giouserrorsconstituteafailuretomakeanobjectiveassessmentofthefactsasrequiredbyArticle11oftheDSU.”17
　　
　　VExerciseofJudicialEconomy
　　Inthisregard,whatwewillnextdiscussistheissueofwhetherArt.11oftheDSUentitlesacomplainingpartytoafindingoneachofthelegalclaimsitmakestoapanel.Asisthecoreofso-calledjudicialeconomyprinciplederivedfromArt.11oftheDSU.TheprincipleofjudicialeconomyisnotexplicitlyprovidedinanyarticlesoftheDSUoranyothercoveredagreementsundertheWTO.However,itisafundamentalprincipleundertheWTOjurisprudence,whichismorethanonetimeexercisedbypanelsandthenupheldbytheAppellateBodyduringthedisputessettlement.
　　InUS-ShirtsandBlouses(DS33),thePanelstatesinparagraph6.6oftheitsReport:“ConcerningIndia’sargumentthatArticle11oftheDSUentitlesIndiatoafindingoneachoftheissuesitraised,wedisagreeandrefertotheconsistentGATTpanelpracticeofjudicialeconomy.Indiaisentitledtohavethedisputeoverthecontested‘measure’resolvedbythePanel,andifwejudgethatthespecificmatterindisputecanberesolvedbyaddressingonlysomeoftheargumentsraisedbythecomplainingparty,wecandoso.We,therefore,decidetoaddressonlythelegalissueswethinkareneededinordertomakesuchfindingsaswillassisttheDSBinmakingrecommendationsoringivingrulingsinrespectofthisdispute.”18Asisappealed.AndtheAppellateBodymakeandetailedanalysisontheprincipleofjudicialeconomyfromtheprovisionsoftheDSUaswellaspracticeundertheGATT1947andtheWTOAgreement:19
　　AsprovidedinArt.11oftheDSU,thefunctionofpanelsistoassisttheDSBindischargingitsresponsibilitiesundertheDSUandthecoveredagreements.NothinginthisprovisionorinpreviousGATTpracticerequiresapaneltoexaminealllegalclaimsmadebythecomplainingparty.
　　Firstly,previousGATT1947andWTOpanelshavefrequentlyaddressedonlythoseissuesthatsuchpanelsconsidersnecessaryfortheresolutionofthematterbetweentheparties,andhavedeclinedtodecideotherissues.Thus,ifapanelhasfoundthatameasureisinconsistentwithaparticularprovision,itgenerallydoesnotgoontoexaminewhetherthemeasureisalsoinconsistentwithotherprovisionsthatacomplainingpartymayhavearguedareviolated.InrecentWTOpractice,panelslikewisehaverefrainedfromexaminingeachandeveryclaimmadebythecomplainingpartyandhavemadefindingsonlyonthoseclaimsthatsuchpanelsconcludearenecessarytoresolvetheparticularmatter.AlthoughafewGATT1947andWTOpanelshavemadebroaderrulings,byconsideringanddecidingissuesthatarenotabsolutelynecessarytodisposeoftheparticulardispute,thereisnothinganywhereintheDSUthatrequirespanelstodoso.
　　Secondly,sucharequirementforapanelastoaddressonallclaimsthecomplainantmadeisnotconsistentwiththeaimoftheWTOdisputesettlementsystem.Art.3.7oftheDSUexplicitlystates:“Theaimofthedisputesettlementmechanismistosecureapositivesolutiontoadispute.Asolutionmutuallyacceptabletothepartiestoadisputeandconsistentwiththecoveredagreementsisclearlytobepreferred.”Thus,thebasicaimofdisputesettlementintheWTOistosettledisputes.ThisbasicaimisaffirmedelsewhereintheDSU.Art.3.4,forexample,stipulates:“RecommendationsorrulingsmadebytheDSBshallbeaimedatachievingasatisfactorysettlementofthematterinaccordancewiththerightsandobligationsunderthisUnderstandingandunderthecoveredagreements.”
　　Furthermore,Art.3.2oftheDSUstatesthattheMembersoftheWTO“recognize”thatthedisputesettlementsystem“servestopreservetherightsandobligationsofMembersunderthecoveredagreements,andtoclarifytheexistingprovisionsofthoseagreementsinaccordancewithcustomaryrulesofinterpretationofpublicinternationallaw”.GiventheexplicitaimofdisputesettlementthatpermeatestheDSU,theAppellateBodydoesnotconsiderthatArt.3.2oftheDSUismeanttoencourageeitherpanelsortheAppellateBodyto“makelaw”byclarifyingexistingprovisionsoftheWTOAgreementoutsidethecontextofresolvingaparticulardispute.
