identifyaspecificanti-dumpingmeasureatissueinapanelrequestinnowaylimitsthenatureoftheclaimsthatmaybebroughtundertheADAgreement.ThereisadifferencebetweenthespecificmeasuresatissueandtheclaimsorthelegalbasisofthecomplaintreferredtotheDSBrelatingtothosespecificmeasures.TheonlyrequirementspecialinArt.17.4oftheADAgreement,incontrastwiththatinArt.6.2oftheDSU,seemstobethatthereshouldbearelationshipbetweenthemeasurechallengedinadispute--inthecaseoftheADAgreement,oneofthethreetypesofanti-dumpingmeasuredescribedinArt.17.4--andtheclaimsassertedinthatdispute.Inanyevent,acomplainantmay,havingidentifiedaspecificanti-dumpingdutyinitsrequestforestablishment,bringanyclaimsundertheADAgreementrelatingtothatspecificmeasure.
　　WithregardtoArt.17.5(i)oftheADAgreement,theAppellateBodyhasruledthat,thereisnoinconsistencybetweenArt.17.5oftheADAgreementandtheprovisionsofArt.6.2oftheDSU.Onthecontrary,theyarecomplementaryandshouldbeappliedtogether.TheonlyrequirementcomplementaryinArt.17.5(i)isthat,therequestmustexplicitlyindicatehowbenefitsaccruingtothecomplainingMemberarebeingnullifiedorimpaired.
　　Art.17.5(i)doesnotrequireacomplainingMembertousethewords“nullify”or“impair”inarequestforestablishment.Inthisrespect,servingascontextforinterpretingtherequirementsofArt.17.5(i),Art.3.8oftheDSUprovidesapresumption,whichinpracticeoperatesasanirrefutablepresumption,thattheviolationofacoveredagreementconstitutesaprimafaciecaseofnullificationorimpairment.Therefore,arequestallegingviolationsoftheADAgreementwhich,ifdemonstrated,willconstituteaprimafaciecaseofnullificationorimpairmentunderArt.3.8oftheDSU,containsasufficientallegationofnullificationorimpairmentforpurposesofArt.17.5(i)oftheADAgreement.
　　Asdiscussedabove,wehaveexaminedsomeaspectsofpanel’sjurisdictionrelatingtotheinitiationandconductofanti-dumpinginvestigations.Howaboutthelegalbasisforacomplainingpartytobringaclaimagainstanti-dumpinglegislationassuch?
　　IIIGeneralLegalBasisforClaimsagainstLegislationasSuch
　　Arts.XXIIandXXIIIoftheGATT1994serveasthebasisforconsultationsanddisputesettlementundertheGATT1994and,throughincorporationbyreference,undermostoftheotheragreementsinAnnex1AtotheWTOAgreement.AccordingtoArt.XXIII:1(a)oftheGATT1994,aMembercanbringadisputesettlementclaimagainstanotherMemberwhenitconsidersthatabenefitaccruingtoitundertheGATT1994isbeingnullifiedorimpaired,orthattheachievementofanyobjectiveoftheGATT1994isbeingimpeded,asaresultofthefailureofthatotherMembertocarryoutitsobligationsunderthatAgreement.Dotheseprovisionsserveaslegalbasisforchallengesagainstlegislationassuchotherthanitsapplicationinspecificcases,either?
　　Inthisrespect,theAppellateBodyinUS-1916Act(DS136/DS162)rulesthat,“[p]riortotheentryintoforceoftheWTOAgreement,itwasfirmlyestablishedthatArticleXXIII:1(a)oftheGATT1947allowedaContractingPartytochallengelegislationassuch,independentlyfromtheapplicationofthatlegislationinspecificinstances.WhilethetextofArticleXXIIIdoesnotexpresslyaddressthematter,panelsconsistentlyconsideredthat,underArticleXXIII,theyhadthejurisdictiontodealwithclaimsagainstlegislationassuch”.ThisrulingisconfirmedbytheWTOpractice.Forexample,thePanelinUS-Sections301-310(DS152)thinksthat,legislationassuchmayalsobreachWTOobligations,theyrule:4
　　“Asageneralproposition,GATTacquis,confirmedinArticleXVI:4oftheWTOAgreementandrecentWTOpanelreports,makeabundantlyclearthatlegislationassuch,independentlyfromitsapplicationinspecificcases,maybreachGATT/WTOobligations:
　　(a)InGATTjurisprudence,togiveoneexample,legislationprovidingfortaxdiscriminationagainstimportedproductswasfoundtobeGATTinconsistentevenbeforeithadactuallybeenappliedtospecificproductsandthusbeforeanygivenproducthadactuallybeendiscriminatedagainst.
　　(b)ArticleXVI:4oftheWTOAgreementexplicitlyconfirmsthatlegislationassuchfallswithinthescopeofpossibleWTOviolations.Itprovidesasfollows:‘EachMembershallensuretheconformityofitslaws,regulationsandadministrativeprocedureswithitsobligationsasprovidedintheannexedAgreements.’
　　ThethreetypesofmeasuresexplicitlymadesubjecttotheobligationsimposedintheWTOagreements–‘laws,regulationsandadministrativeprocedures’-aremeasuresthatareapplicablegenerally;notmeasurestakennecessarilyinaspecificcaseordispute.ArticleXVI:4,thoughnotexpandingthematerialobligationsunderWTOagreements,expandsthetypeofmeasuresmadesubjecttotheseobligations.
　　(c)RecentWTOpanelreportsconfirm,too,thatlegislationassuch,independentlyfromitsapplicationinaspecificcase,canbeinconsistentwithWTOrules.”
　　Clearly,itisestablishedthatlegislationassuch,independentlyfromitsapplicationinaspecificcase,canbeinconsistentwithWTOrulesandthereforecanbebroughtbeforetheDSB.However,whatrolepanelsmayplaywhencalledupontoresolvesettlementconcerninglegislationassuch?
　　Asnotedabove,panelsmayhavejurisdictionastodomesticlawoncebroughtbeforethemappropriately.Inpractice,panelsoftenhavetoaddressdomesticlaws,InrespectoftheexaminationofdomesticormunicipallawbyWTOpanels,insomecircumstances,itisclearthatanexaminationoftherelevantaspectsofmunicipallawisessentialtodeterminingwhetherMemberstoadisputehavecompliedwiththeirobligationsunderthecoveredagreements.
　　However,asstressedintheDSBpractice,panels’mandateistoexaminemunicipallawsolelyforthepurposeofdeterminingwhetherMembersmeettheirWTOobligations.Indoingso,panelsdonotinterpretmunicipallaw“assuch”,thewaytheywould,say,interpretprovisionsofthecoveredagreements.Panelsare,instead,calleduponbytheDSBtothemeaningofdomesticlawasfactualelementsandtocheckwhetherthesefactualelementsconstituteconductbytheMemberscontrarytotheirWTOobligations.Therulesonburdenofprooffortheestablishmentoffactsalsoapplyinthisrespect.Theremaybevariousdifferencesbetweendomesticlawandthecoveredagreements,e.g.,sometermssuchas“determination”usedbothindomesticlawandinWTOprovisions,donotnecessarilyhavethesamemeaning.Itfollowsthatinmakingfactualfindingsconcerningthemeaningofdomesticlawpanelsarenotboundtoaccepttheinterpretationpresentedbypartiestoaparticulardispute.Thatsaid,anyMembercanreasonablyexpectthatconsiderabledefere

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]  下一页