SUBJECT INDEX

R

Index:  A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X, Y, Z

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.

“reasonable period of time” (DSU 21.3)/relevant factors ARB.4

see also evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12); evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12), facts available to investigating authority, right to use (AD 6.8/AD Annex II/SCM 12.7)

15-month guideline (DSU 21.3(c)) ARB.4.2 ARB.5.1.2–3

actions pre-dating DSB adoption of report ARB.5.2A

actions taken since DSB adoption of report ARB.5.2

administrative measures as means of implementation ARB.5.2A.2 ARB.5.5.8–9 ARB.5.6.1–3 ARB.5.13.5

administrative review determination issued after end of reasonable period, effect R.4.3.22–25

adoption of panel/AB report as start date ARB.5.2.1 ARB.5.2A.2

averaging of duration of proceedings over 5-year periods, acceptability ARB.4.1.9

burden of proof ARB.4.2.10 ARB.5.6.4 ARB.5.6.21 ARB.6

complexity of implementation process ARB.5.2.5 ARB.5.4 ARB.5.6.8 ARB.5.6.10–14

complexity of implementing measures ARB.5.3 ARB.5.5.2

“complexity” as legal criterion ARB.5.5.10

contentiousness ARB.5.5

dependence on decision of organ outside Member’s own legal system

burden of proof ARB.5.15.1–4

non-WTO obligations ARB.4.1.8 ARB.5.6.22–24 ARB.5.6.27 ARB.5.15 ARB.5.16.3

as “particular circumstance” ARB.5.15.3 ARB.5.15.4 ARB.5.16.1

WTO obligations ARB.5.16

developing countries (DSU 21.2) ARB.5.10

see also developing countries (implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (“particular attention should be paid … ”) (DSU 21.2))

discretionary and mandatory legal requirements distinguished ARB.4.3.17 ARB.5.1.5–6

domestic judicial proceedings A.3.40C.1–2 A.3.53B.1–2 M.5.18 R.4.0.12–13

DSU 21.5 compliance proceedings, dependence on elapse of R.4.0.6

due process considerations ARB.5.12.8

economic impact of existing measures ARB.5.9

economic and social conditions ARB.2.7 ARB.5.8 ARB.5.10.15

EU procedures ARB.5.4.11–12 ARB.5.5.11 ARB.5.6.11–12 ARB.5.6.18–24 ARB.5.12.3 ARB.5.12.5

failure to rectify WTO-inconsistent measures within, effect on DSU 21.5 compliance proceedings R.4.0.9–13

finding of inconsistency of measure taken to comply with WTO obligations R.4.1.28

flexibility and balance/determination on case-by-case basis A.3.35.2–3 ARB.4.1.4 ARB.4.1.5 ARB.4.1.9

flexibility of legislative process, obligation to use ARB.2.10 ARB.4.1.7 ARB.4.3.12 ARB.5.6.20 ARB.5.6.29–31 ARB.5.12

“extraordinary procedures”, role ARB.4.3.14–16 ARB.5.4.9 ARB.5.6.19 ARB.5.6.29 ARB.5.12.6 ARB.5.12.7

legislative action on other measures ARB.5.13

legislative schedule ARB.3.1.8 ARB.5.6.32 ARB.5.11

modification by DSU 21.5 compliance panel, exclusion R.4.0.8

multiple periods, possibility of ARB.4.4.1

“reasonable interval” (TBT 2.12) ARB.5.16.2

“reasonableness” as key consideration ARB.4.3.12

shortest period possible within Member’s normal legislative process ARB.2.11 ARB.3.1.5 ARB.4.1.7 ARB.4.3 ARB.5.1.5–9 ARB.5.6.19–21 ARB.5.7.2 ARB.5.9.2 ARB.5.10.5 ARB.6.5

structural adjustment ARB.5.7

“time … shorter or longer, depending on the particular circumstances” (DSU 21.3(c)) ARB.4.1.5 ARB.4.1.7–8 ARB.4.2.2 ARB.4.2.3 ARB.4.3.13 ARB.4.3.19 ARB.5 ARB.5.1 ARB.5.6.27

limitation to circumstances related to the assessment of a “reasonable period” ARB.4.3.17 ARB.5.1.6

