eralmatter,consultationsareaprerequisitetopanelproceedings.However,thisgeneralpropositionissubjecttocertainlimitations.Forexample,Article4.3oftheDSUprovides:
　　Ifarequestforconsultationsismadepursuanttoacoveredagreement,theMembertowhichtherequestismadeshall,unlessotherwisemutuallyagreed,replytotherequestwithin10daysafterthedateofitsreceiptandshallenterintoconsultationsingoodfaithwithinaperiodofnomorethan30daysafterthedateofreceiptoftherequest,withaviewtoreachingamutuallysatisfactorysolution.IftheMemberdoesnotrespondwithin10daysafterthedateofreceiptoftherequest,ordoesnotenterintoconsultationswithinaperiodofnomorethan30days,oraperiodotherwisemutuallyagreed,afterthedateofreceiptoftherequest,thentheMemberthatrequestedtheholdingofconsultationsmayproceeddirectlytorequesttheestablishmentofapanel.
　　Article4.3oftheDSUrelatestherespondingparty’sconducttowardsconsultationstothecomplainingparty’srighttorequesttheestablishmentofapanel.Whentherespondingpartydoesnotrespondtoarequestforconsultations,ordeclinestoenterintoconsultations,thecomplainingpartymaydispensewithconsultationsandproceedtorequesttheestablishmentofapanel.Insuchacase,therespondingparty,byitsownconduct,relinquishesthepotentialbenefitsthatcouldbederivedfromthoseconsultations.
　　WealsonotethatArticle4.7oftheDSUprovides:
　　Iftheconsultationsfailtosettleadisputewithin60daysafterthedateofreceiptoftherequestforconsultations,thecomplainingpartymayrequesttheestablishmentofapanel.Thecomplainingpartymayrequestapanelduringthe60-dayperiodiftheconsultingpartiesjointlyconsiderthatconsultationshavefailedtosettlethedispute.
　　Article4.7alsorelatestheconductoftherespondingpartyconcerningconsultationstothecomplainingparty’srighttorequesttheestablishmentofapanel.Thisprovisionstatesthattherespondingpartymayagreewiththecomplainingpartytoforgothepotentialbenefitsthatcontinuedpursuitofconsultationsmightbring.Thus,Article4.7contemplatesthatapanelmaybevalidlyestablishednotwithstandingtheshortenedperiodforconsultations,aslongasthepartiesagree.Article4.7doesnot,however,specifyanyparticularformthattheagreementbetweenthepartiesmusttake.”
　　Tosumup,astobediscussedinmoredetailinnextsection,“thelackofpriorconsultationsisnotadefectthat,byitsverynature,deprivesapanelofitsauthoritytodealwithanddisposeofamatter”.6However,accordingtoArt.1.2oftheDSU,thisgeneralpropositioncannotdenytheapplicationofspecialoradditionalrulesandproceduresasareidentifiedinAppendix2totheDSU.Forexample,theAppellateBodyrulesinBrazil-Airport（DS46）that,“Articles4and6oftheDSU,aswellasparagraphs1to4ofArticle4oftheSCMAgreement,setforthaprocessbywhichacomplainingpartymustrequestconsultations,andconsultationsmustbeheld,beforeamattermaybereferredtotheDSBfortheestablishmentofapanel”.7
　　Inshort,giventhatArt.6.1oftheDSUessentiallyrequirestheDSBtoestablishapanelautomaticallyuponrequestofaparty,apanelcannotrelyupontheDSBtoascertainthatrequisiteconsultationshavebeenheldandtoestablishapanelonlyinthosecases,unlessotherwisespelledoutexpresslyinthecoveredagreements,e.g.Art.4oftheSCMAgreement.
　　
　　【NOTE】
　　1.    See,WT/DS22/R/287.
　　2.    See,WT/DS75/R,WT/DS84/R/10.23.
　　3.    See,WT/DS132/AB/RW/54.
　　4.    See,WT/DS75/R;WT/DS84/R/10.19.
　　5.    See,WT/DS132/AB/RW/57-61.
　　6.    See,WT/DS132/AB/RW/64.
　　7.    See,WT/DS46/AB/R/131.
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　SectionTwo
　　EstablishmentofPanels:Art.6.2
　　
　　IIntroduction
　　Therehasoftenbeendivergenceinmanyparticularcasesastothesufficientspecificityoftherequestfortheestablishmentofapanel.Asistheissuewhatwewillgetdowntonext,andinthisrespectwhatbearsthemostsignificanceisthetextofArt.6.2oftheDSU,whichreadsas:
　　
　　“Therequestfortheestablishmentofapanelshallbemadeinwriting.Itshallindicatewhetherconsultationswereheld,identifythespecificmeasuresatissueandprovideabriefsummaryofthelegalbasisofthecomplaintsufficienttopresenttheproblemclearly.Incasetheapplicantrequeststheestablishmentofapanelwithotherthanstandardtermsofreference,thewrittenrequestshallincludetheproposedtextofspecialtermsofreference.”
　　
　　AsnotedinChapterI,thequasi-automaticadoptionofdisputesettlementreportsisanewcrucialfeatureoftheWTOdisputesettlementmechanism.Inpractice,thereisfew,ifno,occasionsdenyingtheestablishmentofapanel,becauseaccordingtoArt.6.1oftheDSU,“fthecomplainingpartysorequests,apanelshallbeestablished”;andit’shardlythecasethat“theDSBdecidesbyconsensusnottoestablishapanel”.
　　AsruledbytheAppellateBodyinEC-Bananas(DS27),“apanelrequestwillusuallybeapprovedautomaticallyattheDSBmeetingfollowingthemeetingatwhichtherequestfirstappearsontheDSB’sagenda”.Forthisreason,theAppellateBodyrulesinthesamecasethat,“[a]sapanelrequestisnormallynotsubjectedtodetailedscrutinybytheDSB,itisincumbentuponapaneltoexaminetherequestfortheestablishmentofthepanelverycarefullytoensureitscompliancewithboththeletterandthespiritofArticle6.2oftheDSU.Itisimportantthatapanelrequestbesufficientlyprecisefortworeasons:first,itoftenformsthebasisforthetermsofreferenceofthepanelpursuanttoArticle7oftheDSU;and,second,itinformsthedefendingpartyandthethirdpartiesofthelegalbasisofthecomplaint”.1
　　Furthermore,astotheimportanceforthepanelrequesttobesufficientlyprecisetoensureitscompliancewithboththeletterandthespiritofArticle6.2oftheDSU,thePanelonTurkey-TextileandClothing(DS34)rulesthat,“…tisimportantthatapanelrequest,whichdefinesthetermsofreference,meetsthiscriterionsoastoinformthedefendingpartyandpotentialthirdpartiesbothofthemeasuresatissue,includingtheproductstheycover,andofthelegalbasisofthecomplaint.Thisisnecessarytoensuredueprocessandtheabilityofthedefendanttodefenditself”.2And“[t]hisrequirementofdueprocessisfundamentaltoensuringafairandorderlyconductofdisputesettlementproceedings”.3
　　Mostimportantly,asnotedbytheAppellateBodyinEC-Bananas(DS27),“faclaimisnotspecifiedintherequestfortheestablishmentofapanel,thenafaultyrequestcannotbesubsequently‘cured’byacomplainingparty’sargumentationinitsfirstwrittensubmissiontothepanelorinanyothersubmissionorstatementmadelaterinthepanelproceeding”.4
　　However,asruledbytheAppellateBodyinEC-Bananas(DS27),Art.6.2oftheDSUrequiresthat“theclaims,butnotthearguments”,mustallbespecifiedsufficientlyintherequestfortheestablishmentofapanel.Withthisregard,theAppellateBodyrulesthat,“…nourview,thereisasignificantdifferencebetweentheclaimsidentifiedintherequestfortheestablishmentofapanel,whichestablishthepanel’stermsofreferenceunderArticle7oftheDSU,andtheargumentssupportingthoseclaims,whicharesetoutandprogressivelyclarifiedinthefirstwrittensubmissions,therebuttalsubmissionsandthefirstandsecondpanelmeetingswiththeparties”.5AndthePanelinThailand-IronandH-Beams(DS122)rulesfurtherthat,“Article6.2DSUdoesnotrelatedirectlytothesufficiencyofthesubsequentwrittenandoralsubmissionsofthepartiesinthecourseoftheproceedings,whichmaydeveloptheargumentsinsupportoftheclaimssetoutinthepanelrequest.Nordoesitdeterminewhetherornotthecomplainingpartywillmanagetoestablishaprimafaciecaseofviolationofanobligationunderacoveredagreementintheactualcourseofthepanelproceedings”.6
　　NowweturnontotheconnotationofArt.6.2.Inthisconnection,thePanelinJapan-Film（DS44）rulesthat,“weexamine,asappropriate,(i)theordinarymeaningofthetermsofArticle6.2;(ii)thecontextandtheobjectandpurposeofArticle6.2;and(iii)pastpracticeunderArticle6.2anditspredecessorprovision”.7Specifically,asruledbytheAppellateBodyinKorea-DairyProducts（DS98）,“[w]henparsedintoitsconstituentparts,Article6.2maybeseentoimposethefollowingrequirements.Therequestmust:(i)beinwriting;(ii)indicatewhetherconsultationswereheld;(iii)identifythespecificmeasuresatissue;and(iv)provideabriefsummaryofthelegalbasisofthecomplaintsufficienttopresenttheproblemclearly.”8
　　Andinthesefourrequirements,itisonlyelement(i),thattherequest“beinwriting”hashardlybeendisagreed;andastobediscussedinmoredetailbelow,theotherthreeelements(ii)-(iv)haveoftenbeenthesubjectsdivergentbetweenparticipantsonmanyoccasions.
　　
　　IIIndicationofConsultationsProcess
　　Initssecondelement,Art.6.2oftheDSUrequiresthatthepanelrequestmust“indicatewhetherconsultationswereheld”.Inthisconnection,theAppellateBodyrulesinMexico-HFCS（DS132）（21.5）that:9
　　“[…]Thephrase‘whetherconsultationswereheld’showsthatthisrequirementinArticle6.2maybesatisfiedbyanexpressstatementthatnoconsultationswereheld.Inotherwords,Article6.2alsoenvisagesthepossibilitythatapanelmaybevalidlyestablishedwithoutbeingprecededbyconsultations.
　　Thus,theDSUexplicitlyrecognizescircumstanceswheretheabsenceofconsultationswouldnotdeprivethepanelofitsauthoritytoconsiderthematterreferredtoitbytheDSB.Inourview,itfollowsthatwheretherespondingpartydoesnotobject,explicitlyandinatimelymanner,tothefailureofthecomplainingpartytorequestorengageinconsultations,therespondingpartymaybedeemedtohaveconsentedtothelackofconsultationsand,thereby,tohaverelinquishedwhateverrighttoconsultitmayhavehad.”
