SUBJECT INDEX BY CASE: APPELLATE BODY REPORTS

A

 

Index: A  B  C-D  E-F  G-H  I  J  K-L  M-S  T  U-Z 


ON THIS PAGE:

> Argentina — Footwear (EC)
> Argentina — Textiles and Apparel
> Australia — Apples
> Australia — Salmon

Argentina — Footwear (EC) (WT/DS121/AB/R)     back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis C.4.6

in case of agreement with panel C.4.6

factual basis, contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.6

upholding, modification or reversal of legal findings and conclusions (DSU 17.13), panel finding not appealed S.1.16.3

competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2/DSU 11), right to develop own legal reasoning including arguments not adduced by parties (jura novit curia) C.2.4–5

customs unions and free trade areas (GATT XXIV), as exception to GATT provisions (GATT XXIV:5, chapeau), requirements, necessity of measure to establishment of customs union R.1.6.1

determination of serious injury or threat thereof (SG 4) (requirements)

evaluation of all relevant factors (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.26.1

“evaluation” S.1.26.1

“serious injury” (SG 4.1(a)) as factor A.0.3.22, S.1.26.1

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12), disclosure/notification to interested parties of information relevant for presentation of case (AD 6.4/SCM 12.9), continuing nature of obligation A.3.31.8

GATT 1947, continuing relevance under WTO G.2.1.2

GATT 1994

as agreement distinct from GATT 1947 G.2.1.2, S.1.44.1

incorporation into WTO Agreement (WTO Annex 1A) G.2.1.2

interpretation of covered agreements

conformity with other articles C.2.4

context (VCLT 31(2)) I.3.2.5

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) I.3.7.5–6

meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase I.3.7.5–6, S.1.44.1

object and purpose I.3.2.5

text/plain language I.3.2.5

investigation of conditions for safeguard measures, requirements (SG 3.1/SG 4.2(c))

evaluation of all factors S.1.26.1

published report C.2.4

necessity test, necessity of measure to establishment of customs union R.1.6.1

panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) P.1.1.3

publication of analysis of case under investigation (SG 4(2)(c)) C.2.4

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)

characteristics

relationship between SG Agreement and GATT XIX S.1.44.1–2

continuing applicability of the GATT XIX S.1.44.2

rules for application of the GATT XIX (SG 1) S.1.44.2

conditions (SG 2)

“such increased quantities”

correlation analysis between trends in imports and injury factors A.0.3.17, S.1.7.1, S.1.29.1

“rate and amount of the increase … in absolute and relative terms” (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.7.1, S.1.29.1

“as a result of unforeseen developments” (GATT XIX:1(a)) S.1.6.1, S.1.48.2, S.1.50.1

as pertinent issue of fact and law S.1.50.1

as sudden and recent increase A.0.3.4, A.0.3.7, S.1.6.1, S.1.8.1

sufficient to cause serious injury or threat S.1.6.1

territorial application S.1.5.1

customs unions and free trade areas (GATT XXIV) exception R.1.6.1

customs unions S.1.16.1–16.3

publication obligations (SG 4.2(c)), interpretation by reference to SG 3 (investigation) C.2.4

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), DSU 11 as applicable law, applicability to AD Agreement subject to AD 17.6 S.7.1.2–3

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), non-applicability to covered agreements other than AD Agreement S.7.1.2

standard/scope of review (safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)), DSU 11, applicability S.7.1.2–3

tax exemption, right to consider treaty provisions not cited by parties C.2.4–5

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), oral hearings, passive participation in W.2.9.1

Argentina — Textiles and Apparel (WT/DS56/AB/R, WT/DS56/AB/R/Corr. 1)     back to top

abuse of discretion (panel), failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11) E.3.1.2

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

panel working procedures as basis for D.2.2.6

panel’s discretion on matters of procedure (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), abuse of discretion E.3.1.2

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

time-limits for submission

absence of provision (DSU 11) E.3.1.1–2, W.3.6

absence of provision (DSU 12.1/Appendix 3) E.3.1.1–2

first substantive meeting of panel with parties, relevance E.3.1.1

panel’s right to admit “late” evidence E.3.1.1–2

absence of objection by other party E.3.1.2

time-limit for rebuttal E.3.1.2

as two-stage process E.3.1.1, W.3.6

presentation of case including facts E.3.1.1

rebuttal of arguments and evidence E.3.1.1

IMF/WTO relationship I.2.1–2

consultations, requirement for (GATT XV:2) I.2.2

exchange measures outside IMF’s jurisdiction, provision of information on request I.2.2

exchange measures within IMF’s jurisdiction, Fund’s duty to inform of consistency in cases involving (IMF–WTO Agreement, para. 8) I.2.2, S.4.3

