The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s)
July 22, 2021
Appellate Body: Key Disputes and
Nina M. Hart
Controversies
Legislative Attorney

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a 164-member international organization created to
Brandon J. Murrill
oversee and administer multilateral trade rules, serve as a forum for trade negotiations, and
Legislative Attorney
resolve trade disputes. The international agreements that established the WTO set forth rules or

disciplines for practices affecting international trade in goods and services. These rules can be
enforced by the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism, which hears trade disputes between

members concerning these rules and may decide whether a member has complied with its WTO
obligations. Under this mechanism, a WTO panel first hears a dispute, and a WTO member that is party to it may appeal a
panel’s decision to the Appellate Body, which is an appeals tribunal that may review a panel’s legal interpretations and
uphold, modify, or reverse them. The WTO’s architects, including the United States, anticipated that the enforceability of
WTO rules through the dispute settlement mechanism, with the opportunity for appeal to the WTO’s Appellate Body, would
further the multilateral trading system’s stability and predictability and avoid tit-for-tat trade retaliation, thereby benefiting
the global economy.
Although the United States played a central role in the WTO’s development, including its adjudicative processes, some
Members of Congress and executive branch officials have long raised concerns about the Organization’s dispute settlement
mechanism, especially the Appellate Body. During the Obama Administration, the United States blocked the reappointment
of some members to the Appellate Body; these positions were later filled by consensus (and without objection from the
United States) at the WTO. By contrast, the Trump Administration blocked reappointments as Appellate Body members’
terms expired, resulting in multiple vacancies. As a result, on December 11, 2019, the WTO’s Appellate Body lost its quorum
of three members necessary for the Body to decide appeals and issue final reports. The Biden Administration has thus far
continued the Trump Administration’s approach to blocking appointments, tying the process to the broader negotiations on
dispute settlement reform. In withholding its approval of new Appellate Body members, the Office of the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) has argued that the Appellate Body has exceeded its mandate, as established in WTO rules, by
(1) disregarding the deadline for issuing a decision; (2) allowing former members to decide cases; (3) reviewing panel
findings of fact; (4) issuing advisory opinions; (5) treating prior decisions as binding precedent; (6) declining to make
recommendations about the WTO-compatibility of measures that expire after panel establishment; and (7) encroaching on
other WTO bodies. In addition, the USTR has argued that the appeals tribunal has allegedly exceeded its mandate when
interpreting the WTO Agreements, thereby “adding to or diminishing rights or obligations” of WTO members without their
consent, in particular when deciding disputes involving subsidies, trade remedies, and technical product regulations.
The USTR maintains that this so-called “judicial activism” restricts the United States’ ability “to regulate in the public
interest or protect U.S. workers and businesses against unfair trading practices.” Other WTO members have shared some of
these concerns with respect to their own domestic regulatory measures. Nonetheless, Appellate Body members, WTO
members, and some scholars have also defended the Appellate Body’s work, noting the practical constraints of international
dispute settlement; the Appellate Body’s lack of resources; the ambiguity or vagueness in the text of the WTO Agreement
provisions governing the Appellate Body’s operations, as well as in the WTO Agreements more broadly; and the inherent
flexibility in treaty interpretation.
This report examines the USTR’s concerns by discussing its critiques of the Appellate Body and describing some of the key
WTO disputes identified as problematic. It places these complaints in the broader context of debates about how the Appellate
Body construes the WTO Agreements and carries out its role in relation to WTO members. For an overview of proposals to
reform the WTO and its dispute settlement mechanism, see CRS Report R45417, World Trade Organization: Overview and
Future Direction, coordinated by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 7 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 22 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 26 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 31 link to page 33 link to page 34 link to page 35 link to page 36 link to page 39 link to page 40 link to page 43 link to page 45 link to page 45 link to page 48 The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Origins of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism ...................................................................... 4
WTO Disputes in Which the USTR Alleges the Appellate Body Exceeded Its Mandate ............... 6
Disregarding the Deadline for Issuing a Report ........................................................................ 6
Allowing Former Appellate Body Members to Decide Cases .................................................. 9
Reviewing Panel Findings of Fact ........................................................................................... 11
General Factual Determinations ........................................................................................ 11
Factual Determinations Concerning Domestic Law ......................................................... 12
Assessing the USTR’s Arguments .................................................................................... 13
Issuing Advisory Opinions ...................................................................................................... 14
Declining to Make Recommendations on WTO-Inconsistent Measures That Expire
After Panel Establishment .................................................................................................... 17
Treating Prior Decisions as Binding Precedent ....................................................................... 19
Encroaching on Other WTO Bodies ....................................................................................... 21
Considering Decisions of Various WTO Bodies to Be Authoritative
Interpretations of the WTO Agreements ........................................................................ 21
Opining on How Other WTO Bodies Should Perform Their Responsibilities ................. 23
WTO Disputes Involving Substantive Interpretations of Agreement Obligations ........................ 25
Contextualizing U.S. Allegations of Inaccurate Interpretations .............................................. 25
The Art of Treaty Interpretation ........................................................................................ 26
Interpretations of Nondiscrimination Obligations in the WTO Agreements ........................... 28
Interpretations of Obligations Related to Trade Remedies in the WTO Agreements.............. 30
Interpretation of “Public Body” ........................................................................................ 31
Subsidies and Out-of-Country Benchmarks ..................................................................... 32
Prohibition on the Use of “Zeroing” to Calculate Dumping Margins ............................... 33
Simultaneous Dumping and Trade-Distorting Subsidization ............................................ 36
Interpretations of the Safeguards Provisions .................................................................... 37
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 40

Tables

Table A-1. Interpreting the “Ordinary Meaning” of “Public Body” .............................................. 42

Appendixes
Appendix. Applying the Rules of Treaty Interpretation to the WTO Agreements ........................ 42

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 45

Congressional Research Service

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Background
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a 164-member international organization created to
oversee and administer multilateral trade rules, serve as a forum for trade negotiations, and
resolve trade disputes.1 The international agreements that established the WTO set forth rules and
disciplines for practices that affect international trade in goods and services.2 These rules can be
enforced by the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism, which hears trade disputes between
members concerning these rules and may decide whether a member has complied with its WTO
obligations.3 As part of this mechanism, the system has an Appellate Body, which is an appeals
tribunal that may review a WTO panel’s legal interpretations and uphold, modify, or reverse
them.4 The WTO’s architects, including the United States, anticipated that the enforceability of
WTO rules through the dispute settlement mechanism, with the opportunity for appeal to the
Appellate Body, would further the multilateral trading system’s stability and predictability and
avoid tit-for-tat trade retaliation, thereby benefiting the global economy.5
Although the United States played a central role in the WTO’s development, including its
adjudicative processes, some Members of Congress and executive branch officials have raised
concerns about the Organization’s dispute settlement mechanism. For example, in the Trade Act
of 2002, Congress established objectives that specifically addressed dispute settlement and
appeals at the WTO for U.S. representatives to pursue when negotiating reforms to the WTO
system.6 These objectives sought the amendment of the WTO Agreements to ensure that WTO
panels and the Appellate Body would defer to the “fact-finding and technical expertise” of U.S.
agencies investigating foreign trade practices—a perennial issue in WTO disputes involving U.S.
trade remedy measures.7 Officials from the Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR) have also frequently expressed concerns about the Appellate Body’s interpretations of
the WTO Agreements, among other issues, at meetings of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body
(DSB), the committee composed of all WTO members that oversees the dispute settlement
mechanism.8

1 For an overview of the WTO, see CRS Report R45417, World Trade Organization: Overview and Future Direction,
coordinated by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs.
2 For a link to all of the WTO Agreements discussed in this report, see Legal Texts: The WTO Agreements, WORLD
TRADE ORG., https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/final_e.htm.
3 See generally WTO, Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/28-dsu.pdf [hereinafter DSU]. Some trade practitioners, scholars, and
other observers regard the multilateral WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism as the “crown jewel” of the international
rules-based trading system. See, e.g., Ambassador Ujal Singh Bhatia, 2018 Chair of the Appellate Body, Address at the
Launch of the WTO Appellate Body’s Annual Report for 2018 (May 28, 2019), https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/
dispu_e/ab_report_launch_e.htm; Pascal Lamy, Former WTO Director-General, Address at Bilkent University, Ankara
(Mar. 15, 2013), https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl272_e.htm.
4 DSU, supra note 3, art. 17; Appellate Body Faces Challenges in Meeting Demands for Its Services, Chairman Warns,
WORLD TRADE ORG. NEWS (June 8, 2017), https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/ab_08jun17_e.htm.
5 See Understanding the WTO: Settling Disputes, A Unique Contribution, WORLD TRADE ORG., https://www.wto.org/
english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/disp1_e.htm [hereinafter WTO, A Unique Contribution].
6 Trade Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-210, § 2102 (Aug. 6, 2002) (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 3802).
7 19 U.S.C. § 3802(b)(12)(C). For more on trade remedies, see CRS Report RL32371, Trade Remedies: A Primer, by
Vivian C. Jones.
8 USTR, REPORT ON THE APPELLATE BODY OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, at B-8 (2020), https://ustr.gov/sites/
default/files/Report_on_the_Appellate_Body_of_the_World_Trade_Organization.pdf [hereinafter USTR REPORT]
(recounting statements of USTR representatives criticizing, among other things, the Appellate Body’s interpretations of
the WTO Agreements in specific disputes and issuance of advisory opinions).
Congressional Research Service
1

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Although the United States initially sought to address perceived problems with the WTO’s
dispute settlement mechanism through negotiations, President Barack Obama’s Administration
departed from that practice. In 2011, the USTR decided not to support the reappointment of the
previously U.S.-nominated Appellate Body member, Jennifer Hillman, reportedly indicating that
while there was no other U.S. nominee “in mind,” her reappointment “did not align with the
administration’s plans for the institution.”9 Following this announcement, in 2014, the Obama
Administration opposed Kenya’s nomination of James Gathii, and, in 2016, blocked the
reappointment of Appellate Body member Seung Wha Chang, citing “abstract discussions” in
Chang’s opinions that allegedly exceeded the Appellate Body’s mandate.10
Although the DSB later filled Chang’s vacant seat during the Obama Administration, the Trump
Administration subsequently blocked the appointment of all other members as their terms
expired.11 As a result, on December 11, 2019, the WTO’s Appellate Body lost its quorum of three
members necessary for the Body to decide appeals of WTO dispute settlement panel decisions
and issue final reports.12 Thus, if a WTO member appeals a panel report, the DSB can no longer
adopt such reports unless the disputing parties agree to consider the report as final.13 The DSB
also cannot oversee the losing member’s implementation of a panel ruling or authorize the
prevailing member to engage in trade retaliation if the losing member ignores the panel’s
recommendations.14 This situation may persist unless WTO members agree to reform the system
or to use an alternate dispute settlement mechanism, such as an interim appeals system as some
members have done.15 To date, the Biden Administration has continued the Trump
Administration’s approach by blocking Appellate Body nominations, linking a potential shift in
position to the outcome of ongoing dispute settlement reform negotiations.16
In withholding its approval of new Appellate Body members, the USTR has pointed to Article 3.2
of the WTO’s Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
(DSU), which states as follows: “Recommendations and rulings of the DSB cannot add to or

9 PAUL BLUSTEIN, SCHISM: CHINA, AMERICA, AND THE FRACTURING OF THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM 161 (2019).
10 Manfred Elsig, Mark Pollack, & Gregory Shaffer, The U.S. Is Causing a Major Controversy in the World Trade
Organization. Here’s What’s Happening, WASH. POST (June 6, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2016/06/06/the-u-s-is-trying-to-block-the-reappointment-of-a-wto-judge-here-are-3-things-to-know/;
Statement by the United States at the Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on May 23, 2016 (WT/DSB/M/379), at
14, https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/May23.DSB_.pdf (“It is not the role of the Appellate
Body to engage in abstract discussions or to divert an appeal away from the issues before it in order to employ
resources on matters that are not presented in, and will not help resolve, a dispute.”).
11 Sunanta Kangvalkulkij, WTO Dispute Settlement Body—Developments in 2018, WORLD TRADE ORG. (Apr. 10,
2019), https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/sunata_19_e.htm.
12 For more on this issue, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10385, The WTO’s Appellate Body Loses Its Quorum: Is This the
Beginning of the End for the “Rules-Based Trading System”?, by Brandon J. Murrill.
13 DSU, supra note 3, art. 16.
14 See id., arts. 21–22.
15 The European Union and several other countries (but not the United States) have agreed on an interim appeals
mechanism until WTO members agree to reform the Appellate Body. Statement on a Mechanism for Developing,
Documenting and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of WTO Disputes: Addendum, WTO DOC.
JOB/DSB/1/Add.12 (Apr. 30, 2020); The WTO Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arrangement Gets Operational, EUR.
COMM’N, (Aug. 3, 2020), https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2176.
16 Statement by the United States at the Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on February 22, 2021,
https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/Feb22.DSB_.Stmt_.as_.deliv_.fin_.public.pdf (“The United
States is not in a position to support the proposed decision. The United States continues to have systemic concerns with
the Appellate Body. As Members know, the United States has raised and explained its systemic concerns for more than
16 years and across multiple U.S. Administrations.”); see also Minutes of the Dispute Settlement Body on February 22,
2021, ¶ 6.13, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/449 (Mar. 24, 2021).
Congressional Research Service
2

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements.”17 The USTR’s primary
concern related to this article is that the appeals tribunal has allegedly exceeded its mandate when
interpreting the WTO Agreements, thereby “adding to or diminishing rights or obligations” of
WTO members without their consent, in particular when deciding disputes involving subsidies,
trade remedies, and technical product standards.18 Moreover, the USTR is concerned that the
Appellate Body has in effect created new obligations for WTO members without following the
formal interpretation or amendment processes provided for in the WTO Agreements.19 The USTR
maintains that this so-called “judicial activism” restricts the United States’ ability “to regulate in
the public interest or protect U.S. workers and businesses against unfair trading practices.”20
Additional U.S. concerns revolve around certain procedural issues, such as the Appellate Body’s
failure to meet the 90-day deadline for appeals; its alleged treatment of its rulings as precedential;
and its alleged failure to accept a dispute settlement panel’s findings regarding a member’s
domestic law as an unreviewable factual matter.21 Other WTO members have shared some of
these concerns.22 However, Appellate Body members, WTO members, and some scholars have
defended the Appellate Body’s work, noting the practical constraints of international dispute
settlement; the Appellate Body’s lack of resources; the ambiguity in the text of the WTO
Agreement provisions governing the Appellate Body’s operations and WTO members’
obligations; and the inherent flexibility in treaty interpretation.23
This report examines major disputes, most of which involve the United States as a complainant or
respondent, in which the USTR has alleged that the Appellate Body exceeded its mandate or
interpreted the WTO Agreements incorrectly.24 It discusses the provisions of the WTO
Agreements at issue and the major holdings of these selected disputes. It also seeks to situate the
USTR’s complaints, which have persisted through several presidential administrations, within the
broader context of debates about how the Appellate Body construes the WTO Agreements and
carries out its role in relation to WTO members.25

17 DSU, supra note 3, art. 3.2.
18 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 81–120.
19 See generally Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1994, arts. IX, X,
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto.pdf.
20 USTR, 2019 TRADE POLICY AGENDA AND 2018 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE
TRADE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM 6, 148 (2019), https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2019_Trade_Policy_Agenda_and_
2018_Annual_Report.pdf.
21 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 25–80.
22 See Cimino-Isaacs, supra note 1.
23 See, e.g., Letter from Former WTO Appellate Body Members to Chairman of Dispute Settlement Body (May 31,
2016), https://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/files/abletter.pdf (letter from all living former Appellate Body members
stating: “From time to time, one or more of the Members of the WTO may differ with a decision reached by the
Appellate Body, but this does not necessarily mean that the Appellate Body has acted outside its mandate in reaching
that decision”); Yuka Fukunaga, Interpretative Authority of the Appellate Body: Replies to the Criticism by the United
States, in THE APPELLATE BODY OF THE WTO AND ITS REFORM 167 (Chang-fa Lo et al. eds., 2020).
24 This report examines a few disputes in which the United States was not a primary party, particularly those that the
USTR has identified as examples of disputes in which the Appellate Body exceeded its authority or incorrectly
interpreted the WTO Agreements. Not all of the disputes discussed in this report resulted in adverse rulings against the
United States. In several cases in which the United States prevailed, the USTR nonetheless raised concerns about the
Appellate Body’s actions. See, e.g., Statement by the United States at the Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on
October 5, 2011, at 1–2, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/304 (Dec. 2, 2011) (raising concerns about the Appellate Body’s
failure to meet the 90-day deadline for issuing reports).
25 This report does not examine proposals for reforming the dispute settlement system—an issue addressed by other
CRS reports. For more information on proposals to reform WTO dispute settlement, see Cimino-Isaacs, supra note 1.
Congressional Research Service
3

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Origins of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism
The architects of the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism built upon a system for settling
international trade disputes that the United States and other countries established in the 1940s. In
the aftermath of World War II, the United States led efforts to establish an institution that would
serve as a forum for cooperation among member countries on international trade.26 However,
unlike two other postwar international organizations proposed to address global economic issues
(i.e., the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank), the proposed International Trade
Organization (ITO) never came to fruition.27 Nonetheless, the negotiating parties agreed to apply
basic trade rules in the more limited General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947).28 The
parties to the GATT 1947 applied the Agreement from 1948 until it became incorporated into the
Uruguay Round Agreements that established the WTO in 1995.29
The GATT 1947 contained a mechanism for resolving trade disputes involving a country’s
alleged noncompliance with its obligations.30 However, critics argued that the dispute settlement
process took too long and that any one country, including the respondent or losing country in a
dispute, could block the formation of a panel or the adoption of an unfavorable decision.31 Thus,
during negotiations that led to the WTO’s creation, the GATT’s contracting parties determined to
implement reforms.32 The Uruguay Round of negotiations, which took place from 1986 to 1994,
sought to reform the GATT 1947 and led to the creation of a new dispute settlement mechanism
to resolve trade disputes among WTO members. This mechanism sought to correct perceived
problems with the GATT 1947 system, including by
 setting specific time frames for resolving disputes in a prompt manner;
 preventing a member from blocking the formation of a panel;
 requiring the automatic adoption of panel and Appellate Body reports unless all
member countries, including the prevailing member, objected (the “reverse
consensus rule”); and
 establishing a standing Appellate Body that would hear appeals from panel
decisions to correct a panel’s errors.33

