http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
이석우 한국국제경제법학회 2004 국제경제법연구 Vol.2 No.-
Under DSU Article 6.2, the mere listing in a panel request of the WTO treaty articles under which claims are being raised is sufficient. [Reversed by Appellate Body.] The "unforeseen developments" clause in GAIT Article XIX:1(a) does not provide an independent basis for finding that a safeguard measure violates WTO rules. [Reversed by Appellate Body.] Korea's finding that serious injury had occurred was not consistent with the requirements of Safeguards Agreement Article 4.2(a), because it did not adequately examine all relevant serious injury factors. Members imposing a safeguard measure are required to explain how the particular measure chosen satisfies the criteria set out in Safeguards Agreement Article 5.1. As Korea had not done so, the Panel found that Korea acted inconsistently with that provision. [Reversed by Appellate Body.] The "all pertinent information" standard in Safeguards Agreement Article 12.2 does not mean that members must notify in summary form everything they are required to publish under Articles 3 and 4. Rather, the amount of information notified must be "sufficient to be useful to members with a substantial interest in the proposed safeguard measure." [Interpretation of "all pertinent information" reversed by Appellate Body] Reversed Panel's conclusion that listing the WTO treaty articles challenged in a panel request is always sufficient to meet the requirements of DSU Article 6.2. Stated that 3 key factor to take into account is whether the ability of the responding party to defend itself was "prejudiced," Here, Appellate Body found that Korea did not prove that It suffered such prejudice. Reversed Panel's finding thar the "unforeseen developments" clause in GATT article XIX:l(a) does not impose obligations on WTO Members to demonstrate "unforeseen developments" before applying a safeguard measure. However, in this case, there were insufficient facts on the record for the Appellate Body to decide whether Korea violated this provision. Upheld Panel's finding that Safeguards Agreement Article 5.1, first sentence requires an authority "to ensure that the measure applied is commensurate with the goals of preventing or remedying serious injury and of facilitating adjustment," Reversed Panel's finding that Safeguards Agreement Article 5.1 imposes a general requirement that a member imposing a safeguard measure explain how that measure is necessary. Rather, it held that a requirement for a specific explanation applies only If the Member chooses to apply the specific type of quantitative restriction referred to in the second sentence of Article 5.1. Because the Panel made no factual findings regarding Korea's quantitative restriction, the Appellate Body was unable to complete the Panel's legal analysis and make findings on this issue.