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 25 of 81

  • VII - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS396/AB/R

  • from PHILIPPINES - TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 4260-4262

  • Summary

    261. In the appeal of the Panel Report, Philippines — Taxes on Distilled Spirits (complaint by the European Union, WT/DS396/R) (the “EU Panel Report”), for the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:

    (a) with respect to Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994:

  • (i) upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.85 of the EU Panel Report, that each type of imported distilled spirit at issue in this dispute—gin, brandy, vodka, whisky, and tequila—made from non-designated raw materials is “like” the same type of domestic distilled spirit made from designated raw materials, within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994;

  • (ii) finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in its evaluations of the products' physical characteristics, of the Philippine market for distilled spirits, and of tariff classification;

  • (iii) upholds, as a consequence, the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.90 and 8.2 of the EU Panel Report, that the Philippines has acted inconsistently with Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994 by imposing on each type of imported distilled spirit at issue in this dispute—gin, brandy, rum, vodka, whisky, and tequila—internal taxes in excess of those applied to “like” domestic distilled spirits of the same type made from designated raw materials; and

  • (iv) reverses the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.77 of the EU Panel Report, to the extent that it stands for the proposition that all distilled spirits at issue in this dispute are “like products”, regardless of types, within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994;

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 10, Pages 5303–5748
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014
  • 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 2012: X reports on China - Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services (WT/DS413).

  • ANNEX C UNITED STATES — MEASURES AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT — SECOND COMPLAINT — WORKING PROCEDURES FOR THE PANEL

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 1808-1811

  • Summary

    (revised 13 September 2007)

  • In its proceedings the Panel shall follow the relevant provisions of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). In addition, the following working procedures shall apply.

  • The Panel shall conduct its internal deliberations in closed session. The parties to the dispute, and interested third parties, shall be present at meetings only when invited by the Panel to appear before it. The Panel may open its meetings with the parties to the public, subject to appropriate procedures to be adopted by the Panel after consulting with the parties. The Panel may open the third party session of its first substantive meeting to the public, subject to appropriate procedures to be adopted by the Panel after consulting with the parties and third parties.

  • The deliberations of the Panel and the documents submitted to it shall be kept confidential. Nothing in the DSU shall preclude a party to a dispute from disclosing statements of its own positions to the public. Members shall treat as confidential information submitted by another Member to the Panel which that Member has designated as confidential. Where a party to a dispute submits a confidential version of its written submissions to the Panel, it shall also, upon request of a Member, provide a non-confidential summary of the information contained in its submissions that could be disclosed to the public.

  • . . .

  • VIII - ARTICLE XXIII:1(B) OF THE GATT 1994

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2698-2698

  • Summary

    494. Canada and Mexico also each conditionally appeals the Panel's exercise of judicial economy with respect to whether the COOL measure nullifies and impairs benefits within the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994. Canada further raises a conditional appeal with respect to the Vilsack letter. That is, should we reverse the Panel's finding of inconsistency under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, and not find the COOL measure to be inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, then Canada requests us to complete the legal analysis under Article XXIII:1(b) and to find that both the COOL measure and the Vilsack letter nullify and impair benefits accruing to Canada under successive multilateral trade negotiations. Should those same conditions be satisfied, then Mexico requests us to complete the legal analysis under Article XXIII:1(b) and to find that the COOL measure nullifies and impairs benefits accruing to Mexico from the tariff concessions made by the United States in its tariff bindings.

    495. Having upheld the Panel's finding that the COOL measure is inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, the first condition upon which Canada's and Mexico's appeals under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994 are made is not met, and we therefore need not make any findings in respect of Article XXIII:1(b) with regard to the COOL measure. It is also unnecessary for us to make any finding with regard to the Vilsack letter.

  • China - Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services (WT/DS413) Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 5305-5724

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of the United States

    On 15 September 2010, 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) and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) with respect to the measures and claims set out below.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    On 11 February 2011, the United States requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. At its meeting on 25 March 2011, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel pursuant to the request of the United States in document WT/DS413/2, 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/DS413/2 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

    On 23 June 2011, the United States requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel, pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU. On 4 July 2011, the Director-General accordingly composed the Panel as follows:

    Chairperson: Mr Virachai Plasai

    Members: Ms Elaine Feldman

    Mr Martín Redrado

    Australia, Ecuador, the European Union, Guatemala, India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    Panel Proceedings

    General

    On 5 July 2011, China submitted to the Panel a request for a preliminary ruling with respect to the consistency of certain aspects of the United States’ panel request with Article 6.2 of the DSU. The Panel issued its preliminary ruling to the parties, with a copy to the third parties, on 7 September 2011. The Panel held a first substantive meeting with the parties on 26-27 October 2011. A session with the third parties took place on 27 October 2011. The Panel held a second substantive meeting with the parties on 13-14 December 2011. On 25 January 2012, the Panel issued the descriptive part of its Panel Report.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 5, Pages 2447–2742
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014
  • 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 2012: V reports on United States - Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements (WT/DS384, WT/DS386).

  • Report of the Panel (Part II) Pages 1275-1759

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 1275-1759

  • Summary

    4. State of Illinois and municipalities therein

    (a) Introduction

    7.891 The European Communities argues that each of the four measures at issue is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, and is specific within the meaning of Article 2 of the SCM Agreement. The European Communities estimates that the total amount of the four subsidies to Boeing's LCA division is approximately $25 million over the period 2002-2021.

    7.892 The United States accepts that these measures are subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, but argues that three of the four subsidies are not specific within the meaning of Article 2 of the SCM Agreement. In addition, the United States asserts that any amounts that Boeing receives after 2006 are “speculative” and fall outside of the Panel's terms of reference, and asserts that the total value of the four subsidies to Boeing's LCA division is [***] million over the period 2002-2006.

    (b) The measures at issue

    7.893 The European Communities' claim concerns four separate incentives that the State of Illinois and municipalities therein (i.e. Cook County and the City of Chicago2306) provided to Boeing in consideration for Boeing's decision to relocate its corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago in 2001. The first three incentives are derived from the Corporate Headquarters Relocation Act2307 (“CHRA”). The CHRA was signed into law on 1 August 2001, approximately one month before Boeing relocated its headquarters to Chicago.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 2, Pages 647–1248
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014
  • 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 2012: I to III report on United States - Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint) (WT/DS353).

  • VII - FINDINGS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2790-3029

  • Summary

    Overview of the Matters before the Panel

    7.1 In this dispute, Canada and Mexico advance claims against the United States' measures governing the country of origin labelling (“COOL”) requirements with respect to meat products. The complainants claim that the measures are inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and Articles III:4 and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. The complainants have also advanced a non-violation claim under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.

    7.2 The complainants argue that the measures accord imported livestock treatment less favourable than that accorded to like domestic livestock inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, as well as Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. The complainants assert that this is because complying with the COOL requirements results in higher segregation costs for imported livestock, which in turn affects the competitive conditions of imported livestock in the market.

    7.3 Furthermore, the complainants claim that the COOL requirements are inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. According to the complainants, the true objective of the COOL requirements is to protect domestic industry, not to provide consumer information on origin as stated by the United States, and that, in the circumstances of this dispute, the provision of consumer information is not legitimate. The complainants state that there are less trade restrictive alternatives and, in any event, the COOL requirements do not fulfil the objective of providing consumer information on origin because labels under the COOL requirements convey confusing and inaccurate information on the origin of meat products.

Page 25 of 81