Consultations and the panel process in the WTO dispute settlement system

(1)

Book Chapter

Reference

Consultations and the panel process in the WTO dispute settlement system

MARCEAU, Gabrielle Zoe

MARCEAU, Gabrielle Zoe. Consultations and the panel process in the WTO dispute settlement system. In: Yerxa, Rufus ; Wilson Bruce. Key issues in WTO dispute settlement : the first ten years . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press., 2005. p. 29-45

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:35221

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

(2)

5 Consultations and the panel process in the W1'0 dispute settlement S)'Stem

<L\nHif.l.l.ll M.\RCJ;.\U¹

Cmmsdlor. !.eg11f •\.Oilirs Vit·ision, WJ'O Scm·taridt

1 Gene ml features of the W TO dispute settleme11t system l'he W1'0 dispute seUlement systern is a rulet~based -;ystem as opposed to a negotintion-conciliation~mediatîon l)"pe (Jf dispute resolution nredl- nnism. The sptem indude.s: proœdural steps thal can be triggerèd by anr wro Member dissottisHed with another Member's:measure consldered to be inconsistent with nnr pro\'ision of the

wro

,\greement.

rhe

system allows the dissatisfied MemlH~r to obt~Iin a t~gal ruling br an intlependent adjutücative bodr on ih rîghts ;md obligations tnHier the rele\'tml a>Jree- ments. The dispute seUlement sptem of the

\Vro

is thus quasi~judicial:

inde:pendent and autonmnous bodies nre responsible for ~djudicntion of disputes although formally subjec.i to the O\'erall authorîtr orthe Dispute S.!llemmt llod)' (IJSU). The jurisdiction of the DSII and therefore thal of the <~djudicaling bodies (i.e. panel• .md the Appelh\le Uody) operal- ing under îts authorlty has been acŒpted br ail WTO ~lembers lhrough theîr ratification of the VVfO treat)'. l'hus, a \VTO Member CilntlOt refuse lo p;.uticipate in a \V1'0 dispute seUlement proœdure

if

a complaint is hrought ngainst iL

l·he W 1'0 dispute settlement systemîs quasi-automatîcbecause it oper- ates on the basis. of'revèrse, or negath'e, conseiHus~ \VTO-related disputes once triggered, the proœss c.m

ontr

be sloppeù wilh the consent of nil parties to the dispute. AppJicatîori of the principle of automtttidt)' to the legal steps of the dispute settlement srstem has evol\'ed frorn the earlr da ys of the General •\greement on rariff~ and l'rade ((iAIT)" t::xœpl in the wry earlr re ars \\'here ti

Ar

J' contracting parties \'oted on deciSions of 1 The Ykws e.\pn~~d .m.~ lho~ of tOC .mthor .md ll) not r~:pre!ient ;1 p<\Sitkm, nllki.d or

un()ffldal, of !he \VIO Sc;:rt't.trial or WI"CJ ~.fcmbcrs.

l9

Yerxa, Rufus (Editer); Wilson, Bruce (Editer). Key lssues in WTO Dispute Seltlement: The First Ten Years.

Cambridge, GBR: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p 69.

l'lay not be reproduced ln any form wRhout permission from the publîsher, except fair uses permilted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(3)

JO G,\liltiHU.:~ M.\Rt:l!.\LI

the CONl'HACl'INU l'ARnEs,' UAIT dispute selllement uper<1ted on

th~ lHuis of a po~itive con sen ms rule. Thus, a party agaimt whom a corn- plaint was hroughl cou Id frustn1te the operatîon of the sptem by hlocking n con remus to t'$lablish a

pomel

or lo adopt ;.1 p;mel report. l'his hego.mlo

chang~ with <1pproval of the Montrei1ll\·1îd-1€rm l\eview dedsion ( 1989}

to împrô\"e the disput~ seUlement proœss, which pnwided for gre;.ller autdmati dt}' in tht> establishment, terms of referenœ and composition of panels, so thal such actions would no longer depend on the cement of the defending party in a dispute. Huildîng on the Montreal decision, the Dispute Selllement Underslanding (IJSU) ( 1995) strengthened further the system

by

extending the autornaticîty principle to the adoption or"

panel and Appellate l!odr reports and to the retaliation proœss. The D5U codified the UA1T/W1'0 dispute setllement sptem and provides for a series oflegal stages which an:- automatic unless the 1vlemliers agree otherwis:e by consensus. l'his is 'ren•rse, or negative, consensus• because conserHus is needed lo 'reverse or stop' the o.llltomaticit)' of the

legnl

steps of the dispute selllement process. l'he sptem is also binding sinœ

wro

~·fembershare ag.reedto adopt panel and Appelhtte Hody reports automat-

icallr

(1 hrough the ;lppli cali

on of the

re\'erse

con sem us

ru les, a~ explnined below).

rhe jurisdiction of the DSll is exdusive and limited: IVTO-related disputes cmt onlr he litigated before WTO adjudicating bodies, and onlr Wl'O <u.ljudicatÎ\'e bodies o.m decide

if

WlO violations exLsL Howewr, notwithstanding their .~ignîficant power, while \VTO adjudk;Jting bodies Œil int~rpret the prO\'Î\ions of \V1'0 ngreements, the)' are explidtly prohibited from adding to or diminishing the rights and obligations of

~vlembers when assessing the WTO compatibility

of

the n--.easures <:hal- lenged. 1\·toreover, the DSll ma)' authorize sanctions în the case

of

non- complianœ.

The DSU aho put an end to any unilateral determination

by

a Member of \'l'helher a viohltion of anr \VYO provision hus occurred, Mlide 23 of the DSU pro\'Îdes thal unrdisputerelalingto m>yWTOmaller can be addressed only in the \VTO institulion<.1l framework. Pur.sltanl to Article 23.1 of the DSU, no alleged Wl'O violation justifies resort to a unilateral retaliatorr Hleasure by a rv1ember. If a Men1ber belieu:•s a \V

ro

viOlation has ocnureli. the onl}' recourse a\'o.IÎiable tu it to r~soiYe this issue is lo inilinte a LlSU/\Vl'O di.spute seUlement proœss and (o obtaîn a

l t\rtkk XXV:5nfthcGA1'r 194/ pflwkl('"5lh.lt',,hcrc rdcrcnœ Î!>madc in tlli~Ag.rtcm.ent to thc contr.Kting p.uli~ru:ting~1întlr they .tre dcsignah:d JS the CONTIUCil 1\'G PAHliE ':.'.

Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key Issues in WTO Dispute SetUement: The First Ten Years.

tv1ay not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, excepl fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(4)

\V1'0 determination on the matter. The DSU thus requires Wfü Mem.- bers lo resorl lo the dispute rettlement sptem of the Wl'O to <le termine if: (1) J violation of the

wro

agreements h<Js been committed; (2) the implementing me antre adopted

br

the lming Member to comply \'fi th the recommendatiom of plmell or Appellate U odr (endorsed

br

the !)SU) is cmnpalible with the rules of the IVTO; and (3) the levet of anr sanctions is in f<td proportion,\te or 'equîvalent' to the loss of tn1de benefits caused br the wro-incomp.ttible mensure,

l'he institutional structure of the system, which allows partidpaqon br ,,((

wro

Memhers in the various stages of the dispute resolution proœss: either through the DSll or <ls a third party in n dispute, (even if in most cases the third parties to the dispute onlr have the right to make written and oral mbmîssions, pose questions and comment on parties' subminions) makes the W

ro

dispute seUlement system a

truJy

multilateral system

where

independent and împnrtial indi\'iduals adjudicate on disputes between Members. This confirms the sptemic interest of the entire \Vro meml~rship in \VTO law. institutions and disputes.

2 Consultations (a) Till~ rtYf ^tiCSt for ftliiS:ul ta tiom

The DSU emphasïzes the imporli.mœ of conmllJtÏom in dhpute resolu- lion, requiring a l\·tember to enter into conmltations wïthîn 30 days of stK-h a request from another Member. The request for consultations is made in the fonn of a letter id.entïfying the basic fach and legal daims;

sud1. requesl is sent from one },:fember tu anuther and copied lo the DSIS and the

Wro

Secretariat. If afler 60 dap from the request for consultations there is no settlenwnl, the complaining party mar requesl the establishment of a panel. ln addition. if the <.~fending pJrly does not respond to the request for consult~1tiom withîn t~lfthl)'5 of the reœipl of the request or

if

consultations are not hdd \\'ithin 30 days of the reœîpt of the request, the complainingp•lrt)' mar request li"' DSII to establish a

panel.

(l,) Rig}J t

tlf

titi rd partÎt.'5 tl uri ng the nmsulttJ

ti

on proCl"1'S

Under the DSU, a thir<l part)' requesting to join consultations must haw:•

a substfli11Ît2l tnhlc imcrt""St, Moreon:-r. the partidpatlon of s.uch a thiHl Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key Issues in WTO Dispute SeUlement: The First Ten Years.

Cambridge, GBR: Cambridge lkliversity Press, 2005. p 71.

N'ay not be reproduced in any form without permission from the pub!isher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(5)

J'

parly at lhe consultation stage ls only possible if consultations were requesled pur suant tu Article XXll of GAtT 1994, and is alwap subjed to the acœptanœ of the defemting party. If a defending party refuses the request of another Member to join in the consullations as u third party, such other Member mar al ways initiale its own dispute settlement procedure for the satne or <1 sîmilar m<ltter. Participatîtm of a ~-1ember on thinl pnrt)' during the consult;.\tîon proœ.o;s dues nol provide thal Member with an)' automillk right to portidpale as thini party in the

panel

pnH .. i.:'S~.

3 The panel proccss

(u)

P<111d

Y<'i{tl<st

Afler the period of consultations, if the Jnatter is not resolved, the complaining Member can request the DSil to establish a panel. Such request for the estuhlishmenl of a panel must be mnde in writing. U must atso indle<tle whether consultations were held, idenlifr the specifie measures ut îssue and provide J brief summary of the legal b;1sis of the complaint suflident to present the problern cleariF ln C<lst> the applicant requests the estnblishment of n pnnel wilh other !han stantlard terms of reference, the wriHen request will indu de the ptoposed text of special tenus of reference.

l'he tmmdale ofthe panel ~t forth in Ils 'terms of reference' i ~ to provi

de

a legBl ruling on the daims- of the complaining part)· contaîned in the panel requt-sL l'he panel reqnest is therefore crucial became

it

determines the 'malters' over whkh tilt' panel has jurisdidion to rule.

A 'n1Jller' is generallr delined to include both the measure al issue and the daim( s) or violation.

(î) The measures at issue

rhis obligation to îdentify the meamre -and the legal basis of the complaint has bet!'n interpreted to mean th at the compl11îning ~·1ember must specificall)' list ali the measures being challenged and the specifie \Vfü pro,·isions thal are ch1imed lobe \'Îolated

br

ench measuœ. \Vhether or not lhe '<jpecific meamres at isme) GHl be snid to he 1ufficiently idenli~

lied in the Panel requesl will depend on whether the respondent is g.i\'en proper opporlunitr to defend itselfinlight of the reference to the me a sure conœrned. 1"he respnndent must begi\~n adequate notice of the mensure al issue.

Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key _Issues ln WTO Dispute SeUlement: The First Ten Years.

Cambrtdge, GBR: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p 72.