26 See, e.g., U.S. State Department, Suggested Charter for an International Trade Organization of the United Nations
(1946), https://law.drupal.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/resources/library/IntlTradeLaw/
1946%20Suggested%20Charter%20for%20an%20International%20Trade%20Organization%20of%20the%20United%
20Nations.pdf.
27 See The GATT Years: From Havana to Marrakesh, WORLD TRADE ORG., https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/
whatis_e/tif_e/fact4_e.htm.
28 See id.
29 See WTO, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Apr. 15, 1994, https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/
legal_e/06-gatt_e.htm [hereinafter GATT]. For a detailed history of the evolution from GATT 1947 to the end of the
Uruguay Round that established the WTO, see, e.g., FRANCINE MCKENZIE, GATT AND GLOBAL ORDER IN THE POSTWAR
ERA (2020).
30 WTO, A Unique Contribution, supra note 5. See also GATT, supra note 29, arts. XXII, XXIII.
31 WTO, A Unique Contribution, supra note 5.
32 Id.
33 Id.; see also Historic Development of the WTO Dispute Settlement System, WORLD TRADE ORG.,
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c2s1p1_e.htm.
Congressional Research Service
4

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Under WTO dispute settlement rules, members must first attempt to settle their disputes through
consultations.34 If consultations fail, the member initiating a dispute may request the
establishment of a dispute settlement panel composed of trade experts to determine whether
another WTO member has violated WTO rules.35 Prior to December 2019, the WTO Appellate
Body heard appeals of these panel reports.36 If a WTO panel or the Appellate Body rendered an
adverse decision against a WTO member, and the DSB adopted that ruling, the WTO member
would be expected to remove the offending measure, generally within a reasonable period of
time, offer compensation, or be subject to certain countermeasures allowed under the rules.37
Compensation at the WTO does not refer to a WTO member making payments to another
member; it refers to the losing member offering other trade benefits, such as lowering tariffs, to
the prevailing member.38 Countermeasures might include the complaining member imposing
higher duties on imports of selected products from the member whose acts were found to be
WTO-inconsistent.39
Between the time the United States entered the WTO and July 2021, the United States filed 124
dispute cases against other members.40 Other WTO members have filed 156 disputes against the
United States.41 Many of these disputes did not result in final panel or Appellate Body decisions;
in fact, many disputes do not proceed beyond the consultations phase.
Since the Appellate Body lost its quorum to consider appeals in December 2019, WTO dispute
proceedings have continued, but some panel reports have not become final due to a WTO
member’s choice to appeal the report.42 Concerns about the United States’ ongoing decision to

34 DSU, supra note 3, art. 4.
35 Id. arts. 3–6.
36 Id. art. 17.1.
37 Id. arts. 21–22. WTO members whose measures are deemed inconsistent with WTO obligations and not justified by
an exception are expected to implement the panel and/or Appellate Body report. Id. art. 21.3. That is, the defending
member must withdraw, modify, or replace its WTO-inconsistent measures. See id. If a disagreement arises as to
whether the defending member has implemented the report, a WTO panel may be convened to hear a dispute over
compliance issues. Id. art. 21.5.
38 See The Process – Stages in a Typical WTO Dispute Settlement Case, WORLD TRADE ORG., https://www.wto.org/
english/tratop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c6s9p1_e.htm (noting that compensation must be consistent with WTO
rules, including those that require nondiscriminatory tariff treatment, which partly explains why WTO members rarely
agree to such compensation).
39 See DSU, supra note 3, art. 22.3. Ultimately, when a defending member fails to implement a panel or Appellate
Body report within the established compliance period, the prevailing member may request that the defending member
negotiate a compensation agreement. Id. art. 22.2. If such negotiations are not requested, or if an agreement is not
reached, the prevailing member may also request authorization to impose certain trade sanctions against the
noncomplying member. Id. art. 22.2–22.3. Specifically, the WTO may authorize the prevailing member to suspend
tariff concessions or other trade obligations that it otherwise owes the noncomplying member under a WTO agreement.
Id. These suspensions of concessions should generally be in the same sector as that involved in the dispute, but if this is
impracticable or ineffective, then the WTO member imposing the countermeasures may suspend concessions in other
sectors covered by the relevant agreement in dispute or, as a last resort, covered by another WTO agreement. Id. art.
22.3.
40 Disputes by Member, WORLD TRADE ORG., https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_e.htm.
The United States has brought the most complaints of any WTO member, with the EU as the second most frequent
complainant (104). The next three most frequent complainants are Canada (40); Brazil (33); and Japan (28). Id.
41 See id.
42 See, e.g., Notification of an Appeal by the United States Under Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, United States—Tariff Measures on Certain Goods from China, WTO
DOC. WT/DS543/10 (Oct. 27, 2020); Notification of an Appeal by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Under Article 16.4
and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, and Under Rule
20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Saudi Arabia—Measures Concerning the Protection of
Congressional Research Service
5

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

block nominations to the Appellate Body motivated other WTO members to endorse an informal
process to reform the Appellate Body in December 2018.43 Although this process was initially
designed to avoid the loss of a quorum, since December 2019, it has focused on finding a
consensus on reform that will allow all WTO members to support new nominations and the
revival, in some form, of the Appellate Body.44 Meanwhile, disputes between the European Union
and a number of other WTO members may be resolved under an interim appeals mechanism
pursuant to Article 25 of the DSU.45
WTO Disputes in Which the USTR Alleges the
Appellate Body Exceeded Its Mandate
One of the USTR’s criticisms of the WTO’s Appellate Body is that it has exceeded the mandate
WTO members established for it by (1) disregarding the deadline for issuing a decision;
(2) allowing former Appellate Body members to decide cases; (3) reviewing dispute panels’
findings of fact; (4) issuing advisory opinions; (5) treating prior decisions as binding precedent;
(6) declining to rule on the WTO-compatibility of measures that expire after panel establishment;
and (7) encroaching on other WTO bodies.46 This section surveys the relevant provisions of the
WTO Agreements, as well as examples of WTO dispute settlement cases, related to each of these
issues. It also seeks to contextualize the USTR’s complaints within the broader debate about how
the Appellate Body construes the WTO agreements and fulfills its role in disputes and in relation
to the WTO members.
Disregarding the Deadline for Issuing a Report
As noted above, parties to the GATT, which preceded the WTO, expressed concerns that the
GATT’s dispute settlement system did not resolve trade disputes in a timely manner.47 The
WTO’s DSU states that the prompt settlement of disputes is “essential to the effective functioning
of the WTO and the maintenance of a proper balance between the rights and obligations of
Members.”48 In rules applicable to the Appellate Body, the WTO members agreed that as “a
general rule, the proceedings shall not exceed 60 days from the date a party to the dispute
formally notifies its decision to appeal to the date the Appellate Body circulates its report.”49
Under these rules, the Appellate Body could extend the time period for an additional 30 days
when it “consider[ed] that it [could not] provide its report within 60 days,” so long as it informed

Intellectual Property Rights, WTO DOC. WT/DS567/7 (July 30, 2020).
43 General Council, Minutes of Meeting, WTO DOC. WT/GC/M/175 (Dec. 12, 2018).
44 For more information on proposals to reform WTO dispute settlement, see Cimino-Isaacs, supra note 1.
45 See supra note 15.
46 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 25–80.
47 WTO, A Unique Contribution, supra note 5.
48 DSU, supra note 3, art. 3.3.
49 Id. art. 17.5. The Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) provides a shorter
timeline for appeals involving prohibited subsidies. WTO, SCM Agreement, art. 4.9, https://www.wto.org/english/
docs_e/legal_e/24-scm_01_e.htm (“Where a panel report is appealed, the Appellate Body shall issue its decision within
30 days from the date when the party to the dispute formally notifies its intention to appeal. When the Appellate Body
considers that it cannot provide its report within 30 days, it shall inform the DSB in writing of the reasons for the delay
together with an estimate of the period within which it will submit its report. In no case shall the proceedings exceed 60
days.”).
Congressional Research Service
6

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

the DSB in writing and explained the reasons for the delay.50 In no case could the proceedings
exceed beyond 90 days.51
In several WTO cases, the USTR complained that the Appellate Body exceeded the time allowed
for issuing a report without first obtaining the disputing parties’ agreement. In 2011, for instance,
this issue arose in United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and
Light Truck Tyres from China, a case in which the Appellate Body upheld a WTO panel’s findings
that U.S. safeguards aimed at addressing a surge of tire imports from China did not violate U.S.
obligations under the WTO Agreements.52 Following the Appellate Body’s ruling, the DSB met to
consider the report’s adoption.53 At the October 2011 DSB meeting, the U.S. representative
commended the WTO panel and Appellate Body on their favorable rulings.54 However, the
United States expressed concerns about the Appellate Body’s failure to issue its report within 90
days as Article 17.5 of the DSU requires.55 Specifically, the United States noted that, for the first
time, the Appellate Body extended the time period for issuing a report beyond 90 days without
“consulting with, and obtaining the agreement of, the parties to the dispute.”56 While
acknowledging the Appellate Body’s heavy workload, the United States alleged the Body failed
to explain the reasons for the delay to the disputing parties or WTO membership, or furnish the
disputing parties with the opportunity to provide input about the delay.57

50 DSU, supra note 3, art. 17.5.
51 Id. The DSU directed the Appellate Body to establish Working Procedures to govern its proceedings in consultation
with the WTO’s Director-General and the head of the DSB and communicate them to the WTO membership. Id. art.
17.9 (“Working procedures shall be drawn up by the Appellate Body in consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and
the Director-General, and communicated to the Members for their information.”). In fact, in Rule 23bis of the Working
Procedures, which addresses amendments to Notices of Appeal, the Appellate Body references “the requirement to
circulate the appellate report within the time-period set out in Article 17.5 of the DSU or, as appropriate, Article 4.9 of
the SCM Agreement.” Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WORLD TRADE ORG., https://www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/dispu_e/ab_e.htm.
52 Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck
Tyres from China, WTO DOC. WT/DS399/AB/R, ¶¶ 339–40 (Sept. 5, 2011).
53 See United States—Tyres, Statement by the United States at the Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on October
5, 2011, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/304 (Dec. 2, 2011).
54 Id. at 1.
55 Id. at 2.
56 Id.
57 Id. The United States raised similar concerns following several other Appellate Body decisions. See, e.g., Ukraine—
Ammonium Nitrate (Russia) (DS493): Statement by the United States, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on
September 30, 2019 (WT/DSB/M/434), at 13, https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/
Sept30.DSB_.Stmt_.as-deliv.fin_.public.pdf (arguing that an Appellate Body report “was not issued within 90 days,
consistent with the requirements of Article 17 of the DSU, [and, thus,] it [was] not an ‘Appellate Body report’ under
Article 17, and therefore it [was] not subject to the adoption procedures reflected in Article 17.14”); Argentina—
Measures Affecting the Import of Goods (DS438, DS444, DS445): Statement by the United States, Meeting of the
Dispute Settlement Body on January 26, 2015 (WT/DSB/M/356), at 10, https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/
uploads/sites/290/Jan26.DSB_.Stmt_.as-delivered.Fin_.Public.pdf (“The Appellate Body also continued its recent
deviation from its pre-2011 practice and failed to consult with the parties or seek their agreement when it became clear
that it would be unable to meet the DSU deadline. Instead, the Appellate Body yet again merely informed the parties
via form letter that it would not circulate its report within the prescribed time limit.”); China—Raw Materials (United
States, EC, Mexico) (DS394, DS395, DS398): Statement by the United States, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body
on February 22, 2012 (WT/DSB/M/312), ¶ 106 (“In the Appellate Body’s 60-day notice pursuant to Article 17.5 of the
DSU, the Appellate Body had provided an estimated circulation date of 31 January 2012, or, if the US representative
had counted correctly, 153 days after initiation of the appeal. However, contrary to past practice, the Appellate Body
had not mentioned in its notification that the parties had agreed at the outset that the appeal would exceed 90 days.
Further, the agreement by the parties had not been reflected in the Report of the Appellate Body, as had also been the
practice of the Appellate Body in prior disputes.” (citations omitted)); European Communities—Definitive Anti-
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 17 The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

In disputes where the Appellate Body has exceeded the DSU’s deadline by taking more than 90
days to issue its decision, it could be argued that it has exceeded its mandate. The USTR’s
complaint about the Appellate Body exceeding the deadline for issuing a report, however, is
arguably not solely about deadlines, but also about broader concerns about how the Appellate
Body operates. For instance, prior to issuing a decision outside of the DSU’s time frame, the
Appellate Body has typically notified the disputing parties.58 In these notifications, the Appellate
Body has explained that it is issuing the report late, often because of the complexity of the issues
in dispute and limited staff resources.59 When the United States first raised the timeliness issue, it
criticized the Appellate Body for not consulting the disputing parties before issuing a notice of
delay.60 This suggests that the United States may sometimes accept the practical need for an
extension, but is more concerned about lack of transparency or “due process” in how the
Appellate Body relates to and communicates with disputing parties.
Additionally, the U.S. complaint may reflect a sense that the Appellate Body has taken too much
control of the proceedings away from the parties when it fails to consult them in advance of
issuing a notice of delay.61 The United States has also argued that the Appellate Body, in
exceeding the time for issuing a report and in neglecting to notify third parties to the dispute,62
has enabled itself to write lengthy reports that include advisory opinions on issues not raised by
the parties.63 Thus, U.S. complaints about the Appellate Body requiring additional time to
complete its reports may reflect a deeper concern that the Appellate Body is using extensions of
time to exceed its mandate in other ways.

dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China (DS397): Statement by the United States, Meeting of
the Dispute Settlement Body on July 28, 2011 (WT/DSB/M/301), https://geneva.usmission.gov/2011/07/28/statement-
by-the-united-states-at-the-july-28-2011-dsb-meeting/ (stating that, even as a third party to a dispute between other
members, the United States was entitled to notice of the delay and an explanation).
58 See, e.g., Communication from the Appellate Body, United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Certain
Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from China, WTO DOC. WT/DS399/7, at 1 (July 27, 2011).
59 See, e.g., Communication from the Appellate Body, China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw
Materials, WTO Docs. WT/DS394/13, WT/DS395/13, WT/DS398/12, at 1 (Dec. 8, 2011); Communication from the
Appellate Body, European Communities—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from
China, WTO DOC. WT/DS397/9, at 1 (July 5, 2011).
60 See United States–Tyres, Statement by the United States at the Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on October
5, 2011, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/304, at 2 (Dec. 2, 2011).
61 The United States’ free trade agreement (FTA) practice may support this reading of the USTR’s complaint. In its
most recent FTA, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, dispute panels must issue initial reports within 150 days,
although in “exceptional cases” they may notify the disputing parties that they require an extension of up to 30 days.
Longer extensions may be authorized with the disputing parties’ consent. See Agreement between the United States of
America, the United Mexican States, and Canada art. 31.17, Nov. 30, 2018, as amended by Protocol of Amendment,
Dec. 10, 2019. Other FTAs also impose deadlines to which panels must adhere “unless the Parties agree otherwise.”
See, e.g., Agreement Between the United States of America and Australia art. 21.9, May 18, 2004; Agreement Between
the United States of America and the Republic of Korea art. 22.11, Dec. 3, 2010, as amended by Protocol of
Amendment, Sept. 24, 2018.
62 Thailand—Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines (DS371): Statement by the United
States at the Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on July 15, 2011, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/299, at 4.
63 Statement by the United States Concerning Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on June 22, 2018, at 18–19,
https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/Jun22.DSB_.Stmt_.as-delivered.fin_.public.rev_.pdf. For
more on the Appellate Body’s purported issuance of advisory opinions, see “Issuing Advisory Opinions” infra.
Congressional Research Service
8

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Allowing Former Appellate Body Members to Decide Cases
Another USTR concern about the WTO Appellate Body is that it has allowed members whose
terms of office have expired to decide cases assigned to them during their term.64 The DSU
provides that the DSB “shall appoint persons to serve on the Appellate Body for a four-year
term,” that “each person may be reappointed once,” and that “[v]acancies shall be filled as they
arise.”65 The DSU’s text does not address whether an Appellate Body member may serve beyond
the end of his or her term. However, the DSU directed the Appellate Body to adopt Working
Procedures to govern dispute settlement proceedings.66 When promulgating its procedural rules,
the Appellate Body interpreted the DSU as granting it the authority to extend a member’s term in
limited circumstances. Rule 15 of these procedures states as follows:
A person who ceases to be a Member of the Appellate Body may, with the authorization
of the Appellate Body and upon notification to the DSB, complete the disposition of any
appeal to which that person was assigned while a Member, and that person shall, for that
purpose only, be deemed to continue to be a Member of the Appellate Body.67
The Appellate Body has therefore allowed some members to continue to serve after their terms
have expired in order to complete an appeal they had been working on prior to their term’s
expiration.
At several DSB meetings following the conclusion of a case in which an Appellate Body member
served to complete an appeal after the expiration of his or her term, the United States has raised
objections. For example, after the Appellate Body’s decision in European Communities—
Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, the United States brought a compliance
proceeding against the European Union, arguing it continued to subsidize Airbus in violation of
its WTO obligations.68 Although the Appellate Body issued a ruling favorable to the United
States, the U.S. representative nonetheless raised concerns that the Appellate Body allowed
members to serve on the tribunal long after their terms had expired without DSB approval.69 In
other statements, the United States has argued that the Appellate Body, in its application of Rule
15, has violated the DSU by effectively appointing former members to serve on its panel—a task

64 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 32.
65 DSU, supra note 3, art. 17.2.
66 Id. art. 17.9.
67 Working Procedures for Appellate Review: Rule 15, WORLD TRADE ORG., https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/
dispu_e/ab_e.htm#:~:text=Working%20procedures%20%20for%20appellate%20review%201%201., organization%20
or%20any%20private%20source.%20More%20items...%20.
68 See Appellate Body Report, European Communities and Certain Member State—Measures Affecting Trade in Large
Civil Aircraft (Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States), WTO DOC. WT/DS316/AB/RW, ¶ 1.1 (May
15, 2018).
69 European Communities—Large Civil Aircraft (Article 21.5—US) (DS316): Statement by the United States, Meeting
of the Dispute Settlement Body on May 28, 2018, at 15, https://geneva.usmission.gov/2018/05/28/statements-by-the-
united-states-at-the-may-28-2018-dsb-meeting/ (“As the United States explained at the November meeting of the DSB
in the context of the Indonesia—Horticultural Products, Animals, and Animal Products dispute, Mr. Ramirez’s term
expired on June 30, 2017. The DSB has taken no action to permit him to continue to serve as an Appellate Body
member, and, therefore, he was not an Appellate Body member on the date of circulation of this report. Similarly, Mr.
Van den Bossche’s term expired on December 11, 2017, and the DSB also has taken no action to permit him to
continue to serve as an Appellate Body member.”).
Congressional Research Service
9

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

delegated to the DSB by the DSU.70 According to the United States, reports produced by
Appellate Body members whose terms have expired are invalid.71
Differences in the way in which the United States and the Appellate Body interpret the DSU
reflect a divergence in how to interpret “gaps” in the WTO Agreements. The U.S. position seems
to reflect a strict reading of the agreements under which the Appellate Body could not promulgate
and apply Rule 15 because the WTO members did not expressly permit the adoption of such a
procedural rule. Under this view, such a practice would be valid only if the DSU or DSB
explicitly permitted Appellate Body members to complete pending appeals when their terms
expired (as the statutes creating the International Criminal Court72 and International Court of
Justice73 do).
Rule 15 represents a flexible and pragmatic approach to interpreting the DSU, which
acknowledges that unforeseen situations invariably arise with regard to legal texts and, absent an
express instruction not to “fill the gap,” the relevant body or institution may adopt an
interpretation to address the issue.74 In other words, because the DSU directs the Appellate Body
to draft rules of procedure and does not expressly prohibit these rules from addressing the
resolution of pending cases when an Appellate Body member’s term lapses, Rule 15 is a
permissible exercise of the Appellate Body’s rulemaking authority. As the Appellate Body has
expressed, Rule 15 “has ensured the efficient functioning of the Appellate Body whenever its
composition changed,”75 and reflects the practices of many other international organizations that
allow outgoing arbitrators to complete a case or appeal.76 Allowing Appellate Body members to
serve in these circumstances may avoid a scenario in which the Appellate Body might have to
reconsider an appeal from the beginning with a new panel of appellate judges—or simply
discontinue an ongoing appeal—because one of its member’s terms has ended.77 Whether this
practice is desirable or defensible depends on how one views the appropriate role of the Appellate
Body with regard to addressing “gaps” in the WTO Agreements, particularly where the Appellate
Body has been given a general authority to create rules of procedure.

