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 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.3.1.7, 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 and 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 and 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 J.1.7

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

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

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

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

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

scientific evidence, need for sufficient (SPS 2.2) S.6.3.4-6

precautionary principle (SPS 5.7) S.6.19.1-3

provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence (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 relational concept S.6.3.4

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

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

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), egregious error, need for S.7.3.9

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

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)

criteria

cross-price elasticity N.1.5.1

end-uses N.1.5.1

market place N.1.5.1

physical characteristics N.1.5.1

tariff classifications 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, procedures and customary practices (WTO XVI:1) W.4.1

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

decisions of Contracting Parties to GATT 1947 (WTO Annex 1A, 1(b)(4)) G.2.1.1

GATT acquis S.8.1

Harmonized System of Customs Classification, 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 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)] 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 System of Customs Classification 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

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

legitimate expectations, relevance, panel reports and S.8.1

narrow/broad interpretation N.1.3.1.1

subsequent practice which establishes parties’ agreement on interpretation (VCLT 31(3)(b)) I.3.9.1-2

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

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

Harmonized System of Customs Classification, relevance H.1.1, N.1.3.2.2

narrow interpretation, need for N.1.3.1.1

national treatment, general principle (GATT III:1)

interpretation of GATT III as a whole and

effectiveness principle 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

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

national treatment, tax discrimination (GATT III:2)

determination of violation, requirements

“like product” status, determination on case-by-case basis N.1.3.1.1-2

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

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

“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

magnitude of differential as evidence of protective effect N.1.8.3

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

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.2

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 and S.6.14.5

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

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

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

quantitative threshold, relevance S.6.12.4

elements (Annex A, para. 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

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX), characteristics, relationship between Safeguards Agreement and GATT XIX, continuing applicability of GATT XIX, SPS Agreement, risk assessment, need for (SPS 5.1-5.3 and Annex A, para. 4), “sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2) and S.6.14.5

scientific evidence, need for sufficient (SPS 2.2) S.6.3.7

provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence (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 and S.6.3.7

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

evidence, alleged disregard or distortion 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) and S.6.3.7

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

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

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

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2), business confidential information, panel’s obligation to respect rights of third parties B.4.4

countervailing duties (SCM, Part V)

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

broad interpretation, need for S.2.1.3

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

market test S.2.22.3

right to choose (SCM 14, chapeau) S.2.22.3-7

level, amount of existing subsidy, limitation to S.2.28.3

mandatory nature of SCM 14 guidelines S.2.22.6

obligation to include method in implementing regulations S.2.22.6

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

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

evaluation of injury factors (AD 3.4)

demonstration of injury, need for (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) S.2.25A.2-7

evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5), effects of subsidies and of subsidized imports, whether distinguishable S.2.25A.2

determination of injury (SCM 15), determination of serious prejudice (SCM 6) distinguished S.2.25A.5

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), “interested parties” S.2.21D.1

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

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

serious prejudice (SCM 6), 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)

evidence, alleged disregard or distortion 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

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de minimis error S.7.2.18

de novo review of the facts, exclusion E.3.2.27

“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))

“benefit”, market test S.2.9.12

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

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

commercial reasonableness, relevance E.3.2.27, E.3.2.29

direct transfer of funds (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) S.2.3A.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)) contribution on commercially reasonable terms S.2.8.12

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), appellant’s submission (WP 21), requirements (WP 21(2)) W.2.7A.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.