Wray not be reproduced in any form without permission from the pub!isher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or

applicable copyright law. ·

(6)

CO!'I:SUt.l'.\riONS .\~D fltl~ 1°.\Nl~l. I'ROt.:J!SS 1~ fiH~ wnJ JJ

On sev~raJ occJsions panels ha\'e h;Hl lo make preliminary rulings on whelher a daim made br a complaîning pnrt)· in its written ;·md/or oral submissions was (properly) identîfied in the complainant's panel requeiL

(ii) Claims: legal basis

Under the liArt', Article XXIII:l(a) recognized the righi of anr OA'tT contrading party to complain nb out a 'viohttîon• of a provision of GALT br anuther contrading party.' Article XXIIt:l(b) and(<") al•o envisnged the possibilit )' th nt n conlracting part y's measure. a clion (or urguabl)' its failure to

act)

or another 'situation'

cou

Id still impair ornullifr the benefit s of nnother contracting partr ewn ifthere was no violation. The se are stilt the three hases for a complnint lllHier the \V 1"0 dispute k'ltfement sptem, Violation complaints Article 4.2 of tl!<! DSU which is based on the language of Art ide XXII: 1 of the GAl' l' t 994, provid"s thal :VIembers siHtll rd[ord adequate opportunilr for consultation regarding any repre- sentatîons m<H.k hy nnother Member conœrning 'measures affetiing the operation

of any

co\·ered agreernent'

taken withîn

the

lerritorr oftht> for-

mer. l'hus, a dnî111 th<tl a mem.ure is 'affecting' or restricling the trade of anolher Member contrary lo any provision of illl}' covered agreement suf- Hœs to trigger the DSU mechanism. Arlide 6.2 of the DSU also requirt:!s the complaining Member specifically to identifr the W1'0 pro\'isions al issu~. lhe violation of which affect thal Memher's lrade.

Non-violation complainls The purpme of the OAlT/IVro düpule seUlement srstem is to en sure respect of the righls ~md obligations of the !viemben relating: to their market acœss commiln1<ents and market competitive opportunities, induding tarîfi~ concessions and rdated di~<:i

pline.. ln !his cont•xt, Article XXIII: l(b) of th• GAtT allo\\"d a part)' to challenge any measur~ that. <1lt huugh nol în bre.1ch ofthe UArl· 1947, had theeffed ofundennîning the balnnŒ ofrights •tndobligations inherent in the UA1T ('non-\'Îolation nullifiGttion orimpnîrment•). Un der the GATT.

J Arlkk X>;lll:l of(:ATf: '[f,my contractingi\.utrshouklconsîdc-r th.lt .my beni." lit accruing to il dircc.tty M indir«ll~· undcr this Ag:o.'\.'ment h; hdng n.ullified N impolirc,t or th.tlthc

;tllo\ÎillllC'Ill üf Ull)" uh}ci.:li'~: of the Agn:~nmot i!i f~ing impetkd ;1!0 !hl" n::>~tlt of;

(,.\) the f.1ilun: of-.mot~r c,mtm.;;ting partr to curry out itsobtig.llions undc-r this Agl\-c·

ml"nt,or

(b) the .1pplin11ion br o11lothcr C<mlr;.uhngp.utp>f ;.til)' mc-as:un:. \rhcthcr or oot it contlkts

\dth the Jmwisionso( this Agrccmentf or (') the cxish~n(c of<mr olhcr !i-ilu.11ion.'

Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key Issues in WTO Dispute SeUlement: The Fîrst Ten Years.

~Y not be reproduced in any form without permission from the pubtisher, except fair uses permitted un der U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(7)

J.j O:i.\t!itlijl.LJ~ M.\Rt:l~.\U

there w~re l3rHm-viulation cases addresred br panels, but only four panel reports containing condusions on non-violation daims were evenlunllr adopted. Under the <-îA1T, the concept of non-violatlon nullification ur impaîrment W<ts mainlr used when an otherwise (iArr-cmuistent dumes-

tic

subsidy was provîded in an unexpected nunner in favour of dornestic goods for which tarîff conc.;ossimu had been negotiated. The complaining pi.lrty had to prove thal the

suhsidr

n~asure in question

\\t.ts

'unret1- son:Jhle' because n t:1rîff concession hod been negotîated on the relevant

produds and thal such subsidr 'nullHied or impaire<!' henerits accru-

ing to the competing importing prodttct because the \'alue of the tarîff conœssîon had been diminished,

Under Article 26 of the USU, non-\'îolation chlims have been further regulated. Article 26 of the DSU applies whèn the provisions of Arti- cle XXIII:l(b) of the GAlT 1994 are

applicable

lo a covered agreement.

ln other words. unless explicitl}' exduded. non-\·îolation claitns are possible fm

:.mr

measures under

anr

of the agreements of Annex lA of the W1'0 Agreem-ent ( cowring trade in goods). rhere are special provisions for non-\'iolation daims un der the TRIPS Agreement and the (jAl' S.

Situation complaints Artide XXIII:I(c) of the GAIT 1994 and Arli- de 26.2 of the DSU provide for so-called 'situation' complaints, which ha\·e never been înterpreted by either a GAtT panel or a WTO paneL Some ha\'e nrgued th<ll these situation complaints could be used for actions

br

the private 5èdor of a Member thal could not be itnputed directlr to the governm~nt; others believe that situation complainh could be uS"ed to :woîd the argument that the situation could not have been reas:onably expected. rhere are no situation complaînts under the liAI' S.

(b) Pn.~$!1HJt'd tYonomif 1111cl h>gill inft~rt>sf

wro

jurisprudence is dear thnt a complninant

dues-

not hm·e to demon-

!otrate i.lti}' specilk legal or economie interest in order to initiale \VTO dhpute seUlement proœedings. Ali \VTO Members ~tre presumed to haYe the nece"ssarr legal und economie interesh when any Member considers that il~ trade înterests have t>een adn~netr afiècted

br

another tvtember'.s meamre. Therefore, the allegations contained in the panel requests: sufliœ to trigger the W 1'0 dispute 'iettlement sptem, and such allegations

wiH

cmntitute the btuis of the panel's mandate mut tenns ofreferenœ.

Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key lssues in WTO Dispute SeUlement: The First Ten Years.

r-...tly not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(8)

(<') Establislllncntof pands

Wherc:> a dispute is not settled through consultations, the DSU requires the e>tahlishmenl of a panel, at the lat<st, at the lJSl! meeting following thal al which a request is initiallr made, unless the DSU deddes hy consens:us against est ahli1hment. rherefore,unless there is consensus nol toest ablish a panel thal hrts been reque.sted, re\'erse consensus

wîll

operat«! so thtll a panel will automaticall)' be established b)' no later than the <econd DSll meeling. J.t whïch the panel has been requested.

Article 9 of the lJSU encourages multiple complaints related to the s<m1e matter lo be examined br n 1îngle panel 'whenewr feasibte: The single panel should organize its exmninalion and present ils findings to the DSH in such a manner thatthe rights thal the parties to the dispute would have enjoretl had separate panels examined

the

compJaints, are in no way impaired, \Vith regard to multiple complainl'i, the provi.sions of the DSU are

n10re

detailed due in part to the extensive membership of the

wro.

