1 Memorandum of Conversation at Chinese Government Guest House, Peking, 9 July 1971, available at http://www.gwu.edu/∼nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB66/ch-34.pdf.

2 For studies on China's performance in international institutions, see Kim, Samuel S. (ed.), China and the World: Chinese Foreign Policy Faces the New Millenium (4th edn) (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 239–263Google Scholar; Economy, Elizabeth and Oksenberg, Michel (eds.), China Joins the World: Progress and Prospects (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1999), pp. 42–89Google Scholar; Johnston, Alastair Iain, Social States: China in International Institutions 1980–2000 (Princeton University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; and Kent, Ann, Beyond Compliance: China, International Organizations, and Global Security (Stanford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

3 See John H. Jackson, ‘The Impact of China's Accession on the WTO’, in Deborah Z. Cass, Brett G. Williams, and George Barker (eds.), China and the World Trading System: Entering the New Millenium (Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 19–30, at 27f.

4 See Horn, Henrik, Johannesson, Louise, and Mavroidis, Petros C., ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995–2010: Some Descriptive Statistics’, Journal of World Trade, 45(6) (2011), 1007–1138Google Scholar, at 1109.

5 Silvia Ostry, ‘WTO Membership for China: to be and not to be – is that the answer?’, in Cass et al., note 3 above, pp. 31–39, at 37. The resources of the Appellate Body have been stretched recently, but this was not due to the volume of cases so much as to the length of proceedings in the two large civil aircraft disputes − see note 184 below.

6 The number of disputes initiated in 2012 already exceeds those filed in 2011. China is among the parties.

7 The data for panel proceedings only include disputes in which the panel was composed.

8 WTO Dispute Settlement Body, Overview of the State of Play of WTO Disputes (DSB, Overview) (WT/DSB/W/460/Add.1).

9 In the ten years following its accession, China filed eight requests for consultations in relation to eight distinct matters of which six led to panel proceedings. As respondent, the corresponding numbers for China were 23 requests for consultations in relation to 14 distinct matters of which six led to panel proceedings (of which two panels are currently at work). Disputes involving the United States since 2001 are also imbalanced in favour of those filed by other Members, both in terms of separate requests for consultations and distinct matters.

10 The measures at issue in United States − Preliminary Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Determinations on Coated Free Sheet Paper from China (US – Coated Free Sheet Paper), WT/DS368 in which China was the complainant, were provisional only and the dispute did not proceed beyond the consultation stage.

11 For over five years, China participated only twice as a principal party in a panel proceeding.

12 The top 11 principal parties to disputes under the DSU in descending order of frequency were, from 1995 to 1999: the United States, the European Communities, Canada, India, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Korea, Mexico, Australia, and Thailand; and from 2006 to 2011: the United States, the European Union, China, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, India, Brazil, Thailand, Korea, Japan, and Chile.

13 The European Union and the United States accounted for 40% of complaints under the DSU and, between them, were respondent in 49% of all disputes under the DSU from 1995 to 2010: see Horn et al., note 4 above, at 1111. In terms of distinct matters, their combined rate of participation as a principal party was 76% (1995 − 2000), 58% (2001 − 2005), and 69% (2006 − 2011). Their combined rate of participation as a principal party in panel proceedings was 85% (1995 − 2000), 82% (2001 − 2005), and 76% (2006–2011).

14 Chinese Taipei acceded in 2002 and has been party to only three disputes, all as complainant (WT/DS274, WT/DS318, WT/DS377) initiated in 2002, 2004, and 2008, respectively. Ukraine acceded in 2008 and has already filed two complaints and been respondent in another three (WT/DS411, WT/DS421, WT/DS423). Vietnam acceded in 2007 and its record resembles the first part of China's membership insofar as it was party to only one dispute in five years, as complainant (WT/DS404).

15 See Gao, Henry, ‘Taming the Dragon: China's Experience in the WTO Dispute Settlement System’, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 34(4) (2007), 369–392Google Scholar.

16 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (US – Steel Safeguards), WT/DS252.

17 Ministry of Commerce press release dated 31 May 2004, quoting then EU trade commissioner Lamy, available in Chinese at http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/wtojiben/t/200405/20040500227936.html (visited 11 December 2011); ‘EU, China Reach Deal on Coke Supply’, China Daily, 31 May 2004.

18 See the request for consultations, joint communication from the parties and notification of mutually agreed solution in China – Value-Added Tax on Integrated Circuits, WT/DS309/1, 7, and 8.

19 United States Trade Representative (USTR) press release: ‘China Terminates Antidumping Duty Order on Kraft Linerboard: US Negotiation Delivers Positive Results for American Producers’, 10 January 2006.

20 Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, Announcement [2005] 60, repealed by Administrative Reconsideration Decision (Commercial letter) [2006] 1. See also the notification in WTO document G/ADP/N/139/CHN.

21 See Jackson, note 3 above, at 27.

22 Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China (WT/ACC/CHN/49) (Working Party Report), paras. 83–84, 86.

