erlytobeascribedto(thatis,theappreciationof)agivenpieceofevidenceispartandparcelofthefact-findingprocessandis,inprinciple,lefttothediscretionofapanelasthetrieroffacts.Theconsistencyorinconsistencyofagivenfactorsetoffactswiththerequirementsofagiventreatyprovisionis,however,alegalcharacterizationissue.Itisalegalquestion.Whetherornotapanelhasmadeanobjectiveassessmentofthefactsbeforeit,asrequiredbyArt.11oftheDSU,isalsoalegalquestionwhich,ifproperlyraisedonappeal,wouldfallwithinthescopeofappellatereview.”
　　TheAppellateBodyperformsalsoageneralfunctionofguaranteeingtheproperapplicationandinterpretationofthelawincaseofdisputewithintheorganizationintheinterestofallitsmembers.ItisespeciallyfortheAppellateBodytocarryoutthegeneralfunctionsofthedisputesettlementsystemaslaiddowninArt.3.2oftheDSU,thatis“topreservetherightsandobligationsofmembersunderthecoveredagreements,andtoclarifytheexistingprovisionsofthoseagreementsinaccordancewithcustomaryrulesofinterpretationofpublicinternationallaw”.Ascommentedsomewhere,“[t]hestandingAppellateBodyoftheWTOistobeconsideredinallrespectsasaninternationaltribunal,setupwithintheorganizationfortheimpartialandfinalsettlementofdisputesbetweenmembersconcerningtheirrespectiveobligationsunderthevariousagreements,inaccordancewithrelevantprovisionsandwithintheframeworkofpublicinternationallaw.Thisconclusionisnotcontradictedbythefactthatthename‘tribunal’hasnotbeenused,sinceformally,theAppellateBody,asisthecaseforthepanels,issuesreportswhichhavetobeformally,butautomatically,adoptedbythecompetentorganoftheorganization.”2
　　Tosumup,thecourt-likepanelandappellatereviewproceduresundertheWTO,andthequasi-automaticadoptionofWTOdisputesettlementreports,eliminatepossiblerisksofpoliticalblockagesandcontributetoafurther“judicialization”ofWTOlaw.ThelegalizationoftheWTOpanelproceduresandthequasi-judicialappellatereviewproceduresisalsolikelytoenhancethequalityofthelegalreasoninginWTOdisputesettlementreports.Andwhatwewillgetdowntointhefollowingchaptersistoscrutinize,towhatextentandhowvariouspanelsandtheAppellateBodyoperatethissignificantmechanisminparticularcases.
　　
　　
　　
　　【NOTE】:
　　1.    See,indetail,WT/DS26/AB/R,DS48/AB/R/132.
　　2.    See,GiorgioSacerdoti,‘AppealandJudicialReviewinInternationalArbitrationandAdjudication:TheCaseoftheWTOAppellateReview’,InternationalTradeLawandtheGATT/WTODisputeSettlementSystem(PetersmannEd.),:KluwerLawInternational,London,1997,p.273.
　　
　　


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。