Jorge Castro Kaliningrad, March 2014 International WTO Forum Litigation strategies in WTO Dispute Settlement Jorge Castro Kaliningrad, March 2014

Some differences: GATT vs WTO No consensus needed at the DSB to approve DS reports Appellate Review

Some differences: GATT vs WTO Longer reports High number of references Legal language

WTO Standard Panel’s function – Objective assessment of the matter: Objective assessment of the facts Applicability of the agreements Conformity of the measure with the agreements

WTO Standard Initial burden is on the complainant, to establish a prima facie case of inconsistency If successful, the burden shifts to the defendant

In practice, frequently The complainant claims that a measure is inconsistent with some provision The defendant tries to show that there is no inconsistency and/or that there is a valid defence

In practice, frequently Preliminary rulings on panel jurisdiction The complainant claims that a measure is inconsistent with some provision The defendant tries to show that there is no inconsistency and/or that there is a valid defence

Dominican Republic – Cigarettes (DS302) Honduras claimed that a stamp requirement was inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT Dom Republic tried to show that there was no inconsistency with Article III:4 and/or that the measure was justified by Article XX(d)

Japan – Laver (DS323) Korea claimed that Japan’s quotas on laver were inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT Japan tried to show that there was no inconsistency with Article XI:1 and/or that the measure was justified by Article XI:2(c)

Russia’s participation in WTO dispute settlement Respondent: Russian – Recycling fees on motor vehicles Complainant: EU – Cost adjustment methodologies and AD measures Third party: 10 disputes EC – Seal Products China – Rare Earths US – Countervailing Measures (China) US – CVD and AD Measures (China) China – HP SSST (AD Duties on High-Performance Stainless Steel Tubes) EC - Herring

Большое спасибо! Thank you very much!