23 Working Party Report, Annex 3, Table 1, listing phasing-out periods for products subject to import licence, import quota and import tendering.

24 China's services schedule on accession in professional, distribution, financial, tourism, and transport services sectors (Working Party Report, WT/ACC/CHN/49/Add.2).

25 Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China, annexed to a Ministerial Decision of 10 December 2011 (WT/L/432) (‘Accession Protocol’), Part I, Section 18.

26 See US and EC statements in the General Council during the 2003, 2004, and 2005 transitional reviews (WT/GC/M/84, M/90, and M/100, respectively).

27 See introductory statement by China during the 2002 transitional review (G/MA/117, para. 8.10). See also US statement during the 2011 transitional review regarding China's implementation during the first five years of its membership (WT/GC/M/134, paras. 3–6).

28 See China's observations in the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB) (G/TMB/N/437, 445, and 447) and Reports of the TMB, including its recommendations and the US position (G/TMB/R/90, para. 27; G/TMB/R/95, para. 10).

29 The textile safeguards were applied pursuant to the Working Party Report, para. 242. See China's 2006 and 2008 WTO Trade Policy Reviews, Reports by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/161/Rev.1, paras. 159–162; WT/TPR/S/199, para. 130, respectively). See further Dayaratna-Banda, O. G. and Whalley, John: ‘After the Multifibre Arrangement: The China Containment Agreements’, Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Review, 3(1) (2007), 29Google Scholar, at 41.

30 Foreign Trade Barriers Investigation Rules, Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, Order [2005] 4, discussed in Ji, Wenhua and Huang, Cui, ‘China's Path to the Center Stage of WTO Dispute Settlement’, Global Trade and Customs Journal, 5(9) (2010), 365–377Google Scholar, at 375; and See Hsieh, Pasha L., ‘China's Development of International Economic Law and WTO Legal Capacity Building’, Journal of International Economic Law, 13(4) (2010), 997–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1017.

31 See, for example, the Agreement on Trade in Goods of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the People's Republic of China, done in Vientiane on 29 November 2004, Article 14.

32 See DSB Special Session, Specific Amendments to the Dispute Settlement Understanding − Drafting inputs from China dated 11 March 2003 (TN/DS/W/51/Rev.1), item 4(i); and Responses to Questions on the Specific Input of China dated 15 May 2003 (TN/DS/W/57).

33 Ibid., item 4(i).

34 In 2007, the DSB established panels in China – Certain Measures Granting Refunds, Reductions or Exemptions from Taxes and Other Payments (China − Taxes), WT/DS358, China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (China – Intellectual Property Rights), WT/DS362, and China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products (China – Publications and Audiovisual Products), WT/DS363, at the joint or sole request of the United States.

35 In 2010, the DSB established panels in China – Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services (China − Electronic Payment Services), WT/DS413, and China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel from the United States (China – GOES), WT/DS414, at the request of the United States.

36 WTO, International Trade Statistics 2004, p. 1.

37 WTO, International Trade Statistics 2005, p. 1.

38 The long-term effect of China's growth remains of major importance to US, EU, and other countries’ trade policies. See Horlick, Gary, ‘China and the Future of Trade Law’, Global Trade and Customs Journal, 5(10) (2010), 421–422Google Scholar.

39 See the joint communications notified by the parties in China – Value-Added Tax on Integrated Circuits, WT/DS309/7, China – Taxes, WT/DS358/14, WT/DS359/14, China – Measures Affecting Financial Information Services and Foreign Financial Information Suppliers (China – Financial Information Services), WT/372/4, WT/DS373/4, WT/DS378/3, China – Grants, Loans and Other Incentives, WT/DS387/1, WT/DS388/1, WT/DS390/1, and USTR press release ‘United States Wins End to China's “Famous Brand” Subsidies after Challenge at WTO’, December 2009; China – Measures Concerning Wind Power Equipment, WT/DS419/1, and USTR press release, ‘China Ends Wind Power Equipment Subsidies Challenged by the United States in WTO Dispute’, June 2011. One other dispute, China – Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties on Certain Iron and Steel Fasteners from the European Union, WT/DS407, largely concerned a provisional measure and did not proceed beyond consultations in 2010.

40 This was China – Intellectual Property Rights. A new measure was issued shortly before the dispute was initiated which addressed two of the four concerns raised in the dispute, one of which was then dropped from the panel request: compare the request for consultations, WT/DS362/1, Section IV, and the request for establishment of a panel, WT/DS362/7.

41 This may also be related to the respondents. Overall, when the United States or the European Union was respondent, a majority of disputes during the same period proceeded to the panel stage. One that did not was US – Coated Free Sheet Paper: see note 10 above.

42 Mexico has initiated three disputes with China (WT/DS359, WT/DS388, WT/DS398), Canada has initiated two (WT/DS342, WT/DS378), Guatemala has initiated one (WT/DS390), and Japan has initiated one in 2012 (WT/DS433). In most cases, the English versions or original consultation and panel requests were in almost identical terms to those of the US regarding the same matter. Mexico and Canada filed their own submissions in the proceedings in China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (China – Raw Materials), WT/DS394, WT/DS395, WT/DS398, and China – Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts (China – Auto Parts), WT/DS339, WT/DS340,WT/DS342, respectively.

