Rules of Evidence as Applied under the WTO Jurisdiction

　　ⅠBurdenofProofundertheWTOJurisprudence
    =================================================
   
    Inthisrespect,thePanelReportonUS-CopyrightAct(DS160)states,“hileadutyrestsonallpartiestoproduceevidenceandtocooperateinpresentingevidencetothePanel,thisisanissuethathastobedistinguishedfromthequestionofwhobearstheultimateburdenofproofforestablishingaclaimoradefence”.1
    Generally,thequestionofwhetheramemberactedinaccordancewiththeagreementhingesfrequentlyonwhetherandtowhatextentthatmembermustdemonstratecomplianceorthecomplaintmustdemonstratealackofcompliance.Thisistheissueof“theultimateburdenofproofforestablishingaclaimoradefence”.Itisdemonstratedthattheburdenofproofisaproceduralconceptwhichspeakstothefairandorderlymanagementanddispositionofadispute.
    (ⅰ)GeneralRulesWellEstablishedinViolationComplaints
    Article3.8oftheUnderstandingonRulesandProceduresGoverningtheSettlementofDisputes(‘DSU’)providesthatincaseswherethereisaninfringementoftheobligationsassumedunderacoveredagreement--thatis,incaseswhereaviolationisestablished--thereisapresumptionofnullificationorimpairment.However,theissueofburdenofproofhereisnotwhathappensafteraviolationisestablished;theissueiswhichpartymustfirstshowthatthereis,orisnot,aviolation.Inthisrespect,anumberofGATT1947panelreportscontainlanguagesupportingthepropositionthattheburdenofestablishingaviolationunderArticleXXIII:1(a)oftheGATT1947wasonthecomplainingparty,i.e.,itwasforthecomplainingpartytopresentaprimafaciecaseofviolationbeforeapanel.ThisruleistakenonbytheDSB.
    Withregardtotheissueofburdenofproof,theAppellateBodyinUS-ShirtsandBlouses(DS33)rulethat:“Inaddressingthisissue,wefinditdifficult,indeed,toseehowanysystemofjudicialsettlementcouldworkifitincorporatedthepropositionthatthemereassertionofaclaimmightamounttoproof.Itis,thus,hardlysurprisingthatvariousinternationaltribunals,includingtheInternationalCourtofJustice,havegenerallyandconsistentlyacceptedandappliedtherulethatthepartywhoassertsafact,whethertheclaimantortherespondent,isresponsibleforprovidingproofthereof.Also,itisagenerally-acceptedcanonofevidenceincivillaw,commonlawand,infact,mostjurisdictions,thattheburdenofproofrestsupontheparty,whethercomplainingordefending,whoassertstheaffirmativeofaparticularclaimordefence.Ifthatpartyadducesevidencesufficienttoraiseapresumptionthatwhatisclaimedistrue,theburdenthenshiftstotheotherparty,whowillfailunlessitadducessufficientevidencetorebutthepresumption.”2Andthisrulingisdemonstratedtobewellestablishedinsubsequentcasesasageneralruleconcerningburdenofproof.
    Forexample,inArgentina-Leather(DS155),thePanelruleas:“Therelevantrulesconcerningburdenofproof,whilenotexpresslyprovidedforintheDSU,arewellestablishedinWTOjurisprudence.ThegeneralruleissetoutintheAppellateBodyreportonUnitedStates-MeasureAffectingImportsofWovenWoolShirtsandBlouses,whereinitisstatedthat:‘Itisagenerally-acceptedcanonofevidenceincivillaw,commonlawand,infact,mostjurisdictions,thattheburdenofproofrestsupontheparty,whethercomplainingordefending,whoassertstheaffirmativeofaparticularclaimordefence.Ifthatpartyadducesevidencesufficienttoraiseapresumptionthatwhatisclaimedistrue,theburdenthenshiftstotheotherparty,whowillfailunlessitadducessufficientevidencetorebutthepresumption’.”3
