DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS 2008 VOLUME 192025|PDF|Epub|mobi|kindle电子书版本百度云盘下载

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS 2008 VOLUME 19PDF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. INTRODUCTION7786

Ⅱ. FACTUAL ASPECTS7790

A. Background7790

1. Object of the current dispute7790

2. Basic chronology7790

B. Product Description7798

C. European Communities’ Legal Framework for Bananas Imports7799

1. European Communities’ bananas import regime7799

2. European Communities’ current bananas import regime7803

3. Impact of the different European Communities enlargements in its bananas import regime7808

D. European Communities’ Bananas Market7808

1. European Communities’ bananas production7808

2. European Communities’ bananas consumption7809

3. European Communities’ bananas imports7810

4. European Communities’ banana imports under Council Regulation 1964/20057811

5. United States’ banana production7813

E. Panel and Appellate Body Findings in Previous Proceedings7814

1. Measures subject to the original proceedings7814

2. Panel and Appellate Body main findings in the original proceedings7814

3. Panel findings in the first compliance proceedings7820

4. Award of the Arbitrators in the proceedings requested by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU7823

5. Panel findings in the second compliance proceedings requested by Ecuador7824

F. Measures Challenged by the United States in this Dispute7824

Ⅲ.PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS7824

Ⅳ. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES7827

A. United States7827

1. First written submission of the United States7827

（a） Introduction7827

（b） Procedural history7828

（i） Understanding on Bananas7829

（ii） GATT Article Ⅰ waiver and arbitrations7829

（iii） Article ⅩⅢ Waiver7831

（c） The European Communities’ revised measures7831

（d） Legal arguments7832

（i） The European Communities’ revised measures are inconsistent with Article Ⅰ of the GATT 19947832

Termination of GATT Article Ⅰ Waiver7833

（ii） The European Communities’ revised measures are inconsistent with Article ⅩⅢ of the GATT 19947834

The European Communities’ import regime for bananas is inconsistent with GATT Article ⅩⅢ：17835

The European Communities’ import regime for bananas is inconsistent with GATT Article ⅩⅢ：27836

（e） Conclusion7837

2. Second written submission of the United States7837

（a） The European Communities’ preliminary objections should be rejected7837

（i） The United States was not required to request consultations with the EC7837

（ii） The EC-US Understanding on Bananas does not preclude this proceeding7839

（iii） The United States’ complaint falls within the scope of Article 21.57841

（b） The European Communities’ arguments about “standing” and nullification or impairment have been rejected before and should be rejected once again7841

（i） The United States has standing to challenge the EC’s banana regime7842

（ii） The United States is not required to demonstrate nullification or impairment of benefits to advance claims of an EC breach of GATT Articles Ⅰ and ⅩⅢ7842

（c） The European Communities’ Article Ⅰ waiver has expired， and it therefore maintains its banana measures in breach of GATT Article Ⅰ7843

（d） The European Communities maintains its exclusive tariff rate quota for ACP bananas in violation of GATT Article7845

（i） The European Communities’ tariff rate quota is a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article ⅩⅢ7845

（ii） Article ⅩⅢ applies even where the entire EC banana market is not controlled by quotas7846

（iii） The European Communities maintains its ACP tariff rate quota in breach of GATT Article ⅩⅢ7847

（e） Conclusion7848

3. Oral statement of the United States7848

（a） The European Communities’ bananas import regime is a measure taken to comply7849

（b） The European Communities’ regime is in breach of GATT 1994 Articles ⅩⅢ and Ⅰ7852

（i） The European Communities’ regime is in breach of GATT 1994 Article ⅩⅢ7852

（ii） The European Communities’ regime is in breach of Article Ⅰ， and the Article Ⅰ waiver has ceased to apply7854

（c） The Panel should reject the European Communities’ preliminary objections regarding the Understanding and nullification or impairment7855

（i） The EC-US Understanding was not a “mutually agreed solution” and even if it were it would not preclude this proceeding7856

（ii） The Panel must reject the European Communities’ arguments regarding nullification or impairment7857

4. Closing statement of the United States7858

B. European Communities7859

1. First written submission of the European Communities7859

（a） Preliminary objections7859

（i） The United States did not request consultations7859

（ii） The United States is barred from challenging the Cotonou Preference7860

（iii） The complaint of the United States falls outside the scope of Article 21.5 of the DSU7860

（b） GATT Article Ⅰ： The Doha Waiver covers the Cotonou Preference until the end of 20077861

（c） There is no violation of GATT Article ⅩⅢ7862

（d） Absence of nullification or impairment of a benefit accruing to the United States7863

2. Second written submission of the European Communities7864

（a） Preliminary objections7864

（i） The United States did not request consultations7864

（ii） The Understanding bars the United States from challenging the Cotonou Preference7864

