SUBJECT INDEX BY CASE: APPELLATE BODY REPORTS

U-Z

 

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


ON THIS PAGE:

US — 1916 Act
US — Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods
US — Carbon Steel
US — Certain EC Products
US — Continued Suspension / Canada — Continued Suspension
US — Continued Zeroing
US — Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review
US — Cotton Yarn
US — Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS
US — Countervailing Measures on Certain EC Products
US — FSC
US — FSC (Article 21.5 — EC)
US — FSC (Article 21.5 — EC II)
US — Gambling
US — Gambling
US — Gasoline
US — Hot-Rolled Steel
US — Lamb
US — Lead and Bismuth II
US — Line Pipe
US — Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)
US — Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews
US — Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews (Article 21.5 — Argentina)
US — Section 211 Appropriations Act
US — Shrimp
US — Shrimp (Article 21.5 — Malaysia)
US — Shrimp (Thailand) / US — Customs Bond Directive
US — Softwood Lumber IV
US — Softwood Lumber IV (Article 21.5 — Canada)
US — Softwood Lumber V
US — Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 — Canada)
US — Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 — Canada)
US — Stainless Steel (Mexico)
US — Steel Safeguards
US — Underwear
US — Upland Cotton
US — Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 — Brazil)
US — Wheat Gluten
US — Wool Shirts and Blouses
US — Zeroing (EC)
US — Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 — EC)
US — Zeroing (Japan)
US — Zeroing (Japan) (Article 21.5 — Japan)


US — 1916 Act (WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R)     back to top

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

AD Agreement as agreement on implementation of GATT VI A.3.64.2

AD Agreement and GATT 1994 as integral part of WTO Agreement   A.3.64.1

applicability of GATT VI as implying applicability of AD Agreement A.3.64.2

“may levy” (GATT VI:2) as limitation to Member’s choice whether or not to impose anti-dumping duty (AD 9) A.3.65.2

scope of GATT VI as clarified by AD 18.1 (specific action against dumping) A.3.65.3-5

competence (panels)

objections, requirements, timeliness J.2.1.8

obligation to examine, at any stage during proceedings J.2.1.8

conditional appeal C.5.1

consultation and dispute settlement (AD 17), GATT XXII and XXIII compared A.3.54.1, A.3.55.2, L.1.2

decisions, procedures and customary practices under GATT 1947 (WTO XVI:1) J.2.1.9, L.1.1, M.1.1-2

determination of dumping (AD 2), injurious effect on domestic industry, relevance (AD 2/GATT VI:1) A.3.1.1

DSU, applicability (DSU 1.1)

consultation and dispute settlement in anti-dumping (AD 17) L.1.2

obligation to ensure conformity (AD 18.4) A.3.62.1

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

panel’s discretion on matters of procedure (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3) D.2.2.11

participation in panel proceedings by third parties D.2.2.11

dumping, constituent elements (AD 2/GATT VI:1)

injurious effect on domestic industry A.3.65.1

intention of dumping A.3.1.1, A.3.61.1, A.3.65.1

GATT 1947, continuing relevance under WTO, decisions, procedures and customary practices (WTO XVI:1) J.2.1.9, L.1.1, M.1.1-2

GATT acquis J.2.1.9, L.1.1, M.1.1-2

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2)), GATT VI/AD, interrelationship A.3.64.1-2, A.3.65.1-7

GATT acquis J.2.1.9, L.1.1, M.1.1-2

legal basis of complaint (AD 17)

GATT XXII and XXIII compared A.3.54.1

legislation as such A.3.54.1

legislation as such, right to challenge A.3.54.1, A.3.55.2, A.3.56.4, A.3.56.6-7, J.2.1.9-11, L.1.2

mandatory/discretionary legislation, whether distinguishable, executive discretion and M.1.4

precedent, GATT acquis J.2.1.9, L.1.1, M.1.1-2

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

action under other relevant provisions of GATT 1994 distinguished (AD 18.1, footnote 24) A.3.61.2, A.3.61.4

requirements

accordance with provisions of GATT VI as interpreted by Anti-Dumping Agreement A.3.61.3, A.3.65.5-7

civil and criminal proceedings and penalties, whether A.3.65.7

intention of dumping, relevance A.3.61.1

measure against dumping/subsidy, design and structure of measure as evidence of protective application A.3.65.6

measure specific to dumping/subsidy A.3.61.1-3, A.3.65.6

presence of constituent elements of dumping/subsidy A.3.61.1

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

AD “measure” qualifying for DSB proceedings (AD 17.4) A.3.56.4-7

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1) A.3.56.4-5

third party rights T.8.2

panel proceedings (DSU 10 and Appendix 3), panel’s discretion and, enhancement in accordance with due process D.2.2.11, T.8.2

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), oral hearing (WP 27), joint hearing W.2.11.2.1

WTO-conformity of domestic laws, regulations and administrative procedures, obligation to ensure (AD 18.4) A.3.62.1

dispute settlement procedures, applicability to A.3.62.1

“laws, regulations and administrative procedures”, determination of legal status as by reference to WTO law L.1.1-3

 
US — Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (WT/DS282/AB/R)     back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact, compliance/consistency with treaty obligations S.3.3.18

completion of legal analysis, in case of panel’s failure to examine applicability of covered agreement C.4.30

dumping, constituent elements (AD 2/GATT VI:1), injurious effect on domestic industry / causal link A.3.65.9-11

duration and review of anti-dumping duties and price undertakings / countervailing measures (AD 11/SCM 21), termination (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2), “immediately” following determination that duty no longer warranted A.3.44B.3

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21), sunset review (AD 11.3), effect of breach A.3.45.3

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

in absence of violation of WTO obligations I.0.4

discretionary right of panel or AB to make suggestions I.0.3

judicial economy, wrongful failure to rule on claim distinguished I.0.3

mootness of panel findings M.3.7

sunset review (AD 11.3)

applicability of AD 2.4 (calculation of dumping margin) A.3.49.3

applicability of AD 3 (determination of injury) A.3.52B.3-4

causal link, need for A.3.46.4, A.3.47A.3, A.3.52A.5-7, A.3.65.11

continuation of duty, as exception to mandatory rule A.3.45.2

cumulative assessment of volume and prices (AD 3.3) and A.3.21.6

investigatory/adjudicatory functions, proactive role of investigating authorities A.3.52.12-13

“likelihood” test

continuance or recurrence of injury, timeframe A.3.52A.9

cumulative assessment A.3.48A.7

likelihood-of-dumping and likelihood-of-injury tests, as separate inquiries A.3.52A.8

“positive evidence” / “objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.47.3-5, A.3.48A.5, A.3.52.9-13

relevant factors, WTO-inconsistent methodology A.3.49.3, A.3.51.5

threshold finding, relevance A.3.48A.5-6

methodology, absence of provision A.3.48.3, A.3.48A.5-6

 
US — Carbon Steel (WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1)     back to top

burden of proof B.3.1.13

legislation as such, challenge to B.3.1.13

presumption of consistency of measure with WTO obligations M.5.8

clarity/ambiguity of measure M.5.8

prima facie case, text of legislation, sufficiency B.3.1.13

competence (panels)

objections, requirements, timeliness D.2.2.18, J.2.1.14, T.6.1.8

obligation to examine

at any stage during proceedings D.2.2.18, J.2.1.14, T.6.1.8

ex proprio motu J.2.1.14

competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2/DSU 11), correct interpretation and application of covered agreements and I.3.10.10

countervailing duties (SCM, Part V)

balance between rights and obligations relating to, need for S.2.1.1

duration (SCM 21.1) S.2.30.1

level

amount of existing subsidy, limitation to S.2.30

“to the extent necessary” (SCM 21.1) S.2.30

preconditions (SCM 19.1)

benefit S.2.30.1

standard of proof (SCM 22.1) S.2.33.1

as remedy to offset benefits of subsidies S.2.1.1

review of need for continued imposition (SCM 21.2), obligatory nature S.2.31.5

termination, automaticity (SCM 21.3) I.3.10.11, S.2.31.5, S.2.32.1-7

decisions of domestic courts, acceptability as evidence B.3.1.13, M.5.8

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), “injury” (SCM 15, footnote 45) S.2.25.1

developing countries, special and differential treatment (SCM 27) S.2.35.2.1

de minimis subsidization threshold (SCM 27.10 and 27.11) S.2.35.2.1

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), terms of reference, role R.2.1.6, T.6.1.10

duration and review of anti-dumping duties and price undertakings / countervailing measures (AD 11/SCM 21) S.2.30.1, S.2.31.4-5

requirements (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2), burden/standard of proof S.2.31.4

termination (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2), “immediately” following determination that duty no longer warranted S.2.31.4

evidence, acceptability/value as

decisions of domestic courts B.3.1.13, M.5.8

opinions of legal experts B.3.1.13, M.5.8

practice in application of laws B.3.1.13, M.5.8

teachings of publicists B.3.1.13, M.5.8

text of legislation B.3.1.13, M.5.8

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

expert evidence (DSU 13.2), “from any relevant source” S.4.13, S.7.3.15

panel’s rights, not to seek S.4.13, S.7.3.15

interpretation of covered agreements

absence of provision, relevance I.3.3.1-3, S.2.21.2

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)] I.3.1.5

context (VCLT 31(2)) I.3.3.1-3

object and purpose S.2.1.1

preamble as evidence of S.2.1.1

preamble of agreement under consideration, as evidence of object and purpose S.2.1.1

preparatory work (VCLT 32), evidence to support claim, need for I.3.10.11

same or closely related phrases in different agreements I.3.3.1-2, S.2.32.2

cross-referencing, role I.3.3.2, S.2.21.2, S.2.32.2

supplementary means (VCLT 32) I.3.10.10-11

need to identify as such I.3.10.10

text/plain language I.3.1.5

investigation of dumping (AD 5) / subsidy (SCM 11)

termination (AD 5.8/SCM 11.9)

de minimus standard, applicability S.2.21.1-3

sunset review (SCM 21.3) distinguished S.2.21.1-3

limitation of provisions to investigation phase S.2.21.1

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel) R.2.2.15

rectification at subsequent stages, arguments in written or other submission or statement R.2.2.15, T.6.2.4

summary, sufficiency R.2.1.6

listing of articles of agreement allegedly breached R.2.2.16, T.6.2.5

reference to GATT II R.2.2.15

legislation as such, right to challenge, burden of proof and B.3.1.13, M.5.8

“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.2.1.6, T.6.1.9

public notice and explanation of determinations on anti-dumping investigation / countervailing duties (AD 12/SCM 22) S.2.33.1

conclusion or suspension of investigation, required information (SCM 22.5), reasons for acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments, need for S.2.34.1

request for establishment of panel, requirements (DSU 6.2)

compliance, importance of, scrutiny by panel R.2.1.6, T.6.1.10

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), scrutiny by panel T.6.1.10

SCM Agreement

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15) S.2.25.1

object and purpose, balanced framework of rights and obligations relating to countervailing duties S.2.1.1

“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) R.2.1.6, R.2.3.11, T.6.1.9

“certain aspects of sunset review procedure”, sufficiency R.2.3.11, T.6.3.4

legal basis of claim distinguished T.6.1.9

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), discretion in selection of relevant evidence S.7.3.14

subsidies, prohibited (SCM, Part II), amount of subsidy, relevance S.2.2.4, S.2.25.1

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

applicability “for purposes of this agreement” S.2.2.4

applicability of SCM 1 provisions S.2.2.4

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) S.2.30.1

sunset review (AD 11.3)

“likelihood” test, continuance or recurrence of injury S.2.32.1-7

SCM Agreement, sunset review (SCM 21.3), identity of provisions I.3.3.1-2

sunset review (SCM 21.3)

burden/standard of proof

in case of “duly substantiated request” by domestic industry S.2.32.6

original investigation requirements (SCM 11 and 12) distinguished S.2.33.1

review on initiative of investigating authorities S.2.32.6-7

de minimis standard

absence of reference to, relevance I.3.3.1-2, S.2.21.2, S.2.32.2, S.2.32.5

termination of investigation provisions (SCM 11.9) distinguished S.2.21.1-3

time-bound limitation on countervailing duties (SCM 11.9) and I.3.10.11, S.2.31.5, S.2.32.1-7

original investigation requirements distinguished S.2.32.3-4, S.2.32.7, S.2.33.1

“likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidization and injury” test (SCM 21.3) S.2.32.1-7

sunset review (AD 11.3), identity of provisions I.3.3.1-2

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7)

as definition of jurisdiction / legal claims at issue R.2.1.6, T.6.1.10

due process and R.2.1.6, T.6.1.10

obligations, to scrutinize request for establishment of panel for compliance with DSU 6.2 R.2.1.6, T.6.1.10

 
US — Certain EC Products (WT/DS165/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof

prima facie case B.3.2.7

evidence and arguments in support of claim, need for B.3.2.7

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

clarification of existing provisions C.3.1.1

right to develop own legal reasoning including arguments not adduced by parties (jura novit curia) C.2.2

consultations (DSU 4)

establishment of panel, as prerequisite C.7.4

measure at issue (DSU 4.4), measure subsequent to request for consultations C.7.4

DSU, applicability (DSU 1.1), obligation to resort to (DSU 23) R.2.2.12

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel) R.2.2.12

arguments distinguished T.6.2.13

summary, sufficiency, reference to DSU 23 as including reference to DSU 23.1 and 23.2 R.2.2.12, T.6.2.12-15

mootness of panel findings M.3.2

ultra vires statements M.3.2

“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)

measure subsequent to date of request for consultations T.6.3.3

specific measure the subject of consultations, need for identity with T.6.3.3

suspension of concessions (DSU 22), authorization, need for (DSU 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c)) S.9.1

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 M.3.2

unilateral action by Member, prohibition (DSU 23) R.2.2.12

 
US — Continued Suspension / Canada — Continued Suspension (WT/DS320/AB/R, WT/DS321/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof

allocation

panel’s obligation to specify B.3.5.1, R.4.3.2

in post-suspension situation B.3.5.1-2, R.4.6.5

DSU 21.5 proceedings and B.3.5.1, R.4.3.2

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21) B.3.5.2

presumption of good faith compliance with DSU recommendations and rulings B.3.5.1, R.4.3.2

prima facie case, as precondition to ruling on claim B.3.5.1, R.4.3.2

SPS measures S.6.7.3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), compétence de la compétence C.6.4, W.2.11.3.1-2

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2)

AB’s right to lift DSU 17.10 confidentiality requirement C.6.4, W.2.11.3.1-2

closed session meetings C.6.4

disclosure of parties’ own statements (DSU 18.2) C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

due process (dispute settlement proceedings) and C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

interrelationship between DSU 17.10 and DSI 18.2 C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

non-confidential summary C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

“proceedings” (DSU 17.10) C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

as relational concept C.6.4

as relative and time-bound concept C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

Rules of Conduct, Art. VII:1 and, applicability, experts D.2.2.26, R.6.1-6

consultations (DSU 4), good faith requirement (DSU 4.3) P.3.1.17

developing countries (SPS), special needs in respect of SPS measures S.6.19.4 n. 1398, S.6.21.2 n. 1398

DSU, applicability (DSU 1.1), security and predictability as objective (DSU 3.2) R.0.7

DSU, obligatory recourse to when seeking redress for violation of covered agreements (DSU 23) R.0.1-7

continued suspension of concessions after removal of inconsistent measure (DSU 22.8) as R.0.2-7

DSU 23.1 and 23.2, linkage and relationship (“in such cases” (DSU 23.2 chapeau)) R.0.1

exclusive forum rule (DSU 23.1) R.0.1

“seeking redress”, continued application of previously authorized suspension of concessions, whether R.0.2

unilateral action, exclusion (DSU 23.2) R.0.1

illustrative nature of listed actions R.0.1

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2) and C.6.4, W.2.11.3.2

expert evidence/experts and D.2.2.26-30, S.4.15-18

fair and orderly conduct of proceedings and D.2.2.26

harmonization of measures (SPS 3), measures which conform to international standards (SPS 3.2), burden of proof S.6.7.3

expert evidence/experts

appointment, panel’s obligations D.2.2.26-30, S.4.15-16

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

due process requirements, applicability D.2.2.26-30

consultation with parties and D.2.2.29

independence and impartiality obligation D.2.2.26-30

role/panel’s relationship with S.4.17

Rules of Conduct, applicability D.2.2.27, R.6.1-6

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), dispute settlement procedures, engagement in (DSU 3.10) P.3.1.17

harmonization of measures (SPS 3)

interpretation of covered agreements, preamble of agreement under consideration S.6.5.3

measures which conform to international standards (SPS 3.2) S.6.7.3-5

presumption of consistency S.6.7.3-5, S.6.20.5

existence of international standard S.6.20.5

measures resulting in a higher level of protection (SPS 3.3) and S.6.7.5, S.6.20.5, S.6.20.7

measures which result in a higher level of protection (SPS 3.3) S.6.8.6-9

presumption of consistency and S.6.7.5

risk assessment, need for (SPS 3.3, footnote 2 and SPS 5.1) S.6.9.8

Members’ right to choose S.6.5.3

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21)

good faith obligation, presumption of compliance, whether B.3.5.1, P.3.1.17-18, R.4.3.2

statements made at DSB meetings, legal status R.0.6-7, R.4.1.31

surveillance obligation (DSU 21.6/DSU 22.8)

potential impediments R.0.6

suspension of concessions and (DSU 22.8) R.0.6, S.9.4, S.9.9

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (DSU 13), panel’s rights, to evaluate information or advice S.4.17

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (SPS 11.2), panel’s obligation to seek (SPS 11.2) S.4.17

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2)), DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2 C.6.4

ordinary meaning, “potential” S.6.12.6

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion R.0.1

precautionary principle (SPS 5.7), provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence (SPS 5.7) S.6.23.2

prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member (DSU 3.3), suspension of concessions (DSU 22.8), DSU 21.5 proceedings to determine compliance and R.4.6.4, S.9.7

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

objectives, prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes (DSU 3) and R.4.6.3

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

participation of original complainants R.4.0.5

refusal of original complainant to participate, relevance R.4.6.5

“these dispute settlement procedures” R.4.4.2

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

“appropriate to the circumstances” (SPS 5.1), testing on humans and S.6.13.8

ascertainable/theoretical risk distinguished (SPS 5.1)

quantitative threshold, relevance S.6.12.6

quantitative vs. qualitative test S.6.12.5

assessment prepared other than by Member concerned, acceptability (SPS 5.1 and Annex A, para. 4) S.6.9.7, S.6.20.4

elements (Annex A, para. 4), “potential”, “likelihood” distinguished S.6.12.5

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

results of risk assessment insufficient to require S.6.10.5

risk management distinguished (SPS 5.1 and Annex A, para. 4) S.6.9.8-9

“scientific justification” (SPS 3.3) and S.6.7.4-5

specificity of assessment, need for (SPS 5.1 and 5.2) S.6.13.5-8

multiple factors and S.6.13.8

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), de novo review, exclusion S.7.8.1-4

