SUBJECT INDEX BY CASE: APPELLATE BODY REPORTS

E-F

 

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


ON THIS PAGE:

> EC and certain member States — Large Civil Aircraft
> EC — Asbestos
> EC — Bananas III
> EC — Bananas III (Article 21.5 — Ecuador II)/EC — Bananas III (Article 21.5 — US)
> EC — Bed Linen
> EC — Bed Linen (Article 21.5 — India)
> EC — Chicken Cuts
> EC — Computer Equipment
> EC — Export Subsidies on Sugar
> EC — Export Subsidies on Sugar
> EC — Fasteners (China)
> EC — Hormones
> EC — Poultry
> EC — Sardines
> EC — Selected Customs Matters
> EC — Tariff Preferences
> EC — Tube or Pipe Fittings

EC and certain member States — Large Civil Aircraft (WT/DS316/AB/R)     back to top

AB procedure

collegiality (WP 4) B.4.8

documents (WP 18), service on participants, third parties and third participants (WP 18(2)) B.4.8

withdrawal of appeal (WP 30(1)) W.2.13.2.2

conditional appeal W.2.13.2.2

AB reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 17.14), dependence on reasoning and detailed findings of AB B.4.7

as part of the GATT/WTO acquis B.4.7, B.4.8

timing of circulation of AB report (DSU 17.5/WP 26), modification, agreement of parties, relevance W.2.10.2.8

acquis (GATT/WTO) (WTO XVI:1), AB/panel reports as part of B.4.7, B.4.8

additional procedures (WP 16(1)) B.4.5–11

ad hoc nature of decision/evolving nature of AB approach to B.4.8

“appropriate procedure” (requirements/criteria) B.4.7–8

AB’s obligation to ensure proper adjudication of dispute (DSU 17) B.4.7, B.4.8

practical and unimpeded access to information B.4.8

collegiality of AB (WP 4) B.4.8

consistency with DSU, other covered agreements B.4.7

due process considerations B.4.7

importance of proper consideration during panel proceedings B.4.8

“preservation of rights and obligations of Members” (DSU 3.2) B.4.7, B.4.8

proportionality between risks of disclosure and requested measures B.4.7

third party rights B.4.7, B.4.8

burden of proof B.4.7

competence to determine need for

AB/panel responsibility B.4.8

arrangements agreed by parties B.4.8

primacy of DSU 17.1 B.4.7

material considered by AB B.4.8

modification of Working Procedures time-limits for submissions B.4.5

parties’ proposals (EC and certain member States — Large Civil Aircraft) B.4.8

postponement pending full presentation of issues B.4.8

requirements, compliance with time-limits B.4.5

third parties/third participants, arrangements to protect interests

access to HSBI B.4.8

arrangements for access to confidential information B.4.8

number of approved representatives B.4.8

adverse effects (SCM 5.1), temporal scope/continuing measure vs. grant of subsidy P.3.4.8–9, S.2.19D.1–7, T.5.1.5, T.5.1.7

bilateral agreements, effect on subsequent multilateral agreement S.2.19A.3

burden of proof, contingency in law or in fact (SCM 3.1(a)) S.2.14.3–15

business confidential information (BCI) B.4.6–11

Additional Procedures to Protect Sensitive Information (10 August 2010)

adoption B.4.5

designation of approved persons B.4.9

exclusion of BCI/HSBI information from oral hearings/release of videotapes B.4.10

business confidential information (BCI) and highly sensitive business information (HSBI) distinguished B.4.6

third party access to HSBI B.4.8

withdrawal of HSBI, AB’s right to draw inferences B.4.8

notification/verification of inclusion/absence of BCI/HSBI from report B.4.11

open oral hearing W.2.11.3.14

Procedures Governing Business Confidential Information (BCI) B.4.5

protection measures pending decision on request for B.4.6, W.2.9A.1

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

goods and services/adequacy of remuneration (SCM 14(d)) S.2.23.6–7

government loan (SCM 14(b)) S.2.9A.8, S.2.22B.10

causation requirement (genuine and substantial relationship)/non-attribution S.2.19B.5.12, S.2.19B.5.13, S.2.19B.5.14, S.2.19B.5.16, S.2.19B.11.2, S.2.19B.11.6

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact, party’s right to characterize claim S.3.3.25, S.7.3.50

completion of legal analysis

in absence of objective analysis by panel W.2.3A.6

factual basis, sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement C.4.41–45, S.2.19.13

partial completion as aid to prompt settlement (DSU 3.3) S.3.1.11

prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) C.4.45, P.4A.25

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3), need to respect obligation C.4.45, S.3.1.11

competence (panels)

objections, requirements, timeliness J.2.1.24

obligation to examine

at any stage during proceedings J.2.1.24

ex proprio motu T.6.1.28

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

clarification of existing provisions, additional procedures (WP 16(1)) B.4.7

preservation of rights and obligations of Members, additional procedures (WP 16(1)) B.4.7, B.4.8

conditional appeal, withdrawal of appeal (WP 30(1)) W.2.13.2.2

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2)

access by participants and outside legal advisers to information on AB Secretariat premises B.4.8

Rules of Conduct, para. VII:1, need for additional detail in special situations B.4.7, B.4.8

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), request for establishment of panel (DSU 6.2) R.2.1.16–R.2.1.18, T.6.1.24, T.6.1.25–27

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), decision on compliance with GATT VI:1 as preliminary to determining compliance with GATT I:1 M.3.13

EEC–US Agreement on the application of the GATT Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (1992)

effect on subsequent multilateral agreement B.2.2, I.3.12.3–4, S.2.19A.3

relevant rules of international law (VCLT 31(3)(c)), whether I.3.9B.3–6, S.2.9A.11

“serious prejudice” (SCM 5(c)) S.2.19A.3

status I.3.12.3–4, S.2.9A.9–11

goods and services/adequacy of remuneration (SCM 14(d))

“market conditions” S.2.9A.13–14, S.2.23.6–7

SCM 14(b) compared S.2.23.6–7

government loan (SCM 14(b)), benchmark elements S.2.9A.8

“comparable” S.2.22B.10

conditions at time of loan as basis for determination S.2.22B.10

government provision of equity capital (SCM 14(a))

consistency with usual investment practice S.2.22A.1

“investment decision” as critical element S.2.22A.1–2

ILC Articles on State Responsibility, continuing acts T.5.1.7

impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member, prompt settlement (DSU 3.3), completion of legal analysis by AB (DSU 17.6) C.4.45

inferences from party’s refusal to provide information DSU 13, withdrawal of evidence considered “most sensitive” B.4.8

interpretation of covered agreements

AB role S.2.9A.6

consistent and harmonious approach to WTO law/systemic integration/coherence, balance with individual Member’s international obligations C.6.4, I.3.9B.4

context (VCLT 31(2))

article as a whole S.2.10A.2.6

SCM 1.1(b)/SCM 14 S.2.9A.6–8, S.2.9A.13–14, S.2.23.6–7

treaty/treaties as a whole S.2.2.5

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile), overlapping principles, need to address each I.3.7.12

relevant rules of international law (VCLT 31(3)(c))

“applicable in the relations between the parties” I.3.9B.3

“between the parties” I.3.9B.4–5

EEC–US Agreement on the application of the GATT Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (1992), whether I.3.9B.3–6

“relevant” I.3.9B.3, I.3.9B.5

“rules of international law” (ICJ 38(1)) I.3.9B.1, I.3.9B.3

structure of agreement, subsidies, prohibited (SCM Part II), “contingent upon export performance” (SCM 3.1(a)), “in fact”, standard for determining/required elements (Footnote 4), overall design and structure of SCM Agreement as guide to interpretation S.2.14.11

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

judicial economy, risks S.2.10A.2.6

“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.2.1.16–R.2.1.18

MFN treatment (GATT I), determination of compliance of AD duty with GATT VI as preliminary M.3.13

mootness of panel findings M.3.12–15

non-retroactivity of treaties (VCLT 28)

continuing measures P.3.4.8–9, S.2.19D.1–7, T.5.1.3–10

as general principle of international law P.3.4.7

relevant factors P.3.4.6–7

SCM Agreement T.5.1.3–10

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

amendment, WP 23bis W.2.8A.1

failure to include claim under DSU on matter determined to concern a factual assessment, effect S.3.3.25, S.7.3.50

oral hearing (WP 27)

open oral hearing W.2.11.3.13–14

BCI/HSBI-related issues W.2.11.3.14

written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.11

ordinary meaning of

“benefit” S.2.9A.7

“provide” S.2.6.7

panel reports

clarity/consistency of language, importance S.3.1.10

rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) S.2.19B.5.14, S.2.19B.5.15

price suppression as effect of subsidy (SCM 6.3(c))

causation requirement (genuine and substantial relationship)/non-attribution S.2.19B.5.12, S.2.19B.5.13, S.2.19B.5.14, S.2.19B.5.16, S.2.19B.11.2

“effect of subsidy” (causal link) S.2.19B.5.12–16

time limitation, whether S.2.19B.8.8–9

methodology for determining S.2.19B.0.3–4

collective assessment S.2.19B.11–3

counterfactual analysis S.2.19B.0.3–4, S.2.19B.3.2, S.2.19B.3.4, S.2.19B.5.14

magnitude of subsidy, relevance S.2.19B.6.6

panel’s discretion S.2.19B.5.16

unitary vs. two-step approach S.2.19B.0.3–4, S.2.19B.2.7–8, S.2.19B.2.12, S.2.19B.3.2

objective assessment requirement S.2.19B.1.10, S.2.19B.5.14, S.2.19B.5.15

“in the same market”, like product/substitutability test S.2.19B.1.7–10

significant lost sales S.2.19B.3.1–5

“lost sales” S.2.19B.3.1

relevant market S.2.19B.3.1

privatization

extinction of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) S.2.9B.3–7

partial privatization S.2.9B.3–7

prompt compliance with DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.1), dependence on “understandable” reports B.4.8

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), completion of legal analysis considerations C.4.45, P.4A.25, S.3.1.11