43 China – Taxes, WT/DS358 (which later settled), China – Intellectual Property Rights, WT/DS362, and China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363. China – Auto Parts, WT/DS340, was already before a panel.

44 China – Raw Materials, WT/DS395, following China – Financial Information Services, WT/DS372, the previous year and adoption of the report in China – Auto Parts, WT/DS339.

45 See Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, Foreign Market Access Report 2007 under ‘Turkey’, para. 3.5.4 at http://gpj.mofcom.gov.cn/accessory/200704/1176368802629.pdf (visited 11 December 2011).

46 Ibid., para. 3.5.3, and notification in WTO document G/SG/N/16/TUR/1/Supp.1. Peru, Colombia, Turkey, and India also adopted provisional China safeguards on other products, each for 200 days: see notifications in WTO documents G/SG/N/16/PER/1 (in 2003), G/SG/N/16/COL/2 & 3 (in 2005 and 2006), G/SG/N/16/TUR/2 & 3 (in 2006), and G/SG/N/16/IND/4/Supp.2 (in 2009).

47 WTO Secretariat, Anti-Dumping Initiations: Reporting Member v Exporting Country; Anti-Dumping Measures: Reporting Member v Exporting Country; data compiled from semi-annual reports of Members to the Committee on Anti-dumping Practices for the period 1/1/1995 to 31/12/2010.

48 See Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, Annexure I, paras. 7, 8, and accompanying note.

49 Indian anti-dumping measures are rarely challenged under the DSU.

50 See note 47 above.

51 See Memorandum of Understanding between the Argentine Republic and the People's Republic of China on Trade and Investment Cooperation, done at Buenos Aires on 17 November 2004 (in Chinese and Spanish), Article 1.

52 ‘China said to curb soybean imports from Argentina Update 2’, 31 March 2010, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aWxdjrMP8MbA; contrast ‘No curbs on Argentine soybean oil’, China Daily, 7 April 2010, available at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2010-04/07/content_9694337.htm (visited 11 December 2011).

53 See Enrique Dussel Peters: ‘The Implications of China's entry into the WTO for Mexico’, Global Issues Paper No. 24 (Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2005), pp. 23–29.

54 See Ministry of Commerce press release of 24 June 2009 available in Chinese at http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/ae/ai/200906/20090606357543.html (visited 11 December 2011). Australia (which recognizes China's market economy status) ordered a reinvestigation of the countervailing measure within a month of the Appellate Body Report in US – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China (US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China)), WT/DS379: see Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, International Trade Remedies Branch, Report No. 175.

55 See Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, summary of bilateral meeting of 19 March 2009 available in Chinese at: http://gpj.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/subject/mymcyd/subjectnn/200903/20090306138073.html (visited 11 December 2011).

56 Six disputes (in terms of distinct matters) made no reference to terms of accession at all, while another merely named the Protocol of Accession (see the request for consultations in China − Value-Added Tax on Integrated Circuits, WT/DS309/1). Two other disputes (in terms of distinct matters) raised claims regarding terms of accession that were consequential upon obligations in the WTO agreements or China's goods schedule (see the requests for establishment of a panel in China – Taxes, WT/DS358/13, WT/DS359/13; and the requests for consultations in China – Grants, Loans and Other Incentives, WT/DS387/1, WT/DS388/1, WT/DS390/1). A request for consultations in another dispute cited a translation commitment (China –Wind Power Equipment, WT/DS419/1).

57 See the Panel Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products.

58 See Panel Report, China – Raw Materials, but cf. Appellate Body Report, paras. 218–235.

59 See the requests for consultations in China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and Molybdenum, WT/DS431/1, WT/DS432/1, WT/DS433/1.

60 Panel Report, China – Auto Parts, but cf. Appellate Body Report, paras. 210–245. The complainants also raised consequential claims under the terms of accession on which the panel did not need to rule: see paras. 7.368 and 7.760–7.763 of the Panel Report.

61 See the agreement reached in joint communications from the parties to China – Financial Information Services, WT/DS372/4, WT/DS373/4, WT/DS378/3.

62 Regarding these terms, see Qin, Julia Ya, ‘“WTO-plus” Obligations and Their Implications for the World Trade Organization Legal System’, Journal of World Trade, 37(3) (2003), 483–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 US – Steel Safeguards; US – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China (US – Poultry (China)), WT/DS392; and US – Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from China (US − Shrimp and Sawblades), WT/DS422. During the second of these disputes, the US House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations issued a press release stating that the measure ‘violated international trade agreements’, available at http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=235688 (visited 11 December 2011). The third dispute is a zeroing case.

64 Wenhua Ji and Cui Huang have noted that China's success in US – Steel Safeguards, ‘was a good and concrete example that could be used domestically to demonstrate a tangible benefit from China's WTO accession and to advocate for public support in China for the WTO’, see ‘China's Experience in Dealing with WTO Dispute Settlement’, Journal of World Trade, 45(1) (2011), 1–37, at 5.