“particular circumstances” ARB.4.5

structural adjustment, whether ARB.5.7

previous relevant disputes as precedent ARB.5.14

time to conduct studies, exclusion ARB.2.2–3 ARB.5.4.3
 

reasons, need for: see 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); determination of serious injury or threat thereof (SG 4) (requirements), reasoned and adequate explanation; investigation of conditions for safeguard measures, requirements (SG 3.1/SG 4.2(c)), findings and reasoned conclusions; panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7); standard/scope of review (safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)), assessment of the facts, objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for
 

regional trade agreements: see customs unions and free trade areas (GATT XXIV)
 

regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4)

see also “like product” (GATT III:4)

“affecting” G.1.1.1 N.1.10

50% fair market rule N.1.10.3

GATS I:1 compared N.1.10.2

GATT XX G.3.2 N.1.12

TBT preamble compared T.4.0.1 T.4.0.2 T.4.2A.1.3 T.4.2A.2.2

general principle (GATT III:1) N.1.1.4 N.1.9.2

“less favourable treatment” N.1.11

administrative requirements as G.3.2.3 N.1.9.3.3 N.1.11.13 N.1.11.15 N.1.11.16

detrimental effect N.1.11.3 N.1.11.10 N.1.11.12 N.1.11.15 N.1.11.17 T.4.2A.2.6 T.4.2A.2.7 T.4.2A.5.6–12 T.4.2A.5.13–17 T.4.2A.5.18–29

differentiation on the face of the statute N.1.14.2–6

equality of competitive conditions as test N.1.11.3–4

formal differentiation in treatment, relevance N.1.11.3–5 N.1.14.2

market effect as test N.1.11.5–6

restrictions on traders as A.2.1

TRIPS 3.1 compared N.1.14.1

“so as to afford protection”

equality of competitive conditions N.1.9.2.3

“less favourable treatment” N.1.11.7–8 N.1.11.11

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

TRIMs 2.2/Illustrative List, sufficiency of assessment under for finding of the GATT III:4 violation I.3.7.13–15 J.1.28 T.8A.3.1–7
 

regulatory discrimination (TBT 2.1) (“treatment no less favourable”) T.4.2A.5

burden of proof/evidence T.4.2A.3

evidence pre-dating establishment of panel T.4.2A.5.9

legitimate regulatory distinction T.4.2A.5.15–17

calibration under TBT 2.2 distinguished T.4.2A.6.1 T.4.2A.6.2 T.4.2B.3.3

context/object and purpose of TBT as determining factory T.4.2A.5

“de facto” inconsistency T.4.2A.5.5 T.4.2A.5.9 T.4.2A.5.14 T.4.2A.5.21–3 T.4.3.10

detrimental effect

GATT III:4 compared N.1.11.3 N.1.11.10 N.1.11.12 N.1.11.15 N.1.11.17 T.4.2A.2.6 T.4.2A.2.7 T.4.2A.5.6–12 T.4.2A.5.13–17 T.4.2A.5.18–29

labelling conditions as cause T.4.2A.5.14–17

legitimate regulatory distinctions T.4.2A.2.2 T.4.2A.2.3 T.4.2A.2.6 T.4.2A.5.4–7 T.4.2A.5.10–12 T.4.2A.5.15–17 T.4.2A.5.20 T.4.2A.5.21 T.4.2A.5.27 T.4.2A.5.29 T.4.4.2

modification of competitive market as test T.4.2A.5.13–15 T.4.2A.5.18–29

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

“like products” T.4.2A.2.4

treatment as a group T.4.2A.5.8

MFN treatment (GATT I:1)/national treatment (GATT III:4) compared J.1.25 J.1.30 T.4.2A

non-discrimination obligation (TBT preamble, sixth recital) T.4.2A.5.3 T.4.2B.4.1
 

remedies for actionable subsidies (SCM 7): see AB/panel recommendations for bringing inconsistent measure into conformity (DSU 19.1); adverse effects (SCM 5.1); dispute settlement (SCM 30); “withdrawal of subsidy without delay” (SCM 4.7); withdrawal of subsidy/removal of adverse effects (SCM 7.8)
 

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

see also claim; competence (panels), objections, requirements; legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel); terms of reference of panels (DSU 7)

AD investigation and dispute settlement proceedings, issues distinguished R.2.2.10

