Decisions of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization United States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products Download the Complete Survey (PDF Format) * WTO Appellate Body Report: United States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, WT/DS248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 258, 259/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003. United States, Appellant/Appellee; Brazil, China, European Communities, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland, Appellant/Appellees; Canada, Cuba, Mexico, Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela, Third Participants. Division: Bacchus, Abi-Saab and Lockhart. Major Topics Addressed by the Appellate Body: (i) reasoned and adequate explanation of unforeseen developments under Art. XIX:1(a) of GATT and Art. 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards; (ii) reasoned and adequate explanation of facts supporting finding of increased imports under Arts. 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards; (iii) reasoned and adequate explanation establishing explicitly that imports from non-excluded sources satisfy conditions for application of safeguard measures under Arts. 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards. 1. Abstract This case involved 10 U.S. safeguard measures applied by the U.S. in relation to steel. In finding that the U.S. measures violated Art. XIX of GATT and various provisions of the Safeguards Agreement, the Appellate Body extended its requirement for a "reasoned and adequate explanation'in connection with the determinations of domestic agencies. This principle may be understood as an emerging principle of international administrative law, applicable within the WTO trade remedies context and based on treaty interpretation. In another area, the Appellate Body declined to accept the panel's approach to differing opinions of U.S. International Trade Commission Commissioners. The panel had found that the divergence of these opinions, on its own, could be inconsistent with a "reasoned and adequate explanation.' The Appellate Body decided that the panel should have reviewed each of the individual findings in order to determine whether any of them individually provided a reasoned and adequate explanation for a single institutional determination. * The free viewer (Acrobat Reader) for PDF file is available at the Adobe Systems
	© 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: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 07:59AM