SUBJECT INDEX BY CASE: APPELLATE BODY REPORTS

J

 

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


ON THIS PAGE:

> Japan — Agricultural Products II
> Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II
> Japan — Apples
> Japan — DRAMS (Korea)

Japan — Agricultural Products II (WT/DS76/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof

panel’s right to draw on arguments and facts adduced by respondent B.3.1.6

panel’s right to seek information and advice (DSU 13/SPS 11.2), relevance B.3.1.6, B.3.2.3, S.4.7, S.7.3.8

prima facie case B.3.2.3

panel’s duty not to make case for complaining party B.3.2.3, S.4.7, S.7.3.8

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

burden of proof B.3.1.6, B.3.2.3, S.4.7, S.7.3.8

expert evidence (DSU 13.2) S.7.3.7

“from any relevant source” S.7.3.7

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (SPS 11.2)

burden of proof B.3.1.6, B.3.2.3, S.4.7, S.7.3.8

panel’s obligation to seek (SPS 11.2) S.4.6

interpretation of covered agreements, narrow/broad interpretation R.6.19.1, S.6.3.6

judicial economy, “positive solution to dispute” requirement J.1.7

publication of measures such as laws, decrees or ordinances (SPS Agreement, Transparency of SPS Regulations (Annex B(1), Footnote 5)) P.5.4.1, S.6.24.1

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

measures based on, need for (SPS 5.1) S.6.14.3

“sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2) and S.6.3.4–6, S.6.14.3

rational relationship between measure/risk and scientific evidence, need for S.6.14.3

scientific evidence, sufficiency (SPS 2.2) S.6.3.4–6

precautionary principle (SPS 5.7) S.6.19, S.6.19.1–3

provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency (SPS 5.7) S.6.3.6, S.6.19.1–3

obligation to seek to obtain additional information S.6.21.1

for more objective assessment of risk S.6.21.1

requirements, cumulative nature S.6.19.2–3, S.6.20.2

review within a “reasonable” period of time S.6.22.1

rational or objective relationship between SPS measure and scientific evidence, need for S.6.3.5

ad hoc determination S.6.3.5

“sufficiency”, as relative concept S.6.3.4

SPS Agreement, basic rights and obligations (SPS 2), underlying nature of provision S.6.3.4–5

SPS Agreement, appropriate level of protection (SPS 5.5–5.6), measures “not more trade restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of … protection” (SPS 5.6) S.6.18.2

SPS Regulations, Transparency (Annex B), publication of measures such as laws, decrees or ordinances which are generally applicable (Annex B(1), Footnote 5) P.5.4.1, S.6.24.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), “objective assessment of matter before it”, de minimis error S.7.3.9

Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II (WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R)     back to top

AB reports, legal effect/status, limitation of binding effect to particular dispute between the parties S.8.1

acquis (GATT/WTO) (WTO XVI:1) S.8.1

decisions, procedures and customary practices under GATT 1947 (WTO XVI:1) S.8.1, W.4.1

directly competitive or substitutable products (GATT III:2, Ad Note to second sentence), criteria, trade effect N.1.1.1, N.1.4.2

directly competitive or substitutable products (GATT III:2)

criteria

cross-price elasticity N.1.5.1

end-uses N.1.5.1

marketplace N.1.5.1

physical characteristics N.1.5.1

tariff classification/Harmonized System N.1.5.1

determination on case-by-case basis N.1.5.1

final resolution of dispute, adoption of panel or AB report by DSB (DSU 16.4, 19.2, 21 and 22) S.8.1

GATT 1947

continuing relevance under WTO G.2.1.1

decisions of Contracting Parties (WTO Annex 1A, 1(b)(4)) G.2.1.1

GATT 1994, incorporation into WTO Agreement (WTO Annex 1A) G.2.1.1

GATT 1994, incorporation into WTO Agreement (WTO Annex 1A), continuing relevance under WTO, decisions, procedures and customary practices (WTO XVI:1) W.4.1

