submittedtodisputesettlement.
　　IfaMembercouldnotbringaclaimofinconsistencyundertheAnti-DumpingAgreementagainstlegislationassuchuntiloneofthethreeanti-dumpingmeasuresspecifiedinArticle17.4hadbeenadoptedandwasalsochallenged,thenexaminationoftheconsistencywithArticle18.4ofanti-dumpinglegislationassuchwouldbedeferred,andtheeffectivenessofArticle18.4wouldbediminished.
　　Furthermore,wenotethatArticle18.1oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementstates:‘NospecificactionagainstdumpingofexportsfromanotherMembercanbetakenexceptinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofGATT1994,asinterpretedbythisAgreement.’
　　Article18.1containsaprohibitionon‘specificactionagainstdumping’whensuchactionisnottakeninaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheGATT1994,asinterpretedbytheAnti-DumpingAgreement.Specificactionagainstdumpingcouldtakeawidevarietyofforms.IfspecificactionagainstdumpingistakeninaformotherthanaformauthorizedunderArticleVIoftheGATT1994,asinterpretedbytheAnti-DumpingAgreement,suchactionwillviolateArticle18.1.Wefindnothing,however,inArticle18.1orelsewhereintheAnti-DumpingAgreement,tosuggestthattheconsistencyofsuchactionwithArticle18.1mayonlybechallengedwhenoneofthethreemeasuresspecifiedinArticle17.4hasbeenadopted.Indeed,suchaninterpretationmustbewrongsinceitimpliesthat,ifaMember’slegislationprovidesforaresponsetodumpingthatdoesnotconsistofoneofthethreemeasureslistedinArticle17.4,thenitwouldbeimpossibletotesttheconsistencyofthatlegislation,andofparticularresponsesthereunder,withArticle18.1oftheAnti-DumpingAgreement.
　　Therefore,weconsiderthatArticles18.1and18.4supportourconclusionthataMembermaychallengetheconsistencyoflegislationassuchwiththeprovisionsoftheAnti-DumpingAgreement.
　　Forallthesereasons,weconcludethat,pursuanttoArticleXXIIIoftheGATT1994andArticle17oftheAnti-DumpingAgreement,theEuropeanCommunitiesandJapancouldbringdisputesettlementclaimsofinconsistencywithArticleVIoftheGATT1994andtheAnti-DumpingAgreementagainstthe1916Actassuch.We,therefore,upholdthePanel’sfindingthatithadjurisdictiontoreviewtheseclaims.”
　　(v)ConcludingRemarks
　　InthesamewaythatArt.XXIIIoftheGATT1994allowsaWTOMembertochallengelegislationassuch,Art.17oftheADAgreementisproperlytoberegardedasallowingachallengetoanti-dumpinglegislationassuch,unlessthispossibilityisexcluded.NosuchexpressexclusionisfoundinArt.17orelsewhereintheADAgreement.
　　Ingeneral,Arts.17.1and17.2oftheADAgreementdonotdistinguishbetweendisputesrelatingtoanti-dumpinglegislationassuchanddisputesrelatingtoanti-dumpingmeasurestakenintheimplementationofsuchlegislation.Also,Art.17.3operatesastheequivalentprovisionintheADAgreementtoArts.XXIIandXXIIIoftheGATT1994.Therefore,theyseemtoimplythatMemberscanchallengetheconsistencyoflegislationassuchwiththeADAgreementunlessthisactionisexcludedbyArt.17.
　　UnlikeArts.17.1to17.3,Art.17.4isaspecialoradditionaldisputesettlementrulelistedinAppendix2totheDSU.AccordingtoArt.17.4,a“matter”maybereferredtotheDSBonlyifoneoftherelevantthreeanti-dumpingmeasuresisinplace.Thisprovision,whenreadtogetherwithArt.6.2oftheDSU,requiresapanelrequestinadisputebroughtundertheADAgreementtoidentify,asthespecificmeasureatissue,eitheradefinitiveanti-dumpingduty,theacceptanceofapriceundertaking,oraprovisionalmeasure.
