Home
Current Issue
Developments
Archive
Table of Contents
Surveys
Book Reviews
Discussion Forum
Information
Reading Room
Links of Interest
Search
Join our email list
Translate this page
  

Decisions of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization

Chile - Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products

Download the Complete Survey (PDF Format) *

Full Text of the WTO Appellate Body Report (PDF Format) **

Table of ContentsNext Page

WTO Appellate Body Report: Chile - Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, AB-2002-2 WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted by Dispute Settlement Body, 23 October 2002. Chile, Appellant; Argentina, Appellee. Australia, Brazil, Colombia, European Communities, Ecuador, Paraguay, United States, Venezuela, Third Participants. Division: Abi-Saab, Bacchus, Lockhart. Major Topics addressed by Appellate Body: Article 11 DSU, Article 4.2 Agreement on Agriculture.

1. Abstract

In this case, the Appellate Body made some important clarifications regarding the interpretation of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. First, it examined the meaning of the use of the present perfect tense in Article 4.2 ("measures of the kind which have been required to be converted..."). The Appellate Body came to the conclusion that this language was not intended to limit the scope of covered measures to those which were actually converted or requested to be converted into customs duties during the Uruguay Round. Second, the Appellate Body extensively examined the meaning of "similar border measures" in footnote 1 to Article 4.2; in this case, it found that the Chilean price band system qualified as such a measure. Third, it rejected the Panel's definition of "ordinary customs duties" as related to factors other than exogenous ones.

Further, the Appellate Body used Article 11 DSU to limit WTO panels' scope of review. The fact that the Panel had found a violation of the second sentence of Article II:1 (b) GATT even though Argentina had only claimed a violation of the first sentence was seen as an act ultra petita and an infringement of Chile's fair right of response.

* The free viewer (Acrobat Reader) for PDF file is available at the Adobe Systems

** provided by WorldTradeLaw.net

Table of ContentsNext Page





Top of Page

© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.
This file was last modified: Sunday, February 09, 2003 10:10PM