“sufficient scientific evidence” requirement (SPS 2.2) and S.6.9.6

divergence of expert views, relevance S.6.9.10, S.6.20.4, S.7.8.1

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

Rules of Conduct, applicability, experts D.2.2.27, R.6.1-6

sanitary and phytosanitary measures, 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)

“appropriate level”, determination

Member’s right S.6.1.6

as preliminary to decision on measure S.6.1.6

right not to take if unwarranted by results of risk assessment S.6.10.5, S.6.20.4

scientific evidence, need for sufficient (SPS 2.2)

“on the basis of available pertinent information” S.6.20A.1

provisional adoption of measures in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence (SPS 5.7) S.6.19.4

as alternative to SPS 5.1, need to justify S.6.3.8

burden of proof B.3.5.2

evidence of sufficiency S.6.20.5

existence of international standard S.6.19.4, S.6.20.7

new evidence S.6.20.5-6, S.6.20.8

“insufficiency” S.6.20.3-8

obligation to seek to obtain additional information S.6.20.4, S.6.21.2

for more objective assessment of risk S.6.21.2

requirements

additional information necessary for a more objective assessment (SPS 5.7(3)) S.6.19.4

best efforts S.6.19.4

“within a reasonable period of time” (SPS 5.7(4)) S.6.19.4

SPS Agreement, interpretation, preamble as aid S.6.5.3

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

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

obligation to examine and evaluate evidence S.6.13.7-8

obligation to review whether risk assessment conclusions are reasonably based on scientific evidence S.6.9.10, S.6.20.8

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of risk assessment, exclusion S.7.8.1-4

error of law, failure to apply proper standard of review S.4.18

failure to use expert/scientific evidence in a balanced way S.4.15-18, S.7.2.20

“reasoned and adequate” test, risk assessment (SPS 5.1-5.3 and Annex A, para. 4) S.7.8.1-4

suspension of concessions (DSU 22)

authorization, need for (DSU 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c)) R.0.2

as temporary measure / termination on compliance with DSB recommendations or rulings (DSU 22.8) S.9.4

change of justification by non-complying Member, relevance T.6.4.1

continued application of authorized measure as “seeking of redress” R.0.2-3

“determination” of violation by Member (DSU 23.2(a)) R.0.6

DSB decision, circumstances requiring S.9.9

DSU 21.5 proceedings to resolve disagreement on compliance

automatic (ipso jure) termination of authorization on determination of compliance S.9.4

burden of proof B.3.5.2

continuance in absence of determination S.9.9

continuance of suspension during S.9.4

continued suspension as impairment of benefits (DSU 3.3) and R.0.6, S.9.4

pre-judgment of outcome S.9.8

DSU 22.8 conditions as alternatives S.9.5

good faith intentions and compliance distinguished B.3.5.1, P.3.1.17, R.4.3.2, S.9.5

interrelationship between DSU 22.8 and DSU 23 R.0.2

mutually satisfactory solution (DSU 22.8) and S.9.4

as ongoing action R.4.6.6

parties’ shared responsibility to bring about conditions allowing for termination of suspension S.9.4

early initiation of DSU 21.5 proceedings, desirability R.4.6.3, S.9.6

“removal” of inconsistent measure S.9.4

surveillance obligation (DSU 21.6/DSU 22.8) and R.0.6, S.9.4, S.9.9

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

documents (WP 18), filing requirement (WP 18(1)) W.2.6A.10

fairness and orderly procedure, adoption of appropriate procedure (WP 16.1)

compliance with time-limits W.2.6A.10

consolidation of proceedings W.2.6.13, W.2.11.2.2

open oral hearing W.2.11.3.1

oral hearing (WP 27), open oral hearing W.2.11.3.1-2

transition (WP 15) W.2.5A.2

working schedule (WP 26)

extension of deadline for circulation of AB report

exceptional complexity W.2.10.2.7

exceptional workload W.2.10.2.7

modification in exceptional circumstances at request of parties, participants or third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.10.1.8

 
US — Continued Zeroing (WT/DS350/AB/R)     back to top

AB reports, adoption by DSB (DSU 17.14), parties’ obligation to accept W.2.3.4

burden of proof

panel’s obligations, clarification for parties of requirements relating to burden of proof E.3.2.36

prima facie case, panel’s duty not to make case for complaining party S.4.20

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

compétence de la compétence W.2.11.3.5

completion of legal analysis

factual basis, insufficiency C.4.37

pending proceedings and C.4.38, S.4.38

issues of law / legal interpretations, clarification of covered agreements as prime function of AB W.2.3.4

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2)

interrelationship between DSU 17.10 and DSI 18.2 W.2.11.3.5

non-confidential summary confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2) W.2.11.3.5

open oral hearing (WP 27) and W.2.11.3.4-5

as relational concept W.2.11.3.5

as relative and time-bound concept W.2.11.3.5

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), individual margins (AD 6.10) A.3.1A.5

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1)

exporter-specific concept A.3.1A.5

“for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1) / applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.1A.5

evidence, acceptability/value as, authenticated vs. unauthenticated document E.3.1.13

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), evidence submitted in previous proceedings C.4.36, E.3.1.12

imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties (AD 9)

assessment of anti-dumping duty (AD 9.3), determination of liability of specific importer on basis of transactions from relevant exporter A.3.40B.9

calculation of “all other” anti-dumping duty rate (AD 9.4), prospective normal value system (AD 9.4(ii)) A.3.41A.5, A.3.41A.5

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

expert evidence (DSU 13.2), “from any relevant source” S.4.20

panel’s rights, not to seek S.4.20

interpretation of covered agreements

AB role W.2.3.4

applicable law, customary rules of interpretation of public international law [as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)], AD 17.6(ii) A.3.60.10-11

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat / effet utile) A.3.60.9

meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase A.3.60.10

as holistic exercise A.3.1A.5, A.3.60.9-11, I.3.1.6

ordinary meaning A.3.1A.5

legislation as such, right to challenge

“as such” / “as applied”, relevance of distinction L.1.24-5

challenge to programme as such L.1.24-5

panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7), security and predictability of WTO obligations (DSU 3.2), aid to C.3.1.4

precedent

cogent reasons for departure from C.3.1.4

factual findings in previous dispute C.4.36, E.3.1.12

provisional measures (AD 7) A.3.38A.2, A.3.56.9

as basis for referral to the DSB (AD 17.4) T.6.1.20

preliminary determinations (AD 7.1(ii)), as pre-condition A.3.38A.2

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5), finality of panel/AB report and W.2.3.4

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

AD “measure” qualifying for DSB proceedings (AD 17.4)

provisional measure (AD 7) A.3.56.9

provisional measures (AD 7) T.6.1.20

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

assessment by panel in manner formulated by parties R.2.3.27

as definition of jurisdiction / legal claims at issue T.6.1.21

“specific”, clear distinction between different claims, need for R.2.3.28

“specificity” R.2.3.27

“measure” as basis of claim and as evidence distinguished R.2.3.27

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

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

inferences based on circumstantial evidence, panel’s right to draw E.3.2.37

totality of evidence vs. individual evidentiary factors E.3.2.36, S.7.3.48

“objective assessment of matter before it”, findings in previous cases, relevance C.4.36, E.3.1.12

standard/powers of review (AB) (AD 17.6), interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii)), sequential analysis A.3.60.10-11

third party rights, AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24) W.2.11.3.5

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), concurring opinion (WP 3(2)) W.2.3.4

 
US — Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review (WT/DS244/AB/R)     back to top

administrative instruments, right to challenge A.3.55.3, A.3.62.2, M.1.9

applicable law, laws, regulations and administrative procedures (AD 18.4), determination of status as A.3.62.3, L.1.8

burden of proof

legislation as such, challenge to, burden of proof and M.5.9

presumption of consistency of measure with WTO obligations, clarity/ambiguity of measure L.1.11

competence (panels)

claims against legislation as such A.3.55.3, A.3.56.8, L.1.4-11, M.1.7-9

mandatory/discretionary nature of challenged measure, obligation to examine M.1.7

consultation and dispute settlement (AD 17), special or additional rules and procedure (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2), whether S.5.4

consultations (DSU 4)

fruitfulness of resort to dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.7) L.1.10, M.1.7, P.3.1.13

good faith requirement (DSU 3.10) L.1.10, M.1.7

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4), zeroing, negative differences and A.3.14.4

calculation of normal value, eligible transactions, requirements (AD 2.1), relationship with other AD provisions A.3.8.1

“for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1) / applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.8.1

methodology, Members’ freedom to choose consistently with AD A.3.51.1

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), “for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1) / applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.8.1, A.3.49.1-2

evidence, acceptability/value as, practice in application of laws A.3.52.0-1

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12), applicability, sunset reviews (AD 11.4) A.3.53.1-2

GATT acquis A.3.55.3, A.3.62.2

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26))

dispute settlement procedures, engagement in (DSU 3.10) L.1.10, M.1.7, R.5.5

view of Member that benefits are being impaired or nullified (AD 17.3) A.3.55.4, L.1.7, P.3.1.12-13, R.5.5

imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties (AD 9)

calculation of “all other” anti-dumping duty rate (AD 9.4), sunset review (AD 11.3), applicability to A.3.40.1

“in respect of any product” (AD 9.2) A.3.40.1

sunset review (AD 11.3), applicability to A.3.40.1

interpretation of covered agreements

GATT acquis A.3.55.3, A.3.62.2

narrow/broad interpretation M.1.9

same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.3.63.3

cross-referencing, role A.3.49.1

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.1.5A.1, A.3.8.1, A.3.55.3, A.3.62.2

judicial economy M.1.8

legal basis of claim (AD 17), good faith view of Member (“considers”) that benefits are being impaired or nullified (AD 17.3) A.3.55.4, L.1.7, P.3.1.12

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel), “measure” impairing benefits (DSU 3.3) L.1.4, L.1.7

legislation as such, right to challenge A.3.55.3, A.3.56.8, L.1.4-11

burden of proof and M.5.9

mandatory/discretionary legislation, whether distinguishable L.1.9-10, M.1.7-9

discretionary elements under separate law, effect M.1.8

panel’s obligation to examine status M.1.7-9

normative instrument L.1.5

“measure”

DSU 3.3

act or omission attributable to Member L.1.4

executive agency determinations L.1.4

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.2.7.5.3

request for establishment of panel, requirements (DSU 6.2)

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

determination by Member R.5.6

good faith L.1.10, M.1.7

special or additional rules and procedures for dispute settlement (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2)

AD 17, whether S.5.4

conflict with DSU provisions, precedence in case of (WTO, Annex 1A) S.2.19C.2, S.5.4

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

AD “measure” qualifying for DSB proceedings (AD 17.4) A.3.55.4, A.3.56.8, L.1.6

good faith view of Member (“considers”) that benefits are being impaired or nullified (AD 17.3)

acceptance of price undertakings L.1.6

administrative instrument A.3.55.3, A.3.62.2

definitive anti-dumping duties A.3.56.8

provisional measure (AD 7) L.1.6

identification as part of the matter referred to the DSB, need for (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1) A.3.56.8, L.1.6

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), obligation to examine and evaluate evidence A.3.52.4

“objective assessment of matter before it”, failure to apply mandatory/discretionary legislation distinction in analysis M.1.7-9

standard/powers of review (AB) (AD 17.6), determination of normative character of challenged “measure” A.3.62.4

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7)

fruitfulness of resort to dispute settlement procedures L.1.10, M.1.7, P.3.1.13, R.5.6

good faith engagement in dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.10) and R.5.5-6

State responsibility, acts or omissions of executive agency or executive branch L.1.4

sunset review (AD 11.3)

applicability of AD 2.1 (“dumping”) A.3.8.1, A.3.49.0-2

applicability of AD 2.4 (calculation of dumping margin) A.3.13.1, A.3.49.1-2

applicability of AD 6 (evidence) A.3.53.1-2

applicability of AD 9.4 (calculation of “all other” anti-dumping rate) A.3.40.1

continuation of duty

during review A.3.47A.2

as exception to mandatory rule A.3.45.1, A.3.47A.2

initiation before expiry of five years from imposition of duty A.3.45.1

investigatory/adjudicatory functions A.3.47.1, A.3.52.3

parties’ obligations A.3.52.3

proactive role of investigating authorities A.3.47.1, A.3.52.3

“likelihood” test

continuance or recurrence of dumping A.3.8.1, A.3.45.1, A.3.46.1-2

company-specific basis determination of likelihood A.3.53.2

continuance or recurrence of injury A.3.45.1

“positive evidence” / “objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.52.1-3

probability, need for A.3.40.1

relevant factors

factors other than margins of dumping / import volumes A.3.51.3

import volumes A.3.51.1-2

margins of dumping A.3.13.1, A.3.48.1-2, A.3.51.1-2

WTO-inconsistent methodology A.3.49.1-2

right to make A.3.51.1-2

methodology, absence of provision A.3.48.1, A.3.50.1

parties’ rights

full opportunity for defence of interests A.3.47A.1

“interested party” (AD 11.2) A.3.50.1

notice of process A.3.47A.1

reasons for determination A.3.47A.1

SCM Agreement, sunset review (AD 21.3), identity of provisions A.3.63.3

time-limits (AD 11.4) A.3.47A.2

diligence, need for A.3.47A.2

sunset review (SCM 21.3), sunset review (AD 11.3), identity of provisions A.3.63.3

WTO Agreement, conflict between constituent covered agreements, precedence (WTO, Annex 1A) S.5.4

WTO-conformity of domestic laws, regulations and administrative procedures, obligation to ensure (AD 18.4) A.3.62.2-4, L.1.7

dispute settlement procedures, applicability to L.1.8

“laws, regulations and administrative procedures” A.3.62.2-3, L.1.8, M.1.9

characterization by domestic authorities, relevance A.3.62.3, L.1.8

determination of legal status as by reference to WTO law A.3.62.3, L.1.4-11

 
US — Cotton Yarn (WT/DS192/AB/R)     back to top

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), evaluation of injury factors (AD 3.4), evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5), absence of provision for / freedom of choice E.3.1.4

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), safeguard measure, obligation to withdraw if evidence emerges to show critical factual error P.3.1.6, T.7.1.2

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (DSU 13), expert evidence (DSU 13.2), opinion based on data available at time of determination E.3.1.4

judicial economy, mootness of panel findings M.3.3

mootness of panel findings M.3.3

judicial economy and M.3.3

proportionality

countermeasures / suspension of concessions (DSU 22.4) and P.3.6.1, S.9.2

safeguard measures (ATC 6.4) and P.3.6.1

State responsibility for breach of international obligation and P.3.6.1, S.9.2

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

DSU 11 as applicable law S.7.1.8

evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), evidence available to Member, limitation to E.3.1.4, S.7.6, T.7.2.2

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.4.5, S.7.6.1

objective assessment of explanation, need for S.7.4.5

relevant factors, position of Member at time of determination E.3.1.4

standard/powers of review (safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX))

assessment of the facts

de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.4.5

objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for S.7.4.5

substitution of panel’s own assessment, exclusion S.7.4.5

DSU 11, applicability S.7.6.1

State responsibility, countermeasures for breach of international obligations, proportionality and P.3.6.1, S.9.2

suspension of concessions (DSU 22), level (DSU 22.4), proportionality, need for S.9.2

transitional safeguards (ATC 6)

application of measure on Member-to-Member basis (ATC 6.4)

attribution of damage from “sharp and substantial increase in imports” T.7.6.1

comparative analysis T.7.6.1, T.7.6.3-4

from “a Member” T.7.6.2

from “Members individually” T.7.6.1

“directly” D.1.10, T.7.4.1

competition between unlike products D.1.10, T.7.4.1

“domestic industry producing like and/or directly competitive products” D.1.10, T.7.3.1-2

criteria

interchangeability T.7.4.1

“like product” T.7.5.1

“directly”, competition between unlike products T.7.4.1

“directly competitive”, interchangeability test T.7.4.1-2

“like product” (ATC 6.2), competitive relationship, need for T.7.6.1

as dynamic relationship (including possibility of latent demand), potential to compete as determining factor D.1.10

good faith obligation to withdraw if evidence emerges to show critical factual error, whether P.3.1.6, T.7.1.2

“directly” T.7.4.1

“like product” (ATC 6.2), competitive relationship, need for T.7.6.1

serious damage or actual threat thereof (ATC 6.2), Member’s determination of

due diligence requirement, available evidence, limitation to E.3.1.4, S.7.6.1, T.7.2.2

procedure, absence of provision T.7.2.1

standard of review, DSU 11, applicability S.7.6.1

transitional nature of ATC (ATC, preamble) T.7.1.2

 
US — Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS (WT/DS296/AB/R)     back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis

in absence of full argumentation of legal issues C.4.28

in absence of request from party C.4.28

factual basis, insufficiency C.4.29

countervailing duties (SCM, Part V), balance between rights and obligations relating to, need for S.2.1.5

“directs” (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iv)) S.2.8.2-11

“entrusts” (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iv)) S.2.8.2-11

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12), standard of evidence, absence of provision E.3.2.9-10

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, reference to relevant DSU provision, sufficiency W.2.7.3.5

public notice and explanation of determinations on anti-dumping investigation / countervailing duties (AD 12/SCM 22), conclusion or suspension of investigation, required information (SCM 22.5), reasons for acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments, need for S.2.34.2

“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), Addendum to request for consultations, relevance C.7.20, T.6.2.20

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

DSU 11 as applicable law S.7.1.9

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

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence E.3.2.9-14

evidence available to investigating authority, limitation to S.7.6.2

information not in record of investigation E.3.1.6-8, S.7.2.10-11

information in record of investigation but not referred to in determination E.3.1.5

obligation to follow manner of assessment of investigating authority E.3.2.9-14, S.7.5.5

totality of evidence vs. individual evidentiary factors E.3.2.10-15

“objective assessment of the facts” S.7.1.10

evidence available to Member, limitation to S.7.6.2

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of the facts, exclusion E.3.2.12, S.7.4.6, S.7.5.6

error of law, failure to apply proper standard of review S.7.4.6

“reasoned and adequate” test, investigating authorities’ explanations E.3.2.12 n. 278, S.7.4.6

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)), “benefit” S.2.9.11

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

direct transfer of funds (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) S.2.3.2

payments to a funding mechanism or entrustment or direction to a private body (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iv))

“directs” S.2.8.2-11

“entrusts” S.2.8.2-11

scope of SCM 1.1(a)(i)-(iii) distinguished S.2.8.4

“subsidy specific in accordance with the provisions of [SCM] Article 2” S.2.10A.1

