.2A.4.6

panel’s right to analyse products other than those identified by parties T.4.2A.4.14

technical regulations as aid to interpretation T.4.2A.4.1, T.4.2A.4.2–5, T.4.2A.4.10

regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4)

GATT XX, TBT preamble compared T.4.0.1, T.4.0.2

“less favourable treatment”, detrimental effect N.1.11.17, T.4.2A.1.2, T.4.2A.1.3, T.4.2A.4.5, T.4.2A.5.6–12

regulatory discrimination (TBT 2.1) (“treatment no less favourable”)

burden of proof/evidence, evidence pre-dating establishment of panel T.4.2A.5.9

“de facto” inconsistency T.4.2A.5.5, T.4.2A.5.9, T.4.2A.5.14

detrimental effect, legitimate regulatory distinctions and T.4.2A.2.2, T.4.2A.2.3, T.4.2A.5.4–7, T.4.2A.5.10–12

elements required for violation T.4.2A.2.1, T.4.2A.2.3

“like products” T.4.2A.2.4

treatment as a group T.4.2A.5.8

MFN treatment (GATT I:1)/national treatment (GATT III:4) compared N.1.11.17, T.4.2A.1.2, T.4.2A.1.3, T.4.2A.4.5, T.4.2A.5.6–12

non-discrimination obligation (TBT preamble, sixth recital) T.4.2A.5.3

“unnecessary obstacles” (TBT 2.2) as context T.4.2A.5.2

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.7.3.71

obligation to give reasoned and coherent treatment S.7.3.71

obligation to treat parties’ evidence consistently and even-handedly S.7.3.71

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de minimis error S.7.3.72

obligation to consider all arguments/address in report S.7.3.72

party’s obligation to identify/explain specific errors S.7.3.71

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), amicus curiae briefs/WHO technical assistance S.3.1.12

TBT Agreement, interpretation

context (VCLT 31(2))

article/agreement as a whole T.4.2A.4.1

TBT 2.1/TBT 2.2 T.4.2A.5.2

technical regulations T.4.2A.4.1, T.4.2A.4.2–5, T.4.2A.4.10

object and purpose (preamble) T.4.0.1–2, T.4.2A.4.1

avoidance of unnecessary obstacles to international trade T.4.0.1, T.4.2A.1.1, T.4.2A.2.2

balance between national treatment rule (GATT III:4) and General Exceptions (GATT XX) T.4.0.1, T.4.0.2, T.4.2A.1.2, T.4.2A.5.4

balance between promotion of international trade and right of Members to regulate T.4.0.1–2, T.4.2A.1.1, T.4.2A.1.3, T.4.2A.2.2

furtherance of the GATT objectives T.4.0.1, T.4.0.2, T.4.2A.2.2

preamble as evidence of T.4.0.1–2, T.4.2A.2.2

same or closely related phrases in different agreements, same or closely related phrases in different agreements, GATT III:4/TBT 2.1 T.4.2A.4.2, T.4.2A.4.5, T.4.2A.4.6

“technical regulation” (TBT Annex 1.1)

product characteristics, differential treatment based on T.4.2A.2.3

technical regulations and standards (TBT 2)

as aid to interpretation T.4.2A.4.1, T.4.2A.4.2–5, T.4.2A.4.10

legitimate objective (TBT 2.2/2.4)

multiplicity of objectives T.4.2A.4.3, T.4.2A.4.11

relevance T.4.2A.2.2, T.4.2A.2.3, T.4.2A.5.4–7, T.4.2A.5.10–12

“not more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate purpose” (TBT 2.2), as permissible obstacles to international trade T.4.2A.5.2

“reasonable interval” (TBT 2.12) I.3.9A.4–5, T.4.6

burden of proof/establishment of “prima facie” case T.4.6.4–8

Doha Ministerial Declaration T.4.6, W.4.1A.5–6

six months as norm T.4.6.2–3

US — Continued Suspension/Canada — Continued Suspension (WT/DS320/AB/R, WT/DS321/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure

dates and deadlines, extension of deadline for submissions of participants/third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.10.1.8

documents (WP 18), filing time-limits/importance of compliance with (WP 18(1)) W.2.6A.1.3

“fairness and orderly procedure” requirement (WP 16(1)) W.2.6A.1.3

working schedule (WP 26)

timing of circulation of AB report (DSU 17.5), modification

exceptional complexity W.2.10.2.7

exceptional workload W.2.10.2.7

additional procedures (WP 16(1))

consolidation of proceedings W.2.6.1.13, W.2.11.2.2

joint oral hearing W.2.11.2.2

oral hearing (WP 27), joint oral hearing W.2.11.2.2

burden of proof

allocation

panel’s obligation to specify B.3.5.1

in post-suspension situation B.3.5.1–2, R.4.6.5

DSU 21.5 proceedings B.3.5.1, R.4.6.2

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21) B.3.5.2

presumption of good faith compliance with DSU recommendations and rulings B.3.5.1

prima facie case, as precondition to ruling on claim B.3.5.1, R.4.6.1–2

SPS measures S.6.7.3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), compétence de la compétence C.6.4, W.2.11.3.1–2

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2)

AB’s right to lift DSU 17.10 confidentiality requirement C.6.4, W.2.11.3.1–2

closed session meetings C.6.4

disclosure of parties’ own statements (DSU 18.2) C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

due process (dispute settlement proceedings) C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

interrelationship between DSU 17.10 and DSU 18.2 C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

non-confidential summary C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

open oral hearing (WP 27) W.2.11.3.1

“proceedings” (DSU 17.10) C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

as relational and time-bound concept C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

Rules of Conduct, para. VII:1, applicability, experts D.2.2.26, D.2.2.27, R.6.1–6

consultations (DSU 4), good faith requirement (DSU 4.3) P.3.1.17

developing countries (special needs in respect of SPS measures (SPS 10)) S.6.19.4 n. 1398, S.6.21.2 n. 1398

DSU, applicability (DSU 1.1), security and predictability as objective (DSU 3.2) R.0.7

DSU, obligatory recourse to (DSU 23) R.0.1–7

continued suspension of concessions after removal of inconsistent measure (DSU 22.8) as R.0.2–7

DSU 23.1 and 23.2, linkage and relationship (“in such cases” (DSU 23.2 chapeau)) R.0.1

exclusive forum rule (DSU 23.1) R.0.1

“seeking redress”, continued application of previously authorized suspension of concessions, whether R.0.2

unilateral action, exclusion (DSU 23.2) R.0.1

illustrative nature of listed actions R.0.1

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2) C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

expert evidence/experts D.2.2.26–30, E.3.2.38, S.4.15–18, S.7.3.49

fair and orderly conduct of proceedings D.2.2.26

expert evidence/experts

appointment D.2.2.26–30, S.4.15–16

confidentiality obligation (Rules of Conduct, para. VII:1), applicability D.2.2.27, R.6.1–6

divergence of views S.6.9.10, S.6.14.4, S.6.20.3, S.6.20.4, S.7.8.1

due process requirements D.2.2.26–30, S.7.3.49

consultation with parties D.2.2.29, S.7.3.49

independence and impartiality obligation D.2.2.26–30

role/panel’s relationship with S.4.17

“fairness and orderly procedure” requirement (WP 16(1)) W.2.6A.1.3

good faith engagement in dispute settlement procedures, engagement in (DSU 3.10) P.3.1.17

harmonization of measures (SPS 3)

interpretation of covered agreements, preamble/chapeau of article under discussion as evidence of object and purpose S.6.5.3

measures which conform to international standards (SPS 3.2) S.6.7.3–5

burden of proof S.6.7.3

presumption of consistency S.6.7.3–5, S.6.20.5

existence of international standard S.6.20.5

measures resulting in a higher level of protection (SPS 3.3) S.6.7.5, S.6.20.5, S.6.20.7

measures which result in a higher level of protection (SPS 3.3) S.6.8.6–9

Members’ right to choose S.6.5.3, S.6.8.5–8

presumption of consistency S.6.7.5

risk assessment, need for (SPS 3.3, Footnote 2 and SPS 5.1) S.6.9.8

impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member, prompt settlement (DSU 3.3), suspension of concessions (DSU 22.8), DSU 21.5 proceedings to determine compliance R.4.6.4, S.9.7

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21)

good faith obligation, presumption of compliance, whether B.3.5.1, P.3.1.17–18

statements made at DSB meetings, legal status R.0.6–7, R.4.1.31

surveillance obligation (DSU 21.6/DSU 22.8)

potential impediments R.0.6

suspension of concessions (DSU 22.8) R.0.6, S.9.4, S.9.9

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

panel’s rights

to evaluate information or advice S.4.17

to select material from expert’s statements for inclusion in Panel Report E.3.2.39, S.7.8.14

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (SPS 11.2), panel’s obligation to seek (SPS 11.2) S.4.17

interpretation of covered agreements

consistent and harmonious approach to WTO law/systemic integration/coherence, balance with individual Member’s international obligations C.6.4

context (VCLT 31(2)), DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2 C.6.4

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion R.0.1

oral hearing (WP 27)

compétence de la compétence (AB) W.2.11.3.2

open oral hearing W.2.11.3.1–2

AB’s right to lift DSU 17.10 confidentiality requirement W.2.11.3.1

“proceedings” (DSU 17.10), whether W.2.11.3.2

ordinary meaning of, “potential” S.6.12.6

precautionary principle (SPS 5.7), provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence (SPS 5.7) S.6.23.2

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5)

objectives

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3), Article 21.5 proceedings as speedier solution than normal panel proceedings P.4A.16

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3) R.4.6.3

panel “perform[ing] functions similar to those of an Article 21.5 panel” B.3.5.1, R.4.3.2, R.4.6.1, R.4.6.5

participation of original complainants R.4.0.5

as proper procedure for determining compliance R.4.6.1–R.4.6.2

refusal of original complainant to participate, relevance R.4.6.5

“these dispute settlement procedures” R.4.4.2

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

“appropriate to the circumstances” (SPS 5.1)

methodological difficulties, relevance S.6.13.12

testing on humans S.6.13.8

ascertainable/theoretical risk distinguished (SPS 5.1)

quantitative threshold, relevance S.6.12.6

quantitative vs. qualitative test S.6.12.5

assessment prepared other than by Member concerned, acceptability (SPS 5.1 and Annex A(4)) S.6.9.7, S.6.20.4

elements (Annex A(4)), “potential”, “likelihood” distinguished S.6.12.5

measures based on, need for (SPS 5.1) S.6.3.8, S.6.20.3–5

results of risk assessment insufficient to require S.6.10.5

risk management distinguished (SPS 5.1 and Annex A(4)) S.6.9.8–9

“scientific justification” (SPS 3.3) S.6.7.4–S.6.7.5

specificity of assessment, need for (SPS 5.1 and 5.2) S.6.13.5–8

multiple factors S.6.13.8

“sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2)/standard of review (DSU 11) S.6.9.6

de novo review, exclusion S.7.8.1–4

divergence of expert views, relevance S.6.9.10, S.6.20.4, S.7.8.1

“legitimacy”/respected source S.7.8.1

rational relationship between measure/risk and scientific evidence, need for S.6.13.11

reconsideration in the light of new evidence S.6.20.5–6, S.6.20.8

scientific evidence, sufficiency (SPS 2.2)

“on the basis of available pertinent information” S.6.20A.1

provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency (SPS 5.7) S.6.19.4

as alternative to SPS 5.1, need to justify S.6.3.8

burden of proof B.3.5.2

evidence of sufficiency S.6.20.5

existence of international standard S.6.5, S.6.19.4, S.6.20.7

new evidence S.6.20.5–6, S.6.20.8

“insufficiency” S.6.20.3–8

obligation to seek to obtain additional information S.6.20.4, S.6.21.2

for more objective assessment of risk S.6.21.2

requirements

additional information necessary for a more objective assessment (SPS 5.7(3)) S.6.19.4

best efforts S.6.19.4

“within a reasonable period of time” (SPS 5.7(4)) S.6.19.4

SPS Agreement, interpretation, preamble as aid S.6.5.3

SPS measures, appropriate level of protection (SPS 5.5–5.6), right not to take if unwarranted by results of risk assessment S.6.10.5, S.6.20.4

SPS measures “not more trade restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of … protection” (SPS 5.6)

“appropriate level”, determination

Member’s right S.6.1.6

as preliminary to decision on measure S.6.1.6

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

obligation to examine and evaluate evidence S.6.13.7–8

obligation to review whether risk assessment conclusions are reasonably based on scientific evidence S.6.9.10, S.6.20.8

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of risk assessment, exclusion S.7.8.1–4

error of law, failure to apply proper standard of review S.4.18

failure to use expert/scientific evidence in a balanced way S.4.15–18, S.7.2.20

“reasoned and adequate” test, risk assessment (SPS 5.1–5.3 and Annex A(4)) S.7.8.1–4

suspension of concessions (DSU 22)

authorization, need for (DSU 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c)) R.0.2

as “available” (discretionary) measure S.9.10

as temporary measure/termination on compliance with DSB recommendations or rulings (DSU 22.8) S.9.4

change of justification by non-complying Member, relevance T.6.4.1

continued application of authorized measure as “seeking of redress” R.0.2–R.0.3

“determination” of violation by Member (DSU 23.2(a)) R.0.6

DSB decision, circumstances requiring S.9.9

DSU 21.5 proceedings to resolve disagreement on compliance

automatic (ipso jure) termination of authorization on determination of compliance S.9.4

burden of proof B.3.5.2

continuance in absence of determination S.9.9

continuance of suspension during S.9.4

continued suspension as impairment of benefits (DSU 3.3) R.0.6, S.9.4

pre-judgement of outcome S.9.8

DSU 22.8 conditions as alternatives S.9.5

good faith intentions and compliance distinguished B.3.5.1, P.3.1.17, S.9.5

interrelationship between DSU 22.8 and DSU 23 R.0.2

mutually satisfactory solution (DSU 22.8) S.9.4

as ongoing action R.4.6.6

parties’ shared responsibility to bring about conditions allowing for termination of suspension S.9.4

early initiation of DSU 21.5 proceedings, desirability R.4.6.3, S.9.6

“removal” of inconsistent measure S.9.4

surveillance obligation (DSU 21.6/DSU 22.8) R.0.6, S.9.4, S.9.9

Working Procedures Appellate Review) (DSU 17.9), transition (WP 15) W.2.5A.2

US — Continued Zeroing (WT/DS350/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure, concurring opinion (DSU 17.11/WP 3(2)) W.2.3.4

AB reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 17.14), parties’ obligation to accept W.2.3.4

legal effect/status

limitation of binding effect to particular dispute between the parties C.4.36, E.3.1.12

as precedent C.4.36, E.3.1.12

AB/panel’s right to make suggestions for implementation

as clarification of report P.4A.19

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.19

burden of proof

panel’s obligations, clarification for parties of requirements relating to burden of proof E.3.2.36

prima facie case, panel’s duty not to make case for complaining party S.4.20, S.7.2.14, S.7.3.48

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

compétence de la compétence W.2.11.3.5

completion of legal analysis

factual basis, sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement C.4.37

pending review proceedings C.4.38

issues of law/legal interpretations, clarification of covered agreements as prime function of AB W.2.3.4

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2)

interrelationship between DSU 17.10 and DSU 18.2 W.2.11.3.5

non-confidential summary confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2) W.2.11.3.5

open oral hearing (WP 27) W.2.11.3.5–W.2.11.3.6

as relational and time-bound concept W.2.11.3.5

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), individual margins of dumping (AD 6.10) A.3.1A.5

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1)

exporter-specific concept A.3.1A.5

“for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1)/applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.1A.5

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3)

authenticated vs. unauthenticated document E.3.1.13

evidence submitted in previous proceedings C.4.36, E.3.1.12

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9)

assessment of AD duty (AD 9.3), determination of liability of specific importer on basis of transactions from relevant exporter A.3.40B.9

calculation of “all other” AD duty rate (AD 9.4), prospective normal value system (AD 9.4(ii)) A.3.41A.5

individual margins of dumping “as a rule” (AD 6.10), “as a rule” A.3.1A.5

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

expert evidence (DSU 13.2), “from any relevant source” S.4.20

panel’s rights, not to seek S.4.20

interpretation of covered agreements

AB role W.2.3.4

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], AD 17.6(ii) A.3.60.10–11

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) A.3.60.9

meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase A.3.60.10

as holistic exercise A.3.1A.5, A.3.60.9–11, I.3.1.6

ordinary meaning A.3.1A.5

legislation as such, right to challenge

challenge to programme as such L.1.23–25

“as such”/“as applied”, relevance of distinction L.1.24–25

panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7), security and predictability of WTO obligations (DSU 3.2), aid to C.3.1.4

precedent

cogent reasons for departure from C.3.1.4

factual findings in previous dispute C.4.36, E.3.1.12

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), AB/panel’s suggestions for implementation (DSU 19.1), relevance P.4A.19

provisional measures (AD 7) A.3.38A.2, A.3.56.9, T.6.1.20

as basis for referral to the DSB (AD 17.4) A.3.56.10, T.6.1.20

as interim measure pending outcome of original investigation T.6.1.21

preliminary determinations (AD 7.1(ii)), as pre-condition A.3.38A.2

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5), finality of panel/AB report and W.2.3.4

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2)

AD “measure” qualifying for DSB proceedings (AD 17.4)

provisional measure (AD 7) A.3.56.9

provisional measures (AD 7) A.3.56.10, T.6.1.20

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1)

assessment by panel in manner formulated by parties R.2.3.27

as definition of jurisdiction/legal claims at issue T.6.1.21

“specific”, clear distinction between different claims, need for R.2.3.28

“specificity” R.2.3.27

“measure” as basis of claim and as evidence distinguished R.2.3.27

measure subsequent to establishment of panel [having the “same effect”] R.2.3.28

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

inferences based on circumstantial evidence, panel’s right to draw E.3.2.37

totality of evidence vs. individual evidentiary factors E.3.2.36, S.7.3.48, S.7.3.49

“objective assessment of matter before it”, findings in previous cases, relevance C.4.36, E.3.1.12

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii)), sequential analysis A.3.60.10–11

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)) W.2.11.3.5

US — COOL (WT/DS384/AB/R, WT/DS386/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure, documents (WP 18), filing time-limits/importance of compliance with (WP 18(1)) W.2.6A.1.7–8

AB reports

separate reports for each appealed panel report in consolidated proceedings W.2.6.1.17

timing of circulation (DSU 17.5/WP 26), modification

exceptional complexity W.2.10.2.13

exceptional workload W.2.10.2.13

additional procedures (WP 16(1))

additional procedures adopted by panel, adoption for AB proceedings, refusal of request by parties B.4.22

consolidation of proceedings, separate AB reports for each appealed panel proceedings/complainant W.2.6.1.17

burden of proof

legitimate objective (TBT 2.2) T.4.2B.4.8, T.4.2B.4.11

trade-restrictive measures (TBT 2.2) T.4.2B.7.3

business confidential information (BCI) B.4.22

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, factual basis, sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement C.4.51

GATS Accountancy Decisions as subsequent agreement (VCLT 31(3)(a)) I.3.9A.7

interpretation of covered agreements

ejusdem generis principle I.3.13.2

grammar, respect for T.4.2B.1.4–6

same or closely related phrases in different agreements

GATT IX/TBT 2.2 T.4.2B.4.10

GATT XI:2(d)/TBT 2.2 T.4.2B.4.10

subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation or application of the treaty (VCLT 31(3)(a)), GATS Accountancy Disciplines I.3.9A.7

judicial economy, ruling on one element of dispute rendering consideration of other elements moot T.4.2A.6.2, T.4.2B.3.3

municipal law, as evidence of, characterization of technical regulation objectives (TBT 2) T.4.2B.4.4

necessity test (TBT 2.2) T.4.2B.1.4–8

link with legitimate objective T.4.2B.1.4–8

oral hearing (WP 27), open oral hearing W.2.11.3.17

panel reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 16.4), extension of 60-day period for W.2.0.5

clarity/consistency of language, importance S.3.1.10, T.4.2B.5

regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4)

“de facto” inconsistency T.4.2A.5.14, T.4.2A.5.21–3

“less favourable treatment”, detrimental effect T.4.2A.5.18–29

regulatory discrimination (TBT 2.1) (“treatment no less favourable”)

burden of proof T.4.2A.3.3

calibration under TBT 2.2 distinguished T.4.2A.6.2, T.4.2B.3.3

detrimental effect T.4.2A.2.7, T.4.2A.5.18–29

legitimate regulatory distinctions T.4.2A.5.20, T.4.2A.5.21, T.4.2A.5.27, T.4.2A.5.29

modification of competitive market as test T.4.2A.5.18–29

MFN treatment (GATT I:1)/national treatment (GATT III:4) compared T.4.2A.1.5

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2), withdrawal of claim based on T.6.3.30

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

discretion to select which evidence to refer to explicitly S.7.3.74, S.7.3.75

obligation to give reasoned and coherent treatment S.7.3.74

party’s obligation to provide evidence to support its argument S.7.3.74, S.7.3.75

totality of evidence vs. individual evidentiary factors S.7.3.74

claim of failure by panel to comply with DSU obligations as autonomous claim S.7.2.33

“objective assessment of matter before it”, de minimis error S.7.3.74

technical regulations and standards (TBT 2)

legitimate objective (TBT 2.2/2.4) T.4.2B.4.4–11

burden of proof T.4.2B.4.8, T.4.2B.4.11

characterization as T.4.2B.4.4

clarity/consistency of language, importance T.4.2B.5

degree of achievement in meeting objective T.4.2B.1.6, T.4.2B.5.4–7

GATT XI:2(d) compared T.4.2B.4.10

independent and objective assessment obligation T.4.2B.6

legislative intention, relevance T.4.2B.4.7

“legitimate” T.4.2B.4.4

measures necessary for the protection of its national security (TBT preamble, seventh recital) T.4.2B.4.4

non-exhaustive/illustrative nature of TBT 2.2 examples T.4.2B.4.4, T.4.2B.4.9

relevance T.4.2A.5.20, T.4.2A.5.21, T.4.2A.5.27, T.4.2A.5.29

“to fulfil” T.4.2B.5.4–7

risks of non-fulfilment T.4.2B.6.2

necessity test (TBT 2.2) T.4.2B.1.4–8

“not more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate purpose” (TBT 2.2)

alternative measures T.4.2B.7.3

burden of proof T.4.2B.7.3

“trade-restrictive” T.4.2B.3.2–3

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), oral hearings, passive participation in, notification of intention (WP 24(4)) W.2.9.16

US — Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review (WT/DS244/AB/R)   back to top

acquis (GATT/WTO) (WTO XVI:1) A.3.55.3, A.3.62.2

administrative instruments, right to challenge A.3.55.3, A.3.62.2, M.1.9

applicable law, laws, regulations and administrative procedures (AD 18.4), determination of status as A.3.62.3, L.1.8

burden of proof

legislation as such challenge M.5.9

presumption of consistency of measure with WTO obligations, clarity/ambiguity of measure L.1.11

competence (panels)

claims against legislation as such A.3.55.3, A.3.56.8, L.1.4–11, M.1.7–9

mandatory/discretionary nature of challenged measure, obligation to examine M.1.7

conformity of domestic laws, regulations and administrative procedures with AD provisions, obligation to ensure (AD 18.4) A.3.62.2–4, L.1.7

dispute settlement procedures, applicability to L.1.8

“laws, regulations and administrative procedures” A.3.62.2–3, L.1.8, M.1.9

characterization by domestic authorities, relevance A.3.62.3, L.1.8

determination of legal status as by reference to WTO law A.3.62.3, L.1.4–11

consultation and dispute settlement (AD 17), special or additional rules and procedure (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2), whether S.5.4

consultations (DSU 4)

fruitfulness of resort to dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.7) L.1.10, M.1.7, P.3.1.13

good faith requirement (DSU 3.10) L.1.10, M.1.7

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4), zeroing, negative differences A.3.14.4

calculation of normal value, eligible transactions (AD 2.1), relationship with other AD provisions A.3.8.1

methodology, Members’ freedom to choose A.3.51.1

“for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1)/applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.8.1

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), “for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1)/applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.49.1–2, A.3.8.1

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), practice in application of laws A.3.52.0–1

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12), applicability, sunset reviews (AD 11.4) A.3.53

good faith engagement in dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.10) L.1.10, M.1.7, R.5.5

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), view of Member that benefits are being impaired or nullified (AD 17.3) A.3.55.4, L.1.7, P.3.1.12–13, R.5.5

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9)

calculation of “all other” AD duty rate (AD 9.4), sunset review (AD 11.3), applicability to A.3.40.1

“in respect of any product” (AD 9.2) A.3.40.1

sunset review (AD 11.3), applicability to A.3.40.1

interpretation of covered agreements

acquis (GATT/WTO) (WTO XVI:1) A.3.55.3, A.3.62.2

narrow/broad interpretation M.1.9

same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.3.63.3

cross-referencing, role A.3.49.1

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.1.34D.3.1–2, A.3.8.1, A.3.55.3, A.3.62.2

judicial economy M.1.8

legal basis of claim (AD 17), good faith view of Member (“considers”) that benefits are being impaired or nullified (AD 17.3) A.3.55.4, L.1.7, P.3.1.12

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel), “measure” impairing benefits (DSU 3.3) L.1.4, L.1.7

legislation as such, right to challenge A.3.55.3, A.3.56.8, L.1.4–11

burden of proof M.5.9

mandatory/discretionary legislation, distinguishability L.1.9–10, M.1.7–9

discretionary elements under separate law, effect M.1.8

panel’s obligation to examine status M.1.7–9

normative instrument L.1.5

“measure” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2 and DSU 3.3) as any act or omission attributable to WTO Member L.1.4

executive agency determinations L.1.4

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2)), statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), requirements, allegation of panel’s failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11), need for specific reference W.2.7.5.3

request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2)

fruitfulness of action L.1.10, M.1.7, P.3.1.13

determination by Member R.5.6

good faith L.1.10, M.1.7

special or additional rules and procedures for dispute settlement (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2)

AD 17, whether S.5.4

conflict with DSU provisions, precedence in case of (WTO Annex 1A) S.2.19C.2, S.5.4

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2)

AD “measure” qualifying for DSB proceedings (AD 17.4) A.3.55.4, A.3.56.8, L.1.6

any act or omission attributable to a WTO Member R.2.3.23

good faith view of Member (“considers”) that benefits are being impaired or nullified (AD 17.3)

acceptance of price undertakings L.1.6

administrative instrument A.3.55.3, A.3.62.2

definitive AD duties A.3.56.8

provisional measure (AD 7) L.1.6

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1) A.3.56.8, L.1.6

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), “objective assessment of matter before it”, failure to apply mandatory/discretionary legislation distinction in analysis M.1.7–9

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), determination of normative character of challenged “measure” A.3.62.4

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7)

fruitfulness of resort to dispute settlement procedures L.1.10, M.1.7, P.3.1.13, R.5.6

good faith engagement in dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.10) R.5.5–6

State responsibility, acts or omissions of executive agency or executive branch L.1.4

sunset review (AD 11.3)

applicability of AD 2.1 (“dumping”) A.3.8.1, A.3.49.0, A.3.49.1–2

applicability of AD 2.4 (calculation of dumping margin) A.3.13.1, A.3.49.1–2

applicability of AD 6 (evidence) A.3.53.1–2

applicability of AD 9.4 (calculation of “all other” anti-dumping rate) A.3.40.1

continuation of duty

during review A.3.47A.2

as exception to mandatory rule A.3.45.1, A.3.47A.2

initiation before expiry of five years from imposition of duty A.3.45.1

investigatory/adjudicatory functions A.3.47.1, A.3.52.3

parties’ obligations A.3.52.3

proactive role of investigating authorities A.3.47.1, A.3.52.3

“likelihood” test

continuance or recurrence of dumping A.3.8.1, A.3.45.1, A.3.46.1–2

company-specific basis A.3.53.2

continuance or recurrence of injury A.3.45.1

“positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.52.1–3

probability, need for A.3.40.1

relevant factors

factors other than margins of dumping/import volumes A.3.51.3

import volumes A.3.51.1–2

margins of dumping A.3.13.1, A.3.48.1–2, A.3.51.1–2

WTO-inconsistent methodology A.3.49.1–2

methodology, absence of provision A.3.48.1, A.3.50.1

parties’ rights

full opportunity for defence of interests A.3.47A.1

“interested party” (AD 11.2) A.3.50.1

notice of process A.3.47A.1

reasons for determination A.3.47A.1

SCM Agreement, sunset review (AD 21.3), identity of provisions A.3.63.3

time-limits (AD 11.4) A.3.47A.2

diligence, need for A.3.47A.2

sunset review (SCM 21.3), sunset review (AD 11.3), identity of provisions A.3.63.3

WTO Agreement, conflict between constituent covered agreements, precedence (WTO Annex 1A) S.5.4

US — Cotton Yarn (WT/DS192/AB/R)   back to top

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5), absence of provision for/freedom of choice E.3.1.4

directly competitive or substitutable products (GATT III:2), criteria, potential to compete as determining factor D.1.10

good faith compliance with WTO obligations (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), withdrawal of transitional safeguard measure (ATC 6) P.3.1.6, T.7.1.2

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (DSU 13), expert evidence (DSU 13.2), opinion based on data available at time of determination E.3.1.4

judicial economy, mootness of panel findings M.3.3

mootness of panel findings M.3.3

judicial economy M.3.3

proportionality

countermeasures/suspension of concessions (DSU 22.4) P.3.6.1, S.9.2

safeguard measures (ATC 6.4) P.3.6.1

State responsibility for breach of international obligation P.3.6.1, S.9.2

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), evidence available to Member, limitation to E.3.1.4, S.7.6.1, T.7.2.2

DSU 11 as applicable law S.7.1.8

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.4.5, S.7.6.1

objective assessment of explanation, need for S.7.4.5

relevant factors, position of Member at time of determination E.3.1.4

standard/scope of review (safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX))

assessment of the facts

de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.4.5

de novo review/substitution of panel’s own assessment, exclusion S.7.4.5

objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for S.7.4.5

DSU 11, applicability S.7.6.1

State responsibility, countermeasures for breach of international obligations, proportionality P.3.6.1, S.9.2

suspension of concessions (DSU 22), level (DSU 22.4) S.9.2

transitional safeguards (ATC 6)

application of measure on Member-to-Member basis (ATC 6.4)

attribution of damage from “sharp and substantial increase in imports” T.7.5, T.7.6.1

comparative analysis T.7.5.1, T.7.6.1, T.7.6.3–4

from “a Member” T.7.6.2

from “Members individually” T.7.5.1, T.7.6.1

“directly” D.1.10, T.7.4.1

competition between unlike products D.1.10, T.7.4.1

“domestic industry producing like and/or directly competitive products” D.1.10, T.7.3.1–2

criteria

interchangeability T.7.4.1

“like product” T.7.5.1

“directly”, competition between unlike products T.7.4.1

“directly competitive”, interchangeability test T.7.4.1–2

“like product” (ATC 6.2), competitive relationship, need for T.7.5.1, T.7.6.1

as dynamic relationship (including possibility of latent demand), potential to compete as determining factor D.1.10

good faith obligation to withdraw if evidence emerges to show critical factual error, whether P.3.1.6, T.7.1.2

“directly” T.7.4.1

“like product” (ATC 6.2), competitive relationship, need for T.7.5.1, T.7.6.1

serious damage or actual threat thereof (ATC 6(2)), Member’s determination of

due diligence requirement, available evidence, limitation to E.3.1.4, S.7.6.1, T.7.2.2

procedure, absence of provision T.7.2.1

serious damage or actual threat thereof (ATC 6.2), Member’s determination of

due diligence requirement, available evidence, limitation to E.3.1.4, S.7.6.1, T.7.2.2

procedure, absence of provision T.7.2.1

standard of review, DSU 11, applicability S.7.6.1

transitional nature of ATC (ATC, preamble) T.7.1.2

US — Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS (WT/DS296/AB/R)   back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis

in absence of full argumentation of legal issues C.4.28

in absence of request from party C.4.28

factual basis, sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement C.4.29

countervailing duties (SCM Part V), balance between rights and obligations relating to S.2.1.5, S.2.8.5, S.2.8.7

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12), standard of evidence, absence of provision E.3.2.9–10

interpretation of covered agreements, multiple authentic languages (VCLT 33), use as confirmation of interpretation S.2.8.3

mootness of panel findings. reversal of findings S.2.9A.4

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2)), statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), sufficiency, reference to relevant DSU provision W.2.7.3.5

public notice of conclusion or suspension of investigation in case of affirmative determination, required information (AD 12.2.2/SCM 22.5)

reasons for acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments, need for S.2.34.2

“relevant information”/elements demonstrating causality as required by AD 3/SCM 15, selective approach, sufficiency E.3.1.6

SCM Agreement, object and purpose, balanced framework of rights and obligations relating to countervailing duties S.2.1.6, S.2.8.7

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2), identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1), Addendum to request for consultations, relevance C.7.20, T.6.2.20

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence E.3.2.9–14

evidence available to investigating authority, limitation to S.7.6.2

information not in record of investigation (AD 12.2.2/SCM 22.5) E.3.1.6–8, S.7.2.10–11

information in record of investigation but not referred to in determination E.3.1.5

obligation to follow manner of assessment of investigating authority E.3.2.9–14, S.7.5.5

totality of evidence vs. individual evidentiary factors E.3.2.10–15

DSU 11 as applicable law S.7.1.9

“objective assessment of the facts” S.7.1.10

evidence available to Member, limitation to S.7.6.2, S.7.7.2

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of the facts, exclusion E.3.2.12, S.7.4.6, S.7.5.6

error of law, failure to apply proper standard of review S.7.4.6

“reasoned and adequate” test (investigating authorities’ explanations) E.3.2.12 n. 278, S.7.4.6

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), non-applicability to covered agreements other than AD Agreement, in case of simultaneous challenge under AD and SCM Agreements S.7.1.10

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)), “benefit” S.2.9A.4

financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1))

direct transfer of funds (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(i))/provision of goods or services (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iii)), interrelationship S.2.3.2

payments to a funding mechanism or entrustment or direction to a private body (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iv)) S.2.8.2–11

“directs” S.2.8.2–3

English, French and Spanish texts compared S.2.8.3

“entrusts” S.2.8.2–3

scope of SCM 1.1(a)(i)–(iii) distinguished S.2.8.4

payments to a funding mechanism or entrustment or direction to a private body (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iv)), evasion of SCM obligations S.2.8.5

US — Countervailing Measures on Certain EC Products (WT/DS212/AB/R)   back to top

additional procedures “in the interests of fairness and orderly procedure” (WP 16(1)), failure of notice of appeal to conform with requirements W.2.6.1.9–10

calculation of subsidy in terms of benefit to recipient (SCM 14), “benefit” (SCM 1.1(b)) S.2.9.3, S.2.23.6–7

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), issues of law/legal interpretations, alleged failure of panel to make objective assessment (DSU 11) S.3.2.2

competence (panels), claims against legislation as such M.1.6

countervailing duties (SCM Part V)

compliance with GATT VI:3 and SCM Agreement (SCM 10) S.2.29.1

duration (SCM 21.1) S.2.29.1

level

limitation to amount of existing subsidy S.2.29.1

“to the extent necessary” (SCM 21.1) S.2.29.1

preconditions (SCM 19.1), benefit S.2.26.1, S.2.29.1

privatization, relevance S.2.9B.3, S.2.9B.5, S.2.31.6–7

duration and review of AD duties and price undertakings/CV measures (AD 11/SCM 21) S.2.29.1, S.2.31.6–7

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2))

SCM 1.1(b)/SCM 14 S.2.9.3, S.2.23.6–7

treaty/treaties as a whole S.2.9.4

legislation as such, right to challenge, mandatory/discretionary legislation, distinguishability M.1.6

necessity test, “to the extent necessary” (SCM 21.1) S.2.29.1

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2))

amendment W.2.7.4.1–W.2.7.4.2

due process/right to defend interests as purpose/benchmark W.2.7.1.1, W.2.7.4.1–W.2.7.4.2, W.2.7.5.1

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)) W.2.6.1.9–W.2.6.1.10, W.2.7.1.1

sufficiency, reference to paragraph numbers in “Conclusions and Recommendations” of report W.2.7.3.2

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), requirements, specific reference to allegation of panel’s failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11) S.3.2.2, W.2.7.5.1

privatization

continuing need for countervailing duties S.2.9B.3, S.2.9B.5, S.2.31.6–7

extinction of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) S.2.9B.1–2, S.2.9B.3, S.2.31.6–7

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) S.2.9B.1–2, S.2.29.1, S.2.60.1

“benefit”

cost to government, relevance S.2.9.3, S.2.9B.1

SCM 14 as context S.2.9.3, S.2.23.6–7

market benchmark, as basis for determining existence of benefit S.2.9B.1

recipient

“an industry” (SCM 6.1(b)) S.2.9.4

“enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries” (SCM 2) S.2.9.3, S.2.9.4

“exporter or foreign producer” (SCM 11.2(ii)) S.2.9.4

“firm or industry” (SCM Annex I) S.2.9.4

firms/owners, relevance of distinction S.2.9.5

group of persons S.2.9.4

“manufacture, production or export of any merchandise” (SCM 10, Footnote 36) S.2.9.4, S.2.9.8

natural or legal person as S.2.9.3, S.2.9.4

“recipient firm” (SCM Annex IV) S.2.9.4

“sources found to be subsidized” (SCM 19.3) S.2.9.4

extinction of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)), privatization, relevance S.2.9B.1–2, S.2.9B.3–5, S.2.31.6–7

financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1)), direct transfer of funds (SCM 1.1(a)(1)), “bestowed directly or indirectly” (SCM 10, Footnote 36/GATT VI:3) S.2.9.4

tax exemption, as circumvention of export subsidy commitments S.2.9.4

US — FSC (WT/DS108/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure

withdrawal of appeal (WP 30(1)) W.2.13.1.1

conditioned on right to re-file notice of appeal in accordance with (WP 20) W.2.13.1.1

actionable subsidies (SCM Part III), non-actionable subsidy (SCM Part IV) distinguished S.2.2.2

burden of proof, defences and exceptions, SCM 3.1(a) (Annex I (Illustrative List of Export Subsidies)), Footnote 59, fifth sentence, order of analysis O.2.3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis, factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record S.3.1.5

issues of law/legal interpretations

“covered in the panel report” S.3.1.5

“developed by the panel” S.3.1.5

issues not raised by parties S.3.1.5

competence (panels), objections, requirements, timeliness O.1.2

consultations (DSU 4)

establishment of panel as prerequisite O.1.2

SCM 4.2, relationship with S.2.18.2

consultations (SCM 4.1-4.4)

DSU 4.4, relationship with S.2.18.2

“statement of available evidence” (SCM 4.2) C.7.3, O.1.2, S.2.18.1–2

costs of marketing exports (AG 9.1(d))

general business costs distinguished A.1.29.1

income tax, whether A.1.29.1

countervailing duties (SCM Part V), compliance with GATT VI:3 and SCM Agreement (SCM 10) S.2.41.3

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), “for the purpose of this agreement” (SCM 1.1) S.2.2.2

export subsidy commitments (prevention of circumvention (AG 10.1))

“circumvention” A.1.32.1

scheduled and unscheduled products, distinguishability A.1.32.3

tax exemption A.1.32.2, A.1.32.4

“commitments” A.1.30.1

export credit guarantees A.1.32.5

export subsidy, AG 3.3 prohibition A.1.6.1–2

legal entitlement/discretionary element, relevance A.1.32A.1, A.1.32A.5–6

export subsidy, prohibition (AG 3.3)

in excess of budgetary outlay and quantity commitment level A.1.6.1

export subsidy commitments (AG 10.1) A.1.6.1–2

provision of export subsidies under AG 9.1, dependence on A.1.5.1

scheduled products A.1.6.1

conversion to prohibition A.1.5.2

unscheduled products A.1.6.2

GATT 1947

continuing relevance under WTO G.2.1.4

decisions of Contracting Parties (GATT 1994, 1(b)(4)), “legal instruments” G.2.1.4

GATT 1994, incorporation into WTO Agreement (WTO Annex 1A) G.2.1.4

good faith engagement in dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.10) P.3.1.2

objections to panel procedures O.1.3, P.3.1.2

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26))

as general principle of

international law P.3.1.2

law P.3.1.2

Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I)

remission or deferral of direct taxes (item (e)) S.2.37.1

deferral not amounting to export subsidy (Footnote 59) S.2.37.1

income tax as marketing cost A.1.29.1

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2))

GATT VI/SCM Agreement, interrelationship S.2.41.3

treaty/treaties as a whole S.2.41.3

object and purpose W.2.1.1

same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.1.4.1

panel procedures (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), objections, requirements, good faith O.1.3, P.3.1.2

procedure, fair, prompt and effective resolution of disputes and D.2.2.8, O.1.3, W.2.1.1

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), procedure, role D.2.2.8, O.1.3, W.2.1.1

request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2), failure to object, effect C.7.3, O.1.2

subsidies, prohibited (SCM Part II), “contingent upon export performance” (SCM 3.1(a)) A.1.4.1

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

applicability “for purposes of this agreement” S.2.2.1–2

commonality of terminology in Agreement on Agriculture A.1.3.2

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) A.1.3.2

financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) A.1.3.2

“government revenue … foregone or not collected” (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(ii)), “otherwise due”/basis of comparison (“but for” test) S.2.4.1–2, S.2.4.9

GATT VI:4/SCM 1.1(a)(1) and 3.1(a), interrelationship S.2.41.3

tax discrimination (GATT III:2), Members’ right to determine basis of taxation subject to compliance with WTO obligations T.3.3–4

tax exemption

as circumvention of export subsidy commitments A.1.32.2, A.1.32.4, S.2.37.1

Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I) (item (e)) S.2.37.1

Working Procedures Appellate Review) (DSU 17.9), object and purpose, fair, prompt and effective resolution of disputes W.2.1.1

US — FSC (Article 21.5 — EC) (WT/DS108/AB/RW)   back to top

AB procedure, withdrawal of appeal (WP 30(1)), conditioned on right to re-file notice of appeal in accordance with (WP 20) W.2.13.1.7

burden of proof

defences and exceptions, SCM 3.1(a) (Annex I (Illustrative List of Export Subsidies)), Footnote 59, fifth sentence B.3.3.7

double taxation measures, justification S.2.38.3

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence, defences/exceptions B.3.3.7

competence (panels), compétence de la compétence W.3.8

double taxation measures, justification (Illustrative List, SCM Annex I(item (e)), Footnote 59) S.2.38.1–13

applicable law/Member’s right to determine applicable rules S.2.38.5, S.2.38.7, S.2.38.10, S.2.38.13

common elements S.2.38.7

burden of proof S.2.38.3

as exception to prohibited subsidies rule (SCM 3.1(a)) S.2.38.1

“foreign-source income” S.2.38.4–13

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), participation in panel proceedings by third parties D.2.2.16

GATS, applicability (GATS I), “measures affecting trade in services” (GATS I:1), “affecting” (GATS I:1), GATT III:4 compared N.1.10.2

Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I)

remission or deferral of direct taxes (item (e))

burden of proof S.2.38.2

double taxation measures S.2.38.1–13

interpretation of covered agreements

legislative history (domestic) I.3.4.1

narrow/broad interpretation N.1.10.2

same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.1.3.3, N.1.10.2

interpretation of covered agreements, phrases, “affecting”, GATT III:4 N.1.10.2

national treatment (GATT III:1) (general principle), “so as to afford protection”, “less favourable treatment” N.1.11.8

oral hearing (WP 27), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.8

panel proceedings as two-stage process W.3.7, W.3.8

regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4)

“affecting” N.1.10.2

GATS I:1 compared N.1.10.2

“less favourable treatment” N.1.11.8–9

“so as to afford protection”, “less favourable treatment” N.1.11.8

subsidies, prohibited (SCM Part II)

“contingent upon export performance” (SCM 3.1(a)) S.2.12.4A–6

subsidy available to property produced either within or outside subsidising State S.2.12.4A–6