　　AsfoundbytheAppellateBody,“nassessingtheimportanceoftheobligation‘toindicatewhetherconsultationswereheld’,weobservethattherequirementwillbesatisfiedbytheinclusion,intherequestforestablishmentofapanel,ofastatementastowhetherconsultationsoccurredornot.Thepurposeoftherequirementseemstobeprimarilyinformational-toinformtheDSBandMembersastowhetherconsultationstookplace.WealsorecallthattheDSUexpresslycontemplatesthat,incertaincircumstances,apanelcandealwithanddisposeofthematterreferredtoitevenifnoconsultationstookplace.Similarly,theauthorityofthepanelcannotbeinvalidatedbytheabsence,intherequestforestablishmentofthepanel,ofanindication‘whetherconsultationswereheld’.Indeed,itwouldbecuriousiftherequirementinArticle6.2toinformtheDSBwhetherconsultationswereheldwasaccordedmoreimportanceinthedisputesettlementprocessthantherequirementactuallytoholdthoseconsultations.”10
　　Asageneralrule,“itmaybetruethatarequestforestablishmentwillbemorespecificthanarequestforconsultations.However,weconsiderthatArticle6.2oftheDSUisconcernedexclusivelywithaparty’srequestforestablishment.Thus,theconsistencyofaparty’srequestforestablishmentwithArticle6.2oftheDSUshouldbejudgedexclusivelyinlightofthespecificityoftherequestforestablishment,andnotinlightofthespecificityoftheparty’searlierrequestforconsultations”.11
　　
　　IIIIdentificationof“thespecificmeasuresatissue”
　　Withregardtothethirdrequirementsforrequestsforestablishmentofapanel,thequestiontobediscussedbelowiswhethertheordinarymeaningofthetermsofArt.6.2oftheDSU,i.e.,that“thespecificmeasuresatissue”beidentifiedinthepanelrequest,canbemetifa“measure”or/andtheproductsaffectedbysuchameasureisnotexplicitlydescribedintherequest.Inthisrespect,thePanelReportonJapan-Film(DS44)statesthat:12
　　“[…]TofallwithinthetermsofArticle6.2,itseemsclearthata‘measure’notexplicitlydescribedinapanelrequestmusthaveaclearrelationshiptoa‘measure’thatisspecificallydescribedtherein,sothatitcanbesaidtobe‘included’inthespecified‘measure’.Inourview,therequirementsofArticle6.2wouldbemetinthecaseofa‘measure’thatissubsidiaryorsocloselyrelatedtoa‘measure’specificallyidentified,thattherespondingpartycanreasonablybefoundtohavereceivedadequatenoticeofthescopeoftheclaimsassertedbythecomplainingparty.Thetwokeyelements--closerelationshipandnotice--areinter-related:onlyifa‘measure’issubsidiaryorcloselyrelatedtoaspecificallyidentified‘measure’willnoticebeadequate.Forexample,weconsiderthatwhereabasicframeworklawdealingwithanarrowsubjectmatterthatprovidesforimplementing‘measures’isspecifiedinapanelrequest,implementing‘measures’mightbeconsideredinappropriatecircumstancesaseffectivelyincludedinthepanelrequestaswellforpurposesofArticle6.2.Suchcircumstancesincludethecaseofabasicframeworklawthatspecifiestheformandcircumscribesthepossiblecontentandscopeofimplementing‘measures’.Asexplainedbelow,thisinterpretationofArticle6.2isconsistentwiththecontextandtheobjectandpurposeofArticle6.2,aswellaspastpanelpractice.
　　TheBananasIIIpanelfoundthattheobjectandpurposeofArticle6.2’sspecificityrequirementistoensureclarityofpanels’termsofreference,whichpursuanttoArticle7oftheDSUaretypicallydeterminedbythepanelrequest,andtoinformtherespondentandpotentialthirdpartiesofthescopeofthecomplainingparty’sclaims(i.e.,the‘measures’challengedandtheWTOprovisionsinvokedbythecomplainingparty).SolongasArticle6.2isinterpretedtorequireany‘measure’challengedtobespecifiedinthepanelrequestortobesubsidiaryorcloselyrelatedtothespecified‘measures’,theobjectandpurposeofArticle6.2aresatisfied.
　　TheproposedinterpretationisalsoconsistentwithpastWTOandGATTpanelpractice.TheBananasIIIpanelistheonlyWTOpaneltohaveinterpretedtheaspectofArticle6.2atissueinthiscase,i.e.,thedefinitionofthe‘measures’tobedeemedcoveredbyapanelrequest.IntheBananasIIIpanelrequest,the‘basicECregulationatissue’hadbeenidentifiedbyplaceanddateofpublication.Inaddition,therequestreferredingeneraltermsto‘subsequentEClegislation,regulationsandadministrativemeasures...whichimplement,supplementandamend[theECbanana]regime’.TheBananasIIIpanelfoundthatthisreferencewassufficientforthespecificityrequirementofArticle6.2becausethemeasuresthatthecomplainantswerecontestingwere‘adequatelyidentified’,eventhoughtheywerenotexplicitlylisted.TheAppellateBodyagreedthatthepanelrequest‘containssufficientidentificationofthemeasuresatissuetofulfiltherequirementsofArticle6.2’.Inourview,‘measures’thataresubsidiaryorcloselyrelatedtospecified‘measures’canbefoundtobe‘adequatelyidentified’asthatconceptwasappliedintheBananasIIIcase.”
　　Togofurther,withrespecttotheidentificationoftheproductsaffectedbysuchmeasures,theAppellateBodyrulesinEC-ComputerEquipment(DS62/DS67/DS68)that:“WenotethatArticle6.2oftheDSUdoesnotexplicitlyrequirethattheproductstowhichthe‘specificmeasuresatissue’applybeidentified.However,withrespecttocertainWTOobligations,inordertoidentify‘thespecificmeasuresatissue’,itmayalsobenecessarytoidentifytheproductssubjecttothemeasuresindispute.”13
　　However,asruledbythePanelinCanada-CivilianAircraft(DS70),“[w]edonotconsiderthatthemerefactthatthescopeofameasureisidentifiedintherequestforestablishmentbyreferencetoabroadproductorindustrygroupingnecessarilyrendersthatrequestforestablishmentinconsistentwithArticle6.2oftheDSU”.ThePanelbasestheirfindingbystatingthat:14
　　“[…]WebelievethattheAppellateBodywasofasimilaropinioninLANEquipment,whereitsharedtheUSconcernthat:‘iftheECargumentsonspecificityofproductdefinitionareaccepted,therewillinevitablybelong,drawn-outproceduralbattlesattheearlystageofthepanelprocessineveryproceeding.Thepartieswillcontesteveryproductdefinition,andthedefendingpartyineachcasewillseektoexcludeallproductsthatthecomplainingpartiesmayhaveidentifiedbygrouping,butnotspelledoutin’sufficient’detail.’
　　AlthoughtheAppellateBody’sremarksweremadeinthecontextofareferencetoabroadproductgroupinginthecomplainingparty’srequestforestablishment,wecanseenobasisfornotadoptingasimilarapproachwhentherequestforestablishmentreferstoabroadindustrysector,suchasthe‘civilaircraftindustry’.Ifacomplainingpartybelievesthatameasureaffectsabroadindustrysector,inourviewthatcomplainingpartyshouldbeentitledtochallengethatmeasureinsofarasitaffectsthetotalityoftheindustryconcerned,withouthavingtospellouttheindividualcomponentsofthatindustry,andwithoutrunningafoulofArticle6.2oftheDSU.”
　　Inshort,whethertheclaimsaresufficientlypreciseto“identifythespecificmeasureatissue”underArt.6.2oftheDSUdependsuponwhethertheysatisfytheobjectandpurposesoftherequirementofthatprovision,i.e.,whethertherespondentandpotentialthirdpartiesareputonsufficientnoticeastotheparametersofthecaseitisdefending.Forthisreason,Art.6.2shouldbeinterpretedtorequireany“measure”challengedtobespecifiedinthepanelrequestortobesubsidiaryorcloselyrelatedtothespecified“measures”.Also,oneofthepurposesofArt.6.2istoensureclarityofpanels’termsofreference.Accordingly,claimsbasedonprovisionsofGATTorotherWTOagreementsnotmentionedinthepanelrequestshouldbefoundtobeoutsidethetermsofreferenceofthepanelconcerned.”
　　
　　IVProvisionof“abriefsummaryofthelegalbasisofthecomplaint”
　　Initsfourthrequirement,Art.6.2demandsonlyasummary-anditmaybeabriefone-ofthelegalbasisofthecomplaint;butthesummarymust,inanyevent,beonethatis“sufficienttopresenttheproblemclearly”.Itisnotenough,inotherwords,that“thelegalbasisofthecomplaint”issummarilyidentified;theidentificationmust“presenttheproblemclearly”.
　　InEC-Bananas,withrespecttowhetherthepanelrequestprovides,asrequired,a“briefsummaryofthelegalbasisofthecomplaintsufficienttopresenttheproblemclearly”,theAppellateBodyrulespertinentlythat,“weagreewiththePanel’sconclusionthat‘therequestissufficientlyspecifictocomplywiththeminimumstandardsestablishedbythetermsofArticle6.2oftheDSU’.WeacceptthePanel’sviewthatitwassufficientfortheComplainingPartiestolisttheprovisionsofthespecificagreementsallegedtohavebeenviolatedwithoutsettingoutdetailedargumentsastowhichspecificaspectsofthemeasuresatissuerelatetowhichspecificprovisionsofthoseagreements.”15However,asnotedbytheAppellateBody,thisisnotalitmustestfordeterminingthesufficiencyofthestatementofthelegalbasisofthecomplaint.TheAppellateBodyinKorea-DairyProducts（DS98）rulesinpertinentpart:16
　　“AsthePanelnoted,wesaidinEuropeanCommunities-Bananas,that:[we]acceptthePanel’sviewthatitwassufficientfortheComplainingPartiestolisttheprovisionsofthespecificagreementsallegedtohavebeenviolatedwithoutsettingoutdetailedargumentsastowhichspecificaspectsofthemeasuresatissuerelatetowhichspecificprovisionsofthoseagreements.
　　ItappearstousthatthePanelreadthisportionofourfindingsinEuropeanCommunities-Bananasasestablishingalitmustestfordeterminingthesufficiencyofthestatementofthelegalbasisofthecomplaint.
　　ThePanel,however,failedtonotethatinEuropeanCommunities-Bananas,wewentontosaythat:
　　AsapanelrequestisnormallynotsubjectedtodetailedscrutinybytheDSB,itisincumbentuponapaneltoexaminetherequestfortheestablishmentofthepanelverycarefullytoensureitscompliancewithboththeletterandthespiritofArticle6.2oftheDSU.Itisimportantthatapanelrequestbesufficientlyprecisefortworeasons:first,itoftenformsthebasisforthetermsofreferenceofthepanelpursuanttoArticle7oftheDSU;and,second,itinformsthedefendingpartyandthethirdpartiesofthelegalbasisofthecomplaint.
　　Thus,wedidnotpurportinEuropeanCommunities-Bananastoestablishthemerelistingofthearticlesofanagreementallegedtohavebeenbreachedasastandardofprecision,observanceofwhichwouldalwaysconstitutesufficientcompliancewiththerequirementsofArticle6.2,ineachandeverycase,withoutregardtotheparticularcircumstancesofsuchcases.Ifwewereinfactattemptingtoconstructsucharuleinthatcase,therewouldhavebeenlittlepointtoourenjoiningpanelstoexaminearequestforapanel‘verycarefullytoensureitscompliancewithboththeletterandthespiritofArticle6.2oftheDSU’.ClosescrutinyofwhatweinfactsaidinEuropeanCommunities-Bananasshowsthatwe,firstly,restatedthereasonswhyprecisionisnecessaryinarequestforapanel;secondly,westressedthatclaims,notdetailedarguments,arewhatneedtobesetoutwithsufficientclarity;andthirdly,weagreedwiththeconclusionofthepanelthat,inthatcase,thelistingofthearticlesoftheagreementsclaimedtohavebeenviolatedsatisfiedtheminimumrequirementsofArticle6.2oftheDSU.Inviewofallthecircumstancessurroundingthatcase,weconcurredwiththepanelthattheEuropeanCommunitieshadnotbeenmisledastowhatclaimswereinfactbeingassertedagainstitasrespondent.
　　Identificationofthetreatyprovisionsclaimedtohavebeenviolatedbytherespondentisalwaysnecessarybothforpurposesofdefiningthetermsofreferenceofapanelandforinformingtherespondentandthethirdpartiesoftheclaimsmadebythecomplainant;suchidentificationisaminimumprerequisiteifthelegalbasisofthecomplaintistobepresentedatall.Butitmaynotalwaysbeenough.Theremaybesituationswherethesimplelistingofthearticlesoftheagreementoragreementsinvolvedmay,inthelightofattendantcircumstances,sufficetomeetthestandardofclarityinthestatementofthelegalbasisofthecomplaint.However,theremayalsobesituationsinwhichthecircumstancesaresuchthatthemerelistingoftreatyarticleswouldnotsatisfythestandardofArticle6.2.Thismaybethecase,forinstance,wherethearticleslistedestablishnotonesingle,distinctobligation,butrathermultipleobligations.Insuchasituation,thelistingofarticlesofanagreement,inandofitself,mayfallshortofthestandardofArticle6.2.”