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

compliance, importance of

case-by-case analysis R.2.3.31

opportunity to cure defect R.2.1.17–R.2.1.18, T.6.1.26, T.6.1.27

scrutiny by panel R.2.3.31

parallel claims S.3.3.25

SCM Agreement

interpretation, structure of agreement S.2.14.11

retroactivity (VCLT 28) T.5.1.3–10

separate opinion (WP 3(2)/DSU 17.11) W.2.3A.5–6

serious prejudice (SCM 6)

displacement of or impediment to exports (SCM 6.3(a)), overlap between displacement and impediment, possibility of I.3.7.12

EEC–US Agreement on the application of the GATT Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (1992), relevance S.2.19A.3

interpretation of SCM 6.3 as a whole S.2.19B.1.9

panel’s obligation to make independent assessment of party’s claims S.2.19B.1.11–16

review of investigating authority (AD/SCM Part V) distinguished S.2.19B.1.13, S.7.5.8

pass-through of indirect subsidies S.2.19B.7.2

threat of S.2.19B.9.1

“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.2.3.32–R.2.3.33

reference to publicly available information about a government programme R.2.3.32–R.2.3.33

“sufficient to present the problem clearly” R.2.1.16, T.6.1.25–27, T.6.3.23–24

rule or norm of general application, relevance R.2.3.34

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.7.3.54, S.7.3.56, S.7.3.57

obligation to give reasoned and coherent treatment, internally inconsistent reasoning S.7.2.22

obligation to treat parties’ evidence consistently and even-handedly S.7.3.52, S.7.3.55

classification as claim concerning a factual assessment S.3.3.25–27, S.7.3.51

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de minimis error S.7.3.53, S.7.3.56, S.7.3.57

de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.5.8

error of law, caused by failure of understanding of legal issues S.7.2.23

failure to engage with arguments and evidence S.2.19B.1.13, S.7.3.53

failure to understand obligations under SCM 6.3(a) and (b) S.2.19B.1.11, S.7.2.23

panel as trier of facts S.2.19B.1.13, S.7.3.52

panel’s obligation to make independent assessment/party’s right to structure complaint S.2.19B.1.11, S.7.2.23

State responsibility, critical date P.3.4.9

subsidies, prohibited (SCM Part II)

actionable subsidies (SCM Part III) distinguished S.2.14.11

“contingent upon export performance” (SCM 3.1(a))

burden of proof, de jure and de facto contingency distinguished S.2.14.3, S.2.14.5

“in fact”, standard for determining/required elements (Footnote 4) S.2.14.3–15

assessment on basis of information available to granting authority S.2.14.7

comparison between effects of subsidy and situation in absence of subsidy S.2.14.6, S.2.14.15

granting authority’s role S.2.14.4

inferral from total configuration of relevant facts S.2.14.3, S.2.14.6, S.2.14.8–9, S.2.14.12

motivation, relevance S.2.14.8, S.2.14.13

neutral subsidy, assessment requirement S.2.14.12

as objective standard S.2.14.8

overall design and structure of SCM Agreement as guide to interpretation S.2.14.11

reasons for granting subsidy, relevance S.2.14.8, S.2.14.13

sufficiency of evidence S.2.14.14–15, S.2.19.12

“in fact”, standard for determining/required elements(Footnote 4), “anticipated exportation” S.2.14.4

“in law or in fact”, standard/burden of proof, requirements for de jure and de facto contingency distinguished S.2.14.3, S.2.14.5

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b))

“benefit” S.2.9A.7, S.2.9A.12

cost to government, relevance S.2.9.6

market test I.3.9B.5, S.2.9A.12

SCM 14 as context S.2.9A.6–8, S.2.9A.13–14, S.2.23.6–7

market benchmark

as basis for determining existence of benefit S.2.9.6

EEC–US 1992 Agreement, relevance S.2.9A.9

recipient, need for S.2.9A.7

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

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

“a benefit is thereby conferred” (SCM 1, 1(b)) S.2.2.5

provision of goods or services (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iii))

creation of infrastructure, relevance S.2.6.7

“provides goods” S.2.6.7

subsidy specific to certain enterprises (SCM 2.1) (determination of specificity) S.2.10A.2.6–7

“certain enterprises”, assessment of status as key obligation of investigating authorities S.2.10A.2.7

interpretation, article as a whole S.2.10A.2.6

interrelationship between SCM 2.1(a) and SCM 2.1(b) S.2.10A.2.6

provisional indication under SCM 2.1(a) followed by SCM 2.1(b) analysis S.2.10A.2.7

“notwithstanding any appearance of non-specificity” (SCM 2.1(c)) S.2.10A.2.6, S.2.10A.2.7

objective criteria/conditions, effect (SCM 2.1(b)), absence of evidence relating to S.2.10A.2.7

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

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), request for establishment of panel as basis R.2.1.16–R.2.1.18, T.6.1.27

third party rights, written submissions/right to be heard B.4.8

Tokyo Round Subsidies Code, status T.5.1.9

transmittal of record (WP 25), additional protection measures for BCI and HSBI pending definitive decision on request for additional procedures W.2.9A.1

“withdrawal of subsidy without delay” (SCM 4.7)

applicability of remedy

extinguished or extracted subsidies S.2.19.12, S.2.19C.3

subsidies found to be prohibited S.2.19.12

partial withdrawal, effect S.2.19D.6–7

sufficiency of evidence for completion of analysis S.2.19.13

“withdraw” S.2.19.12

withdrawal of subsidy/removal of adverse effects (SCM 7.8), expired measure, applicability to S.2.19.12, S.2.19C.3

Working Procedures Appellate Review) (DSU 17.9), Rules, 24 B.4.8

EC — Asbestos (WT/DS135/AB/R)     back to top

AB procedure, concurring opinion (DSU 17.11/WP 3(2)) W.2.3.1–3

AB reports, timing of circulation (DSU 17.5/WP 26), modification, exceptional workload W.2.10.2.3

amicus curiae briefs

Additional Procedure (EC — Asbestos) A.2.3.1–5, W.2.2.1, W.2.6.1.7

adoption under AB/WP 16(1) A.2.3.1–5, W.2.6.1.7

failure to comply with Additional Procedure as ground for rejection A.2.3.4–5

request for views A.2.3.1, W.2.6.1.7

text A.2.3.3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis C.4.11–12

factual basis

contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.11–12

insufficient argument of novel issue C.4.12

sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement P.4A.3

prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.3

issues of law/legal interpretations C.4.12

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), fair and orderly conduct of proceedings A.2.3.1

evidence (GATT XX: justification), scientific sources representing divergent opinion G.3.3.1

expert evidence/experts, divergence of views G.3.3.1

good faith compliance with WTO obligations (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), scientific evidence, reliance on G.3.3.1

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], defences and exceptions, GATT XX G.3.2.2, N.1.12.1

context (VCLT 31(2)), GATT III:1/GATT III as a whole N.1.1.4

dictionaries N.1.9.1.2

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) G.3.2.2, N.1.12.1

multiple authentic languages (VCLT 33) N.1.9.1.2

object and purpose N.1.9.2.3

same or closely related phrases in same agreement N.1.3.1.4, N.1.9.1.1

structure of agreement G.1.1.9, G.1.2.1.9, G.1.2.2.4, T.4.1.1

judicial economy N.1.11.7

“like product” (GATT III:2)

directly competitive or substitutable products distinguished (Ad Note to second sentence) N.1.3.1.4

GATT III:4 distinguished N.1.3.1.4, N.1.9.1.1, N.1.9.2.1–2, N.1.9.3.1

“like product” (GATT III:4)

competitive relationship, need for N.1.9.3.2, N.1.9.4.4, N.1.9.5.1, T.4.2A.4.2

evidence of health risks, relevance G.3.2.2, N.1.9.5.2, N.1.12.1

criteria N.1.9.4.1–8

consumer preferences N.1.9.1.2, N.1.9.4.1, N.1.9.4.4, N.1.9.4.7, N.1.9.5.2

end-uses N.1.9.4.1–8

interchangeability N.1.9.4.4–6

physical properties N.1.9.4.1–4

tariff classification/Harmonized System N.1.9.4.1

determination

on basis of all the available evidence N.1.9.4.1–2

on case-by-case basis N.1.9.1.2

evidence N.1.9.5.1–2

GATT III:2 distinguished N.1.3.1.4, N.1.9.1.1

“similar”/“produits similaires”/“productos similares N.1.9.1.2

measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health (GATT XX(b))

GATT III:4 (regulatory discrimination), interrelationship G.3.2.2, N.1.12.1

justification

evidence of health risks, relevance G.3.2.2, N.1.12.1

good faith reliance on G.3.3.1

“preponderant” evidence G.3.3.1

scientific sources representing divergent opinion G.3.3.1

measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources (GATT XX(g)), GATT III:4 (regulatory discrimination) G.3.2.2

national treatment (GATT III:1) (general principle)

interpretation of the GATT III as a whole

GATT III:1 as context N.1.9.2.1–3

GATT III:4 (“like” product) N.1.1.4, N.1.9.2.1–3

“so as to afford protection” N.1.1.4

equality of competitive conditions N.1.9.2.3

“less favourable treatment” N.1.11.7

necessity test (GATT XX(b))

availability of alternative WTO-consistent measure G.3.4.1

contribution to realization of end pursued (objective-pursued test) G.3.4.1

methodology for determining, quantitative vs. qualitative test G.3.3A.1

non-violation claims (GATT XXIII:1(b))

any measure” N.2.2.1

as exceptional remedy N.2.1.1

measure in “conflict” with GATT provisions, applicability to N.2.2.1

concurrent application to measures falling under other provisions of the GATT N.2.2.1

ordinary meaning of, “characteristics” T.4.1.1

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

regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4)

GATT XX G.3.2.2, N.1.12.1

general principle (GATT III:1) N.1.1.4, N.1.9.2.1–3

“less favourable treatment” N.1.11.7

“so as to afford protection”, equality of competitive conditions N.1.9.2.3

tax discrimination (GATT III:2) provisions distinguished N.1.3.1.4, N.1.9.1.1, N.1.9.2.1–2, N.1.9.3.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

