report on operations 2016 - home - acwl · report on operations 2016. 2 ... (1 ldc / 3 dcs) (1 f /...

REPORT ON OPERATIONS 2016

Advisory Centre on WTO LawCentre Consultatif sur la Législation de l’OMCCentro de Asesoría Legal en Asuntos de la OMC

LEGAL ADVICE Number of legal opinions Issues addressed in the legal opinions External Counsel Distribution of legal opinions among countries Categories of legal opinions Survey of satisfaction

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SUPPORT Introduction Support provided by the ACWL's staff New disputes Ongoing disputes Support provided through external counsel Survey of satisfaction

TRAINING Annual training courses Survey of satisfaction Seminars and other training activities Secondment Programme for Trade Lawyers

OUTREACH

PREFACETHE ACWL IN FIGURESNEW AT THE ACWL IN 2016FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACWLTHE ACWL'S OPERATIONS

1258

9

41

10121415171819

21212424263333

3435353739

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX 1 - REMARKS OF THE WTO DIRECTOR-GENERALAPPENDIX 2 - WTO DISPUTES IN WHICH THE ACWL HAS PROVIDED SUPPORT APPENDIX 3 - ROSTER OF EXTERNAL COUNSELAPPENDIX 4 - ACWL OUTREACH ACTIVITIES IN 2016 APPENDIX 5 - MEMBERS OF THE ACWLAPPENDIX 6 - LDCs ENTITLED TO THE SERVICES OF THE ACWLAPPENDIX 7 - ACWL LAWYERS

INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

48505354575859

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLYTHE MANAGEMENT BOARD THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND THE STAFF

MEMBERSHIP Developed countries Developing countries LDCs The ACWL's geographical reach

434343434343

464647

1

PREFACE

The ACWL's mandate is to ensure that developing and least-developed countries are able to participate fully in the WTO legal system. The ACWL provides, on demand, legal advice, assistance in WTO dispute set-tlement proceedings, and training on WTO law, to its developing country Members and to the least-devel-oped countries (LDCs).

In June 2016, we were delighted to welcome WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo as our special guest at a small ceremony to mark the ACWL's 15th

anniversary and the formal opening of our new con-ference annex. Mr. Azevêdo congratulated the ACWL, which he described as "an indispensable part of the multilateral system" that has "prosper[ed] as an insti-tution ... by providing the highest level of performance and services to the countries that really need this ser-vice". He paid tribute both to the staff of the ACWL and those who make the work of the ACWL possible through their financial support. Mr. Azevêdo expressed the hope that they would continue their commitment in the future.

The ACWL continued to be extremely busy in 2016. We assisted in a total of 14 dispute settlement pro-ceedings, the most we have ever been involved in at one time, participating in 11 hearings and assisting our Members in making a total of 50 written submis-sions to panels and the Appellate Body.

We also provided a little under 200 legal opinions at the request of developing country Members and LDCs, making a total of 2310 legal opinions on a wide variety of issues of WTO law since 2001. This legal advice enables our developing country Members and the LDCs to ensure compliance with their own WTO obligations, to participate more effectively in the WTO legal system, and to defend their own rights under WTO law.

We are making increased use of our new conference room and videoconferencing facilities to provide tai-lor-made training programmes by videoconference to government officials in capitals. Our training pro-grammes for Geneva-based delegates and our Secondment Programme for Government Lawyers continue to be in high demand.

In 2016, the United Arab Emirates and Côte d'Ivoire became the 33rd and 34th developing country Mem-bers of the ACWL. We look forward to helping them and other developing countries that may accede to the ACWL in the future.

Finally, I would like to thank sincerely everyone that is involved in continuing the success of the ACWL – my dedicated and hard-working colleagues, our General Assembly, our Management Board, and our devel-oped and developing country Members that contrib-ute, through their financial support to making the ACWL such a unique institution both in the multilat-eral trading system and in international law generally.

My colleagues and I would like to thank in particular the officials of the developing country Members and LDCs that make the ACWL a success by seeking our advice, participating in our training programmes, and trusting us to provide independent and impartial legal advice on all matters relating to WTO law. We look forward to continuing to work with you in the future.

Niall MeagherExecutive Director


2


OPERATIONS Legal opinions WTO disputes in which the ACWL provided support New requests for support in WTO disputes Certificates of Training awarded

MEMBERSHIPDeveloped country Members Developing country1 Members LDCs entitled to the services of the ACWL Countries entitled to the services of the ACWL

STAFF

Lawyers, including the Executive Director Participants in the Secondment Programme for Trade Lawyers Administrative staff

THE ACWL IN FIGURES

1 Throughout this report, the terms "country" and "developing country" include separate customs territories and countries with economies in

transition.

196 14 4 38

11344478

10 4 5

181 10 4 34

11 32 42 74

10 4 4

204 8 1 37

11 32 42 74

9 4 3

215 8 3 37

11 31 43 74

10 3 3

231 8 5 30

11 30 43 73

9 3 3

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

218 3 0 31

11 30 43 73

9 3 2

3


Legal opinions in 2016 Legal opinions in 2015

Total legal opinions to date

Average no. of legal opinions, per annum 2012-2016

Average no. of legal opinions, per annum 2007-2011

Users highly/very satisfied with service provided

196 181

2310 205

180 100%

The ACWL provides legal advice on all aspects of WTO law at the request of its developing country Members and the LDCs.

LEGAL ADVICE

The ACWL assists developing country Members and LDCs in every phase of dispute settlement proceedings.

ASSISTANCE IN DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

New disputes in 2016 Total disputes in 2016

Total disputes to dateShare of all WTO disputes since 2001

4 14

53 20%

"We were highly satisfied with the assistance provided by the ACWL, mainly because it promptly clarifies our doubts and it does it in a way that is easy for us to understand, while explaining complex issues related to WTO law".

In survey interviews with the Ambas-sadors and other responsible officials of the governments that the ACWL assisted in dispute settlement pro-ceedings completed in 2016, the ACWL was uniformly praised for pro-viding a very high level of perfor-mance.

4


The ACWL conducts an annual training course on WTO law for Geneva-based delegates and ad hoc seminars on legal topics of interest to delegates. The ACWL also provides videoconference training programmes for capital-based offi-cials on request.

TRAINING PROGRAMMES

The ACWL employs four government lawyers from developing country Members and LDCs from September-June each year as junior counsel in its Secondment Pro-gramme.

SECONDMENT PROGRAMME

Participants 2016-2017(1 LDC / 3 DCs) (1 F / 3 M)

Total participants to date(22 F / 13 M) (10 LDCs / 25 DCs)(from 7 different LDCs / 17 DCs)

4 4

35

Participants 2015-2016(2 LDCs / 2 DCs) (3 F / 1 M)

Certificates for 2015-2016Training Course(Gender 20 F / 18 M)

Certificates for 2014-2015Training Course(Gender 15 F / 19 M)

38 34

Participants highly/very satisfied with service provided

93.5%Participants reporting that training helps them in their daily work

93.5%

"The lessons helped us to better understand the issues discussed at the WTO."

"In terms of legal training and the WTO, there is no better place to learn hands-on how the international trade community works and to do it side-by-side with excellent professionals."

5


On 9 June 2016, the ACWL held a small ceremony to mark our 15th anniversary and the opening of our new conference Annex. WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo was our special guest speaker. He congratulated the ACWL on its success and the quality of its work. He said "I am very happy to see that, not only did the ACWL prosper as an institution which is fundamental to the work of the WTO but that it did so at the highest level of performance and services to the countries that really need this service." Mr. Azevêdo's remarks are reproduced in full in Appendix 1 to this Report.

On 29 April 2016, the United Arab Emirates has become the 33rd developing country Member of the WTO to join the ACWL. All developing countries that are Members of the WTO or in the process of acceding to the WTO are entitled, by virtue of their WTO Membership or process of accession, to become Members of the ACWL. The 44 LDCs that are Members of the WTO or in the process of acceding to the WTO are automatically entitled to the services of the ACWL without having to become Members of the ACWL.

NEW AT THE ACWL IN 2016

6


On 13 December 2016, at a ceremony at the ACWL, Côte d'Ivoire signed its Protocol of Accession to the ACWL, which enters into force on 12 January 2017. Côte d'Ivoire has become the 34th developing country Member of the ACWL and both the first country in West Africa and the first sub-Saharan francophone country to join the ACWL. The Executive Director of the ACWL welcomed Côte d'Ivoire to the ACWL and looked forward to assisting Côte d'Ivoire in the future. He also thanked the United Kingdom for the assistance provided to Côte d'Ivoire with its accession through the Trade Advocacy Fund (TAF).

In September 2016, The Global Trade and Customs Journal published a special issue titled "ACWL Lawyers on the TBT Agreement" guest edited by ACWL Deputy Director Cherise Valles. The special issue contains a series of articles on topical issues under the TBT Agreement co-written by ACWL staff lawyers and participants in the ACWL's Secondment Programme. The seconded lawyers presented their research on topical issues under the TBT Agreement at an ACWL seminar in May 2016, which was attended by over 50 Geneva-based delegates.

7


The ACWL is increasingly using its new videoconference facilities in its Annex to provide tailor-made training sessions to officials in the capitals of its developing country Members and the LDCs. On request, the ACWL develops training programmes, drawing on its experience in its training programmes for Geneva-based delegates. The scope and duration of the training programmes are agreed with the requesting governments. Certificates of participation may be provided on completion of the programme.

Mr. Christian Vidal-León joined the ACWL as Counsel in May 2016. Mr. Vidal-León's prior legal experience includes working as a lawyer in both the Legal Affairs Division and the Appellate Body Secretariat of the WTO, as well as a legal officer in the Directorate-General for Trade of the European Commission. He has also worked for a global consulting firm in Johannesburg, and assisted an arbitrator in a number of international investment tribunals. Mr. Vidal-León is a qualified lawyer in both Mexico and Spain. He holds an LL.M. from Georgetown University and a Masters of International Law and Economics from the University of Berne.

8


1. Who is eligible to receive the services of the ACWL?The services of the ACWL are available to all develop-ing country Members of the WTO that have become Members of the ACWL (34 to date). LDCs that are Members of the WTO or in the process of acceding to the WTO are entitled to the services of the ACWL without having to become Members of the ACWL (44 at present). Thus, 74 countries – almost half of the Membership of the WTO – are entitled to the services of the ACWL.

2. What is the process for accession to the ACWL?The process of acceding to the ACWL is relatively sim-ple. A country wishing to accede must submit a letter requesting to become a Member and a proposed Protocol of Accession for the approval of the ACWL General Assembly. More information and sample documents can be found at http://www.acwl.ch/accessions.

3. How does the ACWL handle cases where two countries entitled to the services of the ACWL request assistance on the same matter?Where the ACWL cannot assist a country entitled to its services because it has previously advised another country with adverse interests on the same specific or related matter, the ACWL provides that country with assistance through its Roster of External Counsel, which consists of lawyers that have agreed to assist such countries on the same terms as would the ACWL. This facility is available with respect to both dispute settlement and legal opinions. See http://www.acwl.ch/external-counsel.

4. How does the ACWL ensure the neutrality and impartiality of its advice?The ACWL provides only legal, not political, advice. The ACWL's governing structure was designed to cre-ate a professional, non-political, centre of excellence

whose lawyers are selected and work free of control or influence by any Member or group of Members. An independent Management Board is responsible for ensuring the efficient and effective operation of the ACWL. The members of the Management Board are appointed by the ACWL General Assembly. How-ever, they serve in their personal capacities and may not seek or accept instructions from any government in the performance of their duties. The day-to-day operations of the ACWL are managed by the Execu-tive Director.

5. How have the functions of the ACWL changed over time?It was initially expected that the ACWL would be pri-marily involved in helping developing countries bring disputes, most likely against developed countries. The ACWL has been involved in approximately 20 per cent of all WTO disputes since its inception, although these are increasingly disputes between developing countries. In addition, these countries have used the ACWL's legal advice much more than was originally anticipated to ensure their own compliance with their WTO obligations (see below).