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

commonality of terminology in Agreement on Agriculture A.1.3.3

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) A.1.3.3

financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) A.1.3.3

“government revenue … foregone or not collected” (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(ii)) A.1.3.3

“otherwise due”/basis of comparison (“but for” test) S.2.4.4–6

obligations relating to subsidies distinguished S.2.2.3

tax exemption, as circumvention of export subsidy commitments, Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I) (item (e)) S.2.38.1–13

third party rights T.8.3–5

panel proceedings (DSU 10 and Appendix 3)

interests to be taken into account (DSU 10.1) T.8.5

panel’s discretion

circumscription, exclusion D.2.2.16

enhancement in accordance with due process D.2.2.16, T.8.3

participation in (DSU 10.3) D.2.2.16, T.8.5

submissions, right to (DSU 10.3) T.8.4, T.8.5

“withdrawal of subsidy without delay” (SCM 4.7) S.2.19.2

“without delay” S.2.19.2

US — FSC (Article 21.5 — EC II) (WT/DS108/AB/RW2)   back to top

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel), DSU 21.5 compliance proceedings requirements R.2.5.3

request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2), compliance panel (DSU 21.5), applicability to R.2.5.1–R.2.5.3

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5) R.2.5.1–3, R.4.4.1

applicability of DSU 6.2 (requirements for establishment of panel) R.2.5.1–R.2.5.3, R.4.4.1

“specific measures at issue”/“brief summary of complaint”, required elements R.2.5.3

measures that “have a bearing on compliance” R.2.5.2–3, R.4.1.19

“matter referred”

legal basis of claim/consistency of measure R.4.1.18, R.4.1.21

measure taken to comply, existence R.4.1.18, R.4.1.21

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency), examination in light of DSB recommendations and rulings R.4.1.19

“these dispute settlement procedures” R.2.5.1, R.4.4.1

“withdrawal of subsidy without delay” (SCM 4.7) S.2.19.6–11

full withdrawal, need for R.4.3.11, S.2.19.7–10

obligation of parties to accept recommendation R.4.3.7–9

time-limits, specification by panel R.4.3.7, S.2.19.10

US — Gambling (WT/DS285/AB/R, WT/DS285/AB/R/Corr.1)   back to top

burden of proof

defences exceptions

GATS XIV (general exceptions) B.3.3.16

rebuttal as parties’ obligation B.3.3.16, C.2.6, S.7.2.6

Enabling Clause, party’s two-stage obligation to raise and prove B.3.3.16

GATS I C.7.19, G.1.1.8, R.2.3.15, T.6.3.11

necessity test (GATS XIV(a)) B.3.3.17–19, G.4.3.1–3

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence B.3.3.17–19, G.4.3.1

presumption of consistency of measure with WTO obligations, party’s obligation to demonstrate inconsistency in relation to each element of claim B.3.2.13

prima facie case

evidence and legal arguments in support of claim, need for B.3.2.14–17

as precondition to ruling on claim B.3.2.13, B.3.2.17

rebuttal, responding party’s obligation G.4.3.1–2

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.11

competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2/DSU 11)

correct interpretation and application of covered agreements, panel’s obligation to explain use of document as “supplementary means” (VCLT 32) I.3.10.17

right to develop own legal reasoning including arguments not adduced by parties (jura novit curia) C.2.6, S.7.2.6

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

opportunity to respond to evidence/presentations of other parties B.3.3.15, D.2.2.20–21, O.1.13–14, P.3.1.14

defence, time-limits for raising O.1.14–16, S.7.2.5

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), failure of party to object to timing of defence D.2.2.25, O.1.16

as fundamental tenet B.3.3.15, D.2.2.21, O.1.14

panel’s discretion on matters of procedure (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3) D.2.2.24

panel’s right to adjust timetable S.7.2.5

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3)

time-limits for submission, responding parties B.3.3.15, D.2.2.22, O.1.13–16

as two-stage process, rebuttal of arguments and evidence B.3.3.16, C.2.6, S.7.2.6

GATS, applicability (GATS I) G.1.1.8–9, G.1.3.1.1–2

“measures affecting trade in services” (GATS I:1)

“affecting” (GATS I:1) C.7.19, G.1.1.8, R.2.3.15, T.6.3.11

DSU 4.2 compared C.7.19, G.1.1.8, R.2.3.15, T.6.3.11

“trade in services” (GATS I:2) G.1.1.9

General Exceptions (GATS XIV)

application causing arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or disguised restriction on trade G.4.5.1–4

GATT XX G.4.1.1–2, O.2.11

nexus between measure and protected interest, need for G.4.1.2, O.2.11

order of analysis (chapeau compliance/exceptions) O.2.11

public morals or public order (GATS XIV(a)) B.3.3.17–19, G.4.2.1–2

public order (GATS Footnote 5) G.4.2.2

General Exceptions (GATT XX)

GATS XIV G.4.1.1–2

two-tier analysis (justification under paras. (a)–(j)/compliance with chapeau) G.4.1.2

good faith engagement in dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.10) P.3.1.14

obligation to articulate defence promptly and clearly B.3.3.15, D.2.2.23, O.1.15, P.3.1.15

impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member, prompt settlement (DSU 3.3)

attributability of measure to responding Member, need for C.7.19, G.1.1.8, P.4A.11, R.2.3.15, T.6.3.11

measure as source of alleged impairment requirement C.7.19, G.1.1.8, P.4A.11, R.2.3.15, T.6.3.11

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law

customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT] G.1.2.1.1

Schedules of Concessions G.1.2.1.2

context (VCLT 31(2))

any agreement made between the parties (VCLT 31(2)(a)) or accepted by parties (VCLT 31(2)(b)) G.1.2.2.1–2, I.3.3.4–I.3.3.5

CPC/Services Sectoral Classification List (W/120), whether G.1.2.2.1–2, I.3.3.4–I.3.3.5

article as a whole G.1.3.4.5

dictionaries G.1.2.1.2, G.1.3.4.2, I.3.2.9–I.3.2.10

grammar, respect for G.1.3.5.1

multiple authentic languages (VCLT 33), non-authentic text, relevance G.1.2.1.2, I.3.2.10

multiple meanings G.1.2.1.2–3, I.3.2.10–11

object and purpose G.1.3.4.6

parties’ intentions (VCLT 31(1)), common intention, Members’ Schedules, whether I.3.10.13

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion G.1.3.3.1, G.4.5.1–4

preparatory work (VCLT 32)

GATS G.1.2.2.10–12, G.1.3.4.6, G.1.3.5.4, I.3.10.15

panel’s obligation to explain use of document as I.3.10.17

same or closely related phrases in different agreements, GATS XIV/GATT XX G.4.1.1–2

same or closely related phrases in same agreement G.1.3.4.4

structure of agreement G.1.1.9, G.1.2.1.14, G.1.2.2.4

subsequent practice which establishes parties’ agreement on interpretation (VCLT 31(3)(b))

agreement, need for G.1.2.2.9, I.3.9.6

common practice, need for G.1.2.2.9, I.3.9.6

2001 GATS Guidelines, whether G.1.2.2.9, I.3.9.6

consistency of practice, need for G.1.2.2.9, I.3.9.6

supplementary means (VCLT 32)

in case of ambiguity (VCLT 32(a)) G.1.2.2.10, I.3.10.14

interpretative document issued by party I.3.10.17

text/plain language G.1.3.5.2

joint venture, market access restrictions (GATS XVI) G.1.3.1.1

judicial economy, ruling on one element of dispute rendering consideration of other elements moot G.1.3.6.1

market access commitments (GATS XVI)

measures not to be maintained unless otherwise specified in Schedule (GATS XVI:2) G.1.3.1.1

exhaustive list of restrictions covered by GATS XVI:1 G.1.3.2.1

inclusion of commitment to allow market access (GATS XVI chapeau) G.1.3.3.1

limitations on number of service suppliers (GATS XVI:2(a)) G.1.3.4.1–6

article to be read as a whole G.1.3.4.5

at or above zero G.1.3.3.1, G.1.3.4.6, T.1.2.8

exclusive service suppliers (GATS VIII:5) and G.1.3.4.1

“form” G.1.3.4.2–6

object and purpose of GATS G.1.3.4.6

as quantitative limitation G.1.3.4.1–6

limitations on total number of service operations (GATS XVI:2(c))

grammatical structure G.1.3.5.1

as quantitative limitation G.1.3.5.2–5

text/plain language G.1.3.5.2

limitations on total value of service transactions (GATS XVI:2(b)) G.1.3.3.1

bound rates at or above zero G.1.3.3.1

measures directed at consumers G.1.3.6.1

modes of supply as defined in GATS I G.1.3.1.1–2

“no less favourable treatment” obligation (GATS XVI:1), under terms provided for in Schedule G.1.3.1.1

variety of permissible forms G.1.3.5.3

“matter referred to the DSB” (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1), “measure at issue” as S.7.2A.6–7

municipal law, interpretation M.5.12–13

necessity test (GATS XIV(a))

availability of alternative WTO-consistent measure B.3.3.17–19, G.3.4A.1, G.4.3.1–2, G.4.4.1–5

complaining party’s obligation to suggest G.3.4A.1, G.4.4.4

consultations as G.4.4.4

“reasonably available” G.3.4A.1, G.4.4.1–5

burden of proof B.3.3.17–19, G.4.3.1–3

“indispensable” and “necessary” distinguished B.3.3.17, G.4.3.2

as objective standard G.4.4.1

obligation to consult other party G.4.4.3–4

order of analysis G.3.3A.8

as weighing and balancing process B.3.3.17, B.3.3.19, G.4.3.1, G.4.3.3, G.4.4.2

order of analysis

GATS XIV (chapeau/exceptions) O.2.11

necessity test (GATS XIV(a)) G.3.3A.8

ordinary meaning of, “sporting” I.3.2.10

panel procedures (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), high quality reports/avoidance of delay, flexibility in achieving balance (DSU 12.2) D.2.2.24–25

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.11

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II)

interpretation and clarification T.1.2.8

ordinary customs duties in excess of those provided for in Schedule (GATT II:1(b)), zero rates, applicability to T.1.2.8

Schedules of Specific Commitments (GATS XX), interpretation G.1.2.1.1–3

applicable law (customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT]) G.1.2.1.1, I.3.10.13

context (VCLT 31(2))

1993 Scheduling Guidelines, similarity of language G.1.2.2.12, I.3.10.15–I.3.10.16

any agreement made between the parties (VCLT 31(2)(a)) or accepted by parties (VCLT 31(2)(b)), CPC/Services Sectoral Classification List (W/120), whether G.1.2.2.1–12, I.3.3.4–I.3.3.5

other Members’ Schedules G.1.2.2.6, G.1.2.2.8

Services Sectoral Classification List (W/120) G.1.2.2.3, G.1.2.2.5, G.1.2.2.11, I.3.3.4–I.3.3.5

structure of agreement G.1.1.9, G.1.2.1.14, G.1.2.2.4

as integral part of GATS (GATS XX:3) G.1.2.1.1, I.3.10.13

preparatory work (VCLT 32), W/120 and 1993 Scheduling Guidelines as G.1.2.2.10–12, G.1.3.4.6, I.3.10.14–I.3.10.16

“sectors”

avoidance of ambiguity, need for G.1.2.2.12, I.3.10.15

common format and terminology, importance G.1.2.2.12, I.3.10.15

DSU 22.3(f) compared G.1.2.2.4–5

mutual exclusion G.1.2.2.4

“subsector” G.1.2.2.5

subsequent practice (VCLT 31(3)(b)), 2001 Guidelines, whether G.1.2.2.9, I.3.9.6

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2)

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1)

due process right to defend oneself R.2.3.16

“specific”

“sufficient to present the problem clearly” R.2.2.20

“total prohibition” R.2.3.16

measure subsequent to establishment of panel [having the “same effect”] R.2.3.16

“practice” as measure R.2.3.17, T.6.3.12

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”) G.4.5.4

assessment of legislation of complainant party, relevance G.4.4.5

discretion in selection of relevant evidence G.4.5.2, J.1.19

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.7.3.25

insufficiency of evidence, relevance S.7.2.6, S.7.2A.6–7

obligation to examine and evaluate evidence M.5.13

wording of measure in absence of evidence S.7.2A.7

“objective assessment of matter before it”

discretion in deciding which legal issues to address C.4.26, G.4.5.2, J.1.19, S.7.2.7

error of law, failure to set out all matters considered G.4.2.2

party’s failure to address issues allegedly overlooked G.4.5.3

ultra petita finding on provision not before it S.7.2.6

“such other findings as will assist the DSB” (DSU 7.1/DSU 11), judicial economy J.1.19

US — Gasoline (WT/DS2/AB/R)   back to top

burden of proof

defences and exceptions, GATT XX B.3.3.1

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence, defences/exceptions B.3.3.1

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis C.4.1

in case of disagreement with/reversal of panel finding C.4.1

factual basis, contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.1

General Exceptions (GATT XX), two-tier analysis (justification under paras. (a)–(j)/compliance with chapeau) G.3.1.1

General Exceptions (GATT XX) (chapeau)

application of measure as arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination G.3.11.4

“between countries where the same conditions prevail” G.3.12.1

between importing and exporting countries G.3.12.1

“disguised restriction on international trade” G.3.11.4, G.3.13.1

measures amounting to arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination as G.3.13.1

prevention of abuses of exceptions as objective G.3.11.1–2, G.3.13.1

reasonable application requirement G.3.11.2

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT] I.3.7.1

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) I.3.7.1

measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources (GATT XX(g))

GATT III:4 (regulatory discrimination) G.3.9.1–4

“made effective in conjunction with”

as balance between conservation and domestic production/consumption G.3.8.1

“in conjunction with” G.3.8.1

“relating to” G.3.9.1–4

“primarily aimed at”

distinguished G.3.9.3–4

as non-treaty language G.3.9.3

multiple appeals (WP 23), joinder S.3.1.1, W.2.8.1

oral hearing (WP 27), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.1

order of analysis, GATT XX (chapeau compliance/GATT XX/exceptions) O.2.1

Working Procedures Appellate Review) (DSU 17.9), obligation to observe S.3.1.1, W.2.8.1

US — Hot-Rolled Steel (WT/DS184/13), “reasonable period of time” (DSU 21.3)/relevant factors, flexibility and balance/determination on case-by-case basis A.3.35.2–3   back to top

US — Hot-Rolled Steel (WT/DS184/AB/R)   back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis C.4.13–14

in case of disagreement with/reversal of panel finding C.4.14

factual basis

contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.13–14

sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement P.4A.4

prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.4

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

calculation of “all other” AD duty rate (AD 9.4), applicability to A.3.42.1

comparison of weighted average normal value with weighted average of all comparable export transactions A.3.42.1

calculation of normal value, eligible transactions (AD 2.1)

affiliated party transactions A.3.5.2

comparability of price A.3.5.1

“like product” A.3.5.1

sale “destined for consumption in exporting country” A.3.5.1

sale “in ordinary course of trade” A.3.5.1

fair comparison (AD 2.4) A.3.6, A.3.12.1

affiliated party transactions A.3.6.1, A.3.12.1

“at same level of trade” requirement A.3.6.1, A.3.12.1

“normal value … in the ordinary course of trade” (AD 2.1) A.1.3, A.3.3.1–5

comparing prices A.3.3.3

scrutiny rules A.3.3.4

sales transaction not “in the ordinary course of trade”

affiliated party transactions A.3.4.1–2

distortion of normal value, Members’ discretion A.3.4.2

sales above cost A.3.9.1

sales below cost, method for determining (AD 2.2.1) A.3.4.1–2

alternative methods, possibility of A.3.9.1

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

calculation of volume of dumped imports, “positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1), AD 17.6(ii), relevance A.3.60.3

evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5)

injurious effects of dumped goods and of other factors, need to distinguish (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) A.3.24.3–5

non-attribution to dumped imports of injury caused by other factors (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) A.3.24.1–5

separate record of evaluation of each factor, whether required A.3.22.3

evaluation of injury factors (AD 3.4/SCM 15.4) A.3.22.3–6

examination of relevance of factor not listed in AD 3.4, right to A.3.22.3

structure of domestic industry A.3.22.5

growth, evaluation of other AD 3.4 factors A.3.22.3–4

“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.22.4

sectoral analysis, right to A.3.22.3

“positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1)

“objective examination” A.3.17.1–4

evaluation of injury factors (AD 3.4/SCM 15.4) A.3.22.4

good faith/fairness A.3.17.2

industry as a whole, need to examine A.3.17.3–4, A.3.22.6

“positive” A.3.16.3, A.3.17.1

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), “for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1)/applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.42.1

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12)

“ample opportunity to present in writing all evidence” (AD 6.1)

extension “upon cause shown … whenever practicable” A.3.30.1.1, A.3.34.3

“reasonable period” (AD 6.8)/“reasonable time” (Annex II(1)) A.3.35.3

“ample opportunity to present in writing all evidence” (AD 6.1/SCM/12.1), right to impose time-limits (AD 6.1.1/SCM 12.1.1) A.3.30.1.1

cooperation obligation (AD 6.8/AD Annex II)

allowance for/assistance with difficulties (AD 6.13) A.3.38.1, P.3.1.5

“best of its ability” (Annex II(5)) A.3.36.2

good faith P.3.1.5

facts available to investigating authority, right to use (AD 6.8/AD Annex II/SCM 12.7) A.3.33

in case of partial lack of necessary information A.3.36.3, A.3.42.1

failure to submit necessary information “in timely fashion” (Annex II (3)) A.3.34, A.3.34.1–3

interpretation in light of AD 6.1.1, 6.8/Annex II(1) A.3.34.2–3, A.3.35.3

as “reasonable period”/“reasonable time” A.3.34.3

failure to submit necessary information “within reasonable period” (AD 6.8)/“reasonable time” (Annex II(1)) A.3.33.1–2

investigating authorities’ information provided within reasonable period A.3.34.2–3

“less favourable result” as possible consequence of failure to cooperate (AD Annex II(7)) A.3.36.1–3, A.3.43.1

standard of cooperation expected A.3.36.1–2

“reasonable period”

balance between rights of investigating authorities and legitimate interests of parties A.3.35.2–3

flexibility A.3.35.1–2

relevant factors A.3.35.2

time-limits A.3.35.3

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26))

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15) A.3.17.2

as general principle of

international law P.3.1.5

law P.3.1.5

investigation of dumping, standard of cooperation P.3.1.5

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9)

calculation of “all other” AD duty rate (AD 9.4) A.3.41.1

avoidance of prejudice to non-investigated exporters A.3.43.2–3

comparison of all comparable transactions (AD 2.4), need for A.3.42.1

margins established under circumstances referred to in AD 6.8, exclusion A.3.41.1, A.3.42.1

method, absence of provision A.3.41.1

weighted average margin of dumping established with respect to investigated exporters as ceiling (AD 9.4(i)) A.3.41.1

zero/de minimis margins, exclusion A.3.41.1

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law

customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT]

AD 17.6(ii) A.3.60.2

DSU 3.2 A.3.60.2

context (VCLT 31(2)), surrounding language A.3.36.1

multiple permissible interpretations A.3.60.2–3

compliance with one permissible interpretation, sufficiency A.3.60.2

“permissible” A.3.60.2

narrow/broad interpretation A.3.43.1

municipal law, compliance with WTO/international obligations, determination of compliance and interpretation of legislation distinguished M.5.4

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.4

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1) A.3.60.2–3

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

“objective assessment of matter before it”

AD 17.6(i) compared S.7.1.6

AD 17.6(ii) compared A.3.60.3, S.7.1.7

factual and legal aspects, inclusion S.7.1.5

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6)

assessment of the facts (AD 17.6(i)) A.3.58.3, A.3.59.4–5

active review, need for S.7.1.6

DSU 11 compared S.7.1.6

interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii)) distinguished A.3.58.3, S.7.1.5

“unbiased and objective” S.7.1.6

interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii))

in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law A.3.60.2

“admits of more than one permissible interpretation” A.3.60.2–3, S.7.1.7

DSU 11 compared S.7.1.7

objective assessment, relevance A.3.60.3, S.7.1.7

US — Lamb (WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R)   back to top

causation requirement (genuine and substantial relationship) S.1.30.2

determination of serious injury or threat thereof (SG 4) (requirements)

“domestic industry” (SG 4.1(c)) S.1.25.1–5

“producers as a whole” S.1.25.5

evaluation of all relevant factors (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.2.1–2, S.1.26.5–S.1.26.6, S.7.4.2–3

“of an objective and quantifiable nature” (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.27.1

as a whole S.1.27.2–4

data from recent past/throughout investigation period, relative importance S.1.28.1–2

“factors other than increased imports” (SG 4.2(b))

“at the same time” S.1.30.2

methodology S.1.30.2

non-attribution, need for demonstration of S.1.30.2, S.1.31.3–4

reasoned and adequate explanation S.1.2.1–S.1.2.2, S.1.26.5, S.1.46.1, S.7.4.2, S.7.4.4, S.7.5.1

“serious injury” (SG 4.1(a)), “material injury” (AD 3, SCM 15.7 and GATT VI) distinguished S.1.23.1

“threat of serious injury” (SG 4.1(b)) S.1.24.1

“clearly imminent” S.1.24.1

material injury distinguished A.0.3.13

good faith engagement in dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.10) P.3.1.4, S.1.19.5

investigation of conditions for safeguard measures, requirements (SG 3.1/SG 4.2(c))

dispute settlement proceedings distinguished S.1.19.4

findings and reasoned conclusions, covering pertinent issues of fact and law S.1.46.1

published report S.1.21.1–2

key elements

conditions (SG 2.1/GATT XIX:(a)) S.1.21.1–2

unforeseen developments S.1.21.2, S.1.46.1

judicial economy J.1.12

“like or directly competitive product” (SG 2.1/SG 4.1(c)) S.1.3.1

“domestic industry” as sole determinant (SG 4.1(c)) S.1.25.1–4

specific product, need for S.1.3.1, S.1.25.2

procedure, fair, prompt and effective resolution of disputes, good faith P.3.1.4

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)

conditions (SG 2)