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

discretion in assessment of evidence E.3.2.3

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.7.3.12A

“technical regulation” (TBT Annex 1.1) T.4.1.1–5

identifiability requirement T.4.1.4–5, T.4.1.9

product characteristics

mandatory compliance requirement T.4.1.2, T.4.1.10

negative or affirmative approach to T.4.1.3, T.4.1.5

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), oral hearings, passive participation in W.2.9.2

EC — Bananas III (WT/DS27/AB/R)     back to top

AB procedure

dates and deadlines

extension of deadline for submissions of participants/third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.10.1.1

modification at request of parties (WP 16(2)), oral hearing W.2.11.1.1

administrative instruments, right to challenge P.5.3.1.1

AG Agreement

GATT 1994 and (AG 21.1) A.1.37.1–4

dispute settlement A.1.37.2

market access concessions and commitments (AG 4.1) A.1.8.2, A.1.37.2

primacy of AG A.1.37.1

Modalities Paper A.1.37.2, A.1.37A.1

object and purpose, agricultural reform A.1.8.1

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact

de facto discrimination S.3.3.2

market shares S.3.3.2

nationality of majority of operators S.3.3.2

ownership, control and nationality of company S.3.3.2

procedural and administrative requirements, differences S.3.3.2

issues of law/legal interpretations, legal representation in government delegation, importance P.4.2

legal issues and interpretations, limitation to (DSU 17.6) P.3.4.2

compliance, request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2) R.2.1.2, T.6.1.3

consultations (DSU 4), due process, disclosure obligation T.6.1.3

DSU, applicability (DSU 1.1), market access concessions and commitments (AG 4.1)/GATT 1994, consistency A.1.37.2

GATS, applicability/interpretation (GATS I) G.1.1.1–2

“measures affecting trade in services” (GATS I:1) G.1.1.1

“affecting” (GATS I:) G.1.1.1

overlap with GATT 1994 G.1.1.2, G.2.2.2

“production, distribution, marketing, sale and delivery of a service” G.1.1.1

services in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of government authority (GATS I:3(b)) G.1.1.1

interpretation of covered agreements

absence of provision, relevance A.1.37.2

legitimate expectations, relevance N.3.1

Lomé Convention L.3.1

narrow/broad interpretation, waivers W.1.3

object and purpose, preamble/chapeau of article under discussion as evidence of L.2.1–2

ordinary meaning G.1.1.1

preparatory work (VCLT 32), AG Agreement/Modalities Paper A.1.37.2, A.1.37A.1

same or closely related phrases in different agreements G.1.1.1, L.2.4, M.2.2.1

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.1.8.2

title L.2.1–2

interpretation of covered agreements, phrases

“affecting”

DSU 4 C.7.11–13

GATT III:4 G.1.1.1, N.1.10.1

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel) R.2.2.1–R.2.2.4

claims and arguments distinguished C.1.2–4, R.2.2.1–R.2.2.4, W.3.1

rectification at subsequent stages, arguments in written or other submission or statement C.1.3–4, R.2.2.3, T.6.2.2–3, W.3.1

summary, sufficiency, listing of articles of agreement allegedly breached T.6.2.1

legal representation in government delegation, importance P.4.2

Licensing Agreement (LA) L.2.1–2, L.2.4

as lex specialis L.2.4

licensing procedures, limitation to (LA, title, preamble and Art. 1.1) L.2.1–2

“neutral in application and administered in a fair and equitable manner” (LA 1.3)/“administer in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner” (GATT X:3(a)), equivalence L.2.4, P.5.3.1.1, T.2.4

Lomé Convention, panel’s right to refer to L.3.1

market access concessions and commitments (AG 4.1)

consistency with GATT XIII A.1.8.2, A.1.37.2, A.1.38.9

dispute settlement A.1.37.2

fundamental nature A.1.8.1

“matter referred to the DSB” (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1), terms of reference (DSU 7) as determining factor C.1.4, R.2.2.3, T.6.2.3

MFN treatment (GATS II) M.2.2.1–M.2.2.2

determination of violation, requirements, aims and effects test, GATT III:1 distinguished M.2.2.2

“treatment no less favourable” (GATS II:1) M.2.2.1

de facto discrimination M.2.2.1

GATS XVII (national treatment) distinguished M.2.2.1

MFN treatment (GATT I) M.2.1.1

“advantage” (GATT I:1) M.2.1.1

de facto discrimination M.2.1.1

as finding of fact S.3.3.2

national treatment (GATS XVII), GATT III:1 distinguished M.2.2.2, N.1.13.1

national treatment (GATT III:1) (general principle)

“so as to afford protection”

equality of competitive conditions, protection of competitive relationship N.3.1

GATS II and XVII distinguished N.1.13.1

omission from GATT III:2, first sentence, relevance N.1.11.2

non-discriminatory administration of quantitative restrictions (GATT XIII) T.2.1–4

allocation to Members not having a substantial interest (GATT XIII:1) T.2.1

distribution of trade as close as possible to expected shares in absence of restrictions as aim (GATT XIII:2, chapeau) T.2.2

regulatory regimes established by Member, relevance T.2.3

non-retroactivity of treaties (VCLT 28) P.3.4.2

continuing measures P.3.4.2

as general principle of international law P.3.4.2

non-violation claims (GATT XXIII:1(b)), de minimis effects, relevance N.3.1

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

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), requirements W.2.7.3.1

failure to meet requirements, effect W.2.7.3.1

oral hearing (WP 27), change of date W.2.11.1.1

panel procedures (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), preliminary rulings, desirability W.3.1

private counsel, participation in DSU proceedings P.4.1–2

publication and administration of trade regulations (GATT X) P.5.3.1.1, T.2.4

uniform, impartial and reasonable administration (GATT X:3(a)) P.5.3.1.1, T.2.4

regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4)

“affecting” G.1.1.1, N.1.10.1

“less favourable treatment” N.1.11.1–2

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

compliance, importance of

parties’ responsibility R.2.1.2, T.6.1.3

scrutiny by DSB R.2.1.2

fruitfulness of action, determination by Member R.5.2

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II)

diminishment of obligations, exclusion T.1.3.1

as integral part of the GATT 1994 (WTO II:2) T.1.3.1

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7)

enforcement of WTO rules as justification R.5.3

fruitfulness of resort to dispute settlement procedures R.5.2

legal interest, relevance R.5.1

self-regulating nature of provision R.5.2

tax discrimination (GATT III:2)

“not similarly taxed”, threshold/de minimis differential N.3.1

“so as to afford protection” N.1.11.2

intention, relevance M.2.2.2, N.1.13.1

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), request for establishment of panel as basis R.2.1.2, T.6.1.3

waivers

exceptional nature W.1.3

GATT I/GATT XIII waivers, relationship W.1.1

Lomé waiver L.3.1, W.1.1–3

Working Procedures Appellate Review) (DSU 17.9)

composition of delegation

legal representation, importance P.4.2

Member’s right to determine W.2.6.1.1

EC — Bananas III (Article 21.5 — Ecuador II)/EC — Bananas III (Article 21.5 — US) (WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU, WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA)     back to top

AB/panel recommendations for bringing inconsistent measure into conformity (DSU 19.1), expired measure P.4A.18, T.6.3.17

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

discretionary nature of right I.0.9

legal status/binding effect of suggestions I.0.9

compensatory adjustment for modification of schedules (GATT XXVIII:2) T.1.5.1

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), compétence de la compétence W.2.11.3.3–W.2.11.3.4

competence (panels)

amendment or expiry of “specific measure” during proceedings T.6.3.17

limitation on, need for express provision T.6.3.17

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2)

AB’s right to lift DSU 17.10 confidentiality requirement W.2.11.3.3

open oral hearing (WP 27) W.2.11.3.3–W.2.11.3.4

decision-making/exclusive authority of Ministerial Conference and General Council to adopt WTO/MTA interpretations (WTO IX:2), “shall not undermine the amendment provisions in [WTO X]” I.3.9A.1, W.4.1A.2

estoppel, good faith engagement in dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.10) P.3.1.19, P.3.7.3

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), conflicting statements where text is clear E.3.2.35

impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member, prompt settlement (DSU 3.3), “a Member considers” P.4A.17

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21)

choice of means at Member’s discretion R.4.1.33

notification of intentions R.4.1.33

interpretation of covered agreements

AG Agreement/Modalities Paper A.1.37A.3–4, T.1.2.13

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], Schedules of Concessions T.1.2.13

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile), meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase T.1.3.4

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

“application” I.3.9A.2

as authentic element of interpretation (ILC commentary) I.3.9A.2

interpretation by Ministerial Conference and General Council (WTO IX.2) as I.3.9A.1–2

amendment of covered agreement distinguished I.3.9A.1

waiver allowing temporary departure from WTO obligations distinguished I.3.9A.1–2, I.3.10.29, W.1.4

modification of Schedules (GATT XXVIII) T.1.5.1

multiple complainants (DSU 9)

harmonization of panels and timetables (DSU 9.3)

“harmonized” M.4.4

“to the greatest extent possible” M.4.4

mutually agreed solutions (DSU 3.7) M.6.1, R.5.9

temporary suspension of concessions (DSU 22.8) M.6.1, R.5.9

waiver of right to Article 21.5 compliance proceedings, whether M.6.1, R.5.9

non-discriminatory administration of quantitative restrictions (GATT XIII)

allocation to Members having a substantial interest (GATT XIII:2(d)) T.2.9

distribution of trade as close as possible to expected shares in absence of restrictions as aim (GATT XIII:2, chapeau) T.2.8–9

GATT I:1 (non-discriminatory application of tariffs) distinguished T.2.9

GATT XI:1 (prohibition of restrictions) T.2.8

GATT XI:2 (permitted prohibitions or restrictions) T.2.8

“restriction” T.2.9

tariff quotas, applicability to (GATT XIII:5) T.2.8, T.2.9

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

due process/right to defend interests as purpose/benchmark W.2.7.3.6

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), requirements

failure to meet requirements, effect W.2.7.3.6

specific reference to allegation of panel’s failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11) W.2.7.5.7–W.2.7.5.8

nullification or impairment, presumption in case of inconsistency with covered agreement (DSU 3.8) N.3.4–5

overlap of the GATT I:1 and GATT XIII obligations, relevance N.3.4

standing to bring complaint in absence of nullification or impairment N.3.5, R.5.10