6. How does the ACWL assist developing coun-tries in their own compliance and in preventing disputes?Much of the ACWL's legal advice (about 39 per cent) is requested by developing countries and LDCs that seek the ACWL's advice on whether their own meas-ures or draft measures are WTO-consistent. By advis-ing these countries on possible WTO-inconsistencies of their measures, the ACWL helps them ensure com-pliance and avoid challenges by their trading part-ners. The ACWL is also aware of instances in which its legal opinions have been used informally by two countries as a basis for resolving their trade concerns without recourse to dispute settlement proceedings. The details are, of course, confidential.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACWL

9


OVERVIEW The ACWL was established to enhance the credibility and acceptability of the rules-based multilateral trading system by ensuring that all Members of the WTO can effectively participate in it. To that end, the ACWL is to be a source of legal training, expertise, and advice on WTO law that is readily accessible to developing and least-developed countries. The man-date of the ACWL is to provide those countries with (i) assistance in WTO dispute settlement proceed-ings; (ii) legal advice on issues of WTO law; and (iii) training in WTO law. The ACWL's goal is to assist developing and least-developed countries in partici-pating in the WTO legal system, thereby enabling them to take full advantage of their membership in the WTO.

DEMANDThe ACWL provides its services based on the needs of its developing country Members and the LDCs as determined by those countries themselves. Thus, ACWL developing country Members and the LDCs request the ACWL's assistance in disputes and request advice or training on specific issues arising under WTO law. The ACWL may not pursue any legal issues or disputes on its own initiative (no ambulance chasing).

OUTPUTThe ACWL responds to these requests by providing prompt and high-quality legal advice on issues of concern, support in WTO dispute settlement pro-ceedings, and training on WTO law.

IMPACTThe ACWL's support in WTO dispute settlement pro-ceedings enables these countries to enforce their rights and protect their interests under WTO law; while the ACWL's advice and training enables these countries to understand fully their rights and obliga-tions under WTO law and to pursue their trade policy objectives in a WTO-consistent manner. In addition, "by providing legal opinions and representation in dispute cases, [the ACWL] addresses the immediate capacity deficiency problem suffered by least-devel-oped countries and many developing countries, and by providing seminars and training, is building the future capacity of those countries". The ACWL's us-ers consistently express a high degree of satisfaction with the legal advice and training provided.

OUTCOMEThe ACWL thereby contributes to the effectiveness of a rules-based multilateral trading system and to the achievement of the development objectives both of the WTO and of the developing countries and LDCs themselves. In the words of former WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, "by ensuring that the legal benefits of the WTO are shared among all Members, the ACWL contributes to the effectiveness of the WTO legal system, in particular its dispute settlement procedures, and to the realisation of the WTO's development objectives".

THE ACWL'S OPERATIONS

10


LEGAL ADVICE

The ACWL provides legal opinions on issues of WTO law free of charge to its developing country Members and to LDCs. These opinions are limited to legal issues: the ACWL cannot provide political advice. The ACWL's legal opinions are provided solely at the request of the developing country Member or LDC involved. The ACWL cannot and does not propose legal opinions to its Members or the LDCs or develop its own positions on any issues of WTO law. Thus, the ACWL cannot pre-dict with any certainty the demand for legal opinions in a given year or at any time during the year. For the past five years, however, the ACWL has provided an average of 205 legal opinions per year in response to requests from its developing country Members and the LDCs. In 2016, the ACWL provided 196 legal opin-ions, compared to 181 in 2015. While the ACWL can-not predict demand for its legal opinions, it is expected that it will continue at least at the level of close to 200 legal opinions per year.

The ACWL's legal opinions are provided on a strictly confidential basis. The ACWL's Standards of Conduct require the ACWL to protect absolutely the confidenti-ality of its relationship with the governments that request the ACWL's opinions. This means that the ACWL cannot make public its legal opinions and can-not disclose either the identity of the country request-ing its opinions or the nature of the issues on which advice was sought. For this reason, in this Report on Operations, the ACWL can describe only in general terms the issues on which it provided advice during the year, except where the ACWL's involvement was a matter of public record. Moreover, the ACWL cannot disclose how the requesting developing country or LDC subsequently used the advice provided by the ACWL.

Each year, the ACWL conducts a survey of the users of its legal advice to determine whether they were satis-fied with the opinions provided. These ACWL Mem-bers and LDCs consistently report a high level of satisfaction with this service. They consistently report that the ACWL provided high-quality advice in a timely manner that enabled them to pursue or resolve their legal concerns. The feedback provided in the survey also assists the ACWL in its ongoing internal efforts to maintain and improve the quality of its legal advice.

Developing country Members and LDCs seek the ACWL's advice on three general categories of legal issues. The first comprises legal questions arising in the WTO legal system, including issues relating to accession to the WTO, participation in WTO commit-tees and other institutions, and legal questions arising out of WTO decision making and negotiations. These opinions enhance the capacity of developing coun-tries and LDCs to pursue their interests within the complex institutional framework of the WTO and to become active participants in WTO bodies. For exam-ple, the ACWL has advised its developing country Members and the LDCs on legal issues arising in their accessions to the WTO, their trade policy reviews, and in WTO committees such as the Committees on Tech-nical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and on Sanitary and Phy-tosanitary Measures (SPS measures).

The second category of legal advice concerns requests by the ACWL's developing country Members or LDCs for advice on general interpretative issues of WTO law or opinions on measures taken or contemplated by the Member or LDC seeking the advice itself. These opinions help these countries to understand better the provisions of WTO law and to realise their

The ACWL provided 196 legal opinions to

its developing country Members and LDCs in 2016.

11


domestic and trade policy objectives consistently with WTO law. This category includes opinions on issues such as the WTO-consistency of domestic tax meas-ures, technical regulations and SPS measures, tariffs, subsidies, trade remedy investigations and measures, intellectual property protection regimes, services reg-ulations, and proposed regional trade agreements. Developing country Members or LDCs faced with internal disagreement as to the consistency with WTO law of a proposed measure often request the ACWL to provide a legal assessment of the WTO-consistency of the draft measure. In these cases, the ACWL is in a unique position to provide a neutral, objective assess-ment of the WTO legal issues that arise with respect to the proposed measure, thereby assisting the request-ing country to develop and to achieve its policy objec-tives consistently with WTO law.

The third category consists of requests for legal opin-ions regarding measures of other WTO Members that affect the developing country Member or LDC requesting the legal opinion. The ACWL evaluates the WTO-consistency of these measures and advises on the legal options available to the requesting country, including the possibility of a challenge in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. This category includes legal opinions on the WTO-consistency of measures such as

technical regulations, SPS measures, subsidies, and trade remedy measures. In these cases, the ACWL's opinions permit the developing country or LDC to assess its options, including the merits of pursuing dispute settlement proceedings, on the basis of a legal analysis prepared by an institution that is neither issue- nor profit-driven.

12


NUMBER OF LEGAL OPINIONS

In 2016, the ACWL provided 196 legal opinions in response to requests for legal advice from its develop-ing country Members and LDCs, compared to 181 in 2015. The average number of legal opinions provided by the ACWL each year in the period 2012-2016 is 205.

The chart on the following page shows the number of legal opinions provided during the past ten years.

The ACWL counts as an individual legal opinion the advice given in response to each separate request by a developing country Member or LDC for the ACWL's advice. A legal opinion can be given in many forms, such as in the course of a three-hour meeting or in the form of a memorandum of over 100 pages, depending on the needs of the requesting country. A single legal opinion may require the ACWL to provide follow-up advice or to assist on ongoing legal issues over an extended period of several months. Informal discus-sions on WTO law that take place in brief email exchanges or conversations are not counted as legal opinions.

The time taken to respond to requests for advice var-ies with the legal and factual complexity of the matter submitted. Opinions required urgently are often pro-vided in a meeting or through a conference call. Some opinions that are provided in the course of a meeting or conference call may nevertheless require detailed advance preparation. Generally, more complex issues are addressed in the form of a written opinion. The ACWL endeavours to provide written opinions within the timeframe requested by or agreed with the coun-try involved. In 2016, 63 per cent of the written legal opinions were provided within five working days, 18 per cent within ten working days and 5 per cent within 15 working days. In the remaining 14 per cent of the cases, it took more than 15 working days, usu-ally because further factual information was required in order to complete the legal analysis.

13


NUMBER OF LEGAL OPINIONS2007-2016ACWL Legal Opinions 2006-2016

2013201420152016

110

175

194 206

218 231

215 204

181 196

0

50

100

150

200

250

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

"The ACWL's advice enables us to better understand WTO disciplines and to

formulate public policy in accordance with our international commitments".

14


As noted above, the ACWL's legal opinions are pro-vided to the requesting developing country Member or LDC on a strictly confidential basis. This means that unless its involvement was a matter of public record, the ACWL may describe the issues addressed in its legal opinions only in general terms and without any identification of the country involved. Moreover, the ACWL cannot discuss the substance of the advice pro-vided or how that advice was used. While taking these constraints into account, below we provide a general description of some of the key legal issues addressed in the ACWL's legal opinions in 2016:

GATT Issues

The ACWL responded to many requests for advice on issues under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), including questions relating to the WTO-consistency of applied tariffs, modifica-tion of tariff concessions, allocation of tariff-rate quo-tas, preferential tariff schemes, balance-of-payment concerns, import and export restrictions, and various issues relating to regional trading arrangements.

Advice to LDCs

The ACWL's assistance to the LDCs in 2016 included legal advice on issues relating to regional or preferen-tial trade arrangements, issues relating to subsidies and agricultural matters, and the legal interpretation of various negotiating proposals in the WTO.

Trade Remedies

The ACWL advised its developing country Members on both their own WTO compliance on trade remedy (anti-dumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard) measures and on trade remedy measures imposed by other WTO Members. This included advising the investigating authorities of developing countries on the legal conduct of anti-dumping investigations. The ACWL also responded to requests from both investi-gating and exporter governments for its analysis of determinations of dumping, subsidisation, and injury in anti-dumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard investigations for consistency with WTO rules.

ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE LEGAL OPINIONS

15


Technical Regulations

The ACWL responded to several requests for advice on the WTO-consistency of technical regulations or standards affecting the sale of goods, in the light of the ongoing evolution of the interpretation of the TBT Agreement in several prominent recent dispute settle-ment proceedings.

GATS Issues

The ACWL also advised on various issues under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), including questions relating to the WTO-consistency of import restrictions on goods affecting trade in ser-vices, domestic regulations, national treatment, and the exceptions contained in Articles XIV and XIV bis of the GATS.

SPS Measures

The ACWL responded to requests for advice on the WTO-consistency of several draft and existing SPS measures, including import restrictions and internal measures for the protection of plant, animal, and human life and health with the provisions of the SPS Agreement.

Intellectual Property

The ACWL's legal opinions addressed issues concern-ing the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, including issues relating to geographical indi-cations, procedures for protection of intellectual prop-erty rights, WTO-plus obligations, and other issues under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).

Accessions

The ACWL provided advice on legal aspects of the process of accession to the WTO to acceding LDCs.

The legal opinions issued this year by the ACWL involved issues arising under virtually all of the WTO covered agreements, as indicated in the table on page 16.

EXTERNAL COUNSEL

In 2015, the General Assembly of the ACWL approved a proposal to expand the use of the ACWL's Roster of External Counsel (see page 22 below) to cover situa-tions in which the ACWL cannot provide a legal opin-ion through its staff because of a conflict of interest. Previously, the ACWL could provide assistance through the Roster of External Counsel only in the context of dispute settlement proceedings. Under the new decision, ACWL developing country Members and LDCs may now have access to the Roster in situa-tions of conflict that do not involve or lead to dispute settlement proceedings. In these cases, the ACWL's developing country Member or LDC receives legal advice from a lawyer or firm on the Roster free of charge, in the same manner as if it received advice directly from the ACWL. The ACWL agrees and pays the fees of the lawyer or firm selected by the country involved. During 2016, there were two situations of conflicts of interest in which a developing country Member obtained a legal opinion from a firm on the Roster in this manner (at a cost to the ACWL of CHF42,000).

16


"We are highly satisfied on the responses received despite

very short notices given".

LEGAL OPINIONS BY SUBJECTIN 2016

Note: Some legal opinions involved two or more subjects; accordingly, the total number of subjects exceeds the total number of legal opinions issued during the year.