　　Insum,asdiscussedinmoredetailinEC-BedLinen（DS141）:“…First,theissueistoberesolvedonacase-by-casebasis.Second,thepanelmustexaminetherequestfortheestablishmentofthepanelverycarefullytoensureitscompliancewithboththeletterandthespiritofArticle6.2oftheDSU.Third,thepanelshouldtakeintoaccountthenatureoftheparticularprovisionatissue-i.e.,wheretheArticleslistedestablishnotonesingle,distinctobligation,butrathermultipleobligations,themerelistingoftreatyArticlesmaynotsatisfythestandardofArticle6.2.Fourth,thepanelshouldtakeintoaccountwhethertheabilityoftherespondenttodefenditselfwasprejudiced,giventheactualcourseofthepanelproceedings,bythefactthatthepanelrequestsimplylistedtheprovisionsclaimedtohavebeenviolated.Itseemsthatevenifthepanelrequestisinsufficientonitsface,anallegationthattherequirementsofArticle6.2oftheDSUarenotmetwillnotprevailwherenoprejudiceisestablished.”17
　　Importantly,“[t]hefundamentalissueinassessingclaimsofprejudiceiswhetheradefendingpartywasmadeawareoftheclaimspresentedbythecomplainingparty,sufficienttoallowittodefenditself”.18“Article6.2oftheDSUcallsforsufficientclaritywithrespecttothelegalbasisofthecomplaint,thatis,withrespecttothe‘claims’thatarebeingassertedbythecomplainingparty.Adefendingpartyisentitledtoknowwhatcaseithastoanswer,andwhatviolationshavebeenallegedsothatitcanbeginpreparingitsdefence.Likewise,thoseMembersoftheWTOwhointendtoparticipateasthirdpartiesinpanelproceedingsmustbeinformedofthelegalbasisofthecomplaint.Thisrequirementofdueprocessisfundamentaltoensuringafairandorderlyconductofdisputesettlementproceedings.”19
　　Ontheonehand,tofallwithinthe“minimumstandards”establishedbyArt.6.2oftheDSU,itissufficientforthecomplainingpartiestolisttheprovisionsofthespecificagreementsallegedtohavebeenviolatedwithoutsettingoutdetailedargumentsastowhichspecificaspectsofthemeasuresatissuerelatetowhichspecificprovisionsofthoseagreements.
　　Ontheotherhand,thesimplelistingofarticlesofanagreementassertedtohavebeenviolateddoesn’tmeet,alwaysandineverycase,therequirementsofArt.6.2oftheDSU.AsruledbytheAppellateBody,“weconsiderthatwhetherthemerelistingofthearticlesclaimedtohavebeenviolatedmeetsthestandardofArticle6.2mustbeexaminedonacase-by-casebasis.Inresolvingthatquestion,wetakeintoaccountwhethertheabilityoftherespondenttodefenditselfwasprejudiced,giventheactualcourseofthepanelproceedings,bythefactthatthepanelrequestsimplylistedtheprovisionsclaimedtohavebeenviolated.”20“Inviewoftheimportanceoftherequestfortheestablishmentofapanel,weencouragecomplainingpartiestobepreciseinidentifyingthelegalbasisofthecomplaint.”21
　　
　　VConcludingRemarks
　　Toendupthissection,asruledbythePanelinThailand-IronandH-Beams(DS122):22
　　“WeunderstandthatwemustexaminetherequestfortheestablishmentofthepanelverycarefullytoensureitscompliancewithboththeletterandthespiritofArticle6.2oftheDSU.Itisimportantthatapanelrequestbesufficientlyprecisefortworeasons:first,itoftenformsthebasisforthetermsofreferenceofthepanelpursuanttoArticle7oftheDSU;and,second,itinformsthedefendingpartyandthethirdpartiesofthelegalbasisofthecomplaint.
　　InexaminingthesufficiencyofthepanelrequestunderArticle6.2DSU,wefirstconsiderthetextofthepanelrequestitself,inlightofthenatureofthelegalprovisionsinquestionandanyattendantcircumstances.Second,wetakeintoaccountwhethertheabilityoftherespondenttodefenditselfwasprejudiced,giventheactualcourseofthepanelproceedings,byanyallegedlackofspecificityinthetextofthepanelrequest.[…]”
　　
　　【NOTE】:
　　1.    See,WT/DS27/AB/R/142.
　　2.    See,WT/DS34/R/9.3.
　　3.    See,WT/DS122/AB/R/88.
　　4.    See,WT/DS27/AB/R/143.
　　5.    See,WT/DS27/AB/R/141.
　　6.    See,WT/DS122/R/7.43.
　　7.    See,WT/DS44/R/10.6.
　　8.    See,WT/DS98/AB/R/120.
　　9.    See,WT/DS132/AB/RW/62-63.
　　10.    See,WT/DS132/AB/RW/70.
　　11.    See,WT/DS70/R/9.32.
　　12.    See,WT/DS44/R/10.8-10.10.
　　13.    See,WT/DS62/AB/R;WT/DS67/AB/R;WT/DS68/AB/R/67.
　　14.    See,indetail,WT/DS70/R/9.36-9.37.
　　15.    See,WT/DS27/AB/R/141.
　　16.    See,WT/DS98/AB/R/121-124.
　　17.    See,WT/DS141/R/6.25.
　　18.    See,WT/DS122/AB/R/95.
　　19.    See,WT/DS122/AB/R/88.
　　20.    See,WT/DS98/AB/R/127.
　　21.    See,WT/DS122/AB/R/97.
　　22.    See,WT/DS122/R/7.13-7.14.
　　
　　
　　
　　SectionThree
　　TermsofReferenceofPanels:Art.7
　　
　　IIntroduction
　　Panel’stermsofreferencearegovernedbyArt.7oftheDSUwhichstates:
　　
　　“1.Panelsshallhavethefollowingtermsofreferenceunlessthepartiestothedisputeagreeotherwisewithin20daysfromtheestablishmentofthepanel:
　　    ‘Toexamine,inthelightoftherelevantprovisionsin(nameofthecoveredagreement(s)citedbythepartiestothedispute),thematterreferredtotheDSBby(nameofparty)indocument...andtomakesuchfindingsaswillassisttheDSBinmakingtherecommendationsoringivingtherulingsprovidedforinthat/thoseagreement(s).’
　　2.Panelsshalladdresstherelevantprovisionsinanycoveredagreementoragreementscitedbythepartiestothedispute.
　　3.Inestablishingapanel,theDSBmayauthorizeitsChairmantodrawupthetermsofreferenceofthepanelinconsultationwiththepartiestothedispute,subjecttotheprovisionsofparagraph1.ThetermsofreferencethusdrawnupshallbecirculatedtoallMembers.Ifotherthanstandardtermsofreferenceareagreedupon,anyMembermayraiseanypointrelatingtheretointheDSB.”
　　
　　Thefundamentalimportanceofapanel’stermsofreferencehasbeenstressedonmorethanoneoccasion.Forexample,theAppellateBodyrulesinBrazil-Coconut（DS22）that,apanel’stermsofreferenceareimportantfortworeasons:“First,termsofreferencefulfilanimportantdueprocessobjective--theygivethepartiesandthirdpartiessufficientinformationconcerningtheclaimsatissueinthedisputeinordertoallowthemanopportunitytorespondtothecomplainant’scase.Second,theyestablishthejurisdictionofthepanelbydefiningthepreciseclaimsatissueinthedispute.”1
　　However,withregardtotheissueofpanel’stermsofreference,whatwewillfirstlygetdowntoistherelationshipbetweenthetermsofreferenceandtheconsultationprocess.
　　
　　IIEffectofConsultationsonTermsofReferenceofPanels
　　ConsultationsareacrucialandintegralpartoftheDSUandareintendedtofacilitateamutuallysatisfactorysettlementofthedispute,consistentwithArticle3.7oftheDSU.However,asnotedpreviously,whattakesplaceinthoseconsultationsisnottheconcernofapanel.Withregardtotheissuediscussedhere,thePanelinTurkey-TextileandClothing(DS34)rulesthat:2
　　“Firstly,wenotethatinEC-BananasIIIthepanelconcludedthattheprivatenatureofthebilateralconsultationsmeansthatpanelsarenormallynotinapositiontoevaluatehowtheconsultationsprocessfunctions,butcouldonlydeterminewhetherconsultations,ifrequired,didinfacttakeplace.Inthiscase,thepartiesneverconsulted,asTurkeydeclinedtodosowithoutthepresenceoftheEuropeanCommunities.
　　InKorea-TaxesonAlcoholicBeveragesthePanelconcludedthat:‘…theWTOjurisprudencesofarhasnotrecognizedanyconceptof“adequacy”ofconsultations.TheonlyrequirementundertheDSUisthatconsultationswereinfactheld,orwereatleastrequested,andthataperiodofsixtydayshaselapsedfromthetimeconsultationswererequestedtothetimearequestforapanelwasmade.…’
　　Weconcurwiththisstatement.Wenotealsothatourtermsofreference(ourmandate)aredetermined,notwithreferencetotherequestforconsultations,orthecontentoftheconsultations,butonlywithreferencetotherequestfortheestablishmentofapanel.ConsultationsareacrucialandintegralpartoftheDSUandareintendedtofacilitateamutuallysatisfactorysettlementofthedispute,consistentwithArticle3.7oftheDSU.However,theonlyfunctionwehaveasapanelinrelationtoTurkey’sproceduralconcernsistoascertainwhetherconsultationswereproperlyrequested,intermsoftheDSU,thatthecomplainantwasreadytoconsultwiththedefendantandthatthe60-dayperiodhaselapsedbeforetheestablishmentofapanelwasrequestedbythecomplainant.WeconsiderthatIndiacompliedwiththeseproceduralrequirementsandthereforewefinditnecessarytorejectTurkey’sclaim.”
　　AnotherPanelinBrazil-Aircraft(DS46)followsasimilarline:3
　　“WerecallthatourtermsofreferencearebaseduponCanada’srequestforestablishmentofapanel,andnotuponCanada’srequestforconsultations.ThesetermsofreferencewereestablishedbytheDSBpursuanttoArticle7.1oftheDSUandestablishtheparametersforourwork.NothinginthetextoftheDSUorArticle4oftheSCMAgreementprovidesthatthescopeofapanel’sworkisgovernedbythescopeofpriorconsultations.NordoweconsiderthatweshouldseektosomehowimplysucharequirementintotheWTOAgreement.Onepurposeofconsultations,assetforthinArticle4.3oftheSCMAgreement,isto‘clarifythefactsofthesituation’,anditcanbeexpectedthatinformationobtainedduringthecourseofconsultationsmayenablethecomplainanttofocusthescopeofthematterwithrespecttowhichitseeksestablishmentofapanel.Thus,tolimitthescopeofthepanelproceedingstotheidenticalmatterwithrespecttowhichconsultationswereheldcouldunderminetheeffectivenessofthepanelprocess.
　　[…]Wedonotbelieve,however,thateitherArticle4.7oftheDSUorArticle4.4oftheSCMAgreementrequiresapreciseidentitybetweenthematterwithrespecttowhichconsultationswereheldandthatwithrespecttowhichestablishmentofapanelwasrequested.”
　　ThisrulingisconfirmedbytheAppellateBody:“Wedonotbelieve,however,thatArticles4and6oftheDSU,orparagraphs1to4ofArticle4oftheSCMAgreement,requireapreciseandexactidentitybetweenthespecificmeasuresthatwerethesubjectofconsultationsandthespecificmeasuresidentifiedintherequestfortheestablishmentofapanel.”4
　　Inshort,panel’stermsofreferencearedetermined,notwithreferencetotherequestforconsultations,orthecontentoftheconsultations,butonlywithreferencetotherequestfortheestablishmentofapanel.
　　
　　IIIThe“matterreferredtotheDSB”
　　Asnotedabove,panel’stermsofreferencearefirstlythestandardtermsofreferenceprovidedforinArt.7.1oftheDSU.Underthosetermsofreference,panelsarerequiredtoexaminethe“matterreferredtotheDSB”bythecomplaintinitsrequestforestablishment.However,Art.7oftheDSUitselfdoesnotshedanyfurtherlightonthemeaningoftheterm“matter”.