“like or directly competitive product” (SG 2.1) S.1.3.1

specific product, need for S.1.3.1

as pertinent issues of fact and law (SG 3.1) S.1.21.1–2

“such increased quantities”

decrease in import quantities at end of investigation period, relevance S.1.28.2

“as a result of unforeseen developments” (GATT XIX:1(a)) S.1.21.2, S.1.50.3

demonstration, need for S.1.50.3

as pertinent issue of fact and law S.1.50.3

sufficient to cause serious injury or threat S.1.30.2

publication obligations (SG 4.2(c)), unforeseen developments, need to include S.1.46.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

“objective assessment of matter before it”, de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.5.1–2

“reasoned and adequate” test (investigating authorities’ explanations) R.4.3.13, S.1.2.1–2, S.1.8.3, S.1.26.5, S.7.4.2–S.7.4.4, S.7.4.7–15, S.7.5.1

obligation to evaluate all relevant factors, need for S.7.4.2

standard/scope of review (safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX))

assessment of the facts

absence of facts S.1.31.4

de novo review/substitution of panel’s own assessment, exclusion S.1.2.1, S.7.5.1

objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for S.1.2.2, S.1.26.5–6, S.7.4.2, S.7.4.4, S.7.5.1

existence of right coupled with exercise of right in conformity with SG S.1.26.5

“objective assessment of matter before it”, de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.5.1–2

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), oral hearings, passive participation in W.2.9.3

US — Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint) (WT/DS353/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure

concurring opinion (DSU 17.11/WP 3(2)) W.2.3.5

withdrawal of appeal (WP 30(1)) W.2.13.2.3

AB reports, timing of circulation (DSU 17.5/WP 26), modification, exceptional complexity W.2.10.2.12

additional procedures (WP 16(1))

“appropriate procedure” (requirements/criteria)

consistency with DSU, other covered agreements B.4.16

importance of proper consideration during panel proceedings B.4.16

proportionality between risks of disclosure and requested measures B.4.16

burden of proof B.4.16

competence to determine need for

AB/panel responsibility B.4.16

arrangements agreed by parties B.4.16

desirability of similar treatment in similar situations B.4.17

modification of Working Procedures time-limits for submissions B.4.19, W.2.6.1.16

open oral hearing (WP 27) W.2.11.3.15–W.2.11.3.16

parties’ proposals (US — Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint)) B.4.13, B.4.14, B.4.17

third participants’ support for B.4.14

postponement pending full presentation of issues B.4.16

third parties/third participants, arrangements to protect interests, number of approved representatives B.4.17

transmission of complete record of panel proceedings to AB (WP 25(1)) B.4.13

burden of proof

additional procedures, need for (WP16(1)) B.4.16

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) S.2.9A.17

obstacles to party’s compliance with obligation B.3.1.22, S.7.2.30

panel’s right to seek information and advice (DSU 13/SPS 11.2), relevance B.3.1.22, B.3.2.24, S.4.22, S.7.2.30, S.7.2.31

serious prejudice information procedures (SCM Annex V) S.2.40A.7

business confidential information (BCI) B.4.13–21

Additional Procedures to Protect Sensitive Information (15 April 2011) B.4.14

Additional Procedures (10 August 2010) as basis B.4.15, B.4.16

designation of approved persons B.4.18

exclusion of BCI/HSBI information from oral hearings/release of videotapes B.4.20

business confidential information (BCI) and highly sensitive business information (HSBI) distinguished, indefinite retention in appellate record B.4.17

notification/verification of inclusion/absence of BCI/HSBI from report B.4.17, B.4.21

protection measures pending decision on request for B.4.13, B.4.15

calculation of subsidy in terms of benefit to recipient (SCM 14), right to choose (SCM 14, chapeau) S.2.22.9

causation requirement (genuine and substantial relationship)/non-attribution C.4.49, S.2.19B.5.22, S.2.19B.4.14, S.2.19B.5.17, S.2.19B.5.19, S.2.19B.6.10, S.2.19B.11.5, S.2.19B.11.6, S.2.19B.11.7, S.2.19B.11.8, S.2.19B.11.9, S.2.19B.11.11, S.2.19B.11.13, S.2.19B.11.14, S.2.19B.11.15, S.3.3.33

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact, difficulty of distinguishing S.3.3.33, S.7.1.16

completion of legal analysis

ad arguendo arguments, problems relating to O.2.17–19, P.4A.29

factual basis, sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement C.4.46–49, P.4A.30

prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) O.2.19, P.4A.29–30

issues of fact not raised by parties S.3.3.31, S.3.3.33, S.7.1.15

issues of law/legal interpretations, issues not raised by parties S.2.10A.4.1

competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2/DSU 11)

clarification of existing provisions C.3.1.6

correct interpretation and application of covered agreements, provisions relating to the functioning of the DSB or dispute settlement process C.3.1.6

preservation of rights and obligations of Members, additional procedures (WP 16(1)) C.3.1.6

review of DSB actions in a particular dispute, exclusion D.1A.1

in relation to SCM Annex V procedure C.3.1.6, S.2.40A.9, S.2.40A.15

in relation to SCM Annex V procedure, exclusion C.3.1.6

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2), Rules of Conduct, para. VII:1, need for additional detail in special situations B.4.16

Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), review of DSB actions in a particular dispute, exclusion D.1A.1

in relation to SCM Annex V procedure C.3.1.6

dispute settlement (SCM 30)

joint applicability of DSU and SCM provisions S.2.40A.1

special or additional rules and procedures (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2), SCM Annex V S.2.40A.1, S.2.40A.10

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

as balance of interests D.2.2.41, S.4.22

opportunity to respond to evidence/presentations of other parties, opportunity to comment on panel’s analysis distinguished D.2.2.40, S.7.2.29

panel reports, rationale (DSU 12.7), obligation to discuss with parties, whether D.2.2.40, S.7.2.29

financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1)), direct transfer of funds (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(i)), “direct transfer” S.2.3B.2, S.2.3B.3

good faith engagement in dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.10) P.3.1.20

obligation to cooperate with SCM Annex V procedures S.2.40A.16

“goods” and “services”, distinguishability S.2.7.1

inferences from party’s refusal to provide information DSU 13, party’s failure to cooperate in SCM Annex V procedures I.1.7–8, S.2.40A.3, S.2.40A.4, S.2.40A.6, S.2.40A.7, S.2.40A.8, S.2.40A.11

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

burden of proof B.3.1.22, B.3.2.24, S.7.2.30

panel’s rights, not to seek S.4.22

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2))

article as a whole S.2.3.5, S.2.10A.2.10, S.2.10A.2.13

SCM Part III as a whole S.2.40A.1

ejusdem generis principle I.3.13.1, S.2.3B.3

object and purpose, consistency with object and purpose of treaty as a whole/WTO dispute settlement system S.2.40A.8, S.2.40A.14

preamble/chapeau as guide S.2.10A.2.11

preparatory work (VCLT 32), SCM Agreement I.3.10.35, S.2.40A.13

structure of agreement S.2.3.6

text/plain language S.2.19B.5.17, S.2.40A.14

title S.2.40A.1, S.2.40A.4

joint venture, classification as M.3.18, S.2.3.6, S.2.3B.4, S.2.3B.5, S.2.6.9

judicial economy

panel’s obligation to produce basic rationale for decision P.1.1.10–11

ruling on one element of dispute rendering consideration of other elements moot S.2.10A.2.23

judicial economy, risks S.2.10A.2.13

mootness of panel findings M.3.17–18, S.2.3.6

findings dependent on error of law S.2.3.9, S.2.3B.4, S.2.7.1

multiple appeals (WP 23)

Notice of Other Appeal requirements

brief statement of nature of other appeal (WP 23(2)(c)) W.2.7.3.8, W.2.8.4

indicative [and accurate] list of paragraph numbers related to allegation of error (WP 23(2)(c)) W.2.7.3.9, W.2.8.8

municipal law

compliance with WTO/international obligations M.5.25–26

classification of measure/transaction under municipal law, relevance M.5.25–26, S.7.2A.10

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2))

due process/right to defend interests as purpose/benchmark W.2.7.1.4–5

failure to include claim under DSU on matter determined to concern a factual assessment, effect S.3.3.33, S.7.1.15, S.7.3.70

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), requirements

failure to meet requirements, effect W.2.8.5

indicative [and accurate] list of paragraph numbers related to allegation of error (WP 23(2)(c)) W.2.7.3.9, W.2.8.8

oral hearing (WP 27), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.11

order of analysis

failure to follow logical order O.2.14–15, S.2.3.4

overlap between claims O.2.16, O.2.18

SCM 1.1 (characterization of measure/determination of SCM I.1(a)(1) status) O.2.15, S.2.3.4

SCM 1.1/SCM 2.1 O.2.17–19, S.2.10A.2.8, S.2.10A.2.11, S.2.10A.2.20

SCM 2.1(a)-(b)/SCM 2.1(c) S.2.10A.2.23, S.2.10A.3.1–2

ordinary meaning of, “market” S.2.19B.1.16

panel reports

rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) S.2.19B.6.9, S.7.3.70

elements for inclusion S.7.2.32

judicial economy P.1.1.10–11

price suppression as effect of subsidy (SCM 6.3(c))

causation requirement (genuine and substantial relationship)/non-attribution C.4.49, S.2.19B.5.22, S.2.19B.4.14, S.2.19B.5.17, S.2.19B.5.19, S.2.19B.6.10, S.2.19B.11.5, S.2.19B.11.6, S.2.19B.11.7, S.2.19B.11.8, S.2.19B.11.9, S.2.19B.11.11, S.2.19B.11.13, S.2.19B.11.14, S.2.19B.11.15, S.3.3.33

“effect of subsidy” (causal link) S.2.19B.5.17–22

methodology for determining

collective assessment S.2.19B.11.5–17

counterfactual analysis S.2.19B.4.11, S.2.19B.4.14, S.2.19B.5.20, S.2.19B.5.21, S.3.3.35

magnitude of subsidy, relevance S.2.19B.6.7–10

relevant factors S.2.19B.5.17

objective assessment requirement S.2.19B.5.18, S.2.19B.5.19, S.2.19B.5.20, S.2.19B.5.22, S.2.19B.11.5–17

relevant market, SCM 6.3(b) and SCM 6.3(c) distinguished S.2.19B.1.16

significant lost sales S.2.19B.3.5–7

“lost sales” S.2.19B.3.5

relevant market S.2.19B.3.6

“significant” S.2.19B.3.7

“suppression” S.2.19B.4.11

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), completion of legal analysis considerations O.2.19, P.4A.29–30

SCM Agreement

interpretation

structure of agreement (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) S.2.3.5

text/plain language S.2.19B.5.17, S.2.40A.14

title, (VCLT 31(2)), SCM Part III as a whole S.2.40A.1, S.2.40A.4

serious prejudice (SCM 6)

evidence of

export-contingent nature of subsidy (SCM Part II) S.2.19A.4

information submitted to or obtained by panel including information submitted under SCM Annex V S.2.40A.4, S.2.40A.7

price trends, relevance S.2.19B.0.5, S.2.19B.4.12–14, S.2.19B.5.22

methodology S.2.19B.0.5–6

serious prejudice (SCM Annex V information procedures) S.2.40A.1–18

burden of proof, effect on S.2.40A.7

DSB role (Annex 2 and 4) S.2.40A.9, S.2.40A.15

initiation of Annex V procedure, requirements S.2.40A.1–3

automaticity vs. positive consensus S.2.40A.11–18

establishment of panel by DSB (SCM 7.4) C.3.1.7, S.2.40A.1–3

focused request S.2.40A.7

reasonableness S.2.40A.7

request by a Member C.3.1.7, S.2.40A.2

request for decision that requirements had been met/panel established, relevance C.3.1.7, S.2.40A.2

interpretation

context (VCLT 21(2)), SCM Part III as a whole S.2.40A.1

object and purpose of SCM Agreement. WTO dispute settlement system S.2.40A.8, S.2.40A.14

preparatory work (VCLT 32) S.2.40A.13

non-cooperation/adverse inferences I.1.7–8, S.2.40A.3, S.2.40A.4, S.2.40A.7, S.2.40A.8, S.2.40A.11

sufficiency of evidence S.2.40A.16, S.2.40A.17

review of DSB actions in relation to by panel/AB, exclusion C.3.1.6

third country members, limitation of burden on S.2.40A.7

time-frame S.2.40A.5

special or additional rules and procedures for dispute settlement (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2)

conflict with DSU provisions, precedence in case of (WTO Annex 1A) S.2.40A.1, S.2.40A.12

preference for use of S.2.40A.10, S.5.6

SCM Annex V as S.2.40A.1, S.2.40A.10

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), discretion in selection of relevant evidence S.7.3.68

“objective assessment of matter before it”

burden of proof/party’s arguments and evidence as basis of assessment S.7.2.30

de minimis error S.7.3.68

failure to address legal issues raised by party S.7.2.28

failure to provide economic rationale or theory to support intuitions C.2.8, S.2.9A.16

failure to seek out information (DSU 13) B.3.1.22, B.3.2.24, S.4.22, S.7.2.30, S.7.2.31

failure to undertake detailed analysis necessary to characterize measure correctly M.5.25–26, S.7.2A.10

panel as trier of facts S.2.9A.22, S.3.3.31, S.7.3.68

party’s obligation to identify/explain specific errors S.7.3.67

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), assessment of the facts (AD 17.6(i)), de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.3.3.36

subsidies, prohibited (SCM Part II), actionable subsidies (SCM Part III) distinguished S.2.19A.4

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

analysis of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) and financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) as distinct operations S.2.3.4, S.2.9.8, S.2.9A.16, S.2.9A.21

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b))

“benefit”, calculation as factual assessment within competence of panel S.2.9.8, S.2.9A.22

market benchmark S.2.9A.15–22

burden of proof S.2.9A.17

economic rationale, need for C.2.8, S.2.9A.16

justification for approach S.2.9A.21

seller’s costs/investment costs, relevance S.2.9.7

unequal transactions S.2.9A.18–20

financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1))

direct transfer of funds (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(i))

“e.g. grants, loans and equity infusion” S.2.3B.3

“funds” S.2.3B.2–5

general rule vs. exception S.2.4.9

“grants” S.2.3B.3

reciprocal obligation, relevance S.2.3B.3

direct transfer of funds (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(i))/provision of goods or services (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iii)), interrelationship S.2.3B.4

“government revenue … foregone or not collected” (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(ii))

methodology for determining S.2.4.8

object and purpose S.2.4.7

“otherwise due”/basis of comparison (“but for” test) S.2.4.7–9

joint venture operations M.3.18, S.2.3.6, S.2.3B.5, S.2.6.9

provision of goods or services (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iii)) S.2.3.6

“goods” S.2.7.1

“goods” and “services”, distinguishability S.2.7.1

purchase of goods by a government (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iii))

omission of “services”, relevance S.2.7.1

provision of goods or services (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iii)) distinguished S.2.7.1

subsidy specific to certain enterprises in designated geographical region (SCM 2.2) S.2.10A.4.1–2

“certain enterprises” S.2.10A.4.1

“designated geographical region” S.2.10A.4.1

determination of subsidy (SCM 1.1) distinguished S.2.10A.4.2

limitation of access to either financial contribution or corresponding benefit, sufficiency S.2.10A.4.2

standard of proof/sufficiency of evidence S.2.10A.4.2

subsidy specific to certain enterprises (SCM 2.1) (determination of specificity) S.2.10A.2.8–23

determination of status as subsidy under SCM 1.1 as starting point O.2.17–19, S.2.10A.2.8, S.2.10A.2.11, S.2.10A.2.20

explicit limitation (SCM 2.1(a))

eligibility/access as test S.2.10A.2.12, S.2.10A.2.14

“explicit” S.2.10A.2.9, S.2.10A.2.20

“granting authority”

possibility of multiple granting authorities S.2.10A.2.10, S.2.10A.2.11, S.2.10A.2.14, S.2.10A.2.17, S.2.10A.2.19

significance of reference to S.2.10A.2.9

legislation as source of authority S.2.10A.2.9, S.2.10A.2.11, S.2.10A.2.15, S.2.10A.2.20

“legislation” S.2.10A.2.21, S.2.10A.2.15

obligation to examine broad legal framework S.2.10A.2.15, S.2.10A.2.18–19

legislation/actions of granting authority, obligation to analyse both S.2.10A.2.16–17

multiple subsidies S.2.10A.2.11, S.2.10A.21

“subsidy” as a broad concept S.2.10A.2.10

interpretation, article as a whole S.2.10A.2.10, S.2.10A.2.13

interrelationship between SCM 2.1(a) and SCM 2.1(b), provisional indication under SCM 2.1(a) followed by SCM 2.1(b) analysis S.2.10A.2.7

judicial economy S.2.10A.2.23

“notwithstanding any appearance of non-specificity” (SCM 2.1(c)) S.2.10A.2.2, S.2.10A.2.6, S.2.10A.2.7, S.2.10A.3.1–4

“notwithstanding any appearance of non-specificity” (SCM 2.1(c))/de facto specificity

relevant factors S.2.10A.3.2–4

disproportionality S.2.10A.3.2–4

“where there are reasons to believe” S.2.10A.3.1–4

Working Procedures Appellate Review) (DSU 17.9), transmission “forthwith” of complete record of panel proceeding to AB (WP 25(1)) B.4.13

US — Lead and Bismuth II (WT/DS138/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure, replacement of AB Member on division (WP 13) W.2.5.1, W.2.6.1.8

AB reports, timing of circulation (DSU 17.5), modification, death of member of division hearing appeal W.2.10.2.2

additional procedures “in the interests of fairness and orderly procedure” (WP 16(1))

re-hearing following death of member of division hearing appeal W.2.6.1.8

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7), Members of WTO, limitation to A.2.1.8

amicus curiae briefs A.2.1.7–10

NGO/association/private individual briefs A.2.1.7–10

discretionary power of panel to accept/reject A.2.1.7–10

burden of proof, review of continuing need for countervailing duties (SCM 21.2) S.2.31.1–2

death of member of AB division W.2.6.1.8, W.2.10.2.2

duration and review of AD duties and price undertakings/CV measures (AD 11/SCM 21) S.2.31.1–3

requirements (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2), burden/standard of proof S.2.31.3

interpretation of covered agreements, absence of provision, relevance A.2.1.7

judicial economy J.1.8

panel’s discretionary power to determine which claims must be examined J.1.8

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel), claims and arguments distinguished C.1.7

privatization, extinction of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) S.2.9B.3

SCM Agreement

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)), review of need for continued imposition of countervailing duties (SCM 21.2) distinguished S.2.31.3

standard of review (AD 17.6), applicability A.3.63.1

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), non-applicability to covered agreements other than AD Agreement A.3.58.1, A.3.63.1–2, S.7.1.4

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b))

“benefit” S.2.9A.2

recipient

natural or legal person as S.2.9.2, S.2.9.3

need for S.2.9.2

extinction of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)), privatization, relevance S.2.9B.3

third party rights, panel proceedings (DSU 10 and Appendix 3), Members “having substantial interest in a matter before a panel”, limitation to (DSU 10.2) A.2.1.8

Working Procedures Appellate Review) (DSU 17.9)

determination by Appellate Body (DSU 17.9) A.2.1.7

amendment by AB A.2.1.7

US — Line Pipe (WT/DS202/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure

withdrawal of appeal (WP 30(1)) W.2.13.1.2

conditioned on right to re-file notice of appeal in accordance with (WP 20) W.2.13.1.2

applicable law, determination of serious injury or threat (SG 4) M.5.6, S.1.4.1

burden of proof

prima facie case S.1.36.3

rebuttal, responding party’s obligation S.1.36.3

compensation, for adverse effects of safeguard measures (SG 8.1) S.1.38.2, S.1.42.4

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5), non-attribution to dumped imports of injury caused by other factors (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5), SG 4.2(b) compared S.1.43.1

determination of serious injury or threat thereof (SG 4) (requirements)

applicable law M.5.6, S.1.4.1

customs unions and free trade areas (GATT XXIV) exception R.1.6.2

evaluation of all relevant factors (SG 4.2(a))

“factors other than increased imports” (SG 4.2(b))

application of measures “to the extent necessary” (SG 5.1) S.1.36.1–3

non-attribution, need for demonstration of S.1.31.1, S.1.31.5–6

purpose of provision S.1.36.2

reasoned and adequate explanation S.1.31.5

“serious injury” (SG 4.1(a)) S.1.23.2–3

“material injury” (AD 3, SCM 15.7 and GATT VI) distinguished S.1.23.2

“serious injury” (SG 5.1) distinguished S.1.35.2

“serious injury” (SG 4.1(a))/“threat of serious injury” (SG 4.1(b))

as continuum A.1.32A.2, S.1.23.2–3

quota modulation (SG 5.2(b)) S.1.37.1

“serious injury”, higher threshold S.1.24.2

“threat of serious injury” (SG 4.1(b)) S.1.24.2

developing countries (exemption from safeguard measures (SG 9.1)) S.1.39.1–3

“applied” S.1.39.2

“against a product” S.1.39.2

expected effect of measure, relevance S.1.39.3

list of excluded countries requirement S.1.39.1

good faith compliance with WTO obligations (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)) S.1.42.4

