Explaining the Standard of Review of WTO Dispute Settlement Body

Document Type : Scientific research

Authors

• ali rezaei
• Milad Amiri

Shiraz

https://doi.org/10.22067/le.v25i14.63434

Abstract

Extended Abstract
General Council of WTO as the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) has exclusive jurisdiction to settle disputes between WTO members. DSB works by Panels and Appellate Body and inevitably should review and investigate disputes. The question is that how DSB should review the measures and decisions of members for the settlement of disputes. Indeed, the main question raised here is about “standard of review”.
Within the Dispute Settlement system of World Trade Organization, whenever the DSB is called for reviewing the members’ measures or interpreting the laws and regulations, the issue of standard of review is raised. This issue explains how much deference should be granted by Panels and Appellate Body to national decisions. In other words, Should the Panels respect the findings of the national authorities and their decisions regarding the subject (total deference approach), or should they re-examine and review national measures and decisions completely and independently (de novo approach)?
De novo review and total deference are the two most common standards of applying appropriate level of deference. The first one entails an independent examination of the domestic measures and decisions; a policy of full de novo review allows the panel to completely substitute its own findings for those of the national authority and arrive at a different factual and legal conclusion. The standard of the review of total deference means that a panel should not review in substance the investigations conducted by the national authority. Under such policy, panels examine whether the relevant procedural requirements for the adoption of a measure or decision are complied with or not (Oesch, 2003).
The issue of standard of review is a large part of procedural law in general; it plays an important role in the judicial review of authorities’ measures in both domestic and international jurisdictions. However, standards of review do not only accomplish a procedural function; they also express a deliberate allocation of power between an authority taking a measure and a judicial organ reviewing it.
In legal framework of WTO, especially in the Dispute Settlement Understanding, there is no explicit standard of review clause. But it has been generally interpreted by the Appellate Body that the requirement to adopt an appropriate standard of review arises from Article 11 of the DSU which obliges a panel to make an objective assessment of the matter before it. It thus appears from the language of Article 11 that the Panels should make an objective assessment of the matter in carrying out their responsibility, including an objective assessment of facts of the case and the application of and conformity with the relevant covered agreements. This has been clarified by the Appellate Body in a number of instances. For example, in the EC – Hormones, the Appellate Body noted that in regard to the fact-finding by the Panels, the applicable standard of review is neither de novo nor total deference, but rather an objective assessment of facts. It is a general rule about the standard of review in dispute settlement system of WTO; however, the scope and intensity of the panel’s assessment is not the same for every issue and every dispute. Therefore, the nature and intensity of review (standard of review) differs depending on which kind of issues is being reviewed - Is the issue a question of fact or a question of law?. The nature of review also changes with the subject matter of the dispute. For example, the measure that is in question under the Anti-Dumping Agreement is examined with a different standard from a measure under Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (Ehlermann & Lockhart, 2004).
In legal determinations (the question of law), de novo review of a national authority’s legal determination is necessary, because the panels and appellate body have duty to interpret the WTO agreements. It’s clear that preserving the WTO members’ balance of rights and obligations is subject to providing a uniform interpretation. For achieving this goal, panels and appellate body should conduct an original, de novo review of a national authority’s legal determinations.
Compared to legal determination, in factual determinations there is no need to a complete, original and de novo review. By looking at Appellate Body’s statements in different disputes, in factual determinations it appears that panels should accord a considerable degree of discretion to national authorities in the assessment of facts. In other words, panels should not seek to displace the national authority by doing their own factual investigation; nor should they reject factual findings by the national authority just for this reason that they prefer other findings.
Standard of review is different in specific WTO agreements as well as in legal and factual determinations. For instance, article 17.6 (i) of Anti-Dumping Agreement provides a specific assessment criterion for factual determinations. This article explicitly affords  a broad discretion to the national authority to assess the facts and events. According to this article, panel should respect the factual determinations of national authority provided that the process of establishing of those facts was "proper". The standard for legal determinations and the interpretation of provisions are referred to in article 17-6 (ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. This clause is the only rule by which the panels are allowed to apply different interpretative rules to the WTO rules which are not covered by other agreements of the WTO. According to this clause, the panel should interpret the relevant provisions of the Agreement in accordance with the customary rules of the interpretation of public international law. It is possible that a relevant provision of the Agreement admits of more than one permissible interpretation; so if the authorities’ measure rests upon one of those permissible interpretations, the panel should find it to be in conformity with the Agreement (Jane, 2006). Some other agreements of WTO  have their own specific rules about standard of review which should be considered in relevant disputes.

Keywords

• Objective Assessment
• Deferential Review
• Intrusive Review
• Legal and Factual Determinations

References

[1] Ansari, Azam & Hajian, Mohammad Mahdi. (2016). Principles of Law and Interpretation of WTO Regulations, JPLR, Volume 4, Issue 14. (in Persian)

[2] Canal-Forgues, Eric. (2008). Dispute Settlement in World Trade Organization. Translated by Behzad saaedi Bonaab. Tehran, Majd pub. (in Persian)

[3] Ghamami, Majid & Eshraghi Arani, Mojtaba. (2011). Distinction Between Question of Fact and Question of Law; Elaborating A Theoric Basis. JPLS. Volume 40, Issue 2. (in Persian)

[4] Kadkhodaei, Abbas. (1997). Review of the structure of the WTO dispute settlement authorities. ILR. Volume 15, Issue 21. (in Persian)

[5] Rezaee, M.Taghi. (2011). Legal System of World Trade Organization (WTO). Tehran, Mizan pub. (in Persian)

[6] Shams, Abdollah. (2014). Civil Procedure, Tome II, Tehran, Derak pub. (in Persian)

[7] Shiravi, Abdolhossein. (2012). International Trade Law. Tehran, Samt pub. (in Persian)

[8] Bourgeois, H.J. (1997). GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Practice in the Field of Anti-Dumping Law, in E-U Petersmann (ed). International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, London; Boston : Kluwer Law International.