70 Statement by the United States Concerning Appellate Body Matters, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on
February 28, 2018, at 10-13, https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/Feb28.DSB_.Stmt_.as-
delivered.fin_.public-1.pdf (“As we have stated before, the Appellate Body simply does not have the authority to deem
someone who is not an Appellate Body member to be a member. It is the DSB that has a responsibility under the DSU
to decide whether a person whose term of appointment has expired should continue serving.”).
71 See Ukraine—Anti-dumping Measures on Ammonium Nitrate (DS493): Statement by the United States, Meeting of
the Dispute Settlement Body on September 30, 2019 (WT/DSB/M/434), at 15, https://geneva.usmission.gov/wpcontent/
uploads/sites/290/Sept30.DSB_.Stmt_.as-deliv.fin_.public.pdf. Despite its objections, the United States nevertheless
voted to adopt the Appellate Body report. Id.
72 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 36.10, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 3 (for judges of a Trial or
Appeals chamber).
73 Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 13.3, June 26, 1945, 33 U.N.T.S. 933.
74 By comparison, consider the approach taken by U.S. executive agencies, which often “fill gaps” or lend more
precision to undefined terms in statutes. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 165 (2007) (“We have
previously pointed out that the ‘power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created . . . program
necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by
Congress.’” (internal quotation omitted)).
75 Appellate Body Report, Background Note on Rule 15 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Body Review, Annex
2 (Nov. 24, 2017).
76 Id.
77 Steve Charnovitz, A Defense of the Beleaguered WTO Appellate Body, IELP BLOG (May 9, 2019),
https://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2019/05/a-defense-of-the-beleaguered-wto-appellate-body.html.
Congressional Research Service
10

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Reviewing Panel Findings of Fact
The USTR has also alleged that the Appellate Body improperly reviews WTO dispute settlement
panels’ factual findings.78 The DSU’s text does not clearly address whether the Appellate Body
may review a panel’s factual determinations. Article 11 of the DSU, which establishes the role of
WTO panels, provides that a panel should
make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of
the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with the relevant covered
agreements, and make such other findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in the covered agreements.79
Article 17.6, which addresses Appellate Body reports, provides that an “appeal shall be limited to
issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel.”80 The
agreement does not further clarify which issues on appeal constitute “issues of law” or “legal
interpretations” subject to appellate review. Controversy over the Appellate Body’s review of a
panel’s factual findings generally concerns two issues: (1) the Appellate Body’s apparently
shifting standard of review of factual findings; and (2) the Appellate Body’s review of a panel’s
factual determinations regarding the meaning and operation of a WTO member’s domestic laws.
General Factual Determinations
A WTO member appealing a panel report may lodge a so-called “Article 11 claim.”81 In general,
such claims allege that the panel failed to make an “objective assessment” of the facts of the case
as required by Article 11 of the DSU.82 The United States has complained that the Appellate
Body, in resolving these Article 11 claims, has applied differing and increasingly less deferential
standards of review to WTO panels’ factual determinations that find no basis in the WTO
Agreements. For example, in 1998, the Appellate Body articulated the standard of review as
whether the panel committed an “egregious error that calls into question the good faith of the
panel.”83 Subsequently, it has described the standard of review as whether the panel “exceeded its
authority”; whether the panel provides “a reasoned and adequate explanation for its findings and
coherent reasoning”; and whether the panel’s review is “internally incoherent and inconsistent.”84
From the USTR’s perspective, the Appellate Body’s use of its own standards to review a panel’s
factual determinations demonstrates the Appellate Body has acted outside of its authority.85
Further, the USTR contends the Appellate Body’s gradual lowering of the standard of review
raises the risk that it may improperly “second-guess” the application of domestic law by panels

78 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 37.
79 DSU, supra note 3, art. 11.
80 Id. art. 17.6. See also id. art. 17.12 (“The Appellate Body shall address each of the issues raised in accordance with
paragraph 6 during the appellate proceeding.”); id. art. 17.13 (“The Appellate Body may uphold, modify or reverse the
legal findings and conclusions of the panel.”).
81 See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, United States—Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from
the European Communities, WTO DOC. WT/DS166/AB/R, ¶¶ 147–48 (Dec. 22, 2000).
82 See id. Article 11 requires panels to “make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective
assessment of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with the relevant covered agreements, and
make such other findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in
the covered agreements.” DSU, supra note 3, art. 11.
83 Appellate Body Report, EC—Hormones, WTO DOC. WT/DS26/AB/R, ¶ 133 (Jan. 5, 1998).
84 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 39–40 (collecting cases).
85 Id.
Congressional Research Service
11

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

and potentially even by domestic tribunals, leading “to the negative consequence of allowing and
encouraging WTO members to bring disputed domestic law issues for resolution in the WTO
rather than in another member’s domestic courts.”86
Factual Determinations Concerning Domestic Law
Another USTR concern is the Appellate Body’s review of panel findings that interpret a WTO
member’s domestic laws. To determine whether a WTO member’s law or other measure violates
the WTO Agreements, WTO panels sometimes must decide on the meaning of a member’s
domestic law. However, the DSU does not specifically indicate whether such panel rulings
involve “issues of law” or “legal interpretations” subject to Appellate Body review. The Appellate
Body has, in some cases, suggested that it may review a WTO panel’s determinations concerning
a member’s domestic laws, considering such determinations to be issues of law.87 The USTR,
however, considers such interpretations to be factual determinations not subject to appellate
review except in narrow circumstances under DSU Article 11.88
An example of a case in which the Appellate Body examined a WTO panel’s interpretation of
U.S. law is United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998.89 In that case, a
WTO panel considered a federal law and its implementing regulations that prevented an entity
with an interest in a trademark or trade name from renewing or enforcing, without the owner’s
consent, that trademark or trade name when it was used “in connection with” businesses or assets
confiscated by the Cuban government.90 The European Communities argued that this legal
framework violated the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS Agreement) by discriminating against intellectual property rights-holders of
Cuban origin, among other things.91 Prior to determining whether the U.S. law was WTO-
consistent, the panel interpreted the U.S. law.92
On appeal, the Appellate Body conducted its own, independent interpretation of the U.S. law,
stating, “To address the legal issues raised in this appeal, we must, therefore, necessarily examine
the Panel’s interpretation of the meaning of Section 211 under United States law.”93 Although the

86 United States—Countervailing and Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Products from China (DS449): Statement by
the United States, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on July 22, 2014 (WT/DSB/M/348),
https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/July22-DSB-Stmt-as-delivered.pdf.
87 See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, WTO DOC.
WT/DS176/AB/R, ¶ 106 (Jan. 2, 2002) (“An assessment of the consistency of Section 211 with the Articles of the
TRIPS Agreement and of the Paris Convention (1967) that have been invoked by the European Communities
necessarily requires a review of the Panel’s examination of the meaning of Section 211.”); Appellate Body Report,
India—Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WTO DOC. WT/DS50/AB/R, ¶ 68
(Dec. 19, 1997) (“And, just as it was necessary for the Panel in this case to seek a detailed understanding of the
operation of the Patents Act as it relates to the ‘administrative instructions’ in order to assess whether India had
complied with Article 70.8(a), so, too, is it necessary for us in this appeal to review the Panel’s examination of the
same Indian domestic law.”).
88 United States—Section 211 Appropriations Act (DS176): Statement by the United States, Meeting of the Dispute
Settlement Body on February 1, 2002, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/119, ¶ 27.
89 Report of the Panel, United States—Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, WTO DOC.
WT/DS176/R, ¶ 8.83 (Aug. 6, 2001).
90 Id. ¶ 2.1.
91 Id. ¶ 4.5.
92 See, e.g., id. ¶ 8.83.
93 Appellate Body Report, United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, supra note 88, ¶ 106. See
also Appellate Body Report, United States—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Products from
China, WTO DOC. WT/DS449/AB/R, ¶ 4.101 (July 7, 2014) (“Although factual aspects may be involved in the
Congressional Research Service
12

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Appellate Body generally agreed with the panel’s interpretation of the U.S. law at issue, in the
aftermath of the Section 211 case, the U.S. representative expressed concerns at a DSB meeting
that the Appellate Body violated Article 17.6 of the DSU by reviewing factual matters instead of
limiting itself to review of legal matters.94 The United States argued that only a panel could make
factual determinations concerning “what a municipal law meant and how it operated,” and that
the Appellate Body was limited to making legal determinations about “whether—given a
particular meaning and operation—the municipal law was consistent with WTO obligations.”95 In
other statements before the DSB, the United States has similarly argued that “the manner in
which a challenged measure operate[s] within a Member’s domestic system [is] a factual issue in
a dispute, not a legal issue concerning the applicability of, and conformity with, the covered
agreements.”96
Assessing the USTR’s Arguments
As the WTO Agreements do not clarify which issues on appeal constitute “legal interpretations”
or “legal findings and conclusions” subject to appellate review, it could be argued that the
Appellate Body has some leeway to address factual issues.97 The line between law and fact can be
difficult to distinguish, and applying a specific law or legal rule to facts may blur the distinction.98
Moreover, addressing legal claims may require that the appellate tribunal address interpretations
of domestic law or other factual issues. Such difficulties in distinguishing factual issues from
legal interpretations are not unique to the WTO, but arise in other legal systems that limit their
courts of appeal to reviewing points of law.99
With regard to Article 11 appeals, the literature suggests that the Appellate Body has been
inconsistent in how it determines whether a panel has made an objective assessment of the facts
of the dispute.100 Inconsistency by itself does not necessarily demonstrate that the Appellate Body
has exceeded its authority. Nonetheless, a less deferential standard of review that might enable the

individuation of the text and of some associated circumstances, an assessment of the meaning of a text of municipal law
for purposes of determining whether it complies with a provision of the covered agreements is a legal characterization.”
(internal citation omitted)).
94 United States—Section 211 Appropriations Act (DS176): Statement by the United States, Meeting of the Dispute
Settlement Body on February 1, 2002, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/119, ¶ 27 (“Under Article 17.6 of the DSU, the
Appellate Body’s review was limited to issues of law and legal interpretation, not issues of fact. In this dispute, the
Appellate Body had blurred this distinction by concluding that an examination of the meaning of municipal law – in
this case Section 211 – was within its mandate.”).
95 Id.
96 China—Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts (DS339, DS340, DS342): Statement by the United States,
Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on January 12, 2009, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/262, ¶ 5.
97 See DSU, supra note 3, art. 17.6 (“An appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the panel report and legal
interpretations developed by the panel.”); id. art. 17.13 (stating that the Appellate Body “may uphold, modify or reverse
the legal findings and conclusions of the panel”); Charnovitz, supra note 77.
98 See, e.g., Simon Lester, The Development of Standards of Appellate Review for Factual, Legal and Law Application
Questions in WTO Dispute Settlement, 4 TRADE, L. & DEV. 125, 148 (2012) (discussing the difficulties in
distinguishing between legal and factual matters in WTO Appellate Body review).
99 See, e.g., id.; Takis Tridimas, Constitutional Review of Member State Action: The Virtues and Vices of an Incomplete
Jurisdiction, 9 INT’L J. OF CONST. L. 737, 741 (2011) (discussing the Court of Justice of the European Union and
stating: “The difference between making findings of fact and providing an outcome may sometimes be difficult to draw
and has given rise to problems in national proceedings.”).
100 See, e.g., ALAN YANOVICH, General Considerations for Appeal, in PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF WTO LITIGATION 141,
147 (Marco Tulio Molina Tejada ed., 2020) (noting the Appellate Body “has not always been consistent in terms of the
threshold required to succeed on an Article 11 claim”).
Congressional Research Service
13

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Appellate Body to “second guess” a panel, as the USTR alleges, could arguably be viewed as
allowing the appeals tribunal to find or review facts in a manner divorced from their application
to the law—actions potentially contrary to the DSU.
It is unclear which, if any, of the Appellate Body’s standards for deciding whether a panel has
made an “objective assessment of the facts” the USTR believes is appropriate. The USTR’s 2020
report on the Appellate Body may suggest that it believes this part of Article 11 should never
serve as the basis for appeals.101 In other words, the USTR may believe the Appellate Body
should be limited to hearing claims that the panel misinterpreted the meaning of a WTO
Agreement, or misapplied the agreement to the facts; it should not be permitted to review whether
a panel failed to make an objective assessment of the facts. As the USTR stated in its report:
Not surprisingly, since the DSU does not provide for the Appellate Body to conduct a
review of factual findings, no provision in the DSU refers to a “standard of review” for
such an assessment. Faced with this lack of any agreed “standard of review,” the Appellate
Body asserted that Article 11 of the DSU provided such a standard. In so doing, however,
the Appellate Body again ignored the text of the DSU and simply asserted that the DSU
text said something different from what WTO Members agreed.102
As discussed, the USTR has also complained about the Appellate Body’s review of WTO panels’
interpretations of domestic law. Similar to Article 11 claims, the validity of the USTR’s concerns
may turn on the Appellate Body’s method for carrying out such review. For example, reviewing
how a panel’s interpretation of a domestic measure led to the panel’s determination of a
measure’s WTO-consistency or inconsistency may be less objectionable, as the issue is arguably
one of the Appellate Body reviewing the application of law to facts. However, treating a panel’s
characterization of a domestic measure as a reviewable issue on appeal may be more fairly
criticized as treating a factual matter as one of law.103 The Appellate Body itself has characterized
the latter as a factual matter and declined to review a panel’s characterization of a domestic
measure in some disputes.104 Given the Appellate Body’s inconsistent approach, it may be that the
USTR’s concern may be relevant to some disputes, but it may not amount to a systemic practice.
As with Article 11 appeal issues, this may suggest that the overarching issue is not general
overreach but inconsistency, which might reflect Appellate Body error rather than an intention to
exceed the Appellate Body’s mandate.
Issuing Advisory Opinions
The USTR often complains that the WTO’s Appellate Body has issued what the agency considers
to be advisory opinions when deciding an appeal—i.e., opinions that include discussion of issues
that are unnecessary to resolve the controversy.105 The WTO Agreements do not specifically
address the issue of advisory opinions. Rather, DSU Article 3.7 provides, “The aim of the dispute
settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution to a dispute.”106 The DSU limits a WTO

101 See USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 38.
102 Id.
103 See, e.g., Lester, supra note 98, at 143–44.
104 See Tania Voon & Alan Yanovich, The Facts Aside: The Limitation of WTO Appeals to Issues of Law, 40 J. WORLD
TRADE 239, 251–52 (2006).
105 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 47. As discussed below, whether the Appellate Body’s statements constitute
advisory opinions may depend on how one understands the term “advisory opinion” and the Appellate Body’s role.
106 DSU, supra note 3, art. 3.7. In an early WTO dispute, the Appellate Body stated: “Given the explicit aim of dispute
settlement that permeates the DSU, we do not consider that Article 3.2 of the DSU is meant to encourage either panels
or the Appellate Body to ‘make law’ by clarifying existing provisions of the WTO Agreement outside the context of
Congressional Research Service
14

