Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Collections & Series
  4. Dispute Settlement Reports Online
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Societies Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1607 results in Dispute Settlement Reports Online

Page 19 of 81

  • China - Measures related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten, and Molybdenum (WT/DS431, WT/DS432, WT/DS433): Reports of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2014
    Published online:
    28 September 2017
    Print publication:
    18 February 2016, pp 1127-1698

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaints by the United States, the European Union, and Japan

    On 13 March 2012, the United States, the European Union, and Japan each requested consultations with China pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) with respect to the measures and claims set out below.

    Consultations were held on 25-26 April 2012. These consultations did not resolve the dispute.

    Panel Establishment and Composition

    On 27 June 2012, the United States, the European Union, and Japan each requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. At its meeting on 23 July 2012, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a single panel pursuant to the requests of the United States, the European Union, and Japan in accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU.

    The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States in document WT/DS431/6, the European Union in document WT/DS432/6, and Japan in document WT/DS433/6 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

    On 12 September 2012, the United States, the European Union, and Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel, pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU. On 24 September 2012, the Director-General accordingly composed the Panel as follows:

    Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the European Union (with respect to WT/DS431 and WT/DS433), India, Indonesia, Japan (with respect to WT/DS431 and WT/DS432), the Republic of Korea, Norway, Oman, Peru, the Russian Federation, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Chinese Taipei, Turkey, the United States (with respect to WT/DS432 and WT/DS433), and Viet Nam notified their interest in participating in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2014
  • Volume 2, Pages 363–802
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    28 September 2017
    Print publication:
    18 February 2016
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practicing and academic trade lawyers and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2014: Volume 2 reports on European Communities - Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products (WT/DS400, WT/DS401).

  • European Communities - Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products (WT/DS400, WT/DS401): Reports of the Appellate Body

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2014
    Published online:
    28 September 2017
    Print publication:
    18 February 2016, pp 7-336

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada, Norway, and the European Union each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Reports, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products (Panel Reports). The Panel was established to consider complaints by Canada and Norway (the complainants) with respect to a European Union measure dealing with seal products.

    The measure at issue in these disputes, as identified by the Panel, consists of the following legal instruments:

    a. Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (Basic Regulation); and

    b. Commission Regulation (EU) No. 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products (Implementing Regulation).

    The Panel considered it appropriate to treat the Basic Regulation and the Implementing Regulation as a single measure, which it referred to as the “EU Seal Regime”. We do the same in these Reports.

    The EU Seal Regime prohibits the placing of seal products on the EU market unless they qualify under certain exceptions, consisting of the following: (i) seal products obtained from seals hunted by Inuit or other indigenous communities (IC exception); (ii) seal products obtained from seals hunted for purposes of marine resource management (MRM exception); and (iii) seal products brought by travellers into the European Union in limited circumstances (Travellers exception). The EU Seal Regime lays down specific requirements in respect of each of these exceptions.

    Canada and Norway claimed before the Panel that the EU Seal Regime violates various obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). The complainants alleged that the IC and MRM exceptions of the EU Seal Regime violate the non-discrimination obligations under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 and, according to Canada, also under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Both complainants contended, in essence, that the IC and MRM exceptions accord seal products from Canada and Norway less favourable treatment than that accorded to like seal products of domestic origin, mainly from Sweden and Finland, and those of other foreign origin, particularly from Greenland.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
  • Volume 1, Pages 1–468
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2013: Volumes 1 and 2 together report on Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada - Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS412, WT/DS426).

  • China - Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States (WT/DS414/2): Award of the Arbitrator

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 1495-1500

  • Summary

    Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes

    WT/DS414/2

    Circulated to Members on 3 May 2013

    Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States

    The following communication, dated 11 February 2011, from the delegation of the United States to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

    On September 15, 2010, the United States Government requested consultations with China pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“AD Agreement”), and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”). The United States and China held such consultations on November 1, 2010. Unfortunately these consultations did not resolve the dispute.

    The United States considers that certain measures of the Government of the People's Republic of China (“China”) are inconsistent with China's commitments and obligations under the GATT 1994, the AD Agreement, and the SCM Agreement. The measures impose countervailing duties and antidumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (“GOES”) from the United States, and are set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2010], including its annexes.