65 US – Coated Free Sheet Paper; US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China); European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China (EC – Fasteners (China)), WT/DS397; and European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Footwear from China (EU – Footwear (China)), WT/DS405.

66 China's Accession Protocol, Part I, para. 15(a)(ii). The same is true of Vietnam: see its working party report WT/ACC/VNM/48, para. 255(a)(ii) and accession protocol, WT/L/662.

67 The issue is wider than discrimination, as recognition of market economy status may also imply recognition of the achievements of China's domestic reforms.

68 China's complaint is US – Shrimp and Sawblades.

69 US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China). China has very recently also raised countervailing duty law in United States – Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China, WT/DS437.

70 Agreement on Safeguards, Article 11.1(b).

71 US – Poultry (China).

72 The US Department of Commerce had adopted this policy in 1984, which had been sustained by the US Court of Appeals in Georgetown Steel Corp. v United States, 801 F. 2d 1308 (Fed. Cir.) in 1986.

73 Government of the People's Republic of China v United States, 31 CIT 451 (2007).

74 72 Federal Register 17484 (April 9, 2007); 72 Federal Register 30758 (4 June 2007).

75 See the request for consultations in US – Coated Free Sheet Paper, WT/DS368/1.

76 US International Trade Commission Publication 3965 (December 2007) ‘Coated free sheet paper from China, Indonesia and Korea’, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-444-446 (Final) and 731-TA-1109 (Final).

77 See the request for consultations, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), WT/DS379/1.

78 Ibid., Panel Report, Annex A-1, paras. 29, 32.

79 Two key findings in this case are discussed further below.

80 European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document on Progress by the People's Republic of China Towards Graduation to Market Economy Status in Trade Defence Investigations, 19 September 2008, SEC(2008) 2503, para. 1.1.

81 China's Accession Protocol, Part I, paragraph 15(a)(ii) sets out the 15-year period while paragraph 15(d) envisages the possibility of early establishment of market economy status.

82 The measure currently in force is Council Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009, Article 2(7)(c).

83 In 2009, the European Court of Justice in its judgment in Case 141/08 P annulled an anti-dumping measure on imports of ironing boards manufactured by one Chinese company, Foshan Shunde, for a procedural reason. Anti-dumping duties were re-imposed on Foshan Shunde by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 805/2010.

84 See note 80 above.

85 Panel Report, EC − Fasteners (China), paras. 283–291. It can be observed that the Appellate Body stated that ‘the provisions of Paragraph 15(a)’ (rather than simply ‘Paragraph 15(a)(ii)’, as set out in the text) expire on 11 December 2016: see para. 289.

86 Ibid., paras. 309–385.

87 Ibid., para. 624(b)(i) (c)(i) (ii) and (iv) and (d)(i).

88 Panel Report, EU –Footwear (China), paras. 7.82–7.92.

89 Ibid., paras. 7.167–7.205, 7.227–7.266, adopted without appeal: see Action by the DSB, WT/DS405/6.

90 See statement by China in record of 2002 transitional review, WTO document G/SG/W/192; also WTO document G/SG/58, Annex, para. 7.

91 See notifications in WTO documents G/SG/N/16/USA/1 to 4.

92 See notification in WTO document G/SG/N/16/USA/5.

93 United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from China (US – Tyres (China)), Panel Report, WT/DS399/R, and Appellate Body Report, WT/DS399/AB/R.

94 India opened an investigation after the US measure, following other Indian investigations: see note 98 below. Contrast the spread of countervailing duty investigations after the change in US policy: Australia and South Africa initiated countervailing duty investigations into imports from China in 2008; India initiated one in 2009 and the European Union one in 2010. Source: Semi-annual reports to the SCM Committee under Article 25.11 of the SCM Agreement.

95 India opened a China safeguard investigation into passenger car tyres in May 2009, but the petition alleged market disruption rather than trade diversion, see G/SG/N/16/IND/7.

96 Panel Report, US − Tyres (China), paras. 7.5–7.8.

97 See Rules, at note 30 above. In 2004, China investigated and obtained access to a country-specific import quota on laver in Japan. See Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, Foreign Market Access Report 2006, under ‘Japan’, para. 3.2.2.

98 Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, Announcement Nos. [2011] 69, [2012] 24, and [2012] 26.

99 See the discussion of the issue in general in the Working Party Report, paras. 8–9; specific provisions in paras. 203 and 305; the de minimis exemption for domestic support under the Agreement on Agriculture between the developed and developing country percentages in para. 235; and China's Accession Protocol Paragraph 10.3.

100 The disagreement between China and the US remains live: see the 2008 transitional review (G/SCM/125, paras. 36, 48–53; IP/C/50, paras. 41, 47, 57). The panel in every dispute to which China has been a party has included at least one developing country Member national and most have included two: cf. Article 8.10 of the DSU.