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

panel’s standard “terms of reference” (i.e., its jurisdiction) to those matters and WTO-agreement
provisions referred to the DSB by the complaining party.107 Also, Article 17.6, which addresses
Appellate Body reports, provides that an “appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the
panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel.”108
One oft-cited example of a dispute in which the Appellate Body allegedly issued a lengthy
advisory opinion is Argentina—Measures Related to Trade in Goods and Services.109 In that case,
Panama alleged that several of Argentina’s laws regulating financial services discriminated
against countries “not cooperating for tax transparency purposes” like Panama.110 A threshold
issue in the panel’s discrimination analysis concerned whether the services and service suppliers
of Panama were “like” (generally, “comparable”) to those of Argentina and other countries.111
Without “likeness” there could be no illegal discrimination.112
The Appellate Body reversed the panel’s findings on “likeness,” determining that it had erred in
its conclusion that the services and service suppliers at issue were comparable.113 Having found
that no discrimination could have occurred, the appeals tribunal could have concluded its
analysis.114 Nonetheless, the Appellate Body continued its discrimination analysis because, in its
view, “several of the issues raised in Panama’s appeal [had] implications for the interpretation of
provisions of the GATS [General Agreement on Trade in Services].”115 Although the panel
addressed many of the issues the Appellate Body discussed in its subsequent opinion on the
discrimination issue, the United States complained that the Appellate Body’s analysis on this
issue amounted to an advisory opinion.116

resolving a particular dispute. A panel need only address those claims which must be addressed in order to resolve the
matter in issue in the dispute.” Appellate Body Report, United States—Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool
Shirts and Blouses from India, WTO DOC. WT/DS33/AB/R, 19–20 (Apr. 25, 1997).
107 DSU, supra note 3, art. 7. See also id. art. 19.1 (“Where a panel or the Appellate Body concludes that a measure is
inconsistent with a covered agreement, it shall recommend that the Member concerned bring the measure into
conformity with that agreement. In addition to its recommendations, the panel or Appellate Body may suggest ways in
which the Member concerned could implement the recommendations.”); id. art. 6.2 (“The request for the establishment
of a panel shall be made in writing. It shall indicate whether consultations were held, identify the specific measures at
issue and provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly.”); id. art.
11 (“The function of panels is to assist the DSB in discharging its responsibilities under this Understanding and the
covered agreements. Accordingly, a panel should make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an
objective assessment of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with the relevant covered
agreements, and make such other findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the
rulings provided for in the covered agreements.”).
108 Id. art. 17.6. See also id. art. 17.12 (“The Appellate Body shall address each of the issues raised in accordance with
paragraph 6 during the appellate proceeding.”); id. art. 17.13 (“The Appellate Body may uphold, modify or reverse the
legal findings and conclusions of the panel.”).
109 Appellate Body Report, Argentina—Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services, WTO DOC.
WT/DS453/AB/R, ¶ 1.1 (Apr. 14, 2016).
110 Id.
111 Id. ¶ 6.1.
112 See generally WTO, General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) arts. II:1, XVII, Apr. 15, 1994,
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/26-gats_01_e.htm.
113 Argentina—Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services, supra note 110, ¶ 6.83.
114 Id. (“Our reversal of these findings means that the Panel’s findings on ‘treatment no less favourable’ are moot
because they were based on the Panel’s findings that the relevant services and service suppliers are ‘like.’ Moreover, as
a consequence of our reversal of the Panel’s ‘likeness’ findings, there remains no finding of inconsistency with the
GATS.”).
115 Id. ¶ 6.84.
116 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 53. Argentina—Measures Related to Trade in Goods and Services (DS453):
Congressional Research Service
15

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Other disputes in which the United States has argued that the Appellate Body has issued advisory
opinions include the following:
 United States—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC—Hormones
Dispute. The United States and other WTO members argued that the Appellate
Body, after determining the United States had not violated its WTO obligations
by continuing to engage in DSB-authorized trade retaliation against the European
Communities, nonetheless issued an advisory opinion when it recommended that
the DSB instruct the parties to commence a new dispute settlement case.117
 China—Publications and Audiovisual Products. The United States argued that
the Appellate Body issued an improper advisory opinion regarding whether
China could invoke a defense under the GATT to defend against a claim brought
under its Protocol of Accession—an issue not raised by the parties on appeal or
resolved by the panel.118
 Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal
Products. The United States argued that the Appellate Body should not have
examined an issue on appeal involving a particular GATT provision when the
appellant did not ask for an analysis of the issue or defend its contested measure
under that provision.119
At an October 2018 DSB meeting, the United States made a lengthy statement regarding the
issuance of advisory opinions.120 The United States defined an “advisory opinion” as “a non-
binding statement on a point of law given by an adjudicator before a case is tried or with respect
to a hypothetical situation.”121 Characterizing the issue as “systemic” and “significant,” the
United States argued that WTO adjudicators exceeded their authority and “made law” when they
engaged in such interpretations instead of resolving a particular controversy, contrary to the
principles of the WTO Agreements.122 The United States noted that if WTO members wanted
clarity on issues that were unnecessary to a dispute’s resolution, they could seek a formal
interpretation of the relevant legal provisions using the procedure set out in Article IX:2 of the
Agreement Establishing the WTO.123 The United States also argued that the issuance of advisory
opinions resulted in lengthier proceedings, needlessly complicated WTO reports, and did not take
into account all aspects of a particular legal issue.124

Statement by the United States at the Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on May 9, 2016, WTO DOC.
WT/DSB/M/378, at 4 (“Having resolved the appeal on the first, threshold issue of ‘likeness,’ it would have been
appropriate to stop the analysis at this point. Indeed, given the unusual circumstances, there were even greater reasons
than usual to consider only those issues necessary to resolve the dispute.”).
117 Statement by the United States Concerning the Issuance of Advisory Opinions on Issues Not Necessary to Resolve a
Dispute, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on October 29, 2018, at 20–21, https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/290/Oct29.DSB_.Stmt_.as-delivered.fin_.rev_.public.pdf.
118 Id. at 22.
119 Id. at 23.
120 Id.
121 Id. at 10 (quoting Advisory Opinion, OXFORD DICTIONARIES, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
advisory_opinion).
122 Id.
123 Id. at 11–12.
124 Id. at 25–26.
Congressional Research Service
16

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Whether the Appellate Body’s statements constitute advisory opinions may depend on how one
understands the term “advisory opinion” and the Appellate Body’s role. On one hand, the
Appellate Body’s discussions in many of the cases cited by USTR might be advisory in the sense
that they were unnecessary to the dispute’s outcome, as the USTR has argued.125 However, this
view relies on a common law understanding of dicta (i.e., an adjudicator’s statements that are
unrelated to issues necessary to the resolution of a dispute), which the international law system
generally, and the WTO specifically, does not necessarily incorporate.126 Thus, it might be argued
that the USTR’s concerns on this point are misplaced.
Moreover, although the Appellate Body is required to limit its review of panel decisions “to
issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel,” a
central aim of the WTO dispute settlement system is to “clarify the existing provisions of [the
relevant WTO] agreements.”127 This objective could imply that the Appellate Body may discuss
all elements of the WTO provisions relevant to the dispute even if unnecessary to the dispute’s
outcome.128
Finally, DSU Article 17.12 obliges the Appellate Body to “address” all issues properly raised on
appeal and covered by the panel report.129 Therefore, one could argue that the Appellate Body is
required to address all elements of a relevant WTO Agreement provision that any disputing party
has included in its notice of appeal, even if unnecessary to the dispute’s outcome.130 For example,
in the Argentina—Financial Services case, the Appellate Body could have completed its report
after determining the panel erred in its “likeness” analysis, as the USTR suggested.131 However,
Panama’s separate appeal in the same dispute raised the issue of whether the panel erred in its
“less favourable treatment” (i.e., discrimination) analysis.132 Thus, under one reading of Article
17, the Appellate Body was arguably required to address the issues that Panama raised even
though they may not have been necessary to resolve the dispute.133
Declining to Make Recommendations on WTO-Inconsistent
Measures That Expire After Panel Establishment
The USTR has argued that some WTO panels have ignored the WTO dispute settlement system’s
rules by refusing to issue a recommendation on challenged measures when those measures
expired after a panel had been established to hear the case.134 The DSU directs panels and the
Appellate Body, upon finding that a WTO member has failed to comply with its WTO

125 See supra notes 117–24.
126 Henry S. Gao, Dictum on Dicta: Obiter Dicta in WTO Disputes, 17(3) WORLD TRADE REV. 509, 511, 517–19
(2018).
127 DSU, supra note 3, art. 3.2.
128 Gao, supra note 126, at 531; Giorgio Sacerdoti, A Comment on Henry Gao, ‘Dictum on Dicta: Obiter Dicta in WTO
Disputes,’” 17(3) WORLD TRADE REV. 535, 537 (2018) (also noting the role of Art. 3.2).
129 DSU, supra note 3, art. 17.12.
130 See Gao, supra note 126, at 531.
131 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 53.
132 Notification of an Appeal by Panama Under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes and Under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate
Review, Argentina—Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services, WTO DOC. WT/DS453/7, at 1 (Oct. 30,
2015).
133 See Gao, supra note 126, at 531.
134 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 64–68.
Congressional Research Service
17

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

obligations, to issue a recommendation directing that member to bring its measures into
conformance with the WTO Agreements.135 In some cases, however, a WTO panel has declined to
recommend that the defending WTO member bring its measure into conformity with its WTO
obligations, asserting its discretion to refrain from issuing such a recommendation because the
measure expired after the panel was established.136
As the Appellate Body has acknowledged, “The DSU does not specifically address whether a
WTO panel may or may not make findings and recommendations with respect to a measure that
expires or is repealed during the course of the panel proceedings.”137 The United States has
argued that because DSU Article 19.1 expressly requires that panels issue recommendations on
measures found to be inconsistent with the WTO Agreements, the tribunal lacks discretion to
avoid issuing such recommendations even if the measure expired during the dispute.138 Such
recommendations are necessary, the USTR has argued, to prevent members from imposing trade
measures “through annually recurring legal instruments [that] could never be successfully
challenged through WTO dispute settlement.”139
Notwithstanding the USTR’s perspective, it could be argued that once a measure has expired, the
measure can no longer be inconsistent with the WTO Agreements, and thus a panel may decline
to give recommendations.140 As the Appellate Body has noted, “there is an obvious inconsistency”
between a panel finding that a measure is “no longer in existence” and then recommending that
the DSB request the WTO member bring the measure into conformity with its WTO
obligations.141 Nonetheless, the Appellate Body and panels have been inconsistent in practice
when deciding whether to provide recommendations concerning expired measures. This may

135 DSU, supra note 3, art. 19.1 (“Where a panel or the Appellate Body concludes that a measure is inconsistent with a
covered agreement, it shall recommend that the Member concerned bring the measure into conformity with that
agreement. In addition to its recommendations, the panel or Appellate Body may suggest ways in which the Member
concerned could implement the recommendations.”). See also id. art. 7.1 (setting forth a WTO panel’s standard terms
of reference); id. art.11 (stating that a panel should “make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an
objective assessment of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with the relevant covered
agreements, and make such other findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the
rulings provided for in the covered agreements”).
136 See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WTO
Docs. WT/DS394/AB/R, WT/DS395/AB/R, WT/DS398/AB/R, ¶ 264 (Jan. 30, 2012) (“In general, in cases where the
measure at issue consists of a law or regulation that has been repealed during the panel proceedings, it would seem
there would be no need for a panel to make a recommendation in order to resolve the dispute.”); Appellate Body
Report, European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas III (Article 21.5—
Ecuador II) / EC—Bananas III (Article 21.5—United States), WTO Docs. WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU,
WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA, ¶ 270 (Nov. 26, 2008) (“We thus consider it to be within the discretion of the panel to decide
how it takes into account subsequent modifications or a repeal of the measure at issue. Accordingly, panels have made
findings on expired measures in some cases and declined to do so in others, depending on the particularities of the
disputes before them.”).
137 Appellate Body Report, China–Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WTO DOC.
WT/DS394/AB/R, ¶ 263 (Jan. 30, 2012).
138 Statement by the United States, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on September 29, 2017, at 7,
https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/Sept29.DSB_.Stmt_.as-delivered.fin_.public.pdf.
139 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 67.
140 Depending on how one construes the phrase “advisory opinion,” this particular USTR complaint may be in tension
with its concern that the Appellate Body is issuing advisory opinions. More specifically, if a measure has expired,
issuing a recommendation that the WTO member bring the measure into conformity might be viewed as unnecessary to
resolving a dispute, and therefore advisory in nature.
141 Appellate Body Report, United States—Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities,
WTO DOC. WT/DS165/AB/R, ¶ 81 (Dec. 11, 2000).
Congressional Research Service
18

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

invite criticism that they are exceeding their mandate or altering the rights and obligations of
WTO members.142
While it may be defensible for the Appellate Body to articulate a standard by which it (and
dispute panels) may refuse to issue recommendations that lack practical effect, the Appellate
Body may need to reframe its approach to assuage concerns that its actions contravene the DSU.
For instance, the Appellate Body might define the term “measure” in DSU Article 19.1 as
reaching “only measures which represent ongoing infringements of WTO Agreements or have
legal effect beyond [their] superficial expiry.”143 Alternatively, it might draw on principles of
public international law, such as the principle of utility,144 to justify declining to recommend that a
WTO member bring its measure into conformity in such circumstances.145
Treating Prior Decisions as Binding Precedent
Another central USTR complaint concerns the Appellate Body’s apparent insistence that its
rulings are precedential and must be followed by WTO panels absent “cogent reasons.”146 The
DSU states that the dispute settlement system “is a central element in providing security and
predictability to the multilateral trading system.”147 Although a general policy of adhering to prior
rulings may support such security and predictability, the USTR maintains that, contrary to the
DSU, the Appellate Body has required panels’ adherence to prior rulings, thereby overstepping its
role in clarifying ambiguous provisions and “add[ing] to or diminish[ing] the rights and
obligations” of the WTO members.148 Article 3.9 of the DSU states that the DSU does not affect
the rights of WTO members to seek an “authoritative interpretation of provisions of a covered
agreement” through a formal decision by WTO members.149 Thus, the USTR has argued that the
Appellate Body may not require panels to treat its decisions as precedent.150

142 See Arevik Gnutzmann-Mkrtchyan & Isabelle Van Damme, Expired Measures, Excess Duty Drawbacks and
Causation: The Appellate Body Report in EU-PET (Pakistan), 19 WORLD TRADE REV. 232, 236–37 (2020) (discussing
various positions taken by panels and the Appellate Body).
143 Prakhar Bhardwaj, Towards a Coherent Theory of Panel Recommendations for Expired Measures, 22 J. INT’L ECON.
L. 483, 500 (2019).
144 Generally, the principle of utility “is concerned with whether or not it would be appropriate to render judgment
when the object of the claim has ceased to exist or been achieved independently of the dispute settlement process.”
Andrew D. Mitchell & David Heaton, The Inherent Jurisdiction of WTO Tribunals: The Select Application of Public
International Law Required by the Judicial Function, 31 MICH. J. INT’L L. 559, 602 (2010).
145 Id. at 606.
146 Appellate Body Report, United States—Final Anti-dumping Measures on Stainless Steel, WTO DOC.
WT/DS344/AB/R, ¶ 160 (Apr. 30, 2008) (“Ensuring ‘security and predictability’ in the dispute settlement system, as
contemplated in Article 3.2 of the DSU, implies that, absent cogent reasons, an adjudicatory body will resolve the same
legal question in the same way in a subsequent case.”).
147 DSU, supra note 3, art. 3.2.
148 Id.
149 Id. art. 3.9.
150 See generally DSU, supra note 3, art. 7.1 (directing panels generally to examine complaints “in the light of the
relevant provisions” of the agreements cited by parties to the dispute); id. art. 11 (“[A] panel should make an objective
assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case and the applicability of and
conformity with the relevant covered agreements, and make such other findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in the covered agreements.”); id. art. 19.2 (“In accordance with
paragraph 2 of Article 3, in their findings and recommendations, the panel and Appellate Body cannot add to or
diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements.”).
Congressional Research Service
19

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

In an early case, the Appellate Body suggested that its rulings were not entitled to precedential
weight. In Japan—Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages II, the Appellate Body indicated that its
interpretations of the WTO Agreements were not definitive and did not bind WTO members
outside of a particular dispute.151 Nonetheless, in its 2008 report in United States—Final Anti-
Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico, the Appellate Body stated that WTO panels
should adhere to the Appellate Body’s prior decisions in the absence of “cogent reasons” for
departing from them.152 The Appellate Body sought to justify this ruling on the following
grounds: (1) WTO members rely upon its rulings, and (2) Article 3.2 of the DSU names the
promotion of security and predictability in the dispute settlement system as one of the WTO’s
objectives.153 Since the Appellate Body’s Stainless Steel decision, several WTO panel rulings
have expressly stated their reliance on prior Appellate Body decisions.154
In a December 2018 DSB meeting, the U.S. representative argued that the Appellate Body should
cease treating its reports as binding precedent.155 In particular, the United States argued that the
Appellate Body’s treatment of its decisions as binding precedent lacks a basis in the WTO
Agreements and would operate as an end-run around the provision for formal interpretations of
the WTO Agreements.156
As a general matter, international law does not recognize precedent as a legal rule (i.e., the
common law principle of stare decisis in which tribunals are legally required to follow prior
rulings of the same or a higher tribunal). Rather, international law typically recognizes what one
might term de facto precedent, which results from an adjudicator’s attempt to address each
individual case on the merits while ensuring stability and predictability in the law.157 As the
USTR has acknowledged, a WTO panel could consider prior Appellate Body decisions to be de
facto precedents, determining that the Appellate Body’s reasoning in one of its prior decisions

151 Appellate Body Report, Japan—Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages II, WTO DOC. WT/DS8/AB/R, 13–14 (Oct. 4, 1996)
(“We do not believe that the CONTRACTING PARTIES, in deciding to adopt a panel report, intended that their
decision would constitute a definitive interpretation of the relevant provisions of GATT 1947. Nor do we believe that
this is contemplated under GATT 1994.”).
152 Appellate Body Report, United States—Final Anti-dumping Measures on Stainless Steel, WTO DOC.
WT/DS344/AB/R, ¶ 160 (Apr. 30, 2008) (“Ensuring ‘security and predictability’ in the dispute settlement system, as
contemplated in Article 3.2 of the DSU, implies that, absent cogent reasons, an adjudicatory body will resolve the same
legal question in the same way in a subsequent case.”).
153 Id.
154 See, e.g., Panel Report, European Union and its Member States—Certain Measures Relating to the Energy Sector,
WTO DOC. WT/DS476/R, ¶ 7.1350 (Aug. 10, 2018) (“We find no cogent reason to disagree with the legal
interpretation of the panel in India—Solar Cells.”); Panel Report, European Union—Anti-Dumping Measures on
Biodiesel from Argentina, WTO DOC. WT/DS473/R, ¶ 7.276 (Mar. 29, 2016) (“In the absence of cogent reasons for
departing from the approach of the Appellate Body in prior cases, we adopt the same approach.”).
155 Statement by the United States on the Precedential Value of Panel or Appellate Body Reports under the WTO
Agreement and DSU, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on December 18, 2018, at 9–12,
https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/Dec18.DSB_.Stmt_.as-deliv.fin_.public.pdf.
156 Id.
157 See, e.g., Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 59, June 26, 1945, 33 U.N.T.S. 933 (“The decision of the
Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.”); Results of the Uruguay
Round Trade Negotiations: Hearings before the S. Comm. on Finance, 103d Cong., 199 (statement of John H. Jackson,
Professor, University of Michigan School of Law) (“It should also be understood that the international legal system
does not embrace the common law jurisprudence that prevails in the United States which calls for courts to operate
under a stricter ‘precedent’ or ‘stare decisis’ rule.”); Eric De Brabandere, The Use of Precedent and External Case Law
by the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, 15 L. & PRAC. OF INT’L CTS.
& TRIBUNALS 24, 27 (2016) (“That international law has no doctrine of binding precedent or stare decisis is a well-
known fact.”).
Congressional Research Service
20

