ARB.1.1 EC – Hormones, paras. 32, 38

(WTDS26/15, WT/DS48/13)

There is an issue in this arbitration as to what constitutes “implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB” under Article 21.3 of the DSU. …

It is not within my mandate under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, to suggest ways or means to the European Communities to implement the recommendations and rulings of the Appellate Body Report and Panel Reports. My task is to determine the reasonable period of time within which implementation must be completed. Article 3.7 of the DSU provides, in relevant part, that “the first objective of the dispute settlement mechanism is usually to secure the withdrawal of the measures concerned if these are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of any of the covered agreements” (emphasis added). Although withdrawal of an inconsistent measure is the preferred means of complying with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a violation case, it is not necessarily the only means of implementation consistent with the covered agreements. An implementing Member, therefore, has a measure of discretion in choosing the means of implementation, as long as the means chosen are consistent with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and with the covered agreements.

ARB.1.2 Australia – Salmon, para. 35

(WT/DS18/9)

I am mindful of the limits of my mandate in this arbitration. I am particularly aware that suggesting ways and means of implementation is not part of my mandate and that my task is confined to the determination of the “reasonable period of time”. Choosing the means of implementation is, and should be, the prerogative of the implementing Member. …

ARB.1.3 Korea – Alcoholic Beverages, para. 45

(WT/DS75/16, WT/DS84/14)

My mandate in this arbitration relates exclusively to determining the reasonable period of time for implementation under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.