(d) MIIJ·ula tc of p1wds - tenus of rJ!fert•nœ

Under the DSU, pnnels

unwllr

han~ st<md<trd tenns of referenœ, unless the parties 1 o the dispute l.lg.ree otherwise withîn 20 dap fr mn the date of e>l<lhlishment of the panel. l'he prnctice of the lJSU, so far, has been to refer. in the standard ternu of referenœ, to the document in whid1 the complaining part)'(ies) has(ve) requested the establishment of the panel, ;md lo lea\'e

it

to the panel to dedde on anr jurisdktionnl isme, the applicable law and whether adequate consultations have laken place bef ore the establishment of a panel.

Un der the DSU,the jurisdiction of panels is therefore determined with reference tu the daims of violation lisled by the complaining party in its panel request. m dîscussed abO\'e,

(<') Sekctio11 ofpaudisl>

(i)

Choo1ing pane list<

Once n panel has heen established~ the parties. with the J~si~li.Hlcê of the WTO Secretariat,

will

proœed to the selection of panelists. Panels nor-

maUr

consist of three persons of approprinte background and experience from countries not partr to the dispute. Citizens ofWro Members wh ose gO\~rnmenls o.1re parties or third parties to the dispute cannot,unless the

Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key Issues in WTO Dispute SeUlement: The First Ten Years.

fv\:ly not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(9)

JO

parties to the dispute agree otherwise, serve m: ptmelisls for thal dispute.

lhe proress is usuallr initiated

br

the WTO Secretariat, which .suggesls nmnes of possible panelists. 1'o en sure the selection of qualilied indiYiduals

;md to fadlîtate the selection of panelists, the .\:lembers have establi.sheû.

an 'indicative lïst' containing the names of potentiol governmental and non-go\'ellllllelllal paneli.sts recommènded

by

\Vl'O Mernbers, Ponelish do not haye to be selecte(.( from the indîcative list, but the list h<u been espechttly useful as a sourœ of expertise for tire new more speciallzed ngreements under the IV 1'0 (e.g. TIHI'S Agreement, OAI'S). Uoth parties ha\'e to agree on each of the three panelists. If parties do not agree on the three pnnelists, either part)' (but usunlly the complaining part)') can requesl the Direct or -Ueneral oftlse WrO to nominale su ch pi1nelists. rhe DÏrèctor-General will only nominale the numher ofpaneli\ts thnl have not alrt>ady be-en ngreed

by

the p~trties. ln pructiœ, the Director-tienernl has been called on lo select panelists, either in whole or in part, in just over half lbe disputes.

(ii) 1\ul .. of conduct

rhe NAFl'A Code of Conduct ser\'ed as the basis for the US proposai for a \VfO Code of Conduct for indhiduals involwd in \V1'0 dispute seUle- ment. The US proposai was submilted to the GAlT contractingparties on 9 No\'ember 1994, during the work of the Preparalory Comnllttee for the W1'ü. The DSU îtsdf also indu

des

provisions referring to the obligations of panelists, mch m maintalning the cunfidentialily of the proœedîngs and deliberations (in Articles 14.1, 17.10 and 18.2); and, the necessitr

for panels to make objective

aHe-Hn\ents whkh

presupposes son1e inde-

pendenœ and the impaniality of panelists (Article Il of the DSU, also

mentioned in Articles 8.2 and lL9). Howewr, the DSU

doe~

not contnin

nnr

di-sclos ure oblîg:t1tion ( conœrning conflîcts of înterest) nor

;lll)'

t:hal- lenge

proc~dure

to ;.lllow parties to contest o pnnelist who tnight ha\'t! a

connict of interest. Su ch un obligation now exists in the flSU 1\ules of Conduti.

l'he new DSU Ru les of Conducl'¹now co l'er lhreegroups: ( l) panelists (experts, arbilrators); (2) the Appellate Uodr members (and ils support

>hlifh mu! (3)

wro

Secretariat staff. Th ose cowred penons' are required to be independent and impartial, lo avoid direct or indir.ect conflict.s

"' WT/l>SH,IRC.

' 1\ wwrcd pc~m indmks: {~t) Altpel!.lt-t t"khi)· McmhcJs .md st.1ff: (h) p.mel mt:-mbtn;.

experts and arhilratnl'!>; and(<) WTO st.1ff ;t•N:'itingon p:mcls

Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key Issues in WTO Dispute Setllement: The First Ten Years.

N\:ly not be reproduced in any form without permission from the pub!isher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(10)

CO!-..!SUtL\riONS .\N"l) ffil~ 1'.\NHI. FH:t.H.:t~ss IN" 011~ \\'Hl J7

of interest. and to maint ain conlidentüditr. lh ensure respect for these obligations, each covered pers on mmt: ( l) resped the provisions of the DSU; (2) dîsdo~e anythîng lhat mar cause a part}' to question th at person's independenœ or impartialil}ï and (3) nvoid conllict ofinteresl.

Onœ paneli sts ha\'e been selected and the ten11s of refert>nœ have been determined, the panel is deen1ed •compo~d' and can proceed tn ils orga- nizational meeting.

(() Orgmtiza rion

al

ml.'f .. •ting

nud

timetable

\Vi

thin a we-ek of the panel's composition. the p and

willumnllr

tneet

\\.'Ïlh

the p;trlies todi scuss the organÎZ;.tlion ofit s work. After the se con suit alîons wîlh the parties, the p~mel willl1nalize its procedures and îts timetable on the btlSÎ s of the DSU ;.md H s Annexes, and the parties' comment s.

(g)

Pdud rrocc,lure tnuJ

tinwtable

Ua sic panel procedures and limet able are set out in the DSU

mut

in its annex 3, nlthough p;.mels are free to modify the se procedures as

ther

deem appropriate, nfter consultations with the parties.