　　Nevertheless,whenreadtogetherwithArt.6.2oftheDSU,theprecisemeaningoftheterm“matter”prescribedinArt.7oftheDSUbecomesclear.Art.6.2specifiestherequirementsforacomplainingMembertoreferthe“matter”totheDSB.Inordertoseektheestablishmentofapaneltohearitscomplaint,aMembermustmake,inwriting,a“requestfortheestablishmentofapanel”.InadditiontobeingthedocumentwhichenablestheDSBtoestablishapanel,thepanelrequestisalsousuallyidentifiedinthepanel’stermsofreferenceasthedocumentsettingout“thematterreferredtotheDSB”.
　　Forexample,theAppellateBodyrulesinBrazil-Coconut(DS22)that:“Weagree,furthermore,withtheconclusionsexpressedbypreviouspanelsundertheGATT1947,aswellasundertheTokyoRoundSCMCodeandtheTokyoRoundAnti-dumpingCode,thatthe‘matter’referredtoapanelforconsiderationconsistsofthespecificclaimsstatedbythepartiestothedisputeintherelevantdocumentsspecifiedinthetermsofreference.Weagreewiththeapproachtakeninpreviousadoptedpanelreportsthatamatter,whichincludestheclaimscomposingthatmatter,doesnotfallwithinapanel’stermsofreferenceunlesstheclaimsareidentifiedinthedocumentsreferredtoorcontainedinthetermsofreference.”5
　　Moreexplicitly,asobservedbythePanelinIndia-AutomotiveSector(DS146/DS175),“nthecontextofWTOdisputesettlement,thenotionof‘matter’,asreferredtoinArticle7.1oftheDSU,determinesthescopeofwhatissubmitted,andwhatcanberuledupon,byapanel.AsconfirmedbytheAppellateBodyintheGuatemala-Cementcase,thematterreferredtotheDSBconsistsoftwoelements:thespecificmeasuresatissueandthelegalbasisofthecomplaint(ortheclaims).ThisappearstothePaneltobethemostappropriateminimalbenchmarkbywhichtoassesswhethertheconditionsofresjudicatacouldconceivablybemet,ifsuchanotionwasofrelevance.”.6
　　Tosumup,ontheonehand,the“matterreferredtotheDSB”consistsoftwoelements:thespecificmeasuresatissueandthelegalbasisofthecomplaint.Ontheotherhand,pastpracticerequiresthataclaimhastobeincludedinthedocumentsreferredto,orcontainedin,thetermsofreferenceinordertoformpartofthe‘matter’referredtoapanelforconsideration.Thus,aclaimmustbeincludedintherequestforestablishmentofapanelinordertocomewithintermsofreferenceofpanels.
　　
　　【NOTE】:
　　1.    See,WT/DS22/AB/R/VI.
　　2.    See,WT/DS34/R/9.22-9.24.
　　3.    See,WT/DS46/R/7.9-7.10.
　　4.    See,WT/DS46/AB/R/132.
　　5.    Supra.note1.
　　6.    See,WT/DS146/R;WT/DS175/R/7.65.
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　SectionFour
　　TheMandateofCompliancePanels:Art.21.5
　　
　　IIntroduction
　　IntheWTOcontext,membersmayinitiateanormalpanelprocedureunderArt.6.2oftheDSU.Furthermore,theymayalsoinitiateacompliancepanelproceedingunderArt.21.5oftheDSUwhichreadsas:
　　
　　“Wherethereisdisagreementastotheexistenceorconsistencywithacoveredagreementofmeasurestakentocomplywiththerecommendationsandrulingssuchdisputeshallbedecidedthroughrecoursetothesedisputesettlementprocedures,includingwhereverpossibleresorttotheoriginalpanel.Thepanelshallcirculateitsreportwithin90daysafterthedateofreferralofthemattertoit.Whenthepanelconsidersthatitcannotprovideitsreportwithinthistimeframe,itshallinformtheDSBinwritingofthereasonsforthedelaytogetherwithanestimateoftheperiodwithinwhichitwillsubmititsreport.”
　　
　　InArt.21.5panelproceedings,themandateissueoftencausescontroversy.AgainsttheparticularbackgroundofArt.21.5panelproceedings,“[t]wobenchmarksapplywhendefiningour[panel’s]termsofreference.First,Article21.5oftheDSUpursuanttowhichthisPanelwasestablished.Second,our[panel’s]specifictermsofreferencesetoutindocumentWT/DS18/15,adocumentthatrefers,inturn,tothematterandrelevantprovisionsofthecoveredagreementsreferredtobyCanadainitsrequestforthisPanel(documentWT/DS18/14)[therequestfortheestablishmentofapanel].”1
　　Thus,themandateofacompliancepanelisdefinedbytwobenchmarks:Art.21.5;thespecifictermsofreferencesetoutinthepanelrequest.Withregardtothesecondbenchmark,ithasbeendiscussedindetailinprevioussections;panel’stermsofreferencearenormallydefinedinArt.7oftheDSU,and“thematterreferredtotheDSB”forpurposesofArt.7oftheDSUisthe“matter”identifiedintherequestforestablishmentofapanelunderArt.6.2oftheDSU.The“matterreferredtotheDSB”,therefore,consistsoftwoelements:thespecificmeasuresatissueandthelegalbasisofthecomplaint(ortheclaims).Therefore,wewillfocusinthissectiononthefirstbenchmark,i.e.Art.21.5oftheDSU,underwhichthemandateofapanelistoexaminethe“existenceorconsistencywithacoveredagreementofmeasurestakentocomplywiththerecommendationsandrulings”oftheDSB.
　　
　　IIClarificationof“measurestakentocomply”
　　“SinceArticle21.5exclusivelyreferstodisagreementsasto‘measurestakentocomply’,anyothermeasuresfalloutsidethescopeofacompliancepanel.”2Andinthiscase,isthereanyprecisedefinitionof“measurestakentocomply”thatshouldapplyinallcases?
　　TheAppellateBodyrulesconcerningthemandateofArt.21.5panelinCanada-Aircraft(DS70)（21.5）that:“ProceedingsunderArticle21.5donotconcernjustanymeasureofaMemberoftheWTO;rather,Article21.5proceedingsarelimitedtothose‘measurestakentocomplywiththerecommendationsandrulings’oftheDSB.Inourview,thephrase‘measurestakentocomply’referstomeasureswhichhavebeen,orwhichshouldbe,adoptedbyaMembertobringaboutcompliancewiththerecommendationsandrulingsoftheDSB.Inprinciple,ameasurewhichhasbeen‘takentocomplywiththerecommendationsandrulings’oftheDSBwillnotbethesamemeasureasthemeasurewhichwasthesubjectoftheoriginaldispute,sothat,inprinciple,therewouldbetwoseparateanddistinctmeasures:theoriginalmeasurewhichgaverisetotherecommendationsandrulingsoftheDSB,andthe‘measurestakentocomply’whichare-orshouldbe-adoptedtoimplementthoserecommendationsandrulings.”3
　　Andinthisrespect,wethinkthethreepointsbelowmadebytheCompliancePanelintheAustralia-Salmon(DS18)（21.5）meritsattentionforanappropriateunderstandingof“themeasurestakentocomply”:
　　Firstly,“wenotethatanArticle21.5panelcannotleaveittothefulldiscretionoftheimplementingMembertodecidewhetherornotameasureisone‘takentocomply’.Ifoneweretoallowthat,animplementingMembercouldsimplyavoidanyscrutinyofcertainmeasuresbyacompliancepanel,evenwheresuchmeasureswouldbesoclearlyconnectedtothepanelandAppellateBodyreportsconcerned,bothintimeandinrespectofthesubject-matter,thatanyimpartialobserverwouldconsiderthemtobemeasures‘takentocomply’.”4
　　Secondly,“[t]hequestionofwhetherameasureisoneinthedirectionofWTOconformityor,onthecontrary,maintainstheoriginalviolationoraggravatesit,can,inourview,notdeterminewhetherameasureisone‘takentocomply’.Ifthiswereso,onewouldbefacedwithanabsurdsituation:iftheimplementingMemberintroducesa‘better’measure--inthedirectionofWTOconformity--itwouldbesubjecttoanexpeditedArticle21.5procedure;ifitintroducesa‘worse’measure--maintainingoraggravatingtheviolation--itwouldhavearighttoacompletelynewWTOprocedure.Ourinterpretationof‘measurestakentocomply’isfurthersupportedbythepracticaldifficultyofmakingadistinctionbetween‘better’and‘worse’measures.”5
　　Thirdly,“[w]edonotconsiderthatmeasurestakensubsequentlytotheestablishmentofanArticle21.5compliancepanelshouldperforcebeexcludedfromitsmandate.Evenbeforeanoriginalpanelsuchmeasureswerefoundtofallwithinthepanel’smandatebecause,inthatspecificcase,thenewmeasuresdidnotalterthesubstance-onlythelegalform--oftheoriginalmeasurethatwasexplicitlymentionedintherequest.Incompliancepanelsweareoftheviewthattheremaybedifferentand,arguably,evenmorecompellingreasonstoexaminemeasuresintroducedduringtheproceedings.Asnotedearlier,complianceisoftenanongoingorcontinuousprocessandonceithasbeenidentifiedassuchinthepanelrequest,asitwasinthiscase,any‘measurestakentocomply’canbepresumedtofallwithinthepanel’smandate,unlessagenuinelackofnoticecanbepointedto.EspeciallyunderthefirstlegofArticle21.5whenitcomestodisagreementsontheexistenceofmeasurestakentocomply,onecanhardlyexpectthatallsuchmeasures-whenthereisnoclarityontheirveryexistence-beexplicitlymentionedup-frontinthepanelrequest.”6
　　Insum,Art.21.5proceedingsinvolve,inprinciple,nottheoriginalmeasure,butratheranewanddifferentmeasurewhichwasnotbeforetheoriginalpanel.Andthesubject-matteroftheseproceedingsisdeterminedbytwobenchmarks:Art.21.5oftheDSUandpanel’sspecifictermsofreferencesetoutintherequestforestablishmentofapanelthatrefers,inturn,tothematterandrelevantprovisionsofthecoveredagreementsreferredtotheDSB.
　　
　　IIIPerspectiveofReviewunderArt.21.5
　　WhatdiscussedaboveisjustoneaspectofthemandateofacompliancepanelunderArt.21.5oftheDSU.WhatshouldpanelsdoincarryingappropriatelyoutthereviewenvisagedunderArt.21.5oftheDSU?InAustralia-Salmon(DS18)（21.5）,theCompliancePanelrules,inpertinentpart:7
　　“WenotethatArticle21.5itselfreferstotwotypesofdisagreements,namelydisagreementsasto‘theexistenceorconsistencywithacoveredagreementofmeasurestakentocomplywith[DSB]recommendationsandrulings’.Australia’srequestsforpreliminaryrulingspertaintothesecondtypeofdisagreements,thoseonthe‘consistencywithacoveredagreementofmeasurestakentocomplywith[DSB]recommendationsandrulings’.
　　Thereferenceto‘disagreementastothe[…]consistencywithacoveredagreement’ofcertainmeasures,impliesthatanArticle21.5compliancepanelcanpotentiallyexaminetheconsistencyofameasuretakentocomplywithaDSBrecommendationorrulinginthelightofanyprovisionofanyofthecoveredagreements.Article21.5isnotlimitedtoconsistencyofcertainmeasureswiththeDSBrecommendationsandrulingsadoptedasaresultoftheoriginaldispute;nortoconsistencywiththosecoveredagreementsorspecificprovisionsthereofthatfellwithinthemandateoftheoriginalpanel;nortoconsistencywithspecificWTOprovisionsunderwhichtheoriginalpanelfoundviolations.IftheintentionbehindthisprovisionoftheDSUhadbeentolimitthemandateofArticle21.5compliancepanelsinanyoftheseways,thetextwouldhavespecifiedsuchlimitation.Thetext,however,refersgenerallyto‘consistencywithacoveredagreement’.Therationalebehindthisisobvious:acomplainant,afterhavingprevailedinanoriginaldispute,shouldnothavetogothroughtheentireDSUprocessonceagainifanimplementingMemberinseekingtocomplywithDSBrecommendationsunderacoveredagreementisbreaching,inadvertentlyornot,itsobligationsunderotherprovisionsofcoveredagreements.Insuchinstancesanexpeditedprocedureshouldbeavailable.ThisprocedureisprovidedforinArticle21.5.Itisinlinewiththefundamentalrequirementof‘promptcompliance’withDSBrecommendationsandrulingsexpressedinbothArticle3.3andArticle21.1oftheDSU.
