402. Mexico submits that the Panel erred in exercising judicial economy with respect to Mexico's claims under Articles I and III of the GATT 1994, thereby acting inconsistently with its obligations under Article 11 of the DSU, and requests the Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis by ruling on these claims. The United States counters that the Panel “addressed ‘all aspects of Mexico's claims, including non-discrimination aspects under Article 2.1, and other aspects under Article[s] 2.2 and 2.4’, such that it was not ‘necessary for it to consider separately and additionally Mexico's claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994.’” The United States further submits that Mexico has not explained why the use of judicial economy by the Panel is a failure to assist the DSB in making recommendations and rulings that would help settle the dispute.

403. We recall that the principle of judicial economy “allows a panel to refrain from making multiple findings that the same measure is inconsistent with various provisions when a single, or a certain number of findings of inconsistency, would suffice to resolve the dispute.” Consequently, “[a] panel need only address those claims which must be addressed in order to resolve the matter in issue in the dispute.” Nonetheless, the Appellate Body also cautioned that:

[t]he principle of judicial economy has to be applied keeping in mind the aim of the dispute settlement system.