Search Results

This chapter examines the meaning and function of principles of treaty interpretation in general international law. Customary international law on treaty interpretation is partly and mostly codified in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which are discussed in their historical context. The chapter explains that even if treaty-based, treaty interpretation is governed by principles rather than rules. It also provides an introduction to some of the Appellate Body's techniques of interpretation and reflects on the need and status of special principles of treaty interpretation.

The Uruguay Round negotiations left the question of standard of review open. The negotiators did not succeed in reaching an agreement on a clearly defined standard of review generally applicable to all covered agreements. Notwithstanding this, some provisions in the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), most prominently Articles 3.2 and 11, bear the potential for describing the parameters for panel jurisdiction and thus touch upon the notion of standard of review. This chapter is organized as follows. Sections I and II examine the meaning of these provisions. The Anti-Dumping (AD) Agreement is the only agreement for which a particular standard of review could have been adopted. Section III analyzes the meaning of Article 17.6 of the AD Agreement. The very existence of Article 17.6, and its deferential language, may allow conclusions to be drawn as to the appropriate standards of review outside the AD Agreement. Thus, Section IV is dedicated to an analysis of the relationship between Article 11 of the DSU and Article 17.6 of the AD Agreement.

In 2017 panel and Appellate Body reports were adopted in nine disputes. The disputes concerned alleged violations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 (GATT 1994), the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement), the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and the Agreement on Agriculture. Four of the disputes concerned restrictions placed on the importation of animal products (mainly poultry and pigs), such as licensing requirements and import restrictions, tariff rate quotas established following re-negotiations with principal suppliers, and SPS measures. The dispute over a ban on importation of pigs featured an important issue relating to the “regionalization” of SPS measures. Two disputes provided clarification as to the relationship between WTO agreements, in particular, the relationship between GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Agriculture. The year 2017 also saw another case in the “series” of the Airbus/Boeing subsidies disputes, with the United States scoring a victory over the European Union.

In 2018 panel and Appellate Body reports were adopted in nine disputes. The majority of the disputes concerned violations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994. Most disputes concerned unfair trade measures. They included another compliance dispute in the long-running Airbus/Boeing dispute series (the European Union was found not to have fully implemented the original rulings); a dispute concerning the Agreement on Safeguards (where the challenged duty turned out not be a safeguard measure); and a complaint against anti-dumping duties imposed by the European Union on biodiesel. In 2018, panel reports were also adopted in two of four complaints against Australia’s tobacco plain packaging regulations. In these reports, the panel had rejected all claims of violations under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. However, the other two complainants have appealed the panel report, so the case will continue past 2018. In the course of 2018, the composition of the Appellate Body was reduced to three members.