 
US — Countervailing Measures on Certain EC Products (WT/DS212/AB/R)     back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), issues of law / legal interpretations, alleged failure of panel to make objective assessment (DSU 11) S.3.2.2

competence (panels), claims against legislation as such M.1.6

countervailing duties (SCM, Part V)

calculation of subsidy in terms of benefit to recipient (SCM 14), “benefit” (SCM 1.1(b)) and S.2.9.6

compliance with GATT VI:3 and SCM Agreement (SCM 10) S.2.29.1

duration (SCM 21.1) S.2.29.1

level

amount of existing subsidy, limitation to S.2.29.1

“to the extent necessary” (SCM 21.1) S.2.29.1

preconditions (SCM 19.1), benefit S.2.26.1, S.2.29.1

privatization, relevance S.2.31.6-7

duration and review of anti-dumping duties and price undertakings / countervailing measures (AD 11/SCM 21) S.2.29.1, S.2.31.6-7

interpretation of covered agreements, context (VCLT 31(2)), treaty/treaties as a whole S.2.9.7

legislation as such, right to challenge, mandatory/discretionary legislation, whether distinguishable M.1.6

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

amendment W.2.7.4

right to defend interests and W.2.7.1.1, W.2.7.4.1-2

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law / legal interpretations (AB/WP 20(2)(d)) W.2.6.9-10, W.2.7.1.1, W.2.7.3.2

allegation of panel’s failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11), need for specific reference S.3.2.2, W.2.7.5.1

privatization

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) and S.2.9.5, S.2.9.9, S.2.31.6-7

continuing need for countervailing duties and S.2.31.6-7

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) S.2.9.5-9, S.2.29.1, S.2.60.1

“benefit”, cost to government, relevance S.2.9.5

privatization, relevance S.2.9.5, S.2.9.9, S.2.31.6-7

recipient

“an industry” (SCM 6.1(b)) S.2.9.7

“enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries” (SCM 2) S.2.9.7

“exporter or foreign producer” (SCM 11.2(ii)) S.2.9.7

“firm or industry” (SCM, Annex I) S.2.9.7

firms/owners, relevance of distinction S.2.9.6-8

group of persons S.2.9.7

“manufacture, production or export of any merchandise” (SCM 10, footnote 36) S.2.9.7, S.2.9.8

natural or legal person as S.2.9.7

need for S.2.9.6

“recipient firm” (SCM, Annex IV) S.2.9.7

“sources found to be subsidized” (SCM 19.3) S.2.9.7

financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1)), direct transfer of funds (SCM 1.1(a)(1)), “bestowed directly or indirectly” (SCM 10, footnote 36/GATT VI:3) S.2.9.7

tax exemption, as circumvention of export subsidy commitments S.2.9.7

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), fairness and orderly procedure, adoption of appropriate procedure (WP 16.1), failure of notice of appeal to conform with requirements and W.2.6.9-10

 
US — FSC (WT/DS108/AB/R)     back to top

actionable/non-actionable subsidy (SCM) S.2.2.2

burden of proof, defences and exceptions, SCM 3.1(a) (Annex I (Illustrative List of Export Subsidies)), footnote 59, fifth sentence, order of analysis O.2.3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis, factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record S.3.1.5

issues of law / legal interpretations

“covered in the panel report” S.3.1.5

“developed by the panel” S.3.1.5

issues not raised by parties S.3.1.5

competence (panels), objections, requirements, timeliness O.1.2

consultations (DSU 4)

establishment of panel, as prerequisite O.1.2

SCM 4.2, relationship with S.2.18.2

consultations (SCM 4.1-4.4)

DSU 4.4, relationship with S.2.18.2

“statement of available evidence” (SCM 4.2) S.2.18.1-2

costs of marketing exports (AG 9.1(d))

general business costs distinguished A.1.29.1

income tax, whether A.1.29.1

countervailing duties (SCM, Part V), compliance with GATT VI:3 and SCM Agreement (SCM 10) S.2.41.3

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), “for the purpose of this agreement” (SCM 1.1) S.2.2.2

export subsidy commitments, prevention of circumvention (AG 10.1)

“applied in a manner which …”, legal entitlement / discretionary element, relevance A.1.32.1A, A.1.32A.5

“circumvention” A.1.32.1

scheduled and unscheduled products, distinction, whether A.1.32.3

tax exemption A.1.32.2, A.1.32.4

“commitments” A.1.30.1

export subsidy, AG 3.3 prohibition and A.1.6.1-2

export subsidy, prohibition (AG 3.3)

in excess of budgetary outlay and quantity commitment level A.1.6.1

export subsidy commitments (AG 10.1) and A.1.6.1-2

provision of export subsidies under AG 9.1, dependence on A.1.5.1

scheduled products A.1.6.1

conversion to prohibition A.1.5.2

unscheduled products A.1.6.2

GATT 1947, continuing relevance under WTO G.2.1.4

GATT 1994, WTO Agreement, incorporation into (WTO Annex 1A) G.2.1.4

decisions of Contracting Parties to GATT 1947 (WTO Annex 1A, 1(b)(4)), “legal instruments” (WTO Annex 1A, 1(b)) G.2.1.4

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26))

dispute settlement procedures, engagement in (DSU 3.10) P.3.1.2

as general principle of

international law P.3.1.2

law P.3.1.2

objections to panel procedures O.1.3, P.3.1.2

income tax, marketing cost, whether A.1.29.1

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2))

GATT VI/SCM Agreement, interrelationship S.2.41.3

treaty/treaties as a whole S.2.41.3

object and purpose W.2.1.1

same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.1.4.1

national treatment, tax discrimination (GATT III:2), Members’ right to determine basis of taxation subject to compliance with WTO obligations T.3.3-4

procedure, fair, prompt and effective resolution of disputes and D.2.2.8, O.1.3, W.2.1.1

prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), procedure, role D.2.2.8, O.1.3, W.2.1.1

request for establishment of panel, requirements (DSU 6.2), failure to object, effect C.7.3, O.1.2

subsidies, prohibited (SCM, Part II)

“contingent upon export performance” (SCM 3.1(a)) A.1.4.1

Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I)

remission or deferral of direct taxes (item (e)) S.2.37.1

deferral not amounting to export subsidy (footnote 59) S.2.37.1

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

applicability “for purposes of this agreement” S.2.2.1-2

applicability of SCM 1 provisions S.2.2.1-2

commonality of terminology in Agreement on Agriculture A.1.3.2

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) A.1.3.2

financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) A.1.3.2

forgoing of revenues otherwise due (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(ii)), “otherwise due” / basis of comparison (“but for” test) S.2.4.1-2

GATT VI:4/SCM 1.1(a)(1) and 3.1(a), interrelationship S.2.41.3

tax exemption

as circumvention of export subsidy commitments A.1.32.2, A.1.32.4, S.2.37.1

Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I) (item (e)) S.2.37.1

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

object and purpose, fair, prompt and effective resolution of disputes W.2.1.1

withdrawal of appeal (AB/WP 30) W.2.13.1.1

conditioned on right to refile notice of appeal in accordance with WP 20 W.2.13.1.1

Working Procedures (panel) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), objections, requirements, good faith O.1.3, P.3.1.2

 
US — FSC (Article 21.5 — EC) (WT/DS108/AB/RW)     back to top

burden of proof

defences and exceptions, SCM 3.1(a) (Annex I (Illustrative List of Export Subsidies)), footnote 59, fifth sentence B.3.3.7

double taxation measures, justification S.2.38.3

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence, defences/exceptions and B.3.3.7

competence (panels), compétence de la compétence W.3.8

double taxation measures, justification (Illustrative List, SCM Annex I (item (e)), footnote 59) S.2.38.1-13

applicable law / Member’s right to determine applicable rules S.2.38.5, S.2.38.7, S.2.38.10, S.2.38.13

common elements S.2.38.7

burden of proof S.2.38.3

as exception to prohibited subsidies rule (SCM 3.1(a)) S.2.38.1

“foreign-source income” S.2.38.4-13

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), participation in panel proceedings by third parties D.2.2.16

GATS, applicability (GATS I), “measures affecting trade in services” (GATS I:1), “affecting” (GATS I:1), GATT III:4 compared N.1.10.2

interpretation of covered agreements

legislative history (domestic) I.3.4.1

narrow/broad interpretation N.1.10.2

same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.1.3.3, N.1.10.2

national treatment, general principle (GATT III:1), “so as to afford protection”, “less favourable treatment” and N.1.11.8

national treatment, regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4)

“affecting” N.1.10.2

GATS I:1 compared N.1.10.2

“less favourable treatment” N.1.11.8-9

“so as to afford protection”, “less favourable treatment” and N.1.11.8

panel proceedings as two-stage process W.3.7, W.3.8

subsidies, prohibited (SCM, Part II)

“contingent upon export performance” (SCM 3.1(a)) S.2.12.5-6

subsidy available to property produced either within or outside subsidizing State S.2.12.4A, S.2.12.5-6

Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I)

remission or deferral of direct taxes (item (e))

burden of proof S.2.38.2

double taxation measures S.2.38.1-13

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

commonality of terminology in Agreement on Agriculture A.1.3.3

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) A.1.3.3

financial contribution (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) A.1.3.3

forgoing of revenues otherwise due (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(ii)) A.1.3.3

“otherwise due” / basis of comparison (“but for” test) S.2.4.4-6

obligations relating to subsidies distinguished S.2.2.3

tax exemption, as circumvention of export subsidy commitments, Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I) (item (e)) S.2.38.1-13

third party rights T.8.3-5

panel proceedings (DSU 10 and Appendix 3)

interests to be taken into account (DSU 10.1) T.8.5

panel’s discretion and

circumscription, exclusion D.2.2.16

enhancement in accordance with due process D.2.2.16, T.8.3

participation in (DSU 10.3) D.2.2.16, T.8.5

submissions, right to (DSU 10.3) T.8.4, T.8.5

“withdrawal of subsidy without delay” (SCM 4.7) S.2.19.2

“without delay” S.2.19.2

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

withdrawal of appeal (AB/WP 30), conditioned on right to refile notice of appeal in accordance with WP 20 W.2.13.1.7

working schedule (WP 26), modification in exceptional circumstances at request of parties, participants or third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.6.7

written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.8

 
US — FSC (Article 21.5 — EC II) (WT/DS108/AB/RW2)     back to top

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel), DSU 21.5 compliance proceedings requirements R.2.5.3

request for establishment of panel, requirements (DSU 6.2), compliance panel (DSU 21.5), applicability to R.2.5.1-3

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

applicability of DSU 6.2 (requirements for establishment of panel) R.2.5.1-3, R.4.4.1

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

measures that “have a bearing on compliance” R.2.5.2-3, R.4.1.19

“matter referred”

legal basis of claim / consistency of measure R.4.1.18, R.4.1.21

measure taken to comply, existence R.4.1.18, R.4.1.21

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency), examination in light of DSB recommendations and rulings R.4.1.19

“these dispute settlement procedures” R.2.5.1, R.4.4.1

“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), measures having “a bearing on compliance” R.2.5.2-3

“withdrawal of subsidy without delay” (SCM 4.7) S.2.19.6-7

full withdrawal, need for R.4.3.11, S.2.19.7-10

obligation of parties to accept recommendation R.4.3.7-9

time-limits, specification by panel R.4.3.7, S.2.19.10

 
US — Gambling (WT/DS285/13)     back to top

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)] G.1.2.1.1

 
US — Gambling (WT/DS285/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof

defences and exceptions

GATS XIV (general exceptions) B.3.3.16

rebuttal as parties’ obligation B.3.3.16, C.2.6, S.7.2.6

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

necessity test (GATS XIV(a)) B.3.3.17-19, G.4.3.1-3

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence B.3.3.17-19, G.4.3.1

presumption of consistency of measure with WTO obligations, party’s obligation to demonstrate inconsistency in relation to each element of claim B.3.2.13

prima facie case

evidence and legal arguments in support of claim, need for B.3.2.14-17

as precondition to ruling on claim B.3.2.13, B.3.2.17

rebuttal, party’s obligation G.4.3.1-2

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

correct interpretation and application of covered agreements and, panel’s obligation to explain use of document as “supplementary means” (VCLT 32) I.3.10.17

right to develop own legal reasoning including arguments not adduced by parties (jura novit curia) C.2.6, S.7.2.6

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

opportunity to respond to evidence/presentations of other parties B.3.3.15, D.2.2.20-1, O.1.13-14, P.3.1.14

defence, time-limits for raising O.1.14-16, S.7.2.5

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), failure of party to object to timing of defence D.2.2.25, O.1.16

panel’s discretion on matters of procedure (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3) D.2.2.24

panel’s right to adjust timetable S.7.2.5

evidence (panel procedures) (DSU 12)

time-limits for submission, responding parties B.3.3.15, D.2.2.22, O.1.13-16

as two-stage process, rebuttal of arguments and evidence B.3.3.16, C.2.6, S.7.2.6

GATS, applicability (GATS I) G.1.1.8-9, G.1.3.1.1-2

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

“affecting” (GATS I:1) C.7.19, G.1.1.8, R.2.3.15, T.6.3.11

DSU 4.2 compared C.7.19, G.1.1.8, R.2.3.15, T.6.3.11

“trade in services” (GATS I:2) G.1.1.9

General Exceptions (GATS XIV)

application causing arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or disguised restriction on trade G.4.5.1-4

GATT XX and G.4.1.1-2, O.2.11

nexus between measure and interest protected, need for G.4.1.2, O.2.11

order of analysis (chapeau compliance/exceptions) O.2.11

public morals or public order (GATS XIV(a)) B.3.3.17-19, G.4.2.1-2

public order (GATS footnote 5) G.4.2.2

General Exceptions (GATT XX)

GATS XIV and G.4.1.1-2

two-tier analysis (justification under paras. (a)-(j) / compliance with chapeau) G.4.1.2

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26))

dispute settlement procedures, engagement in (DSU 3.10) P.3.1.14

obligation to articulate defence promptly and clearly B.3.3.15, D.2.2.23, O.1.15, P.3.1.15

interpretation of covered agreements

applicable law, Schedules of Concessions G.1.2.1.2

context (VCLT 31(2))

any agreement made between the parties (VCLT 31(2)(a)) or accepted by parties (VCLT 31(2)(b)) G.1.2.2.1-2, I.3.3.4-5

Central Product Classification (CPC) and Services Sectoral Classification List (W/120), whether G.1.2.2.1-2, I.3.3.4-5

article as a whole G.1.3.4.5

dictionaries G.1.2.1.2, G.1.3.4.2, I.3.2.9-10

grammar, respect for G.1.3.5.1

multiple authentic languages, non-authentic text, relevance G.1.2.1.2, I.3.2.10

multiple meanings A.1.2.10-11, G.1.2.1.2-3

ordinary meaning, “sporting” I.3.2.10

parties’ intentions (VCLT 31(1)), common intention, Members’ Schedules, whether I.3.10.13

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion G.1.3.3.1, G.4.5.1-4

preparatory work (VCLT 32)

GATS G.1.2.2.10-11, G.1.2.2.12, G.1.3.4.6, G.1.3.5.4, I.3.10.15

panel’s obligation to explain use of document as I.3.10.17

same or closely related phrases in different agreements, GATS XIV/GATT XX G.4.1.1-2

same or closely related phrases in same agreement G.1.3.4.4

structure of agreement G.1.1.9, G.1.2.2.4

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

agreement, need for G.1.2.2.9, I.3.9.6

common practice, need for G.1.2.2.9, I.3.9.6

2001 GATS Guidelines, whether G.1.2.2.9, I.3.9.6

consistency of practice, need for G.1.2.2.9, I.3.9.6

supplementary means (VCLT 32)

in case of ambiguity (VCLT 32(a)) G.1.2.2.10, I.3.10.14

interpretative document issued by party I.3.10.17

text/plain language G.1.3.5.2

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel), specificity sufficient to present the problem clearly R.2.2.20

market access commitments (GATS XVI)

measures not to be maintained unless otherwise specified in Schedule (GATS XVI:2) G.1.3.1.1

exhaustive list of restrictions covered by GATS XVI:1 G.1.3.2.1

inclusion of commitment to allow market access G.1.3.3

limitations on number of service suppliers (GATS XVI:2(a)) G.1.3.4.1-6

article to be read as a whole G.1.3.4.5

at or above zero G.1.3.3.1, G.1.3.4.6, T.1.2.8

exclusive service suppliers (GATS VIII:5) and G.1.3.4.1

“form” G.1.3.4.2-6

object and purpose of GATS and G.1.3.4.6

as quantitative limitation G.1.3.4.1-6

limitations on total number of service operations (GATS XVI:2(c))

grammatical structure G.1.3.5.1

as quantitative limitation G.1.3.5.2-5

text/plain language G.1.3.5.2

limitations on total value of service transactions (GATS XVI:2(b)) G.1.3.3.1

bound rates at or above zero G.1.3.3.1

measures directed at consumers G.1.3.6.1

modes of supply as defined in GATS I G.1.3.1.1-2

“no less favourable treatment” obligation (GATS XVI:1), under terms provided for in Schedule G.1.3.1.1

variety of permissible of forms G.1.3.5.4

“matter referred to the DSB” (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1), “measure at issue” as S.7.2A.6-7

municipal law, interpretation M.5.12-13

necessity test (GATS XIV(a))

availability of alternative WTO-consistent measure and B.3.3.17-19, G.3.4A.1, G.4.3.1-2, G.4.4.1-5

complaining party’s obligation to suggest G.3.4A.1, G.4.4.4

consultations as G.4.4.4

“reasonably available” G.3.4A.1, G.4.4.1-5

burden of proof B.3.3.17-19, G.4.3.1-3

“indispensable” and “necessary” distinguished B.3.3.17, G.4.3.2

as objective standard G.4.4.1

obligation to consult other party G.4.4.3-4

order of analysis G.3.3A.8

as weighing and balancing process B.3.3.17, B.3.3.19, G.4.3.1, G.4.3.3, G.4.4.2

order of analysis

GATS XIV (chapeau/exceptions) O.2.11

necessity test (GATS XIV(a)) G.3.3A.8

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

impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member (DSU 3.3)

attributability of measure to responding Member, need for C.7.19, G.1.1.8, R.2.3.15, T.6.3.11

measure as source of alleged impairment, need for C.7.19, G.1.1.8, R.2.3.15, T.6.3.11

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II)

interpretation and clarification T.1.2.8

ordinary customs duties in excess of those provided for in Schedule (GATT II:1(b)), zero rates, applicability to T.1.2.8

Schedules of Specific Commitments (GATS XX), interpretation G.1.2.1.1-3

applicable law G.1.2.1.1, I.3.10.13

context (VCLT 31(2))