101 Panel Report, US – Steel Safeguards, para. 3.4, Appellate Body Report, paras. 235 and 260.

102 See the Panel Report, China – Auto Parts, para. 4.540, 7.350.

103 See the Panel Report, China – Raw Materials, paras. 7.265, 7.403, 7.541; Annex D-2, paras. 3–6; contrast the US submission, at Annex A-3, para. 7.

104 Panel Report, China – Auto Parts, paras. 7.360–7.365; and Panel Report, China – Raw Materials, paras. 7.280, 7.404–7.408, 7.543–7.550.

105 Lardy, Nicholas R., Integrating China into the Global Economy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2002), p. 155Google Scholar, citing critics of China's accession.

106 Ibid., p. 156.

107 Samuel S. Kim, ‘China and the United Nations’, in Economy and Oksenberg (eds), note 2 above, pp. 42–89, at p. 61, quoted in Lardy, note 105 above, at p. 155.

108 Jing Huang, ‘China and America's Northeast Asian Alliances: Approaches, Politics, and Dilemmas’, in Michael H. Armacost and Daniel I. Okimoto (eds.), The Future of America's Alliances in Northeast Asia (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press, 2004), pp. 237–249, at 239.

109 Ostry, note 5 above, at 37. Regarding China's domestic constraints, see Harpaz, Marcia Don, ‘Sense and Sensibilities of China in WTO Dispute Settlement’, Journal of World Trade, 44(6) (2010), 1155–1186Google Scholar, at 1164–1167.

110 The relevant decisions concern the establishment of panels (DSU, Article 6.1), adoption of panel reports (Article 16.4), adoption of Appellate Body reports (Article 17.14) and authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations (Article 22.6). In addition, a party cannot prevent the appointment of panelists (Article 8.7).

111 Gallagher, Norah and Shan, Wenhua, Chinese Investment Treaties, Policies and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar, §§8.49, 8.65, pp. 320, 326). China has now entered into more than thirty BITs that include liberal investor-state dispute resolution provisions.

112 A Chinese investor has referred a dispute to ICSID: Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6, Decision on Jurisdiction and Competence, 19 June 2009.

113 China participated in Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo: see ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, General List No. 141.

114 Administrative Procedure Law (also known as the Administrative Litigation Law) of the People's Republic of China, adopted at the second session of the Seventh National People's Congress and promulgated by Order No. 16 of the President of the People's Republic of China on 4 April 1989, effective as of 1 October 1990, Articles 11 and 12. See also Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Hearing of Administrative Cases relating to International Trade, promulgated by the Supreme People's Court on 27 August 2002, effective 1 October 2002.

115 Constitution of the People's Republic of China, adopted on 4 December 1982 (as amended through 2004), Article 126.

116 See the functions of the CPC Central Committee Politics and Law Committee as described on its website, available in Chinese at http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/64114/64135/5994757.html.

117 The blog is available at http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/.

118 Interim Regulations of the People's Republic of China adopted at the 15th meeting of the Standing Committee of the Fifth National People's Congress on 26 August 1980; superseded by the Lawyers Law adopted by the 19th meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress and promulgated by Order No. 14 of the President of the People's Republic of China on 15 May 1996, effective 1 January 1997.

119 Responses to Questions on the Specific Input of China, TN/DS/W/57 at note 2 above.

120 Consider the time expended in US – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (US – Gambling) handling a complainant's novel view that it was wasteful and unnecessary to identify the various legislative provisions at issue (Panel Report WT/DS285/R, paras. 3.71–3.123, 6.148–6.249; Appellate Body Report WT/DS285/AB/R, paras. 41–45, 84–87, 116–128). That approach can be contrasted with China – Publications and Audiovisual Products: see Munin, Nellie ‘The GATS: A Legal Perspective on Crossroads of Conflicting Interests’, World Trade Review, 10(3) (2011), 325–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 327–330.

121 See statement of China in 2002 transitional review, G/L/596, Annex, para. 3.7.

122 Prior to that China was a third party on a selective basis where it had a clear trade interest: in US – Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products, WT/DS243, as one of the world's largest exporters of textiles and clothing, and in US – Subsidies on Upland Cotton (US — Upland Cotton), WT/DS267, as the world's largest producer of cotton.

123 See Hsieh, ‘China's Development of International Economic Law and WTO Legal Capacity Building’, note 30 above; and Ji and Huang, note 64 above.

124 See notes 18 and 39 above.

125 Cf. minutes of DSB meetings of 25, 28, and 29 January 1999 (WT/DSB/M/54) and 19 and 27 November 2007 (WT/DSB/M/242) under the heading ‘Prior to the adoption of the agenda’.

126 Cf. US – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing)(Article 21.5), WT/DS294/RW, para. 8.9–8.17; WT/DS294/AB/RW, paras. 16–19, 60–63, 164–172.

127 See preliminary rulings by the Panel in China – Raw Materials, dated 7 May 2010 (WT/DS394/9) and the Panel in China – Electronic Payment Services, dated 30 September 2011 (WT/DS413/4).