84

2530

11

2115

26

812

1711

611

36

1 1 1

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Legal Opinions in 2016 by Subject

Total 301

17


In 2016, 28 of the ACWL's 32 developing country Members sought legal advice from the ACWL (26 in 2015). All of the 44 LDCs entitled to the ACWL's ser-vices benefited from its legal advice through requests submitted on behalf of the WTO LDC Consultative Group (LDC Group). In addition, six LDCs individually sought legal advice from the ACWL (five in 2015). Due to the requirements of confidentiality discussed above, these individual countries cannot be identified in this report.

The ACWL divides its developing country Members into categories A, B, and C, according to their GNP per

capita and share of world trade, with category A Mem-bers having the highest GNP per capita and the larg-est share of world trade. The developing country Members in each category are listed in Appendix 5. As detailed in the chart below, category B Members requested 36 per cent of the opinions provided in 2016, while 9 per cent were requested by category A Members. The majority of the opinions were sought by category C Members (49 per cent) and LDCs (6 per cent).

DISTRIBUTION OF LEGAL OPINIONS AMONG COUNTRIES

LEGAL OPINIONS BY CATEGORYOF MEMBER IN 2016

A Members (9%)

B Members (36%)

C Members (49%)

LDCs (6%)

A Members (9%)B Members (36%)C Members (49%)LDCs (6%)

Legal Opinions by Category of Member in 2016

A Members (9%)

B Members (36%)

C Members (49%)

LDCs (6%)

18


As noted above, the ACWL's legal advice can be divided into three broad categories of opinions. In 2016, 69 legal opinions (35 per cent of the total, com-pared to 40 per cent in 2015) concerned issues that arose in WTO decision making and negotiations in such areas as trade facilitation, non-agricultural mar-ket access, and accessions. The ACWL also responded to 76 requests from countries seeking advice relevant to their own laws and measures (39 per cent, com-pared to 32 per cent in 2015), including advice on pro-posed legislation on trade remedies, services, export processing zones, and intellectual property rights. Finally, the ACWL provided 51 legal opinions regard-ing measures taken by other WTO Members (26 per cent, compared to 28 per cent in 2015). Also, continu-ing a trend, in 2016, 57 per cent (compared to 63 per cent in 2015) of the opinions falling into the third cat-

egory (measures of other WTO Members) involved measures of other developing countries, 41 per cent (compared to 37 per cent in 2015) involved measures of developed countries and two per cent (compared to none in 2015) involved measures of LDCs. This confirms the increasing importance of so-called "south-south" trade to the ACWL's developing country Members and the LDCs.

The breakdown of the ACWL's legal opinions among the three categories of legal opinions provided in 2016 is illustrated in the chart below, while the chart on the next page provides the breakdown between the three categories of legal opinions provided in the past five years (2012-2016).

"The ACWL is professional and great to work with".

CATEGORIES OF LEGAL OPINIONS

LEGAL OPINIONS BY CATEGORY OF OPINION IN 2016

WTO decision making and negotiations (35%)

Measures of countries seeking advice (39%)

Measures of other countries (26%)

WTO decision making and negotiations (41%)Measures of countries seeking advice (34%)Measures of other countries (25%)

Legal Opinions by Category of Opinion (Five-Year Average)

WTO decision making andnegotiations (41%)

Measures of countries seekingadvice (34%)


19


Thus, 75 per cent of the legal opinions during the past five years enabled the ACWL's developing country Members and LDCs to participate more effectively in WTO decision making (41 per cent) and to evaluate the consistency of their own measures with their WTO

obligations (34 per cent). The LDCs, in particular, have requested opinions for these purposes. Only 25 per cent of the legal opinions provided during this period related to measures of other countries.

Each year, the ACWL asks the developing country Members and LDCs to whom written legal opinions have been provided to respond to a survey of their satisfaction with the ACWL's legal advice.3 In keeping with the ACWL's obligation to maintain the confiden-tiality of countries seeking its advice, the responses to this survey are confidential and can be reported here only on an aggregate basis.

In the 2016 survey, 100 per cent of those who responded found the legal advice to be either "highly satisfactory" (67 per cent) or "very satisfactory" (33 per cent). No respondent found the ACWL's advice to be unsatisfactory. They also reported that the opin-ions addressed all legal issues raised in the request. The ACWL uses the feedback from the survey to review internally the quality and efficiency with which it provides its legal opinions.

"The way in which the ACWL responds for legal advice is outstanding and we cannot think of ways to improve it".

3 In 2016, 28 developing country Members, the LDC Group, and six LDCs sought the ACWL's legal advice. With respect to the questionnaires sent out in 2016, the ACWL received 25 responses from 19 different developing country Members.

SURVEY OF SATISFACTION

WTO decision making and negotiations (41%)

Measures of countries seeking advice (34%)


WTO decision making and negotiations (41%)Measures of countries seeking advice (34%)Measures of other countries (25%)

Legal Opinions by Category of Opinion (Five-Year Average)

WTO decision making andnegotiations (41%)

Measures of countries seekingadvice (34%)


LEGAL OPINIONS BY CATEGORY OF OPINION(FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE, 2012-2016)

20


All of the respondents to the ACWL's survey stated that the ACWL's legal opinions were helpful to their governments in furthering their understanding of their rights and obligations under WTO law. The respondents spoke very highly of the ACWL's work. The following is a selection of the comments provided by the respondents:

• "After receiving the ACWL's advice, my govern-ment was able to know whether the decisions it was about to take were in compliance with WTO rules".

• "The ACWL's advice enables us to better under-stand WTO disciplines and to formulate public policy in accordance with our international com-mitments".

• "Very complete assessment and highly satisfac-tory".

• "The legal opinions of the ACWL have always been very useful and delivered promptly".

• "I really appreciate all the services provided by the ACWL".

• "The ACWL responded to our questions without delay".

• "The way in which the ACWL responds to requests for legal advice is outstanding and we cannot think of ways to improve it".

• "The ACWL is professional and great to work with".

• "The ACWL's high quality of work is always exceeding our expectations".

"The ACWL's high quality of work is always exceeding

our expectations."

SURVEY OF USERS' SATISFACTION WITH THE ACWL'S LEGAL ADVICE

Highly satisfactory (67%)

Very satisfactory (33%)

Highly Satisfactory (68 %) Very Satisfactory (32 %)

Survey of Users' Satisfaction with the ACWL's Legal Advice

Highly Satisfactory (68 %)

Very Satisfactory (32 %)

21


The ACWL provides support in WTO dispute settle-ment proceedings to its developing country Members and LDCs. As with its other services, the ACWL pro-vides this support only at the request of a developing country Member or an LDC: the ACWL may not develop or propose dispute settlement proceedings by its own initiative (the no "ambulance chasing" rule). The ACWL is, however, frequently requested to evalu-ate a potential dispute and assist in developing the legal aspects of the case. The ACWL works in partner-ship with the concerned developing country Member or LDC when supporting in dispute settlement pro-ceedings. The ACWL assists the litigating country in every step of the dispute. Prior to the initiation of a dispute, the ACWL's lawyers prepare a legal opinion, assessing the merits of the case and identifying its strengths and weaknesses. Once a dispute is initiated, the ACWL's lawyers collaborate with delegates and capital-based officials to prepare for the consultations. During panel stage, Appellate Body procedures, and other proceedings, the ACWL's lawyers work with these officials in drafting the written submissions, oral

statements, and answers to questions. The ACWL's lawyers also participate in the proceedings as part of the developing country's or LDC's delegation. The ACWL also assists officials to address the procedural issues in the dispute and to develop a legal strategy. The collaboration between the ACWL and the litigat-ing developing country Member or LDC facilitates a combination of dispute settlement assistance and capacity building.

Unlike the services of legal advice and training, which are provided free of charge, there are fees and charges – at rates substantially below those of commercial law firms – for the ACWL's support in WTO dispute settle-ment proceedings. The current schedule of fees estab-lished by the ACWL's Management Board is available at http://www.acwl.ch/fees.

Since its inception in 2001, the ACWL has provided direct support to its developing country Members and LDCs in 53 separate WTO dispute settlement proceed-ings through its own staff and in 7 proceedings

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SUPPORTINTRODUCTION

22


through external counsel. This is approximately 20 per cent of all WTO disputes initiated in that period. A list of these disputes is set out in Appendix 1.

The individual participation in WTO dispute settle-ment proceedings of most developing country Mem-bers and LDCs that seek the ACWL's support is relatively low. Collectively, however, these countries participate almost as frequently as the WTO Members that are the main users of the dispute settlement sys-tem, such as the United States or the European Union (EU). Having directly assisted developing countries and LDCs in more than 50 dispute settlement pro-ceedings, the ACWL has acquired legal experience comparable to that of other frequent users of the sys-tem. Thus, the ACWL pools the legal experience of developing countries and LDCs in WTO legal matters and enables each of them to draw on this collective experience to defend their individual interests in dis-pute settlement proceedings.

The table on the following page shows the number of new dispute settlement proceedings initiated each year since 2002, the first full year in which the ACWL

was in existence, as well as the number of new dis-putes each year in which the ACWL has provided sup-port.

In addition to providing support to its developing country Members and LDCs directly through its staff lawyers, the ACWL also provides support through external legal counsel. WTO dispute settlement pro-ceedings between developing countries, including between those entitled to the ACWL's services, are increasingly common. The ACWL can provide direct support to two or more parties involved in the same proceeding when they have compatible objectives. When parties pursuing incompatible objectives request the services of the ACWL on the same matter, however, the ACWL's lawyers can assist only the party that first requested the ACWL's services. In these cases, the ACWL provides support to the other party through external counsel.

For this purpose, the ACWL has established a Roster of External Counsel, which is made up of law firms and individuals that have experience in WTO dispute set-tlement proceedings and that have agreed to repre-

4 For this purpose, disputes involving multiple complainants are counted as a single dispute. For example, the proceedings in Dominican Republic – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric (DS 415, DS 416, DS 417, and DS 418), in which Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador were complainants, are counted as a single dispute.

23


ACWL INVOLVEMENT IN WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS (2002-2016)

Note: The statistics in this table are based on the number of new "DS numbers" assigned to new disputes each year since 2002 (the first full year of operations of the ACWL). Thus, cases with multiple complainants are counted separately (e.g. the EC - Sugar case counts as three disputes: DS 265, DS 266 and DS 283).

Total new WTO disputes initiated by year

Number of new disputes in which the ACWL was involved

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ACWL Involvement in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings (2002-2016)

Series2

Series1

sent developing countries and LDCs when the ACWL's lawyers cannot do so because of a conflict of interest. The party that cannot be assisted by the ACWL's law-yers selects its counsel from the Roster.

The selected counsel provides the same support that the ACWL's lawyers would have provided in the

absence of the conflict of interest. The ACWL finances the difference between the fees agreed with the exter-nal counsel and the fees that the ACWL would have charged for the same services. The law firms and law-yers on the Roster of External Counsel are listed in Appendix 3.

The chart below provides details on the distribution of the ACWL's support in WTO dispute settlement proceed-ings during the period 2001-2016 by category of ACWL Member and LDCs.

ASSISTANCE IN DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS BY CATEGORY OF MEMBER 2001-2016

Category A (1%)

Category B (55%)

Category C (41%)

LDCs (3%)

DISPUTE

For Thailand, as the respondent in Thailand — Measures Concerning Sugar (DS507)

Category A (1%) 1

Category B (55%) 55

Category C (41%) 41

LDCs (3%) 3

Assistance in Dispute Settlement Proceedings by Category of Member 2001-2016

Category A (1%)

Category B (55%)

Category C (41%)

LDCs (3%)

24


SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THE ACWL'S STAFF

In 2016, WTO Members initiated a total of 17 new dis-pute settlement proceedings, compared to 13 in 2015. The ACWL's developing country Members are involved in 7 of those disputes. The ACWL is providing support to the complainant in one of these disputes and is providing support to the respondents in two others. In addition, during 2016, the ACWL was retained to work on a dispute that was initiated in 2014 and continued to work on 10 other disputes (counting the various "plain packaging" disputes as one) that had begun in previous years. Thus, the ACWL was involved in a total of 14 separate dispute settle-ment proceedings during 2016. These disputes are described in more detail on the following pages.