(i) Confidentiality

Deliberations of the panel and. documents submitted toit are conridential, but nothîngin the DSU predudes apartrto a di~pule fron1 disclosing

stat~ments ofit.s own posilionsto the public Members must Ir~ at as conlidential information submîtted by another Member tu the panel which th at }.·fember has desïgnated us conridential. \Vhere a partr to a dispute sub- mits a confidentîal \'e.rsion ofits \\Titten lUbmlssions to the panel,

it

must also, uporfrequesl of 1.1 Member, provide a nun-contidential summary of the information conhiined in ils submissions that could be disdosed to

the public.

(ii) Rules of procedure

As noted above. the stnndtud rules of procedures are th ose tontained in the DSU regarding the dispute proœs~ together with thore contained in Appenllix 3 to the DSU. Un der the DSU,ettch panel must m1opt ils ru les of procedure but the DSU sets: out maximum, minimum and standnrd time- limits within which various legal 1teps mmt be performed. ?\·tost panels' rules of procedure now contain proYisions on preliminar}' rulîngs; on experts,

îf

rele.vant~ on notification~ and on J:ll}" other matter n:!le\'ant Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The first Ten Years.

May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(11)

0.\IIIHHLU: M.\HCl~.\U

to the specifie di~pute. ~-tort' rt;"œntly, some panels ha\'e annexed their working procedures-to their final report.

(iii) Use of expert<

rhe ide a or using

J'group

of experts' in panel proceedings WiU introduœd into the DSU negotîations in Nowmber 1993, apparent!)' in response lo concerns of U-S en\'ironrnentalist), The procedure ^WJ5borrowed from NA FIA. Article 13.2 and Appendix 4 of the DSU pro\'idethat each panel has the right to seek infonnation and tech ni cal ad\'iœ from ;.my individual or bod)' it deems appropriate. Article 13.1 provides thal panels also 'ma)' seek infonnation from any relevant sourœ and may consult experts lu obtain their opinion on certain aspects of

th€

^matter~certain agreements (Agreement on 1edmicul !laniers to B-ade ( J'lt1" Agr..,ment) and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitarr and Phrtosanilarr ~leasures (SPS Agreement)) encournge or even requin:· th at experts: be conmlted in dispute settlement proœedings.

ln practice, panels have not used the procedure for expert groups but rathl:!r ha\'e resorted to individualexperts. ln l:X.'-Hormol1f5the Appellate Bodr upheld the PanePs decision to request the opinion of experts on certain scientilïc and other tedmîcal matlen· raised

by

the parties to the dispute rather th-.m establish an expert review group. becmm:• 'the P:mel considered

it

more useful to le ave open the possihîlîtr of reœî\'ing a range of opinions from the experts întheir individual C<'padty:') So far, experts h;.tve been relied on primarily in the context of compl:1int-s relalîng to the SPS Agreement or ùn·olving an en\'inmmental protection defence under Article XX of the UAIT 1994, though at

lime'

ther have b""n called upon în other situations?

A panel may, in fad, need additional information in order to evaluate evidenœ alreadr bef ore îl in the course of determining\\·lu:other the daim- ing or the defending tv1ember, a~ the case

mar

be, has established a prima fade case or defence. HoWt>\'er, panels ca.nnot use their investigating puw- ers under Article 13 of the DSU to 'make the case for the complaining party•.H

lt is also on the basis of Article 13 of the IJSU !hat panels mar comider un~olidled

nmic:us curiae

briefs reœived fmm non-parlies to a dispute.

~ Appcll.l!e Body Report on f:C-IIt31111•Wts, p.u.\, 140.

; Experts \fere .tiso uscd ftn inst,m.:c in the P.tncbi on US- -Shrimp; /ay,w-..tgriwlHlltlf Ptltlllta$11; ,.\mtmlil1-Sal11wu; .md h1pat1-film.

!! StY Appdl.\tc Bmiy I<cporl on l«pdn-,\grimlwruf Protium il, par.t. 129.

Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key Issues in WTO Dispute SeWement: The First Ten Years.

May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(12)

(iv) Rights of third parties

Under the DSU. tvtember-s thal have a ·-subsl~:mtial interesl' in a matter lkfore a panel am.llh<ll ha\'e notiried the ir interestlo the DSH c.m becon1e thint partiei. ln pr;.tctiœ a srstemicinterest suffi ces to constitule a

ntlnhm-

tînl înterest. rhereforey contrarr to the sîtut~tion at

the

consultation stnge, thini parties at the panel st;:tge do not need t o have a .specifie trade.interest in the dispute or the consent orthe respondent in order to partidpate ma lhird p<lrtr. Thir<.l parties reœi\'e the lirst submissions of the parties;Œn make written submissions and are gî\'en an upportunit)' t o pnrticipate in the flrst meelïng of the panel-Uu~re is muatly a special session for

thini

parties during the lirst mee tint< of the panel with the parties, where they c;mmake owl submissions to the panel. Although third parties generallr are not ginm the right to attend the second panel meèting, some panels

han~ provided enh:mœd third part)' rîghts in special circtmutanœs.

Onl)' those Members that have been thini parties during the panel proœss can be come thini parties bef ore the Appellate Uodr. Thini parties that have notitied the Ll~ll of their substantial interest in the matter, and thal compl)' with the rule. of procedure ofthe Appellate llo

dy,

can be come thini parties in a dispute bef ore the Appellate 1\ody.

(JI) Exdwugc t~f tl-u• writtw1 s11bmis.siom

lie fore the fir.st substanliv~ meeting orthe panel with the parties, the panel receiws written submissions from the parties in whkh they present the facts of the ca~e and their arguments, Parties will exd1ange their first set ofwritten submissions in a sequential manner according to the limet able detennined at the organization;.ll meeting. Afler the first panel 111~ting, parties will then exch~mge s:imult;.meous rebultals (second wriUen subrnis- sions), Unle~s otherwise indicated, written mbmissions are contidenti<\l but any r ... temher mar requei-l a non-confidential mmm<lf)' of a party's

\Vrîtten mbmî:ssion to a panel.

(i) Hcarings before tl~e panel

{i) Oro1l presentations by the p<trties (<md thini parties) At the fîrsl substanti\'e panel meeting, the complaînîng partr will present its evidenœ omd legal arguments orallr lt will umally mbn1il a written cop)' ofits ont! staten1ent which often contains the cumplaining partr's flrst response to the tirst mbmission ofthe defending part)'. Subsequentl)', Yerxa, Rufus (Edit0r); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key Issues ln WfO Dispute SetUement: The First Ten Years.

~Y not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, exc_ept fair uses permitted under U.S, or applicable copyright law.

(13)

0.\tiRilll.L.l: M.\ltCH.\U

and stîll at the smne nlt'eting,the de(ending partr will present îts views.

Ail thini parties in the dispute will also be itwited to present theîr views at the first substantive meeting of the panel during a session set aside for thal purpose.

Afler responding lo the pand's questions al the tirst meeting and tllîng the ir written rebuttnh (second written suhmissîons), the parties will meet with the panel for a <Second tîme. Al the second nlt'eting (which unutll}' lakes place four to six weeks afler the lint meeting),the defending party willusually lake the noor fir.st, followed

h)'

the complaining

l""' J'·

(ii)

Questions

by

the panel and the parties

rraditionally,panels ask bothf.tctual and legal <JUeslions oftheparties and thini parties, P:.ulies ;m:• invîted to respond orallr and ar~ aJso

giwn

lime to respond in writing in the dap: following the panel meeting. lndeed, between the fin( ;.md the second meeting, parties will usuallr ha\·e to answer numerous questions posed by the panel ilS weil ilS submî tting their wrilten rebultals. As alreatlpnentioned abow, Article 13 of the tJSU '~so aJiows a p•mel to seek inform;.ttion mid opinions from individu al experts or to estabJish an expert reviewgroup, as il t.kems appropriate in a parhcular case. Uut in ali cas-es p;.u.1els must respect due proœss and c~1nnot set a~ide the rules on alloe<ltion of the burden ofproof.

(iii)

llurden

of

proof

Neither the DSU nor the \Vorking Prooedures for pands contained în Appendix 3 of the DSU make referenœ to the burden ofproof on parties to a dhputeY H.eferring to the generai pradiœ of international tribunah, the Appellate ~odr addressetl the issue nt length in US- Hl>ol Shirts 111ul

1Holl5t"'S10

, where it stated:¹¹

'!lit is o1 gencmtlr-.1'œpted ( i l liOn of evidence in civil kw;, Ctlmmun law :md. in facl, mn!>i juriStlktkms, 1h.1t the hurden nf proof rcsts upon the part)'. whcther wmpl.lîning or ddentling. who <t~"l:rts th~ aflïrmathc of a p<uticular cbim or dcfcncc, If th.ll panr a.;ktuœs c.•vidt'th:c suflicknt tu r.Jto;e a pr<-sumplion th;1l \l·h.ll is d.Üilll'i.l is tru!!', the bmxkn thcn shirts to the othcr pnrtr. who will fnilunkss il <1(khu:('Ssuflidcnt evidence lo rebut the pre!>1.11nption ... .'

' St't' f. P.luwd}n, J. '1!\-idcnc<-, Pmof and l"crsua~~m in \VfO Dispute Scl!l:menl: \Vho Ht>Jt'S tk Bun.lent: fourmi oflllh'rll•llioiMi •111•1/;'ttmomid.lm~ \~1!. 1 (19<)8), p.l17"

i'l hppdbtl" 1!<-Jd)' neport ntl US-m.wl Shirts llwiiHttUS.'$. Jlp. 11-10, DSn 1":'$7:1, JH. ~tt JJJ-JJH.

11 Ibid, p. 14. 'ri\\' Appclbtc Body l«-port otl VS- COils.o/iue h<kl ~treJd}· C'StJbl!Shcd 1h.1t the bmden df demonstmting thnt ;.\ me;.\'i\11"\" fillls un.Jer one of the Justilicd exception-s t1) hrtidc XX ison the o:ountrr im-nkinr:; the cx~.:cption, p. 16, IJSR 19'){}:~, J, >lt 16.

rv'ay not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(14)

lt is important to r~memb~r that the significant ÎnYestigative authorily given to pam:!ls under Artîde 13 of the DSU cannot be used by a panel to rule in favour of a complainingparty thal has notestablished a prima fa cie case of\\~1'0-inconsistencr based on specifie legal daims asserted b)' iL ¹¹ A panel isentitled to seek information and adviœ from experts and from

<lll}' other relevant source

it

chuoses, pursuant to Article 13 of Hie DSU

;.md, in ;.m Sf'S cas:e, Article 11.2 of the Sl'S Agreement. but only to help il to untlerstand and e\'aluate the evîdenœ submilted

mul

the arguments made by the parHes ouu~ not to make the- ctue for n comph1ining part)'.

(i\') Legal interpretation br the panel

Art ide 3.2 of! he DSU mandates the use br panels and the Appellate Hody of cus.tomary princip les ofinterpretalion of publicint~rnationallnw in the determination of the

wro

rîghts and obligations of partie-s to a dispute, Panels and the Appellnte llo dr must also respect customarr ru les of inter- nationalfm~y· when interpreting WTO pro\'isions. ln its first report, the Appellale llod)' slated: '(Thel GAIT is not tu be rend in dinical isolation from public internationallaw.'¹³ln n subsequent earl

y

case,the Appellate llo

dr

al-s:o .stated thal œrtnin general principles of international law sw:h as good faîth. due proœss, rUles on the hurden of proof and the right to adequate representation bef ore WTO panels and the Appel! ale Hod)', to whid1no explicit referenœ is made in the DSU or the WTO Agr~ment, are applicable lo LJSU disputes antl are to be taken into account when interpreting

wro

provisions. 1-1

(v) Standard of r•vi•w

ln US -Underwcar,the Appellate Ho dr aftinned the l'anel's delerminalion th at the ~tan dard ofreviewto beusedin DSU proceedings is thal described in Article ll of the DSU: a panel îs to make 'an objectire as.sessrnent of the matter bef on~ it, induding an obje~.1Î\'e ass~sm1t>nt of the f.act.~ of the

Cille and the applicnbilit)' of and conformit)· with the rdel'anl covered

agreements: ts The Anti-Dumping Agreement con tains

a

distinct though nol entirelr different stanth1nl ofreview in Article 17.6, but for nil other cases the standard of review in Art id~ Il of the DSU is to- be applied,

11 Appdl.lte Bodr lkpon on /UlM tafia-Snfm1>JJ, parJ.. 119.

" Appdl.lk' Bodr lk-port on US- G11sotuu;l'· 10. J)SI~ 19)0:1, J, ~H t6.