1993 Scheduling Guidelines, similarity of language G.1.2.2.12, I.3.10.15-16

any agreement made between the parties (VCLT 31(2)(a)) or accepted by parties (VCLT 31(2)(b)), Central Product Classification (CPC) and Services Sectoral Classification List (W/120), whether G.1.2.2.1-12, I.3.3.4-5

Central Product Classification (CPC) G.1.2.2.7

other Members’ Schedules G.1.2.2.6, G.1.2.2.8

Services Sectoral Classification List (W/120) G.1.2.2.3, G.1.2.2.5, G.1.2.2.11, I.3.3.4-5

structure of agreement G.1.1.9, G.1.2.2.4

as integral part of GATS (GATS XX:3) G.1.2.1.1, I.3.10.13

preparatory work (VCLT 32), W/120 and 1993 Scheduling Guidelines as G.1.2.2.10-12, G.1.3.4.6, I.3.10.14-16

“sectors”

avoidance of ambiguity, need for G.1.2.2.12, I.3.10.15

common format and terminology, importance G.1.2.2.12, I.3.10.15

DSU 22.3(f) compared G.1.2.2.4-5

mutual exclusion G.1.2.2.4

“subsector” G.1.2.2.5

subsequent practice (VCLT 31(3)(b)), 2001 Guidelines, whether G.1.2.2.9, I.3.9.6

“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)

due process right to defend oneself and R.2.3.16

“practice” as measure R.2.3.17, T.6.3.12

“specific”, “total prohibition” R.2.3.16

measure subsequent to establishment of panel having the “same effect” R.2.3.16

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”) G.4.5.4

assessment of legislation of complainant party, relevance G.4.4.5

discretion in selection of relevant evidence G.4.5.2, J.1.19

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.7.3.25

insufficiency of evidence, relevance S.7.2.6, S.7.2A.6-7

wording of measure in absence of evidence S.7.2A.7

“objective assessment of matter before it”

discretion in deciding which legal issues to address C.4.26, G.4.5.2, J.1.19, S.7.2.7

error of law, failure to set out all matters considered G.4.2.2

party’s failure to address issues allegedly overlooked G.4.5.3

ultra petita finding on provision not before it S.7.2.6

“such other findings as will assist the DSB” (DSU 7.1/DSU 11), judicial economy and J.1.19

Working Procedures (panel) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), high quality reports / avoidance of delay, flexibility in achieving balance (DSU 12.2) D.2.2.24-5

 
US — Gasoline (WT/DS2/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof

defences and exceptions, GATT XX B.3.3.1

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence, defences/exceptions and B.3.3.1

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis C.4.1

in case of disagreement with panel C.4.1

factual basis, contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.1

General Exceptions (GATT XX)

measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources (GATT XX(g))

“made effective in conjunction with”, as balance between conservation and domestic production/consumption G.3.8.1-2

“relating to” G.3.9.1-4

“primarily aimed at” distinguished G.3.9.3-4

two-tier analysis (justification under paras. (a)-(j) / compliance with chapeau) G.3.1.1

General Exceptions (GATT XX) (chapeau)

application of measure as means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination G.3.11.4

“between countries where the same conditions prevail” G.3.12.1

between importing and exporting countries G.3.12.1

“disguised restriction on international trade” G.3.11.4, G.3.13.1

measures amounting to arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination as G.3.13.1

prevention of abuses of exceptions as objective G.3.11.1-2, G.3.13.1

reasonable application of exceptions, need for G.3.11.2

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.3.1.1, I.3.7.1

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat / effet utile) I.3.7.1

multiple appeals (AB/WP 23), joinder S.3.1.1, W.2.8.1

order of analysis, GATT XX (chapeau compliance / GATT XX / exceptions) O.2.1

“relating to” (GATT XX(g)) G.3.9.1-4

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

multiple appeals (AB/WP 23), joinder S.3.1.1, W.2.8.1

obligation to observe S.3.1.1, W.2.8.1

written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.1

 
US — Hot-Rolled Steel (WT/DS184/AB/R)     back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis C.4.13-14

in case of disagreement with panel C.4.14

factual basis, contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.13-14

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

calculation of “all other” anti-dumping duty rate (AD 9.4), applicability to A.3.42.1

comparison of weighted average normal value with weighted average of all comparable export transactions A.3.42.1

calculation of normal value, eligible transactions, requirements (AD 2.1)

affiliated party transactions A.3.5.2

comparability of price A.3.5.1

“like product” A.3.5.1

sale “destined for consumption in exporting country” A.3.5.1

sale “in ordinary course of trade” A.3.5.1

fair comparison (AD 2.4) A.3.6, A.3.12

affiliated party transactions A.3.6.1, A.3.12.1

“at same level of trade” requirement A.3.6.1, A.3.12.1

“normal value … in the ordinary course of trade” (AD 2.1) A.3.3.1-5

comparing prices, relevant factors A.3.3.3

scrutiny, rules governing A.3.3.4

sales transaction not “in the ordinary course of trade”

affiliated party transactions A.3.4.1-2

distortion of normal value, Members’ discretion and A.3.4.2

sales above cost and A.3.9.1

exclusion A.3.3.1-2, A.3.3.4

sales below cost, method for determining whether (AD 2.2.1) A.3.4.1-2

alternative methods, possibility of A.3.9.1

transaction on terms and conditions incompatible with normal commercial practice A.3.3.2

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

calculation of volume of dumped imports, “positive evidence” / “objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1), AD 17.6(ii), relevance A.3.60.3

evaluation of injury factors (AD 3.4) A.3.22.3-6

evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5)

injurious effects of dumped goods and of other factors, need to distinguish (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) A.3.24.3-5

non-attribution to dumped imports of injury caused by other factors (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) A.3.24.1-5

examination of relevance of factor not listed in AD 3.4, right to A.3.22.3

structure of domestic industry A.3.22.5

growth, evaluation of other AD 3.4 factors and A.3.22.3-4

“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.22.4

sectoral analysis, right to A.3.22.3

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

“objective examination” A.3.17.1-4

evaluation of injury factors (AD 3.4) A.3.22.4

good faith/fairness and A.3.17.2

industry as a whole, need to examine A.3.17.3-4, A.3.22.6

“positive” A.3.16.3, A.3.17.1

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), “for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1) / applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.42.1

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12)

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

extension “upon cause shown … whenever practicable” A.3.30.1.1, A.3.34.3

“reasonable period” (AD 6.8) / “reasonable time” (Annex II, para. 1) and A.3.35.3

“ample opportunity to present in writing all evidence” (AD 6.1/SCM/12.1), right to impose time-limits (AD 6.1.1/SCM 12.1.1) A.3.30.1.1

cooperation, standard

allowance for / assistance with difficulties (AD 6.13) A.3.38.1, P.3.1.5

“best of its ability” (AD Annex II, para. 5) A.3.36.2

good faith and P.3.1.5

facts available to investigating authority, right to use (AD 6.8/AD Annex II/SCM 12.7) A.3.33

in case of partial lack of necessary information A.3.36.3, A.3.42.1

failure to submit necessary information “in timely fashion” (Annex II, para. 3) and A.3.34.1-3

interpretation in light of AD 6.1.1, 6.8/Annex II, para. 1 A.3.34.2-3, A.3.35.3

as “reasonable period” / “reasonable time” A.3.34.3

failure to submit necessary information “within reasonable period” (AD 6.8) / “reasonable time” (Annex II, para. 1) and A.3.33.1-2

information provided within reasonable period, investigating authorities’ obligation to use A.3.34.2-3

“less favourable result” as possible consequence of failure to cooperate (AD Annex II, para. 7) A.3.36.1-3, A.3.43.1

standard of cooperation expected A.3.36.1-2

“reasonable period”

balance between rights of investigating authorities and legitimate interests of parties A.3.35.2-3

flexibility A.3.35.1-2

relevant factors A.3.35.2

time-limits and A.3.35.3

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26))

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15) and A.3.17.2

as general principle of

international law P.3.1.5

law P.3.1.5

investigation of dumping, standard of cooperation and P.3.1.5

imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties (AD 9)

calculation of “all other” anti-dumping duty rate (AD 9.4) A.3.41.1

avoidance of prejudice to non-investigated exporters, failure to address A.3.43.2-3

comparison of all comparable transactions (AD 2.4), need for A.3.42.1

margins established under circumstances referred to in AD 6.8, exclusion A.3.41.1, A.3.42.1

method, absence of provision A.3.41.1

weighted average margin of dumping established with respect to investigated exporters as ceiling (AD 9.4(i)) A.3.41.1

zero/de minimis margins, exclusion A.3.41.1

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)]

AD 17.6(ii) A.3.60.2

DSU 3.2 A.3.60.2

context (VCLT 31(2)), surrounding language A.3.36.1

multiple permissible interpretations A.3.60.2-3

compliance with one permissible interpretation, sufficiency A.3.60.2

“permissible” A.3.60.2

narrow/broad interpretation A.3.43.1

municipal law, compliance with WTO/international obligations and, determination of compliance and interpretation of legislation distinguished M.5.4

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1) A.3.60.2-3

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

“objective assessment of matter before it”

AD 17.6(i) compared S.7.1.6

AD 17.6(ii) compared A.3.60.3, S.7.1.7

factual and legal aspects, inclusion S.7.1.5

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

assessment of the facts (AD 17.6(i)) A.3.58.3, A.3.59.4-5

active review, need for S.7.1.6

DSU 11 compared S.7.1.6

interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii)) distinguished A.3.58.3, S.7.1.5

“unbiased and objective” S.7.1.6

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

in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law A.3.60.2

“admits of more than one permissible interpretation” A.3.60.2-3, S.7.1.7

DSU 11 compared S.7.1.7

objective assessment, relevance A.3.60.3, S.7.1.7

 
US — Lamb (WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R)     back to top

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

“domestic industry” (SG 4.1(c)) S.1.25.1-5

“producers as a wholeS.1.25.5

evaluation of all relevant factors (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.2.1-2, S.1.26.5-6, S.7.4.2-3

as a whole S.1.27.2-4

data from recent past / throughout investigation period, relative importance S.1.28.1-2

“factors other than increased imports” (SG 4.2(b))

“at the same time” S.1.30.2

methodology S.1.30.2

non-attribution, need for demonstration of S.1.30.2, S.1.31.3-4

“of an objective and quantifiable nature” (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.27.1

reasoned and adequate explanation S.1.2.1-2, S.1.26.5, S.1.46.1, S.7.4.2, S.7.4.4, S.7.5.1

“threat of serious injury” (SG 4.1(b)) S.1.24.1

“clearly imminent” S.1.24.1

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), dispute settlement procedures, engagement in (DSU 3.10) P.3.1.4, S.1.19.5

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

dispute settlement proceedings distinguished S.1.19.4

findings and reasoned conclusions, covering pertinent issues of fact and law S.1.46.1

published report S.1.21.1-2

key elements

conditions (SG 2.1/GATT XIX:(a)) S.1.21.1-2

unforeseen developments S.1.21.2, S.1.46.1

judicial economy J.1.12

“like or directly competitive product” (SG 2.1/SG 4.1(c)) S.1.3.1

“domestic industry”, as sole determinant (SG 4.1(c)) S.1.25.1-4

specific product, need for S.1.3.1, S.1.25.2

procedure, fair, prompt and effective resolution of disputes and, good faith and P.3.1.4

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX), conditions (SG 2)

“like or directly competitive product” (SG 2.1) S.1.3

specific product, need for S.1.3.1

as pertinent issues of fact and law (SG 3.1) S.1.21.1-2

“such increased quantities”

“as a result of unforeseen developments” (GATT XIX:1(a)) S.1.21.2, S.1.50.3

demonstration, need for S.1.50.3

as pertinent issue of fact and law S.1.50.3

decrease in import quantities at end of investigation period, relevance S.1.28.2

sufficient to cause serious injury or threat S.1.30.2

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX), publication obligations (SG 4.2(c)), unforeseen developments, need to include S.1.46.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.5.1-2

“reasoned and adequate” test, investigating authorities’ explanations S.1.2.1-2, S.1.26.5, S.7.4.2-4, S.7.5.1

relevant factors, evaluation of all relevant factors, need for S.7.4.2

standard/powers of review (safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX))

assessment of the facts

absence of facts S.1.31.4

objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for S.1.2.2, S.1.26.5-6, S.7.4.2, S.7.4.4, S.7.5.1

substitution of panel’s own assessment, exclusion S.1.2.1, S.7.5.1

existence of right coupled with exercise of right in conformity with SG S.1.26.5

“objective assessment of matter before it”, de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.5.1-2

third party rights W.2.9.3

AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24) W.2.9.3

passive participation in oral hearings W.2.9.3

 
US — Lead and Bismuth II (WT/DS138/AB/R)     back to top

amicus curiae briefs A.2.1.7-10

NGO/private individual briefs A.2.1.7-10

discretionary power of panel to accept/reject A.2.1.7-10

burden of proof, review of continuing need for countervailing duties (SCM 21.2) S.2.31.1-2

duration and review of anti-dumping duties and price undertakings / countervailing measures (AD 11/SCM 21) S.2.31.1-3

requirements (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2), burden/standard of proof S.2.31.3

interpretation of covered agreements, absence of provision, relevance A.2.1.7

judicial economy J.1.8

panel’s discretionary power to determine, which claims must be examined J.1.8

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel), arguments distinguished C.1.7

SCM Agreement

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)), review of need for continued imposition of countervailing duties (SCM 21.2) distinguished S.2.31.3

standard of review, Declaration on Dispute Settlement Pursuant to the Agreement on Implementation of Art. VI of GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement) or Part V of the SCM Agreement

legal effect A.3.63.1

standard of review, absence of provision for A.3.63.1

standard/powers of review (AB) (AD 17.6), non-applicability to covered agreements other than Anti-Dumping Agreement such as the SCM and SPS Agreements A.3.58.1, A.3.63.1-2, S.7.1.4

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)) S.2.9.3-4

“benefit” S.2.9.4

recipient

natural or legal person as S.2.9.3

need for S.2.9.3

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

determination by Appellate Body (DSU 17.9) A.2.1.7

fairness and orderly procedure, adoption of appropriate procedure (WP 16.1), re-hearing following death of member of division hearing appeal W.2.6.8

replacement on division (WP 13) W.2.5.1, W.2.6.8

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7), Members of WTO, limitation to A.2.1.8

third party rights, panel proceedings (DSU 10 and Appendix 3), Members “having substantial interest in a matter before a panel”, limitation to (DSU 10.2) A.2.1.8

working schedule (WP 26), extension of deadline for circulation of AB report, death of member of division hearing appeal W.2.10.2.2

 
US — Line Pipe (WT/DS202/AB/R)     back to top

applicable law, determination of serious injury or threat (SG 4) M.5.6, S.1.4.1

burden of proof

prima facie case S.1.36.3

rebuttal, responding party’s obligation S.1.36.3

compensation

for adverse effects of safeguard measures (SG 8.1) S.1.38.2, S.1.42.4

compensatory adjustment for modification of schedules (GATT XXVIII:2) S.1.38.2, S.1.42.4

compliance, WTO obligations, good faith / pacta sunt servanda principle S.1.42.4

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), evaluation of injury factors (AD 3.4), evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5), non-attribution to dumped imports of injury caused by other factors (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5), SG 4.2(b) compared S.1.43.1

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

applicable law M.5.6, S.1.4.1

customs unions and free trade areas (GATT XXIV) exception and R.1.6.2

evaluation of all relevant factors (SG 4.2(a))

“factors other than increased imports” (SG 4.2(b))

application of measures “to the extent necessary” (SG 5.1) and S.1.36.1-3

non-attribution, need for demonstration of S.1.31.1, S.1.31.5-6

purpose of provision S.1.36.2

reasoned and adequate explanation S.1.31.5

“serious injury” (SG 4.1(a)) S.1.23.2-3

“material injury” (AD 3, SCM 15.7 and GATT VI) distinguished S.1.23.2

“serious injury” (SG 5.1) distinguished S.1.35.2

“serious injury” (SG 4.1(a)) / “threat of serious injury” (SG 4.1(b))

as continuum A.1.32A.2, S.1.23.2

quota modulation and (SG 5.2(b)) S.1.37.1

“serious injury”, higher threshold S.1.24.2

“threat of serious injury” (SG 4.1(b)) S.1.24.2

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), compliance with WTO obligations S.1.42.4

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2)) I.3.2.6

object and purpose I.3.2.6

same or closely related phrases in same agreement S.1.13.1.2

text/plain language I.3.2.6

title S.1.35.4

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

published report S.1.21.3

key elements

conditions (SG 2.1/GATT XIX:(a)) S.1.21.3

serious injury or threat of S.1.21.3

municipal law, as applicable law, determination of serious injury or threat (SG 4) M.5.6, S.1.4.1

proportionality

countermeasures / suspension of concessions (DSU 22.4) and P.3.6.2-3

as customary international law P.3.6.3

safeguard measures (SG 5.1) (“to the extent necessary”) and S.1.34.2-3

publication of analysis of case under investigation (SG 4(2)(c)), justification of application of safeguard measures (SG 5.1) and S.1.35.1, S.1.36.1

quota modulation (SG 5.2(b)) S.1.37.1

safeguard measures, characteristics

as balance between appropriate and legitimate right to protect domestic industry and obligation to maintain integrity of trade concessions S.1.38.2

exceptional nature of remedy S.1.1.1

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)

application of measures (SG 5)

imports, limitation to S.1.35.4

proportionality (“to the extent necessary”) (SG 5.1) S.1.34.2-3

causal link (SG 4.2(b)) and S.1.36.1-3

extent of injury as test S.1.34.3

limitation to share of injury caused by increased imports S.1.35.3

“serious injury” (SG 5.1) / “serious injury” (SG 4.2(a)) distinguished S.1.35.2

proportionality (“to the extent necessary”) (SG 5.1), justification

in case of quantitative restrictions (SG 5.1, second sentence) S.1.35.1, S.1.36.1

compliance with SG obligations as S.1.36.1

need for S.1.35.1-4

publication of analysis of case under investigation (SG 4(2)(c)) and S.1.36.1

right to apply measure distinguished S.1.35.2

quota modulation and (SG 5.2(b)) S.1.37.1

customs unions and free trade areas (GATT XXIV) exception, applicability R.1.6.2, S.1.17.1

free trade areas S.1.17.1

developing countries and (SG 9) S.1.39.1-3

“applied” S.1.39.2

“against a product” S.1.39.2

expected effect of measure, relevance S.1.39.3

list of excluded countries, need for S.1.39.1

level of concessions (SG 8)

compensation for adverse effects (SG 8.1) S.1.38.2, S.1.42.4

“equivalent” S.1.38.2-3

adequate opportunity for prior consultations (SG 12.3) and S.1.42.3

notification and consultation (SG 12)

adequate opportunity for prior consultations (SG 12.3) S.1.42.2-4

good faith and S.1.42.4

time for S.1.42.3

amendments to measure subsequent to consultation, effect S.1.42.2

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX), conditions (SG 2)

parallelism between SG 2.1 and SG 2.2 S.1.13.1.2

prima facie failure to observe S.1.13.2.1

“product being imported” S.1.13.1.2

as pertinent issues of fact and law (SG 3.1) S.1.21.3

separate determinations S.1.10.1-4

“such increased quantities”

sufficient to cause serious injury or threat

causal link, need to demonstrate S.1.31.1

“serious injury” and “threat”, whether mutually exclusive alternatives S.1.10.1-4

standard/powers of review (safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)), existence of right coupled with exercise of right in conformity with SG S.1.1.1

