The facts aside: The limitation of WTO appeals to issues of law

Journal of World Trade

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 239-258

  Voon, Tania ^a,b,c   Yanovich, Alan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

^c BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TRADE POLICY; WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION;

EID: 33744474547     PISSN: 10116702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.54648/trad2006013     Document Type: Article

References (187)

1. The views expressed in this article are personal to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Appellate Body. This article was finalized in September 2005 and is based on material available to the public at that time.
2. See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, US - Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS, para. 31;
3. Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic - Import and Sale of Cigarettes, paras 18, 34;
4. Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, para. 275;
5. Appellate Body Report, Canada - Wheat Exports and Grain Imports, para. 36;
6. Appellate Body Report, Japan - Apples, para. 46;
7. Appellate Body Report, US - Steel Safeguards, para. 21;
8. Appellate Body Report, EC - Tube or Pipe Fittings, para. 22.
9. See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, EC - Export Subsidies on Sugar, para. 55;
10. Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, para. 397;
11. Appellate Body Report, Canada - Wheat Exports and Grain Imports, para. 50;
12. Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 160;
13. Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 71;
14. Appellate Body Report, US - Offset Act (Byrd Amendment), para. 215.
15. See, e.g., Catherine Button, "The WTO's 'Objective Assessment' Standard of Review and Panel Review of Health Measures", in Andrew Mitchell (ed.), Challenges and Prospects for the WTO (London: Cameron May, 2005), p. 85;
16. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann and Nicolas Lockhart, Standard of Review in WTO Law, 7 Journal of International Economic Law 3 (2004), p. 491;
17. Holger Spamann, Standard of Review for World Trade Organization Panels in Trade Remedy Cases: a Critical Analysis, 38 Journal of World Trade 3 (June 2004), p. 509;
18. Matthias Oesch, Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution, 6 Journal of International Econontic Law 3 (2003), p. 625;
19. Matthias Oesch, Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003);
20. James Durling, Deference, But Only When Due: WTO Review of Anti-Dumping Measures, 6 Journal of International Economic Law 1 (2003), p. 125.
21. But see, Marco Bronckers and Natalie McNelis, "Fact and Law in Pleadings Before the WTO Appellate Body", in Friedl Weiss (ed.), Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: Issues & Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals (London: Cameron May, 2000), p. 321.
22. See, e.g., Contribution of the European Communities and its Member States to the Improvement and Clarification of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Communication from the European Communities (TN/DS/W/38, 23 January 2003), para. 21;
23. Jordan's Further Contribution Towards the Improvement and Clarification of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (TN/DS/W/56, 19 May 2003), p. 1;
24. Dispute Settlement Review Focuses on "Package Deal", 8 Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 41 (2004), p. 8.
25. See also David Palmeter, The WTO Appellate Body Needs Remand Authority, 32 Journal of World Trade (1998), p. 41;
26. Fernando Piérola, "The Question of Remand Authority for the Appellate Body", in Andrew Mitchell (ed.), Challenges and Prospects for the WTO (London: Cameron May, 2005), p. 193.
27. "The introduction of appellate review was a quid pro quo for the quasi-automatic adoption of Panel reports": Peter Van den Bossche, "The making of the 'World Trade Court': The origins and development of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization", in Rufus Yerxa and Bruce Wilson (eds), Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years (Cambridge: WTO/Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 64.
28. DSU, Article 17.13.
29. Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 132.
30. Appellate Body Report, US - Offset Act (Byrd Amendment), para. 222.
31. See also Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 9.
32. Appellate Body Report, Canada - Aircraft, para. 211;
