Judicial Economy. See also Completion of the Legal Analysis by the Appellate Body (C.4); Scope of Appellate Review (S.3); Terms of Reference of Panels (T.6)

J.1.1 US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, p. 18, DSR 1997:I, p. 323 at 339

(WT/DS33/AB/R, WT/DS33/AB/R/Corr.1)

Nothing in [Article 11 of the DSU] or in previous GATT practice requires a panel to examine all legal claims made by the complaining party. Previous GATT 1947 and WTO panels have frequently addressed only those issues that such panels considered necessary for the resolution of the matter between the parties, and have declined to decide other issues. Thus, if a panel found that a measure was inconsistent with a particular provision of the GATT 1947, it generally did not go on to examine whether the measure was also inconsistent with other GATT provisions that a complaining party may have argued were violated. In recent WTO practice, panels likewise have refrained from examining each and every claim made by the complaining party and have made findings only on those claims that such panels concluded were necessary to resolve the particular matter.

J.1.2 US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, p. 19, DSR 1997:I, p. 323 at 340

(WT/DS33/AB/R, WT/DS33/AB/R/Corr.1)

…Given the explicit aim of dispute settlement that permeates the DSU, we do not consider that Article 3.2 of the DSU is meant to encourage either panels or the Appellate Body to “make law” by clarifying existing provisions of the WTO Agreement outside the context of resolving a particular dispute. A panel need only address those claims which must be addressed in order to resolve the matter in issue in the dispute.

J.1.3 US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, p. 19, DSR 1997:I, p. 323 at 339–340

(WT/DS33/AB/R, WT/DS33/AB/R/Corr.1)

Although a few GATT 1947 and WTO panels did make broader rulings, by considering and deciding issues that were not absolutely necessary to dispose of the particular dispute, there is nothing anywhere in the DSU that requires panels to do so.