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), as “essential to the effective functioning of the WTO …” P.4A.17, P.4A.18

request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2), fruitfulness of action, determination by Member P.4A.17

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

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency), measures closely related to measure taken to comply R.4.1.32

objectives, prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3) P.4A.8

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II)

diminishment of obligations, exclusion, temporal limitations, whether T.1.3.4

modification T.1.5.1

ordinary customs duties in excess of those provided for in Schedule (GATT II:1(b)), “terms, conditions or qualifications” T.1.3.4

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

expired measure, measure expiring during the proceedings T.6.3.17

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1), amendment of measure during proceedings T.6.3.17

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7)

fruitfulness of resort to dispute settlement procedures M.6.1, R.5.9

mutually agreed solutions M.6.1

temporary suspension of concessions (DSU 22.8) M.6.1

waiver of right to Article 21.5 compliance proceedings, whether M.6.1

“solution” M.6.1, R.5.9

suspension of concessions (DSU 22)

as “available” (discretionary) measure S.9.10

mutually satisfactory solution (DSU 22.8) M.5.1

as temporary measure/termination on compliance with DSB recommendations or rulings (DSU 22.8), mutually agreed solutions (DSU 3.7) M.6.1, R.5.9

waivers

decision granting, requirements W.1.4

exceptional nature W.1.4

EC — Bed Linen (WT/DS141/AB/R)     back to top

AB procedure, dates and deadlines, extension of deadline for submissions of participants/third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.10.1.3

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of administrative, selling and general costs and profits (AD 2.2.2)

“weighted average” (AD 2.2.2(ii)) A.3.11.1–2

need for more than one exporter or producer A.3.11.1

sales not in the ordinary course of trade (“actual amounts incurred and realized”) A.3.11.2

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

actual product under investigation/type or model, distinction A.3.14.1

comparison of weighted average normal value with weighted average of all comparable export transactions A.3.14.2

“like product”/“comparable” equation A.3.14.3

zeroing, negative differences A.3.14.2

sales transaction not “in the ordinary course of trade”, weighted average (AD 2.2.2(ii)) A.3.11.2

interpretation of covered agreements

multiple permissible interpretations A.3.60.1

benefit of doubt to challenged measure A.3.60.1

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1) A.3.60.1

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.3.60.1

EC — Bed Linen (Article 21.5 — India) (WT/DS141/AB/RW)     back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.8

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

calculation of volume of dumped imports (AD 3.1 and 3.2) A.3.7.1

calculation of “all other” anti-dumping rate (AD 9.4), relevance A.3.44.1–3

calculation of volume (AD 2.1) compared A.3.7.1

method, freedom to choose A.3.18.1–3

“positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.7.1, A.3.18.1–3

AD 9.4, relevance A.3.44.1, A.3.44.3

AD 17.6(ii), relevance A.3.60.4

country by country analysis/cumulative assessment of volume and prices (AD 3.3), “positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.21.1

evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5)

failure to establish prima facie case R.4.3.5

injurious effects of dumped goods and of other factors, need to distinguish (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) A.3.24.6

non-attribution to dumped imports of injury caused by other factors (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) A.3.24.6

“positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1)

calculation of volume of dumped imports A.3.7.1, A.3.44.1, A.3.44.2

country by country analysis/cumulative assessment of volume and prices (AD 3.3) A.3.21.1

“objective examination”

extrapolation of examined producer/exporter findings to non-examined producers/exporters (AD 6.10) A.3.19.3–6

proportional attribution between examined and non-examined producers/exporters A.3.19.5–6

“positive”, in case of producers/exporters examined individually A.3.19.1

due process (investigation of dumping (AD 6)) A.3.29.1

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12)

applicability, AD as whole A.3.29.1

due process A.3.29.1

final resolution of dispute, adoption of panel or AB report by DSB (DSU 16.4, 19.2, 21 and 22) R.4.3.4–R.4.3.5

imposition and collection of dumping duties (AD 9)

calculation of “all other” AD duty rate (AD 9.4)

calculation of volume of dumped imports (AD 3), relevance A.3.44.1–3

as exception to AD 9.3 A.3.44.2

prior determination of margins of dumping, injury and causal link (AD 2 and 3), need for (AD 9.1) A.3.39.1

individual margins of dumping (AD 6.10), “as a rule”, impracticality of examination of all producers/exporters as justification for departure from rule A.3.37.2.1

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (DSU 13), panel’s rights, not to seek S.4.14

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], AD 17.6(ii) A.3.60.4

grammar, respect for A.3.39.1

multiple authentic languages (VCLT 33) I.3.11.2

presumption of same meaning (VCLT 33(3)) I.3.11.2

multiple permissible interpretations A.3.58.5, A.3.60.4

panel reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 16.4)

as final resolution of dispute R.4.3.4

unappealed panel finding R.4.3.4–R.4.3.6

prompt compliance with DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.1) R.4.3.4

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3)

completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.8

as “essential to the effective functioning of the WTO …” P.4A.8

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5) R.4.1.3–R.4.1.4

finality of panel/AB report R.4.3.4–R.4.3.5

adopted panel reports P.4A.8

unappealed panel reports R.4.3.4–R.4.3.5

complainant’s failure to establish prima facie case of WTO-inconsistent measure, relevance R.4.3.5, R.4.3.14

“matter referred”

legal basis of claim/consistency of measure R.4.1.3–R.4.1.4

measure taken to comply, existence R.4.1.3–R.4.1.4

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency) R.4.1.3–R.4.1.4

as new claim/reassertion of old R.4.2.3–R.4.2.4, R.4.3.6

objectives, prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3) P.4A.8

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1) A.3.60.4

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.7.3.16–17

“objective assessment of matter before it”, de minimis error S.7.3.2, S.7.3.16

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6)

assessment of the facts (AD 17.6(i)) A.3.59.8–9

de novo review/substitution of panel’s own assessment, exclusion A.3.58.5

“unbiased and objective” A.3.58.5

authorities’ “proper” establishment of facts (AD 17.6(i)) A.3.58.5

discretionary powers A.3.59.9

“facts made available” (AD 17.5(ii)), requirement to seek information A.3.59.8

interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii))

in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law A.3.60.4

“admits of more than one permissible interpretation” A.3.58.5, A.3.60.4

objective assessment, relevance A.3.60.4

EC — Chicken Cuts (WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS269/AB/R/Corr.1, WT/DS286/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R/Corr. 1)     back to top

Harmonized System

as aid to interpretation of covered agreements H.1.3–4, I.3.3.6–7, T.1.2.9

as basis for classification in Schedules of Concessions/covered agreements T.1.2.9

Chapter Notes

binding effect H.1.5

Explanatory Notes distinguished H.1.5

“preservation” as objective criterion H.1.6–7

WTO agreements, relationship with H.1.3–4, I.3.3.6–7, T.1.2.9

interpretation of covered agreements

circumstances of conclusion of treaty (VCLT 32)

constructive knowledge of event, act or instrument I.3.10.22

EC customs classification practice, whether I.3.10.24–25

relevance vs. direct link/direct influence requirement I.3.10.19–20

temporal correlation between “circumstance” and conclusion of treaty I.3.10.21

context (VCLT 31(2))

any agreement made between the parties (VCLT 31(2)(a)) or accepted by parties (VCLT 31(2)(b)), Harmonized System H.1.3–4

instrument made by one or more parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty (VCLT 31(2)(b)), EC implementing regulation I.3.10.27

interpretation of covered agreements, dictionaries A.1.2.12

object and purpose, consistency with object and purpose of treaty as a whole I.3.6.2

ordinary meaning I.3.2.12

parties’ intentions (VCLT 31(1))

common intention I.3.6.2, T.1.2.4, T.1.2.10

Members’ Schedules, whether I.3.9.8

as rule of customary international law A.1.2.12

supplementary means (VCLT 32) as aid I.3.10.18–19

preparatory work (VCLT 32), EC customs classification practice I.3.10.23–24

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

common practice, need for I.3.9.7–11, T.1.2.10–11

EC customs classification practice, whether I.3.10.24–25

supplementary means (VCLT 32)

common intention of parties, as aid in establishing I.3.10.19

decisions of municipal courts I.3.10.26

“recourse may be had” I.3.10.18–19

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), recommendations and rulings of DSB (DSU 3.4) R.2.3.20

request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2), compliance, importance of, satisfactory settlement/positive solution obligations (DSU 3.4/DSU 3.7) R.2.3.20

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II)

as integral part of the GATT 1994 (WTO II:2) I.3.9.8

interpretation and clarification, circumstances of conclusion (VCLT 32) I.3.10.18–27, T.1.2.10

“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.2.3.18–21

amendment of measure during proceedings R.2.3.18, T.6.3.16

identification of product, need for R.2.3.21

measure subsequent to establishment of panel [having the “same effect”] R.2.3.16, R.2.3.18–R.2.3.20, R.2.3.25, R.2.3.30

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7), positive solution as aim R.2.3.20

EC — Computer Equipment (WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R, WT/DS68/AB/R)     back to top

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), prejudice to party, relevance D.2.2.7, R.2.3.3