　　Nevertheless,nothingsuggeststhatArt.17.4precludereviewofanti-dumpinglegislationassuch.AsnotedinsubsectionⅡofthissection,arequestthatsatisfiestherequirementsofArticle6.2oftheDSUalsosatisfiestherequirementsofArt.17.4oftheADAgreement.Therequirementtoidentifyaspecificanti-dumpingmeasureatissueinapanelrequestinnowaylimitsthenatureoftheclaimsthatmaybebroughtundertheADAgreement.Inanyevent,acomplainantmay,havingidentifiedaspecificanti-dumpingdutyinitsrequestforestablishment,bringanyclaimsincludingclaimsagainstanti-dumpinglegislationassuchundertheADAgreementifsuchclaimsrelatetooneoftherelevantthreeanti-dumpingmeasurespursuantArt.17.4.ImportantconsiderationsunderlietherestrictioncontainedinArt.17.4,seemstostrikeabalancebetweenconsiderationsofacomplainingMember’srighttoseekredressandtheriskthatarespondingMembermaybeharassedoritsresourcessquandered.
　　InthesamewaythattheGATT/WTOcaselawfirmlyestablishesthatdisputesettlementproceedingsmaybebroughtbasedontheallegedinconsistencyofaMember’slegislationassuchwiththatMember’sobligations,ithasbeenfoundthat,nothinginherentinthenatureofanti-dumpinglegislationthatwouldrationallydistinguishsuchlegislationfromothertypesoflegislationforpurposesofdisputesettlement,orthatwouldremoveanti-dumpinglegislationfromtheambitofthegenerally-acceptedpracticethatapanelmayexaminelegislationassuch.
　　Inaword,Art.17.4setsoutcertainconditions,however,doesnotaddressoraffectaMember’srighttobringaclaimofinconsistencywiththeADAgreementagainstanti-dumpinglegislationassuch.MembersmaychallengetheconsistencyoflegislationassuchwiththeprovisionsoftheADAgreement.
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　【NOTE】:
　　1    See,indetail,WT/DS132/R/7.11;7.14;7.51-7.52.
　　2    WT/DS132/R/7.22-7.24;7.26-7.28.
　　3    See,WT/DS136/AB/R;WT/DS162/AB/R/60.
　　4    See,WT/DS152/R/7.41.
　　5    See,indetail,WT/DS152/R/7.17-7.20.
　　6    See,WT/DS136/R/6.40;WT/DS162/R/6.36.
　　7    See,indetail,WT/DS136/R/6.48;WT/DS162/R/6.47.
　　8    See,WT/DS136/R/6.51;WT/DS162/R/6.50.
　　9    See,WT/DS176/AB/R/105.
　　10    See,WT/DS136/AB/R;WT/DS162/AB/R/57-58.
　　11    See,WT/DS136/AB/R;WT/DS162/AB/R/62-68.
　　12    See,WT/DS136/AB/R;WT/DS162/AB/R/70-74.
　　13    See,WT/DS136/AB/R;WT/DS162/AB/R/76-83.
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　SectionTwo
　　AdhocStandardofReviewforAnti-dumpingDisputes
　　
　　IIntroduction
　　Astothegeneralapproachforpanels(outsideoftheanti-dumpingareas),whiletherearenoprovisionsintheDSUexplicitlyconcerningthestandardofreviewquestion,somelanguagemaybeconstruedasrelevant.AsnotedbytheAppellateBody,ingeneral,Art.11oftheDSUwhichprovides“anobjectiveassessment”bearsdirectlyonstandardofreviewapplicabletothedeterminationandassessmentofthefactsinnationalinvestigativeproceedings.Mostinteresting,perhaps,isfoundatDSUArt.3.2:“RecommendationsandrulingsoftheDSBcannotaddtoordiminishtherightsandobligatio

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]  下一页