（iii） The United States’ complaint falls outside the scope of Article 21.5 of the DSU7867

（b） The Cotonou Preference does not violate the GATT7868

（i） The Doha Waiver covers the Cotonou Preference until the end of 20077868

（ii） There is no violation of GATT Article ⅩⅢ7869

（c） Absence of “nullification or impairment”7870

3. Oral statement of the European Communities7871

（a） Preliminary issues7871

（b） The United States’ claims under Article Ⅰ7873

（c） The United States’ claims under Article ⅩⅢ7874

（d） The United States does not suffer any “nullification or impairment”7876

4. Closing statement of the European Communities7877

Ⅴ. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES7880

A. Belize， Cameroon， Cote d’Ivoire， Dominica， Dominican Republic， Jamaica， Saint Lucia， Saint Vincent and the Grenadines， and Suriname7880

1. Written submission of the ACP third parties7880

（a） The United States cannot challenge the new EC banana import regime pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU7880

（b） There is no violation of GATT Article Ⅰ because the Doha Waiver still applies7881

（c） There is no violation of GATT Article ⅩⅢ7882

B. Belize7883

1. Oral statement of Belize7883

C. Cameroon7885

1. Oral statement of Cameroon7885

（a） This dispute is of primary importance for the ACP countries7885

（b） United States trade is not affected by the Community’s new regime for the importation of bananas7886

（c） The United States is attacking a preference granted to developing countries even though it is not suffering any negative consequences om it and it had accepted the principle of the preference7886

（d） The United States cannot question a preference which it accepted in the Memorandum of Understanding7887

（e） The United States cannot challenge the Community import regime for bananas pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU7888

（f） The United States completely ignores the way the market has developed7888

（g） Conclusion7890

D. Cote d’lvoire7890

1. Oral statement of Cote d’lvoire7890

E. Dominican Republic7893

1. Oral statement of the Dominican Republic7893

F. Jamaica7894

1. Oral statement of Jamaica7894

G. Saint Lucia7896

1. Oral statement of Saint Lucia7896

H. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines7901

1. Oral statement of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines7901

I. Suriname7903

1. Oral statement of Suriname7903

（a） Preliminary issue： the United States failed to request consultations7903

（b） The Bananas Ⅲ dispute has been settledthrough the Understanding on Bananas7904

（c） The new EC banana import regime is not a measure taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings in the original Banana Ⅲ dispute7906

J.Brazil7907

1. Oral statement of Brazil7907

（a） The Understanding7907

（b） Whether the European Communities’ 2006 import regime is a “measure taken to comply”7909

（c） Final remarks7910

（d） Conclusion7911

K. Colombia7911

1. Written submission of Colombia7911

（a） The preferential tariff treatment accorded to ACP bananas is not justified under the Article Ⅰ Doha Waiver7911

（i） The Article Ⅰ Doha Waiver has ceased to apply to bananas as of 1 January2006， and the EC was no longer entitled to “rectify the matter”7911

（ii） Assuming， arguendo， that the EC had the opportunity to “rectify the matter”、 the tariff level of ？176/tonne does not comply with the Tariff Level Standard7912

The European Communities has not discharged its burden of showing compliance with the elements required under the Waiver Annex7912

The European Communities’ quantity- or volumes-based analysis is contrary to the Tariff Level Standard7912

The applied tariff of ？176/tonne does not result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers7913

（b） The Preferential Tariff Rate Quota accorded to ACP bananas is inconsistent with Article ⅩⅢ of the GATT 19947914

（c） Conclusion7915

2. Oral statement of Colombia7915

L. Ecuador7919

1. Oral statement of Ecuador7919

M. Japan7921

1. Written submission of Japan7921

（a） The Understanding does not preclude the United States from challenging the European Communities’ tariff only regime even if the Understanding is a “mutually agreed solution”7921

（b） The complaint of the United States is considered to fall under the scope of Article 21.5 of the DSU7922

（c） Issues relating to nullification or impairment of a benefit accruing to the United States7922

（i） The United States has “standing” to challenge the European Communities’ 2006 regime7922

（ii） Whether there is any nullification or impairment of a benefit accruing to the United States7923

The United States is not required to affirmatively demonstrate that there is a “nullification or impairment of a benefit” in advancing its claim on GATT Articles7923

Whether there is no “nullification or impairment of a benefit” for the purpose of Article 3.8 when the “level of nullification or impairment of a benefit” for the purpose of Article 22 is ”zero7923

Whether this Panel should find in the course of its proceeding that the “level of nullification or impairment of a benefit” for the purpose of Article 22 is zero or not7924

2. Oral statement of Japan7925

（a） Does the EC-US Understanding bar the United States from challenging the Cotonu Preference？7925

（b） Is the current EC banana regime the “measure taken to comply”？7926

（c） Does any nullification or impairment of benefits exist for the United States in this dispute？7928