Harmonized System, as aid to interpretation of covered agreements H.1.2

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, Schedules of Concessions I.3.5.4–I.3.5.5, T.1.2.1

circumstances of conclusion of treaty (VCLT 32) I.3.10.3

Harmonized System H.1.2, T.1.2.2

legitimate expectations, relevance I.3.5.4–I.3.5.5, T.1.2.6

specific language, need for I.3.5.4

tariff concessions in Member’s schedule I.3.5.4, T.1.2.1, T.1.2.6

unilateral nature of I.3.5.4, T.1.2.1

object and purpose R.2.3.6, T.1.2.1

parties’ intentions (VCLT 31(1)), common intention I.3.5.4, I.3.10.4, T.1.2.1, T.1.2.6

preparatory work (VCLT 32), EC customs classification practice I.3.10.3–I.3.10.4, I.3.10.6, T.1.2.3–5

supplementary means (VCLT 32) I.3.10.2–4, I.3.10.5, I.3.10.18–27

in case of ambiguity (VCLT 32(a)) I.3.10.2

text/plain language, legitimate expectations I.3.5.4

World Customs Organization decisions T.1.2.2

“measure”, DSU 6.2, application of tariffs as R.2.3.4

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II) T.1.2.1–2

as integral part of the GATT 1994 (WTO II:2) I.3.5.4–I.3.5.5, T.1.2.1–2

interpretation and clarification T.1.2.1–7

applicable law I.3.5.4–5, T.1.2.1

circumstances of conclusion (VCLT 32) T.1.2.3

verification of tariff schedules T.1.2.7

World Customs Organization decisions T.1.2.2

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

administrative action relating to customs matters as R.2.3.1

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1) R.2.3.4–7

due process right to defend oneself D.2.2.7, R.2.3.3

identification of product, need for R.2.3.1–2

object and purpose of DSU 6.2 as test R.2.3.6

“specific”, generic term, sufficiency R.2.3.3

trade regulations (judicial, arbitral or administrative review) (GATT X:3(b)), “administrative action relating to customs matters” R.2.3.1

World Customs Organization (WCO), decisions as aid to interpretation of Schedules of Tariff Concessions T.1.2.2

EC — Export Subsidies on Sugar (WT/DS265/33, WT/DS266/33, WT/DS283/14)     back to top

interpretation of covered agreements, applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], Schedules of Concessions T.1.2.12

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II), as integral part of the GATT 1994 (WTO II:2) A.1.4A.1, T.1.2.12

EC — Export Subsidies on Sugar (WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R)     back to top

AB procedure, DSB decision extending 60-day period for adopting panel report or filing notice of appeal, timing W.2.0.2

AG Agreement

export competition commitments (AG 8), compliance with both AG and Schedule of Commitments, need for A.1.14B.1–2, T.1.4.1

GATT 1994 and (AG 21.1) A.1.37.3–4, A.1.38.15, S.2.19.4

primacy of AG A.1.37.4, T.1.4.1

interpretation

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.1.5A.1

text/plain language A.1.14B.1, A.1.17.3

Modalities Paper A.1.37A.2

object and purpose, substantial progressive reductions in agricultural support and protection A.1.5A.3–4

Schedules of Commitments (AG 3)

conformity with AG, need for A.1.14B.1–2, T.1.4.1

as integral part of the GATT 1994 (AG 3.1) A.1.4A.1, A.1.37.4

primacy of AG (AG 21) A.1.6.3–4, T.1.4.1

burden of proof, reversal in respect of presumption of nullification or impairment (DSU 3.8) N.3.2–3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), in absence of full argumentation of legal issues A.1.38.15, C.4.27

factual basis

limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record C.4.27

sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement A.1.38.15, C.4.27, S.2.19.5

issues of law/legal interpretations

issues not examined by panel C.4.27

new arguments S.3.1.7

cross-subsidization (AG 9.1(c)) A.1.20.13, A.1.28.2–3

domestic support commitments (AG 6)

domestic support/export subsidy regimes, need to maintain distinction (AG 3) A.1.36.2

spill-over effect of permitted domestic support A.1.36.2

Footnotes, status A.1.37.4

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), full argumentation of issues, need for A.1.38.15, C.4.27

estoppel

good faith engagement in dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.10) P.3.1.16, P.3.1.19, P.3.7.1–2

relevance in WTO dispute settlement P.3.7.1–2

“export subsidy” (AG 1(e)), measures falling within AG 9.1 as A.1.3.4, A.1.14C.1, A.1.17.4

export subsidy commitments (AG 9)

“export subsidy commitments” (AG 3.1) A.1.4A.1

“commitments limiting subsidization” A.1.4B.1

levels (AG 9.2), “budgetary outlays … and the quantities benefiting from such subsidies”, as linked requirements (AG 9.2(b)(iv)) A.1.5A.1–4, A.1.14D.1, A.1.29A.1

“reduction commitments”

budgetary outlay commitments (AG 9.2(a)(i)) A.1.14D.1

quantity commitments (AG 9.2(a)(ii)) A.1.14D.1

“subject to reduction commitments”, applicability to AG 9.1 subsidies A.1.14D.1

export subsidy commitments (prevention of circumvention (AG 10.1)), reversal of burden of proof

DSU 6.2 requirements distinguished A.1.34A.1

SCM claims, applicability to A.1.38.15

export subsidy, prohibition (AG 3.3)

in excess of budgetary outlay and quantity commitment level (AG 3.3) A.1.4B.1

budgetary outlay and quantity commitment levels A.1.5A.1–4

“commitments limiting subsidization” (AG 3.1) A.1.4B.1

good faith engagement in dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.10), estoppel P.3.1.16, P.3.1.19

implementation of panel/AB recommendations, right of panel/AB to make suggestions for (DSU 19.1), discretionary nature of right I.0.2

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law

customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT] A.1.4A.1, T.1.2.12

Schedules of Concessions A.1.4A.1

object and purpose, preamble/chapeau of article under discussion as evidence of A.1.5A.2

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.1.5A.1

text/plain language A.1.14B.1, A.1.17.3

judicial economy, “positive solution to dispute” requirement J.1.21, S.2.19.4, S.7.7.2

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2)), statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), sufficiency, summary of contested conclusion and related findings and interpretations W.2.7.3.4

nullification or impairment, presumption in case of inconsistency with covered agreement (DSU 3.8) N.3.2–3

adverse impact as N.3.2–3

payments on export of agricultural product financed by virtue of governmental action (AG 9.1(c))

average total cost of production benchmark A.1.20.12–13

benchmark/standard (AG 9.1(c)), independent enquiry into existence of benefit, relevance A.1.3.4, A.1.17.4

“by virtue of”

government control, relevance A.1.26.10

nexus, need for A.1.26.9

regulatory framework, relevance A.1.26.10

cost of production, failure to recoup as A.1.20.11–13

cross-subsidization A.1.20.13, A.1.28.2–3

“on the export” A.1.28.3

“financed”, “whether or not a charge on the public account” A.1.27.7

“governmental action”, determination on case-by-case basis A.1.26.11

“payments”

transfer of economic resources, need for A.1.17.3

distinct entities, relevance A.1.17.3, A.1.28.2

payments by private parties as A.1.26.9, A.1.27.7

request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2), reversal of burden of proof (AG 10.3) A.1.34A.1

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II)

interpretation and clarification

applicable law A.1.4A.1

Footnotes, status A.1.37.4, T.1.4.1

SCM Agreement, dispute settlement (SCM 30), special or additional rules and procedures (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2), SCM 4.7 (recommendation for withdrawal of subsidy) J.1.21, S.2.19.4, S.7.7.2

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

“objective assessment of matter before it”

error of law, failure to make recommendation to resolve dispute J.1.20–21, S.2.19.4, S.7.7.2

obligation to rule on parties’ SCM 3 claims J.1.21, S.2.19.4–5, S.7.7.2

“such other findings as will assist the DSB” (DSU 7.1/DSU 11) J.1.20–21, S.7.7.1–2

judicial economy J.1.20–21, J.1.26, S.2.19.4, S.7.7.2

recommendation for DSB recommendation or ruling J.1.20–21, S.2.19.4, S.7.7.2

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7), fruitfulness of resort to dispute settlement procedures P.3.7.2

“withdrawal of subsidy without delay” (SCM 4.7), time-limits, insufficiency of facts in panel report for AB to specify A.1.38.15, C.4.27, S.2.19.5

EC — Fasteners (China) (WT/DS397/AB/R)     back to top

accession protocol (China)

NME status of China A.0.1.6–7

special rules/derogations for determining price comparability under GATT VI/AD (Art. 15(a)) A.0.1.3–7

burden of proof A.0.1.3, A.0.1.7

individual margins of dumping (AD 6.10), relevance A.0.1.6

limitation to domestic prices and costs/normal value A.0.1.5–7

termination of Art. 15(a) (Art. 15(d)) A.0.1.4

Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD)/GATT 1994 VI relationship A.3.64.5

burden of proof

DSU proceedings S.7.2.25

“due allowance … for differences which affect price comparability” (AD 2.4) A.3.13A.3–4

“fair comparison” (AD 2.4) A.3.12.7–9

“major proportion of the domestic industry” (AD 4.1/SG 4(1)(c)) A.3.27A.5

market economy conditions (China’s accession protocol) A.0.1.3, A.0.1.7

panel’s duty not to make case for complaining party prima facie case S.7.2.25

single entity status (AD 6.10) A.3.37.2.6

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact, interpretation of municipal law M.5.22

completion of legal analysis, in absence of request from party S.3.2.9

confidential information (AD 6.5) A.3.32A.1–8

“by nature” confidential A.3.32A.1

“good cause” A.3.32A.2

assessment as matter of fact A.3.32A.8

authorities’ obligations in relation to A.3.32A.3

risk of adverse effect, sufficiency A.3.32A.8

“shown” A.3.32A.3

information provided by “parties to investigation” A.3.32A.4

“interested parties” (AD 6.11) distinguished A.3.32A.4

non-confidential summaries (AD 6.5.1)

compliance obligation/absence of sanction for non-compliance A.3.32A.7

“information not susceptible of summary” A.3.32A.6–7

obligation to state reasons for “exceptional circumstances” A.3.32A.6–7

“sufficient detail to permit reasonable understanding of the substance” A.3.32A.6–7

transparency/due process requirements A.3.32A.5–6

derogations from the rule/alternatives, individual margins of dumping “as a rule” (AD 6.10), sampling A.3.37.2.2–4

determination of dumping (AD 2)

