To Uphold, Modify or Reverse?

How the WTO Appellate Body Treats Panel Reports

in The Journal of World Investment & Trade
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

To Uphold, Modify or Reverse?

How the WTO Appellate Body Treats Panel Reports

in The Journal of World Investment & Trade

References

1 See Ministerial Conference, Ministerial Dedaration Adopted on 14 November 2001, WT/Min(01)/Dec/1, 20 November 2001, para. 30; Ministerial Conference, Doha Work Programme: Ministerial Dedaration Adopted oil 18 December 2005, WT/MlN(05)/Df=c, 22 December 2005, para. 34. 2 Working Procedures for Appellate Preview, WT/AB/WP/5, 4 January 2005. 3 Dsu, Article 17.12: "The Appellate Body shall address each of the issues raised in accordance with paragraph 6 during the appellate proceeding" (discussed further in Section m of this article). ^ See, for example, Appellate Body Report, Mexico-Anti-Dumping Measures oil Rice, WT/DS295/AB/R, 29 November 2005, para. 351: "The Appellate Body recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request Mexico to bring its measures, found in this Report and in the Panel Report as modified by this Report, to be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the Scmt Agreement, into conformity with its obligations under those Agreements" (emphasis original). I discuss Appellate Body recommendations further in Section m of this article. 5 See, for example, Dsri, Minutes ofmeetil/g held on 20July 2005, WT/Dsb/M/194, 26 August 2005, para. 100 (upon the adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports in United States-Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS, WT/DS296/R, 21 February 2005, and WT/DS296/AB/R, 27 June 2005). 6 Dsu, Article 21.5: "Where there is disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings such dispute shall be decided through recourse to these dispute settlement procedures, including wherever possible resort to the original panel ...".

7 DsB, Minlltes of meeting held on 18 December 2001, WT/Dsn/M/116, 31 January 2002, para. 50 (upon the adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports in Canada-Dairy (Article 21.5-New Zealand and United States), WT/DS103/RW, WT/DS113/PW, 11 July 2001, and WT/DS103/AB/RW, WT/DS113/AB/RW, 3 December 2001. At the time of writing, the DSB has not yet adopted the Appellate Body Report in United States-Fsc (Article 21.5-European Communities rt), WT/DS108/AB/RW2, 13 February 2006, but this might fall in the same category. 8 A new work in progress in the subscription area of compiles statistics on the Appellate Body's treatment of individual findings and conclusions by Panels. `' See, for example, Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Hormones, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, 16 January 1998, para. 253(g). See, for example, Panel Report, Dominican Repu6lic-Impart and Sale of Cigarette, WT/DS302/R, 26 November 2004, paras. 7.206-7.208; Appellate Body Report, Dominicnn Republic-Import and Sale of Cigarettes, WT/DS302/AB/R, 25 April 2005, paras. 64-65. See also Appellate Body Report, United States- Gambling, WT/DS285/AB/R, 7 April 2005, paras. 291-292. Appellate Body Report, United States-Shrimp, WT/DS58/AB/R, 12 October 1998, paras. 117-122. 12 See, for example, Appellate Body Report, Chile-Price Band System, WT/DS207/AB/R, 23 September 2002, para. 224. See Tania Voon and Alan Yanovich, The Facts Aside: The Limitation of W7o Appeals to Issues of Law, 40:2 J.W.T., April 2006, 239, at 249-251. Dsu, Article 11 requires a Panel to "make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with the relevant covered agreements ...". Dsu Article 12.7 requires a Panel to set out in its Report "the findings of fact, the applicability of relevant provisions and the basic rationale behind any findings and recommendations that it makes". See, for example, in relation to a failure to accord due process, Andrew Mitchell, Due Process in WTo Disputes, in Rufus Ycrxa and Bruce Wilson (eds.), Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years (2005) 144, at 157-160.