NEW DISPUTES

The ACWL is assisting Turkey as the complainant in Morocco - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel from Turkey (DS 513), in which Turkey chal-lenges certain features of Morocco's anti-dumping duties on imports of hot-rolled steel products from Turkey. Turkey considers that the investigation of the Moroccan authorities exceeded the maximum

18-month deadline contemplated in Article 5.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Further, Turkey considers that the Moroccan authorities' decision to reject the exporters' questionnaire responses and determine the dumping margins on the basis of facts available is inconsistent with Article 6.8 and paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Turkey also considers that the Moroccan authorities acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dump-ing Agreement by failing to disclose essential facts relating to the decision to use facts available. In addi-tion, Turkey considers that the Moroccan authorities' use of registration/licensing requirements and their failure to issue import licenses subsequent to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures is inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles I:1, X:1, X:2, X:3(a), and XI:1 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Import Licensing Agreement. Turkey further considers that Moroccan authorities failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of the findings of injury and causation in a manner that is consistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Furthermore, Turkey considers that Morocco's investi-gation and definitive measures are inconsistent with Article VI of the GATT 1994, and Articles 1 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Consultations took

25


place in 2016 and the dispute is expected to continue in 2017.

The ACWL is assisting Thailand as the respondent in Thailand - Subsidies Concerning Sugar (DS 507), in which Brazil challenges certain aspects of the subsidi-zation of Thailand's domestic sugar industry. Brazil is concerned that the effect of Thailand's sugar quota and price control systems is the cross-subsidization of its sugar exports in a manner that is inconsistent with WTO law. Moreover, Brazil considers that Thailand supplements its fix prices for sugarcane sales to its sugar mills with additional payments to its sugarcane growers. Brazil also considers that because Thailand has not specified any export subsidy commitments in Section II of Part IV of its Schedule of Concessions, Thailand's quota and price control system and its sup-plementary payments to sugarcane growers consti-tute agricultural export subsidies in violation of Thailand's obligations under the Agreement on Agri-culture. Brazil also considers that the subsidies that Thailand provides to its sugar sector provide incen-tives to its farmers to convert substantial agricultural land from rice to sugarcane production and to develop additional capacity to manufacture sugarcane into sugar. Brazil considers this support to exceed the de minimis level permitted under the Agreement on

Agriculture. Brazil also considers Thailand's sugar sub-sidies to constitute prohibited and actionable subsi-dies under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures that are inconsistent with Articles 3.2, 3.3, 6.3, 8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Articles 3.1(a), 3.2, 5(c), and 6.3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Consultations began in June 2016 and are continuing.

The ACWL is assisting Colombia as the respondent in Colombia - Measures Concerning Imported Spirits (DS 502), in which the EU considers the treatment that Colombia accords to imported beverages at the national and subnational level to be discriminatory and WTO-inconsistent. The EU considers that Colombia applies charges and taxes on all imported spirits with an ABV (alcohol by volume) of more than 35 per cent at a higher rate than those applied to spir-its, including the local aguardiente and rum, with an ABV equal to or less than 35 per cent. The EU there-fore considers that Colombia's fiscal regime for spirits results in the unjustified imposition of a higher tax on imported spirits from the EU than that applied on like or directly competitive domestically produced spirits. The EU also considers that certain practices of "intro-duction contracts" at the subnational level in

26


Colombia establish monopolies over the introduction or sale of imported spirits in certain jurisdictions, lim-iting the freedom of sale and marketing of EU spirits in Colombia. The EU thus considers aspects of Colombia's spirits fiscal regime to be inconsistent with Articles III:1, III:2 and III:4 of the GATT 1994. The EU also considers that Colombia implements and admin-isters its system of fiscal monopolies over the intro-duction and sale of spirits in a manner that is not uniform, impartial, and reasonable, and therefore inconsistent with Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. The panel was established in September 2016.

The ACWL is assisting Indonesia as the respondent in Indonesia – Measures Concerning the Importation of Chicken Meat and Chicken Products (DS 484). Brazil submitted the request for consultations in this dispute on 16 October 2014. The dispute relates to certain measures imposed by Indonesia on the importation of meat from fowls of the species Gallus domesticus and products from the same species of fowls. Brazil con-siders, inter alia, Indonesia's non-approval of health certificates, positive list of animal products that may be imported into Indonesia, import licensing regime, measures with respect to the shipping and quarantine on the importation of the products at issue, burden-some administrative requirements, and pre-inspection requirements to be inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agree-ment; Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 5.1 and 5.2 of the TBT Agreement; Articles 4.2 and 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture; Articles 1.3, 3.2, 3.3 of the Import Licens-ing Agreement; Articles 2.1 and 2.15 of the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection; and Articles III:4, X:1, X:3 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994. The panel was established in December 2015. On 22 February 2016, Brazil requested the WTO Director-General to compose the panel, which was composed on 3 March 2016. The parties made their written submissions during 2016. The panel met twice with the parties in 2016 and is scheduled to release its report in 2017.

ONGOING DISPUTES

The ACWL is assisting Pakistan as the complainant in South Africa - Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties on Portland Cement from Pakistan (DS 500), in which Pakistan challenges certain provisional anti-dumping duties imposed by South Africa on the importation of certain Portland cement products from Pakistan. Pakistan considers that South Africa failed to make a fair comparison between normal value and export price within the meaning of Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement for the investigated Pakistani exporters, by not making certain adjustments to nor-mal value and export price. Pakistan also considers that South Africa failed to define correctly the scope of the like product/product under investigation and that South Africa failed to make an objective examination of injury and causation, on the basis of positive evi-dence. Pakistan is concerned that South Africa denied the exporters a full opportunity for the defence of their interests and failed to set forth sufficiently detailed explanations of the preliminary determina-tion of injury and causation. In Pakistan's view, South Africa has acted inconsistently with Articles 1, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.8, 7.1, 12.1.1, 12.2.1, 18 and paragraph 6 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994. Pakistan requested consultations with South Africa on 10 November 2015. Consultations began in December 2015 and continued in 2016.

The ACWL is assisting the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Taiwan) as the complainant in Indonesia - Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products (DS 490), in which Taiwan challenges certain aspects of Indonesia's safeguard measure on imports of flat-rolled product of iron or non-alloy steel. Taiwan considers that Indonesia failed to pro-vide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions regarding the alleged unforeseen developments and the effect of Indonesia's obligations under the GATT 1994 that led to the increased imports that caused or threatened to cause serious injury to the domestic industry. Taiwan further considers that Indonesia

27


relied on outdated data to show how the investigated imports had increased. Taiwan also considers that Indonesia failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of its findings of injury, threat of serious injury, and causation. Furthermore, Indonesia failed to comply with the principle of "parallelism" in its injury determination and application of the safeguard meas-ures. Taiwan considers that Indonesia's notification of its measure was inadequate and that Indonesia failed to provide an opportunity for consultations prior to the imposition of the safeguard measure. Taiwan therefore considers that Indonesia has acted incon-sistently with Articles 2.1, 3,1, 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 4.2(c), 12(2) and 12(3) of the Agreement on Safeguards, as well as Articles I:1 and XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994. At the request of Taiwan and Viet Nam (see below), the WTO Director-General composed the panel on 9 December 2015. The parties made their written submissions to the panel in 2016 and the panel's meetings with the parties were held in 2016. The panel expects to issue its report to the parties in 2017.

The ACWL is also assisting Viet Nam as the complain-ant in Indonesia - Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products (DS 496). In this dispute, Viet Nam chal-lenges the same Indonesian safeguard measures as those challenged by Taiwan in DS 490 (see above) and on essentially the same grounds. Viet Nam requested consultations with Indonesia on 1 June 2015. As noted, on 9 December 2015, at the request of Viet Nam and Taiwan, the WTO Director-General com-posed panels comprised of the same individuals for these two disputes and thereafter the two panels pro-ceeded on the same schedule. The panel expects to issue its report to the parties in 2017.

The ACWL is assisting Thailand as a third party in Euro-pean Union - Measures Affecting Tariff Concessions on Certain Poultry Meat Products (DS 492). In this dispute, China is challenging the EU's modifications on tariff concessions on certain poultry meat products con-ducted pursuant to Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994. This dispute arose, in part, from measures taken by the EU to implement the panel and the Appellate Body

rulings in a previous dispute brought by Thailand and Brazil against the EU, European Communities - Cus-toms Classification of Frozen, Boneless Chicken Cuts (DS 269, DS 286). In 2007 and 2012, the EU modified its tariff concessions on tariff subheadings on poultry products directly affected or related to the products at issue in the original dispute and provided Thailand and Brazil with tariff rate quotas. China requested con-sultations with the EU on 8 April 2015. On 20 July 2015, the DSB established the panel. At Chi-na's request, the WTO Director-General composed the panel on 3 December 2015. On 17 December 2015, Thailand requested enhanced third party rights because of its unique economic and legal interest in this dispute. Brazil and Canada also submitted a request for enhanced third party rights. The parties' first meeting with the panel, including the third party session, was held in 2016. The parties' second meeting with the panel was also held in 2016. The panel expects to issue its report to the parties in 2017.

The ACWL is assisting Pakistan as the complainant in European Union - Countervailing Measures on Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate from Pakistan (DS 486). In this dispute, Pakistan challenges certain countervail-ing duties imposed by the EU on imports of polyethyl-ene terephthalate (PET) from Pakistan. PET is a type of polyester used, inter alia, in synthetic fibres, beverage, food and other liquid containers. Pakistan argues that several aspects of the EU's determination underlying the countervailing duties are inconsistent with WTO law. Specifically, Pakistan argues that the EU improp-erly concluded that the so-called Final Tax Regime constitutes a subsidy. Pakistan also argues that the EU improperly concluded that a duty drawback system operated by the Government of Pakistan constituted a subsidy and that the EU incorrectly calculated the amount of subsidisation. Pakistan furthermore argues that the EU incorrectly calculated the subsidisation amount for certain loan programmes and incorrectly allocated the amount of subsidy over the exporter's sales. Pakistan also challenges what it perceives to be the EU's failure to provide verification reports to the interested parties during the investigation. Finally,

28


The ACWL is involved in approximately one-fifth of

all WTO disputes.

Pakistan argues that the EU's determination does not contain an adequate causation analysis, because the EU failed to ensure that injury caused by certain other factors was not improperly attributed to the subsi-dised imports. In Pakistan's view, the EU has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 1, 3, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 32, and Annexes II and III of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994. Pakistan submitted its request for consultations to the EU on 28 October 2014. Consultations took place in December 2014. On 12 February 2015, Pakistan requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 23 February 2015, the DSB deferred the establish-ment of the panel. The panel was established at the DSB meeting of 25 March 2015. By agreement among the parties, the panel was composed on 13 May 2015. The panel met with the parties twice in 2016. The panel expects to issue its report to the parties in mid-2017.

The ACWL is assisting Panama as the complainant in Colombia - Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear (DS 461). The request for consultations in this dispute was submitted on 18 June 2013. The measure at issue is a compound tariff – composed of a ten per cent ad valorem levy and a specific levy – which Colombia imposes on the importation of certain textiles, apparel and footwear. In the request for consultations, Panama alleged that the compound tariff is inconsistent with Article II:1(b), first sentence, of the GATT 1994 because, as an ordi-nary customs duty, its application results in the impo-sition of levies in excess of those resulting from the application of the ad valorem tariff bound in Colombia's Schedule of Concessions. Also, Panama

alleged that this compound tariff is inconsistent with Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994 because it accords the affected imports treatment less favourable than that provided for in Colombia's Schedule of Concessions. In the alternative, should the specific levy contained in the compound tariff be considered to be a duty or charge other than an ordinary customs duty, Panama alleged that it would be inconsistent with Articles II:1(b), second sentence, and VIII:1(a) of the GATT 1994. On 27 November 2015, the panel circu-lated its final report. The panel found that Colombia's compound tariff is inconsistent with Articles II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994 and with Colombia's Schedule of Concessions. The panel further found that the meas-ure at issue was not justified by Articles XX(a) or (d) of the GATT 1994.

On 22 January 2016, Colombia appealed certain aspects of the panel report. The Appellate Body hear-ing was held on 4-5 April 2016. The Appellate Body issued its report on 7 June 2016. It upheld the panel's findings that the compound tariff is inconsistent with Article II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994. With respect to Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, the Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that Colombia had failed to demonstrate that the compound tariff is "designed" to protect public morals, within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body completed the analysis and found that Colombia's measure is indeed "designed" to combat money laun-dering. However, the Appellate Body found that Colombia had failed to establish that the compound tariff was "necessary" to protect public morals in Colombia. The Appellate Body made similar findings under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994: it reversed the panel's finding and found that Colombia had demon-

29


strated that its measure was "designed" to secure com-pliance with the relevant provisions of laws or regulations that are not GATT-inconsistent. However, the Appellate Body found that Colombia had not established that the compound tariff was "necessary" to secure compliance with its Criminal Code, within the meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.