“due allowance … for differences which affect price comparability” A.3.13A.3–4

burden of proof A.3.13A.3–4

fair comparison (AD 2.4)

indication to parties of information necessary for/avoidance of unreasonable burden of proof A.0.1.3, A.0.1.7, A.3.12.8–9

judicial economy considerations J.1.24

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

“positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1)

“objective examination”

definition of domestic industry (AD 4.1) A.3.27A.2

industry as a whole, need to examine A.3.17.6

“positive” A.3.16.6

sampling A.3.17.7

“domestic industry” (AD 4.1/SG 4(1)(c))

fragmented industry A.3.27A.3

“a major proportion” A.3.27A.1–8

25% benchmark test (AD 5.4) A.3.27A.6

as collective output of “domestic producers as a whole” A.3.27A.1

“a relatively high proportion substantially reflecting” A.3.27A.5

sampling on self-selection basis, risk of distortion A.3.27A.7

object and purpose of defining (AD 3, Footnote 9) A.3.27A.2, A.3.27A.4

objective examination obligation (AD 3.1) A.3.27A.2

time-limits for determining, investigating authorities’ right to impose A.3.27A.8

due process (application of trade measures) D.2.1.2

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

request for establishment of panel (DSU 6.2) T.6.1.24

timely presentation of facts/evidence, failure to present facts and arguments prior to first substantive meeting with panel D.2.2.39, W.3.12

due process (investigation of dumping (AD 6)), confidential information (AD 6.5) A.3.32A.5–6

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), decision on compliance with GATT VI:1 as preliminary to determining compliance with GATT I:1 A.3.64.5, M.2.1.6, M.3.14

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), time-limits for submission, first substantive meeting of panel with parties, relevance D.2.2.39, W.3.12

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12)

“ample opportunity to present in writing all evidence” (AD 6.1/SCM/12.1)

“ample opportunity” A.3.29.2

“questionnaire” A.3.30.1.9–12

right to impose time-limits (AD 6.1.1/SCM 12.1.1) A.3.30.1.8–12

disclosure/notification to interested parties of information relevant for presentation of case (AD 6.4/SCM 12.9)

disclosure of essential facts prior to determination (AD 6.9) distinguished A.3.32.6, A.3.36A.1

“presentations” A.3.31.7

reasoning or deliberations of investigating authority, exclusion A.3.32.8

“relevant” A.3.32.4–8

right to see all non-confidential information A.3.32.4–6

sufficiency of reference to AD 6.2 and 6.4 for “brief summary” requirement (DSU 6.2) A.3.31.8, A.3.32.11, M.3.15

use in an anti-dumping investigation “required step” A.3.32.8–9

“used” A.3.32.4

“used by the authorities” A.3.32.4–7

full opportunity for defence of interests, right to (AD 6.2) A.3.29.2

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9)

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

“from all sources” A.3.40.4

individual dumping margins obligation (AD 6.10) A.3.40.4–10

impracticality of obligation A.3.40.7

“shall name the supplier” A.3.40.5

non-discrimination obligation A.3.40.5

“shall”/mandatory obligation A.3.40.4

new shipper reviews (AD 9.5), individual margins of dumping rule (AD 6.10) compared A.3.37.2.4

“in respect of any product” (AD 9.2), specification of AD duties by supplier, consistency with A.3.40.3

supplementary means of interpretation, relevance I.3.10.34

treatment of several suppliers as “supplying country” (AD 9.2) A.3.37.2.6–8, A.3.40.9

imposition and collection of dumping duties (AD 9), prior determination of margins of dumping, injury and causal link (AD 2 and 3), need for (AD 9.1) A.3.39.5

individual margins of dumping “as a rule” (AD 6.10)

accession protocol (China), relevance A.0.1.6

collection “in appropriate amounts” (AD 9.2/SCM 19.3) A.3.40.4–10

derogations from the rule/alternatives

derogation limited to NMEs A.3.37.2.5

derogation in respect of new exporters (AD 9.5) compared A.3.37.2.4

derogations not provided for in the covered agreements A.3.37.2.4–5

determination for exporter or producer not originally included who submits necessary information (AD 6.10.2) A.3.37.2.4

impracticality of examination of all producers/exporters as justification A.3.37.2.3, A.3.40.7

“known exporter or producer”, determination as responsibility of investigating authority A.3.37.2.6–8, A.3.40.9

“as a rule” A.3.1A.1, A.3.1A.3, A.3.37.2.2, A.3.37.2.4–6

“shall” A.3.37.2.2

treatment of several exporters as single entity A.3.37.2.6–8, A.3.40.9

burden of proof A.3.37.2.6

economic structure of WTO Member as evidence of A.3.37.2.7

individual dumping margin based on average export prices of individuals/imposition of single AD duty A.3.37.2.8

NME exporters or producers as A.3.37.2.6–8, A.3.40.9

relevant factors A.3.37.2.8

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2)), article as a whole A.3.40.6

dictionaries A.3.40.7

investigation of dumping (AD 5)/subsidy (SCM 11), initiation (AD 5.4/SCM 11.4), support of domestic industry, need for, 25% benchmark, relevance to “major proportion” test (AD 4.1) A.3.27A.6

judicial economy

panel’s discretionary power to determine which claims must be examined, arguments and claims distinguished J.1.24

ruling on one element of dispute rendering consideration of other elements moot A.3.64.5

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

claims and arguments distinguished C.1.11

summary, sufficiency, reference to AD 2, reference to AD 6.2 and 6.4 A.3.31.8, A.3.32.11

MFN treatment (GATT I)

determination of compliance of AD duty with GATT VI as preliminary A.3.64.5, M.2.1.6, M.3.14

absence of claim under GATT VI, relevance A.3.64.5

multiple appeals (WP 23), Notice of Other Appeal requirements, brief statement of nature of other appeal (WP 23(2)(c)) W.2.7.3.7

municipal law

compliance with WTO/international obligations

classification of measure/transaction under municipal law, relevance M.5.24, S.7.3.60

panel’s assessment as legal characterization/as matter for appellate review M.5.22–23, S.3.3.28–29

as evidence of, compliance with WTO/international obligations S.3.3.28

interpretation, classification as issue of law or fact S.3.3.28

NMEs I.3.10.34

China’s status A.0.1.6–7

“fair comparison” (AD 2.4), NMEs, “fair comparison” (AD 2.4) A.3.12.8–9

individual margins of dumping (AD 6.10)

possibility of derogation limited to A.3.37.2.5

single entity status of exporters and producers A.3.37.2.6–8, A.3.40.9

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

due process/right to defend interests as purpose/benchmark W.2.7.5.9

Notice of Other Appeal, brief statement of nature of (WP 23(2)(c)(ii)) W.2.7.3.7

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), requirements, failure to meet requirements, effect W.2.7.5.9, W.2.8.2–3

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

compliance, importance of

opportunity to cure defect T.6.1.24, T.6.2.24

scrutiny by panel T.6.1.24

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II), ordinary customs duties in excess of those provided for in Schedule (GATT II:1(b)), AD duties distinguished A.3.64.5

“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”

“included but not necessarily limited to” T.6.2.24

“sufficient to present the problem clearly” A.3.31.8, A.3.32.11, T.6.2.24

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.7.2.24, S.7.3.62

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.7.3.61

obligation to treat parties’ evidence consistently and even-handedly S.7.3.59

party’s obligation to provide evidence to support its argument S.7.3.58

totality of evidence vs. individual evidentiary factors S.7.3.59

claim of failure by panel to comply with DSU obligations as autonomous claim S.7.2.24

“objective assessment of matter before it”

burden of proof/party’s arguments and evidence as basis of assessment S.7.2.25

de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.3.61

obligation to consider all arguments/address in report C.1.12, S.3.2.9, S.7.3.59

party’s obligation to identify/explain specific errors S.7.2.24, S.7.3.62

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), request for establishment of panel as basis T.6.1.27

EC — Hormones (WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R)     back to top

AB reports, timing of circulation (DSU 17.5/WP 26), modification W.2.10.2.1

burden of proof B.3.1.3

defences and exceptions B.3.3.3

measures which result in a higher level of protection than international standards (SPS 3.3) B.3.3.3

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence B.3.1.3

defences/exceptions B.3.3.3

prima facie case B.3.2.2

panel ruling in favour of party presenting case, need for B.3.2.2

procedures, modification W.3.3

SPS measures B.3.3.3, S.6.6.3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact

compliance/consistency with treaty obligations S.3.3.3, S.7.3.1

credibility and weight of evidence S.3.3.3, S.7.3.1

completion of legal analysis C.4.3–4

in case of disagreement with/reversal of panel finding C.4.3–4

factual basis, contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.3–4

issues of law/legal interpretations

alleged failure of panel to make objective assessment (DSU 11) S.3.2.1

issues not raised by parties C.4.3

competence (panels), objections, requirements, specificity/explicitness O.1.1

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.2.1

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), panel’s discretion on matters of procedure (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3) D.2.2.2–3, O.1.1

expert evidence/experts

divergence of views S.6.14.4

multiple complainants (DSU 9.2) M.4.1–2

harmonization of measures (SPS 3)

burden of proof, SPS measures S.6.7.1–2

general rule/exception relationship (SPS 3.1 and 3.2), whether S.6.8.1–3

interpretation of covered agreements

Footnotes to treaty S.6.8.4

object and purpose, preamble/chapeau of article under discussion as evidence of S.6.8.2

measures based on international standards (SPS 3.1) S.6.6.1–3

“based on” S.6.6.1

burden of proof S.6.6.3

measures which conform to international standards (SPS 3.2) S.6.7.1–2

burden of proof S.6.7.1–2

incorporation into municipal law S.6.7.2

presumption of consistency S.6.6.1, S.6.6.3, S.6.7.2

measures which result in a higher level of protection (SPS 3.3) S.6.8.1–5

consistency with other SPS articles including SPS 5.1-8 S.6.8.4

Members’ right to choose S.6.5.1, S.6.8.1–3

risk assessment, need for (SPS 3.3, Footnote 2 and SPS 5.1) S.6.8.4

scientific justification, need for S.6.8.4

SPS preamble S.6.8.2

municipal law, incorporation of international SPS standard S.6.7.2

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

expert evidence/experts (DSU 13.2), individual advice, right to seek S.4.1–2

panel’s rights

not to seek S.7.3.3

to establish group of experts S.4.1, W.3.2

to make ad hoc rules S.4.2, W.3.2

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (SPS 11.2), panel’s right to establish group of experts S.4.1