    AndinUS-CottonYarn(DS192),thePanelruleinpertinentthat,“heAppellateBodyandsubsequentpanelsendorsedthisprinciplethatacomplainantbearstheburdenofproof.Forexample,theAppellateBody,inEC-Hormones,statesasfollows:‘…Theinitialburdenliesonthecomplainingparty,whichmustestablishaprimafaciecaseofinconsistencywithaparticularprovisionoftheSPSAgreementonthepartofthedefendingparty,ormoreprecisely,ofitsSPSmeasureormeasurescomplainedabout.Whenthatprimafaciecaseismade,theburdenofproofmovestothedefendingparty,whichmustinturncounterorrefutetheclaimedinconsistency.ThisseemsstraightforwardenoughandisinconformitywithourrulinginUnitedStates-ShirtsandBlouses,whichthePanelinvokesandwhichembodiesaruleapplicableinanyadversarialproceedings.’”4
    Asawhole,ontheonehand,asruledbythePanelinArgentina-CeramicFloorTiles(DS189),“erecallthattheburdenofproofinWTOdisputesettlementproceedingsrestswiththepartythatassertstheaffirmativeofaparticularclaimordefence.ItimpliesthatthecomplainingpartywillberequiredtomakeaprimafaciecaseofviolationoftherelevantprovisionsoftheWTOAgreement,whichisforthedefendant…torefute.Inthisregard,theAppellateBodyhasstatedthat‘...aprimafaciecaseisonewhich,intheabsenceofeffectiverefutationbythedefendingparty,requiresapanel,asamatteroflaw,toruleinfavourofthecomplainingpartypresentingtheprimafaciecase’…”;5ontheotherhand,asnotedinthePanelReportonUS-CopyrightAct(DS160),“hesamerulesapplywheretheexistenceofaspecificfactisalleged.Wenotethatapartywhoassertsafact,whethertheclaimantortherespondent,isresponsibleforprovidingproofthereof.Itisforthepartyallegingthefacttoproveitsexistence.Itisthenfortheotherpartytosubmitevidencetothecontraryifitchallengestheexistenceofthatfact”.6
    Insum,withrespecttothegeneralrulesofburdenofproofinthecontextofviolationcomplaints,asruledbythePanelinJapan-Film(DS44):“enotethatasinallcasesundertheWTO/GATTdisputesettlementsystem-and,indeed,astheAppellateBodyrecentlystated,undermostsystemsofjurisprudence-itisforthepartyassertingafact,claimordefencetobeartheburdenofprovidingproofthereof.Oncethatpartyhasputforwardsufficientevidencetoraiseapresumptionthatwhatisclaimedistrue,theburdenofproducingevidencethenshiftstotheotherpartytorebutthepresumption.…”.7Certainly,asnotedbytheAppellateBodyinUS-ShirtsandBlouses(DS33),“nthecontextoftheGATT1994andtheWTOAgreementpreciselyhowmuchandpreciselywhatkindofevidencewillberequiredtoestablishsuchapresumptionwillnecessarilyvaryfrommeasuretomeasure,provisiontoprovisionandcasetocase”.8
    (ⅱ)BurdenofProofincaseofInvokinganException
    Asdiscussedabove,generally,theburdenofproofrestsupontheparty,whethercomplainingordefending,whoassertsafactortheaffirmativeofaparticularclaimordefence.Astobeshowed,thisruleappliesequallyevenincaseofinvokinganexception.
    Inthiscontext,itisageneralprincipleoflaw,well-establishedbypanelsinpriorGATT/WTOpractice,thattheparty(thedefendant)whichinvokesanexceptioninordertojustifyitsactioncarriestheburdenofproofthatithasfulfilledtheconditionsforinvokingtheexception.However,intheauthor’sview,tounderstandtheissueconcerningburdenofproofincaseofinvokinganexception,whichisdifferentfromtherelativelyclearburdenofestablishingaprimafaciecaseofviolationonthecomplainingparty,it’shelpfultostresssomepointshere,amongwhichthekeypointistobecautiouswhiledeterminewhichdefenceis“affirmative”andthereforeburdensthedefendanttoprovidesufficientevidencetorebutthechallengedviolation.