The DSB adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports on 22 June 2016. At the DSB meeting of 21 July 2016, Colombia expressed its intention to implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations and that it would require a reasonable period of time to do so. On 8 August 2016, Panama requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through an arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). On 30 August 2016, the WTO Director-General appointed Mr. Giorgio Sacerdoti as the arbitrator and the hearing was held on 6 October 2016. On 15 November 2016, the Arbitrator deter-mined the reasonable period of time to be seven months, which would expire on 22 January 2017.

The ACWL is assisting Guatemala as the complainant in Peru - Additional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricul-tural Products (DS 457). In 2014, the panel found that Peru's price range system is inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture as it constitutes a

variable import levy, and with Article II:1(b), second sentence, of the GATT 1994 as Peru's measure qualifies as "other duties or charges imposed on, or in connec-tion with, importation". The panel concluded that Peru's measure was neither a minimum import price within the meaning of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture nor a measure similar to a minimum import price.

In July 2015, following an appeal by Peru, the Appellate Body upheld the panel's findings under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, regarding a variable import levy, and under Article II:1(b), second sentence, of the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that Peru's measure was neither identi-cal nor similar to a minimum import price within the meaning of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture but was unable to complete the analysis on this issue. The Appellate Body also found that Guatemala had not previously relinquished, through its free trade agree-ment with Peru, its rights to have recourse to the WTO dispute settlement system and that Guatemala had not acted contrary to good faith in initiating the dispute. There was, therefore, no reason for the panel to have refrained from assessing the claims put forward by Guatemala. On 31 July 2015, the DSB adopted the panel and the Appellate Body reports.

30


As the parties were unable to agree on a reasonable period of time for implementation, the reasonable period of time was determined by binding arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The parties desig-nated Appellate Body Member Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández as arbitrator. In an award issued on 16 December 2015, the arbitrator determined a rea-sonable period of time of 7 months and 29 days, which expired on 29 March 2016. On 11 April 2016, Guatemala and Peru submitted to the DSB a sequenc-ing agreement regarding future steps in the dispute.

The ACWL assisted Panama as the complainant in Argentina - Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services (DS 453). In this dispute, Panama alleged that certain Argentinian measures governing the assess-ment of taxes on profits resulted in service suppliers of certain countries ("non-cooperative countries") being subject to less favourable treatment than similar ser-vice suppliers of other countries ("cooperative coun-tries") in a manner inconsistent with Article II:1 of the GATS and Article I:1 of the GATT 1994. Panama also alleged that various aspects of the profits tax were inconsistent with Articles II:1, XI, XVI and footnote 8, and Article XVII of the GATS and, to the extent that they affect trade in goods, Articles I:1, III:2, III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994. Panama also challenged certain Argentinian measures affecting trade in the reinsur-ance services sector, discriminatory registration requirements for certain foreign service suppliers, dis-criminatory rules governing the repatriation of capital, and trade in financial instruments as being inconsistent with Article II:1 of the GATS. Finally, Panama argued that Argentina acted inconsistently with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 by denying VAT rebates and drawbacks on exports to certain countries that are granted to other countries. On 30 September 2015, the panel cir-

culated its final report, in which it found that Argenti-na's measures were inconsistent with Article II:1 of the GATS. It further found that the measures at issue are not justified by Article XIV(c) of the GATS or, in respect of two measures, by paragraph 2(a) of the Annex on Financial Services of that agreement. On 27 October 2015, Panama appealed certain aspects of the panel report. On 2 November 2015, Argentina filed a notice of other appeal challenging other aspects of the panel report.

The Appellate Body hearing was held on 27-28 January 2016 and the Appellate Body issued its report on 14 April 2016. With respect to Article II:1 of the GATS, the Appellate Body found that the panel did not make a finding that Argentina's distinction between cooper-ative and non-cooperative countries was based exclu-sively on origin; therefore, the panel's finding of likeness "by reason of origin" was erroneous. The Appellate Body considered that as the panel's finding of likeness under Article XVII of the GATS was based on the erroneous finding of likeness under Article II:1, the panel similarly erred in its likeness determination under Article XVII. The Appellate Body also found that the panel's findings under "treatment no less favourable" lacked a proper basis and could not stand. The Appel-late Body thus reversed the panel's findings of likeness of services and service suppliers and "treatment no less favourable" under both Articles II:1 and XVII of the GATS, but did not complete the panel's analysis. With regard to Argentina's defence under Article XIV(c) of the GATS, the Appellate Body found that Panama failed to demonstrate that the panel erred in finding that the measures were "designed" and "necessary" to secure compliance with the relevant Argentine laws or regula-tions that are not WTO-inconsistent. In particular, the Appellate Body found that Panama failed to establish

"The ACWL responded to our questions without delay".

31


that the panel had erred in its assessment of the contri-bution and trade-restrictiveness of the measures, or in weighing and balancing the relevant "necessity" fac-tors. Finally, the Appellate Body disagreed with Panama that paragraph 2(a) of the GATS Annex on Financial Services covers only measures that constitute "domestic regulation". The Appellate Body found that the provision does not restrict the types of measures affecting the supply of financial services within the meaning of paragraph 1(a) of the Annex. The DSB adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports at its meeting of 9 May 2016.

The ACWL continued to assist Indonesia as the com-plainant in European Union - Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Certain Fatty Alcohols from Indonesia (DS 442). In this dispute, Indonesia alleged that anti-dumping measures imposed by the EU on imports of certain fatty alcohols from Indonesia are inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, in several respects. In particular, Indonesia alleged that the EU's failure to treat the Indonesian exporters' related Singapore sales offices as a single economic entity with their related producers/exporters and its adjustment of the export price to reflect "commissions" paid to the Singapore sales offices was inconsistent with, inter alia, Articles 2.3 and 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

Indonesia further alleged that by excluding certain types of fatty alcohols from the scope of the domestic like product and producers of those types of fatty alco-hols from the scope of the domestic industry, the EU acted inconsistently with Articles 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, and 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Indonesia also alleged that the EU acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to conduct a proper causation analysis and by failing to explain why injury suffered by the domestic industry was not attributable to other known factors. Finally, Indonesia alleged that the EU acted inconsist-ently with Article 3.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by cumulating imports from Indonesia with imports from other countries under investigation and with Articles 6.7 and 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to provide the Indonesian exporters with the results of the EU's verification visits to the exporters. The second meeting of the panel with the parties was held on 15-16 March 2016. The panel circulated its report on 16 December 2016.

The panel found that Indonesia had not demonstrated that the EU authorities acted inconsistently with Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. In addi-tion, the panel concluded that Indonesia did not dem-onstrate that the EU authorities acted inconsistently

32


with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agree-ment in their non-attribution analysis, regarding the economic crisis factor and the "access to raw materials and price fluctuations" factor. The panel further found that the EU acted inconsistently with Article 6.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to disclose the results of the verification visit at the premises of the Indonesian trader as it did not explain which informa-tion was requested from the company, whether the company had made available the requested informa-tion, and whether the investigating authority con-firmed the accuracy of the information provided in writing by the company. The dispute continues.

The ACWL continued to assist Honduras as the com-plainant in Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Prod-ucts and Packaging (DS 435), in which Honduras is challenging certain Australian laws and regulations that impose trademark restrictions and other plain packaging requirements for tobacco products and packaging. Honduras submits that these measures appear to be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under Articles 3.1, 15.4, 16.1, 20, 22.2(b) and 24.3 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), as well as Article 2.1, which incorporates Article 6quinquies and Article 10bis of the Paris Convention in the TRIPS Agreement, Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.

The ACWL continued to act as co-counsel to the Dominican Republic as complainant in Australia - Cer-tain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging (DS 441),

in which the Dominican Republic is challenging Australia's laws and regulations that impose trademark restrictions and other plain packaging requirements for tobacco products and packaging. The Dominican Republic's claims are similar to those of Honduras with respect to the same measures in DS 435 above.

The ACWL continued to assist Honduras and the Dominican Republic as third parties in two other dis-putes related to the same Australian plain packaging measures. These disputes are Australia – Certain Meas-ures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging (DS 458), in which Cuba is a complainant, and Australia – Certain Meas-ures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging (DS 467), in which Indonesia is a complainant.

The four plain packaging disputes have the same three panelists and are being conducted pursuant to the same timetable and the same Working Procedures. The issuance of the panel report has been postponed a number of times due to the complexity of the case. On 1 December 2016, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the panel expected to issue its report to the parties not before May 2017.

The ACWL continued to assist Thailand as the respond-ent in Thailand - Customs and Fiscal Measures on Ciga-rettes from the Philippines (DS 371). In this dispute, the panel and the Appellate Body had found that Thailand had acted inconsistently with the Customs Valuation Agreement with respect to the valuation of certain imports of cigarettes, that certain aspects of Thailand's VAT regime were inconsistent with Articles III:2 and III:4

33


SUPPORT PROVIDED THROUGH EXTERNAL COUNSEL

In 2016, Peru continued to receive support through external counsel in the DSU Article 21.3(c) proceedings in the dispute Peru - Additional Duty on Imports of Cer-tain Agricultural Products (DS 457) (described in more detail above). Colombia also received support through external counsel in the appellate and DSU Article 21.3(c) proceedings of the dispute Colombia - Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear (DS 461) (described in more detail above).

To date, the ACWL has provided support through external counsel in seven WTO dispute settlement pro-ceedings. These are listed in Appendix 1.


In survey interviews with the Ambassadors and other responsible officials of the governments that the ACWL assisted in dispute settlement proceedings completed in 2016, the ACWL was uniformly praised for providing a very high level of performance. The users of the ACWL praised the ACWL for the high quality of its writ-ten and oral submissions and its responsiveness to the needs of the government. One delegation explained that the ACWL lawyers provided "logical and well sub-stantiated interventions" at hearings while another thanked the ACWL for the "excellent" service. No del-egation expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of the ACWL's legal advice and technical work on the dis-putes.

of the GATT 1994, and that certain aspects of Thai-land's administration of its customs, excise, and VAT laws were inconsistent with Articles X:1 and X:3 of the GATT 1994. Thailand's reasonable period of time to implement expired in October 2012, with respect to certain VAT measures, and in May 2012, with respect to all other measures. On 1 June 2012, the parties notified the DSB that they had reached a so-called "sequenc-ing" agreement on procedures to be followed under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU. On 4 May 2016, the Philippines requested consultations pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU regarding disagreement with respect to Thailand's implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The Philippines further requested the establishment of a compliance panel on

29 June 2016 and in its meeting of 21 July 2016, the DSB agreed to refer the matter raised by the Philippines to the original panel, to the extent possible. Two of the original panellists were not available for the proceedings. Thus, the Philippines requested the WTO Director-General to compose the panel, which was composed on 16 December 2016. The compliance pro-ceedings will continue in 2017.

34


TRAININGThe ACWL provides training on WTO law through annual training courses, occasional seminars on WTO legal issues of general interest, workshops, and semi-nars on issues of specific interest to individual coun-tries, as well as the Secondment Programme for Trade Lawyers. As with the ACWL's legal advice, the ACWL's training services are provided free of charge to its developing country Members and the LDCs.

The ACWL's annual training course runs from October to June each year. The course is open to delegates of developing country Members and LDCs that are based in Geneva. It consists of a weekly class held at the ACWL's offices from 13:00 to 15:00 each Thursday. A light lunch is provided. The course is run on a three-year cycle. In the first year, the course covers the basic principles of WTO law; in the second year, the WTO agreements relating to trade remedies, trade in ser-vices, trade-related intellectual property rights, and other disciplines; and in the third year, the WTO dis-pute settlement procedures. In recent years, the course has included a popular moot court exercise in which course participants take part in a simulated dis-pute settlement proceeding involving the legal issues addressed during the course. Participants that attend a required minimum number of sessions in a given year are awarded a Certificate of Training. To date, the ACWL has awarded 426 Certificates of Training to del-egates from nearly all ACWL developing country Members and from two thirds of the LDCs with mis-sions in Geneva.