AD requirements (AD 17.5), consistency A.3.57.1 R.2.1.4

clarification, parties’ right to request O.1.4 P.3.1.3 R.2.2.10

compliance, importance of

case-by-case analysis R.2.3.31

non-compliance, effect R.2.1.12

opportunity to cure defect R.2.1.9 R.2.1.17–18 R.2.2.27 T.6.1.22 T.6.1.24 T.6.1.26 T.6.1.27 T.6.1.30

parties’ responsibility R.2.1.2 T.6.1.3

prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.28 R.2.1.19

satisfactory settlement/positive solution obligations (DSU 3.4/DSU 3.7) R.2.3.20

scrutiny by DSB R.2.1.2

scrutiny by panel R.2.1.6 R.2.3.31 T.6.1.10 T.6.1.24 T.6.1.30

timeliness of ruling R.2.2.27

compliance panel (DSU 21.5), applicability to R.2.5

see also review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5), applicability of DSU 6.2 (requirements for establishment of panel)

consultations, indication as to whether held C.7.8 R.2.4 T.6.1.7

see also consultations (DSU 4), establishment of panel as prerequisite

panel’s obligation to examine absence C.7.10

failure to object, effect C.7.3 O.1.2

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

determination by Member P.4A.17 R.5.2 R.5.4 R.5.6

good faith L.1.10 M.1.7

parallel claims S.3.3.25 S.3.3.30 S.7.2.27

claim in the “alternative”, possibility of S.7.2.26

reversal of burden of proof (AG 10.3) A.1.34A.1

writing R.2.1.3 R.2.1.5 T.6.1.7
 

resort to DSU for violations of covered agreement: see DSU, applicability when seeking redress for violation of covered agreements (DSU 23)DSU, obligatory recourse to (DSU 23)
 

retroactivity (trade measures) (ATC 6.10) R.3 T.7.7
 

retroactivity of treaties: see non-retroactivity of treaties (VCLT 28)
 

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

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5) R.4.0

see also implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21)

applicability of DSU 6.2 (requirements for establishment of panel) R.2.5 R.4.1.20 R.4.4.1

“specific measures at issue”/“brief summary of complaint”, required elements R.2.5.3 R.2.5.5–6

measures that “have a bearing on compliance” R.2.5.2–6 R.4.1.19 T.6.3.18

competence of DSU 21.5 (compliance) panel

as continuance of original proceedings R.2.1.8 R.4.0.1 R.4.3.3

limitation to claims at time of referral to review panel R.4.2.2

modification of “reasonable period of time” (DSU 21.3), exclusion R.4.0.8

composition of DSU 21.5 (compliance) panel R.4.0.1 R.4.1.9

as a continuum of events R.4.3.3 R.4.3.12 R.4.3.15 R.4.3.19

different nature of proceeding, “prejudice” allegedly resulting from R.4.5

finality of panel/AB report R.4.3.1 R.4.3.4–5 R.4.3.12 R.4.3.17–18 W.2.3.4

adopted panel reports P.4A.6 P.4A.8 P.4A.13

unappealed panel reports R.4.3.4–5 R.4.3.16–18 S.7.2A.8

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.4.0.3 R.4.1.3–5 R.4.1.18 R.4.1.21

measure taken to comply, existence R.4.0.3 R.4.1.3–5 R.4.1.8 R.4.1.18 R.4.1.21 R.4.1.34–38

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency) R.4.0.2 R.4.1 R.4.2.1–2 S.9.7

change of explanations in redetermination, relevance R.4.3.12–13

classification as, responsibility for R.4.1.10–11 R.4.1.15

consideration of new measure in its totality R.4.1.26 R.4.2.2

events subsequent to DSB’s adoption of recommendations and rulings R.4.0.1 R.4.0.10

events subsequent to establishment of compliance panel

measures completed during Article 21.5 proceedings P.4A.20

sunset review continuation order (AD 11.3) R.4.0.7

examination on basis of facts proved during panel proceedings R.4.1.2

examination in light of DSB recommendations and rulings R.4.1.19 R.4.1.34

examination of original measures/determinations R.4.1.9 R.4.1.22 R.4.3.12

finding of inconsistency of new measure, effect on “reasonable period” for compliance (DSU 21.3) R.4.1.28

