review’.ThisstandardofreviewwouldallowapanelcompletefreedomtocometoadifferentviewthanthecompetentauthorityoftheMemberwhoseactordeterminationisbeingreviewed.Apanelwouldhaveto‘verifywhetherthedeterminationbythenationalauthoritywas…correct(bothfactuallyandprocedurally)’.Thesecondisdescribedas‘deference’.Undera‘deference’standard,apanel,inthesubmissionoftheEuropeanCommunities,shouldnotseektoredotheinvestigationconductedbythenationalauthoritybutinsteadexaminewhetherthe‘procedure’requiredbytherelevantWTOruleshadbeenfollowed”.7Inthisrespect,theAppellateBodyrulesthat:8
　　“Sofarasfact-findingbypanelsisconcerned,theiractivitiesarealwaysconstrainedbythemandateofArticle11oftheDSU:theapplicablestandardisneitherdenovoreviewassuch,nor‘totaldeference’,butratherthe‘objectiveassessmentofthefacts’.Manypanelshaveinthepastrefusedtoundertakedenovoreview,wisely,sinceundercurrentpracticeandsystems,theyareinanycasepoorlysuitedtoengageinsuchareview.Ontheotherhand,‘totaldeferencetothefindingsofthenationalauthorities’,ithasbeenwellsaid,‘couldnotensurean’objectiveassessment’asforeseenbyArticle11oftheDSU’.”
　　Therulingisconfirmedonmanyotheroccasions.Forexample,thePanelonUS-Underwear(DS24)findsthat:9
　　“Inouropinion,apolicyoftotaldeferencetothefindingsofthenationalauthoritiescouldnotensurean‘objectiveassessment’asforeseenbyArticle11oftheDSU.Thisconclusionissupported,inourview,bypreviouspanelreportsthathavedealtwiththisissue,andmostnotablyinthepanelreportonthe‘Transformers’case.
　　Thepanelinthe‘Transformers’casewasconfrontedwiththeargumentofNewZealandthatthedeterminationof‘materialinjury’bythecompetentNewZealandinvestigatingauthoritycouldnotbescrutinizedbythepanel.The‘Transformers’panelrespondedtothisargumentasfollows:
　　‘ThePanelagreedthattheresponsibilitytomakeadeterminationofmaterialinjurycausedbydumpedimportsrestedinthefirstplacewiththeauthoritiesoftheimportingcontractingpartyconcerned.However,thePanelcouldnotsharetheviewthatsuchadeterminationcouldnotbescrutinizedifitwerechallengedbyanothercontractingparty.Onthecontrary,thePanelbelievedthatifacontractingpartyaffectedbythedeterminationcouldmakeacasethattheimportationcouldnotinitselfhavetheeffectofcausingmaterialinjurytotheindustryinquestion,thatcontractingpartywasentitled,undertherelevantGATTprovisionsandinparticularArticleXXIII,thatitsrepresentationsbegivensympatheticconsiderationandthateventually,ifnosatisfactoryadjustmentwaseffected,itmightreferthemattertotheCONTRACTINGPARTIES,ashadbeendonebyFinlandinthepresentcase.Toconcludeotherwisewouldgivegovernmentscompletefreedomandunrestricteddiscretionindecidinganti-dumpingcaseswithoutanypossibilitytoreviewtheactiontakenintheGATT.ThiswouldleadtoanunacceptablesituationundertheaspectoflawandorderininternationaltraderelationsasgovernedbytheGATT’.”
　　Inshort,forthepaneltoadoptapolicyoftotaldeferencetothefindingsofthenationalauthoritiescouldnotensurean“objectiveassessment”asforeseenbyArt.11oftheDSU.Thisconclusionissupported,inourview,bypreviouspanelreportsthathavedealtwiththisissue.However,panelsdonotseetheirreviewasasubstitutefortheproceedingsconductedbynationalinvestigatingauthorities,either.Forexample,inArgentina-Footwear(DS121),thePaneldoesn’tconsiderthattheyhavethemandatetoconductadenovoreview:10
　　“Thisapproachisconsistentwiththereportsofpanelsreviewingnationalinvestigations…ThepanelonUnitedStates-Anti-dumpingDutiesonImportofSalmonfromNorwayconcludedthatitshouldnotengageinadenovoreviewoftheevidenceexaminedbythenationalinvestigatingauthority.
　　ThepanelonUnitedStates-Underwearfollowedthisapproachbynoting,however,thatitdidnotseeits‘reviewasasubstitutefortheproceedingsconductedbynationalinvestigatingauthoritiesorbytheTextilesMonitoringBody(TMB).Rather…thePanel’sfunctionshouldbetoassessobjectivelythereviewconductedbythenationalinvestigatingauthority,inthiscasetheCITA.Wedrawparticularattentiontothefactthataseriesofpanelreportsintheanti-dumpingandsubsidies/countervailingdutiescontexthavemadeitclearthatitisnottheroleofpanelstoengageinadenovoreview.Inourview,thesameistrueforpanelsoperatinginthecontextoftheATC,sincetheywouldbecalledupon,asinthecasesdealingwithanti-dumpingand/orsubsidies/countervailingduties,toreviewtheconsistencyofadeterminationbyanationalinvestigatingauthorityimposingarestrictionundertherelevantprovisionsoftherelevantWTOlegalinstruments,inthiscasetheATC.…’
　　Accordingly,thepanelonUnitedStates-Underweardecided,‘inaccordancewithArticle11oftheDSU,tomakeanobjectiveassessmentoftheStatementissuedbytheUSauthorities…which,asthepartiestothedisputeagreed,constitutesthescopeofthematterproperlybeforethePanelwithout,however,engaginginadenovoreview.…anobjectiveassessmentwouldentailanexaminationofwhethertheCITAhadexaminedallrelevantfactsbeforeit,whetheradequateexplanationhadbeenprovidedofhowthefactsasawholesupportedthedeterminationmade,and,consequently,whetherthedeterminationmadewasconsistentwiththeinternationalobligationsoftheUnitedStates’.
　　ThepanelonUnitedStates-ShirtsandBlousesalsostatedthat‘[t]hisisnottosaythatthePanelinterpretstheATCasimposingontheimportingMemberanyspecificmethodeitherforcollectingdataorforconsideringandweighingalltherelevanteconomicfactorsuponwhichtheimportingMemberwilldecidewhetherthereisneedforasafeguardrestraint.TherelativeimportanceofparticularfactorsincludingthoselistedinArticle6.3oftheATCisforeachMembertoassessinthelightofthecircumstancesofeachcase’.
　　ThesepastGATTandWTOpanelreportsmakeitclearthatpanelsexaminingnationalinvestigationsinthecontextoftheapplicationofanti-dumpingandcountervailingduties,aswellassafeguardsundertheATC,haverefrainedfromengaginginadenovoreviewoftheevidenceexaminedbythenationalauthority.”
　　However,asemphasizedbytheAppellateBody,althoughpanelsarenotentitledtoconductadenovoreviewoftheevidence,nortosubstitutetheirownconclusionsforthoseofthecompetentauthorities,thisdoesnotmeanthatpanelsmustsimplyaccepttheconclusionsofthecompetentauthorities.Inthisrespect,thephrase“denovoreview”shouldnotbeusedloosely.Ifapanelc

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4]  下一页