|
ON THIS PAGE:
> Guatemala — Cement I,
para. 64
> Guatemala — Cement I,
para. 65
> Guatemala — Cement I,
paras. 67-68
> US — Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset
Review, footnote 82 to para. 83
|
S.5.1 Guatemala —
Cement I,
para. 64 back to top
(WT/DS60/AB/R)
… Article 17.3 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement is not listed in Appendix 2 of the DSU as a special or
additional rule and procedure. It is not listed precisely because it
provides the legal basis for consultations to be requested by a
complaining Member under the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Indeed, it
is the equivalent provision in the Anti-Dumping Agreement to
Articles XXII and XXIII of the GATT 1994, which serve as the basis for
consultations and dispute settlement under the GATT 1994, under most
of the other agreements in Annex 1A of the Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”),
and under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (the “TRIPS Agreement”).
S.5.2 Guatemala — Cement I,
para. 65 back to top
(WT/DS60/AB/R)
… it is only where the provisions of the
DSU and the special or additional rules and procedures of a covered
agreement cannot be read as complementing each other
that the special or additional provisions are to prevail. A
special or additional provision should only be found to prevail
over a provision of the DSU in a situation where adherence to the one
provision will lead to a violation of the other provision, that is, in
the case of a conflict between them. An interpreter must,
therefore, identify an inconsistency or a difference
between a provision of the DSU and a special or additional provision
of a covered agreement before concluding that the latter prevails
and that the provision of the DSU does not apply.
S.5.3 Guatemala — Cement I,
paras. 67-68 back to top
(WT/DS60/AB/R)
Clearly, the consultation and dispute
settlement provisions of a covered agreement are not meant to replace,
as a coherent system of dispute settlement for that agreement, the
rules and procedures of the DSU. To read Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement as replacing the DSU system as a whole is to deny
the integrated nature of the WTO dispute settlement system established
by Article 1.1 of the DSU. …
… we conclude that the Panel erred in
finding that Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement “provides
for a coherent set of rules for dispute settlement specific to
anti-dumping cases … that replaces the more general approach of the
DSU.”
S.5.4 US — Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset
Review,
footnote 82 to para. 83 back to top
(WT/DS244/AB/R)
… We recall, that Article 1.1 of the DSU
applies the rules and procedures contained in the DSU to “disputes
brought pursuant to the consultation and dispute settlement provisions
of the agreements listed in Appendix 1”, but that this general rule
is, under Article 1.2 of the DSU, subject to the special or additional
rules and procedures on dispute settlement identified in Appendix 2 to
the DSU. The Anti-Dumping Agreement is listed as a covered
agreement in Appendix 1 of the DSU. Articles 17.4 through 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement are listed as special or additional rules in Appendix 2
to the DSU.
|
The texts reproduced here do not have the legal standing of the original
documents which are entrusted and kept at the WTO Secretariat in Geneva.
|