1~ .~t"t' P.md It:pmt on Koto."\T- l'n,mulllt'UI: 'Custom.uy intcrnationJI l.1w applic!>gtnemtly to tl);! economie rcbtions (1etwccn wro ~tcml1etS. SU<h intcrnalimtJIIilw 11pplîcs to the extcntlhat the \\rJo lreolt)" Jgrcc-menl<>do nüt "contmct out" from il.' pam. 7.96.

l) l'Jnd l«'pmt on US- Umlt'!Wù1f, pJr.l, S.YJ,

M3.y not be reproduced ln any form wilhout permission from the pubUsher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(15)

(vi) P..uticipottion of private lawrers

ln general. a Member tlut is partr to a dispute is free to determine the composition of its delegation in panel ;.md Appellate Uodr proœedings.

This indudes the de<..ision tu ènli\.t the services ofprivate counsel. The ques:tîon of the propriet

r

uf participation

br

private co tm sel rirst arose in J:C -llmumas Ill, where the Appellale llo dy stated:"'

'Wc-can find nothing in the Marmksh Agreement F.st.tbiL'ihiog the \'\brkl Tmde Olti;miï'.-ttion (the '\VTO Agr<erncnt'), the l)SU or thl! \\hrking Pm~

ü•durcs, nor in customarr întcrn.ltionall.tw or lhc pn!\otiling pmcticc of intcrnalimul tribun;ds. which prel'cntsn \v·ro ~lcm~r from detcrmining thi: compnsitionofHsddc:g;ttinn in Appdlatc Bodr pmcccdiug.. .... ,,, h"c ruk th.tt it is for il Wro Membcr to deCide who shoukl repn."'SC'nt ilm>ml·mbers ofitsdek'&ltîon in an or.d hc.1ring of the ApJ'CII .. ne lX>dr:

rhis ruling, which applied to Appellute llo<l)'proœedings, wasextended to panel pruœedings. in lndoncsia -AIIIos. WTO ~·lembers are now regu~

larlr represented br private counsel at ail stages ofthe panel and Appellate Uod)' proceedings.

(j) ls:Htatlœ tlf tht.? de-seri

pti

^n•part 1~( tl1c pau el rt,port

Usualtr within four weeks after Hs second meèting, th~ pnnel \\'ill issue the drJft descriptive part ofïts report. to \\'hich pttrties are in\'Îted to make comments within two weeks. The panel

will

then take inlo account the suggestions br the parties and modifr ils descriptîw part accordingly.

(k) [:;suanff.>

of

the ptwcl's interim YI! port

Subsequent

Ir.

the panel .will issue an interim panel report, înduding the re\·ised descriptive p::ut and the interim findîngs and conclusions of the panel on the legal issues. Again the panel will in\'ite the partie5-' comnl€nls on thi5- interim report. Parties are also enlitled to reques"l another me€ ting with the paneL A practice has developed wherebr the partie!> forego their right to a revit-\\' hearing wilh the panel. in exchange- for the opportunitr to mbmit a ,econd set of comments on the \\'ritten comments pro\'ided br the other partr in the interim p<mel report.

Subsèquentlr, the lïnal report of the panel

will

be issued to the parties befort::' it is transhtted into the two other ofliciallanguages of the \V

ro

(usnall)" Spanish and French sinœ lite working language of alntost erer}·

panel is F.nglish) and then circulated to ali Members.

" AptH:·IIate Oodr lkport on [;(.'-BanMin5III, par.1. 11.

Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key Issues in WTO Dispute Seltlement: The First Ten Years.

CambOdge, GBR: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p 82.

M3.y not be reproduced ln any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permiUed under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(16)

CO~~ULL\f!O!-JS .\NV rttl:' Jq_Nl~L I•ROC.:t:!.SS IN l'Ill: Wro 4J

(1) Conclusions of ¹¹pa ^tlel n.~port

(i) Standard conclusion and reconun<ndation of panels Panel and Appel! ale tl odr reports will identify specifie WTO violations where they are found to exist but lean:• lo sowreign \VTO J..·tembers the tlexibilil)', during a reasonable period of time, to rectifr the WTO- violative governmental meamre(s) in a \VTO-compatible manner.

tt

has been argued thal Article 19 orthe DSU limits the scope ofrem;,dies a\' ail- able to <1 p~mel once it con eludes thal a challenged measure is incoruislent with the \Vl'O Agreement. Article 19.1 reads as follows:

'\Vhen· a pomcl or the Appellatc lkxlr co ne ludes th.1ta mc-.1sure is innlnsis- tcnl wilh a mn'I"\.'J tlg:ramcnt, il shaH reconuncmlthat the Mcmber mn-

<:crncd bring the mc .. ~mc intoconformÎl}' wilh thal•lgrccmcnl.ln uddilion toits n:'(.;._lffiltlCI1(blions,. tlw r;lnel or Appcllt!c liod}' mny ~uggt'!>1 ways in wbich the Mcntbcrcon~('Œl-dcould implemen! the recommc-nclllion.'i.' ln pradîœ, panel and AppeHate Uodr reports mu aH y con tain one general reconunendation. which usuaUy reads: ' ... recommends thal the DSH requesl mch Member lo bring ïts measure(s) înto conformity \\'îth the covered Agreements mentioned abO\-e'.

(iî) Suggestion< br the

panel

ln addition to ils rè'commendations, the DSU panel or Appellnte Liod}' may suggest \\'il)'S in whh:h the Member concerned could implement the recommendations. Uut thes:e mggestions are onl}' mggested wars in \vhich a Member 'could' decide to implemenL lt is, however, possible for parties lo a Wfü dispute to agn:e on any form of compemoHion to resoh·e the matter,

(iii)

Non-violation daims

Un der Article 26.1 (b) of the lJSU,lhe standard remedy for non-violation daims is compensation (usuallr. br provîdîng increased market acœss br redudng tnriffs for other prodticH) sinœ panels cannot recommend thnt the losîng party withdraw the measure in quesli on or briny the contested law înto conformilr with the \·V'J'O as the me a sure or 1<1W îs already \V1"0 cmnpatible.

