No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Precedent In World Trade Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
The 1996 report of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) concerning Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages constitutes a landmark decision on the matter of precedent in world trade dispute settlement. The Appellate Body operates within the framework of the world trade dispute settlement system, originally consisting of the customary practices pursuant to Articles XXII and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in the field of dispute settlement and presently set forth in the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlements of Disputes (DSU) administered by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the WTO. This system has evolved since the entry into force of the Protocol of Provisional Application of the GATT on 1 January 1948. It is probable that the prospect of this system building up its own case law and the practical implication of that case law for the development of world trade law was not initially foreseen, yet it is not surprising that, just as the effects of the jurisprudence of the World Court on international law, the panel reports became part and parcel of the legal sense of the multilateral trade community. Even though previous panel reports do not legally bind subsequent panels, panel reports are replete of references to precedent, just as in the case of the standing international courts and tribunals. Panels rely on such precedents as authoritative expressions of their views on decided points of international trade law. Similarly, parties in world trade dispute cases are themselves guided by previous panel reports in framing and presenting their cases. In short, as Jackson has indicated, certain international law effects emanate from panel reports.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1997
References
1. See E.U. Petersmann, ‘The Dispute Settlement System of the World Trade Organization and the Evolution of the GATT Dispute Settlement System since 1948’, 31 CMLR (1994) p. 157 et. seq.; see also by the same author, The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System (The Hague/London/Boston 1997), ch. 2, pp. 66–91.Google Scholar
2. Cf., Lauterpacht, E., ed., International Law, being the Collected Papers ofHersh Lauterpacht vol. II (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 473–474;Google Scholar for the European Court of Justice, see Arnull, A., ‘Owning up to fallability: Precedent and the European Court of Justice’, 30 CMLR (1993) pp. 247–266.Google Scholar
3. For the effects of these reports see Jackson, J.H., ‘The Legal Meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement report‘, in Blokker, N. and Muller, S., Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organizations – Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, vol. I (Dordrecht/Boston/London 1994) pp. 149–164.Google Scholar
4. Ibid., pp. 156–160; see also D.P. Steger, ‘WTO-Dispute Settlement’, Speech delivered to the Inaugural Conference of the World Trade Law Association, 25 April 1997, pp. 1–2.
5. See the comparable exercise by Judge Mohammed Shahabuddeen in his November 1994 Hersh Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures on precedent in the World Court, Shahabuddeen, M., Precedent in the World Court (Cambridge 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Demaret, P., ‘The Metamorphoses of GATT: From the Havana Charter to the World Trade Organization‘, 34 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1995) pp. 123–169,Google Scholar and Van den Bossche, P., ‘Het Oude GATT is dood, leve de WTO, Het langverhoopte einde van een succesvol begin’, 27 Nederlands Juristenblad (1994) pp. 163–172.Google Scholar
7. Erades, L., Interactions between International andMunicipal Law – A Comparative case law study, eds. Fitzmaurice, M. and Flinterman, C. (The Hague 1993) pp. 228–229.Google Scholar
8. Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, report of the Appellate Body of 4 October 1996, AB-1996-2, Section E. (‘Status of Adopted Panel Reports’), p. 14.
9. Basic Instruments and Selected Documents (hereinafter: BISD) 36S/93 at pp. 123–124, para. 12.1 and BISD 36S/135 at p. 159, para. 5.1.
10. BISD 36S/93 at p. 127, para. 12.10 and BISD 36S/135 at p. 162, para. 5.10.
11. BISD 36S/93 at pp. 127–129, paras. 12.11–12.15 and BISD 36S/135 at pp. 162–165, paras. 5.11–11.17.
12. BISD 36S/93 at p. 129, para. 12–16 and BISD 36S/135 at p. 165, para. 5.18.
13. EEC – Payments and Subsidies Paid to Processors and Producers of Oilseeds and Related Animal Feed Proteins, L/6627 adopted on 25 January 1990, BISD 37S/86 at pp. 126–127, para. 144.
