WTO dispute settlement from 1995 to 2005 - A statistical analysis

Journal of International Economic Law

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 219-231

  Leitner, Kara ^a   Lester, Simon ^a  

^a WorldTradeLawnet LLC

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645292362     PISSN: 13693034     EISSN: 14643758     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jiel/jgl001     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. In some instances, a request is made by multiple Members acting jointly.
2. In our calculation of the number of complaints, we have included five disputes for which no formal consultation request was filed under the DSU: United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Women's and Girls' Wool Coats (DS32); United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses (DS33); Colombia - Safeguard Measure on Imports of Plain Polyester Filaments from Thailand (DS181); United States - Transitional Safeguard Measures on Certain Imports of Woven Fabrics of Cotton and Cotton Mixtures Originating in Brazil (DS190); and United States - Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan (DS192). In these disputes, the consultation request was made under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, with a subsequent panel request submitted under the DSU.
3. As stated by the Appellate Body in Guatemala - Cement, ' [t]he "matter referred to the DSB" [pursuant to DSU Article 7] consists of two elements: the specific measures at issue and the legal basis of the complaint (or the claims)'. See WT/DS60/AB/R, para 72.
4. The classification of developed countries, developing countries or least developed countries is based on the Agreement Establishing The Advisory Centre on WTO Law. See Agreement Establishing the Advisory Centre on WTO Law (30 November 1999), 〈http://www.acwl.ch/e/tools/doc_e.aspx〉 (visited on 9 January 2006).
5. These figures do not include complaints brought against individual EC member States.
6. Some of these disputes involved other Members as well.
7. These income classifications are based on the World Bank's classification methodology, as detailed on the World Bank's web site: http://www.worldbank. org/data/countryclass/countryclass.html.
8. A number of complaints have been filed by multiple Members acting jointly. In some of these complaints, the Members filing the complaint fall into different income categories. Where this is the case, we have counted the complaint once in each income category in which at least one complainant falls. Therefore, the number of the complaints in this table will add up to more than the total number of complaints under the DSU.
9. The explanation provided in the footnote above applies here as well.
10. Note that because many complaints involve more than one agreement, the totals for this table will add up to more than the total number of complaints.
11. There have been three panel reports circulated in which the report does not contain any findings, but simply notes that a mutually agreed solution was reached (two reports in the EC - Scallops (1996) dispute and one in the EC - Butter (1999) dispute). We have not included these reports in the table.
12. There have been a number of disputes in which multiple panel reports were issued: four panel reports in EC - Bananas (1997), two in EC - Hormones (1997), two in U.S. - 1916 Act (2000), three in EC - Sugar Subsidies (2004), two in EC - Trademarks/Geographical Indications (2005) and two in EC - Chicken Classification (2005). For these disputes, we have counted each separate panel report circulated as an individual report.
13. Finally, in the U. S. - Steel Safeguards (2003) dispute, the panel issued eight separate panel reports in a single document. We have counted these reports as a single report. (See para. 10.725: '... the Panel decides to issue its Reports in the form of one document constituting eight Panel Reports. For WTO purposes, this document is deemed to be eight separate reports, each of the reports relating to each one of the eight complainants in this dispute.... This single document... contains a common set of findings in relation to each of the claims that the Panel has decided to address". WT/ DS248,249,251,252,253, 254,258,259/R). Similarly, in the Canada - Wheat (2004) case, the panel issued two separate panel reports in a single document. We have counted these reports as a single report. (See para. 6.2. WT/DS276/R).
14. We note that an appeal was filed in the 2001 India - Autos panel report, but the appeal was later withdrawn. Therefore, we did not count this report as having been appealed.
15. Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/5.
16. In 2002, 2004 and 2005, reports were circulated pursuant to an Article 21.3(c) arbitration in which the arbitrator noted that the parties had reached a bilateral agreement. Therefore, the arbitrator in each case said, there was no need to issue an award. See WT/DS202/17, WT/DS264/13 and WT/ DS302/17. We have not counted these reports in the table.
17. In the U.S. - Offset Act ('Byrd Amendment') (2004) dispute, the Arbitrator issued eight separate decisions, one for each original complainant that had proposed the suspension of concessions or other obligations. Because the substantive findings in each decision were essentially the same, we have counted these decisions as a single decision in the table above.
18. WT/MIN(01)/15, 14 November 2001.
19. There has been one Article 21.5 panel report circulated, in U.S. - DRAMS (2000), in which the report does not contain any findings, but simply notes that a mutually agreed solution was reached. We have not included this report in the table.
20. This table does not include the U.S. - DRAMS panel report referred to in the previous footnote.