US/Canada - Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC Hormones Dispute

Australia and WTO Dispute Settlement

United States - Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC - Hormones Dispute (WT/DS320)

Canada - Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC - Hormones Dispute (WT/DS321)

Questions to third parties

19 September 2005

To all third parties :

  1. Could the parties and third parties comment on the last sentence of para. 11 of China's oral presentation?

  2. In a post-retaliation phase, please indicate how an Article 21.5 procedure would function if initiated by the Member who has notified a compliance measure (the original defendant). In particular:

    1. who would be the complainant?

    2. what would be the complaint?

    3. who would be the responding party?

  3. Having regard to Australia's statements in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of its oral presentation, can the presumption of good faith implementation/consistency of the implementing measure override the DSB authorization for suspension of obligations? Please elaborate.

  4. Other than an Article 21.5 panel procedure, is there any other procedure the Member claiming compliance can invoke in order to seek a multilateral determination of actual compliance?

  5. In a situation where the original complainant maintains the suspension of concessions and does not initiate an Article 21.5 procedure after notification of a compliance measure by the original respondent, does it commit a WTO violation? If so, what would be the violation? If not, can the original complainant maintain indefinitely the suspension of concessions?

To Brazil:

  1. In paragraph 15 of its oral statement Brazil states "the authorization for a Member to maintain the suspension of these concessions can only be revoked by a DSB determination of compliance regarding the measure that may subsequently have been adopted by the implementing Member".

    1. What is the textual or other basis for this assertion?

    2. In the absence of such a revocation, doe the authorization remain in place sine die?

    3. What are the obligations, if any, of a Member who has been authorized to suspend concessions once the implementing Member has notified its implementation measure? Can it simply ignore the new measure and continue to apply sanctions indefinitely?

    4. What is the legal basis under the current DSU to prevent the suspension of concessions for an indefinite period of time?

To China:

  1. China states at the end of paragraph 2 of its oral presentation that "[w]hen no agreement is reached between the parties as to whether the conditions above have been met, the parties must invoke the DSB to make a determination". Please explain how China reaches that conclusion.

  2. In paragraph 3 of its oral presentation, China says "[t]he DSB-authorized suspension of concessions shall be applied until the DSB makes a new determination on the authorization of suspension of concessions". Please explain how China reaches this conclusion.

  3. China argues that the Panel should set a time limit for the initiation of compliance proceedings. Please explain how this can be justified.

Parties and third parties should feel free to comment on questions addressed to other parties.

Last Updated: 9 January 2013