眾律國際法律事務所

[1] DSU 3.3 provides that, the ‘prompt settlement’ of situations in which a Member considers that any benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under the covered agreements are being impaired by measures taken by another Member is essential to the ‘effective functioning’ of the WTO and ‘the maintenance of a proper balance between the rights and obligations of Members’. 

[2] DSU 3.2 stipulates that, the dispute settlement of the WTO is a central element in providing ‘security and predictability’ to the multilateral trading system.

[3] See Peter Van den Bossche and Werner Zdouc, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organuization-Text, Cases and Materials, Cambridge 2013, pp. 183-184.

[4] DSU 3.7 provides that, the aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution to a dispute. A solution ‘mutually acceptable’ to the parties to a dispute and ‘consistent with the covered agreements’ is clearly to be ‘preferred’.

[5] See Appellate Body Report, Mexico-Corn Syrup (21.5-US) (2001).

[6] See Appellate Body Report, US-Upland Cotton (2005).

[7] See DSU 4.6.

[8] See Panel Report, US-Underwear (1997).

[9] See DSU 4.11.

[10] DSU 12.10 provides that, in the context of consultations involving a measure taken by a developing country Member, the parties may agree to extend the periods established in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 4. If, after the relevant period has elapsed, the consulting parties cannot agree that consultations have concluded, the Chairman of the DSB shall decide, after consultation with the parties, whether to extend the relevant period and, if so, for how long.

[11] DSU 12.7 stipulates that, where a settlement of the matter among the parties to the dispute has been found, the report of the panel shall be confined to a brief description of the case and to reporting that a solution has been reached.