nabling Clause in making its claim of inconsistency with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, but that the European Communities bore the burden of proving that the Drug Arrangements satisfy the conditions of the Enabling Clause, in order to justify those Arrangements under that Clause; and finds, further, that India sufficiently raised paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause in making its claim of inconsistency with Article I:1 before the Panel;
(d) need not rule on the Panel's conclusion, in paragraphs 7.60 and 8.1(b) of the
Panel Report, that the Drug Arrangements are inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994;
(e) reverses the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.161 and 7.176 of the Panel Report, that "the term 'non-discriminatory' in footnote 3 [to paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause] requires that identical tariff preferences under GSP schemes be provided to all developing countries without differentiation, except for the implementation of a priori limitations";
(f) reverses the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.174 of the Panel Report, that "the term 'developing countries' in paragraph 2(a) [of the Enabling Clause] should be interpreted to mean all developing countries, with the exception that where developed countries are implementing a priori limitations, 'developing countries' may mean less than all developing countries"; and
(g) upholds, for different reasons, the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.1(d) of the Panel Report, that the European Communities "failed to demonstrate that the Drug Arrangements are justified under paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause".
191. The Appellate Body therefore recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request the European Communities to bring Council Regulation (EC) No. 2501/2001, found in this Report, and in the Panel Report as modified by this Report, to be inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and not justified under paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause, into conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994.
目录
I. Introduction 1
II. Arguments of the Participants and Third Participants 5
A. Claims of Error by the European Communities – Appellant 5
1. The Relationship Between Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and the Enabling Clause 5
2. Whether the Drug Arrangements are Justified Under the Enabling Clause 9
B. Arguments of India – Appellee 15
1. The Relationship Between Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and the Enabling Clause 15
2. Whether the Drug Arrangements are Justified Under the Enabling Clause 18
C. Arguments of the Third Participants 22
1. Andean Community 22
2. Costa Rica 24
3. Panama 24
4. Paraguay 26
5. United States 27
III. Issues Raised in This Appeal 29
IV. The Relationship Between Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and the Enabling Clause 30
A. The Panel's Analysis and the Arguments on Appeal 30
B. Relevance of the Relationship Between Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and