State responsibility, countermeasures for breach of international obligations, proportionality and P.3.6.3

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

withdrawal of appeal (AB/WP 30) W.2.13.1.2

conditioned on right to refile notice of appeal in accordance with WP 20 W.2.13.1.2

 
US — Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) (WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R)     back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record S.3.3.11

competence (panels)

notice of appeal, requirements (AB/WP 20(2)), objection to panel’s jurisdiction T.6.1.11

objections, requirements, notice of appeal, inclusion in J.2.1.15, O.1.8, T.6.1.11

obligation to examine

at any stage during proceedings W.2.7.1.3

ex proprio motu J.2.1.15

compliance, WTO obligations, good faith / pacta sunt servanda principle P.3.1.10

countervailing duties (SCM, Part V), compliance with GATT VI:3 and SCM Agreement (SCM 10), permissible responses to countervailable subsidy S.2.36.10

determination of dumping (AD 2)

constituent elements A.3.61.8, S.2.36.4

intention of dumping, whether (AD 2/GATT VI:1) M.5.7

dumping, constituent elements (AD 2/GATT VI:1), intention of dumping M.5.7

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26))

compliance with WTO obligations P.3.1.10

violation of obligation, relevance to determination of good faith P.3.1.10

interpretation of covered agreements

dictionaries I.3.2.7

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat / effet utile) I.3.7.9

meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase I.3.7.9

footnotes to treaty A.3.61.14, S.2.36.9

legislative history (domestic) I.3.4.2

ambiguity, relevance in absence of I.3.4.2

conclusiveness I.3.4.2

object and purpose P.1.3.1

text/plain language I.3.2.7

investigation of dumping (AD 5) / subsidy (SCM 11)

support of domestic industry, need for (AD 5.4/SCM 11.4)

“expression of support” A.3.28.1, S.2.20.1

motives, relevance A.3.28.1, S.2.20.1

multiple complainants (DSU 9)

procedure, panel’s discretion P.1.3.2

separate panel reports, right to (DSU 9.2) P.1.3

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

objection to panel’s jurisdiction J.2.1.15, O.1.8, W.2.7.1.3

right to defend interests and W.2.7.1.2

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law / legal interpretations (AB/WP 20(2)(d)) W.2.7.1.2

panel reports

multiple complainants (DSU 9), separate panel reports, right to (DSU 9.2) P.1.3

prompt settlement (DSU 3.3) and P.1.3.1

prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), separate panel reports in case of multiple complainants (DSU 9.2) and P.1.3.1

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1) S.2.36.1-11

requirements

measure against dumping/subsidy A.3.61.5, A.3.61.11-13, S.2.36.1-2, S.2.36.6-8

adverse bearing A.3.61.11, S.2.36.6, T.6.2.18

design and structure of measure as evidence of protective application A.3.61.11-12, S.2.36.6-7

facilitation of exercise of WTO-consistent rights distinguished A.3.61.13, S.2.36.8

implications for conditions of competition, relevance A.3.61.12, S.2.36.7

measure specific to dumping/subsidy A.3.61.5-7

measures related to distinguished (AD 18.1 footnote 24/SCM 32.1 footnote 56) A.3.61.13, S.2.36.8

presence of constituent elements of dumping/subsidy A.3.61.7-9, S.2.36.4

as implied condition A.3.61.9-10

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), “objective assessment of matter before it”, ultra petita finding on provision not before it T.6.2.18

subsidy, definition (SCM 1) A.3.61.8, S.2.36.3

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 T.6.2.18

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), replacement on division (WP 13) W.2.5.2

Working Procedures (panel) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), panel’s discretion, multiple complainants and (DSU 9) P.1.3.2

 
US — Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews (WT/DS268/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof, prima facie case, text of legislation, sufficiency B.3.2.12

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record C.4.22-3, T.6.3.8

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

“injury” (AD 3, footnote 9) A.3.15A.1

applicability to AD as a whole A.3.52A.1

evidence, acceptability/value as

statements to domestic courts E.3.2.6, S.7.3.20

statements to other international tribunals E.3.2.6, S.7.3.20

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12)

“ample opportunity to present in writing all evidence” (AD 6.1), extension “upon cause shown … whenever practicable” A.3.30.1.2

due process

in case of failure to respond to notice of initiation J.33.31.3-6

in case of incomplete response to notice of initiation A.3.30.1.3-4

full opportunity for defence of interests, right to (AD 6.2) A.3.30.1.2, A.3.31.2-6

notification of interest, right to set time-limits / deemed waiver A.3.31.5-6

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), compliance with WTO obligations, measures challenged “as such” and L.1.13, R.2.3.12, T.6.3.7

interpretation of covered agreements, footnotes to treaty A.3.15A.1

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

legislation “as such” claims L.1.13, R.2.3.12, T.6.3.7

nexus between challenged measure and provisions allegedly breached R.2.1.10

legislation as such, right to challenge L.1.14-15

characterization by domestic authorities, relevance L.1.13, M.5.11, R.2.3.12, T.6.3.7

good faith and L.1.13, R.2.3.12, T.6.3.7

normative instrument L.1.15

serious implications of such a challenge L.1.12

“matter referred to the DSB” (AD 17.4/DSU 7.1), “measure at issue” as S.7.2A.3-5

municipal law

compliance with WTO/international obligations and, determination of compliance and interpretation of legislation distinguished M.5.11

interpretation M.5.11

non-discriminatory administration of quantitative restrictions (GATT XIII), publication and administration of trade regulations (GATT X:3(a)), standard of proof P.5.3.1.2

“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), “practice” as measure T.6.3.8

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

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

discretion to determine relevance E.3.2.6

obligation to examine and evaluate evidence S.7.2.15, S.7.2A.3-4

“objective assessment of matter before it”, “reasoned and adequate” test, investigating authorities’ explanations A.3.47.3-4, A.3.50.3, E.3.2.6

sunset review (AD 11.3)

applicability of AD 3 (determination of injury) b.52B.1-2

applicability of AD 6 (evidence) A.3.53.1-2

cumulative assessment of volume and prices (AD 3.3) and A.3.21.5, A.3.48A.1-4

applicability of AD 3.3 A.3.48A.3

investigatory/adjudicatory functions, proactive role of investigating authorities A.3.48A.4

“likelihood” test

continuance or recurrence of dumping A.3.46.3

company-specific basis determination of likelihood A.3.50.2-4, A.3.52.8

continuance or recurrence of injury

“injury” (AD 3, footnote 9) A.3.52A.1

timeframe A.3.52C.1-2

“likelihood” A.3.47.2

overall determination as basis A.3.52A.3-4

“positive evidence” / “objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.47.3-4, A.3.48A.4, A.3.52.4-8

absolute certainty, relevance E.3.1.10

presumptions, reliance on A.3.52.8

relevant factors

factors other than margins of dumping / import volumes A.3.51.4

situation before and after anti-dumping duty order A.3.51.4

methodology, absence of provision A.3.52A.2

 
US — Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews (Article 21.5 — Argentina) (WT/DS268/AB/RW)     back to top

evidence, acceptability/value as

admissions adverse to the interests of the party making them E.3.2.24

party’s statements about requirements for determination of dumping in absence of applicable laws or regulations E.3.2.25, L.1.22

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21)

choice of means at Member’s discretion, collection of information post DSB ruling on original sunset review determination (AD 11.3) R.4.1.25

sunset review (AD 11.3), effect of breach A.3.45.5-6

implementation of panel/AB recommendations, right of panel/AB to make suggestions for (DSU 19.1) R.4.1.25

discretionary nature of right I.0.6-7, P.1.1.8, S.7.1.12

judicial economy P.1.1.8, R.4.3.14, S.7.1.12

panel’s discretionary power to determine, which claims must be examined R.4.3.14

panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) P.1.1.8

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

different nature of proceeding, “prejudice” allegedly resulting from R.4.5.2

finality of panel/AB report and, unappealed panel reports and, complainant’s failure to establish prima facie case of WTO-inconsistent measure, relevance R.4.3.14

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency)

assessment in light of DSB recommendations and rulings, need for R.4.1.22

measures closely related to measure taken to comply R.4.1.23-4

as new claim / reassertion of old R.4.5.2

prompt compliance / avoidance of new proceedings as objective R.4.0.2

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), party’s obligation to provide evidence to support its argument E.3.2.25, L.1.22

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of the facts, exclusion A.3.47.3

failure to apply treaty provisions correctly R.4.1.25

“such other findings as will assist the DSB” (DSU 7.1/DSU 11), judicial economy and P.1.1.8, R.4.3.14

sunset review (AD 11.3)

collection of information post DSB ruling on original determination R.4.1.25

continuation of duty, as exception to mandatory rule A.3.45.4

implementation of recommendations and rulings of DSB (DSU 21)

effect of breach of AD 11.3 A.3.45.6

new evidentiary basis, investigating authorities’ right to adopt (AD 11.3/AD 11.4) A.3.45.6, A.3.51A.1-2, R.4.1.25, R.7.2.15, S.7.6.5

investigatory/adjudicatory functions A.3.47.5

“likelihood” test

AD 6 provisions, applicability A.3.51A.2

laws and regulations / legal instrument, need for E.3.2.25, L.1.22

“positive evidence” / “objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1) A.3.47.5, A.3.52.14

presumptions, reliance on A.3.52.14

methodology, absence of provision A.3.48.4

 
US — Section 211 Appropriations Act (WT/DS176/AB/R)     back to top

applicable law, trademarks P.2.1.1, P.2.2.2

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact, compliance/consistency with treaty obligations M.5.5, S.3.3.8

completion of legal analysis C.4.17-18

in case of agreement with panel C.4.18

factual basis

contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.17-18

insufficient argument on novel issue C.4.17

competence (panels), claims against legislation as such M.1.5

compliance, international obligations M.5.5

expropriation, non-recognition

non-nationals, applicability to P.3.3.1

trademarks, simultaneous confiscation of same trademarks in expropriating State P.3.3.2

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), compliance with WTO obligations M.1.5

interpretation of covered agreements

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat / effet utile) I.3.7.8

meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase P.2.3.1

same or closely related phrases in different agreements N.1.14.1

title T.9.3.1

legislation as such, right to challenge

mandatory/discretionary legislation, whether distinguishable M.1.5

executive discretion and M.1.5

MFN treatment (TRIPS 4), differential treatment as discrimination M.2.3.1

municipal law, compliance with WTO/international obligations and, panel’s assessment as legal characterization / as matter for appellate review M.5.5

national treatment, regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4)

“less favourable treatment”

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

formal differentiation in treatment, relevance N.1.14.2

TRIPS 3.1 compared N.1.14.1

national treatment (TRIPS 3)

applicability (TRIPS 3.1, footnote 3) N.1.14.1

as fundamental principle N.1.14.1

“less favourable treatment” N.1.14.1

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

formal differentiation in treatment, relevance N.1.14.2

GATT III:4 compared N.1.14.1

protection of trade-related property rights and N.1.14.1

trade names (Paris Convention (1967) (PC 8)) P.2.3.1-2, T.9.2.1-3

TRIPS and P.2.3.1-2, T.9.1.1-2, T.9.2.1-3

trademarks (Paris Convention (1967) (PC))

expropriation P.3.3.1-2

registration in country other than that of applicant’s origin

acceptance of trademark registered in country of origin according to domestic legislation in that country (Art. 6quinquies)

ownership issues and P.2.2.3

as right going beyond that granted to nationals P.2.2.1

acceptance of trademark registered in country of origin according to domestic legislation in that country (PC 6quinquies) P.2.2.1

“as is” / “telle quelle” P.2.2.2-3

right of Paris Union Members to determine conditions (Art. 6(1)) P.2.1.1

TRIPS Agreement

enforcement of intellectual property rights (TRIPS, Part III)

avoidance of barriers to trade and abuse of procedures (TRIPS 41.1) T.9.10.2

civil judicial procedures (TRIPS 42) T.9.10

“available” T.9.10.4, T.9.10.6

“right holders” T.9.10.6-7

“substantiate their claims” T.9.10.7

effective remedy, need for (TRIPS 41.1) T.9.10.2

“fair and equitable” requirement (TRIPS 41.2 and 42) T.9.10.3-8

international minimum standard (TRIPS 1.1) T.9.10.2, T.9.10.3, T.9.10.7

“intellectual property conventions” (TRIPS 2) T.9.2.1-3

“intellectual property” (TRIPS 1.2) T.9.1, T.9.10.1

limitation to categories identified in TRIPS section titles, whether T.9.1, T.9.3.1

trade names T.9.2, T.9.2.3

trademarks

denial of protection on “other grounds” (TRIPS 15.2) T.9.4.1

owner

exclusive rights (TRIPS 16.1) T.9.5.1

registration or use as basis T.9.5.1, T.9.6.1-2

“protectable subject-matter” (TRIPS 15) T.9.3.1

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.7

Working Procedures (panel) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), review of evidence S.3.3.8

 
US — Shrimp (WT/DS58/AB/R)     back to top

abuse of rights / abus de droit, pacta sunt servanda / performance in good faith (VCLT 26) P.3.1.1

amicus curiae briefs A.2.1-6

NGO/private individual briefs A.2.1.1-6

discretionary power of panel to accept/reject A.2.1.2-6

conditions, panel’s right to attach A.2.1.4

consultation with parties A.2.1.4

as integral part of party’s submission A.2.1.1

party’s responsibility for A.2.1.1

due process (application of trade measures) D.2.1.1

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), panel’s authority to control process for informing itself of facts and legal norms E.3.2.1

General Exceptions (GATT XX)

jurisdiction of Member, relevance G.3.10.1

nexus, need for G.3.10.3

measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources (GATT XX(g))

changes of meaning over time G.3.7.2

compliance as condition of access to Member’s domestic market as jurisdictional limitation G.3.10

living resources, applicability to G.3.7.1-2

“relating to” G.3.9.5

two-tier analysis (justification under paras. (a)-(j) / compliance with chapeau) G.3.1.2, G.3.11.6

General Exceptions (GATT XX) (chapeau)

application of measure as means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination

application of fair and just measure as G.3.11.7

“between countries where the same conditions prevail” G.3.12.2-4

between importing and exporting countries G.3.12.2

discrimination in application of substantive GATT obligations distinguished G.3.12.2

failure to consider appropriateness of regulatory programme as G.3.12.3-4

as balance between competing rights G.3.11.5-6

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)) P.3.1.1

abuse of rights / abus de droit and P.3.1.1

as general principle of international law P.3.1.1

law P.3.1.1

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

panel’s rights

not to seek A.2.1.3, E.3.1.3, S.4.4-5

to accept or reject requested information or advice A.2.1.3, A.2.1.5, E.3.1.3, S.4.4-5

to accept or reject unrequested information or advice S.4.5

to evaluate information or advice A.2.1.3, E.3.1.3

to evaluate source of information or advice A.2.1.3, E.3.1.3

interpretation of covered agreements

changes of meaning over time G.3.7.2

context (VCLT 31(2)) I.3.2.4

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat / effet utile) G.3.10.1

object and purpose G.3.7.3

parties’ intentions (VCLT 31(1)), preamble as reflection of G.3.7.3, I.3.6.1

preamble of agreement under consideration, as evidence of intention of parties G.3.7.3, I.3.6.1

preamble (WTO) G.3.7.3, I.3.6

text/plain language I.3.2.4

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

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

identification of facts requiring panel to draw inferences W.2.7.2.1

indication of appropriate factual or legal inferences W.2.7.2.1

legal argument in support of claim distinguished W.2.7.2.1

order of analysis, GATT XX chapeau compliance / GATT XX / GATT XX paras. (a)-(i) exceptions O.2.1, O.2.2

“relating to” (GATT XX(g)) G.3.9.5

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

“objective assessment of matter before it”

applicability of and conformity with relevant covered agreements E.3.2.1

applicable law, panel’s right to determine E.3.2.1

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7), Members of WTO, limitation to A.2.1.2

third party rights, panel proceedings (DSU 10 and Appendix 3), Members “having substantial interest in a matter before a panel”, limitation to (DSU 10.2) A.2.1.2

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.5

 
US — Shrimp (Article 21.5 — Malaysia) (WT/DS58/AB/RW)     back to top

AB reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 17.14) R.4.3.1

panel’s reliance on S.8.2

amicus curiae briefs A.2.11

NGO/private individual briefs A.2.1.11

discretionary power of panel to accept/reject A.2.1.11

as integral part of party’s submission A.2.1.11

party’s responsibility for A.2.1.11

environmental multilateral agreements

arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination, need to avoid E.2.1-4, G.3.12.5-7

Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (1996), as basis for comparison / benchmark E.2.4, G.3.12.7

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 12 and E.2.3, G.3.12.6

similar/comparable opportunities to negotiate, need for E.2.1-4, G.3.12.5

multilateral agreement, preference for E.2.2

General Exceptions (GATT XX), jurisdiction of Member, relevance G.3.10.2

General Exceptions (GATT XX) (chapeau)

application of measure as means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination G.3.11.8

“between countries where the same conditions prevail” G.3.12.5-9

conditioning of market access on same programme / programme comparable in effectiveness G.3.12.8

flexibility to take into account conditions in different exporting Members G.3.12.9

conclusion of agreement distinguished E.2.2-3, G.3.12.5-6

“disguised restriction on international trade” G.3.11.8

similar/comparable opportunities to negotiate international agreement, need for E.2.1-4, G.3.12.5

good faith and E.2.1-2, G.3.12.5, P.3.1.8

multilateral agreement, preference for E.2.2, G.3.12.6

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26))

equality of parties in respect of P.3.1.8

negotiation of international agreements E.2.1-2, G.3.12.5

interpretation of covered agreements, legitimate expectations, relevance, panel reports and S.8.2

municipal law, compliance with WTO/international obligations and, determination of compliance and interpretation of legislation distinguished M.5.3

panel reports

legal status

adopted reports S.8.2

unadopted reports S.8.2

precedent

AB reports S.8.2

panel reports, adopted reports S.8.2

prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), review of implementation of DSB rulings and R.4.3.1