　　Insum,asruledbytheAppellateBodyinIndia-PatentProtection(DS50),“nUnitedStates-ShirtsandBlouses,wesaidthat‘[a]panelneedonlyaddressthoseclaimswhichmustbeaddressedinordertoresolvethematterinissueinthedispute’.Thismeansthatapanelhasthediscretiontodeterminetheclaimsitmustaddressinordertoresolvethedisputebetweentheparties--providedthatthoseclaimsarewithinthatpanel’stermsofreference”.20
　　However,isthereanylimitstosuchadiscretionexercisedasjudicialeconomy?Withregardtothisissue,theAppellateBodyinAustralia-Salmon(DS18)findsthat,theprincipleofjudicialeconomyhastobeappliedbypanelskeepingintheirmindtheaimofthedisputesettlementsystem,i.e,“tosecureapositivesolutiontoadispute”asprovidedforinArt.3.7oftheDSUandaffirmedinArt.3.4oftheDSU,whichstipulates:“RecommendationsorrulingsmadebytheDSBshallbeaimedatachievingasatisfactorysettlementofthematterinaccordancewiththerightsandobligationsunderthisUnderstandingandunderthecoveredagreements.”Therefore,toprovideonlyapartialresolutionofthematteratissuewouldbefalsejudicialeconomy.ApanelhastoaddressthoseclaimsonwhichafindingisnecessaryinordertoenabletheDSBtomakesufficientlypreciserecommendationsandrulingssoastoallowforpromptcompliancebyaMemberwiththoserecommendationsandrulings“inordertoensureeffectiveresolutionofdisputestothebenefitofallMembers”.21
　　Tosumup,asruledbytheAppellateBodyinUS-LampMeat(DS177/DS178),“ontheissueofpanels’exerciseofjudicialeconomy,wehavepreviouslyexplainedthatpanels‘needonlyaddressthoseclaimswhichmustbeaddressedinordertoresolvethematterinissueinthedispute’.Atthesametime,the‘discretion’apanelenjoystodeterminewhichclaimsitshouldaddressisnotwithoutlimits,asapanelisobliged‘toaddressthoseclaimsonwhichafindingisnecessaryinordertoenabletheDSBtomakesufficientlypreciserecommendationsandrulingssoastoallowforpromptcompliancebyaMemberwiththoserecommendationsandrulings’”.22
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　【NOTE】:
　　1.    See,StevenP.CroleyandJohnH.Jackson,‘WTODisputePanelDeferencetoNationalGovernmentDecisions.TheMisplacedAnalogytotheU.S.ChevronStandard-Of-ReviewDoctrine’,InternationalTradeLawandtheGATT/WTODisputeSettlementSystem(PetersmannEd.),KluwerLawInternational,London,1997,pp.187-188.
　　2.    Supra.note1,p.208.
　　3.    Supra.note1,p.192.
　　4.    See,WT/DS33/R/7.16.
　　5.    See,WT/DS26/AB/R;WT/DS48/AB/R/114;116.
　　6.    Seealso,WT/DS121/AB/R/118-120.
　　7.    See,WT/DS26/AB/R;WT/DS48/AB/R/111.
　　8.    See,WT/DS26/AB/R;WT/DS48/AB/R/117.
　　9.    See,WT/DS24/R/7.10-7.11.
　　10.    See,WT/DS121/R/8.118-8.121.
　　11.    See,indetail,WT/DS177/AB/R;WT/DS178/AB/R/106-107.
　　12.    See,WT/DS192/AB/R/76.
　　13.    See,MaryE.Footer,‘SomeAspectsofThirdPartyInterventioninGATT/WTODisputeSettlementProceedings’,InternationalTradeLawandtheGATT/WTODisputeSettlementSystem(PetersmannEd.),KluwerLawInternational,London,1997,pp.209-210.
　　14.    Supra.note13,p.210.
　　15.    See,WT/DS26/AB/R;WT/DS48/AB/R/133.
　　16.    See,WT/DS69/AB/R/133.
　　17.    See,WT/DS76/AB/R/141.
　　18.    See,WT/DS33/R/6.6.
　　19.    See,indetail,WT/DS33/AB/R/VI.
　　20.    See,WT/DS50/AB/R/87.
　　21.    See,indetail,WT/DS18/AB/R/223.
　　22.    See,WT/DS177/AB/R;WT/DS178/AB/R/191.
　　


转自： 声 明： 本论文仅供学术研究参考使用， 版权为原作者所有，如有不妥，请来信指正。