N.Mexico7929

1. Oral statement of Mexico7929

（a） Importance of the preliminary claims7929

（b） Issues of systemic interest7930

（c） Comments on the substantive claims7932

（d） Conclusion7932

O. Nicaragua and Panama7933

1.Combined written submission of Nicaragua and Panama7933

（a） Introduction7933

（b） The European Communities’ preliminaryobjections have no basis in law or fact7933

（c） The European Communities’ ACP tariff preference is inconsistent with GATT Article Ⅰ：1 and is not covered by its Article Ⅰ waiver7935

（d） The European Communities’ ACP tariff quota is inconsistent with GATT Article ⅩⅢ：1 and ⅩⅢ：27935

（e） The United States is not required to demonstrate nullification or impairment7936

（f） Conclusion7937

2. Combined oral statement by Nicaragua and Panama7937

（a） Nicaragua’s role in this dispute7937

（b） Panama’s role in this dispute7937

（c） The WTO inconsistencies7938

（i） The European Communities’ failed objections7938

（ii） The European Communities’ breach of GATT Article Ⅰ7939

（iii） The European Communities’ breach of GATT Article ⅩⅢ7940

Ⅵ. INTERIM REVIEW7940

A. Product Description7941

B. European Communities’ Council Regulation （EC） No.1528/2007 of 20 December 20077941

C. Award of the Arbitrators in the Proceedings Requested by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU7945

D. Description of the Measures Challenged by the United States7946

E. Terms and Main Elements of the Bananas Understanding7946

F. Adoption of the Bananas Understanding Subsequent to Recommendations and Suggestions by the DSB7946

1. Related first compliance proceeding brought by Ecuador7946

2. Further adjustment of language7947

G. Bananas Understanding： Arguments by the European Communities Concerning Good Faith7947

H. Preliminary Objection of the European Communities Concerning whether the Complaint by the United States Falls Within the Scope of Article 21.5 of the DSU7948

1. Arguments made by Japan7948

2. Whether the current bananas import regime is closely related to the original recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB in 19977948

3. Whether the current bananas import regime constitutes a measure taken by the European Communities in the direction of， or for the purpose of achieving， compliance7949

（a） Termination of US suspension of concessions7949

（b） Clarification of language7949

（c） Licensing system7949

I. The Relevant Language of Article ⅩⅢ： l of the GATT 1994 for this Dispute7950

J. The United States’ Claim under Article ⅩⅢ：2 of the GATT 1994： Panel’s Analysis7950

K. General Conclusions7950

1. Panel’s Conclusions7950

2. Implementation of recommendations and rulings of the DSB7951

L. Nullification or Impairment of Benefits7951

M. Recommendation7952

N. Additional Revisions and Corrections7953

Ⅶ.FINDINGS7953

A. Attempts at Harmonizing the Timetables7953

B. Order of the Panel’s Analysis7955

C. Preliminary Objection of the European Communities Concerning the Alleged Lack of Standing and Argument Regarding the Alleged Lack of Nullification or Impairment of Benefits to the United States7956

1. The European Communities’ arguments7956

2. The United States’ response7958

3. Panel’s Analysis7960

（a） Verification of the United States’ standing to commence these proceedings7960

（b） Verification of the nullification or impairment of trade benefits accruing to the United States7961

4. Conclusion7962

D. Preliminary objection of the european communities concerning whether the United States is barred from challenging the European Communities’ Bananas Import Regime as a result of the Bananas Understanding signed in April 20017962

1. Arguments of the parties7962

（a） The European Communities’ arguments7962

（b） The United States’ response7969

2. Panel’s analysis7973

（a） The nature and scope of this preliminary issue under Article 21.5 of the DSU7974

（b） Is the United States barred by the Bananas Understanding from bringing this compliance challenge？7975

（i） Panel’s approach7975

（ii） The terms and main elements of the Bananas Understanding7979

（iii） The Bananas Understanding provides only for a means for resolving and settling the dispute7982

（iv） The adoption of the Bananas Understanding subsequent to recommendations and suggestions by the DSB7984

（v） Parties’ conflicting communications to the WTO concerning the Bananas Understanding7987

（vi） Remaining key arguments raised under this preliminary issue7990

Did the United States accept， through the Bananas Understanding， the existence of the ACP preference beyond 2005？7990

Arguments by the European Communities concerning good faith7992

（vii） Conclusion7994

E. Preliminary objection of the european communities concerning whether the complaint by the United States falls within the scope of Article 21.5 of the DSU7995

1. Summary of Parties’ arguments7995

（a） The European Communities’ arguments7995

（i） Alleged measures taken to comply identified by the European Communities7997

（ii） The current EC bananas importregime is not a measure taken to comply7998

The EC-Bananas Ⅲ dispute ended before 20067998

No linkage to the DSB recommendations and rulings of 19978001

（b） The United States’ response8008

（i） The current EC bananas regime is a measure taken to comply8009

（ii） The response of the United States to the EC arguments that the link with the original recommendations and rulings was broken8020