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

Appellate Body reports and (DSU 17.14) R.4.3.1

competence of DSU 21.5 (compliance) panel, limitation to claims at time of referral to review panel R.4.2.2

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency)

consideration of new measure in its totality R.4.2.2

measure subject of original dispute distinguished R.4.2.2

as new claim / reassertion of old R.4.2.2

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

objectives, prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes (DSU 3) and R.4.3.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), hypothetical evidence S.7.3.12

third party rights W.2.9.4

AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24) W.2.9.4

passive participation in oral hearings W.2.9.4

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), oral hearing (WP 27), change of date W.2.11.1.2

 
US — Shrimp (Thailand) / US — Customs Bond Directive (WT/DS343/AB/R)     back to top

Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD) / GATT 1994 VI relationship, as inseparable package of rights A.3.38A.1, A.3.66.3

burden of proof

panel’s right draw on arguments and facts adduced by respondent B.3.3.20

prima facie case, panel’s duty not to make case for complaining party B.3.3.20

countervailing duties (SCM, Part V), preconditions (SCM 19.1), benefit A.3.39.4, S.2.26.1-2

General Exceptions (GATT XX), measures necessary to secure compliance with GATT-consistent measure (GATT XX(d)), action under other relevant provisions of GATT 1994 (AD 18.1, footnote 24) and A.3.66A.3, G.3.6.9

imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties (AD 9)

“duty” (AD 9/SCM 10), bond, whether A.3.39.4, S.2.26.2

retrospective/prospective assessment (AD 9.3.1 and AD 9.3.2), retrospective assessment (AD 9.3.1), security (bond or cash deposit) (GATT VI:2 and VI:3: Ad Note) A.3.66.1-2

security (bond or cash deposit) (GATT VI:2 and VI:3: Ad Note) A.3.39.3

as ancillary to principal obligation A.3.61.15

“pending final determination of the facts” A.3.66.1-3

retrospective duty assessment and A.3.66.1-2

“reasonable security” A.3.66A

likelihood vs. possibility test A.3.66A.2

two-step approach A.3.66A.2-3

specific action against dumping (AD 18.1) or subsidy (SCM 32.1), whether A.3.61.15

necessity test (GATT XX(d)), “reasonableness” test (AD 18.1, footnote 24) distinguished A.3.66A.3, G.3.6.9

provisional measures (AD 7), GATT VI:2 and VI:3: Ad Note, overlap with A.3.38A.1, A.3.66.3

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

requirements, measure against dumping/subsidy, design and structure of measure as evidence of protective application A.3.61.15

security (bond or cash deposit) (GATT VI:2 and VI:3: Ad Note) as A.3.61.15

“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) T.6.1.19

specific measure the subject of consultations, need for identity with T.6.1.19

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), as definition of jurisdiction / legal claims at issue T.6.1.19

third party rights, AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24), translation W.2.9.11

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

fairness and orderly procedure, adoption of appropriate procedure (WP 16.1)

consolidation of proceedings W.2.6.13

third party participation in consolidated proceedings W.2.6.13

modification in exceptional circumstances at request of parties, participants or third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.6.14

transition (WP 15) W.2.5A.1

working schedule (WP 26), modification in exceptional circumstances at request of parties, participants or third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.10.1.7

 
US — Softwood Lumber IV (WT/DS257/AB/R)     back to top

amicus curiae briefs A.2.1.13

NGO/private individual briefs A.2.1.13

arguments not addressed or adopted by participants or third parties A.2.1.13

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis C.4.20

factual basis alternative factual findings prepared by panel C.4.20

contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.20

countervailing duties (SCM, Part V)

aggregate investigation, sufficiency (SCM 19.3) S.2.27.1-2

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

broad interpretation, need for S.2.1.3

goods and services / adequacy of remuneration (SCM 14(d)) S.2.23.1-2

“adequate” S.2.23.1

“in relation to” S.2.23.3

“market conditions” S.2.23.2

private prices / government role in market, relevance S.2.23.3-5, S.2.24.1-7

“remuneration” S.2.23.1

right to choose (SCM 14, chapeau) S.2.22.1-2

compliance with GATT VI:3 and SCM Agreement (SCM 10) S.2.41.4-5

level, amount of existing subsidy, limitation to, calculation on per unit basis (SCM 19.4) S.2.28.1-2

non-discriminatory basis (SCM 19.3) S.2.27.1-2

preconditions (SCM 19.1), injury to domestic industry S.2.1.4

as remedy to offset benefits of subsidies S.2.1.4

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), “positive evidence” / “objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1), “objective examination”, extrapolation of examined producer/exporter findings to non-examined producers/exporters (AD 6.10) S.2.27.1 n.189

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2)), GATT VI/SCM Agreement, interrelationship S.2.41.4-5

dictionaries I.3.2.8
effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat / effet utile), multiple authentic languages and (VCLT 33(3)) I.3.11.3

multiple authentic languages (VCLT 33) I.3.11.3

effectiveness principle and I.3.11.3

presumption of same meaning (VCLT 33(3)) I.3.11.3

narrow/broad interpretation S.2.1.3

ordinary meaning I.3.2.8

preparatory work (VCLT 32), SCM Agreement S.2.3.1 n. 35

text/plain language I.3.2.8

legislation as such, right to challenge, characterization by domestic authorities, relevance M.5.10

SCM Agreement, object and purpose, balanced framework of rights and obligations relating to countervailing duties S.2.1.3-4

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

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

direct transfer of funds (SCM 1.1(a)(1)) S.2.3.1

“bestowed directly or indirectly” (SCM 10, footnote 36/GATT VI:3) S.2.43.1-3

forgoing of revenues otherwise due (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(ii)) S.2.3.1

government measures not amounting to S.2.3.1 n. 35

provision of goods or services (SCM 1.1(a)(1)(iii)) S.2.1.2, S.2.3.1

“goods” S.2.1.2, S.2.6.1-4

government purchases S.2.3.1, S.2.6.1

“provision” S.2.7.1-2

severability of goods attached to land, relevance S.2.6.2-4

transfer of economic resources from grantor to recipient for less than full consideration S.2.23.1

GATT VI:4/SCM 10 and 32.1, compatibility S.2.41.4, S.2.41.5

income or price support (SCM 1.1(a)(2)) S.2.3.1

pass-through of indirect input subsidy to countervailed product, need for (SCM 1.1/GATT VI:3) S.2.10.1-2, S.2.43

simultaneous fulfilment of all criteria, relevance S.2.7.2

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

replacement on division (WP 13) W.2.5.3

withdrawal of appeal (AB/WP 30) W.2.13.1.7

working schedule (WP 26), modification in exceptional circumstances at request of parties, participants or third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.10.1.4

WTO Agreement, conflict between constituent covered agreements, precedence (WTO, Annex 1A) S.2.41.4

 
US — Softwood Lumber IV (Article 21.5 — Canada) (WT/DS257/AB/RW)     back to top

duration and review of anti-dumping duties and price undertakings / countervailing measures (AD 11/SCM 21), original investigation and review distinguished S.2.29.2-3

municipal law, compliance with WTO/international obligations and M.5.16

prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), DSU 21.5

proceedings to determine compliance and R.4.0.1

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

composition of DSU 21.5 (compliance) panel R.2.1, R.4.1.9

as continuance of original proceedings R.4.0.1, R.4.1.9

different nature of proceeding, “prejudice” allegedly resulting from R.4.5.1

“matter referred”

legal basis of claim / consistency of measure R.4.1.5

measure taken to comply, existence R.4.1.5, R.4.1.8

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency)

classification as, responsibility for R.4.1.10-11

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

examination of original measures/determinations R.4.1.9

measures closely related to measure taken to comply R.4.1.12-17, R.4.1.28

“taken” R.4.1.7

procedures of normal panel distinguished R.4.0.1

prompt compliance / avoidance of new proceedings as objective R.4.0.1
prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes (DSU 3) and R.4.0.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11), “objective assessment of matter before it”, “reasoned and adequate” test, investigating authorities’ explanations S.1.8.3, S.7.4.7-15, S.7.5.7

“taken” (DSU 21.5) R.4.1.7

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.9

 
US — Softwood Lumber V (WT/DS264/AB/R)     back to top

AB reports, panel’s reliance on S.8.3, S.8.4

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

actual product under investigation / type or model, distinction A.3.14.8-9

comparison of weighted average normal value with weighted average of all comparable export transactions A.3.14.7, A.3.14.9

multiple averaging (AD 2.4.2) A.3.14.6, A.3.14.9-11

product types / product as a whole (AD 2.4.2) A.3.60.5

zeroing A.3.14.11

omission of “comparison”, relevance A.3.9A.1-2

sales transaction not “in the ordinary course of trade”

“consider all available evidence on the proper allocation of costs” (AD 2.2.1.1)

“all available evidence” A.3.9A.2

“consider” A.3.9A.1-2

“reasonably reflect” the costs of production (AD 2.2.1.1) A.3.9B.1-2

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), calculation of volume of dumped imports, “positive evidence” / “objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1), AD 17.6(ii), relevance A.3.60.5

imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties (AD 9), calculation of “all other” anti-dumping duty rate (AD 9.4), zero/de minimis margins, exclusion A.3.14.10

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)], AD 17.6(ii) A.3.60.5

multiple permissible interpretations, “permissible” A.3.60.5

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.3.9A.1

precedent, AB reports S.8.3, S.8.4

standard/powers of review (AB) (AD 17.6), interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii)), “admits of more than one permissible interpretation” A.3.60.5

 
US — Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 — Canada) (WT/DS264/AB/RW)     back to top

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

in absence of comparable sales (AD 2) A.3.8A.1

comparison of weighted average normal value with weighted average of all comparable export transactions multiple averaging (AD 2.4.2) A.3.14.14

product types / product as a whole (AD 2.4.2) A.3.65.16

transaction-to-transaction basis (AD 2.4.2) A.3.8A.1, A.3.14.14-23, A.3.28A.5, A.3.60.6

zeroing A.3.14.14-23

methodologies (AD 2.4.2), relevance of distinction A.3.14.14-23, A.3.40A.8, A.3.60.6, I.3.7.11

fair comparison (AD 2.4) A.3.12.4-5

comparison methodologies (AD 2.4.2), applicability to A.3.12.4-5

sales transaction not “in the ordinary course of trade”, zeroing (AD 2.4.2) and A.3.8A.1  

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12)

“known exporter or producer” (AD 6.10) A.3.37.1.3

zeroing, applicability (AD 6.10) A.3.37.1.3

GATT acquis I.3.12.1

imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties (AD 9)

calculation of “all other” anti-dumping duty rate (AD 9.4), zero/de minimis margins, exclusion A.3.28A.5

prospective assessment (AD 9.3.2) A.3.40B.3

interpretation of covered agreements

interpretation of covered agreements, differences between provisions of same agreement leading to the same results I.3.7.11

multiple permissible interpretations, “permissible” A.3.60.6

object and purpose, absence of provision / Preamble A.3.0.1

preparatory work (VCLT 32), negotiating proposals, relevance I.3.12.1

supplementary means (VCLT 32), GATT acquis I.3.12.1

investigation of dumping (AD 5) / subsidy (SCM 11), termination (AD 5.8/SCM 11.9), zeroing, applicability A.3.28A.5

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II)

offsetting between tariffs on same product below and above bound rate T.1.1.4
ordinary customs duties in excess of those provided for in Schedule (GATT II:1(b)), zero rates, applicability to T.1.1.4

standard/powers of review (AB) (AD 17.6), interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii)), “admits of more than one permissible interpretation” A.3.60.6

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), working schedule (WP 26), modification in exceptional circumstances at request of parties, participants or third participants (WP 16(2)), oral hearing W.2.11.1.4

 
US — Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 — Canada) (WT/DS277/AB/RW)     back to top

burden of proof, completion of legal analysis by AB and C.4.31

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis

burden of proof and C.4.31  

factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record C.4.31

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

determination of actual injury and threat compared A.3.27.3

consistency with WTO agreements of all elements of causality analysis, need for A.3.23A.1, S.2.25A.1

collective effect, whether examination required A.3.26.5, S.2.25.2

decisive guidance, need for A.3.27.3, S.2.25B.1

demonstration of injury, need for (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5) A.3.23A.1, S.2.25A.1

disclosure of assumptions and extrapolations, need for A.3.27.3, S.2.25B.1, S.7.4.11-13

import prices / effect on domestic prices / effect on demand for imports (AD 3.7(iii)/SCM 15.7(iv)), need to examine A.3.27.6-7, S.2.25B.4-5, S.3.3.20

methodology, freedom of choice A.3.24.6-7, S.2.25B.5

“significant rate of increase” (AD 3.7(ii)) A.3.27.5, S.2.25B.2-3

“substantially increased importation” (AD 3.7(ii)) A.3.27.5, S.2.25B.2-3

totality of factors, need to consider A.3.27.4, S.2.25B.2, S.7.4.15

evaluation of injury factors (AD 3.4), evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5), a “clearly foreseen and imminent” change of circumstances, need for A.3.27.3, S.2.25B.2, S.7.4.11-14

threat of material injury (SCM 15.7), determination “based on facts, not merely allegation, conjecture or remote possibility” A.3.27.3, S.2.25B.1

judicial economy P.1.1.7

panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) P.1.1.7  

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

as a continuum of events R.4.3.12

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency)

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

examination of original measures/determinations R.4.3.12

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

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

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.3.3.19-20

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.4.7, S.7.5.7

“reasoned and adequate” test, investigating authorities’ explanations R.4.3.13, S.7.4.8-15

relevant factors, provisions of covered agreements at issue S.7.4.7

standard/powers of review (AB) (AD 17.6), non-applicability to covered agreements other than Anti-Dumping Agreement including the SCM and SPS Agreements, in case of simultaneous challenge under AD and SCM Agreements A.3.58.6, S.7.1.11

third party rights, AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24), passive participation in oral hearings, oral presentation W.2.9.9

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

documents (WP 18), correction of clerical errors in submissions W.2.6A.2

working schedule (WP 26)

modification in exceptional circumstances at request of parties, participants or third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.6.11

oral hearing W.2.11.1.3

 
US — Stainless Steel (Mexico) (WT/DS344/AB/R)     back to top

AB reports

panel’s reliance on C.3.1.3, S.8.5, W.1.4

as precedent C.3.1.3, R.4.3.17, S.7.2.20, S.8.5, W.1.4

abuse of discretion (panel), failure to make objective assessment (DSU 11) C.3.1.3, S.8.5

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

issues of law / legal interpretations S.8.5

upholding, modification or reversal of legal findings and conclusions (DSU 17.13) C.3.1.3, S.8.5

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

clarification of existing provisions C.3.1.3

“clarification” C.3.1.3, S.8.5

correct interpretation and application of covered agreements and C.3.1.3, S.8.5

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

asymmetrical comparison (AD 2.4.2, second sentence) A.3.14A.2

transaction-to-transaction basis (AD 2.4.2) A.3.14.32

zeroing, methodologies (AD 2.4.2), relevance of distinction A.3.40A.8

DSU, applicability (DSU 1.1), security and predictability as objective (DSU 3.2) C.3.1.3, S.8.5

dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1)

exporter-specific concept A.3.1A.3-4

product-related A.3.1A.3

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), “for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1) / applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.40A.9

duration and review of anti-dumping duties and price undertakings / countervailing measures (AD 11/SCM 21)

duration and review of anti-dumping duties and price undertakings / countervailing measures (AD 11/SCM 21) A.3.44B.5

requirements (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2), link between dumping and injury A.3.44B.5

termination (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2), “immediately” following determination that duty no longer warranted A.3.44B.5

GATT acquis C.3.1.3, S.8.5

imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties (AD 9)

assessment of anti-dumping duty (AD 9.3), determination of liability of specific importer on basis of transactions from relevant exporter A.3.40B.7
calculation of “all other” anti-dumping duty rate (AD 9.4)

prospective normal value system (AD 9.4(ii)) A.3.41A.4

zero/de minimis margins, exclusion A.3.40A.10, A.3.40A.12

zeroing/de minimis margins, exclusion A.3.65.20

margin of dumping (AD 2) as ceiling (AD 9.3) A.3.40B.7

retrospective/prospective assessment (AD 9.3.1 and AD 9.3.2)

retrospective assessment (AD 9.3.1) A.3.40B.7

totality of transactions over period of investigation as basis A.3.40B.6

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)], GATT VI:2/AD 9.3 A.3.65.20
GATT acquis I.3.12.2

supplementary means (VCLT 32)

in case of ambiguity I.3.10.28

in case of manifestly absurd or unreasonable result (VCLT 32(b)) I.3.10.28
GATT acquis I.3.12.2

panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7), security and predictability of WTO obligations (DSU 3.2), aid to C.3.1.3, S.8.5

precedent, AB reports C.3.1.3, S.7.2.19, S.8.5, W.1.4

standard/powers of review (AB) (AD 17.6), interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii)), “admits of more than one permissible interpretation” A.3.60.8, S.7.1.13, S.7.7.3

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

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

documents (WP 18), filing requirement (WP 18(1)) W.2.6A.7-8

fairness and orderly procedure, adoption of appropriate procedure (WP 16.1), compliance with time-limits W.2.6.12, W.2.6A.8

 
US — Steel Safeguards (WT/DS248/AB/RWT/DS259/AB/R inclusive)     back to top

applicable law, determination of serious injury or threat (SG 4) S.1.20.1-2

burden of proof, unforeseen developments, safeguard measures (GATT XIX:1(a)) S.1.22.3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

completion of legal analysis C.4.19

in case of agreement with panel C.4.19

factual basis, contentiousness/omission/insufficiency of facts C.4.19

inter-dependent assumptions, effect of panel’s reliance on O.2.5

judicial economy and S.1.32.3

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

evaluation of injury factors (AD 3.4)

evaluation of causal relationship (AD 3.5/SCM 15.5)

collective effect, need for examination A.3.26.4

evaluation of factors known not to exist A.3.26.4

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

applicable law S.1.20.1-2

evaluation of all relevant factors (SG 4.2(a))

“factors other than increased imports” (SG 4.2(b))

imports excluded from safeguard measure as S.1.14.1

non-attribution, need for demonstration of S.1.14.2, S.1.31.7

“of an objective and quantifiable nature” (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.31.7

reasoned and adequate explanation S.1.2.3, S.1.14.1-2, S.1.31.7, S.1.46.2-3

interpretation of covered agreements

dictionaries S.1.48.1

ordinary meaning S.1.8.2

same or closely related phrases in same agreement S.1.14.1

investigation of conditions for safeguard measures, requirements (SG 3.1/SG 4.2(c)) S.1.18

detailed analysis S.1.18.1, S.7.5.3

findings and reasoned conclusions S.1.18.1, S.1.22.1-3, S.7.5.3-4

broad/narrow grouping explanations, cross-application S.1.20.2

“conclusion” S.1.22.1

covering pertinent issues of fact and law S.1.18.1-2, S.1.33.1, S.1.46.2-3

demonstration of relevance of factors examined S.1.18.1

“reasoned” S.1.22.1

published report S.1.18.1, S.1.21.4

form, freedom of choice S.1.21.4

key elements

reasoned conclusions S.1.22.1-3

unforeseen developments S.1.46.2-3, S.1.47.1

“set forth” S.1.22.1

judicial economy

appellate review and S.1.32.3

inter-dependent assumptions, reliance on S.1.32.1

municipal law, as applicable law, determination of serious injury or threat (SG 4) S.1.20.1-2