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

was persuasive and should govern the case before the panel.158 The USTR, however, seemingly
believes the Appellate Body’s view that its decisions should be followed “absent cogent reasons”
reflects the de jure common law sense of precedent instead of the de facto sense of precedent.159
As some commentators have suggested, the “absent cogent reasons” standard for adhering to
prior decisions may amount only to a “restatement” of prior Appellate Body explanations that, for
purposes of stability and certainty, it would be “appropriate” and “expected” for panels to rely on
Appellate Body reasoning from prior disputes, unless the circumstances of a particular case led
the panel to believe it should depart from prior reasoning.160 In other words, even though the
Appellate Body’s language on the role of its prior decisions has changed over time, its practice
still reflects only the de facto sense of precedent in which prior decisions may be persuasive but
not binding (similar to what civil law systems refer to as jurisprudence constante).
Perhaps the USTR’s central concern with the Appellate Body’s rulings on the effect of its prior
decisions may best be framed as a question of balance. As a former President of the International
Court of Justice stated: “A balance must be found for the judge and arbitrator between the
necessary certainty and the necessary evolution of the law.”161 It might be argued that the USTR’s
complaint about the Appellate Body’s views on precedent does not reflect disagreement with the
general proposition that a WTO panel or the Appellate Body may draw on reasoning adopted in
prior cases. Instead, the USTR’s concerns may stem from divergent perceptions among the
United States and other WTO members about whether the Appellate Body has appropriately
balanced certainty in the law with the need to correct (perceived) prior errors, or provide new
interpretations to suit new factual situations.
Encroaching on Other WTO Bodies
The United States has also alleged that the Appellate Body has usurped the role of other WTO
bodies in at least two ways: (1) by considering some WTO bodies’ decisions to be authoritative
interpretations of the WTO Agreements even though these decisions were not made in accordance
with WTO procedures for formal interpretation of the agreements; and (2) by opining on how
other WTO bodies (e.g., the DSB) should perform their responsibilities.162
Considering Decisions of Various WTO Bodies to Be Authoritative
Interpretations of the WTO Agreements
The USTR has argued that the Appellate Body performs roles delegated to other WTO bodies
when it considers decisions by WTO bodies (e.g., the Ministerial Conference, WTO committees,
and WTO councils) to be authoritative interpretations of the WTO Agreements, even though such
interpretations are not made in accordance with Article IX:2 of the WTO’s foundational

158 Statement by the United States on the Precedential Value of Panel or Appellate Body Reports under the WTO
Agreement and DSU, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on December 18, 2018, at 15–16,
https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/Dec18.DSB_.Stmt_.as-deliv.fin_.public.pdf.
159 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 55–56.
160 James Bacchus & Simon Lester, The Rule of Precedent and the Role of the Appellate Body, 54(2) J. WORLD TRADE
183, 192 (2020).
161 Gilbert Guillaume, The Use of Precedent by International Judges and Arbitrators, 2(1) J. INT’L DISPUTE
SETTLEMENT 5, 6 (2011), as translated by B. McGarry, orig. pub’d as Le Précedent dans la justice et l’arbitrage
international, Journal de droit international 685 (Clunet 2010).
162 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 69–80.
Congressional Research Service
21

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

agreement.163 Article IX:2 of the Marrakesh Agreement provides that the “Ministerial Conference
and the General Council shall have the exclusive authority to adopt interpretations of this
Agreement and of the Multilateral Trade Agreements” by a vote of three-fourths of the
members.164
During the early years of WTO dispute settlement, the Appellate Body stated that the specific and
exclusive procedure for formal interpretation of the agreements in Article IX:2 was “reason
enough to conclude that such authority does not exist by implication or by inadvertence
elsewhere.”165 Nonetheless, in a few recent rulings, the Appellate Body has determined that
decisions of other WTO bodies (e.g., the Ministerial Conference or a WTO committee) not made
in accordance with Article IX:2’s procedures qualify as relevant interpretations of the WTO
Agreements.166
One case that the USTR has expressed concern with is the decision in United States—Measures
Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes.167 In that dispute, the Appellate Body
considered the WTO-consistency of a U.S. tobacco control measure that banned the sale of
cigarettes containing clove, which were mostly imported from Indonesia, but not cigarettes
containing tobacco or menthol.168 As part of its analysis, the Appellate Body considered whether
the United States had violated Article 2.12 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT
Agreement), which generally requires that a WTO member “allow a reasonable interval between
the publication of technical regulations and their entry into force in order to allow time for
producers in exporting Members, and particularly in developing country Members, to adapt their
products or methods of production to the requirements of the importing Member.”169 When
interpreting a “reasonable interval” as at least six months, the Appellate Body cited the 2001
Doha Ministerial Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, which was adopted
by all WTO members, as a “subsequent agreement” of the WTO membership that had interpreted
Article 2.12, despite the fact that it had not been adopted as a formal interpretation of the TBT
Agreement in accordance with WTO procedures.170
The Appellate Body’s approach reflects use of the rules for treaty interpretation contained in the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Appellate Body considers these rules to reflect
customary international law,171 and WTO members, including the United States, regularly invoke

163 Id.
164 WTO, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, art. IX:2, Apr. 15, 1994,
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto_e.htm.
165 Appellate Body Report, Japan—Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages II, supra note 152, 13.
166 See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of
Tuna and Tuna Products, WTO DOC. WT/DS381/AB/R, ¶¶ 371–78 (May 16, 2012) (“In the present dispute, we
consider that the TBT Committee Decision bears directly on the interpretation of the term ‘open’ in Annex 1.4 to the
TBT Agreement, as well as on the interpretation and application of the concept of ‘recognized activities in
standardization.’”).
167 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 78.
168 See Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, WTO
DOC. WT/DS406/AB/R, ¶ 1 (Apr. 4, 2012).
169 WTO, Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, art. 2.12, Apr. 15, 1994, https://www.wto.org/english/
docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm [hereinafter TBT Agreement].
170 Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, supra note
169, paras. 251–68.
171 Appellate Body Report, Japan—Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages II, supra note 152, 10. See also Appellate Body
Report, United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, supra note 170, ¶ 258
(“Article IX:2 of the WTO Agreement does not preclude panels and the Appellate Body from having recourse to a
Congressional Research Service
22

link to page 29 The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

them when involved in disputes. One of the Vienna Convention rules provides that when
interpreting a treaty, an interpreter may take into account “any subsequent agreement between the
parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions.”172 The
United States acknowledged in Clove Cigarettes that the 2001 Doha Ministerial decision was
potentially relevant material for interpreting the WTO Agreements within the meaning of the
Vienna Convention.173 As the Appellate Body has explained, interpretations adopted under Article
IX:2 and subsequent agreements “serve different functions and have different legal effects under
WTO law.”174 The first clarifies law for all WTO members while subsequent agreements serve as
an interpretive tool used in conjunction with others to determine the meaning of a particular treaty
provision. In other words, these two tools can exist simultaneously, as they play separate roles in
discerning the meaning of particular treaty provisions. Even if a Ministerial decision is not an
authoritative interpretation under Article IX:2, its contents are relevant for purposes of applying
the Vienna Convention’s rules of treaty interpretation.
The USTR’s subsequent complaint about Clove Cigarettes might be reframed as reflecting the
agency’s view that the Appellate Body’s Vienna Convention interpretation is tantamount to an
attempt to improperly issue authoritative interpretation in contravention of Article IX:2. This
view is perhaps more coherent when considered in conjunction with USTR’s complaint that the
Appellate Body is improperly creating a system of binding precedent. In other words, the USTR
views these types of treaty interpretations combined with precedent as the Appellate Body’s
attempt to supplant the WTO members as the final interpreters of the WTO Agreements. How one
views the USTR’s argument about Article IX:2 may thus turn on one’s views of the debate about
precedent.
Opining on How Other WTO Bodies Should Perform Their Responsibilities
Another way in which the United States has argued that the Appellate Body encroaches on the
work of other WTO bodies is by opining on how such bodies should perform their
responsibilities.175 For example:
 In Morocco—Hot-Rolled Steel (Turkey), the Appellate Body issued a report in
which it opined on the time frames the DSB should follow for adopting the panel
and Appellate Body Reports after Morocco withdrew its appeal.176
 In United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second
Complaint), the Appellate Body explained “the manner in which the DSB is to
implement the information-gathering process provided under Annex V of the
Subsidies Agreement.”177 The United States argued that, in opining on the

customary rule of interpretation of public international law that, pursuant to Article 3.2 of the DSU, they are required to
apply.”).
172 United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 31, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter
VCLT]. For a more detailed discussion of treaty interpretation, see “The Art of Treaty Interpretation” infra.
173 Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, supra note
170, ¶ 55.
174 Id. ¶¶ 257–58.
175 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 69.
176 Appellate Body Report, Morocco—Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Hot-rolled Steel from Turkey, WTO DOC.
WT/DS513/AB/R, ¶¶ 1.18–1.19 (Dec. 10, 2019).
177 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 70; Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil
Aircraft (Second Complaint), WTO DOC. WT/DS353/AB/R, ¶¶ 500–02, 524 (Mar. 12, 2012).
Congressional Research Service
23

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

procedures for initiating and conducting the Annex V process, the Appellate
Body had overstepped its authority.178
 The USTR alleged that Appellate Body members “intruded on the authority of
the Dispute Settlement Body” when, in May 2016, they issued a letter in support
of a colleague on the Appellate Body whose reappointment the United States had
opposed.179
 In United States—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC—Hormones
Dispute, the Appellate Body found that the United States and Canada had not
violated certain WTO provisions by continuing to impose authorized retaliatory
tariffs.180 The countries continued to impose tariffs even after the EC issued a
Directive that it argued brought it into compliance with the WTO’s decision in
the EC—Hormones dispute concerning the EC’s ban on imports of meat that
contained artificial growth hormones.181 The Appellate Body stated, however,
that WTO members should seek an Article 21.5 compliance panel if they have
lingering disagreements about whether a WTO member has complied with a prior
dispute settlement ruling.182 Following the Appellate Body’s decision, the USTR
expressed concerns that the Appellate Body “had undertaken unnecessary
analyses of provisions of the DSU and invented rules, procedures, and even
obligations that were simply not present in the DSU.”183
Contrary to the USTR’s assertions, it could be argued that in these cases, the Appellate Body has
not sought to dictate to other WTO bodies how to carry out their duties. Rather, in at least some
of the cases cited by USTR, the tribunal sought to respond to questions raised on appeal by the
disputing parties, which required it to address ambiguous situations not clearly anticipated by the
agreements, or explain how it was exercising its authority in relation to other WTO bodies. For
example, in United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint),
the European Union argued on appeal that the panel erred by declining to rule on whether an
Annex V procedure for gathering information on a WTO member’s subsidies practices had been
initiated.184 During dispute settlement proceedings, the United States did not object to the
Appellate Body ruling on the proper procedure; instead, it offered its own interpretation of what
the DSB’s initiation of such a procedure required.185 The Appellate Body then ruled on the
question submitted to it, finding the panel erred in denying some of the requests that the European
Union made to it regarding Annex V.186 Thus, although one might read the Appellate Body’s
opinion as instructing the DSB how to initiate an Annex V procedure, one could also understand

178 Statement by the United States, U.S.—Large Civil Aircraft, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on March 23,
2012, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/313, ¶ 73.
179 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 74.
180 Appellate Body Report, United States—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC—Hormones Dispute, WTO
DOC. WT/DS320/AB/R, ¶¶ 736–37 (Oct. 16, 2008).
181 Id.
182 Id.
183 Statement of the United States, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on November 14, 2008, WTO DOC.
WT/DSB/M/258, ¶¶ 8–9.
184 Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint), WTO
DOC. WT/DS353/AB/R, ¶ 35 (Mar. 12, 2012).
185 Id. ¶¶ 84–97.
186 Id. ¶ 501.
Congressional Research Service
24

link to page 45 The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

it as an attempt to resolve the legal questions submitted to it (and not objected to at the time) by
the disputing parties, the latter of which falls squarely within the Appellate Body’s ambit.187
WTO Disputes Involving Substantive
Interpretations of Agreement Obligations
The USTR has alleged that the Appellate Body issued a number of incorrect interpretations of the
WTO Agreements, particularly with respect to (1) provisions involving nondiscrimination
obligations under the TBT Agreement and GATT and (2) provisions of various WTO Agreements
involving trade remedies.188 This section begins by providing an overview of the principles of
treaty interpretation and how they might lead the USTR and Appellate Body (among others) to
reach different conclusions about the meaning of the WTO Agreements’ substantive provisions. It
then surveys the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreements—and WTO dispute settlement
cases—related to each of the issues identified in the USTR report.
Contextualizing U.S. Allegations of Inaccurate Interpretations
The United States has argued on a number of occasions that the Appellate Body issued
substantively incorrect interpretations of some provisions in the WTO Agreements.189 This
section demonstrates how principles of treaty interpretation may reasonably lead different
interpreters to reach different results about the meaning of an international agreement.190
Treaty interpretation poses many of the same challenges as statutory or other legal
interpretation.191 In the absence of defined, precise terminology or phraseology, reasonable minds
may reach different conclusions.192 Additionally, treaties may present particularly challenging and
unique questions of interpretation because the relevant texts may have resulted from political
compromises between a large number of countries and customs territories with competing
interests and perspectives. Ambiguities may reflect not only oversights in drafting, but also
negotiators’ deliberate choices made to reach political consensus.
Consequently, assessing the validity of the USTR’s complaint that the Appellate Body has erred
in its interpretations of certain WTO Agreement provisions may depend on how one applies the
rules of treaty interpretation.193 To illustrate the complexities that adhere to the interpretation of
treaties and other international agreements, the following section provides an overview of the
main principles of treaty interpretation relevant to interpreting the WTO Agreements. For an

187 See DSU, supra note 3, art. 3.2.
188 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 81.
189 See, e.g., id. at B-7 to B-16 (collecting statements).
190 For an illustration of this concept, see the Appendix.
191 See Isabelle Van Damme, Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body, 21 EUR. J. INT’L L. 605, 610 (2010)
(“There can be a right answer to a question of interpretation to the same extent and for essentially the same reasons as
any other legal question. However, it seems implausible to say that there is always a right answer, given the
complexities of language and context and changing circumstances, often unforeseen.”).
192 See id. at 609 (“Disputants will often propose conflicting and contradicting interpretations of identical treaty
language on the basis of the same principle of interpretation.”).
193 One may agree with the USTR’s general criticism that the Appellate Body has not “correctly” interpreted a
particular provision of the WTO Agreements, but nevertheless disagree with any of the USTR’s proposed “correct”
interpretations.
Congressional Research Service
25

link to page 45 The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

example of how a WTO text may lead reasonable interpreters applying these common principles
to reach different interpretations about an international agreement’s meaning, see the Appendix.
The Art of Treaty Interpretation
The Appellate Body and WTO panels must interpret the WTO Agreements “in accordance with
customary rules of interpretation of public international law.”194 The Appellate Body has stated
that such customary rules include, at a minimum, Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties (VCLT).195 These treaty provisions set forth considerations for interpreters to
take into account when interpreting a treaty.196 The overarching rule, found in Article 31, is as
follows: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be
given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.”197
The VCLT further instructs that “context . . . shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its
preamble and annexes,” a number of other instruments related to the treaty in question: (a) any
agreement relating to the treaty made between the treaty parties in connection with the conclusion
of the treaty, and (b) any instrument made by a treaty party in connection with the conclusion of
the treaty that the other parties accept as an instrument related to the treaty.198 In addition,
interpreters “shall” consider the following: (a) subsequent agreements between the parties
regarding interpretation or application of the treaty; (b) subsequent practice between the parties in
the application of the treaty that may establish how the parties agree a treaty should be
interpreted; and (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable to the parties’
relationship.199 Moreover, a tribunal must respect any “special meaning” that parties may have
given to a term.200 Although Article 31 includes distinct elements, the VCLT envisions the
“process of interpretation [as] a unity and that the provisions of the article form a single, closely
integrated rule.”201 In other words, there is no distinct or rigid hierarchy in how jurists should
weigh each of these elements in reaching a conclusion about the “ordinary meaning” of a treaty
provision.
Article 32 of the VCLT indicates that tribunals may consider other supplemental materials to
“confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning
when the interpretation according to article 31” either “leaves the meaning ambiguous or
obscure” or leads to a manifestly absurd or unreasonable result.202 Article 33 addresses treaties
that, like the WTO Agreements, are rendered into multiple languages, stating that the text is
equally authoritative in each language unless the treaty provides otherwise or the parties
otherwise agree, and that the terms “are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic
text.”203 If the authentic texts differ in meaning and the Article 31 and 32 analyses cannot resolve

