Skip to main content

WTO Dispute Settlement Bulletin

Monthly Bulletin: December 2000

Australia and WTO dispute settlement

Subscription / unsubscription information

Update on Australian Involvement in Specific Disputes

Australia had two important market access wins in the WTO in
December 2000. Australia successfully prosecuted a complaint
against US lamb meat safeguard measures, and the Appellate Body
upheld an earlier complaint by Australia against Korea's
regime in regard to imported beef. In December we also reserved our
third party rights in a new dispute concerning Chile's
measures affecting the import and transshipment of swordfish and in
the next stage of the dispute between the United States and
European Communities concerning the US Foreign Sales Corporations
legislation. Our involvement in several other complaints as
an interested third party continues. There are presently no
complaints against Australia.

Australia as a Complainant

Korea: Measures affecting imports of fresh, chilled and
frozen beef (WT/DS169)

In July 2000, a WTO panel upheld a complaint by Australia and
the United States that Korea's measures on imported beef were
contrary to WTO rules. The measures included requirements
that imported beef be sold separately from Korean beef; subsidies
to beef producers; minimum wholesale pricing; limitations on which
private sector operators can buy and sell imported beef and
discriminatory labelling and record-keeping requirements.

Korea challenged only two of these findings on appeal: retail
sales requirements and subsidies. The Appellate Body rejected
Korea's appeal on retail sales requirements and confirmed
that Korea's dual retail system for beef was inconsistent
with Korea's WTO obligations. However, Korea was
successful in persuading the Appellate Body to reverse the
panel's ruling that Korea had acted in violation of its
domestic support commitments under the Agriculture Agreement.
The finding on subsidies, while disappointing, was not a key issue
and does not overturn the important market access win for
Australia.

The panel and Appellate Body reports are scheduled for adoption
by Members of the WTO in January 2001. Australia will be
looking for Korea to promptly bring its measures into compliance
with WTO rules.

United States: Safeguard measure on imports of fresh, chilled
and frozen lamb meat (WT/DS177 and WT/DS178)

The panel's final report, released on 21 December 2000,
found against the safeguard tariff measures imposed by the United
States on Australian and New Zealand lamb exports.

On July 22 1999, the US imposed harsh restrictions on imports of
lamb meat including: a 9% tariff on all imports up to an annual
quota of 31,851 tonnes; a 40% tariff on above-quota imports; a
progressive reduction of the in-quota tariff to 6% from July 2000,
then 3% from July 2001; and a progressive reduction of the
above-quota tariff to 32% in July 2000 and 24% in July 2001.
Australia and New Zealand immediately challenged these measures in
the WTO. The panel has re-affirmed its interim findings that
the tariffs imposed by the US on our lamb exports were unjustified
and were inconsistent with WTO rules.

All parties have rights of appeal, otherwise the report will be
adopted by 19 February 2001.

Disputes involving Australia as a Third Party

Chile: Measures affecting the transit and importation of
swordfish (WT/DS193)

A panel was established at the 12 December 2000 meeting of the
Dispute Settlement Body to examine the EC's complaint against
Chile's measures affecting the transit and importation of
swordfish. The EC asserts that its fishing vessels operating
in the South East Pacific are not allowed under Chilean legislation
to unload their swordfish in Chilean ports, either to land them for
warehousing or to transship them onto other vessels. The EC
considers that, as a result, Chile makes transit through its ports
impossible for swordfish. The EC claims that these measures
are inconsistent with the GATT 1994, in particular Articles V and
XI.

The parties both expressed interest in continuing with bilateral
discussions to find a mutually agreed solution to the dispute, with
Chile emphasising the need for a solution that protected the
migrating fishery resource and promoted sustainable
development.

Australia has reserved its third party rights, given our
interest in the use of port state measures from both a fish
conservation and a trade perspective.

EC: Beef hormones (WT/DS26)

The EC is currently facing WTO authorized retaliation by the US
and Canada because of its failure to implement. Australia has
formally registered its expectation that, consistent with its WTO
rights, any settlement or compensation arrangements with Canada and
the US will not discriminate against Australia's beef exports.