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.2.7.5.4

order of analysis, assumptions, panel’s right to use, inter-dependent assumptions O.2.5

panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) P.1.1.6

publication of analysis of case under investigation (SG 4(2)(c)) S.1.33.1

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)

characteristics, exceptional nature of remedy S.1.45.2

publication obligations (SG 4.2(c)) S.1.33.1

interpretation by reference to SG 3 (investigation) S.1.33.1

unforeseen developments, need to include S.1.33.1

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX), conditions (SG 2)

exceptional conditions, need for S.1.45.2

existence of all requirements S.1.1.2

“is being imported” (SG 2.1), as sudden and recent increase S.1.6.2

“like or directly competitive product” (SG 2.1), specific product, need for S.1.49.1-3
parallelism between SG 2.1 and SG 2.2 S.1.13.1.3

“product being imported” S.1.13.1.3

as pertinent issues of fact and law (SG 3.1) S.1.18.2, S.1.33.1

separate determinations S.1.15.1-3

“such increased quantities”

“as a result of unforeseen developments” (GATT XIX:1(a)) S.1.6.2-3, S.1.50.4-5

“as a result of” S.1.48.1-2

burden of proof S.1.22.3

demonstration, need for S.1.50.4-5

as pertinent issue of fact and law S.1.50.4-5

“such product” S.1.49.1-3

decrease in import quantities at end of investigation period, relevance S.1.8.2-3

“rate and amount of the increase … in absolute and relative terms” (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.7.3-4

“relative to domestic production” S.1.9.1

sufficient to cause serious injury or threat S.1.6.2

causal link, need to demonstrate S.1.31.7

trends, need to examine S.1.7.2-4

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), inter-dependent assumptions and O.2.5

“objective assessment of matter before it”

de novo review of the facts, exclusion S.7.5.3-4

objective assessment of explanation, need for S.1.2.3, S.1.22.1-2, S.7.5.3-4

objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for P.1.1.6, S.1.15.2, S.1.20.2, S.1.46.2, S.7.5.4

standard/powers of review (safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX))

assessment of the facts

objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for S.1.2.3, S.1.22.1-2, S.1.46.3

decrease in imports (SG 2.1) S.1.8.3

as preliminary to determination of causal link S.1.32.2

 
US — Underwear (WT/DS24/AB/R)     back to top

interpretation of covered agreements

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat / effet utile) I.3.7.3

ordinary meaning I.3.7.3

publication and administration of trade regulations (GATT X), measures of general application (GATT X:2) P.5.2.1

retroactivity (trade measures) (ATC 6.10) R.3.1-2, T.7.7.1-2

transitional safeguards (ATC 6)

provisional application (ATC 6.11) T.7.8.1

retroactivity (ATC 6.10) R.3.1-2, T.7.7.1-2

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), written responses (WP 28) W.2.12.3

 
US — Upland Cotton (WT/DS267/AB/R)     back to top

Agreement on Agriculture (AG)

domestic support commitments (AG 6)

as quantitative limitation (AG 6.3) A.1.14A.1

SCM 3.1(b) (“subsidies contingent … upon the use of domestic over imported goods”) distinguished A.1.14A.2-3, I.3.7.10

GATT 1994 and (AG 21.1) A.1.38.2

market access concessions and commitments (AG 4.1) and A.1.8.3

primacy of AG A.1.38.2

specific provisions in AG dealing with same matter, need for A.1.38.2-9

interpretation

context (VCLT 31(2))

article as a whole (Annex 2, para. 6) A.1.34D.2.6

SCM Agreement A.1.38.12, S.2.12.7

treaty as a whole including annexes A.1.34C.5.1

means, same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.1.4.2

object and purpose A.1.29B.1

consistency with object and purpose of Article 10 as a whole A.1.33A.4

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion and A.1.34C.2.5-6

same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.1.32A.2

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.1.5A.1, A.1.34D.3.1-2

object and purpose, prevention of circumvention of export subsidy commitments (AG 10) A.1.33A.5

SCM Agreement and

AG 6 and SCM 3.1(b) distinguished A.1.14A.2-3, A.1.34E.3-5, I.3.7.10
primacy of AG (SCM 3.1) A.1.38.11-13

burden of proof

completion of legal analysis by AB and B.3.1.17, C.4.25

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence B.3.4.5

reversal in respect of circumvention of export subsidy commitments (AG 10.3) A.1.29B.1, A.1.34.9-11

“establish” A.1.34.9

SCM claims, applicability to A.1.34.10, B.3.4.3, B.3.4.4, S.2.39.2-8

unscheduled products, applicability to A.1.34.11, B.3.4.4

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

classification as issue of law or fact

compliance/consistency with treaty obligations S.3.2.5, S.3.3.12, S.7.3.21, S.7.3.23

panel’s application of law S.2.39.5, S.3.3.17, S.7.3.24

world market, existence and competition in S.3.3.13-14

completion of legal analysis

in absence of request from party C.4.25, S.3.2.5, S.3.3.12

burden of proof and B.3.1.17, C.4.25

factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record C.4.24

issues of law / legal interpretations S.3.2.5, S.3.3.12, S.7.3.21, S.7.3.23

“covered in the panel report” S.3.1.6

“developed by the panel” S.3.1.6

obligation to address each of issues raised under DSU 17.6 during appellate proceedings (DSU 17.12) S.3.1.6, S.3.4.1-7

competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2/DSU 11), clarification of existing provisions, outside context of resolving particular dispute S.3.4.5

consultations (DSU 4)

clarification of issues and / opportunity to define scope of dispute C.7.14, C.7.18, R.2.1.11

confidentiality (DSU 4.6) C.7.16

establishment of panel, as prerequisite, scope of request for establishment of panel and request for consultations distinguished C.7.18

measure at issue (DSU 4.4)

expired measure C.7.12-15, R.2.3.13-14, T.6.3.9-10

as identified in request for establishment of panel (DSU 6.2), need for identity with C.7.18

measure affecting the operation of covered agreement (DSU 4.2) C.7.12, R.2.3.13, T.6.3.9

“affecting” C.7.11

request for (DS 4.4)

as determinant of scope C.7.16, R.2.1.11

identification of measures at issue C.7.17

notification to DSB C.7.16

writing, need for C.7.16

consultations (SCM 4.1-4.4), “statement of available evidence” (SCM 4.2) E.3.2.8, S.2.18.3

domestic support commitments (AG 6), SCM 3.1(b) (“subsidies contingent … upon the use of domestic over imported goods”) distinguished A.1.14A.2-3, A.1.34E.3-5, A.1.38.2-12, I.3.7.10

domestic support measures, calculation of Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) (AG Annex 3)

applicability to non-“green box” support (AG 13(b)(ii)) A.1.34C.5.1

measures directed at processors benefiting producers (Annex 3, para. 7) A.1.34E.1-5

inclusion in AMS limited to portion benefiting producer A.1.34E.2

domestic support measures, exemption from GATT XVI and SCM Part III measures (AG 13) (“due restraint” clause)

“green box” support (AG 13(a)) A.1.34C.1.1-2

non-“green box” support (AG 13(b)) A.1.34C.1.2, A.1.34C.2, A.1.34C.2.1-6, A.1.34C.3.1-4
“such measures do not grant support to a specific commodity in excess of” (AG 13(b)(ii)) A.1.34C.2.1-6, A.1.34C.3.1-4

actual support, need for A.1.34C.3.1

calculation method (AMS methodology (AG Annex 3)) A.1.34C.5.1

“commodity” A.1.34C.2.2

“grant” and “decided” distinguished A.1.34C.4.1-2

“specific” , A.1.34C.3.1-4

“such measures” A.1.34C.2.5-6

“support” A.1.34C.2.2

domestic support measures, exemption from reduction commitments (AG Annex 2) (“green box”) A.1.34C.1.1-2

decoupled income support (Annex 2, para. 6) A.1.34C.1.2, A.1.34D.2.1-9

amount of payments and type or volume of production, separation requirement (Annex 2, para. 6(b)) A.1.34D.2.1-9

lawful production, limitation to A.1.34D.2.9

“no production” (Annex 2, para. 6(e)) distinguished A.1.34D.2.7-8

structural adjustment assistance (Annex 2, para. 11) distinguished A.1.34D.3.1-2

clearly defined criteria in defined period requirement (Annex 2, para. 6(a)) A.1.34D.2.1

“fundamental requirement” (Annex 2, para. 1) A.1.34D.1.1-2

structural adjustment assistance (Annex 2, para. 11), requirement not to produce a particular product, limitation to A.1.34D.3.1-2

export subsidy commitments (AG 9), “contingent on export performance” (AG 9.1(a)) A.1.16A.1

export subsidy commitments, prevention of circumvention (AG 10.1)

“applied in a manner which results in, or which threatens to lead to, circumvention …”

export credit guarantees A.1.32.5, A.1.33A.9

legal entitlement / discretionary element, relevance A.1.32A.5, M.1.10

“circumvention”

actual circumvention

insufficiency of undisputed facts A.1.32.7

obligation of Panel to analyse a claim in respect of all relevant products A.1.32.6

threat of circumvention A.1.32A.1-8, M.1.10

obligation to take precautionary steps, whether A.1.32A.4, A.1.32A.8

relevance where actual circumvention already established A.1.32A.8

export credit guarantees (AG 10.2)

analysis of claims relating to as preliminary to consideration of compliance with AG 10.1 A.1.33A.10
conformity after international agreement on disciplines A.1.33A.1

obligations prior to agreement A.1.33A.5, A.1.33A.7

preparatory work (VCLT 32) A.1.33A.7

development of internationally agreed disciplines A.1.33A.1

“except as provided in the Agreement on Agriculture” (SCM 3.1(b)), applicability S.2.11.2

exception to AG 10.1, whether A.1.33A.2-9, A.1.38.13

“export subsidies not listed in Article 9.1”, export credit guarantee A.1.4.4, A.1.32.5, A.1.33.2, A.1.33A.2-9, A.1.33A.3

food aid transactions (AG 10.4) A.1.29B.1, A.1.32B.1, A.1.33A.6, A.1.34B.1-2

exception to AG 10.1, whether A.1.34B.1-2

“non-commercial transactions”, food aid A.1.32B.1

implementation of panel or AB recommendations (DSU 19.1)

expired measures, applicability to I.0.1

SCM 7.8 and I.0.1, S.2.19C.1

interpretation of covered agreements

context (VCLT 31(2))

AG 2/SCM Agreement Illustrative List A.1.34.10, A.1.38.14, B.3.4.3

article as a whole A.1.34D.2.6

treaty/treaties as a whole A.1.34C.5.1

dictionaries S.2.19B.1.3

effectiveness principle (ut res magis valeat quam pereat / effet utile), meaning to be attributed to every word and phrase A.1.38.10, I.3.7.10

Members’ practice in notifying export credit guarantee programmes, relevance I.3.9.5

multiple authentic languages (VCLT 33), presumption of same meaning (VCLT 33(3)) I.3.11.5, S.2.19B.3.1

object and purpose

consistency with object and purpose of article as a whole A.1.33A.4

preamble as evidence of A.1.29B.1

ordinary meaning A.1.32A.1, A.1.32A.4, C.7.12, M.1.10

“market” S.2.19B.1.3-5

“suppression” O.2.9, S.2.19B.3.1, S.2.19B.4.1-2

preamble/chapeau of article under discussion A.1.34C.2.5-6, A.1.38.8

preparatory work (VCLT 32), Agreement on Agriculture (AG) A.1.33A.7, I.3.10.12

same or closely related phrases in different agreements A.1.4.2, A.1.32A.2

context, relevance S.2.19B.5.3

same or closely related phrases in same agreement A.1.5A.1, A.1.34D.3.1-2

supplementary means (VCLT 32), in case of ambiguity I.3.10.12

title A.1.29B.1

judicial economy S.3.2.6, S.3.4.2

mootness of panel findings M.3.4-6

panel’s discretionary power to determine, which claims must be examined J.1.15-18, S.2.9.10, S.2.39.8

“positive solution to dispute” requirement and S.3.4.1-7

least developed countries, special dispute settlement procedures (DSU 24), particular consideration to be given to special situation of (DSU 24.1) L.1

legislation as such, right to challenge L.1.23

market access concessions and commitments (AG 4.1), consistency with GATT XIII A.1.8.3, A.1.38.9

measure at issue (DSU 4.4), measure affecting the operation of covered agreement (DSU 4.2), “affecting” C.7.11-13

mootness of panel findings, judicial economy and M.3.4-6

notice of appeal, requirements (AB/WP 20(2)), statement of allegations of errors on issues of law / legal interpretations (AB/WP 20(2)(d)), illustrative list, sufficiency W.2.7.3.3

order of analysis

panel’s right to determine O.2.10

SCM 6.3(c) (existence of price suppression / price suppression as result of subsidy) O.2.9

panel reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 16.4), findings unchallenged by parties and S.2.19A.2

rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) S.2.19B.5.6, S.7.3.22

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

impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member (DSU 3.3) S.3.4.4

recommendations and rulings of DSB (DSU 3.4) S.3.4.1, S.3.4.4-7

remedies for actionable subsidies (SCM 7), SCM 7.8 (obligation to remove adverse effects / withdraw subsidy), expired measure, applicability to I.0.1

“resulted”

SCM 6.2 S.2.19B.8.3

SCM 7.8 I.0.1, S.2.19C.1

SCM Agreement

interpretation

ordinary meaning O.2.9, S.2.19B.3.1

same or closely related phrases in same agreement S.2.19B.3

separate opinion (AB/WP 3(2)/DSU 17.11) W.2.3A.1-2

serious prejudice (SCM 6)

displacement of or impediment to exports, “over an appropriately representative period” S.2.19B.4

evidence of, information submitted to or obtained by panel including information submitted under SCM Annex V S.2.19B.6.3-4

“market” S.2.19B.1.1-6

“in the same market” S.2.19B.1.4-6

pass-through of indirect subsidies and S.2.10.3, S.2.19B.7.1-2

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

“effect of subsidy” (causal link) S.2.19B.5.1-5

time limitation, whether S.2.19B.8.1-5

as evidence ipso facto of serious prejudice under SCM 5(c) S.2.19A.1-2

methodology for determining S.2.19B.4.1-2, S.2.19B.5.1-6

magnitude of subsidy, relevance S.2.19B.6.1-4

panel’s discretion S.2.19B.5.1-6

relevant factors S.2.19B.5.1-6

order of analysis O.2.9, S.2.19A.1, S.2.19B.3.1

“otherwise” O.2.9

price depression/suppression distinguished S.2.19B.4.1-2

relevant market S.2.19B.1.1-6

relevant price S.2.19B.2.1

“significant” S.2.19B.4.1

“suppression” O.2.9, S.2.19B.3.1

“resulted” (SCM 6.2) S.2.19B.8.3

subsidy programme and payments under, distinguishability R.4.1.29-30, S.2.19B.1

“specific measure at issue” (AD 17.4/DSU 6.2), expired measure C.7.12-15, R.2.3.13-14, T.6.3.9-10

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

in absence of party’s claim relating to S.3.2.4-5, S.7.3.21, S.7.3.23, W.2.7.5.6

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

discretion in assessment of evidence S.7.3.25

discretion in selection of relevant evidence S.3.3.16

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.3.3.15

obligation to gather and analyse factual data S.2.19B.5.6, S.7.3.22

“objective assessment of matter before it”, error of law, burden of proof / prima facie case, failure to apply correctly S.2.39.3-6

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7), positive solution as aim S.3.4.1, S.3.4.5

subsidies, prohibited (SCM, Part II)

“contingent upon export performance” (SCM 3.1(a)) A.1.4.2-4, A.1.38.12, S.2.12.7-12

burden of proof

legislation, regulation or other legal instrument constituting measure as evidence of S.2.13.5

requirement to show proof of exportation, relevance A.1.4.3, S.2.12.12

“contingent” S.2.12.8

eligibility of domestic users for payments under different conditions, relevance A.1.4.3, S.2.12.9, S.2.12.12

“in law or in fact”, “tied to” (SCM 3.1(a), footnote 4) S.2.12.8

subsidy available to property produced either within or outside subsidizing State S.2.12.9-12

“contingent upon the use of domestic over imported products” (SCM 3.1(b)) S.2.15.3

“except as provided in the Agreement on Agriculture” (SCM 3.1(a)), export credit guarantees, applicability to S.2.11.2

“except as provided in the Agreement on Agriculture” (SCM 3.1(b)) A.1.38.8, S.2.14A.1-7

Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I)

export credit guarantee or insurance (item (j)) S.2.9.10, S.2.39.2-8

as contextual guidance for analysis of AG 10.3 claims A.1.34.10, A.1.38.14, B.3.4.3

failure to cover long-term operating costs and losses (item (j)) S.2.39.2-8

subsidy, definition (SCM 1)

conferral of benefit (SCM 1.1(b)), export credit guarantee S.2.9.10

non-exhaustive nature of AG 1(e) A.1.4.4, A.1.33A.3

pass-through of indirect input subsidy to countervailed product, need for (SCM 1.1/GATT VI:3) S.2.10.3, S.2.19B.7.1

serious prejudice (SCM 5(c) and 6.3(c)) distinguished S.2.10.3, S.2.19B.7.1-2

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), request for establishment of panel as basis R.2.1.11

“threat” (AG 10.1) A.1.32A.1, M.1.10

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

object and purpose, fair, prompt and effective resolution of disputes B.3.1.17, C.4.25

separate opinion (AB/WP 3(2)/DSU 17.11) W.2.3A.1-2

working schedule (WP 26), extension of deadline for circulation W.2.10.2.5

 
US — Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 — Brazil) (WT/DS267/AB/RW)     back to top

AB reports, adoption by DSB (DSU 17.14), parties’ obligation to accept R.4.3.18

burden of proof

standard of proof

conflicting outcomes with similar probabilities B.3.1.20-1, S.2.39.10

“evidence which further convinced [the Panel]” B.3.1.20, S.2.39.10

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21), choice of means at Member’s discretion, legislative/administrative action R.4.1.26-30