    InUnitedStates-ShirtsandBlouses(DS33),Indiaarguethatitwas“customaryGATTpractice”thatthepartyinvokingaprovisionwhichhadbeenidentifiedasanexceptionmustofferproofthattheconditionssetoutinthatprovisionweremet.TheAppellateBodyacknowledgethatseveralGATT1947andWTOpanelshaverequiredsuchproofofapartyinvokingadefence,suchasthosefoundinArticleXXorArticleXI:2(c)(i),toaclaimofviolationofaGATTobligation,suchasthosefoundinArticlesI:1,II:1,IIIorXI:1.ArticlesXXandXI2)(c)(i)arelimitedexceptionsfromobligationsundercertainotherprovisionsoftheGATT1994,notpositiverulesestablishingobligationsinthemselves.Theyareinthenatureofaffirmativedefences.Itisonlyreasonablethattheburdenofestablishingsuchadefence,i.e.invokinganexceptioninthenatureofaffirmativedefences,shouldrestonthepartyassertingit.9
    However,asruledbytheAppellateBodyinEC-Hormones(DS26/DS48),“hegeneralruleinadisputesettlementproceedingrequiringacomplainingpartytoestablishaprimafaciecaseofinconsistencywithaprovisionof…beforetheburdenofshowingconsistencywiththatprovisionistakenonbythedefendingparty,isnotavoidedbysimplydescribingthatsameprovisionasan‘exception’.Inmuchthesameway,merelycharacterizingatreatyprovisionasan‘exception’doesnotbyitselfjustifya‘stricter’or‘narrower’interpretationofthatprovisionthanwouldbewarrantedbyexaminationoftheordinarymeaningoftheactualtreatywords,viewedincontextandinthelightofthetreaty’sobjectandpurpose,or,inotherwords,byapplyingthenormalrulesoftreatyinterpretation.Itisalsowelltorememberthataprimafaciecaseisonewhich,intheabsenceofeffectiverefutationbythedefendingparty,requiresapanel,asamatteroflaw,toruleinfavourofthecomplainingpartypresentingtheprimafaciecase.”10
    Inshort,duringtheprocessoftheestablishmentofaviolation,it’sgenerallyuptothecomplainanttoprovideevidenceconcerninginconsistency,andonlyincaseoflimitedexceptionstheburdenofproofrestsuponthedefendingpartyinvokingadefenceinthenatureofaffirmativedefences,suchasthosefoundinArticleXXorArticleXI:2(c)(i)oftheGATT1994.
    (ⅲ)SpecialRulesConcerningNon-violationClaims
    Assuggestedbythecorrespondingprovisions,themostsignificantdifferencebetweenviolationcomplaintsunderArticleXXIII:1(a)oftheGATT1994andnon-violationonesunderArticleXXIII:1(b)is,while,whenviolationcomplaintsarebroughtunderArticleXXIII:1(a),theinfringementofanobligationoftheagreementsisconsideredprimafacietoconstituteacaseofnullificationorimpairment,fromthefactofviolationalone,byestablishingaformalpresumption,suchapresumptiondoesnotexistinnon-violationcases.
    Withthelackofsuchapresumption,andgiventhenatureofthefactuallycomplexdisputesandparticularclaimsofnon-violationnullificationorimpairment,theresolutionofissuesrelatingtotheproperallocationoftheburdenofproofisofparticularimportance.Incaseofnon-violationnullificationorimpairment,i.e.,wheretheapplicationofArticleXXIII:1(b)isconcerned,Article26.1(a)oftheDSUandpanelpracticeinthecontextoftheWTOAgreementandGATTjurisprudenceconfirmthatthisisanexceptionalcourseofactionforwhichthecomplainingpartybearstheburdenofprovidingadetailedjustificationtobackupitsallegations.
    ThisrequirementhasbeenrecognizedandappliedbyanumberofGATTpanels.Forexample,thepanelonUruguayanRecoursetoArticleXXIIInotedthatincases“wherethereisnoinfringementofGATTprovisions,itwouldbe...incumbentonthecountryinvokingArticleXXIIItodemonstratethegroundsandreasonsforitsinvocation.DetailedsubmissionsonthepartofthatcontractingpartyonthesepointswerethereforeessentialforajudgementtobemadeunderthisArticle”.AndthepanelonUS-AgriculturalWaivernoted,inapplyingthe1979codificationofthisrule:“Thepartybringingacomplaintunderwouldnormallybeexpectedtoexplainindetailthatbenefitsaccruingtoitunderatariffconcessionhavebeennullifiedorimpaired”.
    Article26.1(a)oftheDSUcodifiesthepriorGATTpractice,whichprovidesinrelevantpart:“thecomplainingpartyshallpresentadetailedjustificationinsupportofanycomplaintrelatingtoameasurewhichdoesnotconflictwiththerelevantcoveredagreement...”.