United States: Restrictions on shrimps (the
"shrimp/turtle" case) (WT/DS58)

The United States has introduced measures that allow for the
lifting of the import embargo against certain WTO members.
Australia has regained access for prawns for its northern and
southern prawn fishing regions. The US has also been supportive in
regional initiatives, including on the Indian Ocean and SE Asian
Regional Agreement on Turtle Conservation, which is due to be
signed early in 2001. However, the US has continued to maintain its
import restrictions based upon a unilaterally determined
environmental standard (TEDs use). Australia considers that
cooperative approaches offer a more appropriate avenue for
addressing turtle conservation issues and encourages all concerned
countries to participate constructively in such efforts.

A panel to examine the WTO consistency of the revised US
measures was established on 23 October 2000. Australia has
reserved its third party rights.

Canada: Dairy Assistance Measures (WT/DS103)

Canada has until 31 January 2001, as a result of consultations
resulting in an extension of the implementation deadline by one
month, to bring its dairy export arrangements (including measures
at provincial level) into conformity with its WTO
obligations. The WTO consistency of some of Canada's proposed
arrangements has been questioned by both complaining parties (the
US and New Zealand).

United States: "Homestyle" Copyright Legislation
(WT/DS160)

US measures which exempt restaurants and bars from music royalty
requirements were found to be WTO inconsistent. The EC has
sought arbitration on the reasonable period of time the US should
be accorded to bring its measures into conformity. The
outcome of the dispute protects the royalty rights of Australian
musicians in the US.

United States: Safeguard measures on wheat gluten
(WT/DS166)

A panel upheld an EC complaint that US safeguard action on
imports of wheat gluten was WTO inconsistent. The US appealed the
panel's findings on 26 September 2000. In its report issued
on 22 December 2000, the Appellate Body confirmed the WTO
inconsistency of the US safeguard action. Australia was a third
party.

United States: Measures treating export restraints as subsidies
(WT/DS194)

Canada has challenged US countervailing duty arrangements that
treat a restraint on exports of a product as a subsidy to other
products made using or incorporating the restricted product if the
domestic price of the restricted product is affected by the
restraint. A panel was established on 11 September 2000.
Australia has a systemic interest in issues in relation to the
definition of a subsidy and to the nature of WTO obligations in
relation to mandatory legislation. Australia has reserved its
third party rights.

United States: Definitive safeguard measures on imports of
circular welded carbon quality line pipe from Korea (WT/DS202)

Korea has challenged safeguard measures imposed by the US on
imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe. A panel was
established on 23 October 2000. Australia's involvement is based on
a systemic interest in the operation of the Safeguards Agreement.
Australia has reserved its third party rights.

United States: Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC) taxation
measures (WT/DS108)

The US FSC arrangements, which are available for exports to any
destination, were found to be prohibited export subsidies. An
Article 21.5 compliance panel was established on 20 December 2000
to review the WTO consistency of the revised FSC scheme. FSC
subsidies affect Australia's competitive trading
opportunities in all markets. Australia has reserved its
third party rights.

Under previously agreed bilateral procedures, arbitration on the
EC's USD 4 billion retaliation request will be suspended
until completion of the compliance review, which could taken 6
months or longer.

United States: Continuing Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of
2000 (WT/DS217) (Joint consultation request)

Australia joined with eight other Members in making a joint
request on 21 December 2000 for dispute settlement consultations
with the US over the US trade remedy legislation that, inter alia
provides for dumping and subsidy offsets – the
"Byrd" Amendment (ie payments of duties collected
to domestic parties supporting the original application).

The consultations should be held within 30 days of the receipt
of the request, and in the event consultations fail to settle the
dispute within 60 days, consulting Members will be entitled to
request the establishment of a panel to examine the
matter.

Disputes in which Australia has a Policy or Economic
Interest

Japan: Varietal testing of horticultural products
(WT/DS76)

The United States and Japan continue to negotiate on replacement
arrangements. Australia has formally registered its WTO
rights to replacement arrangements that do not discriminate against
Australia's horticultural exports to Japan. Australia
reiterated its rights at the 12 December 2000 meeting of the
Dispute Settlement Body.

EC: Bananas (WT/DS27)

The United States is currently applying WTO authorized
retaliatory measures against EC exports following findings that the
EC revised access arrangements applying to imports of bananas from
the Caribbean and Latin America remained WTO inconsistent. The EC
has decided to move to a transitional tariff quota regime on a
"first-come, first-served basis" until 2006, followed by a
tariff-only system. It will be up to each interested party to
assess the WTO consistency of the proposed new arrangements. The
new arrangements may have longer-term implications for a number of
tariff quota arrangements, including country-allocated quotas.

