Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Table of Contents
- United States - Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products (WT/DS381)
- Table of Contents
- CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT
- ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
- I INTRODUCTION
- II ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS
- III ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
- IV BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE
- V LEGAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE
- VI ARTICLE 2.1 OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
- VII ARTICLE 2.2 OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
- VIII ARTICLE 2.4 OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
- IX MEXICO'S CLAIMS UNDER ARTICLES I:1 AND III:4 OF THE GATT 1994
- X FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
- ANNEX I Notification of an Appeal by the United States, WT/DS381/10
- ANNEX II Notification of an Other Appeal by Mexico, WT/DS381/11
- Table of Contents
- TABLE OF WTO DISPUTES CITED IN THIS REPORT
- TABLE OF GATT DISPUTES CITED IN THIS REPORT
- LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
- LIST OF US EXHIBITS CITED IN THIS REPORT
- LIST OF MEXICAN EXHIBITS CITED IN THIS REPORT
- LIST OF AMICUS CURIAE EXHIBITS CITED IN THIS REPORT
- I INTRODUCTION
- II FACTUAL ASPECTS
- III PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- IV ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
- V ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES
- VI INTERIM REVIEW
- VII FINDINGS
- VIII RULINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- Cumulative List of Published Disputes
VI - INTERIM REVIEW
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 December 2017
- Frontmatter
- Table of Contents
- United States - Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products (WT/DS381)
- Table of Contents
- CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT
- ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
- I INTRODUCTION
- II ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS
- III ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
- IV BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE
- V LEGAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE
- VI ARTICLE 2.1 OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
- VII ARTICLE 2.2 OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
- VIII ARTICLE 2.4 OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
- IX MEXICO'S CLAIMS UNDER ARTICLES I:1 AND III:4 OF THE GATT 1994
- X FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
- ANNEX I Notification of an Appeal by the United States, WT/DS381/10
- ANNEX II Notification of an Other Appeal by Mexico, WT/DS381/11
- Table of Contents
- TABLE OF WTO DISPUTES CITED IN THIS REPORT
- TABLE OF GATT DISPUTES CITED IN THIS REPORT
- LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
- LIST OF US EXHIBITS CITED IN THIS REPORT
- LIST OF MEXICAN EXHIBITS CITED IN THIS REPORT
- LIST OF AMICUS CURIAE EXHIBITS CITED IN THIS REPORT
- I INTRODUCTION
- II FACTUAL ASPECTS
- III PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- IV ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
- V ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES
- VI INTERIM REVIEW
- VII FINDINGS
- VIII RULINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- Cumulative List of Published Disputes
Summary
General
6.1 On 5 May 2011, we transmitted our interim report to the parties. On 26 May 2011, Mexico and the United States requested the Panel to review precise aspects of the Interim Panel Report pursuant to Article 15.2 of the DSU and the Working Procedures adopted by the Panel. On 14 June 2011, both parties presented comments on each other's requests for review.
6.2 In its comments on the US request for review, Mexico argued that “many of the changes proposed by the United States appear to be efforts to change the substantive findings of the Panel, to enter into debate with the Panel, to have the Panel place special emphasis on US arguments, or to alter the Panel's descriptions of Mexico's arguments. Moreover, many of the US comments are more in the nature of requests for reconsideration which are not appropriate for this phase of the proceedings”.
6.3 As stated on previous occasions by the Appellate Body, the interim review stage is not an appropriate moment to introduce new and unanswered evidence. However, in our view, requests to review precise aspects of the Panel's report may legitimately include requests for “reconsideration” of specific factual or legal findings, provided that such requests are not based on the presentation of new evidence. We therefore did not find it necessary to exclude a priori from consideration any request for review from either party on the sole basis that it would seek reconsideration by the Panel of some of its determinations.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Dispute Settlement Reports 2012 , pp. 2192 - 2202Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014