　　Onthatbasis,weagreewiththeArticle21.5compliancepanelinEC-BananasIII(requestedbyEcuador)whenitstatedthat‘thereisnosuggestioninthetextofArticle21.5thatonlycertainissuesofconsistencyofmeasuresmaybeconsidered’(WT/DS27/RW/ECU,paragraph6.8).”
　　Infact,asnotedabove,Art.21.5proceedingsinvolve,inprinciple,nottheoriginalmeasure,butratheranewanddifferentmeasurewhichwasnotbeforetheoriginalpanel.“Accordingly,incarryingoutitsreviewunderArticle21.5oftheDSU,apanelisnotconfinedtoexaminingthe‘measurestakentocomply’fromtheperspectiveoftheclaims,argumentsandfactualcircumstancesthatrelatedtothemeasurethatwasthesubjectoftheoriginalproceedings.AlthoughthesemayhavesomerelevanceinproceedingsunderArticle21.5oftheDSU,Article21.5proceedingsinvolve,inprinciple,nottheoriginalmeasure,butratheranewanddifferentmeasurewhichwasnotbeforetheoriginalpanel.Inaddition,therelevantfactsbearinguponthe‘measuretakentocomply’maybedifferentfromtherelevantfactsrelatingtothemeasureatissueintheoriginalproceedings.Itisnatural,therefore,thattheclaims,argumentsandfactualcircumstanceswhicharepertinenttothe‘measuretakentocomply’willnot,necessarily,bethesameasthosewhichwerepertinentintheoriginaldispute.Indeed,theutilityofthereviewenvisagedunderArticle21.5oftheDSUwouldbeseriouslyunderminedifapanelwererestrictedtoexaminingthenewmeasurefromtheperspectiveoftheclaims,argumentsandfactualcircumstancesthatrelatedtotheoriginalmeasure,becauseanArticle21.5panelwouldthenbeunabletoexaminefullythe‘consistencywithacoveredagreementofthemeasurestakentocomply’,asrequiredbyArticle21.5oftheDSU.”8
　　
　　IVExaminationoftheNewMeasureinItsTotalityandinItsApplication
　　WhileduringtheappealinUS-Shrimp(DS58)(21.5),MalaysiaarguesthatthePanelimproperlylimiteditsanalysistotherecommendationsandrulingsoftheDSB,andthusfailedtofulfillitsmandateunderArt.21.5oftheDSUbecauseitdidnotexaminetheconsistencyoftheUnitedStatesimplementingmeasurewiththerelevantprovisionsoftheGATT1994.MalaysiaarguesaswellthattheArt.21.5PanelerroneouslybaseditsanalysisentirelyontheAppellateBody’sReportintheoriginalproceedings.TheAppellateBodyobservesthat“Malaysia’sappealonthispointgoestotheheartofwhatapanelisrequiredtodoinproceedingsunderArticle21.5oftheDSU”,9andtheycontinuetorulethat:10
　　“AsweruledinourReportinCanada-Aircraft(21.5),panelproceedingspursuanttoArticle21.5oftheDSUinvolve,inprinciple,nottheoriginalmeasure,butanewanddifferentmeasurethatwasnotbeforetheoriginalpanel.Therefore,‘incarryingoutitsreviewunderArticle21.5oftheDSU,apanelisnotconfinedtoexaminingthe’measurestakentocomply’fromtheperspectiveoftheclaims,argumentsandfactualcircumstancesthatrelatedtothemeasurethatwasthesubjectoftheoriginalproceedings’.
　　Whentheissueconcernstheconsistencyofanewmeasure‘takentocomply’,thetaskofapanelinamatterreferredtoitbytheDSBforanArticle21.5proceedingistoconsiderthatnewmeasureinitstotality.Thefulfilmentofthistaskrequiresthatapanelconsiderboththemeasureitselfandthemeasure’sapplication.AsthetitleofArticle21makesclear,thetaskofpanelsunderArticle21.5formspartoftheprocessofthe‘SurveillanceofImplementationoftheRecommendationsandRulings’oftheDSB.Towardthatend,thetaskofapanelunderArticle21.5istoexaminethe‘consistencywithacoveredagreementofmeasurestakentocomplywiththerecommendationsandrulings’oftheDSB.ThattaskiscircumscribedbythespecificclaimsmadebythecomplainantwhenthematterisreferredbytheDSBforanArticle21.5proceeding.ItisnotpartofthetaskofapanelunderArticle21.5toaddressaclaimthathasnotbeenmade.
　　MalaysiareliesinthisappealonourrulinginCanada-Aircraft(21.5).WeunderstandMalaysiatoargue,basedinpartonourrulinginCanada-Aircraft(21.5),thatthePanelinthiscasehadadutytoreviewthetotalityoftheUnitedStatesmeasure,andtoassessitforitsconsistencywiththerelevantprovisionsoftheGATT1994.Thatisindeedapanel’staskunderArticle21.5oftheDSU.Yet,aswehavesaid,itisnotpartofapanel’stasktogobeyondtheparticularclaimsthathavebeenmadewithrespecttotheconsistencyofanewmeasurewithacoveredagreementwhenamatterisreferredtoitbytheDSBforanArticle21.5proceeding.Thus,itwouldnothavebeenappropriateinthiscaseforthePaneltoaddressaclaimthatwasnotmadebyMalaysiawhenrequestingthatthismatterbereferredbytheDSBforanArticle21.5proceeding.
　　WithrespecttoaclaimthathasbeenmadewhenamatterisreferredbytheDSBforanArticle21.5proceeding,Malaysiaseemstosuggestaswellthatapanelmustre-examine,forWTO-consistency,eventhoseaspectsofanewmeasurethatwerepartofapreviousmeasurethatwasthesubjectofadispute,andwerefoundbytheAppellateBodytobeWTO-consistentinthatdispute,andthatremainunchangedaspartofthenewmeasure.
　　Inconsideringthisargument,weexaminewhatthePaneldidinthiscaseinfulfillingitstaskundertheDSU.Aswehavesaid,thePanelwasrequiredtoreviewthenewmeasureinitstotalityandinitsapplicationwhenexaminingthematterreferredbytheDSBfortheArticle21.5proceeding.Inthiscase,thequestionwhetheritdidordidnotfulfilthisrequirementarisesfromthetreatmentbythePanelofaparticularpartofthenewmeasurethatwasalsopartoftheoriginalmeasureintheoriginalproceedings.
　　WewishtorecallthatpanelproceedingsunderArticle21.5oftheDSUare,asthetitleofArticle21states,partoftheprocessofthe‘SurveillanceofImplementationofRecommendationsandRulings’oftheDSB.ThisincludesAppellateBodyReports.Tobesure,therightofWTOMemberstohaverecoursetotheDSU,includingunderArticle21.5,mustberespected.Evenso,itmustalsobekeptinmindthatArticle17.14oftheDSUprovidesnotonlythatReportsoftheAppellateBody‘shallbe’adoptedbytheDSB,byconsensus,butalsothatsuchReports‘shallbe…unconditionallyacceptedbythepartiestothedispute.…’Thus,AppellateBodyReportsthatareadoptedbytheDSBare,asArticle17.14provides,‘…unconditionallyacceptedbythepartiestothedispute’,and,therefore,mustbetreatedbythepartiestoaparticulardisputeasafinalresolutiontothatdispute.Inthisregard,werecall,too,thatArticle3.3oftheDSUstatesthatthe‘promptsettlement’ofdisputes‘isessentialtotheeffectivefunctioningoftheWTO’.
　　Therefore,sofarastheexaminationofthemeasureatissueinthisappealisconcerned,thetaskofthePanel…aspartofthatnewmeasure,waslimitedtoexaminingitsapplication….”
　　Insum,asruledbytheAppellateBodyinCanada-Aircraft(DS70)（21.5）,“theexaminationof‘measurestakentocomply’isbasedontherelevantfactsproved,bythecomplainant,totheArticle21.5panel,duringthepanelproceedings.”11AndthepanelisrequiredtoreviewthenewmeasureinitstotalityandinitsapplicationwhenexaminingthematterreferredbytheDSBfortheArt.21.5proceeding.Evenso,itmustalsobekeptinmindthat,itisnotpartofapanel’stasktogobeyondtheparticularclaimsthathavebeenmadewithrespecttotheconsistencyofanewmeasurewithacoveredagreementwhenamatterisreferredtoitbytheDSBforanArt.21.5proceeding.Towardthatend,thetaskiscircumscribedbythespecificclaimsmadebythecomplainantwhenthematterisreferredbytheDSBforanArt.21.5proceeding.
　　
　　
　　
　　【NOTE】:
　　1.    See,WT/DS18/RW/7.10/7.
　　2.    See,WT/DS18/RW/7.10/21.
　　3.    See,WT/DS70/AB/RW/36.
　　4.    See,WT/DS18/RW/7.10/22.
　　5.    See,WT/DS18/RW/7.10/23.
　　6.    See,WT/DS18/RW/7.10/28.
　　7.    See,WT/DS18/RW/7.10/8-10.
　　8.    See,WT/DS70/AB/RW/41.
　　9.    See,WT/DS58/AB/RW/84.
　　10.    See,WT/DS58/AB/RW/86-90;97-98.
　　11.    See,WT/DS70/AB/RW/38.
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　SectionFive
　　ThirdPartyRights:Art.10
　　
　　IIntroduction
　　TheobjectandpurposeofthiscontributionistosurveytheWTOpracticeinthematterofthirdpartyintervention.ThefocusisdirectedtowardsanexaminationoftherightstowhichWTOmembersareentitled,wheretheyarenotnamedaspartiestoaparticularWTOdisputebutneverthelessretaininganinterestinthedisputeandthereforeinterveneasthirdparties.However,accordingtoArt.17.4oftheDSU,“[o]nlypartiestothedispute,notthirdparties,mayappealapanelreport”,wethereforefocusontheinterventionofthirdpartiesinpanelproceduresratherthaninappellatereview,excepttobemindfulthatthesameArticlealsoprovidesthat,“[t]hirdpartieswhichhavenotifiedtheDSBofasubstantialinterestinthematterpursuanttoparagraph2ofArticle10maymakewrittensubmissionsto,andbegivenanopportunitytobeheardby,theAppellateBody”.
　　TherulesrelatingtotheparticipationofthirdpartiesinpanelproceedingsaresetoutinArt.10oftheDSU,and,particularlyrelatingcloselytothirdpartyrights,paragraphs2and3thereof,andinparagraph6ofAppendix3totheDSU:
　　
　　Article10:ThirdParties
　　“1.TheinterestsofthepartiestoadisputeandthoseofotherMembersunderacoveredagreementatissueinthedisputeshallbefullytakenintoaccountduringthepanelprocess.
　　2.AnyMemberhavingasubstantialinterestinamatterbeforeapanelandhavingnotifieditsinteresttotheDSB(referredtointhisUnderstandingasa‘thirdparty’)shallhaveanopportunitytobeheardbythepanelandtomakewrittensubmissionstothepanel.Thesesubmissionsshallalsobegiventothepartiestothedisputeandshallbereflectedinthepanelreport.
　　3.Thirdpartiesshallreceivethesubmissionsofthepartiestothedisputetothefirstmeetingofthepanel.
　　4.Ifathirdpartyconsidersthatameasurealreadythesubjectofapanelproceedingnullifiesorimpairsbenefitsaccruingtoitunderanycoveredagreement,thatMembermayhaverecoursetonormaldisputesettlementproceduresunderthisUnderstanding.Suchadisputeshallbereferredtotheoriginalpanelwhereverpossible.”
　　
　　Appendix3totheDSU:WORKINGPROCEDURES
　　“6.AllthirdpartieswhichhavenotifiedtheirinterestinthedisputetotheDSBshallbeinvitedinwritingtopresenttheirviewsduringasessionofthefirstsubstantivemeetingofthepanelsetasideforthatpurpose.Allsuchthirdpartiesmaybepresentduringtheentiretyofthissession.”