194 DSU, supra note 3, art. 3.2.
195 See Van Damme, supra note 191, at 608 (discussing consistent Appellate Body practice of relying on the VCLT and
citing cases).
196 See VCLT, supra note 172, art. 31.1.
197 Id. (emphases added).
198 Id. art. 31.2.
199 Id. art. 31.3.
200 Id. art. 31.4.
201 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries: Commentary to Arts. 27–
28, ¶ 8 (1966).
202 VCLT, supra note 172, art. 32.
203 Id. art. 33. This article is of relevance to the WTO, as its treaties are considered authentic in each of the WTO’s
Congressional Research Service
26

link to page 45 The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

the divergence, the tribunal shall select “the meaning which best reconciles the texts,”
considering the object and purpose of the treaty.204
In addition to the VCLT itself, tribunals may draw upon a number of general principles of
international law and customary international law as interpretive tools when appropriate (e.g., the
principle of effectiveness and certain provisions of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility).205
The Appellate Body, as well as other international tribunals, has used these principles in a number
of cases, often at the urging of the disputing parties and sometimes noting that these principles
constitute “context” within the meaning of Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT.206
How an interpreter applies the above-described principles of interpretation affects the conclusions
that the interpreter will draw about the meaning of a legal text. In part, this is due to the flexible
nature of the VCLT approach, which does not require jurists to place more emphasis on one
element of the interpretive analysis than another, and which recognizes that “context” and “object
and purpose” will differ across agreements.207 Moreover, if context in interpretation includes, for
example, additional principles of international law, this inclusion can affect a jurist’s
determinations. The principle of effectiveness, for instance, can lead an interpreter to various
outcomes as it is a “relative concept” and therefore “difficult, if not impossible, to define” in a
concrete, all-encompassing manner.208
As demonstrated by the illustration in the Appendix, which examines different interpretations of
the term “public body” in the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM
Agreement) by the Appellate Body and a WTO panel, interpreters may reach different results
about what constitutes a “correct” interpretation of a WTO Agreement. The flexibility built into
treaty interpretation can lead to significantly different, even conflicting, conclusions about the
meaning of treaty provisions, especially in cases of undefined, ambiguous, or vague terms.
Commentators have written many articles about the Appellate Body’s approaches to interpreting
specific provisions of the WTO Agreements, including those approaches the USTR has identified
as problematic.209 They have also examined how the Appellate Body has engaged in treaty

official languages: English, French, and Spanish. Marrakesh Agreement, supra note 165, concluding paragraph (“Done
at Marrakesh this fifteenth day of April one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four, in a single copy, in the English,
French and Spanish languages, each text being authentic.”).
204 VCLT, supra note 172, art. 33.4.
205 See International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries: Commentary to Arts.
27–28, supra note 201, ¶ 5; International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts, November 2001, Supp. No. 10 (A/56/10), ch.IV.E.1. The International Law
Commission is the U.N. body charged with drafting the VCLT.
206 JAN BOHANES & PANAGIOTIS KYRIAKOU, Use of Non-WTO International Law in WTO Dispute Settlement, in
PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF WTO LITIGATION 383, 401–03 (Marco Tulio Molina Tejada ed., 2020).
207 RICHARD GARDINER, TREATY INTERPRETATION 459 (2015) (“[T]he Vienna rules envisage taking into account a range
of elements . . . . In treaty interpretation it is not a firm dichotomy between original intention and living instrument
strategies. The rules allow for a more bespoke approach.”).
208 Van Damme, supra note 191, 636–37.
209 Weihuan Zhou & Henry Gao, ‘Overreaching’ or ‘Overreacting’? Reflections on the Judicial Function and
Approaches of WTO Appellate Body, 53 J. WORLD TRADE 951 (2019); Gregory Messenger, The Public-Private
Distinction at the World Trade Organization: Fundamental Challenges to Determining the Meaning of “Public Body”,
15 INT’L J. CONST’L L. 60 (2017); ANDREAS R. ZIEGLER & DAVID SIFONIOS, The Assessment of Environmental Risks
and the Regulation of Process and Production Methods (PPMs) in International Trade Law, in RISK AND THE
REGULATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 219 (Mónika Ambrus et al. eds., 2017); DONALD MCRAE,
Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body: The Conundrum of Article 17(6) of the WTO Antidumping
Agreement, in THE LAW OF TREATIES BEYOND THE VIENNA CONVENTION (Enzo Cannizzaro ed., 2011); Roger P. Alford,
Reflections on US-Zeroing: A Study in Judicial Overreaching by the WTO Appellate Body, 45 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT’L
Congressional Research Service
27

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

interpretation more broadly.210 As this literature suggests, there may be reasonable grounds on
which to criticize the Appellate Body’s interpretations. However, absent political agreement
among WTO members on how the relevant WTO provisions should be interpreted, it is difficult
to make a definitive conclusion as to whether the USTR’s critiques are “accurate,” and therefore
whether the Appellate Body has inappropriately diminished or altered the rights of WTO
members through its adoption of “erroneous” interpretations.211 At least one scholar has argued
that, because legal interpretation can always be said to affect law in some way, “merely
interpreting the agreements cannot suffice to ‘add to or diminish’ rights and obligations.”212
Interpretations of Nondiscrimination Obligations in the WTO
Agreements
The USTR has argued that the Appellate Body incorrectly interpreted WTO Agreement
provisions concerning the prohibition on origin-based discrimination in the GATT and TBT
Agreement.213 For example, Article III:4 of the GATT prohibits discrimination against like
products on the basis of origin.214 Similarly, TBT Agreement Article 2.1 requires each WTO
member to ensure that certain regulatory measures do not treat imported products less favorably
than domestic products.215
One significant case that prompted the United States to express concerns regarding the Appellate
Body’s findings with respect to TBT Agreement Article 2.1 was United States—Certain Country-
of-Origin Labeling (COOL).216 In the initial case, Canada and Mexico brought a claim against the
United States for imposing laws and regulations that instituted a mandatory country-of-origin
labeling requirement for certain agricultural products.217 The Appellate Body, drawing on its
interpretation of nondiscriminatory treatment under Article III:4 of the GATT, indicated that
regulatory measures may discriminate in their operation (i.e., de facto discrimination) even if they
do not discriminate on their face (i.e., de jure discrimination).218 To ascertain whether a measure
results in de facto discrimination, the Appellate Body stated a panel must assess the “totality of

L. 196 (2006); Alan O. Sykes, The Safeguards Mess: A Critique of WTO Jurisprudence, 2 WORLD TRADE REV. 261
(2003).
210 See, e.g., ISABELLE VAN DAMME, TREATY INTERPRETATION BY THE WTO APPELLATE BODY (2009).
211 Even beyond critiques of the substance, there is also no consensus as to how the Appellate Body is carrying out
treaty interpretation over time. Compare PETER VAN DEN BOSSCHE, Is there Evolution in the Evolutionary
Interpretation of WTO Law?, in EVOLUTIONARY INTERPRETATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 221 (Georges Abi-Saab et
al. eds., 2019) (discussing the Appellate Body’s use of evolutionary interpretation), and GRAHAM COOK, The Illusion of
‘Evolutionary Interpretation’ in WTO Dispute Settlement, in EVOLUTIONARY INTERPRETATION AND INTERNATIONAL
LAW 181 (Georges Abi-Saab et al. eds., 2019) (arguing the Appellate Body’s approach is “evolutionary application”
rather than “evolutionary interpretation”).
212 SONDRE TORP HELMERSEN, The Evolutionary Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body, in EVOLUTIONARY
INTERPRETATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 207, 208 (Georges Abi-Saab et al. eds., 2019).
213 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 90.
214 GATT, supra note 29, art. III:4 (“[The] products of the territory of any [WTO Member] imported into the territory
of any other [WTO Member] shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of
national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale,
purchase, transportation, distribution or use.”).
215 TBT Agreement, supra note 169, art. 2.1.
216 Appellate Body Reports, United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements, WTO Docs.
WT/DS384/AB/R, WT/DS386/AB/R (June 29, 2012).
217 See id. ¶ 1.
218 Id. ¶ 269.
Congressional Research Service
28

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

facts and circumstances” and “any implications for competitive conditions,” including whether
the measure “has a detrimental impact on imported products” due to the “effect of the measure on
the competitive opportunities in the market.”219 However, a detrimental impact is not “dispositive
of a violation of Article 2.1” because this impact may be due to a “legitimate regulatory
distinction.”220 Such a legitimate distinction could not exist if the measure was “not designed and
applied in an even-handed manner,” in which case it would “reflect discrimination prohibited
under Article 2.1.”221
Applying this test, the Appellate Body concluded the panel did not err in finding that the COOL
measure violated Article 2.1.222 First, the Appellate Body upheld the panel’s findings that the
measure created a detrimental impact for several reasons, including that the least expensive forms
of compliance with the measure involved processing “either exclusively domestic livestock or
exclusively imported livestock,” and that the measure incentivized U.S. market participants “to
process exclusively domestic livestock,” which “reduce[d] the competitive opportunities of
imported livestock.”223 This detrimental impact did not reflect a legitimate regulatory distinction,
according to the Appellate Body, because the regulatory burden imposed on producers and
processors, when compared to how well the measure achieved its legitimate aim of providing
information to consumers, was disproportionate and, therefore, discriminatory.224 Among other
things, the Appellate Body found disproportionality because (1) the measure required producers
and processors to record and transmit information about each step of production; and (2) any
producer that used livestock of different origins would incur greater compliance costs related to
the recordkeeping and verification requirements, but consumers received only the information
about the country of origin, and not about the production steps that had to be recorded.225
The USTR complained that the Appellate Body’s decision in COOL strayed from a
nondiscrimination test that considered whether the U.S. regulatory measures discriminated
against products on the basis of their origin, and instead applied a test that considered (1) whether
a measure that treated domestic and imported products equally would nonetheless have a
detrimental impact on the market for the imported products, and (2) whether the regulatory
measure was properly calibrated in order to achieve its objective.226 The United States expressed
additional concerns following the Appellate Body’s decision in a subsequent case examining U.S.
amendments to COOL, stating as follows:
[T]he Panels and Appellate Body continued to fail to adequately address the fact that there
may be measures whose objective was legitimate under the TBT Agreement, and whose
detrimental impact flowed exclusively from legitimate regulatory distinctions, such that
these measures were consistent with Article 2.1, but at the same time would be inconsistent

219 Id. ¶¶ 269–70.
220 Id. ¶ 271.
221 Id.
222 Id. ¶ 350.
223 Id. ¶¶ 262, 281, 287.
224 Id. ¶¶ 347, 349.
225 Id. ¶¶ 343–47.
226 Statement of the United States, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on July 23, 2012, WTO DOC.
WT/DSB/M/320, ¶¶ 94–96, https://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/07/24/statement-by-the-united-states-at-the-july-23-
dsb-meeting/. See also Statement by the United States, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on January 11, 2019, at
3-16, https://geneva.usmission.gov/2019/01/16/statements-by-the-united-states-at-the-january-11-dsb-meeting/
(arguing the Appellate Body incorrectly interpreted the GATT and TBT Agreement when reviewing a U.S. dolphin-
safe tuna labeling measure).
Congressional Research Service
29

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because the legitimate objective did not directly
correspond to an exception available under Article XX of the GATT 1994. This was clearly
not a sustainable reading of the two agreements.227
The Appellate Body’s consideration of a regulatory measure’s “detrimental impact” and
proportionality or evenhandedness was not unique to the United States—COOL dispute. Rather,
the Appellate Body has applied this test in several other disputes, including United States—Clove
Cigarettes;228 United States—Tuna II (Mexico);229 and European Communities—Seals.230 In the
two cases involving the United States, the USTR similarly argued that the Appellate Body’s
analysis (1) improperly required panels to “review the calibration of the measure to risk, cost, and
benefit, even if in the end the difference in treatment was not related to origin,” which was
beyond the Body’s authority, and (2) allowed the Appellate Body to substitute its judgment for
that of domestic regulators, thereby diminishing the ability of WTO members to pursue legitimate
regulatory objectives.231
Interpretations of Obligations Related to Trade Remedies in the
WTO Agreements
Appellate Body rulings in the area of trade remedies have proven to be some of the most
controversial among WTO members. Trade remedies addressed in WTO case law involve
(1) actions to counter market-distorting subsidies; (2) investigations to counter dumping of
imports on other markets; and (3) safeguards of domestic products.232 The USTR has argued that
the Appellate Body has erred in its interpretations of several substantive provisions of the WTO
Agreements that address these trade remedies, which underlie a substantial number of dispute
cases filed against the United States.233

227 Statement by the United States, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on May 29, 2015, WTO DOC.
WT/DSB/M/362, ¶ 1.18. See also Statement of the United States, Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on June 18,
2014, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/346, ¶ 7.7 (“[T]he United States was not fully persuaded by the Appellate Body’s
finding that the national treatment provisions of the TBT Agreement were to be interpreted differently from the
national treatment provisions of the GATT 1994 in light of the fact that these two provisions contained identical
wording. These findings appeared to ensure that a measure could be found consistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT
Agreement, yet inconsistent with the identically worded Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.”).
228 Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, WTO
DOC. WT/DS406/AB/R, ¶ 225 (Apr. 4, 2012).
229 Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and
Tuna Products, WTO DOC. WT/DS381/AB/R, ¶ 216 (May 16, 2012); Appellate Body Report (Recourse to Article 21.5
by Mexico), United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products,
WTO DOC. WT/DS381/AB/RW, ¶ 7.31 (Nov. 20, 2015); Appellate Body Report (Second Recourse to Article 21.5 by
Mexico), United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WTO
DOC. WT/DS381/AB/RW2, ¶ 6.64 (Dec. 14, 2018).
230 Appellate Body Report, European Communities—Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal
Products, WTO Docs. WT/DS400/AB/R, WT/DS401/AB/R, ¶ 5.84 (May 22, 2014).
231 Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of Meeting, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/317, at 6 (June 13, 2012); Dispute
Settlement Body, Minutes of Meeting, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/315, at 15–17 (Apr. 24, 2012).
232 Briefing Note: Anti-dumping, Subsidies, and Safeguards, WORLD TRADE ORG., https://www.wto.org/english/
thewto_e/minist_e/mc9_e/brief_adp_e.htm.
233 See Disputes by Member, WORLD TRADE ORG., https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_
e.htm.
Congressional Research Service
30

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Interpretation of “Public Body”
The USTR has repeatedly raised concerns about the Appellate Body’s interpretation of “public
body,” a term found in the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM
Agreement).234 Under this Agreement, a WTO member may challenge a market-distorting subsidy
granted by another member provided that the Agreement’s conditions for bringing such a
challenge are satisfied.235 One of the conditions is that a government or “public body” grant the
financial contribution.236
The Agreement does not define “public body.” The Appellate Body first offered a definition in
United States—Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), which involved a U.S.
investigation into whether certain Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were subsidizing
Chinese products in contravention of the SCM Agreement.237 In this case, the Appellate Body
found “public body” meant “an entity that possesses, exercises or is vested with governmental
authority,” and indicated that WTO panels in future disputes should assess the “core features of
the entity concerned, and its relationship with government” to determine whether it qualifies as a
public body.238 The Appellate Body reaffirmed this definition in United States—Carbon Steel
(India).239
The USTR has repeatedly criticized the definition adopted by the Appellate Body. In particular,
the USTR has complained that the definition diverges from the ordinary meaning of “public
body” by imposing the extra-textual requirement that it possess or exercise governmental
authority.240 This interpretation, the USTR has argued, permits many SOEs, even when majority
or wholly government-owned, to grant subsidies that cannot be disciplined under the SCM
Agreement.241 In the USTR’s view, “public body” is more appropriately understood as “an entity
controlled by the government such that the government can use that entity’s resources as its
own.”242 The USTR argues that this reading, which matches the approach taken by the first WTO
panel to consider the issue,243 is the accurate interpretation for several reasons. First, this reading
is consistent with the text’s ordinary meaning and does not impose conditions from outside the
Agreement (i.e., nothing in the SCM Agreement requires a public body to exercise or possess
governmental authority).244 Second, this definition ensures that “government” and “public body”
remain distinct entities that can grant financial contributions, therefore more effectively reaching
SOEs.245

234 WTO, Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, art. 1.1(a)(1), https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/
legal_e/24-scm.p [hereinafter SCM Agreement].
235 Id. arts. 4, 7.
236 Id. art. 1.1(a)(1).
237 Appellate Body Report, United States—Definitive Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products
from China, WTO DOC. WT/DS379/AB/R, ¶ 103 (Mar. 11, 2011).
238 Id. ¶ 317.
239 Appellate Body Report, United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from India, WTO DOC. WT/DS436/AB/R, ¶ 4.29 (Dec. 8, 2014).
240 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 82–89.
241 Id.
242 Id. at 83.
243 Id. at 86. For an example in which a WTO panel interpreted “public body” to be an entity controlled by the
government, see the Appendix.
244 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 82–85.
245 Id.
Congressional Research Service
31

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Subsidies and Out-of-Country Benchmarks
In addition to criticizing the Appellate Body’s interpretation of “public body,” the USTR claims
that the Body has erroneously interpreted provisions of the WTO Agreements that address when
WTO members may use out-of-country benchmarks to determine the extent of subsidies that a
government provides (1) in the form of goods or services, or (2) through the purchase of goods.246
Under the SCM Agreement, such government assistance cannot be deemed a subsidy unless the
provision of goods or services “is made for less than adequate remuneration” or the purchase of
goods “is made for more than adequate remuneration.”247 Moreover, “the adequacy of
remuneration shall be determined in relation to prevailing market conditions for the good or
service in question in the country of provision or purchase.”248
The SCM Agreement expressly contemplates using the market conditions of the country making
provisions or purchases to determine the extent of a subsidy, but it does not address how to assess
the “prevailing market conditions” if the home country’s market does not provide for such
assessments (e.g., if the market is distorted). Nonetheless, the Appellate Body has recognized that
“investigating authorities may use a benchmark other than private prices in the country of
provision under Article 14(d), if it is first established that private prices in that country are
distorted because of the government’s predominant role in providing those goods.”249
In rejecting a panel’s view that Article 14(d) required the use of private market prices in all cases,
the Appellate Body, while acknowledging the mandatory nature of “shall” in Article 14(d), noted
that the methods of calculation in Article 14 were “guidelines.”250 However, the Appellate Body
concluded that, to avoid frustrating the SCM Agreement’s purpose of disciplining market-
distorting subsidies, “an investigating authority may use a benchmark other than private prices of
the goods in question in the country of provision, when it has been established that those private
prices are distorted, because of the predominant role of the government in the market as a
provider of the same or similar goods.”251 It further stated that the alternate benchmark selected
must “relate or refer to, or be connected with, the prevailing market conditions in that country,
and must reflect price, quality, availability, marketability, transportation and other conditions of
purchase or sale, as required by Article 14(d).”252 The Appellate Body then found that alternate
benchmarks could include “proxies that take into account prices for similar goods quoted on
world markets, or proxies constructed on the basis of production costs.”253
Although the United States advocated for the ability to use alternate benchmarks, it has since
criticized the Appellate Body’s subsequent cases that address the use of such benchmarks.254 One
case the United States has criticized is United States–Carbon Steel (India). In that dispute, the