    AndinJapan–Film(DS44),thePanelconfirmtheruleonburdenofproofinthecontextofnon-violationcomplaintsunderArticleXXIII:1(b):“ConsistentwiththeexplicittermsoftheDSUandestablishedWTO/GATTjurisprudence,andrecallingtheAppellateBodyrulingthat‘preciselyhowmuchandpreciselywhatkindofevidencewillberequiredtoestablish...apresumptionwillnecessarilyvaryfrom...provisiontoprovision’,wethusconsiderthattheUnitedStates,withrespecttoitsclaimofnon-violationnullificationorimpairmentunderArticleXXIII:1(b),bearstheburdenofprovidingadetailedjustificationforitsclaiminordertoestablishapresumptionthatwhatisclaimedistrue.ItwillbeforJapantorebutanysuchpresumption.”11
    (ⅳ)SummaryandConclusions
    Tosumup,inthecontextofviolationcomplaintsunderArticleXXIII:1(a)oftheGATT1994,asruledbythePanelinTurkey-TextileandClothingProducts(DS34):“TherulesonburdenofproofarenowwellestablishedintheWTOandcanbesummedupasfollowsa)itisforthecomplainingpartytoestablishtheviolationitalleges;(b)itisforthepartyinvokinganexceptionoranaffirmativedefensetoprovethattheconditionscontainedthereinaremet;and(c)itisforthepartyassertingafacttoproveit.”12
    Andinthecontextofnon-violationcomplaintsunderArticleXXIII:1(b)oftheGATT1994,“,withrespecttoitsclaimofnon-violationnullificationorimpairmentunderArticleXXIII:1(b),bearstheburdenofprovidingadetailedjustificationforitsclaiminordertoestablishapresumptionthatwhatisclaimedistrue.Itwillbefortorebutanysuchpresumption”.
   
    ⅡAdmissibilityofCertainEvidences
    =============================================
   
    Generally,asamatterofprocessbeforethepanel,thecomplainantwillsubmititsargumentsandevidenceandtherespondentwillrespondtorebutthecomplainant’sclaims.However,asnotedabove,theallocationofburdenofproofisonlyapplicabletodeterminepreciselyhowmuchandpreciselywhatkindofevidencewillberequiredtoestablishapresumptionthatwhatisclaimedistrue.Next,oncethepartyassertingafactortheaffirmativeofaparticularclaimordefencehassucceededinraisingapresumptionthatitsclaimistrue,itisincumbentonpanels,beforewhomsuchapresumptionissuccessfullyraised,toassessthemeritsofalltheargumentsmadeandtheadmissibility,relevanceandweightofallthefactualevidencesubmittedwithaviewtoestablishingwhetherthepartycontestingthepresumptionraisedhassuccessfullyrebuttedit.Andattheendofthisprocess,itisforthepaneltoweighandassesstheevidencesubmittedandargumentsassertedbybothpartiesinordertoreachconclusionsastowhethertheclaimsraisedbythecomplainantareultimatelywell-foundedorsuccessfullyrebutted.
    However,thefollowingparagraphswillnotdealwitheverythinginvolvedintheprocessofpanels’assessmentofargumentsorevidence,whichariseslogicallyaftertheallocationofburdenofproof,butfocusontheadmissibilityissue,i.e.,amatteroftowhatextentandhowtheevidenceavailabletopanelsshouldbebasedontodeterminewhether,onbalance,allegedimpairmentornullificationexists.Inthisrespect,astobedemonstratedinthefollowingparagraphs,panelsenjoytheirbroaddiscretioninadmittingvariousevidences.
    (ⅰ)EvidenceObtainedfromPriorConsultations
    AccordingtotheWTOjurisprudence,theDSBisnotinvolvedinconsultationsprocessalthoughtheyareacrucialandintegralpartoftheDSU.NothinginthetextoftheDSUorothercoveredagreementsprovidesthatthescopeofapanel’sworkisgovernedbythescopeofpriorconsultations.13However,astobenotedbelow,panelswon’tprecludethoseevidencesmerelybecausetheyareobtainedduringthecourseofconsultations.Indeed,informationobtainedduringthecourseofconsultationsmayenablethecomplainanttofocusthescopeofthematterwithrespecttowhichitseeksestablishmentofapanel,thus,tosomeextentwillassistpanel’sexaminationofmeasuresatissuetomakeobjectiveassessmentwiththeaccessofsuchinformationofferedtothepanel.
