DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS 2008 VOLUME 14PDF|Epub|txt|kindle电子书版本网盘下载

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS 2008 VOLUME 14PDF格式电子书版下载

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION5387

Ⅱ. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS5403

A. Claims of the European Communities - Appellant5403

1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing5403

2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU5405

3. Article 22.8 of the DSU5408

4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference5411

5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation5413

6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts5414

7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement5416

8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement5422

B. Arguments of the United States - Appellee5429

1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing5429

2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU5431

3. Article 22.8 of the DSU5433

4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference5435

5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation5436

6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts5437

7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement5438

8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement5443

C. Arguments of Canada - Appellee5446

1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing5446

2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU5448

3. Article 22.8 of the DSU5450

4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference5451

5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation5452

6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts5453

7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement5454

8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement5460

D. Claims of the United States - Other Appellant5463

1. Alleged Discrepancies in the Panel’s Description of the Measure at Issue5463

2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU5464

3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU5467

4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion5468

5. Conclusion5469

E. Claims of Canada - Other Appellant5469

1. The Panel’s Examination of Articles 23.1 and 23.2（a） “In Isolation” from Article 22.8 of the DSU5470

2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU5472

3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU5473

4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion5473

5. Conclusion5474

F. Arguments of the European Communities - Appellee5475

1. The ”Harmonious” Interpretation of Articles 21， 22， and 23 of the DSU in the Post-Suspension Stage of a Dispute5475

2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU5478

3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU5479

4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion5481

G. Arguments of the Third Participants5481

1. Australia5481

2. Brazil5487

3. China5490

4. India5491

5. Mexico5491

6. New Zealand5491

7. Norway5495

8. Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan， Penghu， Kinmen and Matsu5498

Ⅲ.ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL5498

Ⅳ. THE APPLICATION OF THE DSU IN THE POST- SUSPENSION STAGE OF A DISPUTE5501

A. Introduction5501

B. The Panel’s Findings5503

1. Scope of the European Communities’ Claims5503

2. The European Communities’ Claim that the United States and Canada Breached Article 23.2（a） of the DSU Read Together with Articles 23.1 and 21.55505

3. The European Communities’ Claim that the United States and Canada Breached Article 23.1 of the DSU Read Together with Articles 22.8 and 3.75507

4. The Panel’s Jurisdiction5511

5. Burden of Proof5511

6. The Panel’s Suggestion5513

C. Claims and Arguments on Appeal5513

1. Appeal by the European Communities5513

2. Other Appeals by the United States and Canada5516

3. Arguments of the Third Participants5518

D. Cessation of the Suspension of Concessions - Article 22.8 of the DSU5520

1. Preliminary Comments5520

2. When Must a WTO Member Cease to Suspend Concessions Pursuant to Article 22.8 of the DSU？5521

3. The Panel’s Analysis Concerning Article 22.8 of the DSU5526

4. Did the Panel Exceed Its Mandate by Addressing the Conformity of Directive 2003/74/EC with the SPS Agreement？5530

E. Procedural Avenues for Resolving Disagreements as to Whether the Inconsistent Measure Has Been Removed under Article 22.8 of the DSU5536

1. What Is the Appropriate Procedural Avenue to Resolve a Disagreement as to Whether the Inconsistent Measure Has Been Removed？5536

2. Is the European Communities Precluded from Initiating Article 21.5 Panel Proceedings Regarding Whether Directive 2003/74/EC Has Brought It into Compliance？5541

F. Analysis of the Panel’s Findings of ”Procedural Violations”5548

1. The Prohibition on Certain Unilateral Actions - Article 23 of the DSU5549

2. The Panel’s Alleged Examination of Articles 23.2（a） and 23.1 in Isolation from the Requirements in Article 22.8 of the DSU5552

3. Whether the Panel Erred in Finding that the United States and Canada Are “Seeking the Redress of a Violation” with Respect to Directive 2003/74/EC5555

4. Whether the Panel Erred in Finding that the United States and Canada Made a Determination of Violation Without Recourse to the DSU， Within the Meaning of Article 23.2（a）5559

5. Conclusion5564

G. The Panel’s Finding that It Had No Jurisdiction to Make Findings under the SPS Agreement5565

H. The Panel’s Suggestion5566

Ⅴ. DUE PROCESS IN THE PANEL’S CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS5567

A. The Panel’s Findings5567

B. Claims and Arguments on Appeal5573

C. Did the Panel Infringe the European Communities’ Due Process Rights and Fail to Make an Objective Assessment of the Matter in the Consultations with the Scientific Experts5576

Ⅵ. THE CONSISTENCY WITH ARTICLE 5.1 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES’ IMPORT BAN ON MEAT FROM CATTLE TREATED WITH OESTRADIOL-17B FOR GROWTH-PROMOTION PURPOSES5601

A. Introduction5601

B. The European Communities’ Risk Assessment for Meat from Cattle Treated with Oestradiol-17β5601

C. The Panel’s Findings5606

D. Claims and Arguments on Appeal5614

E. The Panel’s Assessment of Directive 2003/74/EC under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement5619

1. General Disciplines Applicable to the Adoption of an SPS Measure5619

2. The Panel’s Interpretation and Application of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement5625

3. The Panel’s Specificity Requirement5635

4. Quantification of Risk5639

5. Burden of Proof5643

6. The Panel’s Articulation and Application of the Standard of Review under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement5648

F. Conclusion5661

Ⅶ.THE CONSISTENCY WITH ARTICLE 5.7 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES’ PROVISIONAL IMPORT BAN ON MEAT FROM CATTLE TREATED WITH TESTOSTERONE， PROGESTERONE， TRENBOLONE ACETATE， ZERANOL， AND MGA FOR GROWTH-PROMOTION PURPOSES5662

A. Introduction5662

B. The European Communities’ Evaluation of the Five Hormones Subject to the Provisional Ban5663

C. The Panel’s Findings5665

D. Claims and Arguments on Appeal5682

E. The Panel’s Finding that the Relevant Scientific Evidence in Relation to the Five Hormones Was Not “Insufficient” Within the Meaning of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement5689

1. Insufficiency and the Acceptable Level of Protection5693

2. Relevance of International Standards under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement5696

3. The Panel’s “Critical Mass” Standard for Determining “Insufficiency” under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement5700

4. The Panel’s Allocation of the Burden of Proof under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement5706

5. The Panel’s Application of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement5709

F. Conclusions5714

Ⅷ.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS5716