246 Id. at 105.
247 SCM Agreement, supra note 234, art. 14(d).
248 Id.
249 Appellate Body Report, United States—Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood
Lumber from Canada, WTO DOC. WT/DS257/AB/R, ¶ 90 (Jan. 19, 2004).
250 Id. ¶ 92.
251 Id. ¶ 103.
252 Id.
253 Id. ¶ 106.
254 It might be argued that the USTR’s position regarding out-of-country benchmarks is unusual when compared to its
other complaints. While the other complaints suggest the Appellate Body has impermissibly created requirements that
do not exist in the text, the use of out-of-country benchmarks as a general concept is itself a nontextual creation first
advocated for by the United States.
Congressional Research Service
32

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Appellate Body considered whether a WTO member attempting to determine if there is a benefit
under Article 14(d) should assess, as part of “prevailing market conditions,” the prices offered by
government entities in addition to those offered by private parties.255 The Appellate Body
reiterated that a “benchmark analysis begins with a consideration of in-country prices,” although
those prices should not be relied on if “they are not market determined,” and thus, alternate
benchmarks could be used.256 Nonetheless, the Appellate Body cautioned that a government’s
predominance in a market itself would not establish that the government distorted private prices
for the goods or services in question; the investigating authority must make this finding on a case-
by-case basis.257 In other words, whether a price can be relied on “is not a function of its source
but, rather, whether it is determined to be reflective of prevailing market conditions,” and an
investigating authority may not discard government-related prices from its benchmark analysis
without first establishing government-caused price distortion.258 The Appellate Body reaffirmed
this approach in several subsequent cases.259
The USTR has strongly criticized the requirement that investigating authorities consider
government prices in analyses to establish a benchmark, stating such a requirement “presents a
risk of introducing distortions into the benchmark” and “is circular and uninformative.”260 The
Appellate Body’s approach, according to the USTR, “seriously undermine[s]” WTO members’
ability to discipline the use of subsidies and “diminishes the rights of WTO members to
counteract subsidies that are resulting in harm to their workers and businesses.”261
Prohibition on the Use of “Zeroing” to Calculate Dumping Margins
One of the USTR’s longest-running conflicts with the Appellate Body is whether “zeroing,” a
methodology used primarily by the United States in calculating antidumping margins, is
permitted by the Antidumping Agreement.262 Antidumping investigations assess whether
imported products are being “dumped.” A product is dumped if “introduced into the commerce of
another country at less than its normal value”—i.e., “if the export price of the product exported
from one country to another is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for
the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country.”263 To determine
whether a product is being dumped, the investigating agency must calculate, among other things,
the extent of dumping, known as the dumping margin, which is the amount by which the normal
value (i.e., the price of the like product in the country of export) exceeds the export price.264

255 Appellate Body Report, United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from India, WTO DOC. WT/DS436/AB/R, ¶ 4.161 (Dec. 8, 2014).
256 Id. ¶ 4.155.
257 Id. ¶ 4.156.
258 Id. ¶¶ 4.167–4.168.
259 See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China,
WTO DOC. WT/DS437/AB/R, ¶ 4.46 (Dec. 18, 2014); Appellate Body Report, United States—Countervailing Duty
Measures on Certain Products from China–Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by China, WTO DOC.
WT/DS437/AB/RW, ¶ 5.139 (July 16, 2019).
260 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 106.
261 Id. at 109.
262 See id. at B-1 to B-4.
263 Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, art. 2.1,
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/19-adp.pdf [hereinafter Antidumping Agreement]; GATT, supra note 29,
art. VI:1.
264 Antidumping Agreement, supra note 263, art. 2.
Congressional Research Service
33

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

The Antidumping Agreement sets out three methods for calculating dumping margins, two to be
used generally and one for exceptional cases. Generally, an investigating authority must use a
weighted average or transaction-specific basis for calculating the dumping margin, and the
application of either method must ensure that “[a] fair comparison shall be made between the
export price and the normal value.”265 If “targeted dumping” may exist—i.e., there is “a pattern of
export prices which differ significantly among different purchasers, regions or time periods”—
and use of the two other methods cannot account for such targeted dumping, then the
investigating authority may compare a normal value calculated using weighted averages to the
export prices of individual transactions.266
The U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration, charged with
investigating allegations of dumping,267 has sometimes used a methodology known as “zeroing”
when calculating dumping margins. While the United States has asserted several reasons in
defense of its use of zeroing,268 the point of contention arises when the margin for a particular
transaction is negative—i.e., when an export price is higher than the normal value (normal value
– export price < 0). In such instances, the United States enters a zero as the margin instead of the
negative number. The effect of zeroing is that “the antidumping margin with zeroing will exceed
what the margin would have been had zeroing not been used,” and thereby also increase the
antidumping duties ultimately imposed, which has led other WTO members to file complaints
against the United States’ use of this methodology.269
In a series of cases, first brought against the European Union and then primarily thereafter
brought against the United States, the Appellate Body has held zeroing to be impermissible under
the Antidumping Agreement. As first explained by the Appellate Body in European Union–Bed
Linen, zeroing does not “fully [take] into account the entirety of the prices of some export
transactions” as textually required by the Antidumping Agreement and does not provide “a fair
comparison between export price and normal value, as required by Article 2.4 and by Article
2.4.2.”270
Following this case, the Appellate Body examined a number of disputes involving challenges to
the practice of zeroing, primarily brought against the United States.271 This has, as a WTO panel
noted, led to a number of “often conflicting[] panel and Appellate Body opinions on the matter,”
although “the string of Appellate Body reports concerning mainly the United States’ use of
‘zeroing’ in anti-dumping proceedings read loud and clear” in concluding the practice is not
permitted.272 For example, in United States—Softwood Lumber V, the Appellate Body found the

265 Id. art. 2.4.
266 Id.
267 The Department of Commerce determines whether a product is being dumped in the United States and the U.S.
International Trade Commission makes determinations of whether such dumping has caused a U.S. industry to be
“materially injured,” threatened with such injury, or has “materially retarded” the establishment of an industry in the
United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1673.
268 For a detailed discussion of antidumping, see CRS Report R46296, Trade Remedies: Antidumping, by Christopher
A. Casey.
269 William W. Nye, The Implications of ‘Zeroing’ on Enforcement of U.S. Antidumping Law, Economic Analysis
Group Discussion Paper, EAG 08-10, Department of Justice (Aug. 10, 2008).
270 Appellate Body Report, European Union—Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India,
WTO DOC. WT/DS141/AB/R, ¶ 55 (Mar. 1, 2001).
271 Panel Report, United States—Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and Other Measures Related to Imports of
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, WTO DOC. WT/DS382/R, ¶¶ 7.131, 7.134 (Mar. 25, 2011).
272 Id.
Congressional Research Service
34

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

use of zeroing to impose antidumping duties on softwood lumber inconsistent with the weighted
average methodology of calculating dumping margins, concluding that the Antidumping
Agreement’s instruction to include “all comparable export transactions” when using the weighted
average method of calculating the dumping margin would not permit the United States to exclude
the zeroed transactions.273 In other words, “all” should include all comparable transactions,
regardless of whether the export prices were above or below normal value.274
Subsequently, the United States recalculated the antidumping duties on softwood lumber using
the transaction-specific method with zeroing.275 In compliance proceedings in the same dispute, a
panel determined that because, among other reasons, the Antidumping Agreement did not apply
the phrase “all comparable export transactions” to the transaction-specific method, the use of
zeroing was permissible.276 However, the Appellate Body reversed this conclusion, finding that
the term “export prices” in the Antidumping Agreement’s description of how to use the
transaction-specific method “suggests that all of the results of the transaction-specific
comparisons should be included,” and thus zeroing was not permitted.277 The absence of the
phrase “all comparable export transactions” in the provisions governing the transaction-specific
method did not alter this conclusion.278 Applying the weighted average method required including
only “comparable” transactions, whereas provisions governing the transaction-specific method
did not employ the term “comparable,” meaning all transactions must be included.279 Finally, the
Appellate Body suggested that “it would be illogical to interpret the transaction-to-transaction
comparison methodology in a manner that would lead to results that are systematically different
from those obtained under the weighted-average-to-weighted-average methodology.”280
The United States has complained about the Appellate Body decisions on zeroing, arguing that
the Antidumping Agreement does not prohibit such a methodology.281 For example, at a 2011
meeting of the DSB, the U.S. representative stated: “The United States has made very clear its
significant concerns with the Appellate Body’s evaluation of the WTO-consistency of ‘zeroing’ in
past disputes . . . . We continue to believe that those reports go beyond what the text of the
agreements provides and what negotiators agreed to in the Uruguay Round.”282 Further, the USTR
has contended that the U.S. interpretation of the Antidumping Agreement is permissible, and
therefore the Appellate Body has failed to apply properly the deferential standard of review used
for antidumping cases, which directs panels to accept a WTO member’s determination “if it rests
upon” any permissible interpretation of the Agreement.283 Finally, because the USTR believes the

273 Appellate Body Report, United States—Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada, WTO
DOC. WT/DS264/AB/R, ¶ 98 (Aug. 11, 2004).
274 Id.
275 See Panel Report, United States—Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada—Recourse to
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada, WTO DOC. WT/DS264/RW, ¶ 2.8 (Apr. 3, 2006).
276 Id. ¶ 5.28.
277 Appellate Body Report, United States—Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada—
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada, WTO DOC. WT/DS264/AB/RW, ¶ 88 (Aug. 15, 2006).
278 Id. ¶ 91.
279 Id.
280 Id. ¶ 93.
281 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 96.
282 Statements by the United States at the June 17, 2011, DSB Meeting, https://geneva.usmission.gov/2011/06/17/us-
statements-june-17-2011-dsb/. For an official summary of the meeting, see Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of
Meeting, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/298 (July 29, 2011).
283 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 102–03. Article 17.6(ii), second sentence, of the Antidumping Agreement states:
“Where the panel finds that a relevant provision of the Agreement admits of more than one permissible interpretation,
Congressional Research Service
35

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

U.S. interpretation of the Antidumping Agreement, which permits zeroing, is permissible, the
Appellate Body’s decisions to the contrary inappropriately diminish the rights of WTO
members.284
Simultaneous Dumping and Trade-Distorting Subsidization
The USTR has also criticized the Appellate Body for allegedly “invent[ing] additional
obligations” for the concurrent application of antidumping and countervailing duties (CVD) (i.e.,
higher tariffs a WTO member may impose if it determines its domestic industries are, or are
threatened to be, materially injured from dumping and market-distorting subsidies, respectively)
in cases involving investigations of nonmarket economies.285 The WTO Agreements permit
countries to impose both antidumping duties and countervailing duties, but “[n]o product of the
territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be
subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties to compensate for the same situation of
dumping or export subsidization.”286
One case that the USTR has cited as an example of the Appellate Body’s incorrect interpretation
of WTO Agreement provisions that address WTO members’ concurrent application of
antidumping and countervailing duties is United States—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing
Duties (China).287 In this case, the United States used a nonmarket economy (NME)
methodology288 to determine whether to impose antidumping duties on certain Chinese products,
and ultimately also imposed countervailing duties on the same products following the U.S.
investigations.289 China challenged the imposition of both types of duties, arguing it was a
“double remedy” because the U.S. investigations “double counted” the same harm for purposes of
imposing separate antidumping and countervailing duties.290
The Appellate Body first explained that “double remedies” are “‘likely’ to occur in cases where
an NME methodology is used to calculate the margin of dumping.”291 This is because the NME
methodology uses a constructed normal value instead of the actual normal value (i.e., the typical
price of the product in the home market) to correct for market distortions, and then compares that
constructed normal value to the actual export price, which may be artificially low due to
subsidization.292 Put otherwise, the dumping margin is “based on an asymmetric comparison and
is generally higher than would otherwise be the case,” and may therefore already “remedy or
offset a domestic subsidy, to the extent that such subsidy has contributed to a lowering of the
export price.”293 This means that any separate countervailing duty that is imposed to remedy

the panel shall find the authorities’ measure to be in conformity with the Agreement if it rests upon one of those
permissible interpretations.”
284 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 104.
285 Id. at 114.
286 GATT, supra note 29, art. VI:5.
287 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 117.
288 In brief, this refers to special methods for calculating dumping margins when the market price in the exporting
country is distorted due to state intervention.
289 See Appellate Body Report, United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain
Products from China, WTO DOC. WT/DS379/AB/R, ¶ 2 (Mar. 11, 2011).
290 See id. ¶ 4.
291 Id. ¶ 541.
292 See id. ¶¶ 542–43.
293 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Congressional Research Service
36

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

material injury from a subsidy likely includes the same domestic subsidy already covered by the
NME antidumping calculation; this may lead to a WTO member receiving a remedy for the same
subsidy twice (i.e., “a double remedy”).294
Following this explanation, the Appellate Body assessed whether the SCM Agreement would
permit a double remedy that might arise in cases involving concurrent antidumping and
countervailing duties, with the antidumping duties calculated using an NME methodology.295 In
particular, the Appellate Body addressed the potential interaction of double remedies with Article
19.3’s instruction that any countervailing duty be imposed in “appropriate amounts in each
case.”296 The Appellate Body concluded that the “amount of a countervailing duty cannot be
‘appropriate’ in situations where that duty represents the full amount of the subsidy and where
antidumping duties, calculated at least to some extent on the basis of the same subsidization, are
imposed concurrently to remove the same injury to the domestic industry.”297 Given the SCM
Agreement’s instruction that countervailing duties shall not exceed the amount of the subsidy
found to exist, and the Antidumping Agreement’s similar instruction that antidumping duties not
exceed the margin of dumping, it would be “counterintuitive” to find the amounts of such duties
combined could be “appropriate” even though they “would exceed the combined amounts of
dumping and subsidization found.”298
Following this dispute, the USTR stated that the Appellate Body’s requirement that WTO
members adjust how they calculate “appropriate” countervailing duties in similar cases was not
“derive[d] from the text” and represented an inappropriately “expansive interpretation of the term
‘appropriate amounts,’” which addressed how to collect the duties rather than calculate them.299 It
also complained that such a requirement “turns this clause in Article 19.3 into an obligation
concerning the amount of the CVD,” and introduces a “subjective standard for what is an
‘appropriate amount,’” which may itself introduce “unpredictability into the SCM Agreement.”300
Interpretations of the Safeguards Provisions
Similarly, the USTR has alleged that the Appellate Body has created requirements for imposing
safeguards that are not reflected in the WTO Agreements, thereby diminishing the right of WTO
members to use safeguards.301 Safeguards are temporary measures a WTO member may take if,
due to “unforeseen developments” and the effect of WTO obligations, imports “in such increased
quantities” (often referred to as “import surges”) cause or threaten to cause “serious injury” to
domestic producers of like or directly competitive products.302 Any safeguards may exist only “to
the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy such injury.”303 Before
imposing safeguards, a WTO member’s investigating authority must make a determination that

294 Id. ¶ 543.
295 See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 545–83.
296 SCM Agreement, supra note 234, art. 19.3.
297 Appellate Body Report, United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products
from China, WTO DOC. WT/DS379/AB/R, ¶ 582 (Mar. 11, 2011).
298 Id. ¶ 572.
299 Statements by the United States at the March 25, 2011 DSB Meeting, https://geneva.usmission.gov/2011/03/28/mar-
25-2011-dsb-meeting/.
300 Id.
301 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 110.
302 GATT, supra note 29, art. XIX:1(a).
303 Id.
Congressional Research Service
37

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

these conditions are met, and must generally apply any safeguard to imports from all territories
(this is why these are sometimes referred to as “global safeguards”).304
The Appellate Body has sought to clarify when a WTO member may impose safeguards and to
explain the appropriate procedures for doing so in accordance with the Agreement on Safeguards.
One case that the USTR has criticized is United States—Lamb, in which the Appellate Body was
asked to consider if the United States made the requisite findings before imposing safeguards on
imports of lamb meat.305 Australia and New Zealand complained that the United States failed,
among other things, to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments.306 The Appellate
Body rejected the United States’ argument that the Agreement on Safeguards’ requirement that a
domestic authority publish a report with findings regarding the appropriateness of imposing
safeguards should not be “cop[ied] into” or “read[] into” the “unforeseen developments”
requirement of GATT Article XIX.307 In so doing, the Appellate Body stated that GATT Article
XIX and the Agreement on Safeguards, which “establishes rules for the application of safeguard
measures which shall be understood to mean those measures provided for in Article XIX of
GATT 1994,”308 must be interpreted “harmoniously.”309
In prior cases, the Appellate Body applied this approach to conclude that the “unforeseen
circumstances” reference in Article XIX did not impose an independent condition for applying
safeguards; rather, it described the “circumstances which must be demonstrated as a matter of
fact” to justify imposing a safeguard.310 However, because “the existence of unforeseen
developments is a prerequisite that must be demonstrated” to apply safeguards, “it follows that
this demonstration must be made before the safeguard measure is applied.”311 Moreover, because
of the “logical connection” between Article XIX and conditions set out in the Agreement on
Safeguards, this demonstration “must also feature in the same report of the competent
authorities.”312 As the United States had not made an express finding regarding unforeseen
developments, and it was unclear how the discussion of the increased proportion of imports of
certain lamb meat and change in cut size demonstrated the existence of such developments, the
Appellate Body concluded that the United States acted inconsistently with its WTO obligations.313
The United States criticized the report, stating that the requirement regarding unforeseen
developments was “simply not supported by the plain text of Article XIX” and the Appellate
Body’s findings “verged on an interpretation of a WTO agreement,” which was not permitted.314