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21), impracticality of immediate compliance / reasonable period of time (DSU 21.3, chapeau), “reasonable period”, measure taken to comply, finding of inconsistency with WTO obligations and R.4.1.28

remedies for actionable subsidies (SCM 7)

prospective nature S.2.19C.2
SCM 7.8 (obligation to remove adverse effects / withdraw subsidy) S.2.19C.2

as double-pronged option S.2.19C.2

recurring annual payments, DSU 21.5 compliance requirement and R.4.1.30

as special or additional rule (DSU 1.2) S.2.19C.2

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

as a continuum of events R.4.3.19

finality of panel/AB report and R.4.3.18

“matter referred”

legal basis of claim / consistency of measure R.4.0.3

measure taken to comply, existence R.4.0.3

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency) finding of inconsistency of new measure, effect on “reasonable period” for compliance (DSU 21.3) R.4.1.28

measures broader than strictly required R.4.1.26-31

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

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

as new claim / reassertion of old R.4.2.5-6, R.4.3.18

objectives, prompt compliance / avoidance of new proceedings R.4.0.4, R.4.1.30

SCM Agreement, special or additional rules and procedures (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2), SCM 7.8 (obligation to remove adverse effects / withdraw subsidy) S.2.19C.2

serious prejudice (SCM 6)

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

“effect of subsidy” (causal link) S.2.19B.5.6-7, S.2.19B.5.7-10

market insulation as a result of price-contingent subsidies S.2.19B.10.1-2

time limitation, whether S.2.19B.8.6-7

methodology for determining S.2.19B.5.7, S.2.19B.6.5

“but for” test S.2.19B.5.7

order of analysis S.2.19A.1, S.2.19B.4.4-5

price depression/suppression distinguished S.2.19B.4.3

“significant” S.2.19B.4.5-8

“suppression” S.2.19B.4.3

threat of S.2.19B.9.1

special or additional rules and procedures for dispute settlement (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2), SCM 7.8 as S.2.19C.2

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.3.3.23-4, S.7.3.47

obligation to give reasoned and coherent treatment E.3.2.34, S.7.3.42

obligation to treat parties’ evidence consistently and even-handedly E.3.2.33, S.7.3.41

“objective assessment of matter before it”

error of law, failure to draw correct legal inferences (SCM 6.3(c)) S.3.3.21-2, S.7.3.45
mixed issues of fact and law, difficulty of distinguishing S.3.3.21, S.7.3.44

objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for S.2.19B.5.10, S.7.3.43-5

subsidies, prohibited (SCM, Part II)

Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (SCM Annex I)

export credit guarantee or insurance (item (j)) S.2.39.9-13

access to government funds as test of profitability S.2.39.13

analysis of risk, relevance S.2.39.12

burden of proof B.3.1.20-1, S.2.39.10

structure, design and operation of system, relevance B.3.1.21, S.2.19B.4.5, S.2.19B.4.5-7, S.2.19B.6.5, S.2.39.9-10, S.2.39.12-13

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9)

working schedule (WP 26)

extension of deadline for circulation of AB report, exceptional complexity T.2.10.2.6

modification in exceptional circumstances at request of parties, participants or third participants (WP 16(2)) W.2.10.1.6

 
US — Wheat Gluten (WT/DS166/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof, substitution of AB’s assessment, exclusion S.7.3.11A

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), classification as issue of law or fact, credibility and weight of evidence S.3.3.7

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

evaluation of all relevant factors (SG 4.2(a)) S.1.26.2-4

“factors other than increased imports” (SG 4.2(b))

“at the same time” S.1.29.2-3

methodology S.1.30.1

non-attribution, need for demonstration of S.1.30.1, S.1.31.2

obligation of competent authorities to seek information additional to that supplied by interested parties S.1.26.2

“under such conditions” (SG 2.1), equivalence S.1.12.1

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), opportunity to respond to evidence/presentations of other parties S.1.19.2

inferences from party’s refusal to provide information, panel’s right to draw I.1.3-6

panel’s discretion and I.1.4, I.1.6

panel’s obligation to make objective assessment of facts (DSU 11) and I.1.3

failure to draw inferences as error of law I.1.5-6

refusal to provide information as a “fact” I.1.5-6

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

refusal to provide, panel’s right to draw inferences I.1.3-6

prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), effect on I.1.3-6

interpretation of covered agreements

ordinary meaning S.1.19.1

same or closely related phrases in same agreement S.1.13.1.1

“investigation” S.1.19.1

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

evaluation of all factors S.1.19.3

obligation of competent authorities to seek information additional to that supplied by interested parties S.1.26.2

interested parties

notification to S.1.19.2

opportunity to respond to presentations of other parties S.1.19.2

opportunity to submit evidence and views S.1.19.2

judicial economy J.1.11

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

statement of allegations of errors on issues of law / legal interpretations (AB/WP 20(2)(d)) I.1.6

explanation for allegation of error I.1.6

identification of facts requiring panel to draw inferences I.1.6

indication of appropriate factual or legal inferences I.1.6

prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), refusal of party to provide information, effect I.1.3-6

safeguard measures, level of concessions (SG 8)

“equivalent” S.1.38.1

adequate opportunity for prior consultations (SG 12.3) and S.1.38.1

safeguard measures, notification and consultation (SG 12)

adequate opportunity for prior consultations (SG 12.3) S.1.42.1

level of concessions (SG 8.1) and S.1.38.1

of all pertinent information (SG 12.2) S.1.41.3

“immediately” (SG 12.1, chapeau) S.1.40.1-3

taking of decision as critical factor (SG 12.3) S.1.40.3

timing (SG 12.1) / content (SG 12.2) distinguished S.1.41.3

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX), conditions (SG 2)

causation (SG 2.1)

“imports” / “conditions” S.1.11.1

relevant factors (SG 4.2(a)) / “under such conditions” (SG 2.1), equivalence S.1.12.1

parallelism between SG 2.1 and SG 2.2 S.1.13.1.1

“product being imported” S.1.13.1.1

“such increased quantities”, sufficient to cause serious injury or threat S.1.30.1

safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX), notification and consultation (SG 12), “immediately” (SG 12.1, chapeau) S.1.41.3

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”) as legal question S.7.3.11A

substitution of AB’s assessment, exclusion S.7.3.11A

“objective assessment of matter before it”, “reasoned and adequate” test, investigating authorities’ explanations S.7.4.1

 
US — Wool Shirts and Blouses (WT/DS33/AB/R)     back to top

burden of proof B.3.1.1-2

affirmative defences B.3.3.2

GATT XX (general exceptions) B.3.3.1-2

onus probandi actori incumbit as general principle of evidence B.3.1.1-2

defences/exceptions and B.3.3.2

presumption of consistency of measures taken to comply with WTO obligations, as general principle of evidence B.3.1.1

prima facie case B.3.2.1

reversal in case of establishment of prima facie case B.3.1.1-2

standard of proof B.3.2.1

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), upholding, modification or reversal of legal findings and conclusions (DSU 17.13) S.3.1.2

interpretation of covered agreements, context (VCLT 31(2)), treaty/treaties as a whole T.7.1.1

judicial economy C.3.2.1, J.1.1-3

transitional safeguards (ATC 6), as balance of rights and obligations T.7.1.1

 
US — Zeroing (EC) (WT/DS294/AB/R)     back to top

applicable law, laws, regulations and administrative procedures (AD 18.4), determination of status as A.3.62.5

burden of proof

legislation as such, challenge to C.4.32-3, L.1.18

panel’s right to seek information and advice (DSU 13/SPS 11.2), relevance B.3.2.21

prima facie case, panel’s duty not to make case for complaining party S.7.2.14, S.7.3.48

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, factual basis, limitation to panel’s findings or undisputed facts in panel record C.4.32-3
conditional appeal, non-fulfilment of condition C.5.5

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

comparison of weighted average normal value with weighted average of all comparable export transactions, product types / product as a whole (AD 2.4.2) A.3.14.12-13, A.3.65.12

method, right to choose, GATT VI:2 and A.3.40A.3-6

zeroing, methodologies (AD 2.4.2), relevance of distinction A.3.14.12-13, A.3.40A.7

calculation of normal value, eligible transactions, requirements (AD 2.1), relationship with other AD provisions A.3.8.2

“due allowance … for differences which affect price comparability” A.1.13A.1-2

fair comparison (AD 2.4) A.3.12.2-3

assessment of anti-dumping duty (AD 9.3), applicability to A.3.12.2-3

comparison methodologies (AD 2.4.2), applicability to A.3.12.3

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1), “for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1) / applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.8.2

duration and review of anti-dumping duties and price undertakings / countervailing measures (AD 11/SCM 21), reassessment of cash-deposit rate, relevance A.3.44B.4

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in panel proceedings) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), panel’s authority to control process for informing itself of facts and legal norms S.7.2.13

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12)

“known exporter or producer” (AD 6.10) A.3.37.1.2

“margin of dumping” (AD 9.3) and A.3.40A.3

GATT acquis A.3.62.5

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VCLT 26)), view of Member that benefits are being impaired or nullified (AD 17.3) L.1.17

imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties (AD 9)

assessment of anti-dumping duty (AD 9.3), fair comparison (AD 2.4), applicability A.3.12.2-3

margin of dumping (AD 2) as ceiling (AD 9.3) A.3.40A.2-7, A.3.65.13-15

methodology, freedom of choice A.3.40A.5-6, A.3.65.14

“product as a whole” A.3.40A.2

zeroing, applicability A.3.40A.7

information or technical advice, panel’s right to seek (DSU 13), burden of proof and B.3.2.21

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)], AD 17.6(ii) A.3.40A.6, A.3.65.15

GATT acquis A.3.62.5

judicial economy

mootness of panel findings A.3.12.3, C.4.33

“positive solution to dispute” requirement and J.1.22

legal basis for consultation/claim (AD 17.3/AD 17.4), good faith view of Member (“considers”) that benefits are being impaired or nullified (AD 17.3) L.1.17

legislation as such, right to challenge burden of proof and C.4.32-3, L.1.18

mandatory/discretionary legislation, whether distinguishable, panel’s obligation to examine status S.7.3.31

normative instrument, in absence of written instrument L.1.18-19, S.7.2.13

mootness of panel findings M.3.8-10

judicial economy and A.3.12.3, C.4.33

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 S.7.2.14

panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) L.1.19, S.7.3.31

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), right to ask clarifying questions S.7.2.13-14

“objective assessment of matter before it”

failure to apply mandatory/discretionary legislation distinction in analysis S.7.3.31

failure to distinguish between existence of measure and its WTO-consistency L.1.19

third party rights, AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24), timing of submission W.2.9.10

legislation as such, right to challenge, mandatory/discretionary legislation, whether distinguishable, panel’s obligation to examine status M.1.11

WTO-conformity of domestic laws, regulations and administrative procedures, obligation to ensure (AD 18.4)

“laws, regulations and administrative procedures” A.3.62.5

determination of legal status as by reference to WTO law A.3.62.5

line of computer code for incorporation into anti-dumping proceeding, whether L.1.20

written instrument, need for L.1.17-19, S.7.2.13

 
US — Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 — EC) (WT/DS294/AB/RW)     back to top

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6)

compétence de la compétence W.2.11.3.7

issues of law / legal interpretations, new evidence / evidence not before panel S.3.1.9

composition of panels (DSU 8)

citizens of parties to dispute (DSU 8.3) D.2.2.31

determination by Director-General (DSU 8.7), discretion/consultation with parties D.2.2.31

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2)

interrelationship between DSU 17.10 and DSI 18.2 W.2.11.3.7

non-confidential summary confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2) W.2.11.3.7

open oral hearing (WP 27) and W.2.11.3.6-7

as relational concept W.2.11.3.7

as relative and time-bound concept W.2.11.3.7

due process (dispute settlement proceedings), panel’s obligation to address issues raised by parties (DSU 7.2/12.7) D.2.2.31

evidence (admissibility and evaluation in appellate proceedings) (DSU 17.6), new evidence / evidence not before panel S.3.1.9

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21), impracticality of immediate compliance / reasonable period of time (DSU 21.3, chapeau)

“reasonable period”

administrative review determination issued after end of reasonable period, effect R.4.3.22-5

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

implementation of panel/AB recommendations, right of panel/AB to make suggestions for (DSU 19.1), discretionary nature of right I.0.10

order of analysis, panel’s right to, depart from order suggested by complainant O.2.12

provisional measures (AD 7) T.6.1.20

as basis for referral to the DSB (AD 17.4) A.3.56.10

as interim measure pending outcome of original investigation T.6.1.21

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

“matter referred”, measure taken to comply, existence R.4.1.34-8

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency)

events subsequent to establishment of compliance panel, sunset review continuation order (AD 11.3) R.4.0.7

measures closely related to measure taken to comply R.4.1.35-8, R.4.3.24-6

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

as new claim / reassertion of old R.4.2.7-8

“taken to comply” R.4.1.35-8, W.2.3A.4

timing of measure, relevance R.4.1.35

separate opinion (AB/WP 3(2)/DSU 17.11) W.2.3A.3-4

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

AD “measure” qualifying for DSB proceedings (AD 17.4) A.3.56.10

provisional measures (AD 7) A.3.56.10

sunset review (AD 11.3), continuation order issued after establishment of DSU 21.5 compliance panel, panel’s right/obligation to consider R.4.0.7

third party rights, AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24), passive participation in oral hearings W.2.11.3.6-7

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5), “measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency), examination in light of DSB recommendations and rulings R.4.1.34

Working Procedures (appellate review) (DSU 17.9), separate opinion (AB/WP 3(2)/DSU 17.11) W.2.3A.3-4

 
US — Zeroing (Japan) (WT/DS322/AB/R)     back to top

consultations (DSU 4), request for (DS 4.4), identification of measures at issue, degree of precision C.7.24, T.6.1.21

determination of dumping (AD 2)

calculation of margins of dumping (AD 2.4)

actual product under investigation / type or model, distinction A.3.14.24, A.3.14.26, A.3.39.2
asymmetrical comparison (AD 2.4.2, second sentence) A.3.14A.1

transaction-to-transaction basis (AD 2.4.2) A.3.14.24-31

zeroing, methodologies (AD 2.4.2), relevance of distinction A.3.60.7

fair comparison (AD 2.4) A.3.12.6-7

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15), substantive obligations as focus of AD 3, underlying principles (AD 3.1) A.3.15.2

domestic judicial proceedings, compliance obligation (DSU 21) and A.3.40C.1-2, R.4.0.12-13

dumping/margin of dumping, definition/constituent elements (AD 2.1/GATT VI:1)

AD 2.1/GATT VI:1 as definitional provisions not imposing independent obligations A.3.8.4, A.3.65.19

exporter-specific concept A.3.1A.1-2

“for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1) / applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.1A.1, A.3.8.3-4

margin of dumping (GATT VI:2) A.3.1A, A.3.65.17

product-related A.3.1A, A.3.1A.1-2, A.3.65.17

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21), impracticality of immediate compliance / reasonable period of time (DSU 21.3, chapeau), domestic judicial proceedings, relevance A.3.40C.1-2, R.4.0.12-13

imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties (AD 9)

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

method, absence of provision / neutrality A.3.41A.3

prospective normal value system (AD 9.4(ii)) A.3.41A.1-3

zeroing/de minimis margins, exclusion A.3.49.4, A.3.65.18, A.3.65.20

new shipper reviews (AD 9.5) A.3.44A.2-3

zeroing and A.3.44A.3

retrospective assessment (AD 9.3.1) A.3.40B.4-5

footnote 20 to AD 9.3.1 (observance of time-limits) A.3.40C.1-2

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)], AD 17.6(ii) A.3.60.7

“for the purpose of this agreement” (AD 2.1) / applicability of AD 2.1 definition throughout Agreement A.3.39.2

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

evidence, alleged disregard or distortion by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”) discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence E.3.2.20-3, S.7.3.33-6

obligation to support findings from evidence in panel record E.3.2.20, S.7.3.33

party’s obligation to provide evidence to support its argument E.3.2.23

sunset review (AD 11.3), “likelihood” test, relevant factors, WTO-inconsistent methodology A.3.49.4

 
US — Zeroing (Japan) (Article 21.5 — Japan) (WT/DS322/AB/RW)     back to top

Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD) / GATT 1994 VI relationship, AD Agreement as agreement on implementation of GATT VI A.3.64.3

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), compétence de la compétence W.2.11.3.8-9

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2)

disclosure of parties’ own statements (DSU 18.2) W.2.11.3.9

interrelationship between DSU 17.10 and DSI 18.2 W.2.11.3.9

open oral hearing (WP 27) and W.2.11.3.8-9

as relational concept W.2.11.3.9

domestic judicial proceedings, compliance obligation (DSU 21) and A.3.53B.1-2, M.5.18, R.4.0.13

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

notification to respondents and possible third parties of nature and parameters of case D.2.2.32

request for establishment of panel (DSU 6.2) and D.2.2.32

implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21), impracticality of immediate compliance / reasonable period of time (DSU 21.3, chapeau)

domestic judicial proceedings, relevance A.3.53B.1-2, M.5.18

“reasonable period”

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

modification by DSU 21.5 compliance panel, exclusion R.4.0.8

pending judicial review (AD 13) and A.3.53B.1-2, M.5.18

interpretation of covered agreements, context (VCLT 31(2)), GATT II:1(b)/GATT II:2(a) A.3.64.3, T.1.1.9

judicial economy, unchallenged panel finding and A.3.64.3

prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member (DSU 3.3), DSU 21.5 proceedings to determine compliance and R.2.5.6, R.5.11, T.5.11, T.6.3.20

request for establishment of panel, requirements (DSU 6.2), compliance panel (DSU 21.5), applicability to R.2.5.4-6

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

applicability of DSU 6.2 (requirements for establishment of panel) R.2.5.4-6

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

measures that “have a bearing on compliance” R.2.5.6, T.6.3.18

competence of DSU 21.5 (compliance) panel

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

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

“measures taken to comply” (including panel’s determination of WTO consistency), measures not automatically derived from challenged review R.4.0.12

objectives, prompt compliance / avoidance of new proceedings R.2.5.6

Schedules of Concessions (GATT II), ordinary customs duties in excess of those provided for in Schedule (GATT II:1(b)), GATT II:2(a), interrelationship with A.3.64.3, T.1.1.5, T.1.1.9

special or additional rules and procedures for dispute settlement (DSU 1.2 and Appendix 2), AD 13/footnote to AD 9, whether S.5.5

“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)

measure subsequent to establishment of panel [having the “same effect”] R.2.3.30, T.6.3.19-21

“specificity” R.2.3.28-9

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7), positive solution as aim R.2.5.6

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7), obligations, to notify respondents and potential third parties of nature and parameters of dispute D.2.2.32, R.2.1.15

third party rights, AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24), passive participation in oral hearings W.2.11.3.9

 


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.