（iii） The response of the United States to the EC arguments that the dispute was settled before 20068025

（iv） A compliance proceeding can extend to measures closely related to measures taken to comply8030

2. The Panel’s analysis8031

（a） The Panel’s approach8031

（i） Burden of proof8031

（ii） The specific issue before this Panel8032

（b） Whether the current EC bananas import regime is a measure taken to comply8032

（i） The limited scope of compliance proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU8032

（ii） The Panel’s role in assessing whether the current EC bananas import regime is a measure taken to comply8034

（iii） The current EC bananas import regime8035

（iv） Criteria for assessing whether the current EC bananas import regime is a measure taken to comply8037

（v） Whether the current EC bananas import regime is closely related to the original recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB in 1997， including to the measure being reviewed and found inconsistent in the original panel and appellate proceedings8041

（vi） Whether the current EC bananasimport regime constitutes a measure taken by the European Communities in the direction of， or for the purpose of achieving， compliance8049

The European Communities’ first attempt to comply with the original DSB recommendations and rulings， and its review under dispute settlement proceedings8049

Subsequent developments8053

Specific arguments by the European Communities to refute the proposition that its current bananas import regime is a measure taken to comply8063

Whether a particularly close link exists between the current and the 2002-2005 EC bananas import regimes8088

（c） Conclusion8094

F. Objection of the European Communities Concerning the Lack Of Formal Consultations8096

G. The United States’ Claim under Article Ⅰ of the GATT 19948099

1. The United States’ claim8099

2. The European Communities’ response8100

3. Article Ⅰ：1 of the GATT 19948101

4. Panel’s analysis8102

（a） Is the ACP preference inconsistent with Article I：1 of the GATT 1994？8103

（i） Whether the preference granted by the European Communities constitutes an advantage of the pe covered by Article Ⅰ of the GATT 19948103

（ii） Whether the relevant products in this dispute are like products8104

（iii） Whether the preference granted by the European Communities is immediately and unconditionally extended8105

（iv） Preliminary conclusion regarding the United States’ claim under Article Ⅰ：1 of GATT 19948105

（b） Is the preference covered by a waiver？8105

（i） Terms and conditions of the Doha Waiver and the Bananas Annex8106

（ii） Uncontested facts8107

（iii） Main issue contested between the parties8108

（iv） Conditions envisaged in the Bananas Annex8110

（v） Is the European Communities’ current bananas regime “the new EC tariff regime”？8111

（vi） Is the maintenance of total market access for MFN banana suppliers a relevant consideration for extending the duration of the Doha Waiver with regard to bananas？8113

（vii） Conclusion regarding the Doha Waiver8116

5. Conclusion8117

H. The United States’ Claim under Article ⅩⅢ of the GATT 19948117

1. Summary of parties’ arguments8117

（a） The United States’ claim8117

（b） The European Communities’ response8119

2. Order of analysis8120

3. The applicability of Article of the GATT 1994 to the European Communities’ bananas import regime8121

（a） The European Communities’ arguments8121

（b） The United States’ arguments8124

（c） Panel’s analysis8126

（i） Relevance of Article ⅩⅢ of the GATT 1994 to tariff quotas in agriculture8126

（ii） Analysis of Article ⅩⅢ：5 of the GATT 19948128

（iii） Interrelation of Articles Ⅰ and ⅩⅢ of the GATT 19948130

4. The United States’ claim under Article ⅩⅢ：1 of the GATT 19948133

（a） The United States’ arguments8133

（b） The European Communities’ response8134

（c） Panel’s analysis8136

（i） The relevant language of Article ⅩⅢ ：1 of the GATT 1994 for this dispute8136

（ii） The applicability of Article ⅩⅢ： 1 of the GATT 19948137

Whether all bananas are like products8138

Whether any prohibition or restriction is applied by the European Communities on the importation of bananas of the territory of MFN banana suppliers， including the United States8138

（iii） Whether the importation of bananas from ACP countries is similarly restricted8140

5. The United States’ claim under Article ⅩⅢ：2 of the GATT 19948145

（a） The United States’ arguments8145

（b） The European Communities’ arguments8146

（c） Panel’s analysis8147

（i） Chapeau of Article ⅩⅢ：2 of the GATT 19948147

（ii） Subparagraph （d） of Article ⅩⅢ：2 of the GATT 19948148

6. The existence of an applicable waiver8151

7. Conclusion8152

I. Final remarks8152

Ⅷ.CONCLUSIONS8153

A. General Conclusions8153

B. Nullification or Impairment of Benefits8154

C. Recommendation8156