Harmonized System, as aid to interpretation of covered agreements H.1.1

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the VCLT] I.3.1.2

balance between flexibility/certainty of the law (DSU 3.2) I.3.1.2

context (VCLT 31(2)) N.1.4.1

any agreement made between the parties (VCLT 31(2)(a)) or accepted by parties (VCLT 31(2)(b)) Harmonized H.1.1, N.1.3.2.2

GATT III:1/GATT III as a whole N.1.1.2–3

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) I.3.7.2, N.1.1.2

legitimate expectations, relevance, panel reports S.8.1

narrow/broad interpretation N.1.3.1.1

subsequent practice which establishes parties’ agreement on interpretation (VCLT 31(3)(b)) I.3.9.1–I.3.9.2

common practice, need for I.3.9.1

consistency of practice, need for I.3.9.1

panel reports, whether I.3.9.2, S.8.1

supplementary means (VCLT 32) I.3.10.1

as customary international law I.3.10.1

text/plain language I.3.2.1

“like product” (GATT III:2)

criteria N.1.3.2.1–2

tariff classification/Harmonized System H.1.1, N.1.3.2.2

determination on case-by-case basis N.1.3.1.1–2, N.1.3.2.1–2

directly competitive or substitutable products distinguished N.1.3.1.1–2, N.1.5.1

discretionary element N.1.3.2.2

narrow interpretation, need for N.1.3.1.1

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

interpretation of the GATT III as a whole

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat/effet utile) N.1.1.2

GATT III:1 as context N.1.1.2–3

“so as to afford protection” N.1.1.1–3

equality of competitive conditions N.1.1.1–2

protection of competitive relationship N.1.1.1–2

oral hearing (WP 27), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.2

panel reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 16.4), as final resolution of dispute S.8.1

legal status

adopted reports S.8.1

unadopted reports S.8.1

precedent

decisions, procedures and customary practices under GATT 1947 (WTO XVI:1) S.8.1, W.4.1

panel reports

adopted reports S.8.1

“subsequent practice”, whether I.3.9.2, S.8.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), “objective assessment of matter before it”, error of law, failure to incorporate into conclusions all products referred to in terms of reference T.6.3.1

tax discrimination (GATT III:2)

Members’ right to determine basis of taxation subject to compliance with WTO obligations T.3.1

“not similarly taxed” N.1.7.1–2

determination on case-by-case basis N.1.7.2

“in excess of” distinguished N.1.7.1

threshold/de minimis differential N.1.7.2, N.1.8.4

“so as to afford protection” N.1.1.3

design and structure of measure as evidence of protective application N.1.8.2

intention, relevance N.1.8.1, N.1.8.4

magnitude of differential as evidence of protective effect N.1.8.3, N.1.8.4

omission from GATT III:2, first sentence, relevance N.1.1.3

tax on imported product in excess of tax on domestic product, “in excess of” N.1.4.1, N.1.4.2

WTO Agreement, object and purpose (preamble) N.1.4.1

Japan — Apples (WT/DS245/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof B.3.1.4, B.3.1.7

prima facie case B.3.2.8–11

hypothetical claims, need to address B.3.2.9–11

panel ruling in favour, need for B.3.2.9

proof of fact distinguished B.3.2.8

responding party’s obligation in respect of own case B.3.1.4

standard of proof B.3.2.9–10

interpretation of covered agreements, context (VCLT 31(2)), treaty/treaties as a whole S.6.20.1

judicial economy, “positive solution to dispute” requirement S.6.14.5

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2)), statement of allegations of errors on issues of law/legal interpretations (WP 20(2)(d)), requirements, specific reference to allegation of panel’s failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11) W.2.7.5.2

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

ascertainable/theoretical risk distinguished (SPS 5.1) S.6.10.4

quantitative threshold, relevance S.6.12.4

elements (Annex A(4))

evaluation according to SPS measures S.6.12.4

“which might be applied” S.6.12.4

“likelihood” S.6.12.4

specificity of assessment, need for (SPS 5.1 and 5.2) S.6.13.3–4, S.6.20.1

causal relationship, need to identify S.6.13.3 n. 372

country-specific analysis, need for S.6.13.4 n. 379

“sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2) S.6.14.5

scientific evidence, sufficiency (SPS 2.2) S.6.3.7

provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency (SPS 5.7) S.6.20.1–2

