DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS 2008 VOLUME 14PDF电子书下载

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION 5387

Ⅱ. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS 5403

A. Claims of the European Communities - Appellant 5403

1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing 5403

2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU 5405

3. Article 22.8 of the DSU 5408

4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference 5411

5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation 5413

6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts 5414

7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 5416

8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 5422

B. Arguments of the United States - Appellee 5429

1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing 5429

2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU 5431

3. Article 22.8 of the DSU 5433

4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference 5435

5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation 5436

6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts 5437

7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 5438

8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 5443

C. Arguments of Canada - Appellee 5446

1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing 5446

2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU 5448

3. Article 22.8 of the DSU 5450

4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference 5451

5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation 5452

6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts 5453

7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 5454

8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 5460

D. Claims of the United States - Other Appellant 5463

1. Alleged Discrepancies in the Panel’s Description of the Measure at Issue 5463

2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU 5464

3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU 5467

4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion 5468

5. Conclusion 5469

E. Claims of Canada - Other Appellant 5469

1. The Panel’s Examination of Articles 23.1 and 23.2（a） “In Isolation” from Article 22.8 of the DSU 5470

2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU 5472

3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU 5473

4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion 5473

5. Conclusion 5474

F. Arguments of the European Communities - Appellee 5475

1. The ”Harmonious” Interpretation of Articles 21， 22， and 23 of the DSU in the Post-Suspension Stage of a Dispute 5475

2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU 5478

3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU 5479

4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion 5481

G. Arguments of the Third Participants 5481

1. Australia 5481

2. Brazil 5487

3. China 5490

4. India 5491

5. Mexico 5491

6. New Zealand 5491

7. Norway 5495

8. Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan， Penghu， Kinmen and Matsu 5498

Ⅲ.ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL 5498

Ⅳ. THE APPLICATION OF THE DSU IN THE POST- SUSPENSION STAGE OF A DISPUTE 5501

A. Introduction 5501

B. The Panel’s Findings 5503

1. Scope of the European Communities’ Claims 5503

2. The European Communities’ Claim that the United States and Canada Breached Article 23.2（a） of the DSU Read Together with Articles 23.1 and 21.5 5505

3. The European Communities’ Claim that the United States and Canada Breached Article 23.1 of the DSU Read Together with Articles 22.8 and 3.7 5507

4. The Panel’s Jurisdiction 5511

5. Burden of Proof 5511

6. The Panel’s Suggestion 5513

C. Claims and Arguments on Appeal 5513

1. Appeal by the European Communities 5513

2. Other Appeals by the United States and Canada 5516

3. Arguments of the Third Participants 5518

D. Cessation of the Suspension of Concessions - Article 22.8 of the DSU 5520

1. Preliminary Comments 5520

2. When Must a WTO Member Cease to Suspend Concessions Pursuant to Article 22.8 of the DSU？ 5521

3. The Panel’s Analysis Concerning Article 22.8 of the DSU 5526

4. Did the Panel Exceed Its Mandate by Addressing the Conformity of Directive 2003/74/EC with the SPS Agreement？ 5530

E. Procedural Avenues for Resolving Disagreements as to Whether the Inconsistent Measure Has Been Removed under Article 22.8 of the DSU 5536

1. What Is the Appropriate Procedural Avenue to Resolve a Disagreement as to Whether the Inconsistent Measure Has Been Removed？ 5536

2. Is the European Communities Precluded from Initiating Article 21.5 Panel Proceedings Regarding Whether Directive 2003/74/EC Has Brought It into Compliance？ 5541

F. Analysis of the Panel’s Findings of ”Procedural Violations” 5548

1. The Prohibition on Certain Unilateral Actions - Article 23 of the DSU 5549

2. The Panel’s Alleged Examination of Articles 23.2（a） and 23.1 in Isolation from the Requirements in Article 22.8 of the DSU 5552

3. Whether the Panel Erred in Finding that the United States and Canada Are “Seeking the Redress of a Violation” with Respect to Directive 2003/74/EC 5555

4. Whether the Panel Erred in Finding that the United States and Canada Made a Determination of Violation Without Recourse to the DSU， Within the Meaning of Article 23.2（a） 5559

5. Conclusion 5564

G. The Panel’s Finding that It Had No Jurisdiction to Make Findings under the SPS Agreement 5565

H. The Panel’s Suggestion 5566

Ⅴ. DUE PROCESS IN THE PANEL’S CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS 5567

A. The Panel’s Findings 5567

B. Claims and Arguments on Appeal 5573

C. Did the Panel Infringe the European Communities’ Due Process Rights and Fail to Make an Objective Assessment of the Matter in the Consultations with the Scientific Experts 5576

Ⅵ. THE CONSISTENCY WITH ARTICLE 5.1 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES’ IMPORT BAN ON MEAT FROM CATTLE TREATED WITH OESTRADIOL-17B FOR GROWTH-PROMOTION PURPOSES 5601

A. Introduction 5601

B. The European Communities’ Risk Assessment for Meat from Cattle Treated with Oestradiol-17β 5601

C. The Panel’s Findings 5606

D. Claims and Arguments on Appeal 5614

E. The Panel’s Assessment of Directive 2003/74/EC under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 5619

1. General Disciplines Applicable to the Adoption of an SPS Measure 5619

2. The Panel’s Interpretation and Application of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement 5625

3. The Panel’s Specificity Requirement 5635

4. Quantification of Risk 5639

5. Burden of Proof 5643

6. The Panel’s Articulation and Application of the Standard of Review under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 5648

F. Conclusion 5661

Ⅶ.THE CONSISTENCY WITH ARTICLE 5.7 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES’ PROVISIONAL IMPORT BAN ON MEAT FROM CATTLE TREATED WITH TESTOSTERONE， PROGESTERONE， TRENBOLONE ACETATE， ZERANOL， AND MGA FOR GROWTH-PROMOTION PURPOSES 5662

A. Introduction 5662

B. The European Communities’ Evaluation of the Five Hormones Subject to the Provisional Ban 5663

C. The Panel’s Findings 5665

D. Claims and Arguments on Appeal 5682

E. The Panel’s Finding that the Relevant Scientific Evidence in Relation to the Five Hormones Was Not “Insufficient” Within the Meaning of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 5689

1. Insufficiency and the Acceptable Level of Protection 5693

2. Relevance of International Standards under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 5696

3. The Panel’s “Critical Mass” Standard for Determining “Insufficiency” under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 5700

4. The Panel’s Allocation of the Burden of Proof under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 5706

5. The Panel’s Application of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 5709

F. Conclusions 5714

Ⅷ.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5716