14. L/6268 adopted on 22 March 1988, BISD 35S/99.
15. BISD29S/91.
16. BISD 35S/99 at pp. 113–114 para. 4.5.
17. BISD 35S/116 at p. 154, para. 107.
18. BISD 35/163.
19. BISD 35S/116 at p. 154, para. 107.
20. BISD S/163.
21. BISD 30S/140.
22. BISD 35S/163 at pp. 226–227, para. 5.1.3.7.
23. BISD 36S/93 at p. 124, para. 12.3.
24. L/6439 adopted on 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345.
25. BISD 30S/164.
26. BISD 36S/345 at p. 393, para. 5.27.
27. L/6514 adopted on 22 June 1989, BISD 36S/331.
28. L/6264, adopted on 2 February 1988, BISD 35S/245 at p. 289, para. 121.
29. BISD 35S/116.
30. BISD 36S/331 at p. 344, para. 5.9.
31. BISD 34/136 at p. 160, para. 5.2.3 and pp. 163–164, para. 5.2.9; this principle has already been acknowledged in the 1957 report under Article XXIV GATT on the EEC-Treaty, BISD 6S/70.
32. BISD 37S/132.
33. Ibid., pp. 198–199, para. 5.25.
34. Ibid., p. 199, para 5.26.
35. DS10/R, adopted on 7 November 1990, BISD 37S/200 at p. 227, para. 84.
36. DS44/R adopted on 4 October 1994, paras. 118, 121, 123; the latter case also cites the panel reports on United States – Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages, BISD 39/209 and United States - Denial of MFN Treatment as to Non-Rubber Footwear from Brazil, BISD 39/128.
37. EEC – Measures of Animal Feed Proteins, L/4599 adopted on 14 March 1978, BISD 25/49 at p. 63, para. 4.1.
38. L/5135 adopted on 11 June 1981, 28S/102 at pp. 11–112, para. 4.5.
39. L/5609 adopted on 15/16 May 1984, BISD 31S/74.
40. GATT/CP.3/42, adopted on 30 June 1949.
41. BISD 31S/74 at pp. 88–89, para. 36.
42. L/5623 adopted on 15/16 May 1984, 31S/94 at p. Ill, para. 44.
43. L/5511 adopted on 12 July 1983, BISD 30S/129 at p. 138, para. 27.
44. EEC – Payments and Subsidies Paid to Processors and Producers of Oilseeds and related Animal Feed Proteins, L/6627 adopted on 25 January 1990, BISD 37S/86.
45. BISD 35S/163.
46. Ibid., p. 130, para. 150 and BISD 35S/163 atp. 243, para. 5.4.3; the panel reports referred to are Japanese Leather Imports case, the Brazilian Internal Taxes case, and the Superfund case.
47. BISD 35S/163.
48. L/4687 adopted on 18 October 1978, BISD 25/68 at p. 106, para. 4.20.
49. BISD 35S/163 at p. 234, para. 5.3.5.1 and p. 236, para. 5.3.8.1.
50. BISD 36S/93 at p. 126, para. 12.8 and BISD 36S/135 at pp. 161–162, para. 5.9, citing Review pursuant to Article XVI:5, BISD 9S/192, Japan – Restrictions of Certain Agricultural Products, BISD 35S/163 Japan – Trade in Semi-Conductors, BISD 35S/116.
51. L/6470 adopted on 19 July 1989, BISD 36S/167.
52. L/5135 adopted on 11 June 1981, BISD 28S/102.
53. BISD 36S/167 at p. 198, para. 5.8.
54. L/6474 adopted on 22 June 1989, BISD 36S/306.
55. The three cited precedents involve only one contentious case: United States Manufacturing Clause, BISD 31S/74.
56. Idem.
57. BISD 36S/306.
58. L/1923 adopted on 16 November 1962, BISD US/95.
59. EEC – Programme of Minimum Import Prices Licences and Surety Deposits for Certain Processed Foods and Vegetables, L/4687 adopted on 18 October 1978, BISD 25/68 at p. 106, para. 4.20.
60. BISD 27S/98, at p. 116, para. 4.24.
61. L/4959 adopted on 18 June 1980, BISD 27S/119 at p. 126, para. 17.
62. L/5333 adopted on 26 May 1983, BISD 30S/107 at p. 121, para. 40.
63. L/1923 adopted on 16 November 1962, BISD US/95.
64. L/5623 adopted on 15/16 May 1984, BISD 31S/94 at p. 111, para. 46.
65. L/6309 adopted on 4 May 1988, BISD 35S/116.
66. EEC – Programme of Minimum Import Prices, Licences and Surety Deposits for Certain Processed Fruits and Vegetables, L/4687 adopted on 18 October 1978, BISD 25S/68.