“insufficiency” S.6.20.1–2

“relevant” S.6.20.1

rational or objective relationship between SPS measure and scientific evidence, need for

ad hoc determination S.6.3.7

proportionality S.6.3.7

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.7.3.18

substitution of AB’s assessment, exclusion S.7.3.19

“sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2) S.6.3.7

Japan — DRAMS (Korea) (WT/DS336/AB/R, WT/DS336/AB/R/Corr.1)     back to top

AB procedure

appellant’s submission, requirements (WP 21(2)) W.2.7A.1

documents (WP 18), correction of clerical errors in submissions W.2.6A.2.5

burden of proof, prima facie case, panel’s right to conduct own assessment B.3.2.23

business confidential information (BCI), panel’s obligation to respect rights of third parties B.4.4

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

debt to equity swaps/dilution of ownership S.2.22.4–5

government loan (SCM 14(b)) S.2.22.3

government provision of equity capital (SCM 14(a)) S.2.22.3

mandatory nature of SCM 14 guidelines/investigating authorities’ right to choose S.2.22.3–7

obligation to include method in implementing regulations S.2.22.6

market test S.2.22.3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, factual basis, contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.35

countervailing duties (SCM Part V), level, limitation to amount of existing subsidy S.2.28.3

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

determination of effect of subsidized imports (GATT VI VI:6(a)), relevance S.2.25A.6

determination of serious prejudice (SCM 6) distinguished S.2.25A.5

evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5)

effects of subsidies and of subsidized imports, distinguishability S.2.25A.2

non-attribution to dumped imports of injury caused by other factors S.2.25A.3

evaluation of injury factors (AD 3.4/SCM 15.4), demonstration of injury, need for (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) S.2.25A.1–7

determination of serious injury or threat thereof (SG 4) (requirements), evaluation of all relevant factors (SG 4.2(a)), “factors other than increased imports” (SG 4.2(b)), purpose of provision S.2.25A.2

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), time-limits for submission, mistaken allegation of “lateness” B.3.2.23, E.3.2.28

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12)

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

“allowing” S.2.21D.1

“interested parties” S.2.21D.1

“sufficient evidence” (SCM 11.2) S.2.25A.4

government loan (SCM 14(b)), benchmark elements S.2.22.3

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2)), surrounding language S.2.25A.5

Footnotes to treaty S.2.25A.2

same or closely related phrases in same agreement, SCM 6.3/SCM 15.5 S.2.25A.5

notice of appeal, requirements (WP 20(2)), due process/right to defend interests as purpose/benchmark W.2.7A.1

order of analysis

assumptions, panel’s right to use, obligation to avoid misleading a priori assumptions E.3.2.27

SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iv)/SCM 1.1(b) E.3.2.29

ordinary meaning of, “method” S.2.22.7

price suppression as effect of subsidy (SCM 6.3(c)), “effect of subsidy” (causal link), determination of injury provisions (SCM 15) distinguished S.2.25A.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 B.3.2.23, E.3.2.28

obligation to avoid misleading a priori assumptions E.3.2.27

totality of evidence vs. individual evidentiary factors E.3.2.27

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b))

commercial reasonableness, relevance E.3.2.27, E.3.2.29

“grants, loans, and equity infusion”, as non-exhaustive list S.2.3B.1

payments to a funding mechanism or entrustment or direction to a private body (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iv)), conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) as distinct issue E.3.2.29

payments to a funding mechanism or entrustment or direction to a private body (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iv)) as distinct issue E.3.2.29

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de minimis error S.7.2.18

de novo review of the facts, exclusion E.3.2.27

panel’s obligation to make independent assessment/party’s right to structure complaint E.3.2.27

payments to a funding mechanism or entrustment or direction to a private body (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iv)), contribution on commercially reasonable terms S.2.8.12

“reasoned and adequate” test (investigating authorities’ explanations) E.3.2.27, S.7.4.16

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)), market benchmark, “market” for purposes of S.2.9A.5

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

direct transfer of funds (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(i))

“direct transfer” S.2.3B.1

e.g. grants, loans and equity infusion” S.2.3B.1, S.2.3B.3

“funds” S.2.3B.1


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.