GATT VIII obligations I.2.1

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

expert evidence (DSU 13.2), “from any relevant source” S.4.3

panel’s rights, not to seek S.4.3

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT] I.3.1.4

context (VCLT 31(2)) I.3.1.4

object and purpose I.3.1.4

ordinary meaning I.3.1.4

panel procedures (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3)

applicable law

panel’s right to determine E.3.1.1

Working Procedures (DSU Appendix 3) E.3.1.1

agreement of parties to alternative procedure E.3.1.1

panel proceedings as two-stage process E.3.1.1, W.3.6

panel’s discretion, after consultation with the parties E.3.1.1–2

time-limits, submission of evidence E.3.1.1–2

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II)

ordinary customs duties in excess of those provided for in Schedule (GATT II:1(b)) T.1.1.1–2

duty different in type T.1.1.2

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

“objective assessment of matter before it” E.3.1.1

failure to make objective assessment as abuse of discretion E.3.1.2

Australia — Apples (WT/DS367/AB/R)     back to top

AB procedure

documents (WP 18)

correction of clerical errors in submissions W.2.6A.2.9

filing time-limits/importance of compliance with (WP 18(1)) W.2.6A.1.4

burden of proof, SPS measures B.3.3.3, S.6.6.3, S.6.7.1–3, S.6.18.8, S.7.9.4

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.21–2

control, inspection and approval procedures (SPS 8/Annex C) S.6.24A

interpretation

annex S.6.24A.1

title S.6.24A.1

interrelationship between SPS 8 and Annex C S.6.24A.1

“operation of” (SCM 8) S.6.24A.1

as procedural obligations S.6.24A.1

“undertaken and completed without undue delay” (Annex C(1)(a)) S.6.24A.1

delay caused by measures other than “procedures” S.6.24A.3

risk assessment (SPS 5) distinguished S.6.24A.4

“undue delay” S.6.24A.2

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), expert evidence/experts E.3.2.38, S.7.3.49

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

opinions of legal experts B.3.1.13

panel’s obligation to weigh and balance all the relevant evidence E.3.2.39, S.7.8.14

expert evidence/experts

due process requirements E.3.2.38, S.7.3.49

consultation with parties S.7.3.49

role/panel’s relationship with S.4.17, S.4.21

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (DSU 13), panel’s rights, to select material from expert’s statements for inclusion in panel report E.3.2.39, S.7.8.14

interpretation of covered agreements

annex as aid S.6.24A.1

context (VCLT 31(2)), SPS 2.2/SPS 5.1/SPS 5.6, interrelationship S.6.17A.1–7, S.6.18.3

grammar, respect for S.6.23A.2, S.6.23A.3

same or closely related phrases in different agreements

context, relevance S.6.23A.2

SPS Annex A(1)/GATT III:1 S.6.23A.2

SPS 5.1/SPS 5.6 S.7.9.1–5

title A.1.29B.1, S.6.24A.1

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel), rectification at subsequent stages T.6.1.22–23

“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) T.6.3.22

“specific measure at issue” and legal basis of claim distinguished T.6.1.22–23

“measure” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2 and DSU 3.3) as any act or omission attributable to WTO Member S.6.23A.1

oral hearing (WP 27), open oral hearing W.2.11.3.12

ordinary meaning of, “undue delay” S.6.24A.2

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.21–2

request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2), compliance, importance of, opportunity to cure defect T.6.1.22

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

“appropriate to the circumstances” (SPS 5.1)

“consequences” as relevant element S.6.2.2, S.6.23A.6

methodological difficulties, relevance S.6.13.12–13

quantitative vs. qualitative test S.6.13.9

techniques developed by the relevant international organizations, obligation to take into account S.6.13A.2

reasonable period for completion S.6.24A.4

scientific uncertainty, effect on SCM 1 and 2 obligations S.6.13A.1–2

specificity of assessment, need for (SPS 5.1 and 5.2), comprehensive/overall analysis, acceptability S.6.11.2

“sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2)/standard of review (DSU 11) S.7.8.5–15

de novo review, exclusion S.7.8.5, S.7.8.11

“legitimacy”/respected source S.7.8.7

rational relationship between measure/risk and scientific evidence, need for S.6.3.9, S.6.13.11, S.7.8.5, S.7.8.6, S.7.8.7

scrutiny of the scientific evidence to test reasoning and conclusions of risk assessor S.7.8.7–15

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

demonstration that measure cause of violation, relevance T.6.3.22

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1), “specific”, “sufficient to present the problem clearly” T.6.3.22

SPS measures, appropriate level of protection (SPS 5.5-5.6)

“applied to protect” (SPS Annex A(1)(5))

ancillary measures S.6.23A.4

applied … so as to afford protection (GATT III:1) compared S.6.23A.2

“applied to protect” (SPS Annex A(1)(5))