67. BISD 35S/116 at p. 153, para. 105.
68. Canada – Administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act, L5504 adopted on 7 February 1984, BISD 30S/140.
69. BISD 35S/116 at p. 159, para. 122.
70. BISD 35S/163.
71. L/5198 adopted on 22 February 1982, BISD 29S/91.
72. BISD 35S/163 at p. 223, para. 5.1.3.1.
73. BISD 36S/93 at p. 125, para. 12.5 and BISD 36S/135 at p. 161, para. 5.5.
74. L/883 adopted on 23 October 1958, BISD 7S/60.
75. Ibid., p. 64, para. 12.
76. L/6439 adopted on 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345.
77. Ibid., p. 385, para. 5.10.
78. United States – Taxes on Petroleum and Certain Imported Substances, L/6175 adopted on 17 June 1987, BISD 34S/136.
79. BISD 36S/345 at p. 387, para. 5.13.
80. BISD 37S/86 at p. 130, para. 152, citing, inter alia, Japanese Measures on Imports of Leather, BISD 31S/113:
81. Idem.
82. L/6657 adopted on 16 May 1990, BISD 37S/132.
83. L/4599 adopted on 17 March 1978, BISD 25S/49.
84. BISD 34S/136.
85. L/5198 adopted on 22 February 1982, BISD 29S/91 at p. 106, para. 4.3.
86. BISD 35S/163.
87. BISD 35S/163 at p. 242, para. 5.4.1.4.
88. DS17/R adopted on 18 February 1992, BISD 39S/27.
89. Canada – Import, Distribution and Sale of Certain Alcoholic Drinks by Provisional Mar- keting Agencies, L/6304 adopted on 22 March 1988, BISD 35S/37.
90. BISD 39S/27 at p. 37, para. 3.4.
91. Bos, M., A Methodology of International Law (Amsterdam/New York/Oxford 1984) p. 56,Google Scholar and see also by the same author, ‘The Recognized Manifestations of International Law’, 20 German Yearbook of International Law (1977) pp. 9–79.Google Scholar
92. Cf., on the same attitude of other international tribunals, SirFitzmaurice, Gerald, ‘Some Problems Regarding the Formal Sources of International Law’, in Symbolae Verzijl (The Hague 1958) pp. 171–172.Google Scholar
93. WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R, WT/DS11/R of 1 July 1996.
94. 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS p. 331; On the question whether GATT – practice can have the effect of creating new law not included in the lex scripta and even contra legem, see Berrisch, G.M., ‘The Establishment of New Law Through Subsequent Practice in GATT’, 16 North Caroli-na Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation (1991) pp. 497–522.Google Scholar
95. L/6216 adopted on 10 November 1987, BISD 34S/83 at pp. 114–115, para. 5.3.d.
96. Op. cit., p. 160; another author also considered this approach, P.J. Kuyper, ‘The Law of GATT as a Special Field of International Law: Ignorance, further refinement or self-contained system of international law?*, XX NYIL (1994) pp. 230–231.
97. See Sato, T., Evolving Constitutions of International Organizations (The Hague/London/Boston 1996) p. 30.Google Scholar
98. Land, Islands and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening) (Judgment of 11 September 1992), ICJ Rep. (1992) 379, para. 380.
99. PCU Ser. B, No. 12, p. 24.
100. Separate Opinion of Judge Sir Percy Spencer, Certain expenses of the United Nations (Art. 17, para. 2, of the Charter), ICJ Rep. (1962) 189, citing the Brazilian Loans case, PCU, Ser. A/B, Nos. 20/21, at p. 119.
101. Ibid., pp. 194–195; but see Separate Opinion ofE. Jimenez de Aréchaga, Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council (India v. Pakistan), ICJ Rep. (1973) p. 141.
102. Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, report of the Appellate Body of 4 October 1996, AB-1996-2, Section E. (‘Status of Adopted Panel Reports’), p. 13.
103. Idem.
104. Cf., on this question as far as concerns the World Court, see Sir Robert Jennings, ‘Foreword‘, in M. Shahabuddeen, op. cit., p. xiv.
105. Idem.
106. Shahabuddeen, op. cit., pp. 40–47.
107. Cf., Individual Opinion of E. Read, Anglo Iranian Oil Co. Case (Preliminary Objections) [United Kingdom v. Iran], (Judgment of 22 July 1952), ICJ Rep. (1952) 143.