33. Appellate Body Report, US - FSC, paras 102-103.
34. DSU, Article 12.9. In practice, Panel proceedings have often taken longer than nine months.
35. DSU, Article 17.5. The vast majority of WTO appeals have been completed within this time period. However, in six instances (including two recent appeals), the proceedings took more than 90 days: Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones;
36. Appellate Body Report, US - Lead and Bismuth II, para. 8;
37. Appellate Body Report, EC - Asbestos, para. 8;
38. Appellate Body Report, Thailand - H-Beams, para. 7;
39. Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, para. 8;
40. Appellate Body Report, EC - Export Subsidies on Sugar, para. 7.
41. DSU, Appendix 3, para. 12.
42. Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/5 (4 January 2005), Rule 27. An exception arose when a member of the Appellate Body Division hearing an appeal passed away after the oral hearing. In that case, the new Appellate Body Division conducted a second oral hearing: Appellate Body Report, US - Lead and Bismuth II, para. 8.
43. DSU, Article 15.
44. DSU, Article 13.
45. Treaty Establishing the European Community, OJ C340, 173 (signed 25 March 1957), Article 313.
46. See also Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice (annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty Establishing the European Community and to the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community), OJ C80, 53 (signed 26 February 2001), Article 58.
47. Administrative Office of the US Courts, The Federal Court System in the United States: An Introduction for Judges and Judicial Administrators in Other Countries (2nd edn: 2001), p. 34.
48. See also Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2003), Rule 52(a).
49. See section III.B.2.
50. See Jeff Waincymer, WTO Litigation: Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement (London: Cameron May, 2002), p. 701 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Canada - Dairy, para. 138). A different approach could apply in disputes under the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement), because Article 17.6(ii) of that agreement states that, "[w]here the Panel finds that a relevant provision of the Agreement admits of more than one permissible interpretation, the Panel shall find the authorities' measure to be in conformity with the Agreement if it rests upon one of those permissible interpretations".
51. Appellate Body Report, Softwood Lumber V, para. 174.
52. See also, e.g., Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, para. 399;
53. Appellate Body Report, US - Wheat Gluten, para. 151.
54. See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, EC - Bananas III, para. 239;
55. Appellate Body Report, Australia - Salmon, para. 276.
56. See section III.B.3.
57. Bronckers and McNelis, as note 4 above, p. 326.
58. See also Jacques Bourgeois, Some Reflections on the WTO Dispute Settlement System from a Practitioner's Perspective, 4 Journal of International Economic Law 1 (2001), pp. 145, 153;
59. Maurits Lugard, "Scope of Appellate Review": Objective Assessment of the Facts and Issues of Law, 1 Journal of International Economic Law 2 (1998), pp. 323, 327.
60. See Ehlermann and Lockhart, as note 3 above, pp. 495-496, 503.
61. Appellate Body Report, Australia - Salmon, paras 103-105, 115.
62. Ibid., para. 115.
63. Ibid., para. 118.
64. Ibid., paras 135-138.
65. The Appellate Body may decline to complete the analysis for other reasons, even where it has a sufficient factual basis. See, e.g., EC - Export Subsidies on Sugar, paras 337-341.
66. However, some commentators argue that the Appellate Body has made factual findings in completing Panels' analyses. See, e.g., Waincyrner, as note 20 above, p. 745 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, paras 223-225,
67. Appellate Body Report, Canada - Periodicals, p.469).
68. Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber IV, para. 118. In that case, the Panel had not made alternative factual lindings.
69. See also Appellate Body Report, US - Gambling, para. 344.
70. Appellate Body Report, US - Wheat Gluten, paras 80-91.
71. Appellate Body Report, US - Section 211 Appropriations Act, paras 345-352.
72. Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, para. 693.
73. Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, paras 137-138.
74. DSU, Article 3.7.
75. See note 30, above.
76. Appellate Body Report, Korea - Dairy, paras 92, 151(b).
77. Ibid., paras 103, 151(e).
78. DSU, Article 3.2.