    These measures appear to be inconsistent with the following provisions of the AD Agreement, SCM Agreement, and GATT 1994:

    Initiation of the Investigation

    1. Articles 11.2 and 11.3 of the SCM Agreement, because:

  • (a) The application for a countervailing duty investigation failed to contain information reasonably available to the applicant regarding the existence of a financial contribution, a benefit, or specificity for several of the alleged subsidy programs; and

  • China - Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States (WT/DS427): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 1041-1494

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 20 September 2011, the United States requested consultations with China pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”) (to the extent that Article 30 incorporates Article XXIII of the GATT 1994), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) with respect to China's measures imposing anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties on broiler products from the United States, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 8 [2010], Notice No. 26 [2010], Notice No. 51 [2010], and Notice No. 52 [2010], including any and all annexes. Pursuant to this request, the United States and China held consultations on 28 October 2011. The consultations failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 8 December 2011, the United States requested, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, that the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) establish a panel to examine this matter.

    At its meeting on 20 January 2012, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of the United States in document WT/DS427/2, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States in document WT/DS427/2 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

  • Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada - Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS412, WT/DS426): Reports of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 237-442

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaints of Japan and the European Union

    On 13 September 2010, Japan requested consultations with Canada pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), Article 8 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (the “TRIMs Agreement”), and Articles 4.1 and 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”). On 11 August 2011, the European Union requested consultations with Canada pursuant to the same, above-mentioned provisions. In both complaints, the consultations concerned certain measures relating to domestic content requirements in the feed-in tariff programme (the “FIT Programme”), established by the Canadian Province of Ontario. These measures included the following: (i) the Electricity Act of 1998; (ii) the Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009; (iii) the Electricity Restructuring Act of 2004; (iv) the Ontario Regulation 578/05; (v) the Independent Electricity System Operator (the “IESO”) Market Manual; (vi) the IESO Market Rules; (vii) the FIT direction dated 24 September 2009 from the Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure; (viii) individual FIT and microFIT Contracts executed by the Ontario Power Authority (the “OPA”); (ix) the FIT Rules and microFIT Rules issued by the OPA; (x) the FIT and microFIT Contracts issued by the OPA; (xi) the FIT Application Form and the online microFIT Application issued by the OPA; (xii) the FIT and microFIT Price Schedules issued by the OPA; (xiii) the FIT Programme Interpretations of the Domestic Content Requirements; and (xiv) any amendments or extensions of the foregoing, any replacement, renewal, implementing or related measures.

    Consultations were held between Japan and Canada on 25 October 2010, and between the European Union and Canada on 7 September 2011. These consultations failed to resolve the disputes.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
  • Volume 4, Pages 1039–1526
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2013: Volume 4 reports on China - Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States (WT/DS427) and China - Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States (WT/DS414/2).

Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
  • Volume 2, Pages 469–656
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2013: Volumes 1 and 2 together report on Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada - Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS412, WT/DS426).

  • Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada - Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS412, WT/DS426): Reports of the Panel - Annexes

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 471-655

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    This dispute concerns the discriminatory treatment affecting imports of parts and equipment utilized in facilities that generate electricity from wind and solar photovoltaic (“PV”) sources (referred to hereafter as “renewable energy generation equipment”) by the Canadian Province of Ontario (“Ontario“) pursuant to its feed-in tariff (“FIT”) program (the “FIT Program”)3 established on 24 September 2009. Specifically, the FIT Program provides subsidies to generators of renewable energy in Ontario, and it requires that in order to receive those subsidies, wind and solar PV generators use renewable energy generation equipment made in Ontario (the “domestic content requirement”).

    Thus, the Government of Ontario grants and maintains subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic over imported renewable energy generation equipment and accords less favorable treatment to imports of such equipment than that accorded to such equipment produced domestically. Accordingly, Japan submits that the FIT Program, as well as individually executed FIT and microFIT contracts for wind and solar PV projects, are inconsistent with Canada's obligations under: (i) Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”); (ii) Article III:4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”); and (iii) Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (“TRIMs Agreement”).

    To be clear, Japan challenges the FIT Program, and individually executed FIT and microFIT contracts, not because they have the effect of promoting investment in renewable energy generation, but rather because, in light of the domestic content requirement, they discriminate against imports of renewable energy generation equipment in favor of Ontario-made renewable energy generation equipment. Japan does not take issue with Ontario's stated goal of enhancing renewable energy generation. On the contrary, the domestic content requirement, which would have the effect of limiting generators’ access to the best available technology from the global marketplace, is inconsistent with that goal. Thus, the claims advanced by Japan cannot properly be characterized as a “trade and environment” dispute; rather, this is a “trade and investment” dispute.

Page 19 of 81