　　
　　UndertheDSU,asitcurrentlystands,thirdpartiesareonlyentitledtotheparticipatoryrightsprovidedforinArts.10.2and10.3andparagraph6ofAppendix3.Asistobediscussedinmoredetailbelow.
　　
　　IIGenericThirdPartyRights:InterpretationofArt.10.3
　　Art.10.3oftheDSUexplicitlylimitstherightofthirdpartiestoreceiveonlytheparties’submissions“tothefirstmeeting”.
　　Innormalpanelproceedings,twosubstantivemeetingswiththepartiesareheld.TheDSUand,inparticular,paragraphs5,6and7ofAppendix3totheDSU,contemplate“twodistinguishablestages”inaproceedingbeforeapanel.The“firststage”comprisesthefirstwrittensubmissionsbythepartiesandthefirstmeetingofthepanel,whilethe“secondstage”consistsofthesecondwrittensubmissions-or“rebuttal”submissions-andthesecondmeetingwiththepanel.However,noprovisionoftheDSUexplicitlyrequirespanelstoholdtwomeetingswiththeparties,ortoobligethepartiestosubmittwowrittensubmissions.InproceedingsunderArt.21.5,whicharesubjecttoconsiderablyshortertime-framesthanappliedunderArt.12.8oftheDSU,panelshaveadoptedthepracticeofholdingasinglemeetingwiththeparties,ratherthantwomeetings.Atthesametime,Art.21.5panelsuniformlyhavemaintainedthepracticeofrequiringpartiestofiletwowrittensubmissions,i.e.bothfirstandrebuttalsubmissionstothesinglemeeting.DuetotheexpeditednatureofArt.21.5procedures,itisoftendisagreedastowhetherthethirdpartyrightsunderArt.10.3oftheDSUhavebeeninappropriatelylimitedbyArt.21.5panels.WewillnextgetdowntosomeofsuchpracticeunderArt.21.5.
　　Forexample,inCanada-MilkandDairyProducts(DS103/DS113)（21.5）,allpartiesandthirdpartiesagreethatArt.10.3oftheDSUremainsapplicableintheArt.21.5proceedings,andrequiresthat“thirdpartiesshallreceivethesubmissionsofthepartiestothedisputetothefirstmeetingofthePanel”.ThedisagreementrelatesastowhetherthethirdpartyrightsunderArt.10.3oftheDSUhavebeeninappropriatelylimitedbythePanelwhenitadopted,inaccordancewiththepracticeofpreviousArt.21.5panelsandinagreementwiththepartiestothisdispute,thefollowingruleinparagraph8ofthisPanel’sWorkingProcedures:“Thirdpartiesshallreceivecopiesoftheparties’firstwrittensubmissions”.Inthisrespect,theArt.21.5Panelrulesas:1
　　“[…][T]hePanelnotedthatthetextofArticle10.3isclearandrequiresthisPaneltomakeavailabletothirdparties‘thesubmissionsofthepartiestothedisputetothefirstmeetingofthepanel’.IntheparticularcontextofArticle21.5,panelswhich,asinthiscase,requestbothpartiestosubmitalsotheirrebuttalsubmissionspriortothefirstmeetingwiththeparties,theliteralreadingofArticle10.3clearlyrequirestomakeavailabletothirdpartiesalsotheserebuttalsubmissions.EveninthedifferentcontextofnormalArticle12panelproceedingswithtwomeetingswiththeparties,nothinginthetextofArticle10.3andinthedifferentcontextofnormalArticle12panelproceedingsjustifiesignoringthecleartextualrequirementofArticle10.3toenablethirdpartiestoparticipateinthefirstpanelmeetingwithaccesstoall‘thesubmissions’ofthepartiesmadeuptothispointofthepanelprocess.IntheparticularcontextofthisArticle21.5Panelproceeding,theterm‘submissions’inArticle10.3oftheDSUmustthereforeincludetheparties’rebuttalsubmissions.
　　IntheviewofthePanel,onlythisstrictcompliancewiththeunequivocaltextofArticle10.3securesthattheinterestsandrightsofthirdpartiesare‘fullytakenintoaccountduringthepanelprocess’(Article10.1)inamannerenablingthePanelto‘makeanobjectiveassessmentofthematterbeforeit’(Article11.1).InthePanel’sview,theobjectandpurposeofArticle10.3oftheDSUistoallowthirdpartiestoparticipateinaninformedand,hence,meaningful,mannerinasessionofthemeetingwiththepartiesspecificallysetasideforthatpurpose.Thirdpartiescanonlydosoiftheyhavereceivedalltheinformationexchangedbetweenthepartiesbeforethatsession.Otherwise,thirdpartiesmightfindthemselvesinasituationwheretheiroralstatementsatthemeetingbecomepartiallyortotallyirrelevantormootinthelightofsecondsubmissionsbythepartiestowhichthirdpartiesdidnothaveaccess.Withoutaccesstoallthesubmissionsbythepartiestothedisputetothefirstmeetingofthepanel,uninformedthirdpartysubmissionscouldundulydelaypanelproceedingsand,asrightlyemphasisedbytheECandsupportedbyMexico,couldpreventthePanelfromreceiving‘thebenefitofausefulcontributionbythirdpartieswhichcouldhelpthePaneltomaketheobjectiveassessmentthatitisrequiredtomakeunderArticle11oftheDSU’.
　　ThePanelthereforeconcludesthatnothingintheDSUauthorisesthisPaneltorestricttherightofthirdpartiestoonlyreceivethe‘first’submissionsmadeon4May2001,andtowithholdfromthethirdpartiestherebuttalsubmissionsduefor25May2001(i.e.beforethefirstmeetingofthepanelon29-31May2001).ThePaneldecidesthat,pursuanttoArticle10.3oftheDSU,thirdpartieshavetherighttoreceiveallwrittensubmissions‘tothefirstmeeting’,includingrebuttalsubmissionsmadebeforethatfirstmeeting.Accordingly,thePanelreplacesthecurrentsentenceinparagraph8ofitsWorkingProcedures(‘Thirdpartiesshallreceivecopiesoftheparties’firstwrittensubmissions’)bythetextinArticle10.3oftheDSU:‘Thirdpartiesshallreceivethesubmissionsofthepartiestothedisputetothefirstmeetingofthepanel’.ThePanelnotesthat,pursuanttoArticle12.1oftheDSUandparagraph14ofitsWorkingProcedures,thePanelcanamendtheWorkingProceduresafterconsultingtheparties.ThePanelconsidersthat,havinginvitedandreceivedcommentsbythepartiesregardingtheEuropeanCommunities’request,ithasdulyconsultedwiththem.”
　　WhileinUS-TaxTreatment(DS108),duringtherecourseofArt.21.5oftheDSU,thePanelissuedadecisiontothepartiesrefusingtherequestoftheEuropeanCommunitiesandstatingthat:“…wedonotconsiderthatArticle10.3DSUrequiresthatthirdpartiesreceiveallpre-meetingsubmissionsoftheparties(includingrebuttalsubmissions)inthecontextofanacceleratedproceedingunderArticle21.5DSUthatinvolvesonlyonemeetingofthepartiesandthirdpartieswiththepanel.”
　　TheEuropeanCommunitiesappealsthisinterpretivepreliminaryrulingbythePanel.IntheviewoftheEuropeanCommunities,thisrulingconflictswithArt10.3oftheDSUanddoesnotrespecttherightsaffordedtothirdpartiesundertheDSU.AccordingtotheEuropeanCommunities,althoughpanelshaveacertaindiscretiontoestablishtheirownworkingprocedures,theymaynotderogatefrombindingprovisionsoftheDSU,includingtherequirementinArt.10.3oftheDSUthat“thirdpartiesshallreceivethesubmissionsofthepartiestothedisputetothefirstmeetingofthepanel”.IntheviewoftheEuropeanCommunities,thisrequirementmeansthatthirdpartiesareentitledtoreceiveallwrittensubmissionsmadepriortothefirstmeetingofthepanel-evenif,asinmanyproceedingsunderArt.21.5oftheDSU,thereisonlyonemeetingwiththepanel.Astothisappeal,theAppellateBodyrulesas:2
　　“Inthisappeal,wemustdeterminewhether,inrefusingtorequirethatthethirdpartiesbegivenaccesstothesecond,‘rebuttal’,submissionsfiledpriortothesolesubstantivemeetingwiththePanel,thePanelactedinconsistentlywithanyprovisionoftheDSU.
　　InrespectoftheprovisionsoftheDSUgoverningthirdpartyrights,wehavealreadyobservedthat,astheDSUcurrentlystands,therightsofthirdpartiesinpanelproceedingsarelimitedtotherightsgrantedunderArticle10andAppendix3totheDSU.Beyondthoseminimumguarantees,panelsenjoyadiscretiontograntadditionalparticipatoryrightstothirdpartiesinparticularcases,aslongassuch‘enhanced’rightsareconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheDSUandtheprinciplesofdueprocess.However,panelshavenodiscretiontocircumscribetherightsguaranteedtothirdpartiesbytheprovisionsoftheDSU.
　　Inthisappeal,theEuropeanCommunitiesallegesthattheWorkingProceduresadoptedbythePanelareinconsistentwiththerightsaffordedtothirdpartiespursuanttoArticle10.3oftheDSU,whichprovides:‘Thirdpartiesshallreceivethesubmissionsofthepartiestothedisputetothefirstmeetingofthepanel.’
　　Article10.3oftheDSUiscouchedinmandatorylanguage.Byitsterms,thirdparties‘shall’receive‘thesubmissionsofthepartiestothefirstmeetingofthepanels’.Article10.3doesnotsaythatthirdpartiesshallreceive‘thefirstsubmissions’oftheparties,butratherthattheyshallreceive‘thesubmissions’oftheparties.Thenumberofsubmissionsthatthirdpartiesareentitledtoreceiveisnotstated.Rather,Article10.3definesthesubmissionsthatthirdpartiesareentitledtoreceivebyreferencetoaspecificstepintheproceedings-thefirstmeetingofthepanel.Itfollows,inourview,that,underthisprovision,thirdpartiesmustbegivenallofthesubmissionsthathavebeenmadebythepartiestothepaneluptothefirstmeetingofthepanel,irrespectiveofthenumberofsuchsubmissionswhicharemade,includinganyrebuttalsubmissionsfiledinadvanceofthefirstmeeting.
　　ThePanel,however,reasonedthattheuseoftheword‘first’inArticle10.3‘presupposesacontextwherethereismorethanonemeetingofaPanel’.ThePanelconcluded,fromthis‘presupposition’,thatinproceedingsinvolvingasinglepanelmeeting,Article10.3‘mustbeunderstoodaslimitingthirdpartyrightsintheseproceedingstoaccesstothefirstwrittensubmissionsonly,andasnotincludingaccesstothewrittenrebuttals’.
　　Inourview,theinterpretationofArticle10.3oftheDSUmuststartfromtheexpresswordingoftheprovision.WehavenotedthatthetextofArticle10.3doesnotlimitthenumberofsubmissionswhichthirdpartiesmayreceivepriortothe‘firstmeeting’.Wedonotseeanyreasonto‘presuppose’thatsuchalimitationappliesincaseswherethe‘firstmeeting’withthePanelprovestobetheonlymeeting.TheDSUallowspanelstheflexibility,indeterminingtheirprocedures,torequestmorethanonesubmissioninadvanceofthefirstmeeting,andtheDSUalsoallowsforthepossibilitythatpanelsmay,ultimately,holdonlyonemeeting.ThetextofArticle10.3appliesthesameruleineachcase-thirdpartiesareentitledtoreceivethesubmissionstothefirstmeeting.
　　Wereadthereferencetothe‘firstmeeting’asreflectingtheflexibilitythatexistsinpanelproceedingsundertheDSU.Thus,inanyproceedings,evenifonlyonemeetingwiththepartiesisinitiallyscheduled,itcannotbeexcludedthatasecondwillnotbeheldlater.Panelshavethediscretiontorequestsuchanadditionalmeetingwiththeparties,andthepartiescanalsorequestsuchameetingwiththepanelatthestageofinterimreview.ThewordingofArticle10.3providesforthisflexibilitybyreferringgenericallytothe‘firstmeeting’,whichmaybeoneofaseriesofmeetingsormaybetheonlymeeting.