128 Panel Report, China – Auto Parts, paras. 2.2–2.4; Panel Report, China – Intellectual Property Rights, paras. 2.5–2.6; Panel Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, paras. 2.4–2.9; 7.928–7.931, Annex A-1; Panel Report, China – Raw Materials, paras. 7.718 and fn 1070, para. 7.868.

129 Panel Report in China – Intellectual Property Rights. See Action by the DSB, WT/DS362/10.

130 See the agreements under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU in China – Auto Parts (WT/DS339/15, WT/DS340/15, WT/DS342/15 providing for seven months and 20 days from adoption of DSB recommendations); China – Intellectual Property Rights (WT/DS362/13: 12 months); China – Publications and Audiovisual Products (WT/DS363/16: 14 months); US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China) (WT/DS379/11, as modified by WT/DS379/13: 11 months, extended to 13 months); EC – Fasteners (China) (WT/DS397/14: 14 months and two weeks); EU – Footwear (China) (WT/DS405/7: seven months and 19 days), and China – Raw Materials (WT/DS394/18, WT/DS395/17, WT/DS398/16: 10 months and 9 days).

131 See minutes of DSB meetings, WT/DSB/M/273, para. 89, re the airgram for the DSB meeting; WT/DSB/M/282, para. 84, re adoption and subsequent entry into force of an implementing measure.

132 Harpaz, note 109 above, at 1156.

133 ‘Serious concerns’ related to the reports in China – Publications and Audiovisual Products. At the same time, China confirmed that it respected the rulings and recommendations of the DSB: see status report by China, WT/DS363/17/Add.2.

134 See minutes of DSB meetings, for example, WT/DSB/M/262, para. 9; M/266, paras. 86–88; M/278, para. 81; M/288, para. 68; M/294, para. 93–95 and contemporaneous statements by Ministry of Commerce spokespersons.

135 Nineteen names put forward by China are included in the current Indicative List of panelists maintained by the Secretariat under Article 8.4 of the DSU (WT/DSB/44/Rev.17). This is the same number of names put forward by the United States on that list.

136 China nominated candidates for appointment to the Appellate Body in 2006 and 2007.

137 Article 8.3 of the DSU provides that nationals of the parties and third parties can only be appointed with the parties’ consent. There are relatively few US and EU panelists for the same reason: see Horn et al., note 4 above, p. 1130. Mr. Zhang Yuqing, a Chinese national, was appointed to the panel in European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador and European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States (WT/DS27) in 2007.

138 Working Procedures for Appellate Body Review, Rule 6, WT/AB/WP/6.

139 Divisions were as follows: China – Auto Parts, Bautista, Hillman and Sacerdoti (two nationals of complainants; there was no Chinese Appellate Body member at the time); China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, Hillman, Oshima, Ramírez-Hernández; US – Tyres (China), Hillman, Oshima, Van den Bossche; and China – Raw Materials, Ramírez-Hernández, Hillman, Oshima (two nationals of complainants).

140 At the panel stage, the dispute also concerned the US implementing statute.

141 See USITC Transcripts of votes in TA-421-2, TA-421-4 and TA-421-6; contrast unanimous negative determinations in TA-421-3 and TA-421-5, available on USITC website at http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/completed/index.htm under ‘Safeguard Investigations – Section 421’.

142 See Panel Report, China – Auto Parts, para. 4.174–4.176, 4.644; Appellate Body Report, para. 30; Panel Report, China – Intellectual Property Rights, Annex B-4, paras. 17, 18, and 24; Panel Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, para. 4.161, Appellate Body Report, para. 53.

143 Appellate Body Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, paras. 410–411. The Appellate Body in EC — Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) (EC − Hormones) had referred to the principle of in dubio mitius as a supplementary means of treaty interpretation according to which, if the meaning of a term is ambiguous, that meaning is to be preferred which is less onerous to the party assuming an obligation, or which interferes less with the territorial and personal supremacy of a party, or involves less general restrictions upon the parties: see Appellate Body Report, WT/DS26/AB/R, footnote 154.

144 See Panel Report, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), Annex A-1, paras. 6–7, and Appellate Body Report, paras. 35–41, regarding Articles 4, 5, and 8 of the ILC Articles. The Appellate Body had referred to Article 51 of the ILC Draft Articles (as they then were) in United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/AB/R, para. 120 and fn 90; and United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea, WT/DS202/AB/R, para. 279.

145 Appellate Body Report, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), paras. 304–316. Article 5 of the ILC Articles sets out a rule of attribution regarding the conduct of persons or entities exercising elements of governmental authority.

146 Panel Report, China – Raw Materials, Annex D-2, paras. 1, 3–13; see also Panel Report, China – Intellectual Property Rights, para. 7.497; Panel Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, paras. 4.108 and 7.751.

147 The Panel rejected the claim: see Panel Report, EU – Footwear (China), paras. 7.25–7.27, 7.34–7.44.

148 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 442.

149 Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels, WT/DS273/R, cited with approval in the Panel report US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), paras. 8.71–8.83.