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2)) I.3.2.6

object and purpose I.3.2.6

same or closely related phrases in same agreement S.1.13.1.2

text/plain language I.3.2.6

title S.1.35.4

investigation of conditions for safeguard measures, requirements (SG 3.1/SG 4.2(c))

published report S.1.21.3

key elements

conditions (SG 2.1/GATT XIX:(a)) S.1.21.3

serious injury or threat of S.1.21.3

municipal law, as applicable law, determination of serious injury or threat (SG 4) M.5.6, S.1.4.1

necessity test, proportionality requirement S.1.34.2–3

proportionality

countermeasures/suspension of concessions (DSU 22.4) P.3.6.2–3

as customary international law P.3.6.3

safeguard measures (SG 5.1) (“to the extent necessary”) S.1.34.2–3

publication of analysis of case under investigation (SG 4(2)(c)), justification of application of safeguard measures (SG 5.1) S.1.36.1

quota modulation (SG 5.2(b)) S.1.37.1

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)

application of measures “to the extent necessary” (SG 5.1) S.1.34.2–3

causal link (SG 4.2(b)) S.1.36.1–3

extent of injury as test S.1.34.3

imports, limitation to S.1.35.4

justification, need for S.1.35.1–4

in case of quantitative restrictions (SG 5.1, second sentence) S.1.35.1, S.1.36.1

compliance with SG obligations as S.1.36.1

publication of analysis of case under investigation (SG 4(2)(c)) S.1.36.1

limitation to share of injury caused by increased imports S.1.35.3

right to apply measure distinguished S.1.35.2

“serious injury” (SG 5.1)/“serious injury” (SG 4.2(a)) distinguished S.1.35.2

characteristics

as balance between appropriate and legitimate right to protect domestic industry and obligation to maintain integrity of trade concessions S.1.38.2

exceptional nature of remedy S.1.1.1, S.1.35.3

conditions (SG 2)

parallelism between SG 2.1 and SG 2.2 S.1.13.1.2

prima facie failure to observe S.1.13.2.1

“product being imported” S.1.13.1.2

as pertinent issues of fact and law (SG 3.1) S.1.21.3

separate determinations S.1.10.1–4

“such increased quantities”

sufficient to cause serious injury or threat

causal link, need to demonstrate S.1.31.1

“serious injury” and “threat”, whether mutually exclusive alternatives S.1.10.1–4

customs unions and free trade areas (GATT XXIV) exception R.1.6.2

free trade areas S.1.17.1

level of concessions (SG 8)

compensation for adverse effects (SG 8.1) S.1.38.2, S.1.42.4

“equivalent” S.1.38.2–3

adequate opportunity for prior consultations (SG 12.3) S.1.42.3

notification and consultation (SG 12)

adequate opportunity for prior consultations (SG 12.3) S.1.42.2–4

good faith S.1.42.4

meaningful exchange, need for S.1.42.3

time for S.1.42.3

amendments to measure subsequent to consultation, effect S.1.42.2

standard/scope of review (safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)), existence of right coupled with exercise of right in conformity with SG S.1.1.1

State responsibility, countermeasures for breach of international obligations, proportionality P.3.6.3

US — Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) (WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure, replacement of AB Member on division (WP 13) W.2.5.2

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis

factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record S.3.3.11

prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.7

competence (panels)

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2)), objection to panel’s jurisdiction T.6.1.11

objections, requirements, notice of appeal, inclusion in J.2.1.15, O.1.8, T.6.1.11

obligation to examine

at any stage during proceedings W.2.7.1.3

ex proprio motu J.2.1.15

countervailing duties (SCM Part V), compliance with GATT VI:3 and SCM Agreement (SCM 10), permissible responses to countervailable subsidy S.2.36.10

determination of dumping (AD 2), constituent elements A.3.61.8, S.2.36.4

dumping, constituent elements (AD 2/GATT VI:1), intention of dumping, relevance M.5.7

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), intention of dumping, relevance (AD 2/GATT VI:1) M.5.7

good faith compliance with WTO obligations (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)) P.3.1.10

violation of obligation, relevance to determination of good faith P.3.1.10

interpretation of covered agreements

dictionaries I.3.2.7

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) I.3.7.9

meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase I.3.7.9

Footnotes to treaty A.3.61.14, S.2.36.9

legislative history (domestic) I.3.4.2

ambiguity, relevance in absence of I.3.4.2

conclusiveness I.3.4.2

object and purpose P.1.3.1

text/plain language I.3.2.7

investigation of dumping (AD 5)/subsidy (SCM 11)

initiation (AD 5.4/SCM 11.4)

support of domestic industry, need for

“expression of support” A.3.28.1, S.2.20.1

motives, relevance A.3.28.1, S.2.20.1

multiple complainants (DSU 9)

procedure, panel’s discretion P.1.3.2

separate panel reports, right to (DSU 9.2) P.1.3.1–2

prompt settlement (DSU 3.3) P.1.3.1, P.4A.7

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2))

due process/right to defend interests as purpose/benchmark W.2.7.1.2

objection to panel’s jurisdiction J.2.1.15, O.1.8, W.2.7.1.3

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)) W.2.7.1.2

panel procedures (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), panel’s discretion, multiple complainants (DSU 9) P.1.3.2

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3)

completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.7

as “essential to the effective functioning of the WTO …” P.4A.7

separate panel reports in case of multiple complainants (DSU 9.2) and P.1.3.1, P.4A.7

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1) S.2.36.1–11

requirements

measure against dumping/subsidy A.3.61.5, A.3.61.11–13, S.2.36.1–2, S.2.36.6–8

adverse bearing A.3.61.11, S.2.36.6, T.6.2.18

design and structure of measure as evidence of protective application A.3.61.11–12, S.2.36.6–7

facilitation of exercise of WTO-consistent rights distinguished A.3.61.13, S.2.36.8

implications for conditions of competition, relevance A.3.61.12, S.2.36.7

measure specific to dumping/subsidy A.3.61.5–7

measures related to distinguished (AD 18.1 Footnote 24/SCM 32.1 Footnote 56) A.3.61.13, S.2.36.8

presence of constituent elements of dumping/subsidy A.3.61.7–9, S.2.36.4

as implied condition A.3.61.9–10

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), “objective assessment of matter before it”, ultra petita finding on provision not before it T.6.2.18

subsidy, definition (SCM 1) A.3.61.8, S.2.36.3

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), as definition of jurisdiction/legal claims at issue, legal claim included in terms of reference, limitation of jurisdiction to T.6.2.18

US — Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews (WT/DS268/AB/R)   back to top

AB reports, legal effect/status, panel’s reliance on S.8.4

burden of proof, prima facie case, text of legislation, sufficiency B.3.2.12

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis

ad arguendo arguments, problems relating to A.3.30.1.3, C.4.22–23

factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record C.4.22–23, T.6.3.8

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

“injury” (AD 3, Footnote 9) A.3.15A.1

applicability to AD as a whole A.3.52A.1

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3)

panel’s authority to control process for informing itself of facts and legal norms S.7.2.15

statements to domestic courts E.3.2.6, S.7.3.20

statements to other international tribunals E.3.2.6, S.7.3.20

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12)

“ample opportunity to present in writing all evidence” (AD 6.1), extension “upon cause shown … whenever practicable” A.3.30.1.2

due process

failure to respond to notice of initiation A.3.31.3–6

incomplete response to notice of initiation A.3.30.1.3–4

full opportunity for defence of interests, right to (AD 6.2) A.3.30.1.2, A.3.31.2–4

notification of interest, right to set time-limits/deemed waiver A.3.31.5–6

good faith compliance with WTO obligations (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), measures challenged “as such” L.1.13, R.2.3.12, T.6.3.7

interpretation of covered agreements, Footnotes to treaty A.3.15A.1

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel)

legislation “as such” claims L.1.13, R.2.3.12, T.6.3.7

nexus between challenged measure and provisions allegedly breached R.2.1.10

legislation as such, right to challenge L.1.14–15

characterization by domestic authorities, relevance L.1.13, M.5.11, R.2.3.12, T.6.3.7

good faith L.1.13, R.2.3.12, T.6.3.7

normative instrument L.1.15

serious implications of such a challenge L.1.12

“matter referred to the DSB” (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1), “measure at issue” as S.7.2A.3–5

municipal law

compliance with WTO/international obligations, determination of compliance and interpretation of legislation distinguished M.5.11

interpretation M.5.11

non-discriminatory administration of quantitative restrictions (GATT XIII), publication and administration of trade regulations (GATT X:3(a)), standard of proof P.5.3.1.2

precedent, AB reports S.8.4

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2), “practice” as measure T.6.3.8

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

discretion to determine relevance E.3.2.6

obligation to examine and evaluate evidence A.3.52.4, S.7.2.15, S.7.2A.3–4

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of the facts, exclusion A.3.47.3

failure to undertake detailed qualitative analysis of specific cases S.7.2A.3

“reasoned and adequate” test (investigating authorities’ explanations) A.3.47.3–4, A.3.50.3, E.3.2.6

sunset review (AD 11.3)

applicability of AD 3 (determination of injury) A.3.52B.1–2

applicability of AD 6 (evidence) A.3.53.3

cumulative assessment of volume and prices (AD 3.3) A.3.21.5, A.3.48A.1–4

applicability of AD 3.3 A.3.48A.3

investigatory/adjudicatory functions, proactive role of investigating authorities A.3.48A.4

“likelihood” test

continuance or recurrence of dumping A.3.46.3

company-specific basis determination A.3.50.2–4, A.3.52.8

continuance or recurrence of injury

“injury” (AD 3, Footnote 9) A.3.52A.1

time-frame A.3.52C.1–2

“likelihood” A.3.47.2

overall determination as basis A.3.52A.3–4

“positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.47.3–4, A.3.48A.4, A.3.52.4–8

absolute certainty A.3.47.4, E.3.2.7

presumptions, reliance on A.3.52.8

relevant factors

factors other than margins of dumping/import volumes A.3.51.4

situation before and after AD duty order A.3.51.4

methodology, absence of provision A.3.48.4, A.3.52A.2

US — Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews (Article 21.5 — Argentina) (WT/DS268/AB/RW)   back to top

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3)

admissions adverse to the interests of the party making them E.3.2.24

party’s statements about requirements for determination of dumping in absence of applicable laws or regulations E.3.2.25, L.1.22

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21)

choice of means at Member’s discretion, collection of information post DSB ruling on original sunset review determination (AD 11.3) R.4.1.25

sunset review (AD 11.3), effect of breach A.3.45.5–6

implementation of panel/AB recommendations, right of panel/AB to make suggestions for (DSU 19.1) R.4.1.25

discretionary nature of right I.0.6–7, P.1.1.8, S.7.1.12

judicial economy P.1.1.8, R.4.3.14, S.7.1.12

panel’s discretionary power to determine which claims must be examined R.4.3.14

panel’s obligation to produce basic rationale for decision P.1.1.8

panel reports

rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) P.1.1.8

judicial economy P.1.1.8

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5)

different nature of proceeding, “prejudice” allegedly resulting from R.4.5.2

finality of panel/AB report, unappealed panel reports, complainant’s failure to establish prima facie case of WTO-inconsistent measure, relevance R.4.3.14

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency) S.4.2

assessment in light of DSB recommendations and rulings, need for R.4.1.22

measures closely related to measure taken to comply R.4.1.23–24

as new claim/reassertion of old R.4.5.2

prompt compliance/avoidance of new proceedings as objective R.4.0.2

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), party’s obligation to provide evidence to support its argument E.3.2.25, L.1.22

“objective assessment of matter before it”, failure to apply treaty provisions correctly R.4.1.25

“such other findings as will assist the DSB” (DSU 7.1/DSU 11), judicial economy P.1.1.8, R.4.3.14

sunset review (AD 11.3)

collection of information post-DSB ruling on original determination R.4.1.25

continuation of duty, as exception to mandatory rule A.3.45.4

implementation of recommendations and rulings of DSB (DSU 21)

effect of breach of AD 11.3 A.3.45.6

new evidentiary basis, investigating authorities’ right to adopt (AD 11.3/AD 11.4) A.3.45.6, A.3.51A.1–2, R.4.1.25, S.7.2.15, S.7.6.5

investigatory/adjudicatory functions A.3.47.5

“likelihood” test

AD 6 provisions, applicability A.3.51A.2

laws and regulations/legal instrument, need for E.3.2.25, L.1.22

“positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.47.5

presumptions, reliance on A.3.52.14

methodology, absence of provision A.3.48.4

US — Section 211 Appropriations Act (WT/DS176/AB/R)   back to top

applicable law, trademarks P.2.1.1, P.2.2.2

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact, compliance/consistency with treaty obligations M.5.5, S.3.3.8

completion of legal analysis C.4.17–18

in case of agreement with panel C.4.18

factual basis

contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.17–18

insufficient argument on novel issue C.4.17

competence (panels), claims against legislation as such M.1.5

compliance, international obligations M.5.5

expropriation

non-nationals P.3.3.1

trademarks, simultaneous confiscation of same trademarks in expropriating State P.3.3.2

good faith compliance with WTO obligations (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)) M.1.5

interpretation of covered agreements

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) I.3.7.8

meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase P.2.3.1

same or closely related phrases in different agreements N.1.14.1

title T.9.3.1

legislation as such, right to challenge

mandatory/discretionary legislation, distinguishability M.1.5

executive discretion M.1.5

MFN treatment (TRIPS 4), differential treatment as discrimination M.2.3.1

municipal law

compliance with WTO/international obligations, panel’s assessment as legal characterization/as matter for appellate review M.5.5, M.5.22

as evidence of

compliance with WTO/international obligations S.3.3.8, S.3.3.28

facts S.3.3.8

national treatment (TRIPS 3)

applicability (TRIPS 3.1, Footnote 3) N.1.14.1

as fundamental principle N.1.14.1

“less favourable treatment” N.1.14.1

differentiation on the face of the statute N.1.14.2–6

formal differentiation in treatment, relevance N.1.14.2

GATT III:4 compared N.1.14.1

protection of trade-related property rights N.1.14.1

oral hearing (WP 27), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.7

ordinary meaning of, “as is”/“telle quelle” P.2.2.2–3

panel procedures (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), review of evidence S.3.3.8

regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4)

“less favourable treatment”

differentiation on the face of the statute N.1.14.2–6

formal differentiation in treatment, relevance N.1.14.2

TRIPS 3.1 compared N.1.14.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.3.3.8

trade names (Paris Convention (1967) (PC 8)) P.2.3.1–2, T.9.2.1–3

incorporation into TRIPS P.2.3.1–2, T.9.1.1–2, T.9.2.1–3

trademarks (Paris Convention (1967) (PC))

applicable law P.2.2.1, P.2.2.2

expropriation P.3.3.1–2

registration in country other than that of applicant’s origin

acceptance of trademark registered in country of origin according to domestic legislation in that country (Art. 6quinquies)

ownership issues P.2.2.3

as right going beyond that granted to nationals P.2.2.1

acceptance of trademark registered in country of origin according to domestic legislation in that country (PC 6quinquies) P.2.2.1

“as is”/“telle quelle” P.2.2.2–3

right of Paris Union Members to determine conditions (Art. 6(1)) P.2.1.1

TRIPS Agreement

enforcement of intellectual property rights (TRIPS Part III)

avoidance of barriers to trade and abuse of procedures (TRIPS 41.1) T.9.10.2

civil judicial procedures (TRIPS 42) T.9.10

“available” T.9.10.4, T.9.10.6

“right holders” T.9.10.6–7

“substantiate their claims” T.9.10.7

effective remedy, need for (TRIPS 41.1) T.9.10.2

“fair and equitable” requirement (TRIPS 41.2 and 42) T.9.10.3–8

international minimum standard (TRIPS 1.1) T.9.10.2, T.9.10.3, T.9.10.7

“intellectual property conventions” (TRIPS 2) T.9.2.1–3

“intellectual property” (TRIPS 1.2) T.9.1, T.9.10.1

limitation to categories identified in TRIPS section titles, whether T.9.1, T.9.3.1

trade names T.9.2, T.9.2.3

trademarks

denial of protection on “other grounds” (TRIPS 15.2) T.9.4.1

owner

exclusive rights (TRIPS 16.1) T.9.5.1

registration or use as basis T.9.5.1, T.9.6.1–2

“protectable subject-matter” (TRIPS 15) T.9.3.1

US — Shrimp (WT/DS58/AB/R)   back to top

abuse of rights/abus de droit, definition P.3.1.1

amicus curiae briefs A.2.1–6

NGO/association/private individual briefs A.2.1.1–6

discretionary power of panel to accept/reject A.2.1.2–6

conditions, panel’s right to attach A.2.1.4

consultation with participants A.2.1.4

as integral part of party’s submission A.2.1.1

party’s responsibility for A.2.1.1

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, factual basis, sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement P.4A.5

due process (application of trade measures) D.2.1.1

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), panel’s authority to control process for informing itself of facts and legal norms E.3.2.1

General Exceptions (GATT XX), two-tier analysis (justification under paras. (a)–(j)/compliance with chapeau) G.3.1.2, G.3.11.6

General Exceptions (GATT XX) (chapeau)

application of measure as arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination

application of fair and just measure as G.3.11.7

“between countries where the same conditions prevail” G.3.12.2–4

between importing and exporting countries G.3.12.2

discrimination in application of substantive GATT obligations distinguished G.3.12.2

failure to consider appropriateness of regulatory programme as G.3.12.3–4

as balance between competing rights G.3.11.5–6

good faith compliance with WTO obligations (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)) P.3.1.1

abuse of rights/abus de droit P.3.1.1

as general principle of

international law P.3.1.1

law P.3.1.1

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

panel’s rights

not to seek A.2.1.3, E.3.1.3, S.4.4–5

to accept or reject requested information or advice A.2.1.3, A.2.1.5, E.3.1.3, S.4.4–5

to evaluate information or advice A.2.1.3, E.3.1.3

to evaluate source of information or advice A.2.1.3, E.3.1.3

interpretation of covered agreements

changes of meaning over time G.3.7.2

context (VCLT 31(2)) I.3.2.4

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) G.3.10.1

object and purpose G.3.7.3

preamble (WTO) G.3.7.3, I.3.6.1

parties’ intentions (VCLT 31(1)), preamble as reflection of G.3.7.3, I.3.6.1

text/plain language I.3.2.4

measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources (GATT XX(g))

changes of meaning over time G.3.7.2

jurisdictional limitation G.3.10.1, G.3.10.3

nexus, need for G.3.10.3

“made effective in conjunction with” G.3.8.2

non-living resources, applicability to G.3.7.1–2

“relating to” G.3.9.5

sustainable development objective (WTO preamble) G.3.7.3

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2))

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d))

“brief” W.2.7.2.1

identification of facts requiring panel to draw inferences W.2.7.2.1

indication of appropriate factual or legal inferences W.2.7.2.1

legal argument in support of claim distinguished W.2.7.2.1

oral hearing (WP 27), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.5

order of analysis

failure to follow logical order O.2.7, O.2.8

GATT XX chapeau HGATT XX (chapeau compliance/GATT XX/exceptions) compliance/GATT XX paras. (a)–(i) exceptions O.2.2

“relating to” (GATT XX(g)) G.3.9.5

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

“objective assessment of matter before it”

applicability of and conformity with relevant covered agreements E.3.2.1

applicable law, panel’s right to determine E.3.2.1

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7), Members of WTO, limitation to A.2.1.2

third party rights, panel proceedings (DSU 10 and Appendix 3), Members “having substantial interest in a matter before a panel”, limitation to (DSU 10.2) A.2.1.2

US — Shrimp (Thailand)/US — Customs Bond Directive (WT/DS343/AB/R, WT/DS345/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure

dates and deadlines

extension of deadline for submissions of participants/third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.10.1.7

modification (WP 16(2)) W.2.6.2.5

documents (WP 18), correction of clerical errors in submissions W.2.6A.2.6

additional procedures (WP 16(1))

consolidation of proceedings W.2.6.1.12

third party participation in W.2.6.1.12

third party participation in consolidated proceedings W.2.6.1.12

Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD)/GATT 1994 VI relationship, as inseparable package of rights A.3.38A.1, A.3.66.3

burden of proof

panel’s right to draw on arguments and facts adduced by respondent B.3.3.20

prima facie case, panel’s duty not to make case for complaining party B.3.3.20

countervailing duties (SCM Part V), preconditions (SCM 19.1), benefit A.3.39.4, S.2.26.1–2

General Exceptions (GATT XX)

“duty” (AD 9/SCM 10), bond, whether A.3.39.4, S.2.26.2

retrospective/prospective assessment (AD 9.3.1 and AD 9.3.2) A.3.39.3

“pending final determination of the facts” A.3.66.1–3

retrospective duty assessment A.3.66.1–2

“reasonable security” A.3.66A.1–3

likelihood vs. possibility test A.3.66A.2

two-step approach A.3.66A.2–3

retrospective assessment (AD 9.3.1), security (bond or cash deposit) (GATT VI:2 and VI:3: Ad Note) A.3.66.1–2

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1), whether A.3.61.15, A.3.66A.1

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9)

security (bond or cash deposit) (GATT VI:2 and VI:3: Ad Note)

as ancillary to principal obligation A.3.61.15

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1), whether A.3.61.15, A.3.66A.1

measures necessary to secure compliance with GATT-consistent measure (GATT XX(d)), action under other relevant provisions of the GATT 1994 (AD 18.1, Footnote 24) A.3.66A.3, G.3.6.12

necessity test (GATT XX(d)), “reasonableness” test (AD 18.1, Footnote 24) distinguished A.3.66A.3, G.3.6.12

provisional measures (AD 7), GATT VI:2 and VI:3: Ad Note overlap A.3.38A.1, A.33.66.3

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1)

requirements, measure against dumping/subsidy, design and structure of measure as evidence of protective application A.3.61.15

security (bond or cash deposit) (GATT VI:2 and VI:3: Ad Note) as A.3.61.15

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2)

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1) T.6.1.19

specific measure the subject of consultations, need for identity with T.6.1.19

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), as definition of jurisdiction/legal claims at issue T.6.1.19

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), translation W.2.9.11

Working Procedures Appellate Review) (DSU 17.9), transition (WP 15) W.2.5A.1

US — Shrimp (Article 21.5 — Malaysia) (WT/DS58/AB/RW)   back to top

AB reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 17.14)

as final resolution of dispute P.4A.5, R.4.3.1

prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.5

legal effect/status, panel’s reliance on S.8.2

amicus curiae briefs A.2.1.11

NGO/association/private individual briefs A.2.1.11

discretionary power of panel to accept/reject A.2.1.11

as integral part of party’s submission A.2.1.11

party’s responsibility for A.2.1.11

environmental multilateral agreements

arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination, need to avoid E.2.1–4, G.3.12.5–7

Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (1996) as basis for comparison/benchmark E.2.4, G.3.12.7

multilateral agreement, preference for/obligation to conclude distinguished E.2.2–3

obligation to offer similar/comparable opportunities to negotiate E.2.1–4, G.3.12.5

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 12 E.2.3, G.3.12.6

General Exceptions (GATT XX) (chapeau)

application of measure as arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination G.3.11.8

“between countries where the same conditions prevail” G.3.12.5–9

conditioning of market access on same/comparable programme G.3.12.8

flexibility to take into account conditions in different exporting Members G.3.12.9