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT], SPS P.3.5.1

context (VCLT 31(2)), treaty/treaties as a whole S.6.14.2, S.6.17.1, S.6.17.2

in dubio mitius principle I.3.8.1, S.6.6.2

definition I.3.8.1

as supplementary means of interpretation I.3.8.1

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion as evidence of object and purpose P.3.5.1

presumption of consistency (SPS 3.2) S.6.6.1, S.6.6.3

supplementary means (VCLT 32) I.3.8.1

in dubio mitius principle I.3.8.1

text/plain language I.3.2.2

judicial economy J.1.4

multiple complainants (DSU 9)

harmonization of panels and timetables (DSU 9.3)

joint meeting with experts M.4.1–2

prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.2

participation in panel proceedings by third parties (DSU 10) D.2.2.3

participation in panel proceedings initiated by another complainant M.4.3

non-retroactivity of treaties (VCLT 28), continuing measures T.5.2.1

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

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), requirements

legal argument in support of claim distinguished S.3.2.1

specific reference to allegation of panel’s failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11) S.3.2.1

ordinary meaning of, “potential” S.6.9.4

panel procedures (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3)

panel’s discretion D.2.2.2–3, O.1.1, W.3.3

burden of proof W.3.3

due process and D.2.2.2–3, O.1.1

precautionary principle (general)

customary international environmental law S.6.23.1

customary international law P.3.5.1, S.6.23.1

precautionary principle (SPS 5.7)

consistency of measures with SPS agreement, need for S.6.23.1

measures which result in a higher level of protection than international standards (SPS 3.3) P.3.5.1

provisional application of SPS measures (SPS 5.7) P.3.5.1, S.6.23.1

SPS preamble P.3.5.1

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

ascertainable/theoretical risk distinguished (SPS 5.1) S.6.10.1–2

quantitative threshold, relevance S.6.14.1

assessment prepared other than by Member concerned, acceptability (SPS 5.1 and Annex A(4)) S.6.9.5

balance of SPS interests (SPS 5.1) S.6.9.1

elements (Annex A(4)), “potential”, “probable” distinguished S.6.9.4

measures based on, need for (SPS 5.1) S.6.14.1–2

risk management distinguished (SPS 5.1 and Annex A(4)) S.6.9.3

“scientific justification” (SPS 2.3) S.6.8.4–5

“scientific justification” (SPS 3.3) S.6.9.5

specificity of assessment, need for (SPS 5.1 and 5.2) S.6.13.1–2, S.6.13.7

“sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2) S.6.3.1–2, S.6.9.1–2, S.6.14.2

divergence of expert views, relevance S.6.14.4

rational relationship between measure/risk and scientific evidence, need for S.6.14.2, S.6.14.4

two-step process, acceptability (Annex A(4)) S.6.9.4

SPS Agreement

arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination, exclusion (SPS 2.3)

appropriate level of protection (SPS 5.5) S.6.15.1–2, S.6.16.1

alternative sources of discrimination S.6.17.3–4

as balance between promotion of international trade and protection of human, animal or plant life or health S.6.3.1, S.6.5.2

risk assessment (SPS 5.1) S.6.9.1

basic rights and obligations (SPS 2), underlying nature of provision S.6.2.1, S.6.3.2

interpretation

customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT] P.3.5.1

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion as evidence of object and purpose S.6.8.2

retroactivity/applicability to pre-existing situations and measures T.5.2.1

SPS Agreement, sufficient scientific evidence, need for (SPS 2.2) S.6.3.1–2

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

comparability of measures, need for S.6.16.1

consistency in application (SPS 5.5) S.6.15.1–2

arbitrary or unjustifiable inconsistencies, exclusion S.6.15.1–2

discrimination or disguised restriction of trade resulting from inconsistency S.6.15.2, S.6.17.1, S.6.17.2–3

discrimination or disguised restriction of trade resulting from inconsistency (SPS 2.3) S.6.15.2, S.6.17.1, S.6.17.2–3

distinctions in the level of protection in different situations S.6.16.1

comparability S.6.16.1

legal obligation, whether S.6.15.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”) S.7.2.1

discretion in selection of relevant evidence S.7.3.4, S.7.3.49

discretion to select which evidence to refer to explicitly S.7.3.4, S.7.3.49

obligation to request information S.7.3.3

DSU 11 as applicable law, applicability to AD Agreement subject to AD 17.6 S.7.1.1

“objective assessment of matter before it”

applicability of and conformity with relevant covered agreements, customary international law, applicability S.7.2.1

applicable law, customary international law S.7.2.1

de minimis error S.7.3.2

de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.2.1

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

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6), non-applicability to covered agreements other than AD Agreement such as the SCM and SPS Agreements S.7.1.1

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 C.2.1

third party rights T.8.1

panel proceedings (DSU 10 and Appendix 3), panel’s discretion, enhancement in accordance with due process D.2.2.3, T.8.1

EC — Poultry (WT/DS69/AB/R)     back to top

AG Agreement, special safeguards (AG 5), c.i.f. import price (AG 5.1(b)) A.1.14.1, A.1.14.2

bilateral agreements, covered agreement status B.2.1

“c.i.f. import price” (AG 5.1(b)) A.1.14.1, A.1.14.2

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

issues of law/legal interpretations S.3.1.3

alleged failure of panel to make objective assessment (DSU 11) S.3.2.3

upholding, modification or reversal of legal findings and conclusions (DSU 17.13) S.3.1.3

GATT 1947, continuing relevance under WTO B.2.1

interpretation of covered agreements

circumstances of conclusion of treaty I.3.10.7

supplementary means (VCLT 32) I.3.10.7

judicial economy, panel’s discretionary power to determine which arguments must be examined S.7.2.3

Licensing Agreement L.2.3

trade distortion in part of trade not subject to procedures L.2.3

non-discriminatory administration of quantitative restrictions (GATT XIII) T.2.5–7

allocation to Members having a substantial interest (GATT XIII:2(d)) T.2.5

compensation negotiated under GATT XXVIII T.2.6

distribution of trade as close as possible to expected shares in absence of restrictions as aim (GATT XIII:2, chapeau) T.2.7

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.3.2.3

Oilseeds Agreement (EC–Brazil), covered agreement status B.2.1

oral hearing (WP 27), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.4

publication and administration of trade regulations (GATT X)

administration and existence of law, regulation, decision or ruling distinguished P.5.1.3

laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application (GATT X:1) P.5.1.1–3

substance and fact of publication distinguished P.5.1.3

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II)

diminishment of obligations, exclusion T.1.3.2

as integral part of the GATT 1994 (WTO II:2), Schedule LXXX B.2.1, T.1.3.3

Schedule LXXX

bilateral agreements B.2.1

bilateral settlements B.2.1

as integral part of the GATT 1994 (WTO II:2) B.2.1, T.1.3.3

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

“objective assessment of matter before it” S.7.2.2–3

obligation to consider all arguments/address in report S.7.2.3

EC — Sardines (WT/DS231/AB/R)     back to top

AB procedure

withdrawal of appeal (WP 30(1)) W.2.13.1.3–6

conditioned on right to re-file notice of appeal in accordance with (WP 20) W.2.13.1.3–6

good faith W.2.13.1.4–6

re-filing of notice of appeal, timing W.2.1

unconditional nature of right W.2.13.1.3–5

working schedule (WP 26), timing W.2.0.1

amicus curiae briefs A.2.1.12

NGO/association/private individual briefs A.2.1.12

discretionary power of panel to accept/reject A.2.1.12

WTO Member briefs A.2.2, A.2.2.1–7

discretionary power of AB to accept/reject A.2.2.1–7

interference with “fair, prompt and effective resolution of trade disputes” A.2.2.6

rights as third party (DSU 10.2 and 17.4), relevance A.2.2.4

burden of proof B.3.1.11–12

allocation

comparative difficulties of parties, relevance B.3.1.12

general rule/exception, relationship, SPS 3.1 and 3.3 B.3.1.11–12

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence B.3.1.11

conformity of domestic laws, regulations and administrative procedures with AD provisions, obligation to ensure (AD 18.4) W.4.3.1

conformity of domestic laws, regulations and administrative procedures with WTO, obligation to ensure (WTO XVI:4) W.4.3.1

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), amicus curiae briefs A.2.2.6

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), compliance with WTO obligations P.3.1.9

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

expert evidence/experts (DSU 13.2), “from any relevant source” S.4.12

panel’s rights, not to seek S.4.12

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT] P.3.4.5

object and purpose W.2.1.2

same or closely related phrases in different agreements B.3.1.11

non-retroactivity of treaties (VCLT 28) P.3.4.5

pre-existing rights, TBT Agreement T.5.3.1–2

procedure, fair, prompt and effective resolution of disputes W.2.1.2

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), procedure, role W.2.1.2

SPS Agreement, harmonization of measures (SPS 3)

general rule/exception relationship (SPS 3.1 and 3.2), whether B.3.1.11

measures based on international standards (SPS 3.1), burden of proof B.3.1.11

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.3.3.9, S.7.3.12B, S.7.3.12B

evidence introduced at interim review, right to ignore (DSU 15) E.3.1.10, S.7.3.13

“objective assessment of matter before it”, panel as trier of facts S.7.3.12B

standards (TBT Annex 1.2)

“international standards … as a basis for technical regulation” (TBT 2.4)

applicability to existing regulations T.4.5.1–3

applicability to pre-existing measures T.5.3.1–2

“as the basis” T.4.3.1

“except when … ineffective or inappropriate” T.4.4.1

“relevant parts of them” T.4.3.2

“technical regulation” (TBT Annex 1.1) T.4.1.6–9

identifiability requirement T.4.1.7, T.4.1.9

naming and labelling distinguished T.4.1.9, T.4.1.12

technical regulations and standards (TBT 2)

legitimate objective (TBT 2.2/2.4), relevance T.4.4.2

standards (Annex 1.2), consensus, relevance (Annex 1.2 and Explanatory note) T.4.2.1