304 Agreement on Safeguards, art. 2, https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/25-safeg_e.htm.
305 See Appellate Body Reports, United States—Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb
Meat from New Zealand and United States—Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb from
Australia, WTO Docs. WT/DS177AB/R and WT/DS178/AB/R, ¶ 65 (May 1, 2001) [hereinafter United States—Lamb].
306 Id.
307 Id. ¶ 67.
308 Agreement on Safeguards, supra note 304, art. 1.
309 Appellate Body Reports, United States—Lamb, ¶ 69.
310 See id. ¶ 71 (describing prior Appellate Body reports).
311 Id. ¶ 72.
312 Id.
313 Id. ¶¶ 73–75.
314 Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of Meeting, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/105, ¶ 42 (June 19, 2001) (statement by the
United States).
Congressional Research Service
38

link to page 24 link to page 24 The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Any such interpretations “could be made only by Members” as provided for in Article IX:2 of the
Marrakesh Agreement.315
Aside from expressing concerns about the Appellate Body’s decisions on “unforeseen
developments,” the USTR has also criticized the Appellate Body’s interpretation of “serious
injury.”316 The Agreement on Safeguards defines “serious injury” as “a significant overall
impairment in the position of a domestic industry,” and the “threat of serious injury” as serious
injury “that is clearly imminent” and that is “based on facts and not merely on allegation,
conjecture or remote possibility.”317 Investigating authorities must “evaluate all relevant factors of
an objective and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of that industry,” and the
Agreement provides a nonexhaustive list of such factors (e.g., changes in the level of sales and
the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports).318 Finally, the Agreement requires
that injury from “factors other than increased imports” not be attributed to the increased imports
(the nonattribution rule).319
One dispute in which the nonattribution issue arose was United States—Wheat Gluten, in which
the United States imposed safeguards on wheat gluten.320 The European Union challenged the
safeguards, arguing the United States had not appropriately conducted the causation analysis
because the investigating authority had not excluded the injury to U.S. industry from factors other
than the imports.321 The Appellate Body first found that the nonattribution requirement meant that
an investigating authority must properly ascertain the injury caused by “factors other than
increased imports,” which could be done only by “separating or distinguishing the effects caused
by the different factors in bringing about the ‘injury.’”322 Thus, the Agreement on Safeguards
contemplated a two-stage process whereby the domestic authority would first distinguish the
effects from the increased imports from the effects of other factors, and then attribute the injury
caused by each group of factors, thereby ensuring that “any injury to the domestic industry that
was actually caused by factors other than increased imports is not ‘attributed’ to increased
imports.”323
Although the United States did not raise objections to, or criticize, the Appellate Body’s
determination at the time the report was issued,324 the USTR’s 2020 report argues the requirement
that an authority separate and distinguish the effects caused by increased imports and those
caused by other factors is not found in the text of the relevant WTO Agreements.325 The USTR
then notes that because this approach might “prevent an investigating authority from evaluating
the injury caused by other factors and then examining whether that injury attenuates the causal

315 Id. See the discussion supra about “interpretations” and Article IX:2, “Considering Decisions of Various WTO
Bodies to Be Authoritative Interpretations of the WTO Agreements.”
316 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 113.
317 Agreement on Safeguards, supra note 304, art. 4.1(a)–(b).
318 Id. art. 4.2(a).
319 Id. art. 4.2(b).
320 Appellate Body Report, United States—Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the
European Communities, WTO DOC. WT/DS166/AB/R, ¶ 1 (Dec. 22, 2000).
321 See id. ¶¶ 3–4.
322 Id. ¶ 68.
323 Id. ¶ 69.
324 See Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of Meeting, WTO DOC. WT/DSB/M/97, 2–3 (Jan. 19, 2001).
325 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 113.
Congressional Research Service
39

link to page 29 The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

link between the increased imports and serious injury,” it could “diminish the rights of WTO
Members to take safeguard action.”326
Conclusion
The USTR, through a number of presidential administrations, has raised concerns about the
WTO’s Appellate Body, arguing it has exceeded its authority and incorrectly interpreted the WTO
Agreements in a number of disputes, thereby impermissibly altering or diminishing the rights and
obligations of WTO members.327 These concerns might be distilled into two categories: those
where the USTR is alleging Appellate Body overreach, and those where the USTR is alleging the
Appellate Body’s decisions are inaccurate. One may find it easier to assess the validity of these
concerns and develop near-term solutions in some cases (e.g., does the Appellate Body take more
than 90 days to decide appeals) than others (e.g., was the Appellate Body correct to prohibit the
practice of “zeroing”). The significance of each of the USTR’s concerns is difficult to judge.328
The difficulty in assessing U.S. allegations of overreach and jurist interpretive errors results from
a variety of factors. First, there is a certain amount of flexibility in treaty interpretation that may
lead interpreters to reach divergent, if not conflicting, conclusions about the meaning of a WTO
agreement.329 Such differences may, in the view of some, represent error.330 It may be more
difficult to conclude whether such error reflects Appellate Body overreach.331 Second, there are
differences in how WTO members and stakeholders view the Appellate Body’s role in relation to
other WTO bodies and members. These latter differences include broader issues involving
institutional design332 and the WTO’s governance style,333 from political, practical, and legitimacy
vantage points.
Although WTO stakeholders are engaged in discussions to reform the dispute settlement system,
philosophical and political differences between WTO members about the Appellate Body’s
appropriate role may prove to be the most challenging obstacle to reaching a solution. The WTO
General Council launched an informal inquiry into the Appellate Body’s functioning at its
December 2018 meeting. This group has met regularly, and its facilitator, Ambassador David

326 Id.
327 Id. at 1–14.
328 See, e.g., Petros C. Mavroidis, Matteo Fiorini, Bernand M. Hoekman, Maarja Saluste, & Robert Wolfe, WTO
Dispute Settlement and the Appellate Body: Insider Perceptions and Members’ Revealed Preferences, 54(5) J. WORLD
TRADE 667 (2020) (noting that some WTO members share U.S. concerns about overreach in some instances, but they
do not tend to focus on “incorrect” interpretations, which may not reflect systemic problems).
329 See supra “The Art of Treaty Interpretation.”
330 See id.
331 See id. (discussing the scholarly literature).
332 See Zhou & Gao, supra note 209, at 18 (discussing methods of treating “constructive ambiguity” within and outside
of dispute settlement); CHRISTOPH MÖLLERS, THE THREE BRANCHES: A COMPARATIVE MODEL OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS 209 (2013) (suggesting the DSB cannot resolve the “economic bias” of the WTO for legitimacy reasons);
Jennifer Hillman, Three Approaches to Fixing the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body: The Good, The Bad
and the Ugly?, INST. OF INT’L ECON. L. (2018), https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Hillman-
Good-Bad-Ugly-Fix-to-WTO-AB.pdf.
333 PASCAL LAMY, THE GENEVA CONSENSUS 14 (2013) (describing the consensus, member-driven style of WTO
decisionmaking and concluding that “institutionally the WTO is weak”); MÖLLERS, supra note 332, at 205–06 (noting
that, other than the DSB, “[t]he other ‘branches’ of the WTO seem underdeveloped,” because of a lack of a legislative
body and the decreased influence of the WTO Secretariat as an “executive” actor due to increased power of the DSB
relative to the GATT 1947 arrangements).
Congressional Research Service
40

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Walker of New Zealand, proposed in October 2019 a list of items among its participants as the
General Council’s draft decision.334 As the WTO operates based on consensus among its 164
members, reaching this unanimity may prove challenging. To date, the United States has rejected
the various reform proposals, and the Biden Administration has not signaled a shift in approach to
future Appellate Body nominations or tabled reform proposals.335 It is unclear how upcoming
events, including the WTO Ministerial scheduled for late 2021 and use of the interim appeals
mechanism negotiated between the EU and others, might affect Appellate Body reform efforts.

334 See Report by the Facilitator, H.E. Dr. David Walker (New Zealand), Agenda Item 4, Informal Process on Matters
Related to the Functioning of the Appellate Body, JOB/GC/222 (Oct. 15, 2019).
335 Statement by the United States at the Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on February 22, 2021, ¶ 6.13, WTO
DOC. WT/DSB/M/449 (Mar. 24, 2021) (“The representative of the United States said that the United States was not in a
position to support the proposed decision. The United States continued to have systemic concerns with the Appellate
Body.).
Congressional Research Service
41

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Appendix. Applying the Rules of Treaty
Interpretation to the WTO Agreements
As discussed above, in United States—Definitive Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on
Certain Products from China, a WTO panel and the Appellate Body considered the meaning of
the term “public body” in Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement.336 That article provides, in relevant
part:
1.1 For the purpose of this Agreement, a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if:
(a)(1) there is a financial contribution by a government or any public body within the
territory of a Member (referred to in this Agreement as “government”), i.e. where:
(i) a government practice involves a direct transfer of funds (e.g. grants, loans, and
equity infusion), potential direct transfers of funds or liabilities (e.g. loan guarantees);
(ii) government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal
incentives such as tax credits);
(iii) a government provides goods or services other than general infrastructure, or
purchases goods;
(iv) a government makes payments to a funding mechanism, or entrusts or directs a
private body to carry out one or more of the type of functions illustrated in (i) to (iii)
above which would normally be vested in the government and the practice, in no real
sense, differs from practices normally followed by governments . . .337
The panel concluded that a public body is “any entity controlled by a government,”338 which also
reflects the USTR’s view.339 In contrast, the Appellate Body determined that a public body is “an
entity that possesses, exercises or is vested with governmental authority.”340 Each of these
tribunals reached its conclusion after attempting to determine the phrase’s ordinary meaning.
Table A-1. Interpreting the “Ordinary Meaning” of “Public Body”
Comparing the Approach of the WTO Panel and Appellate Body in DS379, United States—Definitive
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China
Interpretive Rule
WTO Panel
Appellate Body
Consideration of the Text Dictionary definitions of “public” and
Dictionary definitions of “public” and
“body,” including English, French, and
“body,” including English, French, and
Spanish versions
Spanish versions
Preliminary Conclusions
Definitions do not “give a conclusive
Definitions “suggest a rather broad
answer to how the term . . . should be
range of potential meanings”
understood”

336 See supra “Interpretation of ‘Public Body.’”
337 SCM Agreement, supra note 234, art. 1.1(a) (emphasis added; internal citation omitted).
338 Panel Report, United States—Definitive Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China,
WTO DOC. WT/DS379/R, ¶ 8.94 (Oct. 22, 2010) [hereinafter Panel Report, US—AD/CVD (China)].
339 USTR REPORT, supra note 8, at 82.
340 Appellate Body Report, United States–Definitive Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from
China, WTO DOC. WT/DS379/AB/R, ¶ 317 (Mar. 11, 2011) [hereinafter Appellate Body Report, US—AD/CVD
(China)].
Congressional Research Service
42

link to page 45 The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Interpretive Rule
WTO Panel
Appellate Body
Consideration of other
References to “government” and
References to “government” and
Context
“private body”
“private body”

Col ective reference to “a government
Col ective reference to “a government
or any public body” as “government”
or any public body” as “government”

Types of actions in Art. 1.1(a)(1)(i)-(iv)
Types of actions in Art. 1.1(a)(1)(i)-(iv)

Draft Articles on State Responsibility,
arts. 4, 5, & 8
Preliminary Conclusions
Context suggests the phrase refers to
Context suggests the phrase refers to
“entities control ed by governments”
entities that perform governmental
functions by “being vested with, and
exercising, the authority to perform
such functions”
Consideration of the
Object and purpose of disciplining the
Object and purpose do not cut in
“Object and Purpose” of
use of subsidies cuts against a narrow
favor of any particular definition
the Treaty
interpretation of public body
Preliminary Conclusion
Defining public body as “any entity that
Definition of public body should be
is control ed by the government” best
determined by assessing the other
serves the object and purpose
contextual material
Final Determination
Public body is “any entity control ed by
Public body is “an entity that
a government”
possesses, exercises or is vested with
governmental authority”
Source: CRS analysis of the Appellate Body and panel reports in DS379: WTO Docs. WT/DS379/AB/R,
WT/DS379/R.
As demonstrated in Table A-1, when interpreting the term “public body” in the SCM Agreement,
the WTO panel and Appellate Body considered many of the same materials. However, the
tribunals adopted different approaches to using these materials as guides to interpreting the SCM
Agreement. For instance, the panel did not find the phrase “a government or any public body
within the territory of a Member (referred to in this Agreement as ‘government’)” particularly
relevant to the question of how closely linked a public body must be to a government in order to
implicate subsidies obligations.341 Instead, the panel found it was “merely a device to simplify the
drafting” so the entire phrase “government or any public body” need not be repeated throughout
the SCM Agreement.342 By contrast, the Appellate Body thought the phrase suggested that the
collective reference to “a government or any public body” as “government” indicated that a
public body must have some connection to the government, even if not formally part of the
government itself, such as by the performance of governmental functions.343
Additionally, the panel determined that “the most important contextual element” was the term
“private body.”344 When the definition of private body was juxtaposed with the definition of
public body, this indicated “that a ‘public’ body is any entity that is under State control, while a

341 Panel Report, US—AD/CVD (China), supra note 338, ¶ 8.66.
342 Id.
343 Appellate Body Report, US—AD/CVD (China), supra note 340, ¶ 288.
344 Panel Report, US—AD/CVD (China), supra note 338, ¶¶ 8.68.–8.69.
Congressional Research Service
43

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

‘private’ body is an entity not controlled by the State.”345 While the Appellate Body also
compared these two phrases, it considered further the SCM Agreement’s statement that the
actions of a “private body” could give rise to WTO member liability only if the body was
performing acts that would “normally be vested in the government.”346 This suggested that
anything deemed a public body must be in a position to “direct” a private body to perform such
acts, and therefore indicated that such public body be vested with or somehow itself exercising
governmental authority, as otherwise it would not be in a position to direct private bodies to
perform such acts.347
When considering whether other sources outside of the WTO Agreements could provide
additional context, the panel decided that the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, which
address when actions may be attributed to a country under international law, were not relevant.348
This is because the SCM Agreement addressed, and therefore displaced, the rules of attribution
under the Draft Articles.349 The Appellate Body, however, considered the Draft Articles on State
Responsibility to be relevant context, as they reflected customary international law, and the
concepts found within them appeared to be similar to those in the SCM Agreement.350 In other
words, the Appellate Body found these articles “relevant rules of international law applicable in
the relations between the parties” within the meaning of Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT, which were
useful for confirming the Appellate Body’s interpretation from other context that “public body”
referred to entities exercising or vested with governmental authority.351
The panel and Appellate Body differed in how helpful the object and purpose of the SCM
Agreement were in defining the ordinary meaning of public body. The panel looked to prior
Appellate Body descriptions of the object and purpose, notably “to strengthen and improve GATT
disciplines relating to the use of both subsidies and countervailing measures, while recognizing at
the same time, the right of Members to impose such measures under certain conditions.”352 Based
on this language, the panel concluded the object and purpose countenanced against overly narrow
interpretations of “public body” that would allow WTO members to avoid SCM Agreement
obligations “by excluding whole categories of government non-commercial behaviour undertaken
by government-controlled entities,” particularly via state-owned enterprises.353 Thus, the
appropriate definition would need to include “any government-controlled entity.”354 The
Appellate Body noted its prior descriptions of the object and purpose, but found them “of limited
use in delimiting the scope of the term ‘public body’” because there is a distinction between

345 Id.
346 Appellate Body Report, US—AD/CVD (China), supra note 340, ¶¶ 291–97.
347 Id.
348 Panel Report, US—AD/CVD (China), supra note 338, ¶¶ 8.87–8.91.
349 Id.
350 Appellate Body Report, US—AD/CVD (China), supra note 340, ¶¶ 308–10.
351 Id. The Appellate Body’s and panel’s discussions of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility in this dispute
focused on whether they were relevant to the question of interpretation that the tribunals confronted. However, this
discussion is part of a much broader debate about how the WTO Agreements, known as a “single undertaking,” relate
to—or are situated in—the broader context of international law. Some view the WTO as largely separate, while others
advocate for greater or more consistent use of customary international law and general principles of international law in
the WTO dispute settlement system. See, e.g., BOHANES & KYRIAKOU, supra note 206, at 409 (noting that WTO
lawyers tend to view WTO law as “distinct from the remainder of public international law”); ANASTASIOS
GOURGOURINIS, EQUITY AND EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (2016).
352 Panel Report, US—AD/CVD (China), supra note 338, ¶ 8.74.
353 Id. ¶¶ 8.75–8.76.
354 Id. ¶ 8.83.
Congressional Research Service
44

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

whether that phrase covers an entity, and whether the conduct at issue is disciplined by the SCM
Agreement.355 In other words, the object and purpose is of little use because even private bodies
could be subject to the SCM Agreement’s disciplines if their acts were “entrusted or directed by a
government or by a public body.”356 Based on its consideration of all other materials, the
Appellate Body concluded a public body was “an entity that possesses, exercises or is vested with
governmental authority.”357
As can be seen from this example, the flexibility built into treaty interpretation can lead tribunals
to significantly different, even conflicting, conclusions about the meaning of treaty provisions,
especially in cases of undefined, ambiguous, or vague terms. Whether one agrees or disagrees
with a tribunal’s interpretation may depend on how one would engage in a similar interpretive
exercise.
Potential dissatisfaction with an opinion may stem from several sources. First, one might disagree
with the opinion because of concerns about the panel’s approach to treaty interpretation. Second,
one might disagree with an interpretation because, as a practical matter, it makes certain actions
more difficult within the WTO’s legal framework. In either case, this dissatisfaction may also
reflect broader problems. For instance, in the above example involving the interpretation of
“public body,” the disputing parties did not present the panel and Appellate Body with more
nuanced alternatives than their own proposed definitions, which may have limited the tribunals’
ability to engage meaningfully with alternatives.358 Regardless of interpretive approach, in some
disputes, the WTO Agreement’s text may be too imprecise to address consistently or coherently
the types of behavior in dispute.

Author Information

Nina M. Hart
Brandon J. Murrill
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney

355 Appellate Body Report, US—AD/CVD (China), supra note 340, ¶¶ 301–02.
356 Id. ¶ 302.
357 Id. ¶ 317.
358 See, e.g., Ru Ding, Public Body or Not: Chinese State-Owned Enterprises, 48 J. WORLD TRADE 167 (2014)
(discussing the possibly overly broad or restrictive consequences of the panel’s and Appellate Body’s definitions);
Messenger, supra note 209 (proposing greater legal engagement with the concepts of “public” and “government” as a
means of reconsidering the definition of “public body”).
Congressional Research Service
45

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body: Key Disputes and Controversies

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46852 · VERSION 1 · NEW
46