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. […]’
国务院 中央军委 劳动部等


关于进一步做好军队干部随军家属安置工作意见的通知
国务院、中央军委、劳动部、人事部、财政部、总政治部、总后勤部




各省、自治区、直辖市人民政府，国务院各部委、
各直属机构，各大军区、省军区、集团军，军委各总部、各军兵种、军事科学院、国防大学：
国务院、中央军委同意劳动部、人事部、财政部、总政治部、总后勤部《关于进一步做好军队干部随军家属安置工作的意见》，现转发给你们，请认真贯彻执行。
长期以来，为做好军队干部随军家属安置工作，各地区、各部队努力克服困难，做了大量艰苦细致的工作，取得了很大成绩，对解决干部家庭生活困难，促进部队建设和巩固国防发挥了重要作用。但是，随军家属就业难的问题在不少地区仍然不同程度地存在，随着经济体制改革的逐步
深化，如果处理不好，这个问题将会更加突出。因此，各地区、各部队务必对随军家属安置工作继续予以重视，要把它作为促进军队建设、巩固国防的一件大事认真抓好；要搞好军政军民之间的配合，克服困难，认真贯彻落实安置政策，结合当地实际积极拓宽安置渠道；要及时研究新情况

、新问题，细致地做好思想政治工作，采取各种有效措施，进一步做好军队干部随军家属的安置工作。

附件：关于进一步做好军队干部随军家属安置工作的意见

意见

国务院、中央军委：


长期以来，各地区、各部队认真贯彻国务院、中央军委有关文件精神，积极做好军队干部随军家属的安置工作；各有关部门通力合作，克服困难，采取许多切实可行的措施，使广大军队干部随军家属逐步得到了安置，对促进部队建设、巩固国防发挥了重要作用。为了在新形势下进一步
做好这项工作，我们在调查研究的基础上提出如下意见：
一、各级领导和有关部门应高度重视军队干部随军家属安置工作，并将其纳入地方劳动人事管理工作的总体规划，作出统筹安排；要精心组织，密切配合，克服困难，采取切实有效的措施把安置任务完成好。
二、对随军前有正式工作的干部家属(含全民和集体所有制单位的合同制工人，下同)，应继续按照《国务院、中央军委批转人事部、总政治部等部门关于妥善解决军官配偶工作调动和易地安置问题请示的通知》(国发〔1989〕32号)的规定，由当地政府负责安排适当工作。其中，驻边疆
国境县(市)、沙漠区、国家确定的边远地区中的三类地区和军队确定的一、二类岛屿(以下简称边防、海岛等艰苦地区)部队的干部随军家属，确实安排不了工作的，经本人申请和单位领导批准可保留公职，并与原单位协商签订保留公职协议书。保留公职期满，本人可回原单位工作。
三、对随军前没有正式工作的干部家属，企业、事业单位招工时应在同等条件下优先录用，并按国家规定办理有关手续。
四、对随军后确实安排不了工作的边防、海岛等艰苦地区部队的干部家属，由部队按平均每人每月一百元的标准，发给生活困难补助费。所需经费由中央财政拨款解决。具体发放办法由总政治部、总后勤部制定，并报有关部门备案。
五、当地政府应在生产、经营、技术、物资供应等方面积极支持部队发展生产，增强部队内部安排随军家属就业的能力。对资金上确实有困难的边防、海岛等艰苦地区部队，当地政府有关部门可借给生产扶持基金。部队可根据实际需要与可能设立家属就业基金。
六、为进一步提高军队干部随军家属的业务技术素质，各地政府要把这部分人员的培训工作纳入地方的培训计划，分期分批组织实施，并在收费上给予适当照顾。当地没有培训机构的，可由部队自行组织培训，经当地劳动部门考核合格后发给合格证书。培训的专业设置应适应当地企业
、事业单位的需要，力求做到培训与安置相结合。
七、各地在深化劳动用工制度改革过程中，对军队干部随军家属应给予照顾。凡在实行全员劳动合同制企业单位工作的军队干部随军家属，应给他们不低于一年的适应期，使其有学习技术和熟悉工作的机会。经过考核，符合条件的，优先安排上岗；确实不能上岗的，在企业内部安排适
当工作。对不能坚持正常工作且接近退休年龄的，经本人申请可提前离岗退养。
以上意见如无不妥，请批转各地区、各部队贯彻执行。



1993年6月14日