“disguised restriction on international trade” G.3.11.8

obligation to offer similar/comparable opportunities to negotiate international agreement E.2.1–4, G.3.12.5

good faith negotiation and conclusion of agreement distinguished E.2.1–3, G.3.12.5–6, P.3.1.8

preference for/obligation to conclude multilateral agreement distinguished E.2.2, G.3.12.6

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26))

equality of parties in respect of P.3.1.8

negotiation of international agreements E.2.1–2, G.3.12.5

interpretation of covered agreements, legitimate expectations, relevance, panel reports S.8.2

measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources (GATT XX(g)), jurisdictional limitation G.3.10.2

municipal law, compliance with WTO/international obligations, determination of compliance and interpretation of legislation distinguished M.5.3

oral hearing (WP 27), change of date W.2.11.1.2

panel reports

legal status

adopted reports S.8.2

unadopted reports S.8.2

precedent

AB reports S.8.2

panel reports, adopted reports S.8.2

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3)

as “essential to the effective functioning of the WTO …” P.4A.5

review of implementation of DSB rulings R.4.3.1

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5)

Appellate Body reports (DSU 17.14) R.4.3.1

competence of DSU 21.5 (compliance) panel, limitation to claims at time of referral to review panel R.4.2.2

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency)

consideration of new measure in its totality R.4.2.2

measure subject of original dispute distinguished R.4.2.2

as new claim/reassertion of old R.4.2.2

re-examination of aspects of new measures that were unchanged part of original measure R.4.3.1

objectives, prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3) R.4.3.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), hypothetical evidence S.7.3.12

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), oral hearings, passive participation in as passive observers W.2.9.4

US — Softwood Lumber IV (WT/DS257/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure

dates and deadlines, extension of deadline for submissions of participants/third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.10.1.4

replacement of AB Member on division (WP 13) W.2.5.3

withdrawal of appeal (WP 30(1)) W.2.13.1.7

amicus curiae briefs A.2.1.13

NGO/association/private individual briefs A.2.1.13

arguments not addressed or adopted by participants/third participants A.2.1.13

calculation of subsidy in terms of benefit to recipient (SCM 14)

broad interpretation, need for S.2.1.3

goods and services/adequacy of remuneration (SCM 14(d)) S.2.23.1–5

right to choose (SCM 14, chapeau) S.2.22.1–2

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis C.4.20

factual basis

alternative factual findings prepared by panel C.4.20

contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.20

sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement P.4A.9

prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.9

countervailing duties (SCM Part V)

aggregate investigation, sufficiency (SCM 19.3) S.2.27.1–2

compliance with GATT VI:3 and SCM Agreement (SCM 10) S.2.41.4–5

level, limitation to amount of existing subsidy, calculation on a per unit basis (SCM 19.4) S.2.28.1–2

non-discriminatory basis (SCM 19.3) S.2.27.1–2

preconditions (SCM 19.1), injury to domestic industry S.2.1.4

as remedy to offset benefits of subsidies S.2.1.4

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), “positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1), “objective examination”, extrapolation of examined producer/exporter findings to non-examined producers/exporters (AD 6.10) S.2.27.1 n. 189

goods and services/adequacy of remuneration as benefit (SCM 14(d)) S.2.23.1–5

“adequate” S.2.23.1

alternative market benchmark/proxy S.2.24.1–7

out-of-country benchmark S.2.23.12, S.2.24.3–7, S.2.24.8

“market conditions” S.2.22B.6, S.2.23.2, S.2.23.12

private prices/government role in market, relevance S.2.22B.9, S.2.23.3–5, S.2.24.1–7

“in relation to”/comparability requirement S.2.23.3, S.2.23.9–11

“remuneration” S.2.23.1

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2)), GATT VI/SCM Agreement, interrelationship S.2.41.4–5

dictionaries I.3.2.8

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile), multiple authentic languages (VCLT 33(3)) I.3.11.3

multiple authentic languages (VCLT 33) I.3.11.3

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) I.3.11.3

presumption of same meaning (VCLT 33(3)) I.3.11.3

narrow/broad interpretation S.2.1.3

ordinary meaning I.3.2.8

preparatory work (VCLT 32), SCM Agreement S.2.3.1 n. 35

text/plain language I.3.2.8

legislation as such, right to challenge, characterization by domestic authorities, relevance M.5.10

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.9

SCM Agreement, object and purpose, balanced framework of rights and obligations relating to countervailing duties S.2.1.3–4, S.2.1.6

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1))

direct transfer of funds (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) S.2.3.1

“bestowed directly or indirectly” (SCM 10, Footnote 36/GATT VI:3) S.2.43.1–3

government measures not amounting to S.2.3.1 n. 35

“government revenue … forgone or not collected” (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(ii)) S.2.3.1

provision of goods or services (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iii)) S.2.1.2, S.2.3.1

“goods” S.2.1.2, S.2.6.1–4

government purchases S.2.3.1, S.2.6.1

“provides goods” S.2.6.5–6

“provision” S.2.6.5–6

severability of goods attached to land, relevance S.2.6.2–4

simultaneous fulfilment of all elements, relevance S.2.6.6

transfer of economic resources from grantor to recipient for less than full consideration S.2.23.1

GATT VI:4/SCM 10 and 32.1, compatibility S.2.41.4, S.2.41.5

income or price support (SCM 1.1(a)(2)) S.2.3.1

pass-through of indirect input subsidy to countervailed product (SCM 1.1/GATT VI:3) S.2.10.1–2, S.2.43

WTO Agreement, conflict between constituent covered agreements, precedence (WTO Annex 1A) S.2.41.4

US — Softwood Lumber IV (Article 21.5 — Canada) (WT/DS257/AB/RW)   back to top

duration and review of AD duties and price undertakings/CV measures (AD 11/SCM 21), original investigation and review distinguished S.2.29.2–3

municipal law, compliance with WTO/international obligations M.5.16

oral hearing (WP 27), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.9

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), DSU 21.5 proceedings to determine compliance R.4.0.1

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5)

composition of DSU 21.5 (compliance) panel R.2.1, R.4.1.9

as continuance of original proceedings R.4.0.1, R.4.1.9

different nature of proceeding, “prejudice” allegedly resulting from R.4.5.1

“matter referred”

legal basis of claim/consistency of measure R.4.1.5

measure taken to comply, existence R.4.1.5, R.4.1.8

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency)

classification as, responsibility for R.4.1.10–11, R.4.1.15

events subsequent to DSB’s adoption of recommendations and rulings R.4.0.1

measures closely related to measure taken to comply R.4.1.12–17, R.4.1.28

“taken” R.4.1.7

procedures of normal panel distinguished R.4.0.1

prompt compliance/avoidance of new proceedings as objective R.4.1–2

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3) R.4.0.1

“taken” (DSU 21.5) R.4.1.7

US — Softwood Lumber V (WT/DS264/AB/R)   back to top

AB reports, legal effect/status, panel’s reliance on S.8.3, S.8.4

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

actual product under investigation/type or model, distinction A.3.14.8–9

comparison of weighted average normal value with weighted average of all comparable export transactions A.3.14.7, A.3.14.9

multiple averaging (AD 2.4.2) A.3.14.6, A.3.14.9–11

product types/product as a whole (AD 2.4.2) A.3.60.5

zeroing A.3.14.11

omission of “comparison” A.3.9A.1–2

sales transaction not “in the ordinary course of trade”

“consider all available evidence on the proper allocation of costs” (AD 2.2.1.1)

“all available evidence” A.3.9A.2

“consider” A.3.9A.1–2

“reasonably reflect” the costs of production (AD 2.2.1.1) A.3.9B.1–2

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), calculation of volume of dumped imports, “positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1), AD 17.6(ii), relevance A.3.60.5

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9), calculation of “all other” AD duty rate (AD 9.4), zero/de minimis margins, exclusion A.3.14.10

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], AD 17.6(ii) A.3.60.5

multiple permissible interpretations, “permissible” A.3.60.5

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.3.9A.1

precedent, AB reports S.8.3, S.8.4

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii)), “admits of more than one permissible interpretation” A.3.60.5

US — Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 — Canada) (WT/DS264/AB/RW)   back to top

AB procedure, dates and deadlines, modification (WP 16(2)), oral hearing W.2.11.1.4

acquis (GATT/WTO) (WTO XVI:1) I.3.12.1

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

in absence of comparable sales (AD 2) A.3.8A.1

comparison of weighted average normal value with weighted average of all comparable export transactions

multiple averaging (AD 2.4.2) A.3.14.14

product types/product as a whole (AD 2.4.2) A.3.65.16

transaction-to-transaction basis (AD 2.4.2) A.3.8A.1, A.3.14.14–23, A.3.28A.5, A.3.60.6

zeroing A.3.14.14–23

methodologies (AD 2.4.2), relevance of distinction A.3.14.14–23, A.3.40A.8, A.3.60.6, I.3.7.11

fair comparison (AD 2.4) A.3.12.4–5

comparison methodologies (AD 2.4.2) A.3.12.4–5

sales transaction not “in the ordinary course of trade”, zeroing (AD 2.4.2) A.3.8A.1

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9)

calculation of “all other” AD duty rate (AD 9.4), zero/de minimis margins, exclusion A.3.28A.5

prospective assessment (AD 9.3.2) A.3.40B.3

individual margins of dumping “as a rule” (AD 6.10)

“known exporter or producer” A.3.37.1.3

zeroing, applicability (AD 6.10) A.3.37.1.3, A.3.40A.8

interpretation of covered agreements

interpretation of covered agreements, same or closely related phrases in same agreement, differences between provisions of same agreement leading to the same results I.3.7.11

multiple permissible interpretations, “permissible” A.3.60.5–6

object and purpose, absence of provision/Preamble A.3.0.1

preparatory work (VCLT 32), negotiating proposals, relevance I.3.12.1, I.3.12.2

investigation of dumping (AD 5)/subsidy (SCM 11), termination (AD 5.8/SCM 11.9), zeroing, applicability A.3.28A.5

oral hearing (WP 27), change of date W.2.11.1.4

ordinary meaning of “zeroing” I.3.12.1

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II)

offsetting between tariffs on same product below and above bound rate T.1.1.4

ordinary customs duties in excess of those provided for in Schedule (GATT II:1(b)), zero rates, applicability to T.1.1.4

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii)), “admits of more than one permissible interpretation” A.3.60.6

Tokyo Round Anti-Dumping Code, status I.3.12.1

US — Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 — Canada) (WT/DS277/AB/RW, WT/DS277/AB/RW/Corr. 1)   back to top

AB procedure

dates and deadlines, modification (WP 16(2)), oral hearing W.2.11.1.3

documents (WP 18), correction of clerical errors in submissions W.2.6A.2.2

burden of proof, completion of legal analysis by AB C.4.31

causation requirement (genuine and substantial relationship) A.3.23A.1

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis

burden of proof C.4.31

factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record C.4.31

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

collective effect, need for examination A.3.26.5, S.2.24A.2

determination of actual injury and threat compared A.3.27.3

consistency with WTO agreements of all elements of causality analysis, need for A.3.23A.1

demonstration of injury, relevance (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) A.3.23A.1

import prices/effect on domestic prices/effect on demand for imports (AD 3.7(iii)/SCM 15.7(iv)), need to examine A.3.27.6–7, S.2.25B.4–5, S.3.3.20

judicial economy, panel’s obligation to produce basic rationale for decision P.1.1.7

oral hearing (WP 27), change of date W.2.11.1.3

panel reports

rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) P.1.1.7

judicial economy P.1.1.7

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5)

as a continuum of events R.4.3.12

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency)

change of explanations in redetermination, relevance R.4.3.12–13

examination of original measures/determinations R.4.1.9, R.4.3.12

panel’s deviation from reasoning of original panel, justification R.4.3.12

re-examination of aspects of new measures that were unchanged part of original measure R.4.3.12

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.3.3.19–20

“objective assessment of matter before it”, de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.4.7

“reasoned and adequate” test (investigating authorities’ explanations) S.7.4.7–14

“critical and searching” requirement S.7.4.7, S.7.4.10, S.7.4.15, S.7.4.18, S.7.5.7

obligation to consider all relevant factors, provisions of covered agreements at issue S.7.4.7

obligation to test reasonableness of the methodology in light of the alternatives S.7.4.13, S.7.4.15, S.7.5.7

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), non-applicability to covered agreements other than AD Agreement, in case of simultaneous challenge under AD and SCM Agreements A.3.58.6, S.7.1.11

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), oral presentation W.2.9.9

threat of material injury, determination/requirements (AD 3.7/SCM 15.7)

“clearly foreseen and imminent” change of circumstances A.3.27.3, S.2.25B.2, S.7.4.11–14

decisive guidance A.3.27.3, S.2.25B.1

disclosure of assumptions and extrapolations A.3.27.3, S.2.25B.1, S.7.4.11–13

“facts, not merely allegation, conjecture or remote possibility” A.3.27.3, S.2.25B.1

methodology, freedom of choice S.2.25B.5

“significant rate of increase” (AD 3.7(ii)) S.2.25B.3

“substantially increased importation” (AD 3.7(ii)) A.3.27.5, S.2.25B.2–3, S.2.25B.3

totality of factors, need to consider A.3.27.4, S.2.25B.2, S.7.4.15

US — Stainless Steel (Mexico) (WT/DS344/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure

appellant’s submission, requirements (WP 21(2)) W.2.7A.2

documents (WP 18), filing time-limits/importance of compliance with (WP 18(1)) W.2.6A.1.1–2

“fairness and orderly procedure” requirement (WP 16(1)) W.2.6A.1.2

AB reports

legal effect/status

limitation of binding effect to particular dispute between the parties C.3.1.3, S.8.1, S.8.5, W.4.1A.1

panel’s reliance on C.3.1.3, S.8.5

as precedent C.3.1.3, R.0.40.30.17, R.4.3.17, S.8.5, W.4.1A.1

abuse of discretion (panel), failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11) C.3.1.3, S.8.5

acquis (GATT/WTO) (WTO XVI:1) C.3.1.3, I.3.12.2, S.8.5

additional procedures (WP 16(1)), “appropriate procedure” (requirements/criteria), compliance with time-limits W.2.6A.8, W.2.6.1.11

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis, prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.14

issues of law/legal interpretations S.8.5

upholding, modification or reversal of legal findings and conclusions (DSU 17.13) C.3.1.3, S.8.5

competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2/DSU 11)

clarification of existing provisions C.3.1.3

“clarification” C.3.1.3, S.8.5

correct interpretation and application of covered agreements C.3.1.3, S.8.5

objective assessment of matter before it C.5.3

decision-making/exclusive authority of Ministerial Conference and General Council to adopt WTO/MTA interpretations (WTO IX:2) W.4.1A.1

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

asymmetrical comparison (AD 2.4.2, second sentence) A.3.14A.2

transaction-to-transaction basis (AD 2.4.2) A.3.14.32

zeroing, methodologies (AD 2.4.2), relevance of distinction A.3.40A.9–10

DSU, applicability (DSU 1.1), security and predictability as objective (DSU 3.2) C.3.1.3, S.8.5

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), panel’s discretion on matters of procedure (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), abuse of discretion C.3.1.3, S.8.5

dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1)

exporter-specific concept A.3.1A.3–4

product-related A.3.1A.3

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1)

product-related A.3.14.32

“for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1)/applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.40A.9–10

duration and review of AD duties and price undertakings/CV measures (AD 11/SCM 21)

duration and review of AD duties and price undertakings/CV measures (AD 11/SCM 21) A.3.44B.5

requirements (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2), link between dumping and injury A.3.44B.5

termination “immediately” following determination that duty no longer warranted (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2) A.3.44B.5

“fairness and orderly procedure” requirement (WP 16(1)) W.2.6A.1.2

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9)

assessment of AD duty (AD 9.3), determination of liability of specific importer on basis of transactions from relevant exporter A.3.40B.7

calculation of “all other” AD duty rate (AD 9.4)

prospective normal value system (AD 9.4(ii)) A.3.41A.4

zero/de minimis margins, exclusion A.3.40A.10, A.3.40A.12, A.3.65.20

margin of dumping (AD 2) as ceiling (AD 9.3) A.3.40B.7

retrospective/prospective assessment (AD 9.3.1 and AD 9.3.2)

totality of transactions over period of investigation as basis A.3.40B.6

individual margins of dumping “as a rule” (AD 6.10)

determination for exporter or producer not originally included who submits necessary information (AD 6.10.2) A.3.1A.3

“as a rule” A.3.1A.3

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], GATT VI:2/AD 9.3 A.3.65.20

multiple permissible interpretations S.7.1.13

preparatory work (VCLT 32), negotiating proposals, relevance I.3.12.2

supplementary means (VCLT 32)

in case of ambiguity I.3.10.28

in case of manifestly absurd or unreasonable result (VCLT 32(b)) I.3.10.28

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2)), translation, status W.2.7A.2

panel reports

legal status, adopted reports C.3.1.3, S.8.5

rationale, need for (DSU 12.7), security and predictability of WTO obligations (DSU 3.2), aid to C.3.1.3, S.8.5

precedent

AB reports C.3.1.3, S.7.2.19, S.8.5

importance of compliance/cogent reasons for departure from C.3.1.3, S.7.2.19, S.8.5

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.14

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

“objective assessment of matter before it”

error of law

caused by failure of understanding of legal issues C.3.1.3, S.7.2.19

failure to follow AB jurisprudence/precedent C.3.1.3

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii)), “admits of more than one permissible interpretation” A.3.60.8, S.7.1.13

Tokyo Round Anti-Dumping Code, status I.3.12.2

translation, appellant’s submission (WP 21), status W.2.7A.2

US — Steel Safeguards (WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/DS249/AB/R, WT/DS251/AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, WT/DS253/AB/R, WT/DS254/AB/R, WT/DS258/AB/R, WT/DS259/AB/R)   back to top

applicable law, determination of serious injury or threat (SG 4) S.1.20.1–2

burden of proof, unforeseen developments ((GATT XIX:1(a))) S.1.22.3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis C.4.19

in case of agreement with panel C.4.19

factual basis, contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.19

interdependent assumptions, effect of panel’s reliance on O.2.5

judicial economy S.1.32.3

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5)

collective effect, need for examination A.3.26.4

evaluation of factors known not to exist A.3.26.4

determination of serious injury or threat thereof (SG 4) (requirements)

applicable law S.1.20.1–2

evaluation of all relevant factors (SG 4.2(a))

“of an objective and quantifiable nature” (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.31.7

“factors other than increased imports” (SG 4.2(b))

imports excluded from safeguard measure as S.1.14.1

non-attribution, need for demonstration of S.1.14.2, S.1.31.7

reasoned and adequate explanation S.1.2.3, S.1.14.1–2, S.1.31.7, S.1.46.2–3

interpretation of covered agreements

dictionaries S.1.48.1

ordinary meaning S.1.8.2

same or closely related phrases in same agreement S.1.14.1

investigation of conditions for safeguard measures, requirements (SG 3.1/SG 4.2(c)) S.1.18.1–20

detailed analysis S.1.18.1, T.7.5.3

findings and reasoned conclusions S.1.18.1, S.1.22.1–3, S.7.5.3–4

broad/narrow grouping explanations, cross-application S.1.20.2

“conclusion” S.1.22.1

covering pertinent issues of fact and law S.1.18.1–2, S.1.33.1, S.1.46.2–3

applicability to unforeseen developments (GATT XIX:1(a)) S.1.47.1

demonstration of relevance of factors examined S.1.18.1, S.1.47.1

“reasoned” S.1.22.1

published report S.1.18.1, S.1.21.4

form, freedom of choice S.1.21.4

key elements

reasoned conclusions S.1.22.1–3

unforeseen developments S.1.46.2–3, S.1.47.1

“set forth” S.1.22.1

judicial economy

appellate review S.1.32.3

interdependent assumptions, reliance on O.2.4, S.1.32.1

municipal law, as applicable law, determination of serious injury or threat (SG 4) S.1.20.1–2

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2)), statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), requirements, specific reference to allegation of panel’s failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11) W.2.7.5.4

order of analysis, assumptions, panel’s right to use, interdependent assumptions O.2.5

ordinary meaning of, “result” S.1.48.1

panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) P.1.1.6

publication of analysis of case under investigation (SG 4(2)(c)) S.1.33.1

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)

characteristics, exceptional nature of remedy S.1.45.2

conditions (SG 2)

exceptional conditions, need for S.1.45.2

existence of all requirements S.1.1.2

“is being imported” (SG 2.1), as sudden and recent increase S.1.6.2

“like or directly competitive product” (SG 2.1), specific product, need for S.1.49.1–3

parallelism between SG 2.1 and SG 2.2 S.1.13.1.3

“product being imported” S.1.13.1.3

as pertinent issues of fact and law (SG 3.1) S.1.18.2, S.1.33.1

separate determinations S.1.15.1–3

decrease in import quantities at end of investigation period, relevance S.1.8.2–3

“rate and amount of the increase … in absolute and relative terms” (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.7.3–4

sufficient to cause serious injury or threat S.1.6.2

causal link, need to demonstrate S.1.31.7

trends, need to examine S.1.7.2–4

“such increased quantities”

“relative to domestic production” S.1.9.1

“as a result of unforeseen developments” (GATT XIX:1(a)) S.1.6.2–3, S.1.50.4–5

burden of proof S.1.22.3

demonstration, need for S.1.50.4–5

as pertinent issue of fact and law S.1.50.4–5

“as a result of” S.1.48.1–2

“such product” S.1.49.1–3

publication obligations (SG 4.2(c)) S.1.33.1

interpretation by reference to SG 3 (investigation) S.1.33.1

unforeseen developments, need to include S.1.33.1

standard/scope of review

assessment of the facts

objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for S.1.2.3, S.1.22.1–2, S.1.46.3

decrease in imports (SG 2.1) S.1.8.3

as preliminary to determination of causal link S.1.32.2

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), interdependent assumptions O.2.5