In 2005, the ACWL launched the Secondment Pro-gramme for Trade Lawyers, under which government lawyers from developing country Members and LDCs join the staff of the ACWL as paid trainees for a nine-month term starting in mid-September and ending in

mid-June of the following year. The programme has been extremely successful and gives government law-yers from the ACWL's developing country Members and LDCs an opportunity to work with, and learn from, the ACWL's lawyers on WTO legal issues and in dis-pute settlement proceedings. It has been funded by voluntary contributions made by developed country Members of the ACWL.

In addition to its Thursday training course, the ACWL is increasingly offering tailor-made training pro-grammes by videoconference at the request of its developing country Members and the LDCs. The ACWL also provides tailor-made training programmes at its offices for visiting delegations from capitals, as well as ad hoc seminars on significant panel or Appel-late Body reports and other issues of legal signifi-cance.

For reasons of budget and fairness, the ACWL can pro-vide its training seminars on-site in capitals only where the requesting Member or LDC, or an outside sponsor, can cover the ACWL's travel and accommodation expenses.

The ACWL also continues to cooperate with the WTO and other organizations in training and capacity-building programmes for developing countries and LDCs. The ACWL regularly participates in the WTO's training programmes and appreciates its excellent cooperation with the WTO on these matters. In addi-tion, the ACWL regularly cooperates with entities such as the IADB, ITC, UNCTAD, and ICTSD on training activ-ities. The ACWL welcomes further opportunities to cooperate with these and other organizations.

35


In June 2016, the ACWL completed its fourteenth annual training course, which focused on basic WTO legal principles. The course included both a moot court exercise and an optional written examination. At the conclusion of the course, 38 of the 60 delegates that registered for the course had attended the required number of sessions and received a Certificate of Training.

In the moot court exercise, participants were divided into four teams - complainant, respondent, third party, and panel - that prepared written and oral submis-sions and a panel report on a simulated WTO dispute settlement proceeding. The exercise included a hear-ing held in one of the rooms used for panel hearings in dispute settlement proceedings at the WTO.

At the request of delegates, the ACWL offered partici-pants that had completed the course the opportunity to take a written examination on the topics taught during the course. Out of the 23 delegates that chose to take the exam, 21 passed and received Certificates of Achievement.

In October 2016, the ACWL commenced its fifteenth annual training course, which focuses on GATS, TRIPS, trade remedies and other disciplines. The course includes a moot court exercise and practical sessions applying the legal principles taught to hypothetical factual situations. The course will end in June 2017.


At the end of each year's training course, the ACWL asks the participants to complete a questionnaire on the course. This feedback is helpful in maintaining and improving the quality of the ACWL's training courses. In May 2016, 29 of the 31 responding participants reported that the training course was either "highly satisfactory" or "very satisfactory". Two respondents described the course as "satisfactory". No respondent described the course as "somewhat satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory". The chart on the following page shows the breakdown of responses to the survey by level of satisfaction.

ANNUAL TRAINING COURSES

36


Responding participants found the moot court exer-cise either "extremely helpful" (55 per cent), "very helpful" (23 per cent), "helpful" (19 per cent) or "some-what helpful" (3 per cent). No participants found the moot court to be "not helpful".

Most participants stated that they had been able to apply what they learned in the training course in their daily work either "frequently" (48 per cent) or "some-times" (45 per cent). One participant indicated that he had applied what he had learned "once", while another participant had "never applied" what he had learned.

In their comments on the course, one participant described the course as "a very complete programme that covers all major topics", with "excellent lectures and organizational work". Another participant said it was a "very comprehensive" course, "all perfectly explained by the teachers". Another said "the lectur-ers are highly qualified. The topics are very useful in actual WTO work". Regarding how they used the train-ing course in their daily work, participants said that "the lessons helped us to better understand the issues discussed at the WTO" and to "better prepare for the negotiations and issues discussed at the Committees under my responsibility". Another participant said that the course enabled him to improve his reports to capital about meetings and negotiations.

SURVEY OF USERS' SATISFACTION WITHTHE ACWL'S TRAINING COURSE

Highly satisfactory (55%)

Very satisfactory (39%)

Satisfactory (6%)

Highly satisfactory (55%)Very satisfactory (39%)Satisfactory (6%)Highly satisfactory

(55%)Very satisfactory(39%)Satisfactory (6%)

37


The ACWL regularly conducts seminars on topical issues of WTO law and jurisprudence that are of par-ticular interest to developing country Members and LDCs.

Developing country Members and LDCs are increas-ingly availing of this service by requesting the ACWL to provide country-specific tailor-made seminars or workshops that are of particular interest to their offi-cials. As the ACWL lacks funding to send its lawyers to capitals, these seminars and workshops for Geneva-based or visiting capital-based delegates are normally conducted at the ACWL's offices. When requested, these seminars and training sessions may be provided by videoconference. In 2016, the ACWL provided country-specific training seminars on various topics including: (i) origins and structure of the WTO Agree-ment, (ii) WTO dispute settlement procedures; and (iii) WTO anti-dumping law and practice.

The ACWL also organises ad hoc seminars at its offices on matters of topical interest in WTO law for delegates from its developing country Members and the LDCs. These seminars are taught by the ACWL's lawyers and

normally follow the same format as the Thursday ses-sions of the annual training course, as described above. For example, in May 2016, the ACWL con-ducted a half-day seminar on legal issues arising out of the TBT Agreement, which was attended by over 50 Geneva-based delegates of developing country Mem-bers and LDCs. The seminar was co-presented by the ACWL's staff lawyers and the participants in the Secondment Programme. These presentations formed the basis of articles that were published in September 2016 in a special issue of the Global Trade and Cus-toms Journal, which was guest edited by ACWL Dep-uty Director Cherise Valles. The ACWL expects to hold further seminars in 2017 on important recent and upcoming Appellate Body reports, as well as other topical issues of WTO law.

In addition, in 2016, the ACWL continued to hold its informal study group on issues of WTO law for women delegates. The group meets periodically after work hours at the ACWL to discuss recent WTO panel and Appellate Body jurisprudence. The delegates make presentations on the disputes, with the help of the ACWL lawyers.

SEMINARS AND OTHER TRAINING ACTIVITIES

38


On 14 and 15 July 2016, the ACWL participated in a workshop on WTO dispute settlement, sponsored by the Trade Advocacy Fund (TAF) and hosted by the Eco-nomic Community of Western African States (ECO-WAS). The workshop took place in Dakar, Senegal, and was attended by government officials from Bur-kina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and Togo. The workshop took place in the presence of officials of the Commission of ECOWAS, as well as of representa-tives of TAF and of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Inter-nationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. The workshop was conducted in both English and French, and presentations were provided by several interna-tional trade law experts, including ACWL staff. The purpose of the workshop was to increase awareness of the WTO dispute settlement system among ECOWAS Member States, to strengthen their capacity to partici-pate in WTO disputes, as well as to make use of rele-vant existing support and resources.

The ACWL also continued to expand its country-spe-cific, tailor-made videoconference training seminars. At the request of individual Members, the ACWL con-ducted fourteen different training programmes via videoconference in 2016. These training programmes covered topics such as key principles of WTO law,

WTO dispute settlement (including a moot court), anti-dumping, subsidies, TBT and SPS measures, export processing zones, and other topical issues of WTO law. These sessions enable capital-based offi-cials to participate in the ACWL's training activities and to seek advice and instruction on the specific matters of WTO law on which they are working on a daily basis. These training sessions will continue in 2017 at the request of individual ACWL Members and the LDCs.

From April to June 2016, the ACWL also continued to participate in a regional distance learning training programme on WTO dispute settlement for govern-ment officials in developing countries in Latin America organized in conjunction with the Inter-American Development Bank. The course covered all aspects of the WTO dispute settlement process and took place in weekly modules with the participation of ACWL law-yers that acted as tutors to prepare materials and respond to questions from the participants.

In addition, as described in the section on "Outreach" below, in accordance with the ACWL's mandate to cooperate with the WTO in its training activities, the ACWL's lawyers also participated in several WTO train-ing activities this year.

39


To date, a total of 35 government lawyers from 17 developing countries and seven LDCs have partici-pated in the Secondment Programme for Trade Law-yers. Ms Karyn Aneno (Uganda), Ms Maria Base (Philippines), Mr. Laichea Chea (Cambodia), and Ms Ana Garcés (Colombia), completed their second-ments in June 2016.

Ms Aneno returned to her position as a Senior Legal Officer in Uganda's Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives, where she provides legal advice on trade policy, negotiation, and implementation of international agreements. Ms Base returned to her position at the Office of the Solicitor General of the Philippines and was subsequently appointed as a law-yer to the Philippine Competition Commission, a recently created antitrust agency. Mr. Laichea Chea returned to his position as Deputy Chief of the WTO Affairs Office of Cambodia's Department of Notifica-tions and Legal Compliance within the Ministry of Commerce. Ms Garcés extended her leave to study for an LL.M. at Columbia University Law School before returning to the Colombian government.

These participants in the Secondment Programme described their experience as follows:

• "The Secondment Programme improved my understanding of the WTO Agreements, which has been very instrumental in the course of my work since I returned. The theoretical and practi-cal training involved, with a very dedicated and resourceful team of lawyers, was a privilege which I consider very rare."

• "The days I spent at the ACWL were among the best days of my life. I got to work with very pas-

sionate, professional, and hard-working lawyers and staff. More than opening doors for me, the Secondment Programme has made me a better lawyer and a better person".

• "In terms of legal training and the WTO, there is no better place to learn hands-on how the inter-national trade community works and to do it side-by-side with excellent professionals. I was exposed to some experiences that would never have been possible but for the patience and guid-ance of the ACWL staff. My year at the ACWL helped me develop key lawyering skills such as persuasive and objective writing and oral skills, all of which have been extremely useful."

• "The ACWL gave me extensive experience that I couldn't find elsewhere. The ACWL management team and lawyers provided on-the-job training. I feel very confident that the skills and knowledge acquitted will assist my government and has helped me a lot in performing my duties".

Based on the information available to the ACWL at the end of 2016, of the 31 lawyers that have completed their secondments, 25 were still working in their gov-ernments, 20 with responsibilities including trade law matters.

Developing country Members and LDCs nominated a total of 63 candidates for the twelth cycle of the pro-gramme, ten of whom were interviewed in Geneva. The four successful candidates, described on the next page, joined the ACWL in September 2016 and will complete their secondments in June 2017.

SECONDMENT PROGRAMME FOR TRADE LAWYERS

40


Mr. Hernán G. Muñoz Pérez, from Para-guay, is a lawyer at the Department of Multilateral Economic Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His responsibilities include issues related to Paraguay's status as a landlocked devel-oping country and coordination between capital and Paraguay's WTO Mission.

Mr. Muñoz Pérez was part of Paraguay's legal team in WTO disputes in which it was a third party. Mr Muñoz Pérez has a law degree from the Universidad Nacional de Asunción in Paraguay. He also holds a degree as a Notary Public from the Universidad Autónoma de Asunción.

Ms Iftiaal Al Adawi, from the Sultanate of Oman, is a Legal Researcher at the Minis-try of Legal Affairs in Muscat, Oman. Her responsibilities include: reviewing con-ventions and treaties; alternative dispute resolution, including construction arbitra-tions; drafting and reviewing government contracts and pre-tender documents; standardisation of contracts for the Minis-tries of Health, Education, and Housing;

and researching and drafting legal opin-ions. Ms Al Adawi has an LL.M. in Interna-tional and Comparative Commercial Law from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, including an intercollegiate course on World Trade Law and Trade Linkages in the WTO at UCL, as well as an LL.B. from the University of Leicester, United Kingdom.

Mr. Kuenzang Dorji, from Bhutan, is a Legal Officer at the Department of Trade under Ministry of Economic Affairs, where he advises on trade policy, negotiation and implementation of bilateral and regional agreements to which Bhutan is party and on dispute settlement. Mr. Dorji holds a Postgraduate Diploma in National Law from Royal Institute of Management

in Bhutan and has LL.B. (Hons.) degree from NALSAR University of Law, Andra Pradesh, India. He also holds various cer-tificates in the area of trade and interna-tional trade training organized by WTO and other training institutions such as UNESCAP and the Indian Institute of For-eign Trade , New Delhi, India.