EC: Measures on asbestos (WT/DS135)

Canada complained against French bans on importation and sale of
chrysotile asbestos. The panel found that the measures were
justified by GATT exceptions provisions which permit measures
necessary for the protection of human life and health (Article XX
(b) of GATT 1994.). The panel engaged three Australian
experts to advise panel members on scientific issues. In its
defence, the EC incorporated certain evidence from amicus
submissions (submissions from NGOs) to the panel. Canada has
appealed the findings. The Appellate Body is expected to report by
23 January 2001.

The Appellate Body has developed special working procedures for
the handling of amicus submissions in the appeal. Those
procedures were debated at a special session of the WTO General
Council on 22 November 2000. Australia's statement to
the WTO General Council was set out in the November 2000 issue of
this Monthly Bulletin.

The outcome of this dispute may have implications for domestic
measures applied or under consideration in regard to chrysotile
asbestos.

United States: Import measures on certain products from
the EC (WT/DS165)

The EC complaint was against some US retaliatory measures taken
in the EC: Bananas case. Following the panel's report, the EC
appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretations.

The Appellate Body's report, issued on 11 December 2000,
concluded that the panel erred by stating the WTO consistency of a
measure taken by a Member to comply with recommendations and
rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body can be determined by
arbitrators appointed under Article 22.6 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding. The Appellate Body found that this issue was
outside the panel's terms of reference. The panel's
statements on this issue therefore have no legal effect. The
Appellate Body did, however, uphold the panel's finding that
the US acted inconsistently with the DSU when it did not request an
Article 21.5 compliance panel to determine the WTO consistency of
the revised EC banana import regime.

WTO Disputes involving industry assistance and trade
remedies

In response to enquiries, we thought it useful to summarise some
of the disputes which are before, or have been to, WTO panels
(there are numerous disputes at the consultation stage), involving
challenges to industry assistance programs and the imposition of
various trade remedies. Further information on particular
matters can be obtained from the WTO
Secretariat web site
.

Argentina

Argentina: Definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic floor tiles
from Italy (WT/DS189)

Argentina's anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic
tiles from Italy have been challenged by the EC. A panel was
established on 17 November 2000.

Argentina: Safeguard measures on imports of footwear
(WT/DS121)

The EC complained against safeguard measures imposed by
Argentina on imports of footwear. Panel and Appellate Body reports
have been adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body. The
Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding that
Argentina's measures were inconsistent with relevant Articles
of the Agreement on Safeguards, but reversed certain other findings
of the panel.

Argentina: Measures affecting imports of footwear
(WT/DS164)

This dispute, brought by the US, is in respect of certain
safeguard measures implemented by Argentina affecting imports of
footwear. A panel was established on 26 July 1999.

Argentina: Measures on the export of bovine hides and the
import of finished leather (WT/DS155)

This complaint by the EC concerns measures taken by Argentina on
the export of bovine hides and the import of finished
leather. In its report issued on 19 December 2000, the panel
found for the EC on three of its four claims. The parties may
lodge an appeal at any time until 17 February 2001.

Brazil

Brazil: Export financing program for aircraft
(WT/DS46)

Canada successfully challenged certain export subsidies under
Brazil's PROEX scheme to foreign purchasers of Brazil's
EMBRARER aircraft as prohibited export subsidies. Further
developments in this case have involved authorization from the DSB
to suspend the application by Canada to Brazil of
concessions. At the 12 December 2000 meeting of the Dispute
Settlement Body, Australia made a statement on this dispute, a summary of which is
set out below.

Canada

Canada: Certain measures affecting the automotive industry
(WT/DS139 and WT/DS142)

Japan and the EC successfully challenged elements of the Auto
Pact Agreement between the US and Canada. Panel and Appellant
Body reports have been adopted. Under arbitration pursuant to
Article 21.3 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding it was
determined that the reasonable period for Chile to implement the
relevant recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body
would be 8 months. Therefore Canada has until 19 February 2001 to
bring its measures into WTO consistency.

Canada: Measures affecting the export of civilian aircraft
(WT/DS70)

Brazil successfully challenged Canada's Technology
Partnership Canada (TPC) assistance to Canadian regional
aircraft. Canada was required to withdraw TPC assistance, and
has since done so.

