[本篇论文由上帝论文网为您收集整理，上帝论文网http://paper.5var.com将为您整理更多优秀的免费论文，谢谢您的支持]
ChapterIV
　　FunctionofPanels:Art.11oftheDSU
　　
　　OUTLINE
　　
　　IIntroduction
　　IIApplicationofArt.11asaGeneralStandardofReview
　　IIIReviewin“neitherdenovonortotaldefence”
　　IVAllegationagainstPanels’StandardofReview
　　VExerciseofJudicialEconomy
　　
　　
　　
　　IIntroduction
　　ThefunctionofpanelsisexpresslydefinedinArt.11oftheDSU,whichreadsasfollows:
　　
　　“ThefunctionofpanelsistoassisttheDSBindischargingitsresponsibilitiesunderthisUnderstandingandthecoveredagreements.Accordingly,apanelshouldmakeanobjectiveassessmentofthematterbeforeit,includinganobjectiveassessmentofthefactsofthecaseandtheapplicabilityofandconformitywiththerelevantcoveredagreements,andmakesuchotherfindingsaswillassisttheDSBinmakingtherecommendationsoringivingtherulingsprovidedforinthecoveredagreements.Panelsshouldconsultregularlywiththepartiestothedisputeandgivethemadequateopportunitytodevelopamutuallysatisfactorysolution.”
　　
　　ThisprovisionsuggeststhatthefunctionofpanelsistomakeanobjectiveassessmentsuchastoassisttheDSBinmakingtherecommendationsoringivingtherulingsprovidedforinthecoveredagreements.However,howdopanelsfulfilltheirfunctionsasprovidedinArt.11oftheDSU?Itistheissuethatwewilltouchoninthischapter.Inthischapter,theauthorexploresonthestandardofreviewissueundertheWTO,i.e.“anobjectiveassessment”;aswellasontheexercisedjudicialeconomyprincipledevelopedinpanel’sreview.
　　Withregardtothestandardofreviewissue,theGATT/WTOdisputesettlementprocedureshaveincreasinglyconfrontedquestionsconcerningthedegreetowhichaninternationalbody,undertheGATT/WTO,should“secondguess”adecisionofanationalgovernmentagencyconcerningeconomicregulationsthatareallegedlyinconsistentwithaninternationalrule.Itseemsclearthattheinternationalagreementdoesn’tpermitanationalgovernment’sdeterminationalwaystoprevail,otherwisetheinternationalrulescouldbeeasilyevadedorrenderedineffective.Butshouldtheinternationalbodyapproachtheissuesinvolvedwithoutanydeferencetothenationalgovernment?IthasbeenarguedintheGATT/WTOproceedingsthatpanelsshouldrespectnationalgovernmentdeterminations,uptosomepoint.That“point”isthecrucialissuethathassometimesbeenlabelledthe“standardofreview”.1
　　Ofcourse,thisissueisnotuniquetotheGATT/WTO.Naturally,thestandard-of-reviewissueisonethatmanylegalsystemsface.“Thestandard-of-reviewquestionisfacedatleastimplicitlywheneversovereignmembersofatreatyyieldinterpretiveanddisputesettlementpowerstointernationalpanelsandtribunals.Moreover,asnationaleconomiesbecomeincreasinglyinterdependent,andastheneedforinternationalcooperationandcoordinationaccordinglybecomesgreater,thestandard-of-reviewquestionwillbecomeincreasinglyimportant.”2And“itcanbeseenthatthestandard-of-reviewquestionisarecurringanddelicateone,andonethattosomeextentgoestothecoreofaninternationalprocedurethatmust(inarule-basedsystem)assessanationalgovernment’sactionsagainsttreatyorotherinternationalnorms”.3
　　However,fortheimmediatepurpose,wewanttofocusbelowonthemoreparticularquestionoftheproperstandardofreviewforaWTOpanelwhenitundertakestoexamineanationalgovernment’sactionsorrulingsthatengagethequestionofconsistencywiththevariousWTOagreementsandaresubjecttotheDSUprocedures.
　　
　　IIApplicationofArt.11asaGeneralStandardofReview
　　UndertheWTOjurisprudence,it’sdemonstratedthatArt.11oftheDSUhasbeenappliedasageneralstandardofreview.Art.11suggeststhatthefunctionofpanelsistomake“anobjectiveassessment”soastoassisttheDSBinmakingtherecommendationsoringivingtherulingsprovidedforinthecoveredagreements.
　　Forexample,inUS-ShirtsandBlouses(DS33),thePanelrulesthat,“althoughtheDSUdoesnotcontainanyspecificreferencetostandardsofreview,weconsiderthatArticle11oftheDSUwhichdescribestheparametersofthefunctionofpanels,isrelevanthere”.4
　　AndtheapplicationofArt.11asageneralstandardofreviewundertheDSUisanalyzedsystematicallyinEC-Hormones(DS26/DS48)wheretheAppellateBodyrulesthat:5
　　“Thefirstpointthatmustbemadeinthisconnection,isthattheSPSAgreementitselfissilentonthematterofanappropriatestandardofreviewforpanelsdecidinguponSPSmeasuresofaMember.NorarethereprovisionsintheDSUoranyofthecoveredagreements(otherthantheAnti-DumpingAgreement)prescribingaparticularstandardofreview.OnlyArticle17.6(i)oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementhaslanguageonthestandardofreviewtobeemployedbypanelsengagedinthe‘assessmentofthefactsofthematter’.WefindnoindicationintheSPSAgreementofanintentonthepartoftheMemberstoadoptorincorporateintothatAgreementthestandardsetoutinArticle17.6(i)oftheAnti-DumpingAgreement.Textually,Article17.6(i)isspecifictotheAnti-DumpingAgreement.
　　[…]
　　Wedonotmean,however,tosuggestthatthereisatpresentnostandardofreviewapplicabletothedeterminationandassessmentofthefactsinproceedingsundertheSPSAgreementorunderothercoveredagreements.Inourview,Article11oftheDSUbearsdirectlyonthismatterand,ineffect,articulateswithgreatsuccinctnessbutwithsufficientclaritytheappropriatestandardofreviewforpanelsinrespectofboththeascertainmentoffactsandthelegalcharacterizationofsuchfactsundertherelevantagreements[…]”
　　Insum,forallbutoneofthecoveredagreements,Art.11oftheDSUsetsforththeappropriatestandardofreviewforpanels.Asstatedonmorethanoneoccasion,Art.11oftheDSU,and,inparticular,itsrequirementthat“apanelshouldmakeanobjectiveassessmentofthematterbeforeit,includinganobjectiveassessmentofthefactsofthecaseandtheapplicabilityofandconformitywiththerelevantcoveredagreements”,setsforththeappropriatestandardofreviewforpanelsexaminingtheconsistencyorinconsistencyofallegedmeasuresundertheWTOjurisprudence.AndtheonlyexceptionistheAgreementonImplementationofArticleVIoftheGeneralAgreementonTariffsandTrade1994,inwhichaspecificprovision,Art.17.6,setsoutaspecialstandardofreviewfordisputesarisingunderthatAgreement（tobediscussedinsubsequentchapter）.6
　　
　　IIIReviewin“neitherdenovonortotaldefence”
　　InEC-Hormones(DS26/DS48),intheviewoftheEuropeanCommunities,“theprincipalalternativeapproachestotheproblemofformulatingthe‘properstandardofreview’sofaraspanelsareconcernedaretwo-fold.Thefirstisdesignatedas‘denovo

[1] [2] [3] [4]  下一页