15 See, for example, Appellate Body Report, United States-Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods, WT/DS282/AB/R, 2 November 2005, para. 210. �6 Appellate Body Report, United States-Fse, WT/DS108/AB/R, 24 February 2000, para. 132; Appellate Body Report, Canada-Dairy (Artide 21.5-New Zealand and United States II), WT/DS103/AB/RW2, WT/DS113/AB/RW2, 20 December 2002, para. 119; Appellate Body Report, United States-Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country 1'ubular Goods, supra, footnote 15, paras. 211 and 219(e)(iii). See also Appellate Body Report, Canada-Dairy, WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DS113/AB/R, 13 October 1999, para. 124; Appellate Body Report, Brazil-Airnaft (Artide 21.5-Canada), WT/DS46/AB/RW, 21 July 2000, paras. 78 and 81; Appellate Body Report, United States-Certain European Communitie.s Products, WT/DS165/AB/R, 11 December 2000, para. 90; Appellate Body Report, United States-Cotton Yam, WT/DS192/AB/R, 8 October 2001, para. 127; Appellate Body Report, United States-Line Pipe, WT/DS202/AB/R, 15 February 2002, para. 199; Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Sardines, WT/DS231/AB/R, 26 September 2002, para. 311. I� See Appellate Body Report, United States-Line Pipe, supra, footnote 16, para. 199. 11 Dsu, Article 17.6: "An appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel." See generally Voon and Yanovich, supra, footnote 13. 19 Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year ("Sunset") Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (16 April 1998) 63(73) United States Federal Register 18871. 2' Appellate Body Report, United States-Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, WT/DS268/AB/R, 29 November 2004, paras. 210 and 215.

21 Appellate Body Report, United States-Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods, supra, footnote 15, para. 210. 22 Ibid., para. 209. =3 See, for example, Appellate Body Report, United States-Wheat Gluten, WT/DS166/AB/R, 22 December 2000, para. 162; Apellate Body Report, United States-Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAms, supra, footnote 5, paras. 187-188; Appellate Body Report, United States-Cotton yt supra, footnote 16, paras. 78-80.

24 See Alan Yanovich and Tania Voon, Competing the Analysis in Wro Appeals: Tlve Practice and its Limitations (forthcoming). 25 Appellate Body Report, Argentina-Footwear (European Communities), WT/DS121/AB/R, 14 December 1999, para. 98. See also Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Hormones, supra, footnote 9, para. 250; Appellate Body Report, United States-Steel Safeguards, WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/DS249/AB/R, WT/DS251/AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, WT/DS53/AB/R, WT/DS254/AB/R, WT/DS258/AB/R, WT/DS259/AB/R, 10 November 2003, para. 431; Appellate Body Report, United States-Zeroing (European Communities), WT/DS294/AB/R, 18 April 2006, para. 147. zb Appellate Body Report, United States-Steel Safeguards, supra, footnote 25, para. 493. 27 Id. (see also para. 483). z$ Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Hormones, supra, footnote 9, para. 251. 29 Dsu, Article 3.2.

.111 See Appellate Body Report, United States-Steel Safeguards, supra, footnote 25, para. 484; Appellate Body Report, Canada-Wheat Export and Grain Imports, WT/DS276/AB/R, 30 August 2004, paras. 162-163. " Appellate Body Report, United States-Zeroillg (European COlnmul1ities), supra, footnote 25, para. 263(a)(vii), (c)(i), (d), and (g)(i). Ibid., para. 263(a)(ii), (a)(iv), (a)(vi), and (f). 33 Ibid., para. 253(c)(ii), and (g)(ii). 34 Appellate Body Report, United States-Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, 29 April 1996, 29.