(îv) )udicîal economr

Ewn though a complaining pmty is required to li-st aH o( the daims it wishes to hawextmlined in îts request for thèestablishment of a p<mel. the panel is under no obligütion to examine o1nd reach a flnding on each and Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key Issues ln Wfû Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years.

tlay not be reproduced in any form without permission from the pub!isher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(17)

44

ewrr listed daim. l{ather,it marexerclse judicial economr

br

dedining to rule on sucœssiw daims after it has fuund

wro

violations in response to one or more claïms. The App~llate Hody in ilustmlia-Salmon~

stateJY'

'lü prm-idc only a p~uti .. Jl resolution of the mailer at l$tlc \1ould k f.1k judidal cconom~·· A p.-mel h."l'i to .-«.ktn:l->.'l tho~ cbims on whkh ^rtlïnd- ing i'i nt.-ccs...""ur in \mler tu cnabk the IJSU to nhtkc sufficicntly pn.-ci.-.c rewmmc-ndations omd ruling.s so as (l) nllnw ll.)r prompt complinnce br a Memhcr with tho~ n:commenlblions ;.ttu.l rulings "in on:kr tn ensor..!

effecthc n:-solulion nf dis}l\ltcs to the bcndit of ali Mcmhcrs':'

However, a _panel's decision to exerdse judidal economy and nol to addreB œrtain daims mar remit in the Appellate Uody dc:ociding, nfter o\'erturnîng sorne of the panel

's.

legal findings, to adjudicate on daims that were not addressed in the panel report br a techni(lUt:' known as

\:ompleting the anal}· sis:

(m) Dllra timr

tll

^till~pa nd proCt•ss

1t is enYisaged thal a panel should nonnally complete ih \\'ork vdthîn six toni ne months or, in cases of urgency, within three months. IK lf a panel cannol complete Hs work within nïne months from it-s establishment, il must notifr the DSU accordingly. tvlo1t panels mually L.1ke around ni ne months from the d11te of their compmition to complete theîr work.

(11) Ad,>priotJ of the f>and report

Afler the rinal panel report is issued Ill the parties, it will be trandated inlo the lluee uf!iciallanguages of the Wl'O (ënglish, Spanish and hench) before il is drculaled to ali Members. Article 16 of the DSU provides that the paneJ report, if not appealed wilhin 00 dars following ils circul:.l- tion tu \VTO Members, must be adopted unlèss À·lembers,

by

consensus, decide not to do so. Howt!ver, a pan~!' report cannot be considert!d for adoption during the firsl 20

dap afier

its tirculation lo W'I'O l\·tembers.

Members h;.wîng objections to a panel report mus.t give written reasons for their objeliions at least ten days prior to the l)SH meeting at which the punel report wili be considered.

rhe virtuaHr

automalic adoption of DSV panel reports is considered a dramatic çhange (rom GA1T practi<.."'\:'. Tœ

11 Appdhk llu~l) He port on ,\USIMii11-SalJUtl/1, p.lf'J. 22J.

11 Arlicks l2.H :tnd 10of the IJ~U.

Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key Issues in WTO Dispute SetUement: The First Ten Years.

May not be reproduced in any form wîthout permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

(18)

l.:OS:>Ut..r.\l"lü~S .\r\D fJ!t~ 1'.\.N.HL l'ltOCI~SS Ir\ t"IJl~ \\"H) 45

}.·tembers' decîsion to make adoption ùrtuall)' nulomatic was bahmcetl br the c..Teation of an <tppellate proc..~ss lo en sure thal c<.mte.sted or con~

lroren:iallegal findîngs in pnnel reports cou Id be reviewed and possiblr reversed or modilied, be fore they were given legal effect.

(tl) Det·clopingfolll!trics

The DSU contains a number of pro\'iSÎOIH which htke into account the spedfkinterests of dereloping and lemt-dewloped countrîes. Il) One su dt pro\'ision is Article 27, whid1 Jllows dewloping countries to reqttesl the Se1..Tetariat lo provide them with the ~niees oflegal experts. l'his provision hus been used with grm,ing frequencr by de\'eloping cotmtries

\o.,'hich nre now ncti\'t'l}' itwolwd in most Wl'O panels,either as parties or.

thini parties. rheir participation in the \V l'() dispute setllement sptem is remarkable when compared wilh the old UAIT, where disputes usually involved only developed countries.

(p) Alterna

tiw

tlisputV resolu

rio11

Art ide 5 oflhe DSU prol'ides th at thegood oniœs of the Direct or-General of the

wro,

condHntion or mediation may be requested at

anr

tim~

br

any party to a dispute. lftheparties ton dispute agree,proœdures forgood ofliœs, condliation or mediation UHl}' continue while the panel proœss proœêds. l;or this re~uon, there is an exptidt pro\'isiun thal requires the conlidentialït y of an)' particular position laken br the parties during the se good ufriœs, conliliation or medi<llÎon.

ln addition, Article 25 of the DSU provides for arbitratîon ns an ;.tlter- nc.ttive me ans of dispute resolution.¹⁰such arbil ration procedure must be mutually agreed betwet:>n the parties <.md notilied to the DSU; it is not subjed to appealto the Appellate U;>dr but remains subject to the prol'i- sions on implementation and suspension of conçessions and obligations (Articles 2t and 22

orthe

DSU ).

1! 1\rtkk 27 muJ \\Uiotl'>lli'OÜ<iiOI'l ... 'i thmtJghout the I)SU

~ ThL~ type of .trbitmliün is to be distin~11ished (mm the .uhi!mtion !lut m.t.r lake place ifi the (ontcxt of the sundll.mù.\ implcmcnl•\tkln .md ret.'! li,\ lion proce§ un~kr the llSU.

Yerxa, Rufus (Editor); Wilson, Bruce (Editor). Key·lssues in WTO Dispute SetUement: The First Ten Years.

~y not be reproduced in any form without permission from the pub!isher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.