79. See note 5, above. Some commentators have argued that the Appellate Body has an implicit authority to remand a matter to the original Panel (see, e.g., Bourgeois, as note 24 above, p. 152), but this is not the majority view.
80. Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/5 (4 January 2005).
81. Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 132.
82. Id.
83. Id.
84. Appellate Body Report, Chile - Price Band System, para. 224.
85. See, generally, Ronald Allen and Michael Pardo, The Myth of the Law - Fact Distinction, 97 Northwestern University Law Review 4 (2003), p. 1769
86. Clarence Morris, Law and Fact, 55 Harvard Law Review (1941-1942), p. 1303.
87. Appellate Body Report, Chile - Price Band System, para. 224 (original emphasis).
88. Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 253(g).
89. Appellate Body Report, Canada - Aircraft, paras 150, 161.
90. See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 132;
91. Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, paras 399, 441, 663.
92. See also Mitsuo Matsushita, "Some Thoughts on the Appellate Body", in Patrick Macrory, Arthur Appleton and Michael Plummer (eds), The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis (New York: Springer, 2005), vol. I, p. 1392;
93. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, Six Years on the Bench of the "World Trade Court": Some Personal Experiences as Member of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization, 36 Journal of World Trade 4 (August 2002), pp. 605, 621;
94. Bronckers and McNelis, as note 4 above, p. 328.
95. The application of law to fact in other legal contexts is sometimes described as a "mixed question of law and fact": Frederick Green, Mixed Questions of Law and Fact, 15 Harvard Law Review (1901-1902), p. 275.
96. See also Appellate Body Report, US - Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS, n. 277.
97. Appellate Body Report, Canada - Periodicals, para. 22.
98. See also the discussion of this case in Matsushita, as note 52 above, p. 1391. The characterization of this issue as involving the application of WTO law to facts explains why the Appellate Body was able to address it within the parameters of Article 17.6 of the DSU. Although Canada raised Article 11 of the DSU, the Appellate Body did not address this provision or make any finding regarding whether the Panel made an objective assessment of the facts pursuant to it (cf Lugard, as note 24 above, p. 324).
99. Appellate Body Report, Chile - Price Band System, para. 224.
100. Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 163.
101. The Appellate Body found the authority subject to a legal obligation to exercise its discretion in an "even-handed" manner, even though this word does not appear in Article 2.2.1.1. The Appellate Body noted that the United States did not dispute the existence of a general requirement of even-handedness. The Appellate Body also pointed out that such a requirement had been identified in a previous appeal: Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, paras 161-162 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 148).
102. See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, Japan - Apples, para. 127
103. Appellate Body Report, US - Steel Safeguards, paras 498-499;
104. Appellate Body Report, US - Countervailing Measures on Certain EC Products, para. 74;
105. Appellate Body Report, Chile - Price Band System, para. 182.
106. Appellate Body Report, US - Steel Safeguards, para. 497 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Japan - Agricultural Products II, para. 141).
107. Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WT/5 (4 January 2005) Rules 20(2)(d), 21(2)(b), 23(2)(c).
108. Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, paras 397, 660.
109. Ibid., paras 398-399, 663.
110. Appellate Body Report, US - Wheat Gluten, para. 151.
111. Appellate Body Report, EC - Chicken Cuts, paras 184-185.
112. Ibid., para. 186.
113. Ibid., paras 186, 347(d).
114. Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 133.
115. Ehlermann, as note 52 above, p. 622.
116. See Appellate Body Report, US - Cotton Yarn, paras 68-69.
117. Appellate Body Report, US - Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS, para. 188 (original emphasis).
118. Appellate Body Report, US - Wheat Gluten, para. 162;
119. Appellate Body Report, US - Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS, para. 187;
120. Appellate Body Report, US - Cotton Yarn, paras 78-80.
121. Appellate Body Report, US - Lamb, paras 148-149.