　　OurinterpretationofArticle10.3isalsoconsistentwiththecontextofthatprovision.Article10.1directspanels‘fully’totakeintoaccounttheinterestsofMembersotherthanthepartiestothedispute,andArticle10.2requirespanelstogranttothirdparties‘anopportunitytobeheard’.Article10.3ensuresthat,uptoadefinedstageinthepanelproceedings,thirdpartiescanparticipatefullyintheproceedings,onthebasisofthesamewrittensubmissionsasthepartiesthemselves.Article10.3therebyseekstoguaranteethatthethirdpartiescanparticipateatasessionofthefirstmeetingwiththepanelinafullandmeaningfulfashionthatwouldnotbepossibleifthethirdpartiesweredeniedwrittensubmissionsmadetothepanelbeforethatmeeting.Moreover,panelsthemselveswilltherebybenefitmorefromthecontributionsmadebythirdpartiesandwill,therefore,bebetterable‘fully’totakeintoaccounttheinterestsofMembers,asdirectedbyArticle10.1oftheDSU.
　　Inthisregard,weobservethatweagreewiththepanelinCanada-Dairy(Article21.5-NewZealandandUS),whichreasonedthat:‘Thirdpartiescanonly[participateinaninformedand,hence,meaningful,manner]iftheyhavereceivedalltheinformationexchangedbetweenthepartiesbeforethatsession.Otherwise,thirdpartiesmightfindthemselvesinasituationwheretheiroralstatementsatthemeetingbecomepartiallyortotallyirrelevantormootinthelightofsecondsubmissionsbythepartiestowhichthirdpartiesdidnothaveaccess.Withoutaccesstoallthesubmissionsbythepartiestothedisputetothefirstmeetingofthepanel,uninformedthirdpartysubmissionscouldundulydelaypanelproceedingsand…preventthePanelfromreceivingthebenefitofausefulcontributionbythirdpartieswhichcouldhelpthePaneltomaketheobjectiveassessmentthatitisrequiredtomakeunderArticle11oftheDSU.’
　　Forthesereasons,webelievethatArticle10.3requiresthatthirdpartiesbeprovidedwithallofthesubmissionsmadebythepartiesuptothetimeofthefirstpanelmeetinginwhichthethirdpartiesparticipate-whetherthatmeetingisthefirstoftwopanelmeetings,orthefirstandonlypanelmeeting.Readinthisway,Article10.3hasthesamemeaning,andcanbeappliedinthesameway,regardlessofthenumberofpanelmeetingsthatareheldinaparticularcase.
　　We,therefore,findthat,initsdecisionrefusingtheEuropeanCommunities’requesttomodifyRule9ofthePanel’sWorkingProcedures,thePanelerredinitsinterpretationofArticle10.3oftheDSU.”
　　
　　IIIExtendedThirdPartyRights:ExerciseofPanels’Discretion
　　AsruledbytheAppellateBodyinUS-TaxTreatment(DS108)（21.5）,“nrespectoftheprovisionsoftheDSUgoverningthirdpartyrights,wehavealreadyobservedthat,astheDSUcurrentlystands,therightsofthirdpartiesinpanelproceedingsarelimitedtotherightsgrantedunderArticle10andAppendix3totheDSU.Beyondthoseminimumguarantees,panelsenjoyadiscretiontograntadditionalparticipatoryrightstothirdpartiesinparticularcases,aslongassuch‘enhanced’rightsareconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheDSUandtheprinciplesofdueprocess”.However,“panelshavenodiscretiontocircumscribetherightsguaranteedtothirdpartiesbytheprovisionsoftheDSU.”3Andastobeshownbelow,panelpracticedemonstratesthatonlyinexceptionalcircumstanceshavethirdpartiesreceivedsuchextendedthirdpartyrights.
　　DuringtheappellatereviewinEC-Hormones(DS26/DS48),theEuropeanCommunitiescontendsthat,notwithstandingitsprotestthatthesedecisionsaffecteditsrightsofdefence,thePaneltookanumberofdecisionsgrantingadditionalthirdpartyrightstoCanadaandtheUnitedStateswhicharenotjustifiedbyArt.9.3oftheDSU,areinconsistentwithArts.7.1,7.2,18.2and10.3thereof,andwerenotgrantedtotheotherthirdparties.TheEuropeanCommunitiesreferstothefollowingdecisionsofthePanel:first,toholdajointmeetingwithscientificexperts;second,togiveaccesstoalloftheinformationsubmittedintheUnitedStates’proceedingtoCanada;third,togiveaccesstoalloftheinformationsubmittedintheCanadianproceedingtotheUnitedStates;andfourth,toinvitetheUnitedStatestoobserveandmakeastatementatthesecondsubstantivemeetingintheproceedinginitiatedbyCanada.Inthisrespect,theAppellateBodyrulesasfollows:4
　　“Article9.3oftheDSUreadsasfollows:‘Ifmorethanonepanelisestablishedtoexaminethecomplaintsrelatedtothesamematter,tothegreatestextentpossiblethesamepersonsshallserveaspanelistsoneachoftheseparatepanelsandthetimetableforthepanelprocessinsuchdisputesshallbeharmonized.’
　　Afterexaminingtheproceduralcourseofthetwodisputes,weconsiderthatfouraspectsshouldbeunderlined.First,bothproceedingsdealtwiththesamematter.Second,allthepartiestobothdisputesagreedthatthesamepanelistswouldserveonbothproceedings.Third,althoughtheproceedinginitiatedbyCanadastartedseveralmonthsaftertheproceedingstartedbytheUnitedStates,thePanelmanagedtofinishthePanelReportsatthesametime.Fourth,giventhefactthatthesamepanelistswereconductingtwoproceedingsdealingwiththesamematter,neitherCanadanortheUnitedStateswereordinarythirdpartiesineachother’scomplaint.
　　WithrespecttothedecisionofthePaneltoholdajointmeetingwithscientificexperts,thePanelexplainsasfollows:‘Priortoourmeetingwithscientificexperts,wedecidedtoholdthatmeetingjointlyforboththisPanel,requestedbyCanada,andtheparallelpanelrequestedbytheUnitedStates.Thisdecisionstemmedfromthesimilaritiesofthetwocases(thesameECmeasuresareatissueandbothcasesaredealtwithbythesamepanelmembers),ourdecisiontousethesamescientificexpertsinbothcasesandthefactthatwehadalreadydecidedtoinviteCanadaandtheUnitedStatestoparticipateinthemeetingwithscientificexpertsineachofthetwocases.Inaddition,weconsideredthat,fromapracticalperspective,therewasaneedtoavoidrepetitionofargumentsand/orquestionsatourmeetingswiththescientificexperts.TheEuropeanCommunitiesobjectedtothisdecisionarguingthatonejointmeetingwithexperts,insteadoftwoseparatemeetings,waslikelytoaffectitsproceduralrightsofdefence.Whereitmadepreciseclaimsofprejudicetoitsrightsofdefence,wetookcorrectiveaction.’
　　WeconsidertheexplanationofthePanelquitereasonable,anditsdecisiontoholdajointmeetingwiththescientificexpertsconsistentwiththeletterandspiritofArticle9.3oftheDSU.Clearly,itwouldbeanuneconomicaluseoftimeandresourcestoforcethePaneltoholdtwosuccessivebutseparatemeetingsgatheringthesamegroupofexpertstwice,expressingtheirviewstwiceregardingthesamescientificandtechnicalmattersrelatedtothesamecontestedECmeasures.WedonotbelievethatthePanelhaserredbyaddressingtheECproceduralobjectionsonlywheretheEuropeanCommunitiescouldmakeapreciseclaimofprejudice.Itisevidenttousthataproceduralobjectionraisedbyapartytoadisputeshouldbesufficientlyspecifictoenablethepaneltoaddressit.
　　ThedecisionofthePaneltouseandprovideallinformationtothepartiesinbothdisputeswastakeninviewofitspreviousdecisiontoholdajointmeetingwiththeexperts.TheEuropeanCommunitiesassertsthatitcannotseehowprovidinginformationinoneoftheproceedingstoapartyintheotherhelpstoharmonizetimetables.WecanseearelationbetweentimetableharmonizationwithinthemeaningofArticle9.3oftheDSUandeconomyofeffort.Indisputeswheretheevaluationofscientificdataandopinionsplaysasignificantrole,thepanelthatisestablishedlatercanbenefitfromtheinformationgatheredinthecontextoftheproceedingsofthepanelestablishedearlier.Havingaccesstoacommonpoolofinformationenablesthepanelandthepartiestosavetimebyavoidingduplicationofthecompilationandanalysisofinformationalreadypresentedintheotherproceeding.Article3.3oftheDSUrecognizestheimportanceofavoidingunnecessarydelaysinthedisputesettlementprocessandstatesthatthepromptsettlementofadisputeisessentialtotheeffectivefunctioningoftheWTO.Inthisparticularcase,thePaneltriedtoavoidunnecessarydelays,makinganefforttocomplywiththeletterandspiritofArticle9.3oftheDSU.Indeed,asnotedearlier,despitethefactthattheCanadianproceedingwasinitiatedseveralmonthslaterthanthatoftheUnitedStates,thePanelmanagedtofinishbothPanelReportsatthesametime.
　　RegardingtheparticipationoftheUnitedStatesinthesecondsubstantivemeetingofthePanelrequestedbyCanada,thePanelstates:‘Thisdecisionwas,interalia,basedonthefactthatoursecondmeetingwasheldthedayafterourjointmeetingwiththescientificexpertsandthatthepartiestothisdisputewould,therefore,mostlikelycommenton,anddrawconclusionsfrom,theevidencesubmittedbytheseexpertstobeconsideredinbothcases.SinceinthepanelrequestedbytheUnitedStatesthesecondmeetingwasheldbeforethejointmeetingwithscientificexperts,weconsidereditappropriate,inordertosafeguardtherightsoftheUnitedStatesintheproceedingitrequested,togranttheUnitedStatestheopportunitytoobserveoursecondmeetinginthiscaseandtomakeabriefstatementattheendofthatmeeting.’
　　TheexplanationofthePanelappearsreasonabletous.IfthePanelhadnotgiventheUnitedStatesanopportunitytoparticipateinthesecondsubstantivemeetingoftheproceedingsinitiatedbyCanada,theUnitedStateswouldnothavehadthesamedegreeofopportunitytocommentontheviewsexpressedbythescientificexpertsthattheEuropeanCommunitiesandCanadaenjoyed.AlthoughArticle12.1andAppendix3oftheDSUdonotspecificallyrequirethePaneltograntthisopportunitytotheUnitedStates,webelievethatthisdecisionfallswithinthesounddiscretionandauthorityofthePanel,particularlyifthePanelconsidersitnecessaryforensuringtoallpartiesdueprocessoflaw.Inthisregard,wenotethatinEuropeanCommunities-Bananas,thepanelconsideredthatparticularcircumstancesjustifiedthegranttothirdpartiesofrightssomewhatbroaderthanthoseexplicitlyenvisagedinArticle10andAppendix3oftheDSU.Weconcludethat,inthecasebeforeus,circumstancesjustifiedthePanel’sdecisiontoallowtheUnitedStatestoparticipateinthesecondsubstantivemeetingoftheproceedingsinitiatedbyCanada.”
　　However,astobeconfirmedinthefollowingparagraphs,enhancedthirdpartyrightsaregrantedprimarilybecauseofthespecificcircumstances,althoughgrantingenhancedthirdpartyrightsispartofthediscretionofpanelsunderArticle12.1oftheDSU.PanelshavenodiscretiontocircumscribetherightsguaranteedtothirdpartiesbytheprovisionsoftheDSU.
