SUBJECT INDEX

R

 

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

The texts reproduced here do not have the legal standing of the original documents which are entrusted and kept at the WTO Secretariat in Geneva.

“reasonable period”: see evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12), facts available to investigating authority, right to use (AD 6.8/AD Annex II/SCM 12.7); implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21), impracticality of immediate compliance / reasonable period of time (DSU 21.3, chapeau)
 

reasons, need for: see competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2/DSU 11), right to develop own legal reasoning including arguments not adduced by parties (jura novit curia); determination of serious injury or threat thereof (SG 4), requirements, reasoned and adequate explanation; investigation of conditions for safeguard measures, requirements (SG 3.1/SG 4.2(c)), findings and reasoned conclusions; panel reports, rationale, need for (DSU 12.7); standard/powers of review (safeguard measures (SG/GATT XIX)), assessment of the facts, objective assessment of “reasoned and adequate” explanation, need for
 

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

regulatory discrimination: see national treatment, regulatory discrimination (GATT III:4)
 

remedies for actionable subsidies (SCM 7)

see also dispute settlement (SCM 30); implementation of panel/AB recommendations, right of panel/AB to make suggestions for (DSU 19.1)

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

expired measure, applicability to I.0.1, S.2.19C.1

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
 

request for establishment of panel, requirements (DSU 6.2)

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

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

anti-dumping investigation and dispute settlement proceedings, issues distinguished R.2.2.10

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

compliance, importance of

non-compliance, effect R.2.1.12

opportunity to cure defect R.2.1.9

parties’ responsibility R.2.1.2, T.6.1.3

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

scrutiny by DSB R.2.1.2

scrutiny by panel R.2.1.6, T.6.1.10

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

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

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

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

panel’s obligation to examine absence C.7.10

failure to object, effect C.7.3, O.1.2

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

determination by Member R.5.2, R.5.4, R.5.6

good faith L.1.10, M.1.7

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

writing R.2.1.3, R.2.1.5, T.6.1.7
 

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

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

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

reversal of burden of proof: see burden of proof, reversal in respect of circumvention of export subsidy commitments (AG 10.3)
 

review of implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5) R.4

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

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

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

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

competence of DSU 21.5 (compliance) panel

as continuance of original proceedings R.2.1.8, R.4.1, R.4.3.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

unappealed panel reports and R.4.3.4-5, R.4.3.16-18, S.7.2A.8

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

“matter referred”

legal basis of claim / consistency of measure R.4.0.3, R.4.1.3-5, R.4.1.18, R.4.1.21

measure taken to comply, existence R.4.0.3, R.4.1.3-5, R.4.1.8, R.4.1.18, R.4.1.21, R.4.1.34-8

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

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

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

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

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

events subsequent to establishment of compliance panel, sunset review continuation order (AD 11.3) R.4.0.7

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

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

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

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

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

measures broader than strictly required R.4.1.26-31

measures closely related to measure taken to comply R.4.1.12-17, R.4.1.23-4, R.4.1.28, R.4.1.32, R.4.1.35-8, R.4.3.24-6

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

measures not automatically derived from challenged review R.4.0.12

as new claim / reassertion of old R.4.2, R.4.2.5-8, R.4.3.6, R.4.3.18, R.4.5.2

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

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

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

“should ensure” requirement R.4.1.2

“taken” R.4.1.7

“taken to comply” R.4.1.35-8, W.2.3A.4

timing of measure, relevance R.4.1.35

objectives

prompt compliance / avoidance of new proceedings R.4.0.1-2, R.4.0.4, R.4.1.30

prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes (DSU 3) and R.4.0.1, R.4.3.1-2

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

procedures of normal panel distinguished R.4.0.1

refusal of original complainant to participate, relevance R.4.6.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

quantitative vs. qualitative test S.6.12.5

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

balance of SPS interests and (SPS 5.1) S.6.9.1

compliance with DSB recommendation and ARB.2.3, ARB.5.4.3

elements (Annex A, para. 4)

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

“which might be applied” S.6.12.4

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

“likelihood” S.6.12.1-6

“potential”

“likelihood” distinguished S.6.12.1, S.6.12.5

“probable” distinguished S.6.9.4

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

rational relationship between measure and risk, need for S.6.14.2-4

results of risk assessment insufficient to require S.6.10.5

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

“scientific justification” (SPS 3.3) and S.6.7.4-5, S.6.8.4-5

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

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

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

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.6.3.1-8, S.6.9.1-2, S.6.9.6, S.6.14.2-3, S.6.14.5

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

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

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

Rules of Conduct

applicability

AB Members B.4.3, C.6.2, W.2.4

experts D.2.2.27, R.6

 

Abbreviations used on this page