United
States – Origin Marking Requirement
Report of the Panel
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
1 Introduction.. 14
1.1
Complaint by Hong Kong, China. 14
1.2
Panel establishment and composition. 14
1.3
Panel proceedings. 14
1.3.1
General 14
2 Measure at issue. 15
3 Parties' requests for findings and
recommendations. 16
4 Arguments of the parties. 16
5 Arguments of the third parties. 16
6 Interim review.. 16
6.1
Introduction. 16
6.2
Requests for review concerning the order of analysis. 17
6.3
Requests for review concerning whether Article XXI(b) of the GATT 1994 is
self-judging such that it excludes any review of the challenged measure by a panel 17
6.4
Requests for review concerning whether the origin marking requirement is
inconsistent with Article IX:1 of the GATT 1994. 18
6.5
Requests for review concerning whether the origin marking requirement is
justified under Article XXI(b)(iii) of the GATT 1994. 19
7 Findings. 20
7.1
Introduction. 20
7.2
Order of analysis. 21
7.2.1
Which claims to consider first 21
7.2.2
Whether to consider first the reviewability of action under Article XXI(b)
of the GATT 1994. 23
7.3
Whether Article XXI(b) of the GATT 1994 is self-judging such that it
excludes any review of the challenged measure by a panel 24
7.3.1
Introduction. 24
7.3.2
The interpretive question at issue. 24
7.3.3
Ordinary meaning. 26
7.3.3.1
Introduction. 26
7.3.3.2
Grammatical structure. 26
7.3.3.2.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 26
7.3.3.2.2
Panel's assessment 27
7.3.3.2.2.1
Whether the chapeau together with each subparagraph
constitute a single relative clause. 28
7.3.3.2.2.2
What the phrase "which it considers" relates to. 30
7.3.3.3
Comparison of the three authentic language versions. 32
7.3.3.3.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 33
7.3.3.3.2
Panel's assessment 34
7.3.3.4
Conclusion on ordinary meaning. 36
7.3.4
Context 37
7.3.4.1
Introduction. 37
7.3.4.2
Immediate context in the remaining paragraphs of Article XXI 37
7.3.4.2.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 38
7.3.4.2.2
Panel's assessment 38
7.3.4.3
Article XX of the GATT 1994. 39
7.3.4.3.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 40
7.3.4.3.2
Panel's assessment 40
7.3.4.4
Provisions that vest judgment in the Member or in another entity. 41
7.3.4.4.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 41
7.3.4.4.2
Panel's assessment 41
7.3.4.5
Other provisions under the DSU. 44
7.3.4.5.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 44
7.3.4.5.2
Panel's assessment 44
7.3.5
Object and purpose. 44
7.3.5.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 45
7.3.5.2
Panel's assessment 45
7.3.6
Whether there is a subsequent agreement regarding the interpretation or
application of Article XXI(b) 47
7.3.6.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 47
7.3.6.2
Panel's assessment 47
7.3.7
Conclusion on interpretation under Article 31 of the
Vienna Convention. 49
7.3.8
Negotiating history or other supplementary means of interpretation. 50
7.3.8.1
GATT (and ITO) negotiations. 50
7.3.8.2
Uruguay Round negotiations. 55
7.3.9
Other information submitted by the parties or third parties. 56
7.3.10
Overall conclusion on the interpretive question at issue. 57
7.4
Whether the origin marking requirement is inconsistent with Article IX:1
of the GATT 1994. 58
7.4.1
Introduction. 58
7.4.2
Factual background on the measure at issue. 59
7.4.3
Whether the challenged measure is a marking requirement under Article IX:1. 60
7.4.4
Like products. 60
7.4.5
Less favourable treatment 61
7.4.5.1
Introduction. 61
7.4.5.2
Difference in treatment 62
7.4.5.2.1
Whether there is a difference in treatment with respect to origin determination. 63
7.4.5.2.1.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 63
7.4.5.2.1.2
Panel's assessment 64
7.4.5.2.2
Whether there is a difference in treatment with respect to terminology. 67
7.4.5.2.2.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 67
7.4.5.2.2.2
Panel's assessment 68
7.4.5.3
Detrimental impact 69
7.4.5.3.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 69
7.4.5.3.2
Panel's assessment 70
7.4.6
Conclusion on Article IX of the GATT 1994. 72
7.5
Whether the origin marking requirement is justified under Article XXI(b)(iii)
of the GATT 1994. 73
7.5.1
Introduction. 73
7.5.2
Which subparagraph to review in Article XXI(b) 74
7.5.3
Order of analysis under Article XXI(b) 74
7.5.4
Review of subparagraph (iii) 75
7.5.4.1
Interpretation of the phrase "emergency in international relations" 75
7.5.4.1.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 76
7.5.4.1.2
Panel's assessment 77
7.5.4.1.2.1
Ordinary meaning. 77
7.5.4.1.2.2
Context and object and purpose. 80
7.5.4.1.2.3
Conclusion on the interpretation of the phrase "emergency in international
relations" 83
7.5.4.2
Whether the situation at issue is one that constitutes an emergency in
international relations. 85
7.5.4.2.1
Arguments of the parties and the third parties. 85
7.5.4.2.2
Panel's assessment 86
7.5.4.2.2.1
Evidence submitted by the United States. 86
7.5.4.2.2.2
Overall assessment 92
7.5.5
Conclusion on Article XXI(b)(iii) of the GATT 1994. 94
7.6
Other claims under the GATT 1994, the ARO, and the TBT Agreement 94
8 Conclusions and Recommendation.. 95