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.5.3–4

objective assessment of explanation, need for S.1.2.3, S.1.22.1–2, S.7.5.3–4

“reasoned and adequate” test (investigating authorities’ explanations) P.1.1.6, S.1.15.2, S.1.20.2, S.1.46.2, S.7.5.4

standard/scope of review (safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX))

assessment of the facts

objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for S.1.2.3, S.1.14.2, S.1.22.1–2, S.1.46.3

decrease in imports (SG 2.1) S.1.8.3

as preliminary to determination of causal link S.1.32.2

US — Tuna II (Mexico) (WT/DS381/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure, dates and deadlines, modification at request of parties (WP 16(2)) W.2.6.2.8

AB reports

timing of circulation (DSU 17.5/WP 26), modification

exceptional complexity W.2.10.2.13

exceptional workload W.2.10.2.13

amicus curiae briefs

NGO/association/private individual briefs A.2.1.20

consultation with participants A.2.1.20

burden of proof

legitimate regulatory distinction (TBT 2.2) T.4.2A.5.15–17

necessity test (TBT 2.2) T.4.2B.2.1–2

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, factual basis, sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement C.4.50

interpretation of covered agreements

grammar, respect for T.4.2B.1.1–2

preamble as guide to object and purpose T.4.3.13

same or closely related phrases in different agreements, GATT XI:2(a)/TBT 2.2 T.4.2B.3.1

subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation or application of the treaty (VCLT 31(3)(a)), TBT Committee Decision I.3.9A

judicial economy

false judicial economy J.1.25

judicial economy, risks J.1.25, T.4.2A.1.4

municipal law, as evidence of, characterization of technical regulation objectives (TBT 2) T.4.2B.4.1

necessity test (TBT 2.2) T.4.2B.1.1–3

burden of proof T.4.2B.2.1–2

link with legitimate objective T.4.2B.1.1–3, T.4.2B.4.2

regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4), “less favourable treatment”, detrimental effect T.4.2A.2.6, T.4.2A.5.13–17

regulatory discrimination (TBT 2.1) (“treatment no less favourable”)

burden of proof T.4.2A.3.1–2

burden of proof/evidence T.4.2A.5.15–17

calibration under TBT 2.2 distinguished T.4.2A.6

“de facto” inconsistency T.4.2A.5.14, T.4.3.10

detrimental effect T.4.2A.2.6, T.4.2A.5.13–17

labelling conditions as cause T.4.2A.5.14–17

legitimate regulatory distinctions T.4.2A.2.6, T.4.2A.5.15–17

modification of competitive market as test T.4.2A.5.13–15

MFN treatment (GATT I:1)/national treatment (GATT III:4) compared J.1.25, J.1.30, T.4.2A.1.4

non-discrimination obligation (TBT preamble, sixth recital) T.4.2B.4.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), obligation to give reasoned and coherent treatment S.7.3.73

“such other findings as will assist the DSB” (DSU 7.1/DSU 11), judicial economy J.1.25, J.1.30, T.4.2A.1.4

standards (TBT Annex 1.2)

approval authority

“activities in standardization” requirement T.4.3.8, T.4.3.11, T.4.3.15–16

“body” (TBT Annex 1.2) vs. “organization” (TBT Annex 1.2/ISO/IEC Guide) T.4.3.5

“international standardizing body” T.4.3.6

object and purpose (TBT preamble) as aid to interpretation T.4.3.13

membership “open to the relevant bodies of at least all Members” requirement T.4.3.7, T.4.3.9, T.4.3.14

regional bodies distinguished T.4.3.7

“international standard” T.4.3.3–7

ISO/IEC Guide 2: 1991 T.4.3.4–8

“standard” T.4.1.10, T.4.3.3

TBT Committee Decision

“open” membership on non-discriminatory basis T.4.3.10, T.4.3.11, T.4.3.14

principles “which should be observed” T.4.3.8

“recognized activities in standardization” T.4.3.11, T.4.3.15–16

as subsequent agreement (VCLT 31(3)(a)) I.3.9A.6, T.4.3.9

technical regulation (TBT Annex 1.1) distinguished T.4.1.10–113

TBT Agreement, terms/definitions (Annex 1), ISO/IEC Guide 2: General Terms and Their Definitions T.4.0A.1, T.4.3.4–8

“technical regulation” (TBT Annex 1.1)

“compliance” T.4.1.10

“lays down” T.4.1.10

“mandatory” T.4.1.10

mandatory labelling, relevance T.4.1.11

naming and labelling distinguished T.4.1.10, T.4.1.12

product characteristics, differential treatment based on T.4.2A.2.3, T.4.2A.2.5

“requirement” T.4.1.10

technical regulations and standards (TBT 2)

legitimate objective (TBT 2.2/2.4)

characterization as T.4.2B.4.1

degree of achievement in meeting objective T.4.2B.1.2, T.4.2B.5.2

independent and objective assessment obligation T.4.2B.4.1

non-discrimination obligation (TBT preamble, sixth recital) T.4.2B.5.1

relevance T.4.2A.2.6, T.4.2A.5.15–17

“to fulfil” T.4.2B.5.1–3

risks of non-fulfilment T.4.2B.6.1

necessity test (TBT 2.2) T.4.2B.1–3

link with legitimate objective T.4.2B.1.1–3, T.4.2B.4.2

“not more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate purpose” (TBT 2.2)

alternative measures T.4.2B.7.1–2

“For this purpose” T.4.2B.1.1

GATT XI:2(a) compared T.4.2B.3.1

“trade-restrictive” T.4.2B.3.1, T.4.2B.3.2

regulation (TBT Annex 1.1) and standard (TBT Annex 1.2) distinguished T.4.1.10–13

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), oral hearings, passive participation in, notification of intention (WP 24(4)) W.2.9.15

US — Tyres (China) (WT/DS399/AB/R)   back to top

AB reports

timing of circulation (DSU 17.5/WP 26), modification

exceptional workload W.2.10.2.10

reasons for, obligation to provide W.2.10.2.9

accession protocol (China)

causality test/methodology for determining (Art. 16.4) A.0.3.12–21

analysis of competition in OEM market A.0.3.20

analysis of conditions of competition A.0.3.17–18

causality standards in other WTO agreements (“genuine and substantial relationship”) distinguished A.0.3.13

correlation analysis between trends in imports and injury factors A.0.3.17–18, A.0.3.21–2

non-attribution analysis A.0.3.19, A.0.3.23

objective criteria A.0.3.11, A.0.3.15

panel’s discretion/ad hoc basis A.0.3.15, A.0.3.18–19

as integral part of WTO Agreement (Art. 1.2)/interpretation in accordance with VCLT A.0.1.8

interpretation [in accordance with VCLT], context (VCLT 31(2)), “other WTO agreements” A.0.2.3

market disruption requirements (Art. 16.4)

“are being imported” A.0.3.4

“either absolutely or relatively” A.0.3.3–6, A.0.3.8–9

“increasing rapidly” A.0.2.3, A.0.3.2–9

“material injury” (Art. 16.4) and “serious injury” (SG 2.1) distinguished A.0.3.13

material injury or threat of A.0.3.2

“recent past” test A.0.3.6–7

“a significant cause” A.0.2.3, A.0.3.2, A.0.3.10

“so as to be” A.0.3.11

“in such increased quantities” A.0.3.4, A.0.3.8

object and purpose A.0.3.5, A.0.3.14, I.3.6.3

transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism (Art. 16), provisions in other WTO agreements distinguished A.0.2.3

causation requirement (genuine and substantial relationship) A.0.3.13

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), classification as issue of law or fact, party’s right to characterize claim S.3.3.30

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], accession protocols A.0.1.8

context (VCLT 31(2))

article as a whole A.0.3.13

“other WTO agreements” A.0.2.3

object and purpose I.3.6.3

consistency with object and purpose of article as a whole A.0.3.5

consistency with object and purpose of treaty as a whole A.0.3.14

“rapidly increasing” imports A.0.3.2–9

same or closely related phrases in different agreements, SG 2.1/accession protocol (China), Art. 16.4 A.0.3.4

text/plain language A.0.2.3

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2)), failure to include claim under DSU on matter determined to concern a factual assessment, effect S.3.3.30

panel reports, adoption by DSB (DSU 16.4), extension of 60-day period for W.2.0.4

request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2), parallel claims S.3.3.30

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.7.3.63

information in record of investigation but not referred to in determination E.3.2.43

“objective assessment of matter before it”, de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.4.23

“reasoned and adequate” test (investigating authorities’ explanations) E.3.2.43

“critical and searching” requirement S.7.4.22, S.7.4.23, S.7.4.24

transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism (Art. 16)

transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism (Art. 16) A.0.3.1–23

general provisions (Art. 16.1) A.0.3.1

WTO Agreement, integral parts (WTO II), accession protocol (China) A.0.1.8

US — Underwear (WT/DS24/AB/R)   back to top

interpretation of covered agreements

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) I.3.7.3

ordinary meaning I.3.7.3

oral hearing (WP 27), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.3

publication and administration of trade regulations (GATT X), measures of general application (GATT X:2) P.5.2.1

retroactivity (trade measures) (ATC 6.10) R.3.1–2, T.7.7.1–2

transitional safeguards (ATC 6)

provisional application (ATC 6.11) T.7.8.1

retroactivity (ATC 6.10) R.3.1–2, T.7.7.1–2

US — Upland Cotton (WT/DS267/AB/R)   back to top

AB reports

object and purpose, fair, prompt and effective resolution of disputes B.3.1.17, C.4.25

timing of circulation of report (DSU 17.5/WP 26), modification, exceptional complexity W.2.10.2.5

AB/panel recommendations for bringing inconsistent measure into conformity (DSU 19.1), determination of status as “measure at issue” distinguished R.2.3.24

AG Agreement

domestic support commitments (AG 6), as quantitative limitation (AG 6.3) A.1.14A.1–3

GATT 1994 (AG 21.1) A.1.38.2

market access concessions and commitments (AG 4.1) A.1.8.3

primacy of AG A.1.38.2

specific provisions in AG dealing with same matter, need for A.1.38.2–9

interpretation

context (VCLT 31(2))

article as a whole (Annex 2(6)) A.1.34D.2.6

SCM Agreement A.1.38.12, S.2.12.7

treaty as a whole including annexes A.1.34C.5.1

means, same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.1.4.2

object and purpose A.1.29B.1

consistency with object and purpose of Article 10 as a whole A.1.33A.4

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion A.1.34C.2.5–6

same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.1.4.2, A.1.32A.2

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.1.34D.3.1–2

object and purpose, prevention of circumvention of export subsidy commitments (AG 10) A.1.33A.5

SCM Agreement

AG 6 and SCM 3.1(b) distinguished A.1.14A.2–3, A.1.34E.3–5, A.1.38.6, I.3.7.10

primacy of AG (SCM 3.1) A.1.38.11–13

Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) (AG 1(a)/Annex 3), substitution subsidies (AG Annex 3(7)/SCM 3.1(b)) A.1.34E.3–5, A.1.38.8

burden of proof

burden of proof A.1.29B.1, A.1.34.9–11

completion of legal analysis by AB B.3.1.17, C.4.25

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence B.3.4.5

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact

compliance/consistency with treaty obligations S.3.2.5, S.3.3.12, S.7.3.21, S.7.3.23

panel’s application of law S.2.39.5, S.3.3.17, S.7.3.24

world market, existence and competition in S.3.3.13–14

completion of legal analysis

in absence of request from party C.4.25, S.3.2.5, S.3.3.12

burden of proof B.3.1.17, C.4.25

factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record C.4.24, T.6.3.8

prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.10

issues of law/legal interpretations S.3.2.5, S.3.3.12, S.7.3.21, S.7.3.23

“covered in the panel report” S.3.1.6

“developed by the panel” S.3.1.6

obligation to address each of issues raised under DSU 17.6 during appellate proceedings (DSU 17.12) S.3.1.6, S.3.4.1–7

competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2/DSU 11), clarification of existing provisions, outside context of particular dispute S.3.4.5

consultations (DSU 4)

clarification of issues and/opportunity to define scope of dispute C.7.14, C.7.18, R.2.1.11

confidentiality (DSU 4.6) C.7.16

establishment of panel as prerequisite, scope of request for establishment of panel and request for consultations distinguished C.7.18

measure at issue (DSU 4.4)

expired measure C.7.12–15, R.2.3.13–14, T.6.3.9–10

as identified in request for establishment of panel (DSU 6.2), need for identity with C.7.18

measure affecting the operation of covered agreement (DSU 4.2) C.7.12, R.2.3.13, T.6.3.9

“affecting” C.7.11

request for (DS 4.4)

as determinant of scope C.7.16, R.2.1.11

identification of measures at issue C.7.17

notification to DSB C.7.16

writing, need for C.7.16

consultations (SCM 4.1-4.4), “statement of available evidence” (SCM 4.2) E.3.2.8, S.2.18.3

domestic support commitments (AG 6), “subsidies contingent … upon the use of domestic over imported goods” (SCM 3.1(b)) distinguished A.1.14A.2–3, A.1.34E.3–5, A.1.38.2–12, I.3.7.10

domestic support measures, calculation of AMS (AG Annex 3)

applicability to non-“green box” support (AG 13(b)(ii)) A.1.34C.5.1

measures directed at processors benefitting producers (Annex 3(7)) A.1.34E.1–5

inclusion in AMS limited to portion benefitting producer A.1.34E.2

domestic support measures, exemption from GATT XVI and SCM Part III measures (AG 13) (“due restraint” (peace clause))

“green box” support (AG 13(a)) A.1.34C.1.1–2

non-“green box” support (AG 13(b)) A.1.34C.1.2, A.1.34C.2, A.1.34C.2.1–6, A.1.34C.3.1–4

“such measures do not grant support to a specific commodity in excess of” (AG 13(b)(ii)) A.1.34C.2.1–6, A.1.34C.3.1–4

actual support requirement A.1.34C.3.1

calculation method (AMS methodology (AG Annex 3)) A.1.34C.5.1

“commodity” A.1.34C.2.2

“grant” and “decided” distinguished A.1.34C.4.1–2

“specific” A.1.34C.2.3–4, A.1.34C.3.1–4

“such measures” A.1.34C.2.5–6

“support” A.1.34C.2.2

domestic support measures, exemption from reduction commitments (AG Annex 2) (“green box”) A.1.34C.1.1–2

decoupled income support (Annex 2(6)) A.1.34C.1.2, A.1.34D.2.1–9

amount of payments and type or volume of production, separation requirement (Annex 2(6)(b)) A.1.34D.2.1–9

lawful production, limitation to A.1.34D.2.9

“no production” (Annex 2(6)(e)) distinguished A.1.34D.2.7–8

structural adjustment assistance (Annex 2(11)) distinguished A.1.34D.3.1–2

clearly-defined criteria in defined period requirement (Annex 2(6)(a)) A.1.34D.2.1

“fundamental requirement” (Annex 2(1)) A.1.34D.1.1–2

structural adjustment assistance (Annex 2(11)), requirement not to produce a particular product, limitation to A.1.34D.3.1–2

export subsidy commitments (AG 9), “contingent on export performance” (AG 9.1(a)) A.1.16A.1

export subsidy commitments (prevention of circumvention (AG 10.1))

“circumvention”

actual circumvention

obligation of Panel to analyze a claim in respect of all relevant products A.1.32.6

sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement A.1.32.7–8

threat of circumvention A.1.32A.1–8, M.1.10

obligation to take precautionary steps, whether A.1.32A.4, A.1.32A.7

relevance where actual circumvention already established A.1.32A.8

export credit guarantees A.1.33A.9

export credit guarantees (AG 10.2)

analysis of claims relating to as preliminary to consideration of compliance with AG 10.1 A.1.33A.9–10

conformity after international agreement on disciplines A.1.33A.1

obligations prior to agreement A.1.33A.5, A.1.33A.7

preparatory work (VCLT 32) A.1.33A.7

development of internationally agreed disciplines A.1.33A.1

“except as provided in the Agreement on Agriculture” (SCM 3.1(b)), applicability S.2.11.2

exception to AG 10.1, whether A.1.33A.2–9, A.1.38.13

“export subsidies not listed in Article 9.1”, export credit guarantees A.1.4.4, A.1.33.2, A.1.33A.2–9

food aid transactions (AG 10.4) A.1.29B.1, A.1.32B.1, A.1.33A.6, A.1.34B.1–2

exception to AG 10.1, whether A.1.34B.1–2

legal entitlement/discretionary element, relevance A.1.32A.5–6, M.1.10

“non-commercial transactions”, food aid A.1.32B.1

export subsidy commitments (prevention of circumvention (AG 10.1)), reversal of burden of proof

“establish” A.1.34.9

SCM claims, applicability to A.1.34.10, B.3.4.3, B.3.4.4, S.2.39.2–8

unscheduled products, applicability to A.1.34.11, B.3.4.4

food aid transactions (AG 10.4) A.1.29B.1, A.1.32B.1, A.1.33A.6, A.1.34B.1–2

“non-commercial transactions”, whether A.1.32B.1

Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I)

export credit guarantee or insurance (item (j)) S.2.39.2–8

as contextual guidance for analysis of AG 10.3 claims A.1.34.10, A.1.38.14, B.3.4.3

failure to cover long-term operating costs and losses S.2.9A.3

failure to cover long-term operating costs and losses (item (j)) S.2.39.2–8

impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member, prompt settlement (DSU 3.3) S.3.4.4

measure as source of alleged impairment requirement, expired measure C.7.15, P.4A.10

“a Member considers” P.4A.10

implementation of panel or AB recommendations (DSU 19.1)

expired measures I.0.1, I.0.14

SCM 7.8 and I.0.1, S.2.19C.1

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2))

AG 2/SCM Agreement Illustrative List A.1.34.10, A.1.38.14, B.3.4.3

article as a whole A.1.34D.2.6

“other WTO agreements”/treaties included as “integral parts” of WTO (WTO II:2) A.1.38.10

treaty/treaties as a whole A.1.34C.5.1

dictionaries S.2.19B.1.3

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile), meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase A.1.38.10, I.3.7.10

Members’ practice in notifying export credit guarantee programmes, relevance I.3.9.5

multiple authentic languages (VCLT 33), presumption of same meaning (VCLT 33(3)) I.3.11.5

object and purpose

consistency with object and purpose of article as a whole A.1.33A.4

preamble as evidence of A.1.29B.1

preamble/chapeau as evidence of A.1.34C.2.5–6, A.1.38.8

ordinary meaning A.1.32A.1, C.7.12, M.1.10

preparatory work (VCLT 32), AG Agreement A.1.33A.7, I.3.10.12

same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.1.4.2, A.1.32A.2

context, relevance S.2.19B.5.3

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.1.34D.3.1–2

supplementary means (VCLT 32), in case of ambiguity I.3.10.12

title A.1.29B.1

judicial economy S.3.2.6

mootness of panel findings M.3.4–6

panel’s discretionary power to determine which claims must be examined J.1.15–18, S.2.9A.3, S.2.39.8

“positive solution to dispute” requirement S.3.4.1–7

least-developed countries, special dispute settlement procedures (DSU 24), particular consideration to be given to special situation of (DSU 24.1) L.0.1

legislation as such, right to challenge L.1.23

market access concessions and commitments (AG 4.1), consistency with GATT XIII A.1.8.3, A.1.38.9

measure at issue (DSU 4.4), measure affecting the operation of covered agreement (DSU 4.2), “affecting” C.7.11–13

mootness of panel findings, judicial economy M.3.4–6

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2)), statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), illustrative list, sufficiency W.2.7.3.3

order of analysis

panel’s right to determine O.2.10

SCM 6.3(c) (existence of price suppression/price suppression as result of subsidy) O.2.9

ordinary meaning of

“market” S.2.19B.1.3–5

“specific” A.1.34C.2.3

“such measures” A.1.34C.2.4

“suppression” O.2.9, S.2.19B.4.2, S.2.19B.4.3

panel reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 16.4), findings unchallenged by parties S.2.19A.2

rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) S.2.19B.5.6, S.7.3.22

price suppression as effect of subsidy (SCM 6.3(c))

“effect of subsidy” (causal link) S.2.19B.5.1–6

causation provisions in AG and AD Agreements and SCM Part V compared S.2.19B.5.3

“effect of” S.2.19B.5.2

significant price suppression as suggestive of S.2.19B.5.4

time limitation, whether S.2.19B.8.1–5

as evidence ipso facto of serious prejudice under SCM 5(c) S.2.19A.1–2

methodology for determining S.2.19B.4.2, S.2.19B.5.1–6

magnitude of subsidy, relevance S.2.19B.6.1–4

panel’s discretion A.0.3.19, S.2.19B.1, S.2.19B.5.1–6

relevant factors S.2.19B.5.1–6

non-attribution analysis A.0.3.19

order of analysis O.2.9, S.2.19A.1, S.2.19B.0.1

“otherwise” O.2.9

price depression/suppression distinguished S.2.19B.4.2

relevant market S.2.19B.1.1–6

“in the same market” S.2.19B.1.5–6

relevant price S.2.19B.4.1

“significant” S.2.19B.4.2

“suppression” O.2.9

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3)

completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.10

recommendations and rulings of DSB (DSU 3.4) S.3.3.1, S.3.4.1, S.3.4.4–7

“resulted”

SCM 6.2 S.2.19B.8.3

SCM 7.8 I.0.1, S.2.19C.1

SCM Agreement

interpretation

ordinary meaning O.2.9

same or closely related phrases in same agreement S.2.19B.6.3

separate opinion (WP 3(2)/DSU 17.11) W.2.3A.1–2

serious prejudice (SCM 6)

displacement of or impediment to exports, “over an appropriately representative period” S.2.19B.8.4

evidence of

information submitted to or obtained by panel including information submitted under SCM Annex V S.2.19B.6.3–4

price trends, relevance S.2.19B.4.4, S.2.19B.4.12

methodology for determining, relevant factors S.2.19B.4.4

pass-through of indirect subsidies S.2.10.3, S.2.19B.7.1–2

“resulted” (SCM 6.2) S.2.19B.8.3

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2), expired measure C.7.12–15, R.2.3.13–14, T.6.3.9–10

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

in absence of party’s claim relating to S.3.2.4–5, S.7.3.21, S.7.3.23, W.2.7.5.6

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

discretion in selection of relevant evidence S.3.3.16

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.3.3.15

obligation to gather and analyze factual data S.2.19B.5.6, S.7.3.22

“objective assessment of matter before it”, error of law, burden of proof/prima facie case, failure to apply correctly S.2.39.3–6