[9] Cottier, Thomas & Oesch, Matthias. (2003). The Paradox of Judicial Review in International Trade regulation: towards a comprehensive framework, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 287-306.

[10] Croley, Steven P. & Jackson, John H. (1997). WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 90, 193-213.

[11] Desmedt, G. Axel. (1998). Hormones: ‘‘Objective Assessment’’ and (or as) Standard of Review, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 1, issue 4, 695-98.

[12] Document TN/RL/W/130, 20 June. (2003). Further Issues Identified Under the Anti-Dumping and Subsidies Agreements for Discussion by the Negotiating Group on Rules. Communication from the United States.

[13] Ehlermann, claus-Dieter. (2002). Some personal experiences as member of the appellate body of the WTO, policy paper RSC No.02/9, para. 64.

[14] Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter & Lockhart, Nicolas. (2004). Standard of review in WTO law, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 7, Isssue. 3, 491-521.

[15] Epps, Tracey. (2012). Recent Developments in WTO Jurisprudence: Has the Appellate Body Resolved the Issue of an Appropriate Standard of Review in SPS cases?, University Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 62, 201-227.

[16] Gillman, Eric. (2012). Making WTO SPS Dispute Settlement Work: Challenges and Practical Solutions, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, Vol. 31, Issue. 2, 439- 465.

[17] Gruszczynski, Lukasz & Werner, Wouter. (2014). Deference in International Courts and Tribunals - Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation, Oxford University Press.

[18] Hamilton, Lee D.. (2003). US Antidumping Decisions and the WTO Standard of Review: Deference or Disregard?, Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 4: No. 1, 264-270.

[19] Jane, Tarun. (2006). Standard of Review of DSB in Anti-Dumping Disputes, Supreme Court of India; London School of Economics & Political Science. (LSE); National Law University Jodhpur. (NLUJ).

[20] Joanne, Scott. (2009). The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 1st edition.

[21] Oesch, Matthias. (2003). Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution, Journal of International Economic Law, 6. (3). 635-659.

[22] Pauwelyn, Joost. (2002). The Use of Experts in WTO Dispute Settlement, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 325-364.

[23] Peel, Jacqueline. (2012). Of Apples and Oranges. (and Hormones in Beef): Science and the Standard of Review in WTO Disputes under the SPS Agreement, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 61, Issue. 2, 427-58.

[24] Petersmann, Ernst- Ulrich. (1997). The Gatt/Wto Dispute Settlement System: International Law, International Organizations and Dispute Settlement, London; Boston : Kluwer Law International.

[25] Vermulst, Edwin & Graafsma, Folkert. (2001). WTO Dispute Settlement with Respect to Trade Contingency Measures, Journal of World Trade 35. (2):,209–228.

[26] Wagner, Markus. (2011). Law Talk v. Science Talk: The Languages of Law and Science in WTO Proceedings, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 35, 150-200.

[27] Zlepting, Stefan. (2002). The Standard of Review in WTO Law – An Analysis of Law, Legitimacy and the Distribution of Legal and Political Authority, European Integration Online Papers, Issue. 5, 427-457.

Reports:

[28] Appellate Body Report, Argentina - Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items. (Argentina – Footwear (EC). WT/DS56/R, adopted 25 November 1997.

[29] Appellate Body Report, Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon (Australia – Salmon). WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998.

[30] Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001.

[31] Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (EC- Hormones). WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998.

[32] Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Trade Description of Sardines (‘EC – Sardines’). WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002.

[33] Appellate Body Report, Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996.

[34] Appellate Body Report,Philippines - Taxes on Distilled Spirits, WT/DS396/ AB/R, WT/DS403/AB/R, adopted 20 January 2012.

[35] Appellate Body Report, Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel H-Beams from Poland (Thailand – h-Beams). WT/DS122/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001.

[36] Appellate Body Report, Unites States - Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan (US – Cotton Yarn). WT/DS192/AB/R, adopted 5 November 2001.

[37] Appellate Body Report, Unites States - Anti-Dumping Measure on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (US – Hot-Rolled Steel). WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001.

[38] Appellate Body Report, Unites States - Safeguard Measure on Import of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia (US – Lamb). WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2001.

[39] Panel Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (‘Chile – Alcoholic Beverages’). WT/DS87/R, WT/ DS110/R, adopted 12 January 2000.

[40] Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil (‘EC – Tube and Pipe Fittings’). WT, DS219/R, adopted as modified by the Appellate Body Report (WT/DS219/AB/R) on 18 August 2003.

[41] Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products (‘EC – Asbestos’). WT/DS135/R and Add.1, adopted 5 April 2001.

[42] Panel Report, Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico (Guatemala – Cement II). WT/DS156/R, adopted 17 November 2000, DSR 2000: XL, 5295.

[43] Panel Report, Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits, WT/DS396/R, WT/DS403/R, adopted 20 January 2012.

[44] Panel Report, Thailand—Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines, WT/DS371/R, adopted 15 July 2011.

[45] Panel Report, United States – Anti –Dumping duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea (US-DRAMS). WT/DS99/R, adopted 19 March 1999.