108. SirLauterpacht, Hirsh, The Development of International Law by the International Court (reprint Cambridge 1982) p. 8;Google Scholar see also SirFitzmaurice, Gerald, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice (reprint Cambridge 1993) pp. 583–584.Google Scholar
109. Recommendations are directed to a specific party to the dispute by panels or the Appellate Body, Art. 19, para. 1, DSU, including footnote.
110. Dissenting Opinion of A. Alvarez, Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations, (Advisory Opinion of 3 March 1950), ICJ Rep. (1950) 15.
111. Kelsen, H., Pure Theory of Law (transl. Knight, M.) (reprint Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1978) p. 354.Google Scholar
112. Ibid., p. 355.
113. Ibid., p. 354.
114. Brown, L.N. and Jacobs, F.G., The Court of Justice of the European Communities, 3rd. edn. (London 1989) p. 311.Google Scholar
115. See the sources cited at Shahabuddeen, op. cit., pp. 45–47.
116. Cf., Long, O., Law and its Limitations in the GATTMultilateral Trade System (Dordrecht/ Boston/Lancaster 1985) p. 46;Google Scholar Cf., C. Lafer, ‘The role of the WTO in International Trade Regulation‘, Speech delivered to the Inaugural Conference of the World Trade Association, 25 April 1997, p. 9.
117. Art. 3:2, second sentence, DSU.
118. de Lapradelle, A. and Politis, N., Recueildes arbitrages, vol. I (1789–1855) (Paris 1905) p. vii.Google Scholar
119. See Shahabuddeen, op. cit., passim for the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice; Merrills, J.G., The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights, 2d edn. (Manchester 1993) pp. 12–16, 35, 190, 231–232, 235 and 251Google Scholar for the European Court of Human Rights, and Koopmans, T., ‘Stare Decisis in European Law’, O‘Keefe, D. and Schermers, H.G., eds., Essays in European and Integration (Deventer 1982) pp. 11–27 for the Court of Justice of die European Community.Google Scholar
120. Cf., Long, op. cit., p. 42.
121. WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R, WT/DS11/R of 1 July 1996.
122. Separate Opinion Judge Tanaka, K., Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd., (Preliminary Objections), ICJ Rep. (1964) 76;Google Scholar for a discussion of Tanaka's approach see Hussain, I., Dissenting Opinions at the World Court (Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster 1984) pp. 163–163;Google Scholar see also Verzijl, J.H.W., The Jurisprudence of the World Court (Leyden 1966), vol. II, pp. 559–561.Google Scholar
123. See Brown and Jacobs, op. cit., p. 311.
124. Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, report of the Appellate Body of 4 October 1996, AB-1996-2, Section E. (‘Status of Adopted Panel Reports’), pp. 14-14.
125. On the latter see Jackson, op. cit., pp. 158–160.
126. PCU Ser. B, No. 8, p. 37.
127. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ICJ Rep. (1951) 19–20.Google Scholar
128. Gross, L., ‘States as Organs of International Law and the Problem of Autointerpretation’, in Essays on International Law and Organization (Dordrecht/Boston/London 1993) p. 191. But note that Gross employs the terms ‘authentic interpretation’ and ‘authoritative interpretation’ as synonyms (p. 163).Google Scholar
129. Ibid., p. 163;and Cf., CasesofDouble Nationality (Italy/United Kingdom), Anglo-Italian Conciliation Commission, XIV UNRIAA, pp. 28–36, at para. 34; see differently in respect of me IMF, Gold, J., Interpretation: The IMF and International Law (London/The Hague/Boston 1996) pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
130. Jackson, loc. cit. 3, p. 159.
131. WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R, WT/DS11/R of 1 July 1996.
132. Art. 3:9 DSU reads: ‘The provisions of mis Understanding are without prejudice to the rights of the Members to seek authoritative interpretation of provisions of a covered agreement through decision-making under the WTO Agreement or a covered agreement which is a Plurilateral Trade Agreement’.
133. Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R, WT/DS11/R of 1 July 1996, p. 13.
134. Ibid., p. 14.
135. Vot e.g., Agreement Concerning the Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVIand XXII of the General Agreement, BISD, 26S/56.