Chile

Chile: Taxes on Alcoholic beverages (WT/DS87 and WT/DS110)

The EC successfully challenged Chile's special tax on
spirits, which allegedly imposed a higher tax on imported spirits
than on Pisco, a locally brewed spirit. Chile's
modified system was again challenged by the EC. The panel
found that Chile's system for taxation of distilled alcoholic
beverages was inconsistent with Article III:2 of GATT 1994.
The Appellate Body, in its report circulated on 13 December 1999,
upheld the panel's findings. Under arbitration it was
determined that the reasonable period for Chile to implement the
relevant recommendations and rulings would be not more than 14
months and 9 days from the date of their adoption. Therefore,
Chile has until 21 March 2001 to bring its measures into WTO
consistency.

European Communities

EC: Anti-dumping duties on imports of cotton-type bed-linen
from India (WT/DS141)

India complained in respect of EC's anti-dumping
procedures on the imports of cotton-type bed-linen from
India. The panel's report was issued on 30 October
2000. The EC has appealed.

Guatemala

Guatemala: Definitive anti-dumping measure regarding grey
Portland cement from Mexico (WT/DS156)

Mexico complained against certain anti-dumping duties imposed by
Guatemala on imports of grey Portland cement from Mexico. The
panel's report has been adopted.

India

India: Measures affecting the automotive sector (WT/DS146 and
WT/DS175)

The EC and US have challenged certain measures affecting
India's automotive sector which, they contend, subject
imports of complete automobiles and of certain parts and components
to a system of non-automatic import licenses. A panel was
established on 17 November 2000.

Japan

Japan: Taxes on alcoholic beverages (WT/DS8)

EC, Canada and the US complained against Japan's Liquor
Tax Law which applied a higher tax rate on foreign spirits than on
the local product (shochu), thereby affording protection to
domestic production. The panel, upheld by the Appellate Body,
found that shochu and vodka are like products, and by taxing
imported products in excess of domestic productions violated GATT
1994. Japan was required to bring its taxation law into GATT
compliance. The period for implementation was set at 15
months from the date of adoption of reports, expiring on 1 February
1998. Japan has presented modalities for
implementation.

Korea

Korea: Definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain
dairy products (WT/DS98)

The EC complained against safeguard measures imposed by Korea on
imports on certain dairy products. Panel and Appellate Body
reports have been adopted. Korea has lifted the safeguard
measure.

Korea: Taxes on alcoholic beverages (WT/DS75 and WT/DS84)

The EC and the US complaint was against Korea's Liquor Tax
Law and Education Tax Law which accorded preferential tax treatment
to soju, a traditional Korean alcoholic beverage, as compared with
certain "western-style" alcoholic beverages. The
panel report, upheld by the Appellate Body, found that
Korea's legislation was not WTO consistent. Following
arbitration, Korea was awarded 11 months and 2 weeks to implement,
expiring on 31 January 2000. At the Dispute Settlement Body
meeting on 27 January 2000 Korea stated that it considered that it
had fully implemented the DSB's rulings and recommendations
by amending its laws to impose flat rates of tax on all distilled
alcoholic beverages on a non-discriminatory basis.

Mexico

Mexico: Anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup
(WT/DS132)

The US complained in respect of an anti-dumping
investigation of high-fructose corn syrup conducted by
Mexico. The panel report has been adopted At its
meeting of 23 October 2000, at the request of the US, the DSB
established an Article 21.5 compliance panel.

Philippines

Philippines: Measures affecting trade and investment in the
motor vehicle sector (WT/DS195)

The US has challenged the Philippines' Motor Vehicle
Development Program (MVDP). The US claimed that the MVDP
entitles motor vehicle manufacturers located in the Philippines who
meet certain requirements to import parts and finished vehicles at
preferential rates. A panel was established on 17 November
2000.

Thailand

Thailand: Anti dumping duties on angles, shapes and section of
iron or non-alloy steel (WT/DS122)

Poland complained in respect of anti-dumping duties imposed by
Thailand on import of angles, shapes and section of iron or
non-alloy steel. On 23 October 2000 Thailand appealed certain
issues of law covered in the panel report.