150 Panel Report, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), paras. 8.3–8.18, note in particular para. 8.14.

151 Appellate Body Report, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), paras. 282–322. The ILC Articles arose in this connection, see note 144 above.

152 Panel Report, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), Annex A-1, paras. 25–35; Appellate Body Report, para. 103–123 and 545.

153 Appellate Body Report, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), paras. 547–583. Division: Bautista, Ramírez-Hernández, Van den Bossche.

154 See the US statement on adoption of the reports, WT/DSB/M/294, paras. 97–99.

155 On the issue of enforceability of accession protocols, see Qin, note 62 above, at 509–510; and Steve Charnovitz, ‘Mapping the Law of WTO Accession’, in Merit Janow et al. (eds.), The WTO: Governance, Dispute Settlement and Developing Countries (New York: Juris Publishing, 2008), pp. 855–920. See also Qin, Julia Ya, ‘The Challenges of Interpreting WTO-PLUS Provisions’, Journal of World Trade, 44 (2010), 127–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar

156 See, for example, the Appellate Body Report in China – Auto Parts, para. 214.

157 Appellate Body Reports, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, para. 133; US – Tyres (China), para. 118; see also China – Auto Parts, paras. 213–214.

158 China's Accession Protocol, Part I, Paragraph 1.2 cited in the Panel Report China – Raw Materials, paras. 7.64, 7.112–7.115.

159 DSU, Article 1.1 and Appendix 1. Accession protocols are entered into by the WTO itself with the acceding Member in accordance with Article XII:1 of the WTO Agreement.

160 Panel Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, paras. 4.92, 4.112–4.113, 4.432–4.438.

161 Appellate Body Report China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, paras. 205–230.

162 Panel Report, China – Raw Materials , Annex D-1, paras. 6–23; Annex D-4, paras. 11–28.

163 Panel Report, China – Raw Materials, paras. 7.107–7.160; Appellate Body Report, paras. 278–307.

164 See minutes of DSB meetings, WT/DSB/M/273, para. 90; WT/DSB/M/280, para. 58. One implementing measure in the latter case was adopted within the reasonable period of time but entered into force two weeks later: see WT/DSB/M/282, para. 82.

165 See status report by China, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/17/Add.14, cf. the first status report on implementation in that dispute, WT/DS363/17.

166 Joint communication from China and the United States dated 9 May 2012, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/19, regarding importation and distribution of certain films.

167 Joint Decree No. 10 of the National Development Reform Commission (‘NDRC’) and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology adopted 15 August 2009 and Joint Decree No. 185 of the General Administration of Customs, the NDRC, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Commerce, adopted 28 August 2009, both effective from 1 September 2009.

168 See status report by China, China – Intellectual Property Rights, WT/DS362/14/Add.2.

169 See status report by China, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/17/Add.14.

170 See minutes of DSB meeting of 10 December 2003 (WT/DSB/M/160, para. 33)

171 Panel report, China – Intellectual Property Rights, paras. 2.4 and 8.7.

172 The extended period expired on 25 April 2012: see modification of the agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), WT/DS379/13. Cf. US status report on implementation as at 11 May 2012: WT/DS379/12/Add.4.

173 Note the timing of China's requests in US – Poultry (China), WT/DS392/1, 2 and 3 and the steps leading to the enactment of the US fiscal year 2010 agriculture appropriations bill, which ultimately did not include a provision similar to the measure at issue in the WTO dispute.

174 This report was in EC – Fasteners (China), see minutes of the DSB meeting of 28 July 2011, WT/DSB/M/301, para. 11. The Appellate Body report in US – Tyres (China) was also circulated outside the 90 day period referred to in Article 17.5 of the DSU: see para. 9 and fn. 24 of that Report; and a communication from the Appellate Body, WT/DS399/8.

175 As complainant: see communications from the parties concerning Article 21.3(c) of the DSU in US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), WT/DS379/10; and in EC - Fasteners (China), WT/DS397/13. As respondent: see communications from the parties concerning Article 21.3(c) of the DSU in China – Raw Materials, WT/DS394/17,WT/DS395/16, and WT/DS398/15.

176 As complainant: see understanding between the parties regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), WT/DS379/14; and as respondent: see understandings between the parties regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in China – Intellectual Property Rights, WT/DS362/15; and China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/18.

177 It has also allowed a respondent to notify its intentions with respect to implementation under Article 21.3 of the DSU by letter rather than at a specially convened meeting of the DSB during European summer holidays: see communication from the European Union in EC –Fasteners (China), WT/DS397/12.

178 See Ehring, Lothar, ‘Public Access to Dispute Settlement Hearings in the World Trade bOrganization’, Journal of International Economic Law 11(4) (2008), 1021–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1027, 1029.

179 Panel report, United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute, WT/DS320/R, paras. 5.29 and 7.24.

180 Ministry of Commerce press release of 19 August 2005 available in Chinese at http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/ae/ai/200508/20050800281695.html (visited 11 December 2011).