136. See on these provisions H. Thirlway, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice’, LXII BYIL(1991) pp. 2–75, at 56 and Rosenne, S., Developments in the Law of Treaties 1945–1945 (Cambridge 1989) pp. 195–196.Google Scholar It does not seem to be obvious, however, that there is a substantive difference between the two provisions. For example, Bastid, S., Les traites dans la vie internationale – conclusions et effets (Economica, 1985), p. 127;Google Scholar see also Beagle Channel (Argentina/Chile), case Vol. LII, ILR, para. 169.a and Shihata, I.F.I., Tschofen, F. & Para, A.R., eds., in The World Bank in a Changing World-Selected Essays (Dordrecht/Boston/London1991) p. 68.Google Scholar
137. Japan – Taxeson Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DSS/R, WT/DSWIR, WT/DSU/RoflMy 1996, pp. 13–14.
138. See Eastern Carelia case, PCIJ, Ser. B, No. 5, p. 27, Ambatielos case, ICJ Rep. (1953) 19 and Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 case, ICJ Rep. (1954) 32.
139. This is implied by the principle electa una via non datur recursus ad alteram.
140. On error in law as a ground for impugning judicial determinations in international law, see Cheng, B., General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (reprint Cambridge 1987) pp. 361 et seq.Google Scholar
141. Cf., German Minority Schools in Upper Silesia, PCIJ Ser. A/B, No. 40, p. 19; but Qureshi, A.H., The World Trade Organization – Implementing the IntemationalTrade Norms (Manchester and New York 1996) p. 8, voices the concern that ‘creeping legislation’ amounting to changing the original undertakings by means of interpretations ex Article IX:2; Cf., also on the rules of change in so-called self-contained systems, B. de Witte, ‘Rules of Change in International Law: How special is the European Community’, XXV NYIL (1994) pp. 299–333.Google Scholar
142. See differently, Timmermans, C. W. A., ‘Implementation of the Uruguay Round by die EC’, Bourgeois, J.H.J., Berrod, F. and Fournier, E.G., eds., The Uruguay Results – A European Lawyers Perspective (European University Press 1995) p. 509.Google Scholar
143. See Gold, op. cit., p. 161–166.
144. Shahabuddeen, op. cit., pp. 23–26 and Sir Hirsh Lauterpacht, op. cit., pp. 11–13.
145. ‘Report of the Rapporteur of Committee I of Commission IV on Judicial Organizations’, Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization (London 1945) p. 384.Google Scholar
146. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Read, Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Second Phase, ICJ Rep. (1950) 232–233, 240.Google Scholar
147. Ibid., p. 14.
148. Idem.
149. AB-1996, of 26 April 1996, adopted by the DSB on 20 May 1996, WT/DS/9.
150. Kuijper, supra n. 97, at pp. 229–232.
151. Ibid., p. 255.
152. Some of the likely candidates are: Japan – Restrictions on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products, BISD35S/163, Canada – Import Restrictions on Ice Cream and Yoghurt, BISD36S/68, and Korea – Restrictions of Imports on Beef, BISD 36S/268.
153. See Bos, op. cit., p. 185 et seq.; and on the operation of this principle on the international plane, see Cheng, op. cit., pp. 336–372.
154. The Pious Fund of Californias (Mexico/USA), IX UNRIAA (14 10 1902) pp. 11–14;Google Scholar for an in depth analysis, see Lauterpacht, H., Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law (Archon Books, reprint 1970) pp. 244–255.Google Scholar
155. Idem., p. 337.
156. Société commercial de Belgique (1939), PCIJ Ser. A/B, No. 78, p. 176; see further Fitzmaurice, op. cit., pp. 584–586; see also Bos, op. cit., 186–187.
157. Cf., Jackson, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 158.
158. See Petersmann, , The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, supra n. 1, pp. 206–209, discussing cases without making a distinction between adopted and unadopted reports.Google Scholar
159. See GATT, Analytical Index: Guide to GATT Law and Practice, 6th edn. (Geneva 1995) p. 757.Google Scholar
160. CM/94, dated 4 October 1989, unadopted.
161. GATT, Analytical Index: Guide to GATT Law and Practice, updated 6th edn. (Geneva 1995) p. 757.Google Scholar
162. Cf., Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, report of the Appellate Body of 4 October 1996, AB-1996-2, Section E. (‘Status of Adopted Panel Reports’), pp. 14–15.