    （a）ProceduralConcern:ConfidentialityofConsultations
    InAustralia-AutomotiveLeather(DS126),AustraliaappearstobeaskingthePaneltorulethat,theUnitedStatesislimitedtorelyingonthefactsandargumentsexplicitlysetoutinitsrequestforconsultationsinpresentingitscasetothePanel.Astothisobjection,thePanelruleasfollows:14
    “AsAustraliarightlynotes,Article4.6oftheDSUprovidesthat‘onsultationsshallbeconfidential,andwithoutprejudicetotherightsofanyMemberinanyfurtherproceedings’.However,inourview,thisdoesnotmeanthatfactsandinformationdevelopedinthecourseofconsultationsheldpursuanttoonerequestcannotbeusedinapanelproceedingconcerning,asitdoesinthiscase,thesamedispute,betweenthesameparties,conductedpursuanttoanother,differentrequest.
    WerecallthatArticle11oftheDSUobligesapaneltoconduct‘anobjectiveassessmentofthematterbeforeit’.Asdiscussedearlier,anyevidentiaryrulingswemakemustbeconsistentwiththisobligation.ThepanelinKorea-TaxesonAlcoholicBeveragesrecentlyconfirmedtherightofapartytoaWTOdisputetouseinformationlearnedinconsultationsinpanelproceedings.AfternotingtherequirementofconfidentialityinArticle4.6oftheDSU,whichthepanelviewedas‘essentialifthepartiesaretobefreetoengageinmeaningfulconsultations’,thepanelcontinued:‘However,itisourviewthatthisconfidentialityextendsonlyasfarasrequiringthepartiestotheconsultationsnottodiscloseanyinformationobtainedintheconsultationstoanypartiesthatwerenotinvolvedinthoseconsultations.Wearemindfulofthefactthatthepanelproceedingsbetweenthepartiesremainconfidential,andpartiesdonottherebybreachanyconfidentialitybydisclosinginthoseproceedingsinformationacquiredduringtheconsultations.Indeed,inourview,theveryessenceofconsultationsistoenabletheparties]gathercorrectandrelevantinformation,forpurposesofassistingtheminarrivingatamutuallyagreedsolution,orfailingwhich,toassisttheminpresentingaccurateinformationtothepanel.Itwouldseriouslyhamperthedisputesettlementprocessiftheinformationacquiredduringconsultationscouldnotbesubsequentlyusedbyanypartyintheensuingproceedings’15.”
    Furthermore,sofarastheconfidentialityofconsultationsisconcerned,theadmissibilityofinformationobtainedfromconsultationsdoesn’talterasaresultofthirdpartyparticipationinthepanelproceedings.AsruledbythePanelinMexico-HFCS(DS132):“itwouldseriouslyhamperthedisputesettlementprocessifapartycouldnotuseinformationobtainedintheconsultationsinsubsequentpanelproceedingsmerelybecauseathirdpartywhichdidnotparticipateintheconsultationschoosestoparticipateinthepanelproceedings.As…thirdpartyparticipationinthepanelproceedingscannotbevetoedbythepartiestotheproceeding.Inourview,itwouldbeanomalousifthedecisionofaMembertoparticipateinapanelproceedingasathirdpartywhenitdidnot,orcouldnot,participateasathirdpartyintheunderlyingconsultationshadtheeffectoflimitingtheevidencethatcouldberelieduponinthepanelproceedingbyprecludingtheintroductionofinformationobtainedduringtheconsultations.Thirdpartiesaresubjecttothesamerequirementtomaintaintheconfidentialityofpanelproceedingsasareparties.Wethereforeconcludethattherequirementtomaintaintheconfidentialityofconsultationsisnotviolatedbytheinclusionofinformationobtainedduringconsultationsinthewrittensubmissionofapartyprovidedtoathirdpartyinthesubsequentpanelproceedingevenifthatthirdpartydidnotparticipateintheconsultations.”16
    (b)SubstantialConcern:NecessityorRelevanceofEvidence
    InEC-BedLinen(DS141),thePanelnotethatitseemsthattheevidenceconcerningtheconsultationsisatbestunnecessary,andmaybeirrelevant.However,thePanelrulethat,thatsaid,“merelybecausetheevidenceisunnecessaryorirrelevantdoesnotrequireustoexcludeit”.Andtheycometothisrulingbyanalyzingthat:17
    “ApanelisobligatedbyArticle11oftheDSUtoconduct‘anobjectiveassessmentofthematterbeforeit’.ThePanelinAustralia-AutomotiveLeatherobservedthat:
    ‘Anyevidentiaryrulingswemakemust,therefore,beconsistentwiththisobligation.Inourview,adecisiontolimitthefactsandargumentsthattheUnitedStatesmaypresentduringthecourseofthisproceedingtothosesetforthintherequestforconsultationswouldmakeitdifficult,ifnotimpossible,forustofulfillourobligationtoconductan【注释】
　　==================================
1See,WT/DS160/R/6.15.