United States

United States: Definitive safeguard measures on imports of
circular welded carbon quality line pipe from Korea (WT/DS202)

As noted above, Korea has challenged safeguard measures imposed
by the United States on imports of circular welded carbon quality
line pipe. A panel has been established.

United States: Measures treating export restraints as subsidies
(WT/DS194)

As noted above, Canada has challenged US countervailing duty
arrangements that can treat a restraint on exports of a product as
a subsidy to other products made using or incorporating the
restricted product if the domestic price of the restricted product
is affected by the restraint. A panel has been
established.

United States: Imposition of countervailing duties on certain
hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products originating in
the United Kingdom (WT/DS138)

The EC successfully challenged the imposition of countervailing
duties on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel (leaded
bars) from the UK. A central issue in the dispute was the
irrebuttable presumption in the US countervailing duty legislation
that nonrecurring subsidies benefit merchandise produced by the
recipient over time irrespective of any subsequent developments,
such as the privatisation at fair market value of a
government-owned enterprise that received a benefit. The
panel report, upheld by the Appellate Body, found that the US had
not imposed countervailing duties consistently with the Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

United States: Anti-dumping duties on certain hot-rolled steel
products from Japan (WT/DS184)

Japan's complaint concerns determinations of the US
Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission on
the anti-dumping of certain hot-rolled steel products from
Japan. A panel was established on 20 March 2000

United States: Anti-dumping measures on stainless steel plate
in coils and stainless steel sheet and strip from Korea
(WT/DS179)

Korea complained in respect of determinations of the US
Department of Commerce on stainless steel plate in coils from
Korea. The panel issued its report on 22 December 2000,
finding that the US acted inconsistently with several of its
obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The panel
recommended that the Dispute Settlement Body request that the US
brings its definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of stainless
steel plate and sheet from Korea into conformity with the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.

United States: Definitive safeguard measures on imports of
wheat gluten for the EC (WT/DS166)

As noted above, a panel upheld an EC complaint that US safeguard
action on EC wheat gluten was WTO inconsistent. Australia was
a third party. The US appealed the panel's findings on 26
September 2000. In its report issued on 22 December 2000, the
Appellate Body confirmed the WTO inconsistency of the US safeguard
action.

United States: Anti–Dumping Act of 1916 (WT/DS136 and
WT/DS162)

The EC and Japan complained in respect of the US
Anti-dumping Act of 1916. The panel report, upheld by the
Appellate Body, found that the Anti-Dumping Act provided for action
against dumping outside the Anti-Dumping Agreement and so violated
various WTO provisions. Binding arbitration has been commenced to
determine the duration of the period required by the US for
implementation.

United States: Tax treatment for "Foreign Sales
Corporations" (WT/DS108)

The EC brought this complaint in respect of provisions
establishing special tax treatment for "Foreign Sales
Corporations". As noted above, an Article 21.5
compliance panel has been established to examine US implementation
measures, and arbitration of the EC's USD 4 billion
retaliation request will be suspended until completion of the
compliance review.

United States: Measure affecting import of woven wool shirts
and blouses from India (WT/DS33)

India complained against US measures relating to a transitional
safeguard restraint imposed on woven wool shirts and blouses from
India. The panel found that the safeguard measure imposed by
the United States violated the provisions of the Agreement on
Clothing and Textiles. The Appellate Body upheld the panel's
decisions on those issues of law and legal interpretations that
were appealed against. The panel and Appellate Body reports
were adopted by the DSB on 23 May 1997. The US announced that the
measure was withdrawn at 22 November 1996.

United States: Standards for reformulated and conventional
gasoline (WT/DS2 and WT/DS4)

Venezuela and Brazil complained that a U.S. gasoline regulation
discriminated against their gasoline in violation of articles of
GATT and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).
The report of the panel found the regulation to be inconsistent
with GATT 1994 and not to benefit from an Article XX exception. The
Appellate Body modified the panel report on the interpretation of
GATT Article XX(g) exception, but concluded that Article XX(g) was
not applicable in this case. The US announced implementation
of the recommendations as of 19 August 1997, at the end of the 15
month reasonable period of time.

Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body: 12 December 2000

The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) consists of all the members of
the WTO and meets each month in Geneva. Australia uses the
DSB meetings to monitor progress and to register its views on
disputes of interest.