122. Appellate Body Report, Canada - Wheat Exports and Grain Imports, para. 177.
123. Appellate Body Report, Chile - Price Band System, paras 172-173.
124. Appellate Body Report, US - Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, para. 215.
125. Appellate Body Report, US - Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS, para. 179.
126. Appellate Body Report, EC - Export Subsidies on Sugar, paras 334-345.
127. See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, paras 275-277.
128. See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, India - Patents (US), para. 94.
129. See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, US - Gambling, para. 273;
130. Appellate Body Report, Chile - Price Band System, paras 174-177;
131. Appellate Body Report, US - Lamb, paras 147-149;
132. Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 133.
133. Appellate Body Report, Mexico - Corn Syrup (Article 21.5-US), para. 107.
134. Appellate Body Report, Australia - Salmon, paras 272, 278.
135. Compare Panel Report, EC - Bananas III, para 7.11;
136. with Appellate Body Report, EC - Banamas III, paras 10-11.
137. Appellate Body Report, US - Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 55.
138. See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, EC - Tube or Pipe Fittings, paras 119-133.
139. See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, paras 113-116.
140. Appellate Body Report, India - Patents (US), para. 65.
141. Appellate Body Report, US - Section 211 Appropriations Act, para. 105.
142. On the distinction between "as such" and "as applied" claims, see Alan Yanovich and Tania Voon, "What is the Measure at Issue?", in Andrew Mitchell (ed), Challenges and Prospectsfor the WTO (London: Cameron May, 2005), pp. 125-127.
143. See Appellate Body Report, US - Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, para. 172.
144. Appellate Body Report, Chile - Alcoholic Beverages, para. 50 (quoting Panel Report, Chile - Alcoholic Beverages, para. 7.158) (emphasis added).
145. Appellate Body Report, EC - Bananas III, para. 206.
146. Ibid., para. 237.
147. Appellate Body Report, Canada - Autos, para. 133.
148. Appellate Body Report, EC - Computer Equipment, para. 95.
149. Appellate Body Report, Japan - Apples, para. 209.
150. Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic - Import and Sale of Cigarettes, paras 94, 95.
151. Appellate Body Report, EC - Tube or Pipe Fittings, paras 122-128;
152. Appellate Body Report, EC - Bed Linen (Article 21 - India), para. 171.
153. Appellate Body Report, EC - Tube or Pipe Fittings, para. 141.
154. Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 179.
155. Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic - Import and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 57.
156. Ibid., para. 71.
157. Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, paras 329, 334.
158. Appellate Body Report, US - Offset Act (Byrd Amendment), n. 244, para. 293.
159. Appellate Body Report, EC - Bananas III, para. 239;
160. Appellate Body Report, Canada - Wheat Exports and Grain Imports, para. 183.
161. Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, para. 441.
162. Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 174.
163. See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, paras 400-410.
164. Ibid., para. 411.
165. Id.
166. Ibid., para. 413.
167. Appellate Body Report, EC - Bananas III, para. 239.
168. Appellate Body Report, Korea - Dairy, para. 102.
169. Appellate Body Report, US - Lead and Bismuth II, para. 66 (original emphasis).
170. Appellate Body Report, EC - Tube and Pipe Fittings, paras 66, 82.
171. Ibid., para. 82.
172. Ibid., para. 177.
173. Appellate Body Report, EC - Sardines, para. 290.
174. Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 132.
175. Appellate Body Report, EC - Sardines, n. 145.
176. Appellate Body Report, EC - Export Subsidies on Sugar, para. 315.
177. Ibid., para. 316.
178. Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, para. 620.
179. Ibid., para. 623.
180. Appellate Body Report, US - Shrimp, para. 166 (quoting Panel Report, US - Shrimp, para. 7.56) (emphasis omitted).
181. Appellate Body Report, Australia - Salmon, para. 133 (quoting Panel Report, Australia - Salmon, para. 8.90) (emphasis omitted).
182. Appellate Body Report, Australia - Salmon, para. 195.
183. Appellate Body Report, Japan - Apples, para. 168.
184. Ibid., para. 163.
185. Ibid., para. 145.
186. Appellate Body Report, EC - Asbestos, para. 173.
187. Ibid., para. 174.