Mr. Dennis Muhambe is a Foreign Service Officer and a lawyer at the Ministry of For-eign Affairs of Kenya. He advises the Min-istry on foreign policy, trade policy, international law, negotiations, and the drafting of treaties. Mr. Muhambe holds

an LL.M. in International Business and Economic Law from Georgetown Univer-sity Law Centre , a Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Studies from the Kenya School of Law, and an LL.B. from Moi University in Kenya.

41


OUTREACHThe ACWL seeks out opportunities to ensure that developing countries and LDCs are fully aware of the services provided by the ACWL. To this end, the ACWL organises its own outreach activities and participates whenever invited in seminars, conferences on interna-tional trade law issues, training programmes on WTO law and other events conducted by the WTO, other international organizations, and non-governmental organizations. These activities help the ACWL inform developing and least-developed governments about its services, provide an excellent opportunity for dele-gates from developing countries and LDCs to meet the ACWL's lawyers and get to know how best to take advantage of the ACWL's services, and permits the ACWL to explain to civil society the role of developing countries and LDCs in the multilateral trading system, thus raising awareness of the ACWL and its activities.

In 2016, the ACWL's lawyers made presentations in English and French at seven WTO training courses, including the Geneva Week for non-resident WTO Members, the Introduction Course for LDCs, the Advanced Trade Policy Course, and advanced courses on the SPS Agreement and on dispute settlement.

These presentations covered a variety of topics of WTO law, including various aspects of the dispute settle-ment process. These courses provide an excellent opportunity to introduce the ACWL and its lawyers to capital-based officials that cannot participate in the ACWL's training courses. The ACWL appreciates these opportunities to collaborate with the WTO.

On 27 September 2016, the ACWL hosted an informa-tion session for delegates from developing country Members and LDCs. The purpose of this session was to acquaint these delegates with the ACWL's services in an informal setting. After an informal discussion over a working lunch, the delegates were offered a presenta-tion on the ACWL's services in each of the three official languages of the WTO. The ACWL also regularly coor-dinates with the LDC Consultative Group and the Afri-can Group on ways in which the ACWL can respond to the legal needs of the LDCs. In June, the ACWL also participated in an information session on the ACWL for the ACP Group.

The Geneva Week events hosted by the WTO for devel-oping countries and LDCs that do not have permanent

42


representations in Geneva are a particularly valuable opportunity for the ACWL to introduce its services to visitors from the capitals of these developing countries and LDCs. During each Geneva week, the ACWL's law-yers participate in the seminars provided to delegates. In addition, the ACWL regularly hosts a luncheon and information session for the visiting delegates at its offices. During the 32nd Geneva Week, in June, and the 33rd Geneva Week, in December, the ACWL hosted a lunch for the visiting LDC delegates, at which presenta-tions on the services of the ACWL were offered in each of the three WTO official languages.

Working with the WTO, the ACWL also actively pro-motes the ELSA Moot Court on WTO Law, a worldwide competition that enables law students around the world to learn WTO law and hone their litigation skills in a simulated WTO panel proceeding. In 2016, the ACWL provided two lawyers to serve as judges for the Africa Round of the competition, which was held in Grahamstown, South Africa. The ACWL's lawyers also acted as judges in the European and final rounds of the competition.

The ACWL partnered with the World Bank to present a training programme in Vientiane Province, Lao People's Democratic Republic on 28-29 October. The training programme covered "Legal Aspects of Trade

Negotiations" and focussed on principles of treaty interpretation, and legal drafting in the formulation of trade law obligations as well as exceptions, reserva-tions, interpretative notes and side documents. Approximately 25 government officials from the Legal Division of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, the Intellectual Property Office, and the Investment Pro-motion Office, who are actively involved in the negoti-ations of trade agreements, participated in this training programme. The training programme also included practical exercises in legal drafting. This was the first time the ACWL has collaborated with the World Bank to provide training on WTO law.

Finally, the ACWL cooperates on a regular basis with other organizations, such as the World Bank, ICTSD, ITC, UNCTAD, Asian Development Bank, IADB, TAF, and others, on developing and implementing outreach activities and training programmes relating to WTO law. The ACWL welcomes invitations from these and other groups to participate in activities that help intro-duce its services to developing and least-developed countries. A full list of the seminars, conferences, pres-entations and other outreach activities in which the ACWL's lawyers participated in 2016 is provided in Appendix 4.

43


The ACWL's developed country Members provide most of the funding for the operations of the ACWL through their contributions to the Endowment Fund and the Working Capital Fund. The developed country Members are not, however, entitled to the services of the ACWL. The developed country Members partici-pate in the governance of the ACWL through the Gen-eral Assembly and by nominating qualified individuals to serve on the ACWL's independent Management Board. As of 31 December 2016, the ACWL had 11 developed country Members, the same as at the end of 2015. These countries are listed in Appendix 5.

The ACWL also recognizes the status of "Associate Member" and "Contributing Observer" for developed country WTO Members that wish to support the work of the ACWL but that have not yet become full Mem-bers of the ACWL. In 2016, Germany was a Contribut-ing Observer of the ACWL.

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

All developing country Members of the WTO and developing countries in the process of acceding to the WTO are, as such, entitled to join the ACWL. Twenty-one developing countries originally accepted the Agreement Establishing the ACWL. Latvia withdrew from the ACWL in May 2004 upon its accession to the EU. In addition, 14 developing countries have subse-quently acceded to the ACWL, bringing the total num-ber of developing country Members to 34. Two of these, the United Arab Emirates and Côte d'Ivoire, completed the process of accession in 2016, becoming the 33rd and 34th developing country Members of the ACWL. These countries are listed in Appendix 5.

Any country designated by the United Nations as an LDC is automatically entitled to the services of the ACWL, provided that it is a Member of the WTO or in the process of acceding to the WTO. Unlike developing countries, LDCs need not join the ACWL as Members or contribute to the ACWL's Endowment Fund in order to acquire the right to use the ACWL's services. As of 31 December 2016, there were 44 LDCs entitled to the services of the ACWL. These are listed in Appendix 6.

THE ACWL'S GEOGRAPHICAL REACH

As of 31 December 2016, the ACWL's services were available to a total of 78 countries. These are the 34 developing country ACWL Members, the 36 LDCs that are Members of the WTO, and the 8 LDCs that are cur-rently in the process of acceding to the WTO. In the map below, the Members of the ACWL are indicated in green and the LDCs entitled to the services of the ACWL in brown. This map shows that almost half of these countries (37) are in Africa. The 37 African coun-tries entitled to the services of the ACWL include 31 of the 43 Members of the African Group at the WTO and six LDCs that are in the process of acceding to the WTO. The other main geographical areas represented are Central and South America and Southeast Asia.

MEMBERSHIP

INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES LDCs

44


Almost half of the Members of the WTO are currently entitled

to the services of the ACWL.

Developing country Members of the ACWL Category A Category B Category C

LDCs Members of the WTOLDCs in the process of acceding to the WTO

34

44

45


Note: The columns and numbers in parentheses indicate the frequency with which the country has participated as a complainant or respondent in WTO dispute settlement proceedings as of 31 December 2016. Five other developing countries – Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Trinidad & Tobago, and Hong Kong, China participated in dispute settlement proceedings before the ACWL was established, but have not done so since. Hong Kong, China is one of the original Members of the ACWL. Sri Lanka acceded in 2008.

ACWL MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION IN DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

8886665543332211111

ACWL Membership and Participation in Dispute Settlement Proceedings as of 31 December 2016

05

101520253035404550

Members of the ACWL/ LDCs supported by the ACWL

Non-Members of the ACWL

The chart below lists the 34 developing countries and one LDC that have been either a complainant or respondent in WTO dispute settlement proceedings since the ACWL was established in 2001 and the total number of disputes in which those countries have par-ticipated since 1995. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Korea, and Mexico have significant experience in WTO dispute settlement proceedings and have not acceded to the ACWL. Of the remaining 28 developing coun-tries that have participated as complainant or defend-

ant in dispute settlement proceedings since 2001, only six have not joined the ACWL: Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Moldova, Morocco, South Africa, and Ukraine. The other 22 developing countries have all joined the ACWL. Thus, the ACWL has attracted as Members developing countries that have become actively involved in WTO legal matters but lack legal capacity or experience in these matters. These are the very countries that the ACWL was intended to benefit.

46


The General Assembly consists of the representa-tives of all of the developed and developing country Members of the ACWL and of the LDCs entitled to the services of the ACWL. Its role is to monitor the performance of the ACWL, to elect the Manage-ment Board, and to adopt the annual budget and regulations proposed by the Management Board. The ACWL's financial statements are audited by an external auditor (currently the National Audit Office of the United Kingdom) and are submitted to the General Assembly through the Management Board. The General Assembly held two regular meetings in July and December 2016.

In 2016, Ms Elsbeth Akkerman (Netherlands) served as Chairperson, and Mr. Marco Tulio Molina (Guatemala) as Vice-Chairperson.

THE MANAGEMENT BOARD

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The Management Board takes the decisions necessary to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the ACWL. It functions independently of the General Assembly. The Management Board appoints the Exec-utive Director in consultation with Members, prepares the annual budgets for adoption by the General Assembly, supervises the administration of the Endow-ment Fund, and proposes regulations on various mat-ters for adoption by the General Assembly.

The Management Board consists of six persons who serve in their personal capacities and independently of their national affiliations. Under the Agreement Estab-lishing the ACWL, the members of the Management Board are selected on the basis of their personal quali-fications in the field of WTO law or international trade

relations and development. Three are nominated by the developing country Members, two by the devel-oped country Members and one by the LDCs. In addi-tion, the Executive Director of the ACWL serves as an ex officio member. The Management Board held two reg-ular meetings, in June and November 2016.

As of 31 December 2016, the Management Board consisted of : - Dr. Stuart Robinson (Chairperson), - H.E. Mr. Eduardo Ernesto Sperisen-Yurt (Vice-Chairperson), - H.E. Mr. M. Shameem Ahsan, - H.E. Mr. John M. Weekes, and - Ms Irene B.K. Young.

47


The Executive Director manages the ACWL's day-to-day operations, represents the ACWL externally, and reports to the Management Board. The Executive Director is Mr. Niall Meagher, who was appointed in July 2012.

As of 31 December 2016, the ACWL's staff consisted of ten full-time lawyers, two legal assistants, one senior office administrator, one office administrator and one assistant to the office administrators. The Executive Director is assisted by the Deputy Directors, Mr. Leo Palma and Ms Cherise Valles. The other lawyers are, in alphabetical order: Mr. Jan Bohanes and Mr. Fernando Piérola (Senior Counsel); Ms Maria Alcover, Ms Kholofelo Kugler, Mr. Vitaliy Pogoretskyy, Mr. Alejandro Sanchez and Mr. Christian Vidal-León (Counsel). Biographies of the lawyers are available on the ACWL's website. The ACWL's legal assistants are Ms Leah Buencamino and Ms Tatiana Yanguas Acosta. The ACWL's office administrators are Ms Carol Lau (Senior) and Ms Pascale Colombo. The office adminis-trators' assistant is Ms Sandra Roethlisberger.

In addition, there are four junior lawyers currently par-ticipating in the Secondment Programme for Trade Lawyers: Ms Iftiaal Al Adawi, Mr. Kuenzang Dorji, Mr. Dennis Muhambe, and Mr. Hernán Muñoz Pérez (see page 40 above).

To contact an individual ACWL staff member, please use the following standard email format: [email protected].

Emails for the Executive Director should be addressed to Ms Carol Lau.

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORAND THE STAFF

48


APPENDIX 1REMARKS OF THE WTO DIRECTOR-GENERAL MR. ROBERTO AZEVÊDO AT THE ACWL ON 9 JUNE 2016(Transcription)

Thank you Niall for your very kind words, as you can see I was not very diplomatic back then. If I ever said that it was easy to do a lawyer's work it must have been very early in the work. I clearly changed my mind after that and I have to tell you that I am very happy to be here with all of you; 15 years of excellent and outstanding work so it's really something to be celebrated and it's not only the anniversary but also inaugurating the new conference and training rooms so that is also very auspicious. And I have to say that I was here in Geneva when, as a – I don't remember – it was probably as a First Secretary, when we started talking about the creation of the ACWL and I have to tell you that from the early moment and from the early stages I was thinking how complex that would be but I shared entirely the objective and the goal that was behind the idea of the ACWL which was, if we did not offer the developing countries, particularly the smaller ones – the least developed, a fair opportunity to partici-pate in the dispute settlement system, then the WTO would really not be doing its job.