measure subject of original dispute distinguished R.4.1.1 R.4.1.2 R.4.2.1–2

measures broader than strictly required R.4.1.26–31

measures closely related to measure taken to comply R.4.1.12–17 R.4.1.23–24 R.4.1.28 R.4.1.32 R.4.1.35–38 R.4.3.24–26

measures incorporating unchallenged aspects of old measures R.4.2.7–8

measures not automatically derived from challenged review R.4.0.12

as new claim/reassertion of old R.4.2 R.4.3.6 R.4.3.18 R.4.5.2

panel’s deviation from reasoning of original panel, justification R.4.3.12 R.4.3.19–20

re-examination of aspects of new measures that were unchanged part of original measure R.4.3.1 R.4.3.12

recurring annual payments maintained beyond reasonable period (DSU 21.3) R.4.1.30

“should ensure” requirement R.4.1.2

“taken” R.4.1.7

“taken to comply” R.4.1.35–38 W.2.3A.4

timing of measure, relevance R.4.1.35

objectives

prompt compliance/avoidance of new proceedings P.4A.10 R.4.0.1–2 R.4.0.4 R.4.1.30

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3) P.4A.8 P.4A.20 R.4.0.1 R.4.3.1–2

Article 21.5 proceedings as speedier solution than normal panel proceedings P.4A.16

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

participation of original complainants R.4.0.5

procedures of normal panel distinguished R.4.0.1

as proper procedure for determining compliance R.4.6.1–2

refusal of original complainant to participate, relevance R.4.6.5

“these dispute settlement procedures” R.2.5.1 R.4.4
 

right to bring claim: see standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7)
 

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

“appropriate to the circumstances” (SPS 5.1)

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

methodological difficulties, relevance S.6.13.12–13

techniques developed by the relevant international organizations, obligation to take into account S.6.13A.1

testing on humans S.6.13.8

ascertainable/theoretical risk distinguished (SPS 5.1) S.6.10.1–4

quantitative threshold, relevance S.6.12.4 S.6.12.6 S.6.14.1

quantitative vs. qualitative test S.6.12.5 S.6.13.9

assessment prepared other than by Member concerned, acceptability (SPS 5.1 and Annex A(4)) S.6.9.5 S.6.9.7 S.6.20.5

balance of SPS interests (SPS 5.1) S.6.9.1

compliance with DSB recommendation ARB.2.3 ARB.5.4.3

elements (Annex A(4))

evaluation according to SPS measures S.6.11.1 S.6.12.2 S.6.12.4

“which might be applied” S.6.12.4

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

“likelihood” S.6.12.1–6

“potential”

“likelihood” distinguished S.6.12.1 S.6.12.5

“probable” distinguished S.6.9.4

measures based on, need for (SPS 5.1) S.6.3.8 S.6.14 S.6.20.3–5

results of risk assessment insufficient to require S.6.10.5

reasonable period for completion S.6.24A.4

“risk assessment” (Annex A(4)) S.6.23A.6

risk management distinguished (SPS 5.1 and Annex A(4)) S.6.9.3 S.6.9.8–9

“scientific justification” (SPS 3.3) S.6.7.4–5 S.6.8.4–5

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

specificity of assessment, need for (SPS 5.1 and 5.2) S.6.13 S.6.20.1

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

comprehensive/overall analysis, acceptability S.6.11.2

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

multiple factors S.6.13.8

SPS 5.6 (measures “no more restrictive”) distinguished S.6.18.9

“sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2)/standard of review (DSU 11) S.6.3.1–8 S.6.9.1–2 S.6.9.6 S.6.14.2–3 S.6.14.5

see also scientific evidence, sufficiency (SPS 2.2)

de novo review, exclusion S.7.3.49 S.7.8.1–4 S.7.8.5 S.7.8.13

divergence of expert views, relevance G.3.3.1 S.6.9.10 S.6.14.4 S.6.20.3 S.6.20.4 S.7.8.1

“legitimacy”/respected source S.7.8.1 S.7.8.7

rational relationship between measure/risk and scientific evidence, need for S.6.13.10–11 S.6.14.2–4 S.7.8.6 S.7.8.7

“reasoned and adequate” test R.1.6.2 S.7.8.1–4 S.7.8.5 S.7.8.7

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

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

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

Rules of Conduct (WP 8/WP Annex II) R.6

see also confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2), Rules of Conduct, para. VII:1
 

Abbreviations used on this page