eofadisputeundertheADAgreement,therequestforestablishmentmustidentifyadefinitiveanti-dumpingduty,theacceptanceofapriceundertakingoraprovisionalmeasureasaspecificmeasureatissue,wentontoaddressthequestionoftheclaimsthatmightbeincludedinadisputeundertheADAgreement.
　　‘Thisrequirementtoidentifyaspecificanti-dumpingmeasureatissueinapanelrequestinnowaylimitsthenatureoftheclaimsthatmaybebroughtconcerningallegednullificationorimpairmentofbenefitsortheimpedingoftheachievementofanyobjectiveinadisputeundertheADAgreement.Aswehaveobservedearlier,thereisadifferencebetweenthespecificmeasuresatissue--inthecaseoftheAnti-DumpingAgreement,oneofthethreetypesofanti-dumpingmeasuredescribedinArticle17.4--andtheclaimsorthelegalbasisofthecomplaintreferredtotheDSBrelatingtothosespecificmeasures.’
　　TheAppellateBodyReportinGuatemala-Cementindicatesthatacomplainantmay,havingidentifiedaspecificanti-dumpingdutyinitsrequestforestablishment,bringanyclaimsundertheADAgreementrelatingtothatspecificmeasure.Thatthereshouldbearelationshipbetweenthemeasurechallengedinadisputeandtheclaimsassertedinthatdisputewouldappearnecessary,giventhatArticle19.1oftheDSUrequiresthat,‘whereapanelortheAppellateBodyconcludesthatameasureisinconsistentwithacoveredagreement,itshallrecommendthattheMemberconcernedbringthemeasureintoconformitywiththeagreement’…”
　　(ii)Art.6.2oftheDSUandArt.17.5(i)oftheADAgreement
　　MexicoalsocontendsthattheUnitedStates’requestforestablishmentisinsufficientunderArt.17.5(i)oftheADAgreementbecauseitdoesnotindicatehowMexico’sfinalanti-dumpingmeasurenullifiesorimpairsbenefitsaccruingtotheUnitedStatesundertheADAgreement,anddoesnotindicatehowtheachievingoftheobjectivesoftheADAgreementwasbeingimpededbythatmeasure.Inconsideringthisissue,thePanelruleinpertinentas:2
　　“[W]enoteArticle17.5(i)oftheADAgreement,whichprovides:‘TheDSBshall,attherequestofthecomplainingparty,establishapaneltoexaminethematterbasedupon:(i)AwrittenstatementoftheMembermakingtherequestindicatinghowabenefitaccruingtoit,directlyorindirectly,underthisAgreement,hasbeennullifiedorimpaired,orthattheachievingoftheobjectivesoftheAgreementisbeingimpeded.’
　　TheUnitedStates’requestforestablishmentdoesnotusethewords‘nullifiedorimpaired’,northewords‘theachievingoftheobjectivesoftheAgreementisbeingimpeded’.However,itdoesallegespecificviolationsofitsrightsandMexico’sobligationsundertheADAgreement,whichisa‘coveredagreement’undertheDSU.
　　TheAppellateBodyhasruledthattheprovisionsoftheDSUmustbereadtogetherwiththeprovisionsofspecialoradditionalrulesfordisputesettlementincoveredagreements,suchasthosesetforthinArticle17.5oftheADAgreement,unlessthereisadifferencebetweenthem.TheAppellateBodyhasfurtherruled,inGuatemala-Cement,that:‘thereisnoinconsistencybetweenArticle17.5oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementandtheprovisionsofArticle6.2oftheDSU.Onthecontrary,theyarecomplementaryandshouldbeappliedtogether.ApanelrequestmadeconcerningadisputebroughtundertheAnti-DumpingAgreementmustthereforecomplywiththerelevantdisputesettlementprovisionsofboththatAgreementandtheDSU.’
　　WehavealreadyconcludedthattheUnitedStates’requestforestablishmentsatisfiestherequirementsofArticle6.2oftheDSU.Thequestionswemustnowresolveare,first,what(ifanything)isrequiredbyArticle17.5(i)oftheADAgreementinadditiontowhatisrequiredunderArticle6.2oftheDSU,andsecond,assumingthereareadditionalrequirementsunderArticle17.5(i),whethertheUnitedStates’requestforestablishmentsatisfiesthosefurtherrequirements.
　　Inourview,Article17.5(i)doesnotrequireacomplainingMembertousethewords‘nullify’or‘impair’inarequestforestablishment.However,itmustbeclearfromtherequestthatanallegationofnullificationorimpairmentisbeingmade,andtherequestmustexplicitlyindicatehowbenefitsaccruingtothecomplainingMemberarebeingnullifiedorimpaired.
　　[…]
　　IninterpretingtherequirementsofArticle17.5(i),wenoteArticle3.8oftheDSU,whichservesascontextforourunderstandingofArticle17.5(i).Article3.8provides:‘Incaseswherethereisaninfringementoftheobligationsassumedunderacoveredagreement,theactionisconsideredprimafacietoconstituteacaseofnullificationorimpairment.ThismeansthatthereisnormallyapresumptionthatabreachoftheruleshasanadverseimpactontheotherMemberspartiestothatcoveredagreement.’
　　AtleastoneGATTPanelhasdescribedthepresumptionofnullificationorimpairmentarisingfromaviolationofGATTprovisions‘inpracticeasanirrefutablepresumption’.Inourview,arequestforestablishmentthatallegesviolationsoftheADAgreementwhich,ifdemonstrated,willconstituteaprimafaciecaseofnullificationorimpairmentunderArticle3.8oftheDSU,containsasufficientallegationofnullificationorimpairmentforpurposesofArticle17.5(i).Inaddition,asnotedabove,therequestmustindicatehowbenefitsaccruingtothecomplainingMemberarebeingnullifiedorimpaired.”
　　(iii)ASummaryGuiding
　　Generally,theprovisionsoftheDSUmustbereadtogetherwiththeprovisionsofspecialoradditionalrulesfordisputesettlementincoveredagreementsunlessthereisadifferencebetweenthem.AstorelationshipbetweenArt.6.2oftheDSUandArt.17.4oftheADAgreement,ithasbeenruledbytheAppellateBodythattheyarecomplementaryandshouldbeappliedtogetherindisputesundertheADAgreement.Art.17.4doesnotsetoutanyfurtheroradditionalrequirementswithrespecttothedegreeofspecificitywithwhichclaimsmustbesetforthinarequestforestablishmentchallengingafinalanti-dumpingmeasure.ArequestthatsatisfiestherequirementsofArt.6.2oftheDSUinthisregardalsosatisfiestherequirementsofArt.17.4oftheADAgreement.
　　Theword“matter”hasbeenstatedtohavethesamemeaninginArt.17oftheADAgreementasithasinArt.7oftheDSU.Itconsistsoftwoelement:Thespecific“measure”andthe“claims”relatingtoit,bothofwhichmustbeproperlyidentifiedinapanelrequestasrequiredbyArt.6.2oftheDSU.However,pursuanttotheprovisionsofArt.17.4oftheADAgreementandArt.6.2oftheDSU,indisputesundertheADAgreementrelatingtotheinitiationandconductofanti-dumpinginvestigations,adefinitiveanti-dumpingduty,theacceptanceofapriceundertakingoraprovisionalmeasuremustbeidentifiedaspartofthematterreferredtotheDSB.
　　Nevertheless,thisrequirementto

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]  下一页