DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS 2008 VOLUME 10【2025|PDF下载-Epub版本|mobi电子书|kindle百度云盘下载】

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS 2008 VOLUME 10PDF格式电子书版下载

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION3521

Ⅱ. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS3537

A. Claims of the European Communities - Appellant3537

1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing3537

2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU3539

3. Article 22.8 of the DSU3542

4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference3545

5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation3547

6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts3548

7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement3550

8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement3556

B. Arguments of the United States - Appellee3563

1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing3563

2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU3565

3. Article 22.8 of the DSU3567

4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference3569

5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation3570

6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts3571

7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement3572

8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement3577

C. Arguments of Canada - Appellee3580

1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing3580

2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU3582

3. Article 22.8 of the DSU3584

4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference3585

5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation3586

6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts3587

7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement3588

8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement3594

D. Claims of the United States - Other Appellant3597

1. Alleged Discrepancies in the Panel’s Description of the Measure at Issue3597

2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU3598

3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU3601

4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion3602

5. Conclusion3603

E. Claims of Canada - Other Appellant3603

1. The Panel’s Examination of Articles 23.1 and 23.2（a） “In Isolation” from Article 22.8 of the DSU3604

2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU3606

3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU3607

4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion3607

5. Conclusion3608

F. Arguments of the European Communities - Appellee3609

1. The “Harmonious” Interpretation of Articles 21， 22， and 23 of the DSU in the Post-Suspension Stage of a Dispute3609

2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU3612

3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU3613

4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion3615

G. Arguments of the Third Participants3615

1. Australia3615

2. Brazil3621

3. China3624

4. India3625

5. Mexico3625

6. New Zealand3625

7. Norway3629

8. Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan， Penghu， Kinmen and Matsu3632

Ⅲ.ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL3632

Ⅳ. THE APPLICATION OF THE DSU IN THE POST- SUSPENSION STAGE OF A DISPUTE3635

A. Introduction3635

B. The Panel’s Findings3637

1. Scope of the European Communities’ Claims3637

2. The European Communities’ Claim that the United States and Canada Breached Article 23.2（a） of the DSU Read Together with Articles 23.1 and 21.53639

3. The European Communities’ Claim that the United States and Canada Breached Article 23.1 of the DSU Read Together with Articles 22.8 and 3.73641

4. The Panel’s Jurisdiction3645

5. Burden of Proof3645

6. The Panel’s Suggestion3647

C. Claims and Arguments on Appeal3647

1. Appeal by the European Communities3647

2. Other Appeals by the United States and Canada3650

3. Arguments of the Third Participants3652

D. Cessation of the Suspension of Concessions - Article 22.8 of the DSU3654

1. Preliminary Comments3654

2. When Must a WTO Member Cease to Suspend Concessions Pursuant to Article 22.8 of the DSU？3655

3. The Panel’s Analysis Concerning Article 22.8 of the DSU3660

4. Did the Panel Exceed Its Mandate by Addressing the Conformity of Directive 2003/74/EC with the SPS Agreement？3664

E. Procedural Avenues for Resolving Disagreements as to Whether the Inconsistent Measure Has Been Removed under Article 22.8 of the DSU3670

1. What Is the Appropriate Procedural Avenue to Resolve a Disagreement as to Whether the Inconsistent Measure Has Been Removed？3670

2. Is the European Communities Precluded from Initiating Article 21.5 Panel Proceedings Regarding Whether Directive 2003/74/EC Has Brought It into Compliance？3675

F. Analysis of the Panel’s Findings of ”Procedural Violations”3682

1. The Prohibition on Certain Unilateral Actions - Article 23 of the DSU3683

2. The Panel’s Alleged Examination of Articles 23.2（a） and 23.1 in Isolation from the Requirements in Article 22.8 of the DSU3686

3. Whether the Panel Erred in Finding that the United States and Canada Are “Seeking the Redress of a Violation” with Respect to Directive 2003/74/EC3689

4. Whether the Panel Erred in Finding that the United States and Canada Made a Determination of Violation Without Recourse to the DSU， Within the Meaning of Article 23.2（a）3693

5. Conclusion3698

G. The Panel’s Finding that It Had No Jurisdiction to Make Findings under the SPS Agreement3699

H. The Panel’s Suggestion3700

Ⅴ. DUE PROCESS IN THE PANEL’S CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS3701

A. The Panel’s Findings3701

B. Claims and Arguments on Appeal3707

C. Did the Panel Infringe the European Communities’ Due Process Rights and Fail to Make an Objective Assessment of the Matter in the Consultations with the Scientific Experts3710

Ⅵ. THE CONSISTENCY WITH ARTICLE 5.1 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES’ IMPORT BAN ON MEAT FROM CATTLE TREATED WITH OESTRADIOL-17B FOR GROWTH-PROMOTION PURPOSES3735

A. Introduction3735

B. The European Communities’ Risk Assessment for Meat from Cattle Treated with Oestradiol-17β3735

C. The Panel’s Findings3740

D. Claims and Arguments on Appeal3748

E. The Panel’s Assessment of Directive 2003/74/EC under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement3753

1. General Disciplines Applicable to the Adoption of an SPS Measure3753

2. The Panel’s Interpretation and Application of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement3759

3. The Panel’s Specificity Requirement3769

4. Quantification of Risk3773

5. Burden of Proof3777

6. The Panel’s Articulation and Application of the Standard of Review under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement3782

F. Conclusion3795

Ⅶ.THE CONSISTENCY WITH ARTICLE 5.7 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES’ PROVISIONAL IMPORT BAN ON MEAT FROM CATTLE TREATED WITH TESTOSTERONE， PROGESTERONE， TRENBOLONE ACETATE， ZERANOL， AND MGA FOR GROWTH-PROMOTION PURPOSES3796

A. Introduction3796

B. The European Communities’ Evaluation of the Five Hormones Subject to the Provisional Ban3797

C. The Panel’s Findings3799

D. Claims and Arguments on Appeal3816

E. The Panel’s Finding that the Relevant Scientific Evidence in Relation to the Five Hormones Was Not “Insufficient” Within the Meaning of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement3823

1. Insufficiency and the Acceptable Level of Protection3827

2. Relevance of International Standards under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement3830

3. The Panel’s “Critical Mass” Standard for Determining “Insufficiency” under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement3834

4. The Panel’s Allocation of the Burden of Proof under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement3840

5. The Panel’s Application of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement3843

F. Conclusions3848

Ⅷ.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS3850