The agenda of the meeting of 12 December 2000 was as follows
(any Australian interventions are indicated):

1. Surveillance of implementation
of recommendations adopted by the DSB:

European Communities
regime for the importation, sale
and distribution of bananas: status report by the European
Communities
Japan

measures affecting agricultural products (varietal testing):
status report by Japan

Australia again registered its interest in implementation on
varietals and the need for any resolution to be consistent with DSU
Article 3. We have an interest in horticultural exports to
Japan and have sought assurances from Japan that new measures for
testing fruit products will not discriminate against Australian
exports.

Canada
measures affecting the
importation of milk and the exportation of dairy products: status
report by Canada

Australia sought additional information from the parties on the
new provincial dairy schemes. Australia is continuing to
monitor Canadian implementation carefully.

India
quantitative restrictions on
imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products: status
report by India

This dispute is between the US and India. Australia resolved its
dispute with India on the same issues in March 1998.

Turkey
restrictions on imports of
textile and clothing products: status report by Turkey
India
measures affecting the
automotive sector: Request for the establishment of a panel by the
European Communities
Philippines
measures affecting trade and
investment in the motor vehicle sector: Request for the
establishment of a panel by the United States

2. Implementation action

Guatemala
definitive anti-dumping measures on grey Portland cement from
Mexico: Report of the Panel

3. Statement by Brazil concerning
implementation of DSB recommendations in Brazil-Export Financing
(Aircraft Subsidies)

4. Panel request – Measures
affecting the transit and importation of swordfish: Request for the
establishment of a panel by the European communities

5. Panel request: Measures
affecting telecommunication services

6. Recourse by Canada to DSU
Article 22.7 and 4.10 of the SCM Agreement: Brazil

Brazil-Export Financing (Aircraft Subsidies)

We supported Japan's intervention that it was not
comfortable with Canada's decision to request DSB
authorisation based on its own unilateral determination of
non-compliance. We encouraged the parties to seek a pragmatic
solution to this dispute, including as necessary through further
recourse to expedited DSU proceedings.

Managing WTO Disputes: Institutional Arrangements

As advised in our first Bulletin, the Department has established
the Trade Law Branch in the Trade Negotiations Division. The
Branch includes additional resources for Australia's participation
in WTO disputes. The Branch takes the lead role in initiating
and defending Australia in WTO disputes.

Assistance to exporters and industry groups on WTO issues is
provided through the WTO Disputes Investigation and Enforcement Mechanismlaunched by
Mr Vaile in 1999. Under the Mechanism, any Australian
exporter can seek Government support and assistance in
circumstances where other WTO Member governments may not be
honouring their obligations under the WTO Agreements. The
Mechanism sets up a partnership between exporters and the
Government to exercise Australia's WTO rights for the benefit of
exporters, and Australia as a whole. Assistance via the
Mechanism is available to all actual or would-be exporters whether
as individual entities or as industry associations, no matter the
exporter's size or the product specialisation. There is no
pre-qualification level for access or any charge for use of the
mechanism.

The Trade Law Branch is also available to advise State and
Territory Governments on the WTO aspects of State and Territory
proposals or measures involving the use of trade or trade related
actions.

Resources permitting, the Trade Law Branch will consider
requests to address business, community and educational groups with
an interest in the WTO generally, the rights and obligations of WTO
membership, the WTO's dispute settlement system and the WTO
Disputes Investigation and Enforcement Mechanism.

For more information or for assistance, contact us at wto.disputes@dfat.gov.au

Subscription / unsubscription information

If you want
to be removed from the mailing list please send an email to wto.disputes@dfat.gov.au with "unsubscribe" in the subject line. To
subscribe please send an email to wto.disputes@dfat.gov.au with
"subscribe" in the subject line and your contact details in the
body of the email. Further information on Australia's involvement
in WTO dispute settlement can be found at www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/wto_disputes.html


The Monthly Bulletin is an overview of Australian involvement
in WTO Dispute Settlement from the WTO Trade Law Branch of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade . It updates Australian involvement in specific WTO
disputes and, more generally, in disputes in which Australia has a policy or
economic interest. Also included are the agendas of meetings of the WTO Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB), with specific reference to any Australian interventions.

For more information and copies of previous issues, visit Australia and WTO
dispute settlement
.

For more general information relating to the Doha
Round of Trade negotiations, see the WTO
Doha Round Bulletin
.

Last Updated: 9 January 2013
Back to top