Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overview of WTO Jurisprudence in 2014

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2016

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 7))

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the reports (judgments) of panels and the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) circulated in 2014. For each report, we present the key findings on the most salient issues as well as, where appropriate, observations on the systemic significance on a given finding. 2014 was a very busy year for the WTO dispute settlement system. 11 panel reports were circulated, and except for one of these 11 disputes, all of them were appealed to the Appellate Body. The Appellate Body issued five reports in 2014, four of which related to a panel report issued in 2014. One appeal related to a panel report was issued the previous year, in 2013, namely, the EU – Seals dispute. The disputes covered a broad range of issues, including anti-dumping and countervailing duties; import restrictions; sanitary and phytosanitary measures; publication requirements; and import restrictions on agricultural products.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    US – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures (China) (DS449); US – Countervailing and Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Products from China (DS449); US – Countervailing Measures on Certain Products from China (DS437); and China – Measures Relating to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and Molybdenum (DS431, 432, 433).

  2. 2.

    US – Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) (21.5) (DS384,386).

  3. 3.

    For example, under the amended COOL measure, Label B read “Born and raised in Mexico, Raised and Slaughtered in the United States”.

  4. 4.

    Panel Report, US – COOL (21.5), paras. 7.60–7.62.

  5. 5.

    Panel Report, US – COOL (21.5), para. 7.167.

  6. 6.

    Panel Report, US – COOL (21.5), para. 7.266.

  7. 7.

    Panel Report, US – COOL (21.5), para. 7.283 (emphasis added).

  8. 8.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), paras. 311–323.

  9. 9.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 7.424.

  10. 10.

    Panel Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 7.422.

  11. 11.

    Bohanes and Salcedo (2015), pp. 354–363.

  12. 12.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, paras. 66–70; See also Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 176; Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para 183.

  13. 13.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Seal Products, para. 5.25 (quoting the Panel Report, EC – Seal Products, para. 7.106).

  14. 14.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Seal Products, para. 5.58.

  15. 15.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Seal Products, para. 5.39.

  16. 16.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Seal Products, para. 5.58.

  17. 17.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Seal Products, para. 5.77.

  18. 18.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Seal Products, para. 5.77.

  19. 19.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Seal Products, paras. 5.108–5.110.

  20. 20.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Seal Products, paras. 5.310–5.311.

  21. 21.

    According to Article 1.1, the other element of the concept of “subsidy” is that the financial contribution confers a benefit to the recipient.

  22. 22.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), para. 317.

  23. 23.

    Panel Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 7.84.

  24. 24.

    Panel Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 7.85.

  25. 25.

    Panel Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 7.89.

  26. 26.

    Panel Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 7.341.

  27. 27.

    Panel Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 7.343.

  28. 28.

    Panel Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 7.356.

  29. 29.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.11.

  30. 30.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.17.

  31. 31.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.43 (original emphasis).

  32. 32.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.54.

  33. 33.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.74.

  34. 34.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.74.

  35. 35.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.579.

  36. 36.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.589.

  37. 37.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.593.

  38. 38.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.611.

  39. 39.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.628.

  40. 40.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), Panel Report, paras. 6.166–6.177 (for the requirement to balance imports with exports); Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.178–6.195 (for the requirement to limit the volume and value of imports); Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.196–6.207 (for the local content requirement); Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.208–6.212 (investment requirement); Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.213–6.216 (for the requirement not to repatriate profits from Argentina).

  41. 41.

    Panel Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 6.228.

  42. 42.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.249–6.263.

  43. 43.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 6.264.

  44. 44.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 6.322–6.342.

  45. 45.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.329–6.342.

  46. 46.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.433–6.445.

  47. 47.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.471–6.473.

  48. 48.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.476–6.478.

  49. 49.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.273–6.294.

  50. 50.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.69–6.72.

  51. 51.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.78–6.79.

  52. 52.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 6.80.

  53. 53.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 1.27–1.28. Such as, for instance, that the final assessment of the facts would remain the sole prerogative of the panel and that the parties would always be in a position to comment on the expert’s statements.

  54. 54.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 6.59.

  55. 55.

    Panel report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 6.63.

  56. 56.

    Panel Report, Peru – Additional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products (DS457), para. 7.92.

  57. 57.

    China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (DS394).

  58. 58.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties, para. 606.

  59. 59.

    WT/DS379/AB/R.

  60. 60.

    Panel Report, US – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures, para. 7.317.

  61. 61.

    Appellate Body Report, US – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures, para. 4.165.

  62. 62.

    MOFCOM, Announcement No. 20 and Appendix, “Final Determination of the People’s Republic of China concerning the Anti-dumping and Countervailing Investigation on Imports of Certain Automobiles Originating in the United States” (5 May 2011); MOFCOM, Announcement No. 84 (14 December 2011).

  63. 63.

    Panel Report, China – GOES, para. 7.223–7.225. Panel Report, China – Broiler Products, para. 7.65. Panel Report, China – X-Ray Equipment, para. 7.364.

  64. 64.

    Bohanes and Salcedo (2015), pp. 346–349.

  65. 65.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners, para. 412–413.

  66. 66.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners, para. 414.

  67. 67.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners, paras. 422 and 427.

  68. 68.

    Panel Report, China – Broiler Products, para. 7.428.

  69. 69.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 170.

  70. 70.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 163.

  71. 71.

    Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, paras. 137 and 138, footnote 166 to para. 213.

  72. 72.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 180.

  73. 73.

    Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 340.

  74. 74.

    Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.435.

  75. 75.

    Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreated Tyres, para. 227.

  76. 76.

    Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.581.

  77. 77.

    Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.582.

  78. 78.

    Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 200.

Reference

  • Bohanes J, Salcedo K (2015) WTO Jursiprudence in 2013 at a quick glance. In: Hermann C, Krajewski M, Terhechte JP (eds) European yearbook of international economic law 2015, vol 6. Heidelberg, Springer, pp 337–373

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advisory Centre on WTO Law, Avenue Giuseppe Motta 31-33, 1211, Geneva 30, Switzerland

    Jan Bohanes, Alejandro Sánchez & Alexandra Telychko

Authors
  1. Jan Bohanes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alejandro Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexandra Telychko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Bohanes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chair for Public Law, International and European Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Passau , Passau, Germany

    Christoph Herrmann

  3. Chair for Public Law and International Law, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg Faculty of Law, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  4. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bohanes, J., Sánchez, A., Telychko, A. (2016). Overview of WTO Jurisprudence in 2014. In: Bungenberg, M., Herrmann, C., Krajewski, M., Terhechte, J. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2016. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29215-1_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29215-1_30

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29214-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29215-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation