Chapter Ⅲ
Initiation of Panel Procedures


OUTLINE

Section One Role of Consultations: Art. 4
I The Importance of Consultations
II Issues Concerning the “adequacy” of Consultations
Section Two Establishment of Panels: Art. 6.2
I Introduction
II Indication of Consultations Process
III Identification of “the specific measures at issue”
IV Provision of “a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint”
V Concluding Remarks
Section Three Terms of Reference of Panels: Art. 7
I Introduction
II Effect of Consultations on Terms of Reference of Panels
III The “matter referred to the DSB”
Section Four The Mandate of Compliance Panels: Art. 21.5
I Introduction
II Clarification of “measures taken to comply”
III Perspective of Review under Art.21.5
IV Examination of the New Measure in Its Totality and in Its Application
Section Five Third Party Rights : Art. 10
I Introduction
II Generic Third Party Rights: Interpretation of Art. 10.3
III Extended Third Party Rights: Exercise of Panels’ Discretion
IV Summary and Conclusions





Section One
Role of Consultations: Art. 4

The procedures for consultations under the WTO, significantly different from the procedures for good offices, conciliation or mediation as prescribed in Art. 5 of the DSU which remains voluntary options if the parties to the dispute so agree, remains a mandatory first step in the dispute settlement process as embodied with text of Art. 4 of the DSU. However, as to be shown below, there is something to be clarified so as to understand appropriately the role of consultations under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.

I The Importance of Consultations
The practice of GATT contracting parties in regularly holding consultations is testimony to the important role of consultations in dispute settlement. Art. 4.1 of the DSU recognizes this practice and further provides that: “Members affirm their resolve to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the consultation procedures employed by Members.” A number of reports made by panels or by the Appellate Body under the WTO have recognized the value of consultations within the dispute settlement process.
As noted by a panel, Members’ duty to consult concerns a matter with utmost seriousness: “Compliance with the fundamental obligation of WTO Members to enter into consultations where a request is made under the DSU is vital to the operation of the dispute settlement system. Article 4.2 of the DSU provides that ‘[e]ach Member undertakes to accord sympathetic consideration to and afford adequate opportunity for consultation regarding any representations made by another Member concerning measures affecting the operation of any covered agreement taken within the territory of the former’. Moreover, pursuant to Article 4.6 of the DSU, consultations are ‘without prejudice to the rights of any Member in any further proceedings’. In our view, these provisions make clear that Members' duty to consult is absolute, and is not susceptible to the prior imposition of any terms and conditions by a Member.” 1
Another panel addresses the essence of consultations, and they rule there that: “Indeed, in our view, the very essence of consultations is to enable the parties gather correct and relevant information, for purposes of assisting them in arriving at a mutually agreed solution, or failing which, to assist them in presenting accurate information to the panel.”2
The Appellate Body confirms panels’ rulings in this respect. For example, the Appellate Body stresses those benefits afforded by consultations to the dispute settlement system in Mexico-HFCS（DS132）（21.5）as: “[…] Through consultations, parties exchange information, assess the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases, narrow the scope of the differences between them and, in many cases, reach a mutually agreed solution in accordance with the explicit preference expressed in Article 3.7 of the DSU. Moreover, even where no such agreed solution is reached, consultations provide the parties an opportunity to define and delimit the scope of the dispute between them. Clearly, consultations afford many benefits to complaining and responding parties, as well as to third parties and to the dispute settlement system as a whole.”3

II Issues Concerning the “adequacy” of Consultations
As noted above, the procedures for consultations remain a mandatory first step in the dispute settlement process under the WTO. However, does it mean that there is a requirement for the adequacy of consultations before initiating a panel proceeding?
With regard to this issue, on the one hand, the Panel on Alcoholic Beverages (DS75/DS84) finds that, “the WTO jurisprudence so far has not recognized any concept of ‘adequacy’ of consultations”, the Panel Report reads in pertinent part:4
“In our view, the WTO jurisprudence so far has not recognized any concept of ‘adequacy’ of consultations. The only requirement under the DSU is that consultations were in fact held, or were at least requested, and that a period of sixty days has elapsed from the time consultations were requested to the time a request for a panel was made. What takes place in those consultations is not the concern of a panel. The point was put clearly by the Panel in Bananas III, where it was stated:
‘Consultations are […] a matter reserved for the parties. The DSB is not involved; no panel is involved; and the consultations are held in the absence of the Secretariat. While a mutually agreed solution is to be preferred, in some cases it is not possible for parties to agree upon one. In those cases, it is our view that the function of a panel is only to ascertain that the consultations, if required, were in fact held. […]’
广东省广州市人民政府


关于加强地下空间安全管理的决定

广州市人民政府令第42号


《关于加强地下空间安全管理的决定》已经2010年10月18日市政府第13届125次常务会议讨论通过，现予以公布，自公布之日起施行。

市长 万庆良
二○一○年十月二十六日

关于加强地下空间安全管理的决定

为确保第16届亚洲运动会、广州2010年亚洲残疾人运动会（以下简称亚运会、亚残运会）的顺利举行，根据《广州市人民代表大会常务委员会关于保障亚运会和亚残运会筹备和举办工作的决定》以及《广州市人民代表大会常务委员会关于加强亚运会筹备和举办期间安全保卫工作的决定》，市人民政府决定，在亚运会、亚残运会筹备和举办期间，对本市地下空间采取安全管理措施。有关事项如下：

一、本决定适用于本市行政区域内对公众开放的，作为生产、经营场所以及其他作为公共活动场所的民防工程、普通地下室的安全管理。

二、地下空间的产权人、产权人委托的地下空间物业管理单位、地下空间的使用人（以下统称地下空间的责任单位）应当加强地下空间安全使用管理，落实安全防范措施，及时消除安全隐患，确保地下空间安全。

三、地下空间的责任单位应当按照《广东省安全技术防范管理条例》的规定安装安全技术防范设施，并加强日常检查和维护。

四、地下空间的责任单位应当建立内部安全防范制度，加强对地下空间的人员密集部位以及出入口、应急疏散通道、配电间、换气风道口等重点部位的巡查。

五、地下空间的责任单位应当按照公安机关的规定，对进入用作经营性仓库、机动车停车库的地下空间的车辆、物品进行安全检查。对拒绝接受安全检查的，应当阻止其进入；发现可疑人员、车辆、物品的，除采取阻止进入的措施外，还应当立即报告公安机关。

六、违反本决定规定的行为，有关法律、法规、规章有处理规定的，按照相关规定处理。

七、违反本决定第五条，地下空间的责任单位未按公安机关的规定对进入用作经营性仓库、机动车停车库的地下空间的车辆、物品进行安全检查，或者未履行阻止进入、报告义务的，由公安机关责令改正，处以1000元以上5000元以下罚款；情节严重的，处以5000元以上2万元以下罚款。

八、民防、公安等部门应当在各自职责范围内，加强对地下空间安全使用的监督管理。对不具备法律、法规、规章规定的安全使用条件或者存在安全隐患的地下空间，应当责令地下空间的责任单位限期改正；对逾期未改正的，可以依法责令停产停业；对严重威胁人身安全、财产安全或者公共安全的，可以由公安机关依法直接责令停产停业。

九、本决定自2010年10月26日至2010年12月20日施行。