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7), positive solution as aim S.3.4.1, S.3.4.5

subsidies, prohibited (SCM Part II)

“contingent upon export performance” (SCM 3.1(a)) A.1.4.2–4, A.1.38.12, S.2.12.7–12

burden of proof, requirement to show proof of exportation, relevance A.1.4.3, S.2.12.12

“contingent” S.2.12.8, S.2.15.3

eligibility of domestic users for payments under different conditions, relevance A.1.4.3, S.2.12.9, S.2.12.12

“in law or in fact”, “tied to” (Footnote 4) S.2.12.8

subsidy available to property produced either within or outside subsidising State S.2.12.9–12

“contingent upon the use of domestic over imported products” (SCM 3.1(b)) S.2.15.3

“except as provided in the Agreement on Agriculture” (SCM 3.1(a)), export credit guarantees, applicability to S.2.11.2

“except as provided in the Agreement on Agriculture” (SCM 3.1(b)), import substitution subsidies A.1.38.8, S.2.14A.1–7

“in law”, burden of proof, legislation, regulation or other legal instrument constituting measure as evidence of S.2.13.5

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)), export credit guarantee S.2.9A.3

non-exhaustive nature of AG 1(e) A.1.4.4, A.1.33A.3

pass-through of indirect input subsidy to countervailed product (SCM 1.1/GATT VI:3) S.2.10.3, S.2.19B.7.1

serious prejudice (SCM 5(c) and 6.3(c)) distinguished S.2.10.3, S.2.19B.7.1–2

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), request for establishment of panel as basis R.2.1.11

“threat” (AG 10.1) A.1.32A.1, M.1.10

withdrawal of subsidy/removal of adverse effects (SCM 7.8), expired measure, applicability to I.0.1, S.2.19C.1

US — Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 — Brazil) (WT/DS267/AB/RW)   back to top

AB procedure

dates and deadlines, extension of deadline for submissions of participants/third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.10.1.6

extension of deadline for circulation of AB report W.2.10.1.6

exceptional complexity W.2.10.2.6

AB reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 17.14), parties’ obligation to accept R.4.3.18

timing of circulation (DSU 17.5/WP 26), modification, exceptional complexity W.2.10.2.6

burden of proof

standard of proof

conflicting outcomes with similar probabilities B.3.1.20–21, S.2.39.10

“evidence which further convinced [the Panel]” B.3.1.20, S.2.39.10

causation requirement (genuine and substantial relationship) S.2.19B.5.10

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.15

Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I)

export credit guarantee or insurance (item (j)) S.2.39.9–13

access to government funds as test of profitability S.2.39.13

analysis of risk, relevance S.2.39.12

burden of proof B.3.1.20–21, S.2.39.10

structure, design and operation of system, relevance B.3.1.21, S.2.19B.4.5, S.2.19B.6.5, S.2.39.9–10, S.2.39.12–13

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21), choice of means at Member’s discretion, legislative/administrative action R.4.1.26–30

panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) S.2.19B.5.10

price suppression as effect of subsidy (SCM 6.3(c))

causation requirement (genuine and substantial relationship) S.2.19B.5.10

“effect of subsidy” (causal link) S.2.19B.5.7–11

“effect of” S.2.19B.5.9

market insulation as a result of price-contingent subsidies S.2.19B.10.1–2

significant price suppression as suggestive of S.2.19B.5.9

time limitation, whether S.2.19B.8.6–7

methodology for determining S.2.19B.5.7, S.2.19B.6.5

“but for” test S.2.19B.5.8, S.2.19B.5.10, S.2.19B.5.13, S.2.19B.5.21

counterfactual analysis S.2.19B.4.5, S.2.19B.4.6, S.2.19B.5.7, S.2.19B.5.8, S.2.19B.5.10

magnitude of subsidy, relevance S.2.19B.6.5

panel’s discretion S.2.19B.5.10

unitary vs. two-step approach S.2.19B.5.7

objective assessment requirement S.2.19B.5.10

order of analysis O.2.9, S.2.19B.4.4–5

price depression/suppression distinguished S.2.19B.4.5

“significant” S.2.19B.4.7–10

“suppression” S.2.19B.4.2, S.2.19B.4.5

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.15

“reasonable period of time” (DSU 21.3)/relevant factors, finding of inconsistency of measure taken to comply with WTO obligations R.4.1.28

remedies for actionable subsidies (SCM 7), prospective nature S.2.19C.2

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5)

as a continuum of events R.4.3.19

finality of panel/AB report R.4.3.18

“matter referred”

legal basis of claim/consistency of measure R.4.0.3

measure taken to comply, existence R.4.0.3

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO-consistency)

finding of inconsistency of new measure, effect on “reasonable period” for compliance (DSU 21.3) R.4.1.28

measures broader than strictly required R.4.1.26–R.4.1.30

panel’s deviation from reasoning of original panel, justification R.4.3.19–R.4.3.20

recurring annual payments maintained beyond reasonable period (DSU 21.3) R.4.1.30

as new claim/reassertion of old R.4.2.5–R.4.2.6, R.4.3.18

objectives, prompt compliance/avoidance of new proceedings P.4A.10, R.4.0.4, R.4.1.30

serious prejudice (SCM 6)

subsidy programme and payments under, distinguishability R.4.1.29–R.4.1.30, S.2.19B.0.2

threat of S.2.19B.9.1

special or additional rules and procedures for dispute settlement (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2), SCM 7.8 as S.2.19C.2

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.3.3.23–24, S.7.3.47

obligation to give reasoned and coherent treatment E.3.2.34, S.7.3.42

obligation to treat parties’ evidence consistently and even-handedly E.3.2.33, S.7.3.41

“objective assessment of matter before it”

error of law, failure to draw correct legal inferences (SCM 6.3(c)) S.3.3.21–22, S.7.3.45

mixed issues of fact and law, difficulty of distinguishing S.3.3.21, S.7.3.44

objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for S.2.19B.5.11, S.7.3.43–45

withdrawal of subsidy/removal of adverse effects (SCM 7.8) S.2.19C.2

as double-pronged option S.2.19C.2

expired measure, applicability to S.2.19C.2

recurring annual payments (DSU 21.5 compliance requirement) R.4.1.30

as special or additional rule (DSU 1.2) S.2.19C.2

US — Wheat Gluten (WT/DS166/AB/R)   back to top

burden of proof, substitution of AB’s assessment, exclusion S.7.3.11A, S.7.3.11A

causation requirement (genuine and substantial relationship) S.1.30.1, S.1.30.2

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), classification as issue of law or fact, credibility and weight of evidence S.3.3.7

determination of serious injury or threat thereof (SG 4) (requirements)

evaluation of all relevant factors (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.26.2–S.1.26.4, S.1.35.2

“factors other than increased imports” (SG 4.2(b))

“at the same time” S.1.29.2–3

methodology S.1.30.1, S.1.35.2

non-attribution, need for demonstration of S.1.30.1, S.1.31.2

obligation of competent authorities to seek information additional to that supplied by interested parties S.1.26.2

“under such conditions” (SG 2.1), equivalence S.1.12.1

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), opportunity to respond to evidence/presentations of other parties S.1.19.2

inferences from party’s refusal to provide information DSU 13 I.1.3–6

panel’s discretion (DSU 11) I.1.4, I.1.6

panel’s obligation to make objective assessment of facts (DSU 11) I.1.3

failure to draw inferences as error of law I.1.5–6

refusal to provide information as a “fact” I.1.5–6

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (DSU 13), refusal to provide, effect on prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3) I.1.3–6

interpretation of covered agreements

ordinary meaning S.1.19.1

same or closely related phrases in same agreement S.1.13.1.1

“investigation” S.1.19.1

investigation of conditions for safeguard measures, requirements (SG 3.1/SG 4.2(c))

evaluation of all factors S.1.19.3

obligation of competent authorities to seek information additional to that supplied by interested parties S.1.26.2

interested parties

notification to S.1.19.2

opportunity to respond to presentations of other parties S.1.19.2

opportunity to submit evidence and views S.1.19.2

judicial economy J.1.11

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2))

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)) I.1.6

explanation for allegation of error I.1.6

identification of facts requiring panel to draw inferences I.1.6

indication of appropriate factual or legal inferences I.1.6

ordinary meaning of, “immediately” S.1.40.2

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), refusal of party to provide information requested under DSU 13, effect I.1.3–6

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)

conditions (SG 2)

causation (SG 2.1)

“imports”/“conditions” S.1.11.1

relevant factors (SG 4.2(a))/“under such conditions” (SG 2.1), equivalence S.1.12.1

parallelism between SG 2.1 and SG 2.2 S.1.13.1.1

“product being imported” S.1.13.1.1

“such increased quantities”, sufficient to cause serious injury or threat S.1.30.1

level of concessions (SG 8)

“equivalent” S.1.38.1

adequate opportunity for prior consultations (SG 12.3) S.1.38.1

notification and consultation (SG 12)

adequate opportunity for prior consultations (SG 12.3) S.1.42.1

level of concessions (SG 8.1) S.1.38.1

of all pertinent information (SG 12.2) S.1.41.3

“immediately” (SG 12.1, chapeau) S.1.40.1–3, S.1.41.3

taking of decision as critical factor (SG 12.3) S.1.40.3

timing (SG 12.1)/content (SG 12.2) distinguished S.1.41.3

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.3.3.7

as legal question S.7.3.11A, S.7.3.11A

substitution of AB’s assessment, exclusion S.7.3.11A, S.7.3.11A

“reasoned and adequate” test (investigating authorities’ explanations) S.7.4.1

US — Wool Shirts and Blouses (WT/DS33/AB/R)   back to top

burden of proof B.3.1.1–2

affirmative defences B.3.3.2

defences and exceptions, GATT XX (general exceptions) B.3.3.2

GATT XX (general exceptions) B.3.3.2

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence B.3.1.1–2

defences/exceptions B.3.3.2

presumption of consistency of measures taken to comply with WTO obligations, as general principle of evidence B.3.1.1

prima facie case B.3.2.1

reversal in case of establishment of prima facie case B.3.1.1–2

standard of proof B.3.2.1

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), upholding, modification or reversal of legal findings and conclusions (DSU 17.13) S.3.1.2

interpretation of covered agreements, context (VCLT 31(2)), treaty/treaties as a whole T.7.1.1

judicial economy C.3.2.1, J.1.1–3

panel’s discretionary power to determine which claims must be examined, right to examine legal issues beyond those strictly necessary for resolution of dispute J.1.3

transitional safeguards (ATC 6), as balance of rights and obligations T.7.1.1

US — Zeroing (EC) (WT/DS294/AB/R)   back to top

acquis (GATT/WTO) (WTO XVI:1) A.3.62.5

applicable law, laws, regulations and administrative procedures (AD 18.4), determination of status as A.3.62.5

burden of proof

legislation as such challenge C.4.32–33, L.1.18

panel’s right to seek information and advice (DSU 13/SPS 11.2), relevance B.3.2.21

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record C.4.32–33

conditional appeal, non-fulfilment of condition C.5.5, M.3.10

conformity of domestic laws, regulations and administrative procedures with AD provisions, obligation to ensure (AD 18.4)

“laws, regulations and administrative procedures” A.3.62.5

determination of legal status as by reference to WTO law A.3.62.5

line of computer code for incorporation into anti-dumping proceeding, whether L.1.20

written instrument, need for L.1.17–19, S.7.2.13

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

comparison of weighted average normal value with weighted average of all comparable export transactions, product types/product as a whole (AD 2.4.2) A.3.14.12–13, A.3.65.12

method, right to choose, GATT VI:2 A.3.40A.3–6

zeroing, methodologies (AD 2.4.2), relevance of distinction A.3.14.12–13, A.3.40A.7

calculation of normal value, eligible transactions (AD 2.1), relationship with other AD provisions A.3.8.2

“due allowance … for differences which affect price comparability” A.3.13A.1–2

fair comparison (AD 2.4) A.3.12.2–3

assessment of AD duty (AD 9.3), applicability to A.3.12.2–3

comparison methodologies (AD 2.4.2) A.3.12.3

margin of dumping (AD 2) as ceiling (AD 9.3) A.3.40A.4, A.3.65.14

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), “for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1)/applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.8.2

duration and review of AD duties and price undertakings/CV measures (AD 11/SCM 21), reassessment of cash-deposit rate, relevance A.3.44B.4, A.3.44B.4

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), panel’s authority to control process for informing itself of facts and legal norms B.3.2.21

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12), “margin of dumping” (AD 9.3) A.3.40A.3

good faith compliance with WTO obligations (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), view of Member that benefits are being impaired or nullified (AD 17.3) L.1.17

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9)

assessment of AD duty (AD 9.3), fair comparison (AD 2.4), applicability A.3.12.2–3

margin of dumping (AD 2) as ceiling (AD 9.3) A.3.40A.2–7, A.3.65.13–15

methodology, freedom of choice A.3.40A.5–6, A.3.65.14

“product as a whole” A.3.40A.2

zeroing, applicability A.3.40A.7

individual margins of dumping “as a rule” (AD 6.10), “known exporter or producer” A.3.37.1.2

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (DSU 13), burden of proof B.3.2.21

interpretation of covered agreements

acquis (GATT/WTO) (WTO XVI:1) A.3.62.5

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], AD 17.6(ii) A.3.40A.6, A.3.65.15

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.3.8.2

judicial economy

mootness of panel findings A.3.12.3, C.4.33

“positive solution to dispute” requirement J.1.22

legal basis for consultation/claim (AD 17.3/AD 17.4), good faith view of Member (“considers”) that benefits are being impaired or nullified (AD 17.3) L.1.17

legislation as such, right to challenge

burden of proof C.4.32–33, L.1.18

challenge to system as a whole distinguished L.1.21

mandatory/discretionary legislation, distinguishability, panel’s obligation to examine status S.7.3.31

normative instrument, in absence of written instrument L.1.18–19, S.7.2.13

mootness of panel findings M.3.8–10

judicial economy A.3.12.3, C.4.33

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2)), statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), requirements, specific reference to allegation of panel’s failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11) S.7.2.14

panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) L.1.19, S.7.3.31

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), right to ask clarifying questions S.7.2.13–14

“objective assessment of matter before it”

failure to apply mandatory/discretionary legislation distinction in analysis S.7.3.31

failure to distinguish between existence of measure and its WTO-consistency L.1.19

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), timing of submission W.2.9.10

US — Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review (WT/DS244/AB/R), legislation as such, right to challenge, mandatory/discretionary legislation, distinguishability, panel’s obligation to examine status M.1.11

US — Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 — EC) (WT/DS294/AB/RW, WT/DS294/AB/RW/Corr.1)   back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

compétence de la compétence W.2.11.3.7

issues of law/legal interpretations, new evidence/evidence not before panel S.3.1.9

composition of panels (DSU 8)

citizens of parties to dispute (DSU 8.3) D.2.2.31

determination by Director-General (DSU 8.7), discretion/consultation with parties D.2.2.31

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2)

interrelationship between DSU 17.10 and DSU 18.2 W.2.11.3.7

non-confidential summary confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2) W.2.11.3.7

open oral hearing (WP 27) W.2.11.3.7–W.2.11.3.8

as relational and time-bound concept W.2.11.3.7

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), panel’s obligation to address issues raised by parties (DSU 7.2/12.7) D.2.2.31

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in appellate proceedings) (DSU 17.6), new evidence/evidence not before panel S.3.1.9

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21), subsequent measure superseding measure at issue in original proceedings, applicability of compliance obligation R.4.3.21

implementation of panel/AB recommendations, right of panel/AB to make suggestions for (DSU 19.1), discretionary nature of right I.0.10

order of analysis, panel’s right to depart from order suggested by complainant O.2.12

“reasonable period of time” (DSU 21.3)/relevant factors

administrative review determination issued after end of reasonable period, effect R.4.3.22–R.4.3.25

DSU 21.5 compliance proceedings, dependence on elapse of R.4.0.6

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5)

“matter referred”, measure taken to comply, existence R.4.1.34–R.4.1.38

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO-consistency)

events subsequent to establishment of compliance panel, sunset review continuation order (AD 11.3) R.4.0.7

examination in light of DSB recommendations and rulings R.4.1.34

measures closely related to measure taken to comply R.4.1.35–38, R.4.3.24–26

measures incorporating unchallenged aspects of old measures R.4.2.7–8

as new claim/reassertion of old R.4.2.7–8

“taken to comply” R.4.1.35–38, W.2.3A.4

timing of measure, relevance R.4.1.35

separate opinion (WP 3(2)/DSU 17.11) W.2.3A.3–4

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2), AD “measure” qualifying for DSB proceedings (AD 17.4) A.3.56.10

sunset review (AD 11.3), continuation order issued after establishment of DSU 21.5 compliance panel, panel’s right/obligation to consider R.4.0.7

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), oral presentation W.2.11.3.7

US — Zeroing (Japan) (WT/DS322/AB/R)   back to top

AB procedure, documents (WP 18), correction of clerical errors in submissions W.2.6A.2.4

consultations (DSU 4), request for (DS 4.4), identification of measures at issue, degree of precision C.7.24, T.6.1.21

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

actual product under investigation/type or model, distinction A.3.14.24, A.3.14.26, A.3.39.2

asymmetrical comparison (AD 2.4.2, second sentence) A.3.14A.1

transaction-to-transaction basis (AD 2.4.2) A.3.14.24–31

zeroing, methodologies (AD 2.4.2), relevance of distinction A.3.60.7

fair comparison (AD 2.4) A.3.12.6–7

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), substantive obligations as focus of AD 3, underlying principles (AD 3.1) A.3.15.2

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1)

AD 2.1/GATT VI:1 as definitional provisions not imposing independent obligations A.3.8.4, A.3.65.19

exporter-specific concept A.3.1A.1–2

margin of dumping (GATT VI:2) A.3.1A, A.3.65.17

product-related A.3.1A.1–2, A.3.65.17

“for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1)/applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.1A.1, A.3.8.3–4

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9)

calculation of “all other” AD duty rate (AD 9.4)

method, absence of provision/neutrality A.3.41A.3

prospective normal value system (AD 9.4(ii)) A.3.41A.1–3

zero/de minimis margins, exclusion A.3.49.4, A.3.65.18

new shipper reviews (AD 9.5) A.3.44A.2–3

zeroing A.3.44A.3

retrospective assessment (AD 9.3.1) A.3.40B.4–5

Footnote 20 to AD 9.3.1 (observance of time-limits) A.3.40C.1–2

individual margins of dumping “as a rule” (AD 6.10), “as a rule” A.3.1A.1

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], AD 17.6(ii) A.3.60.7

“for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1)/applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.39.2

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence E.3.2.20–23, S.7.3.33–36

obligation to support findings from evidence in panel record E.3.2.20, S.7.3.33

party’s obligation to provide evidence to support its argument E.3.2.23

sunset review (AD 11.3), “likelihood” test, relevant factors, WTO-inconsistent methodology A.3.49.4

US — Zeroing (Japan) (Article 21.5 — Japan) (WT/DS322/AB/RW)   back to top

Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD)/GATT 1994 VI relationship, AD Agreement as agreement on implementation of the GATT VI A.3.64.3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), compétence de la compétence W.2.11.3.8–W.2.11.3.9

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2)

disclosure of parties’ own statements (DSU 18.2) W.2.11.3.9

interrelationship between DSU 17.10 and DSU 18.2 W.2.11.3.9

open oral hearing (WP 27) W.2.11.3.9–10

as relational and time-bound concept W.2.11.3.9

domestic judicial proceedings, compliance obligation (DSU 21) A.3.40C.1–2, A.3.53B.1–2, M.5.18, R.4.0.12–13

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

notification to respondents and possible third parties of nature and parameters of case D.2.2.32

request for establishment of panel (DSU 6.2) D.2.2.32

failure to rectify WTO-inconsistent measures within, effect on DSU 21.5 compliance proceedings R.4.0.9–13

impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member, prompt settlement (DSU 3.3), DSU 21.5 proceedings to determine compliance R.2.5.6, T.5.11, T.6.3.20

interpretation of covered agreements, context (VCLT 31(2)), GATT II:1(b)/GATT II:2(a) A.3.64.3, T.1.1.9

judicial economy, unchallenged panel finding A.3.64.3

judicial review (AD 13/SCM 23)

relevance to compliance with DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.3) obligation A.3.53B.1–2, M.5.18

special or additional rules and procedures (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2), AD 13/Footnote to AD 9, whether S.5.5

“reasonable period of time” (DSU 21.3)

domestic judicial proceedings A.3.40C.1–2, A.3.53B.1–2, M.5.18, R.4.0.12–13

modification by DSU 21.5 compliance panel, exclusion R.4.0.8

pending judicial review (AD 13) A.3.53B.2, M.5.18

request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2), compliance panel (DSU 21.5), applicability to R.2.5.4–R.2.5.6

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5)

applicability of DSU 6.2 (requirements for establishment of panel) R.2.5.4–R.2.5.6

“specific measures at issue”/“brief summary of complaint”, required elements R.2.5.5–R.2.5.6

measures that “have a bearing on compliance” R.2.5.6, T.6.3.18

competence of DSU 21.5 (compliance) panel

events subsequent to DSB’s adoption of recommendations and rulings R.4.0.10

modification of “reasonable period of time” (DSU 21.3), exclusion R.4.0.8

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO-consistency)

measures completed during Article 21.5 proceedings P.4A.20

measures not automatically derived from challenged review R.4.0.12

objectives

prompt compliance/avoidance of new proceedings R.2.5.6

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3) P.4A.20

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II), ordinary customs duties in excess of those provided for in Schedule (GATT II:1(b)), GATT II:2(a), interrelationship with A.3.64.3, T.1.1.9

special or additional rules and procedures for dispute settlement (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2), AD 13/Footnote to AD 9, whether S.5.5

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2)

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1), “specific”, generic term, sufficiency R.2.3.29

measure subsequent to establishment of panel [having the “same effect”] R.2.3.30, T.6.3.19–21

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7), positive solution as aim R.2.5.6

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), obligations, to notify respondents and potential third parties of nature and parameters of dispute D.2.2.32, R.2.1.15

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), oral hearings, passive participation in W.2.11.3.9