　　InUS-1916Act(byEC)(DS136),on2September1999,Japanrequestedtobegrantedenhancedthirdpartyrightsinthiscase.Inparticular,Japanrequestedtoreceiveallthenecessarydocuments,includingsubmissionsandwrittenversionsofstatementsofthepartiesandtoattendallthesessionsofthesecondsubstantivemeetingofthePanel.AttherequestofthePanel,theECandtheUnitedStatescommentedonthisrequest.TheECagreedtotherequestofJapan,providedthattheEC’srequestofasimilarnatureinthecaseinitiatedbyJapanconcerningthesamematter(DS162)wouldalsobeaccepted.TheUnitedStatesstronglyobjectedtotherequestofJapan.IntheopinionoftheUnitedStates,enhancedthirdpartyrightswerenotnecessaryinordertoobtainaccesstothesubmissionsoftheparties.InEuropeanCommunities-MeasuresConcerningMeatandMeatProducts(‘Hormones’),thepanelhadgrantedenhancedthirdpartyrightsessentiallybecausethepanelhadinformedthepartiesthatconcurrentdeliberationswouldbeconductedinthecaseinitiatedbytheUnitedStatesandinthecaseinitiatedbyCanada.TheUnitedStatesmentionedthatitwouldnotsupportconcurrentdeliberationsinthiscaseandthatitcouldnotagreetoarequestofwhichtheapparentpurposewastoprovidethethirdpartieswithanopportunitytomakeanadditionalsubmissionintheirownpanelprocess.
　　On13September1999,thePanel,throughitsChairman,informedthepartiesandthirdpartyJapanthatitcouldnotaccedetotherequestofJapan.ThePanelreserveditsrighttoreconsidertheissueinlightofsubsequenteventsandinformedthepartiesandJapanthatitwouldaddressthematterindetailinitsfindings.ThePanelfindsas:5
　　“ThePanelcarefullyconsideredtheargumentsraisedbytheparties.Itnotesthat,whiletheDSUdoesnotprovideforenhancedthirdpartyrights,neitherArticle10oftheDSUnoranyotherprovisionoftheDSUprohibitspanelsfromgrantingthirdpartyrightsbeyondthoseexpresslymentionedinArticle10.TheAppellateBodyintheEC-HormonescaseconfirmedthatgrantingenhancedthirdpartyrightswaspartofthediscretionofpanelsunderArticle12.1oftheDSU.
　　ThePanelnotes,however,thattheDSUdifferentiatesintermsofrightsbetweenmainpartiesandthirdpartiesandthatthisprincipleshouldberespectedinordertokeepwiththespiritoftheDSUinthatrespect.Enhancedthirdpartyrightshavesofarbeengrantedforspecificreasonsonly.IntheEC-Hormonescase,likeinthiscaseandthecaseinitiatedbyJapan(WT/DS162),thetwopanelswerecomposedofthesamepanelistsanddealtwiththesamematter.WhiletheseelementsappearedtoplayasignificantroleinthedecisionstakenbythepanelsandintheirconfirmationbytheAppellateBody,weconsiderthattheycouldnotbedecisive.Otherwise,enhancedthirdpartyrightswouldhavetobegrantedinalmostallcaseswherethesamematterissubjecttotwoormorecomplaintswiththesamepanelcomposition.WenotethatparticularcircumstancesexistedintheEC-Hormonescasewhichcertainlycontributedtothedecisionsofthepanelstoreviewthetwocasesconcurrently,suchastheirhighlytechnicalandfactuallyintensivenature,aswellasthefactthatthepanelshaddecidedtoholdonesinglemeetingwiththepartiesandtheexpertsconsultedpursuanttoArticle11.2oftheAgreementonSanitaryandPhytosanitaryMeasures.Thesedecisionswerelargelybasedonpracticalreasonsanddueprocesshadtobepreserved.WeconcludefromthereportsintheEC-Hormonescasethatenhancedthirdpartyrightsweregrantedprimarilybecauseofthespecificcircumstances.
　　Wefindthatnosimilarcircumstancesexistinthepresentmatter,whichdoesnotinvolvetheconsiderationofcomplexfactsorscientificevidence.Moreover,noneofthepartiesrequestedthatthepanelsharmonisetheirtimetablesorholdconcurrentdeliberationsinthetwoprocedures(WT/DS136andWT/DS162).Infact,theEuropeanCommunitieswasnotinfavourofdelayingtheproceedingsinWT/DS136andtheUnitedStatesobjectedtoconcurrentdeliberations.Weareoftheviewthat,insuchacontext,weoughttoconductthiscaseindependentlyfromthecaseinitiatedbyJapanbothintermsofprocedureandofanalysisofthesubstantiveissuesbeforeus.
　　Weareoftheviewthatrespectingdueprocessvis-à-visJapandidnotrequiretheparticipationofJapaninthesecondsubstantivemeetingofthePanel.Thissaid,havingregardtoArticle18.2oftheDSU,weurgedtheECandtheUnitedStates,inthecourseoftheproceedings,tocommunicatetoJapaninduecoursemeaningfulnon-confidentialsummariesoftheirsubmissionstothePanel,ifrequestedtodosobyJapan.
　　WethereforefindthattherewasnoreasontograntenhancedthirdpartyrightstoJapanintheseproceedings.”
　　WhileinUS-1916Act(byJapan)(DS162),asimilarrulingastoasimilarrequestbytheEC,mutatismutandis,isissued.6However,bothECandJapanappealAstotheappeal(DS136/DS162),theAppellateBodyrulesas:7
　　“AlthoughtheEuropeanCommunitiesandJapaninvokeArticle9oftheDSU,and,inparticular,Article9.3,insupportoftheirposition,wenotethatArticle9oftheDSU,whichconcernsproceduresformultiplecomplaintsrelatedtothesamematter,doesnotaddresstheissueoftherightsofthirdpartiesinsuchprocedures.
　　UndertheDSU,asitcurrentlystands,thirdpartiesareonlyentitledtotheparticipatoryrightsprovidedforinArticles10.2and10.3andparagraph6ofAppendix3.
　　Article12.1oftheDSUstates:‘PanelsshallfollowtheWorkingProceduresinAppendix3unlessthepaneldecidesotherwiseafterconsultingthepartiestothedispute.’PursuanttoArticle12.1,apanelisrequiredtofollowtheWorkingProceduresinAppendix3,unlessitdecidesotherwiseafterconsultingthepartiestothedispute.
　　InsupportoftheirargumentthatthePanelshouldhavegrantedthem‘enhanced’thirdpartyrights,theEuropeanCommunitiesandJapanrefertotheconsiderationsthatledthepanelinEuropeanCommunities-Hormonestograntthirdparties‘enhanced’participatoryrights,andstressthesimilaritybetweenEuropeanCommunities-Hormonesandthepresentcases.
　　ThePanelinthepresentcasesgavethefollowingreasonsforrefusingtogranttheEuropeanCommunitiesandJapan‘enhanced’participatoryrightsinthepanelproceedings:‘…WeconcludefromthereportsintheEC-Hormonescasesthatenhancedthirdpartyrightsweregrantedprimarilybecauseofthespecificcircumstancesinthosecases.Wefindthatnosimilarcircumstancesexistinthepresentmatter,whichdoesnotinvolvetheconsiderationofcomplexfactsorscientificevidence.Moreover,noneofthepartiesrequestedthatthepanelsharmonisetheirtimetablesorholdconcurrentdeliberationsinthetwoprocedures(WT/DS136andWT/DS162).Infact,theEuropeanCommunitieswasnotinfavourofdelayingtheproceedingsinWT/DS136andtheUnitedStatesobjectedtoconcurrentdeliberations.…’
　　InourReportinEuropeanCommunities-Hormones,westated:‘AlthoughArticle12.1andAppendix3oftheDSUdonotspecificallyrequirethePaneltogrant[“enhanced”thirdpartyrights]totheUnitedStates,webelievethatthisdecisionfallswithinthesounddiscretionandauthorityofthePanel,particularlyifthePanelconsidersitnecessaryforensuringtoallpartiesdueprocessoflaw.’
　　Apanel’sdecisionwhethertogrant‘enhanced’participatoryrightstothirdpartiesisthusamatterthatfallswithinthediscretionaryauthorityofthatpanel.Suchdiscretionaryauthorityis,ofcourse,notunlimitedandiscircumscribed,forexample,bytherequirementsofdueprocess.Inthepresentcases,however,theEuropeanCommunitiesandJapanhavenotshownthatthePanelexceededthelimitsofitsdiscretionaryauthority.We,therefore,considerthatthereisnolegalbasisforconcludingthatthePanelerredinrefusingtogrant‘enhanced’thirdpartyrightstoJapanortheEuropeanCommunities.”
　　
　　IVSummaryandConclusions
　　TheinterpretationofArt.10.3oftheDSUmuststartfromtheexpresswordingoftheprovision.Art.10.3doesnotsaythatthirdpartiesshallreceive“thefirstsubmissions”oftheparties,butratherthattheyshallreceive“thesubmissions”oftheparties.Thenumberofsubmissionsthatthirdpartiesareentitledtoreceiveisnotstated.Rather,Art.10.3definesthesubmissionsthatthirdpartiesareentitledtoreceivebyreferencetoaspecificstepintheproceedings–“thefirstmeetingofthepanel”.Itfollowthat,underthisprovision,thirdpartiesmustbegivenallofthesubmissions,irrespectiveofthenumberofsuchsubmissionswhicharemade,includinganyrebuttalsubmissionsfiledinadvanceofthefirstmeeting,madebythepartiesuptothetimeofthefirstpanelmeetinginwhichthethirdpartiesparticipate-whetherthatmeetingisthefirstoftwopanelmeetings,orthefirstandonlypanelmeeting.However,inrespectofthethirdpartyrightsArt.10.3oftheDSUonlyreferstosubmissions“oftheparties”;nottoanyothersubmissionssuchastheexpertrepliesadvisingthepanel.
　　OnlythisstrictcompliancewiththeunequivocaltextofArt.10.3securesthattheinterestsandrightsofthirdpartiesare“fullytakenintoaccountduringthepanelprocess”inamannerenablingthepaneltoreceive“thebenefitofausefulcontributionbythirdpartieswhichcouldhelpthePaneltomaketheobjectiveassessmentthatitisrequiredtomakeunderArticle11oftheDSU”.
　　AsitcurrentlystandsundertheDSU,thirdpartiesareonlyentitledtotheparticipatoryrightsprovidedforinArts.10.2and10.3andparagraph6ofAppendix3.However,whiletheDSUdoesnotprovideforenhancedthirdpartyrights,neitherArt.10oftheDSUnoranyotherprovisionoftheDSUprohibitspanelsfromgrantingthirdpartyrightsbeyondthoseexpresslymentionedinArt.10.Beyondthoseminimumguarantees,itfallswithinthesounddiscretionandauthorityofpanels,underArt.12.1andAppendix3oftheDSU,tograntenhancedthirdpartyrightsoradditionalparticipatoryrightstothirdpartiesinparticularcases,aslongassuch“enhanced”rightsareconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheDSU,particularlyifthePanelconsidersitnecessaryforensuringtoallpartiesdueprocessoflaw.
　　Nevertheless,enhancedthirdpartyrightshavesofarbeengrantedlargelybasedonpracticalreasonsanddueprocesshadtobepreserved.Panelpracticeshowsthatonlyinexceptionalcircumstanceshavethirdpartiesreceivedsuchextendedthirdpartyrights.Afterall,theDSUdifferentiatesintermsofrightsbetweenmainpartiesandthirdpartiesandthatthisprincipleshouldberespectedinordertokeepwiththespiritoftheDSUinthatrespect.Inshort,apanel’sdecisionwhethertogrant‘enhanced’participatoryrightstothirdpartiesisthusamatterthatfallswithinthediscretionaryauthorityofthatpanel.Suchdiscretionaryauthorityis,ofcourse,notunlimitedandiscircumscribed,forexample,bytherequirementsofdueprocess.
　　
　　
　　
　　【NOTE】:
　　1.    See,WT/DS103/RW;WT/DS113/RW/2.33-2.35.
　　2.    See,WT/DS108/AB/RW/242-252.
　　3.    See,WT/DS108/AB/RW/243.
　　4.    See,WT/DS26/AB/R;WT/DS48/AB/R/151-154.
　　5.    See,WT/DS136/R/6.32-6.36.
　　6.    See,WT/DS162/R/6.32-6.35.
　　7.    See,WT/DS136/AB/R;WT/DS162/AB/R/144-150.
　　


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。