2See,WT/DS33/AB/R/Ⅳ.
3See,WT/DS155/R/11.11.
4See,WT/DS192/R/7.22.
5See,WT/DS189/R/6.6.
6See,WT/DS160/R/6.12-6.14.
7See,WT/DS44/R/10.29.
8See,WT/DS33/AB/R/Ⅳ.
9See,WT/DS33/AB/R/Ⅳ.
10See,WT/DS26/AB/R;WT/DS48/AB/R/104.
11See,WT/DS44/R/10.32.
12See,WT/DS34/R/9.57.
13See,e.g.,WT/DS22/R/287orWT/DS75/R;WT/DS84/R/10.19.
14See,WT/DS126/R/9.32-9.33.
15See,WT/DS75/R;WT/DS84/R/10.23.
16See,See,WT/DS132/R/7.41.
17See,WT/DS141/R/6.33.
18See,WT/DS141/R/6.34.
19See,Kazazi,Mojtaba,BurdenofProofandRelatedIssues-AStudyofEvidenceBeforeInternationalTribunals,Malanczuk,Peter,ed.,KluwerLawInternational,TheHague,pp.180,184.
20See,WT/DS75/R;WT/DS84/R/10.23.
21See,WT/DS141/R,note22.
22See,WT/DS202/R/7.14.
23See,WT/DS26/AB/R;WT/DS48/AB/R/117.
24See,WT/DS177/AB/R;WT/DS178/AB/R/112-115.
25See,WT/DS56/AB/R/79.
26See,WT/DS27/AB/R/142.
27See,WT/DS27/AB/R/141.
28See,WT/DS122/R/7.43.
29See,WT/DS26/ARB/156.
30See,WT/DS18/AB/R/272.
31See,WT/DS56/AB/R/79.
32See,WT/DS70/R/9.71-9.74;9.77.
33See,WT/DS56/AB/R/80.
34See,WT/DS56/R/6.55.
35Article13oftheDSUreadsundertheheadingof“RighttoSeekInformation”:
“1.Eachpanelshallhavetherighttoseekinformationandtechnicaladvicefromanyindividualorbodywhichitdeemsappropriate.However,beforeapanelseekssuchinformationoradvicefromanyindividualorbodywithinthejurisdictionofaMemberitshallinformtheauthoritiesofthatMember.AMembershouldrespondpromptlyandfullytoanyrequestbyapanelforsuchinformationasthepanelconsidersnecessaryandappropriate.Confidentialinformationwhichisprovidedshallnotberevealedwithoutformalauthorizationfromtheindividual,body,orauthoritiesoftheMemberprovidingtheinformation.
2.Panelsmayseekinformationfromanyrelevantsourceandmayconsultexpertstoobtaintheiropiniononcertainaspectsofthematter.Withrespecttoafactualissueconcerningascientificorothertechnicalmatterraisedbyapartytoadispute,apanelmayrequestanadvisoryreportinwritingfromanexpertreviewgroup.RulesfortheestablishmentofsuchagroupanditsproceduresaresetforthinAppendix4.”
36See,WT/DS76/AB/R/84.
37See,WT/DS70/R/9.89.
38See,WT/DS70/AB/R/192.
39See,WT/DS58/AB/R/104-108.
40See,WT/DS70/R/9.50.
41See,WT/DS70/R/9.53.
42See,WT/DS70/R/9.94.
43See,WT/DS70/AB/R/182.
44See,WT/DS70/AB/R/184-185.
45See,WT/DS70/AB/R/187-192.
46See,WT/DS70/AB/R/198-206.
47See,WT/DS166/AB/R/170-176.
48See,WT/DS122/R/7.50.
49See,WT/DS58/AB/R/101.

……………………………………………
※TheAuthor:Chengwei,Liu;（InternationalLaw）MasterofLawSchoolofRenminUniversityofChina,Beijing.
Address.O.Box9-01No.1（Master）ofRenminUniversityofChina;100872.
E-mail:Genes@263.net【写作年份】2002【学科类别】国际法->国际经济法