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), oral hearings, passive participation in W.2.9.7

Working Procedures Appellate Review) (DSU 17.9)

determination by Appellate Body (DSU 17.9) A.2.2.5

object and purpose, fair, prompt and effective resolution of disputes W.2.1.2

WTO Agreement, obligation to ensure conformity of domestic laws, regulations and administrative procedures (WTO XVI:4) W.4.3.1

EC — Selected Customs Matters (WT/DS315/AB/R)     back to top

AB procedure, documents (WP 18), correction of clerical errors in submissions W.2.6A.2.3

AB/panel recommendations for bringing inconsistent measure into conformity (DSU 19.1)

determination of status as “measure at issue” distinguished R.2.3.24

expired measures I.0.5, P.5.3.1.3, R.2.3.24–R.2.3.25, T.6.3.15–16

Member’s right to choose means of compliance I.0.5

AB/panel’s right to make suggestions for implementation of recommendations (DSU 19.1), compliance with suggestion, discretionary nature I.0.5

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis

in case of panel’s failure to examine applicability of covered agreement C.4.34

factual basis

limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record C.4.34

sufficiency of undisputed facts requirement C.4.34

due process (review of trade regulations (GATT X:3(b))) P.5.3.2.4

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), administrative process for implementing legal instrument E.3.2.17

impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member, prompt settlement (DSU 3.3), attributability of measure to responding Member, need for R.2.3.23–R.2.3.24, T.6.3.14

interpretation of covered agreements, object and purpose P.5.3.2.4–5, W.2.1.2

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

claims and arguments distinguished C.1.10, R.2.1.14, T.6.1.18, T.6.2.13

summary, sufficiency R.2.1.13

legislation as such, right to challenge

challenge to system as a whole distinguished L.1.21

serious implications of such a challenge C.4.34

“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.2.1.13

non-discriminatory administration of quantitative restrictions (GATT XIII)

publication and administration of trade regulations (GATT X:3(a)) E.3.2.16–19

standard of proof E.3.2.16–17

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

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

expired measure R.2.3.24–R.2.3.25, T.6.3.15–16

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1) T.6.1.18

challenge to system as a whole J.2.1.23, R.2.2.24–25, T.6.2.22–23

“specific”

“included but not necessarily limited to” R.2.1.14

“sufficient to present the problem clearly” C.1.10, R.2.1.13, R.2.1.14, R.2.2.25, T.6.1.17, T.6.1.18

legal basis of claim distinguished R.2.1.13, R.2.3.22, T.6.1.17, T.6.3.13

means of compliance with finding of violation distinguished I.0.5, P.5.3.1.3, R.2.3.24, T.6.3.15

“measure” as basis of claim and as evidence distinguished E.3.1.9, P.5.3.1.4

measure subsequent to establishment of panel having the “same effect” R.2.3.25

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.3.2.16–19, S.7.3.32

acts of administration post-dating establishment of panel, right to consider E.3.1.9, E.3.2.18, P.5.3.1.4, S.7.6.3–4

discretion in selection of relevant evidence P.5.3.1.4

evidence introduced at interim review, right to ignore (DSU 15) E.3.1.10

“objective assessment of matter before it”, failure to analyse evidence P.5.3.1.11

trade regulations (judicial, arbitral or administrative review) (GATT X:3(b))

independent judicial, arbitral or administrative review (GATT X:3(b))

as due process requirement P.5.3.2.4, P.5.3.2.8

first instance review, limitation to P.5.3.2.1

uniformity requirement (GATT X:3(a)) P.5.3.2.2–P.5.3.2.4

laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings, administration and existence of law, regulation, decision or ruling distinguished P.5.3.1.5–11

uniform, impartial and reasonable administration (GATT X:3(a)), standard of proof P.5.3.1.7, P.5.3.1.9–11

EC — Tariff Preferences (WT/DS246/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof

allocation, characterization as defence or claim to be proven for purposes of, relevance B.3.1.15, B.3.3.11

defences and exceptions

Enabling Clause B.3.3.8–14

inconsistency with GATT I:1, sufficiency as basis of complaint B.3.3.13–14, E.1.1.4

party’s two-stage obligation to raise and prove B.3.3.12

measures which result in a higher level of protection than international standards (SPS 3.3) B.3.3.8–14

permissive provision as defence/exception B.3.3.8

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence, defences/exceptions B.3.3.8–14

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) P.3.2.1

Enabling Clause

burden of proof B.3.3.8–14

inconsistency with GATT I:1, sufficiency as basis of complaint B.3.3.13–14, E.1.1.4

party’s two-stage obligation to raise and prove B.3.3.12, B.3.3.16

differential and more favourable treatment in accordance with the GSP (Enabling Clause para 2(a))/“generalized, non-reciprocal and non-discriminatory” (Footnote 3 to para. 2(a)) E.1.2.1–7

“in accordance” E.1.2.1

authentic texts compared I.3.11.4

“generalized” E.1.2.4

“non-discriminatory” E.1.2.2–3

absence of clear qualifying criteria or standards E.1.2.7

identity of tariff preferences, relevance E.1.2.3–7

as exception to GATT 1:1 MFN obligation B.3.3.9–10, E.1.1.1–4

determination of consistency with GATT I:1 as preliminary step E.1.1.2

primacy of Enabling Clause E.1.1.2

as integral part of WTO Agreement W.4.1.1

least developed countries (para. 2(d))

differential treatment between developing and least-developed countries E.1.3.1

independence of para. 2(a) E.1.3.1

object and purpose

elimination of fragmented system of preferences E.1.2.4

facilitation and promotion of trade without raising of barriers/undue difficulties (para. 3(a)) E.1.4.1

improvement of developing countries’ share of growth in international trade (WTO preamble) E.1.2.5, E.1.5.1

least developed countries E.1.5.1, W.4.1.1

preparatory work (VCLT 32) E.1.1.3, E.1.2.4

1971 Waiver Decision E.1.1.1, E.1.1.3

provision governing trade measures as opposed to non-trade measures, relevance to classification as, provision governing trade measures as opposed to non-trade measures, relevance to classification as B.3.3.10

treatment designed and … modified to respond to needs of developing countries (Enabling Clause para. 3(c)) E.1.5.1–2

differential treatment, scope for E.1.5.1–2

limitation to development, financial and trade needs E.1.5.2

objective standard, need for E.1.5.2

“positive” response E.1.5.2

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law

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

defences and exceptions B.3.3.11

DSU 3.2 B.3.1.15, B.3.3.11

dictionaries E.1.2.1

multiple authentic languages (VCLT 33) I.3.11.4

“stronger” language in two of three authentic languages, preference for I.3.11.4

object and purpose E.1.2.4–6

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion as evidence of object and purpose E.1.5.1, W.4.1.1

preparatory work (VCLT 32), Enabling Clause E.1.2.4

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel) R.2.2.17–19

summary, sufficiency

reference to Enabling Clause including specific provisions R.2.2.18–19, T.6.2.19

reference to GATT I:1 as including reference to Enabling Clause R.2.2.17

MFN treatment (GATT I) M.2.1.5

object and purpose M.2.1.5

“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” B.3.3.13

“sufficient to present the problem clearly” E.1.1.4, R.2.2.17

implied claims, exclusion T.6.2.19

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), oral presentation W.2.9.8

WTO Agreement

integral parts (WTO II), applicability of preamble to all covered agreements W.4.1.1

object and purpose (preamble) W.4.1.1

EC — Tube or Pipe Fittings (WT/DS219/AB/R)     back to top

Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD)/GATT 1994 VI relationship, determination of dumping and calculation of dumping margin A.3.65.8

applicable law, determination of dumping and calculation of margins of dumping A.3.65.8

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of administrative, selling and general costs and profits (AD 2.2.2), low-volume sales, relevance (AD 2.2.2 chapeau) A.3.10.1–2

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4), method, right to choose, GATT VI:2 A.3.14.5, A.3.65.8

period of investigation (POI)

discretionary selection of data from period within POI A.3.2.1

duration, absence of provision A.3.2.1

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

consideration of the volume of dumped imports and their effects on prices (AD 3.2/SCM 15.2) A.3.20.1–4

country by country analysis, need for A.3.20.1–2, A.3.21.2

rationale A.3.21.4

volume and prices as “effects” (AD 3.3) A.3.21.3

evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5)

absence of provision for/freedom of choice A.3.22.7, A.3.22.9, A.3.24.8, E.3.2.4

collective effective, whether examination required A.3.26.1–3

injurious effects of dumped goods and of other factors, need to distinguish (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) A.3.24.7, A.3.26.1

non-attribution to dumped imports of injury caused by other factors (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) A.3.24.7–8, A.3.26.3

evaluation of injury factors (AD 3.4/SCM 15.4) A.3.22.7–9

growth A.3.22.8

manner of evaluation A.3.23.1–4

examination of other known factors (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) A.3.25, A.3.25.1–4

dumping and injury analysis/causality analysis, distinguishability A.3.25.3–4

“known” to investigating authority A.3.25.1

other than dumped imports” A.3.25.1

simultaneous injury to domestic industry requirement A.3.25.1

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12)

disclosure/notification to interested parties of information relevant for presentation of case (AD 6.4/SCM 12.9) A.3.31.1

“relevant” A.3.32.1–3

“used by the authorities” A.3.32.1–3

full opportunity for defence of interests, right to (AD 6.2) A.3.31.1

disclosure obligation (AD 6.4/SCM 12.9) A.3.31.1

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), compliance with WTO obligations P.3.1.11

interpretation of covered agreements, context (VCLT 31(2)), GATT VI/AD, interrelationship A.3.65.8

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1), requirements, accordance with provisions of the GATT VI as interpreted by AD Agreement A.3.65.8

standard/scope of review (AB) (AD 17.6)

assessment of the facts (AD 17.6(i)) A.3.59.10

error, need to substantiate A.3.59.10


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.