181 Appellate Body Report, US – Continued Suspension, paras. 242–243.

182 Ibid., Annex IV, and para. 33.

183 WT/DSB/M/258, paras. 46 and 48. Similarly, in the Panel proceeding in US – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology, WT/DS350, a portion of the third party session was open to public observation. China, like Brazil, India, Korea, and Mexico, elected to make its third party statement in the closed portion: see Ehring note 178 above, at 1027.

184 The appeal in the Airbus case was not yet complete (see the Appellate Body Report in European Communities and certain member States − Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, WT/DS316/AB/R). The appeal in the Boeing case (of which China had prior notice) was about to begin and, at the time of the third decision, it was underway (see the Notification of an appeal by the European Union and a further communication from the European Union in United States − Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft − Second Complaint, WT/DS353/8 and 9).

185 Joint request by the European Union and China for a decision by the DSB, EC – Fasteners (China), WT/DS397/6. See the minutes of the DSB meeting of 25 January 2011 (WT/DSB/M/291).

186 Joint request by China and the European Union for a decision by the DSB, EU – Footwear (China), WT/DS405/5. See minutes of the DSB meeting of 19 December 2011 (WT/DSB/M/308).

187 Joint request by China and the United States for a decision by the DSB, US – Tyres (China), WT/DS399/5. See minutes of the DSB meeting of 7 February 2011 (WT/DSB/M/292).

188 DSU, Article 16.1 and 16.4.

189 See note 174 above. The panel report in EU – Footwear (China) was not appealed.

190 The only precedent, for a shorter extension, was agreed the previous month in Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines, WT/DS371 – see minutes of the DSB meeting of 17 December 2010 (WT/DSB/M/290).

191 Another example also related to implementation, which arose in the second case where China implemented a DSB recommendation: see note 131 above.

192 Appellate Body Report, China – Auto Parts, paras. 198–209.

193 See minutes of the DSB meeting of 12 January 2009 (WT/DSB/M/262), paras. 10–11, reiterated the following month, see note 195 below.

194 The Appellate Body in US – Upland Cotton had interpreted Article 17.12 in light of general provisions in Article 3.4 and 3.7 of the DSU (WT/DS267/AB/R, paras. 508–511).

195 See minutes of the DSB meeting of 11 February 2009 (WT/DSB/M/264), paras. 3–7. For the US’ view, see the Appellate Body Report in China – Auto Parts, para. 207.

196 See minutes of the DSB meeting of 14 November 2008 (WT/DSB/M/258), paras. 12, 37 and 43.

197 Ibid. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Norway all expressed views on the issue of the recommendation.

198 See text of the Memoranda of Understanding in EC – Hormones between the United States and the European Communities (WT/DS26/28) and between Canada and the European Union (WT/DS48/26).

199 See US statement upon adoption of reports in US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), in minutes of the DSB meeting of 25 March 2011 (WT/DSB/M/294, para. 100).

200 See minutes of the DSB meeting of 21 April 2011 (WT/DSB/M/295), para. 51.

201 See note 32 above.

202 United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, WT/DS176, recommendation in 2002; United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184, recommendation in 2001 and partly implemented; United States – Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act, WT/DS160, recommendation in 2000, temporary arrangement expired in 2004; European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291, recommendation in 2006. In United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217, WT/DS234, there is a disagreement as to whether steps taken in 2006 fully implement the recommendations made in 2003.

203 European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27, recommendation in 1997, settlement reached in 2009; EC – Hormones (WT/DS26 and WT/DS48) recommendations in 1998, settlements reached in 2009 and 2011 without agreement that the recommendations have been implemented (WT/DS26/28; WT/DS48/26); US – Gambling (WT/DS285) recommendation in 2005.

204 See statements under the agenda item ‘Surveillance of implementation of recommendations of the DSB’ at every regular DSB meeting in recent years (WT/DSB/M document series).

205 See, for example, records of transitional review mechanism, G/AG/21, para. 6; G/AG/23, para. 6; G/MA/194, para. 7.3; G/TBT/17, para. 29; G/SCM/125, paras. 21, 39 and 42; S/C/15, para. 65; S/FIN/7, under ‘Banking services’; IP/C/26, para. 44; IP/C/47, Annex, para. 76; IP/C/50, Annex, para. 61.

206 See China's statement in the 2006 transitional review in the General Council (WT/GC/M/106, para. 4) and again in 2007, where it referred to ‘some major developed countries which were founding Members of the WTO’ (WT/GC/M/112, para. 46).

207 For a discussion, see Mo, John Shijian, ‘Settlement of Trade Disputes between Mainland China and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan within the WTO’, 2 Chinese Journal of International Law, 145 (2003)Google Scholar.

208 See, for example, the Panel report in China – Raw Materials (WT/DS394/R), paras. 6.6–6.7.

209 See acceptance by China of requests to join consultations, WT/DS309/6. China also joined the consultations requested by Chinese Taipei in EC – Tariff Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products (with the EC's consent) and was a third party in the panel proceeding: see acceptance by the European Communities of the requests to join consultations, WT/DS377/5.

210 See the minutes of the DSB meeting of 19 and 27 November 2007, note 125 above.