“applied” S.6.23A.2

objective test S.6.23A.2

determination by reference to context S.6.23A.2

“include all relevant laws” S.6.23A.3

non-exhaustive/illustrative nature of list S.6.23A.3

“phytosanitary measure”/“phytosanitary procedure” (ISPM No. 5), distinguishability S.6.23A.5

purposive/objective nature S.6.23A.2

interrelationship between SPS 2.2/SPS 5.1/SPS 5.6 S.6.17A.1–7, S.6.18.3

interrelationship between SPS 5.1/SPS 5.6 S.7.9.1–5

obligation to articulate measures clearly S.6.18.5

SPS measures “not more trade restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of … protection” (SPS 5.6) S.6.18.3–9

“acceptable level of risk” S.6.18.4, S.6.23A.6

alternative measure, burden of proof S.6.18.5–8

“appropriate level” (SPS Annex A(5)) S.6.18.4

burden of proof S.7.9.4

expert’s role S.4.21

panel assessment of claim relating to S.7.9.1–5

obligation to make independent assessment S.7.9.1–5

risk assessment requirement, SCM 5.1 and SCM 5.6 compared S.6.18.9

SPS 5.1/SPS 5.6 obligations distinguished S.7.9.1–5

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.7.3.49

discretion to select which evidence to refer to explicitly S.7.3.49

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.7.3.49

obligation to treat parties’ evidence consistently and even-handedly S.7.3.49

totality of evidence vs. individual evidentiary factors S.7.3.49

claim of failure by panel to comply with DSU obligations as autonomous claim S.7.9.5

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of risk assessment, exclusion, SPS 5.6 measures distinguished S.7.9.2

“deliberate disregard”/“refusal to consider” S.7.3.2, S.7.3.49

“reasoned and adequate” test (investigating authorities’ explanations), risk assessment (SPS 5.1-5.3 and Annex A(4)) S.7.8.5–15

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

provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency (SPS 5.7)

“insufficiency” S.6.20.9

uncertainty of scientific evidence distinguished S.6.20.9

Australia — Salmon (WT/DS18/AB/R)     back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact, credibility and weight of evidence S.3.3.4

completion of legal analysis C.4.5

in case of disagreement with/reversal of panel finding C.4.5, P.4A.21–2

factual basis

contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.5

limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record C.4.5

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

opportunity to respond to evidence/presentations of other parties D.2.2.9–10, E.3.2.2

as fundamental tenet D.2.2.10, D.2.2.36

consistency in application (SPS 5.5), distinctions in the level of protection in different situations, comparability S.6.16.2–3

interpretation of covered agreements, effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) S.6.1.4

judicial economy J.1.6

“positive solution to dispute” requirement J.1.6

panel procedures (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), high quality reports/avoidance of delay, flexibility in achieving balance (DSU 12.2) D.2.2.9, E.3.2.2

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

ascertainable/theoretical risk distinguished (SPS 5.1) S.6.10.3

elements (Annex A(4))

evaluation according to SPS measures S.6.11.1, S.6.12.2

evaluation of likelihood of diseases and potential biological and economic consequences S.6.11.1

identification of diseases and potential biological and economic consequences to be protected against S.6.11.1

“likelihood” S.6.12.1–3

“potential”, “likelihood” distinguished S.6.12.1

“sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2) S.6.3.3

scientific evidence, sufficiency (SPS 2.2), provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency (SPS 5.7), requirements, cumulative nature S.6.18.1

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2), measure actually applied R.2.3.4, T.6.3.2

SPS Agreement

arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination, exclusion (SPS 2.3) S.6.4.1

alternative sources of discrimination S.6.4.1

appropriate level of protection (SPS 5.5) S.6.4.1, S.6.16.2–3

alternative sources of discrimination S.6.4.1

SPS Agreement, sufficient scientific evidence, need for (SPS 2.2) S.6.3.3

SPS measures, appropriate level of protection (SPS 5.5-5.6)

“applied to protect” (SPS Annex A(1)(5)), purposive/objective nature S.6.23A.2

comparability of measures, need for S.6.16.2–3

consistency in application (SPS 5.5) S.6.18.1

“appropriate level”, determination

Member’s right S.6.1.1

as preliminary to decision on measure S.6.1.2–3

arbitrary or unjustifiable inconsistencies, exclusion S.6.4.1

discrimination or disguised restriction of trade resulting from inconsistency S.6.17.5–6

absence of risk assessment as evidence of S.6.17.6

degree of difference sufficient to warn of S.6.17.5

discrimination or disguised restriction of trade resulting from inconsistency (SPS 2.3) S.6.17.5–6

absence of risk assessment as evidence of S.6.17.6

degree of difference sufficient to warn of S.6.17.5

distinctions in the level of protection in different situations S.6.16.2–3

requirements (SPS 5.6, Footnote 3) S.6.18.1

SPS measures “not more trade restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of … protection” (SPS 5.6), “appropriate level”, determination, Member’s obligation S.6.1.4–5

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.7.3.5


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.