163. GATT, Analytical Index: Guide to GATT Law and Practice, 6th edn. (Geneva 1995) p. 757.Google Scholar
164. Idem.
165. Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO upon complaints against UNESCO, (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Rep. (1955) 84; see R. Ago, ‘Binding Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice*, 85 AJIL (1991) pp. 439–451.
166. See Dissenting Opinion of Bustamantey Rivero, J. L., Northern Cameroons case (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), (Preliminary Objections), ICJ Rep. (1963) p. 71.Google Scholar
167. See on this term, Bedjaoui, M., The New World Order and the Security Council – Testing the Legality of its Acts (Dordrecht/Boston/London 1994) p. 56.Google Scholar
168. PCIJ Ser. B, No. 12, p. 26; Reports that are not adopted because of blockage by one party, means that the procedure remains incompleted. For this reason it is not deemed necessary to consider the cases discussed by Petersmann, , The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement, supra n. 1, pp. 206–209.Google Scholar
169. Cf., P.-J. Kuyper, ‘The New WTO Dispute Settlement System: the Impact on the Community’, in Bourgeois, J.H.J., Berrod, F. and Fournier, E.G., eds., The Uruguay Round Results, op. cit., pp. 87–114, at 89.Google Scholar
170. Idem.
171. Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom/Albania) (Judgment), ICJRep. (1948) 248; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua case (Nicaragua/USA), (Merits), (Judgment), ICJ Rep. (1986) 24, para. 27.
172. Ciobanu, D., Preliminary Objections related to the Jurisdiction of the United Nations Political Organs (The Hague 1975) pp. 135–149.Google Scholar
173. Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, report of the Appellate Body of 4 October 1996, AB-1996-2, Section E. (‘Status of Adopted Panel Reports’), p. 14.
174. Polish Postal Service in Danzig, PCIJ, Ser. B, No. 11, pp. 29–30.
175. Trail Smelter Arbitration, Final Award (Canada/USA) III UNRIAA (1941) 1952.
176. Cheng., op. cit., p. 341.
177. Ibid., pp. 357–372.
178. L/4687, adopted on 18 October 1978, BISD 25S/100.
179. Council Regulation No. 1927/75 and Council Regulation No. 516/77.
180. L/5047, adopted on 10 November 1980, BISD 27S/98.
181. Council Regulation No. 687/79
182. L/6491, adopted on 22 June 1989, BISD 36S/93
183. L/6513, adopted on 22 June 1989, BISD 36S/135.
184. Ibid., p. 143, para. 3.9.
185. L/6491, adopted on 22 June 1989, BISD 36S/93, p. 99, para. 3.3.
186. Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Case (France/UK), XVIIIUNRIAA, pp. 294–296, at para. 28.
187. See Bos, op. cit., pp. 105–109.
188. Shahabudeen, op. cit., pp. 105–109.
189. Kuijper, supra n. 96, at p. 230 (footnote 11).
190. B1SD 30S/107.
191. Ibid., p. 108, para. 4.
192. Ibid., p. 124, para. 49.
193. Ibid., p. 124, para. 50.
194. Ibid., p. 125, para. 56.
195. Idem.
196. BISD 30S/107 at p. 126, para. 60.
197. Ibid., p. 126, para. 61.
198. Ibid., p. 127, para. 66.
199. Quoted in para. 5.6 ofthe report on United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, BISD 36S/345.
200. BISD 36 S/345 at pp. 382–383, para. 5.1.
201. Contrary to the previous panel, the 1989 panel examined Section 337 first in the light of GATT Art. 111:4, and undertook an examination in the light of Art. XX(d) only after it had estab- lished inconsistencies with Art. 111:4. This sequence does not only follow from the wording of GATT Art. XX, as the 1989 panel indicated, but also from the fact that the approach adopted by the 1983 panel unduly relieved the complainant from the burden to proof the inconsistency while compelling the respondent to prematurely justify its measure. On die burden of proof in world trade law, see Martha, R.S.J., ‘Presumptions and Burden of Proof in World Trade Law’, 14 Journal ofInternational Arbitration (03 1997) pp. 67–98.Google Scholar
202. Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, report of the Appellate Body of 4 October 1996, AB-1996-2, Section E. (‘Status of Adopted panel reports’), P. 14.