35 Dsu, Article 16.4. 36 DSB, Minutes of meeting held an 20 May 1996, WT/DSB/M/17. z See, for example, Appellate Body Report, Chile-Alcohnlic Beverages, WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DSI 10/AB/R, 13 December 1999, para. 81; Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Tariff Preferences, WT/DS246/AB/R, 7 April 2004, para. 191; Appellate Body Report, United States-F.sc (Article 21.5-European Communities), WT/DS108/AB/RW, 14 January 2002, para. 257. 3R James Bacchus, A Frw Thoughts on Le�itimacy, Democraey, and the WTO (2004) 7(3) Journal of International Economic Law 667, at 669. 39 Appellate Body Report, United States-Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Revieiv, WT/DS244/AB/R, 1 December 2003, para. 213.

a° Appellate Body Report, United States-Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods, supra, footnote 15, para. 220. 41Appellate Body Report, United States-Shrirnp, supra, footnote 11, para. 34. 42 Ibid., para. 188. 43 This provision would prevail to the extent of inconsistency with Dsu, Article 19.1 (pursuant to Dsu, Article 1.2 and Appendix 2). 44 Appellate Body Report, Brazil-Aircraft, WT/DS46/AB/R, 2 August 1999, paras. 194 and 197; Panel Report, Brazil-Aircrajt, WT/DS4fi/R, 14 April 1999, para. 8.5.

a5 The Appellate Body Reports in Brazil-Aircraft and Canada-Airaaft were both circulated on 2 August 1999. The Division in Brazil-Aircraft comprised Said El-Naggar, James Bacchus, and Claus-Dieter Ehienriann. The Division in Canada-Aircraft comprised James Bacchus, Florentino Feliciano, and Mitsuo Matsushita. 4" Appellate Body Report, Canada-Aircra(t, WT/DS70/AB/R, 2 August 1999, 221. 47 Appellate Body Report, United States-Fsc, supra, footnote 16, paras. 177(a) and 178; Panel Report, United States-Fse, WT/DS108/R, 8 October 1999, para. 8.8. 4a Appellate Body Report, United States-Upland Cotton, WT/DS267/AB/R, 3 March 2005, paras. 5, 763(d), (e)(iv), and 764; Panel Report, United States-Upland Cotton, WT/DS267/R, 8 September 2004, para. 8.3(b) and (c). ay Panel Report, United States-Upland Cotton, ibid., para. 8.3(d).

50 See, for example, Appellate Body Report, Brazil-Aircraft (Article 21.5-Canada), supra, footnote 16; Panel Report, Brazil-Aircraft (Article 21.5-Canada 11), WT/DS46/RW/2, 26 July 2001. 51 See, for example, DSB Special Session, Amendment of the Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes: 1'roposal by Japan, TN/DS/W/32, 22 January 2003; DSB Special Session, Contribution of the Republic of Korea to the Improvement of the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO: Communication from the Republic of Korea, TN/DS/W/35, 22 January 2003; DSB Special Session, Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9 , 6 June 2003, 11-17. 52 Appellate Body Report, United StatH—Fft; (Artide 21.5-European Communities), supra, footnote 37, para. 257. S3 Id. s4 Appellate Body Report, Mexico-Com Symp (Article 21.5-United States), WT/DS132/AB/RW, 22 October 2001, para. 136; Appellate Body Report, Canada-Dairy (Artide 21.5-New Zealand and United States ii), supra, footnote 16, para. 160; Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Bed Linen (Article 21.5-India), WT/DS141/AB/RW, 8 April 2003, para. 184.

ss Appellate Body Report, United States-FsC (Article 21.5-Europeatl Comll1utlities II), supra, footnote 7, paras. 83-84. See also Panel Report, United States-F,,;(- (Article 21.5-European Communities 11), WT/DS108/RW2, 30 September 2005, paras. 7.51-7.58 and 8.2. 56 See Panel Report, United States-Fsc (Article 21.5-European Comll1ul1ities u), ibid., paras. 7.40-7.46; Appellate Body Report, United States-FsC (Article 21.5-European Communities it), ibid., paras. 86 and 88-89.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 14 14 11
Full Text Views 15 15 5
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0