So it was very important to figure out a way of allowing these countries to participate and I was already at that point in time doing dispute settlement as a diplomat and I could see how complex, how difficult it was, and how costly for countries even like Brazil who had some resources to participate in the system – imagine those who have even less resources and opportunities to do that.

I am very happy to see that, not only did the ACWL prosper as an institution which is fundamental to the work of the WTO but that it did so at the highest level of performance and services to the countries that really need this service. So the WTO today, I think the dispute settlement, the success of the dispute settlement today, is not to a small extent due to the contribution that the ACWL has given. If it were not for the ACWL, we might have an even more asymmetrical system – than we have today. It is already inherently more asymmetrical because for those small countries and delegations it is difficult to participate in this system.

So I am very happy with that and pretty much like our very own system in the WTO, the ACWL is also somehow a victim of its own success, a lot of work, probably overworked, so the ACWL today participates in around 20 per cent of all disputes of the WTO – that's a lot, 20 per cent – let alone opinions that you have to write. I heard that you already have provided 2100 opinions – the rate today is about 200 opinions per year – that's a lot of work, and more than that I would like to stress the importance not only of the people who work here but also the importance of those who make it possible and the donors have a very big part here and I want to thank them for being committed throughout these 15 years and I hope that they will be committed for the future as well. This is a very important service, this is an indispensable part of what we have today in the multilateral system even though it is not in the WTO, I see this as an integral part of what we do there to a large extent thanks also to the donors who have been contributing and I once again urge them to continue to give that support.

49


I have very close relations with the ACWL. I have been in this building a few times as a secretary working on the sugar case – I think we worked together on some of those disputes – chicken cuts as well I think I was here dis-cussing with them and I appreciate very much the kind of work that they do and the quality of work that they have done. Of course, to a large extent, this is due to the leadership that was imparted here, first with Frieder and now with Niall, and I have to praise these two extraordinary leaders. I am very happy to see that the ACWL is not only looking good now but is shaping well for the future thanks to the contribution of people of this calibre.

So my very warm congratulations to the centre, to all of you and I hope that I will be around to celebrate the 30th anniversary not as Director-General though! Thank you all very much.

________________

50


• For Turkey, as the complainant in Morocco - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel from Turkey (DS 513).

• For Thailand, as the respondent in Thailand - Sub-sidies Concerning Sugar (DS 507).

• For Colombia, as the respondent in Colombia - Measures Concerning Imported Spirits (DS 502).

• For Pakistan, as the complainant in South Africa - Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties on Portland Cement from Pakistan (DS 500).

• For Viet Nam, as the complainant in Indonesia - Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products (DS 496).

• For Thailand, as a third party in European Union - Measures Affecting Tariff Concessions on Certain Poultry Meat Products (DS 492).

• For Chinese Taipei, as the complainant in Indone-sia - Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products (DS 490).

• For Pakistan, as the complainant in European Union - Countervailing Measures on Certain Poly-ethylene Terephthalate from Pakistan (DS 486).

• For Indonesia, as the respondent in Indonesia - Measures Concerning the Importation of Chicken Meat and Chicken Products (DS 484).

• For Indonesia, as the complainant in Pakistan - Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Investiga-tions on Certain Paper Products from Indonesia (DS 470).

• For Panama, as the complainant in Colombia - Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear (DS 461).

• For Guatemala, as the complainant in Peru - Addi-tional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products (DS 457).

• For Panama, as the complainant in Argentina - Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services (DS 453).

• For Indonesia, as the complainant in European Union - Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Certain Fatty Alcohols from Indonesia (DS 442).

• For Honduras, as the complainant in Australia - Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geo-graphical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging (DS 435); and as co-counsel to the Dominican Republic as the complainant in Aus-tralia - Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packag-ing Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging (DS 441).

• For Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and El Sal-vador, as the complainants in Dominican Republic - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric (DS 415, DS 416, DS 417, DS 418).

• For Peru, as the complainant in Argentina - Anti-Dumping Duties on Fasteners and Chains from Peru (DS 410).

APPENDIX 2WTO DISPUTES IN WHICH THE ACWL HASPROVIDED SUPPORT

SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THE ACWL'S STAFF

51


• For Ecuador, as a Member that joined the consul-tations in European Union and a Member State - Seizure of Generic Drugs in Transit (DS 408, DS 409).

• For the Philippines, as the respondent in Philip-pines - Taxes on Distilled Spirits (DS 396, DS 403).

• For Guatemala, as the complainant in China - Grants, Loans and Other Incentives (DS 390).

• For Thailand, as the complainant in United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand (DS 383).

• For Costa Rica, as a third party in European Com-munities - Tariff Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products (DS 375, DS 376, DS 377).

• For Indonesia, as the complainant in South Africa - Anti-Dumping Measures on Uncoated Woodfree Paper (DS 374).

• For Thailand, as the respondent in Thailand - Cus-toms and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines (DS 371).

• For Panama, as the complainant in Colombia - Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry (DS 366).

• For Colombia, as the complainant in European Communities - Regime for the Importation of Bananas (DS 361).

• For Colombia, as a third participant before the Appellate Body in European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador) (DS 27).

• For Thailand, as a third party in United States - Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology (DS 350).

• For Panama, as the complainant in Colombia - Customs Measures on Importation of Certain Goods from Panama (DS 348).

• For Thailand, as the complainant in United States - Measures Relating to Shrimp from Thailand (DS 343).

• For Chad, as a third party in United States - Subsi-dies on Upland Cotton: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil (DS 267).

• For Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Guate-mala, as interested parties in European Communi-ties - The ACP - EC Partnership Agreement (First and Second Recourse to Arbitration pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001) (WT/L/616, WT/L/625).

• For Guatemala, as the complainant in Mexico - Anti-Dumping Duties on Steel Pipes and Tubes from Guatemala (DS 331).

• For Pakistan, as the complainant in Egypt - Anti-Dumping Duties on Matches from Pakistan (DS 327).

• For Thailand, as the complainant in United States - Provisional Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp from Thailand (DS 324).

• For Thailand, as a third party in United States - Measures relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews (DS 322).

• For Indonesia, as the complainant in Korea - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from Indonesia (DS 312).

• For Bangladesh, as the complainant in India - Anti-Dumping Measure on Batteries from Bangla-desh (DS 306).

• For Honduras, as the complainant in Dominican Republic - Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes (DS 302).

• For Guatemala, as the complainant in Mexico - Certain Pricing Measures for Customs Valuation and Other Purposes (DS 298).

• For Thailand, as the complainant in European Communities - Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts (DS 286).

• For Nicaragua, as the complainant in Mexico - Certain Measures Preventing the Importation of Black Beans from Nicaragua (DS 284).

• For Thailand, as the complainant in European Communities - Export Subsidies on Sugar (DS 283).

52


• For the Philippines, as the complainant in Aus-tralia - Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh Pineapple (DS 271).

• For the Philippines, as the complainant in Aus-tralia - Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables (DS 270).

• For Thailand, as a third party in United States - Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada (DS 264).

• For Paraguay, as a third party in European Com-munities - Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (DS 246).

• For India, as the complainant in European Com-munities - Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (DS 246).

• For India, as the complainant in United States - Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products (DS 243).

• For Ecuador, as the complainant in Turkey - Cer-tain Import Procedures for Fresh Fruit (DS 237).

• For Peru, as the complainant in European Commu-nities - Trade Description of Sardines (DS 231).

• For Pakistan, as the complainant in United States -Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cot-ton Yarn from Pakistan (DS 192).

• For India, as the respondent in India - Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector (DS 146, DS 175).

• For Colombia, as the respondent in Colombia - Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear (DS 461).

• For Peru, as the respondent in Peru - Additional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural Prod-ucts (DS 457).

• For the Dominican Republic, as the respondent in Dominican Republic - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric (DS 415, DS 416, DS 417, DS 418).

• For Colombia, as the respondent in Colombia - Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry (DS 366).

• For Turkey, as the respondent in Turkey - Measures Affecting the Importation of Rice (DS 334).

• For the Dominican Republic, as the respondent in the Article 21.3(c) proceedings in Dominican Republic - Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes (DS 302).

• For Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, as third parties in EC - Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (DS 246).

SUPPORT PROVIDED THROUGH EXTERNAL LEGAL COUNSEL

53


APPENDIX 3ROSTER OF EXTERNAL COUNSEL

LAW FIRMS

INDIVIDUALS

Mr. Edmond McGovernMr. Donald McRaeMr. Thomas Sebastian (Monckton Chambers)Mr. Greg Somers

54


APPENDIX 4ACWL OUTREACH ACTIVITIES IN 2016

WTO TRAINING COURSES

� Advanced Trade Policy Course (ATPC) Roundtable, on "Challenges and Lessons in Managing Disputes"

� Introduction Course for LDCs, on "Introduction to the ACWL" (in French) � Advanced Thematic Course on Dispute Settlement, on "Current Issues in WTO Dis-

pute Settlement", "Preparing a WTO Dispute", and "Advocacy in WTO Dispute Set-tlement"

� 32nd Geneva Week (for WTO Non-Resident Members and Observers), on "Recent developments in WTO Jurisprudence: The TBT Agreement"

� Enhancing LDC Participation in the Multilateral Trading System, on "Assistance to LDCs on WTO Legal Issues"

� Advanced SPS Course, on "Résoudre les différends commerciaux à l'OMC" (in French), ACWL, Geneva

� 33rd Geneva Week (for WTO Non-Resident Members and Observers), on "Recent Dispute Settlement Rulings of Interest for Developing Countries"

10 March

29 April20-24 June

23 June

11 October

3 November

6 December

� "Priorities and Future Scenarios for Trade Negotiation Support to Developing Countries and LDCs", at the Trade Advocacy Fund Advisory Event in Sutton, Surrey, UK

� ELSA Moot Court Competition, Passau / Geneva � "Introduction to the ACWL", for visiting ECOWAS Ambassadors, ACWL, Geneva � "Trade remedies and salient features of the WTO dispute settlement process", at

the Conference "Issues and Developments in International Dispute Resolution", Istanbul, Turkey

� Participation in Annual DSU update panel, the Graduate Institute, Geneva � ELSA Moot Court Competition (African Regional Round), Grahamstown, South

Africa

8-9 February

22-24 February29 February

11 March

21 March29 March-2 April

PRESENTATIONS AT CONFERENCES, SEMINARS, AND OTHER EVENTS

55


� "The panel report in India – Solar Panels", at ICTSD Talking Disputes, WTO, Geneva � Post-Nairobi Session for the LDC Group, Lausanne � Regional distance learning training programme on WTO dispute settlement for

government officials in developing countries in Latin America, organized in con-junction with the Inter-American Development Bank

� "WTO Dispute Settlement", at the Harvard Law School WTO @ 20 Conference, Bos-ton, USA

� Post-Nairobi Retreat organized by the Permanent Delegation of the African Union and the ECA, Chavannes de Bogis

� Panelist at the Centre for WTO Studies "Conference on WTO Dispute Settlement: Between Honest Admiration and Candid Criticism", New Delhi, India

� Seminar on the TBT Agreement, presented by the ACWL staff and seconded law-yers, ACWL, Geneva

� Moderator at the session on Argentina – Financial Services at the 16th Annual Con-ference on WTO Law, the Graduate Institute, Geneva

� ELSA Moot Court Competition, Discussion with Finalists from the African Round, ACWL, Geneva

� "Article 21.3(c) jurisprudence", at the Conference "The Legal-Economic Analysis of WTO Case Law of 2015", European University Institute, Florence, Italy

� "Comparison Between WTO Dispute Settlement and Investment Arbitration", for the American University Summer Program on the WTO, ACWL, Geneva

� "Agricultural Barriers and Developing Countries", at the SIEL Conference, Johan-nesburg, South Africa

� Simulation Exercise for the Mini Moot Court for the Students from the American University, ACWL, Geneva

� "WTO Dispute Settlement: A Developing Country's Perspective", at the ECOWAS Workshop on WTO Dispute Settlement, Dakar, Senegal

� ELSA Moot Court Competition, Workshop on Basic WTO Principles and Moot Court Best Practices for African Regional Round Coaches for Makerere University (Uganda), ACWL, Geneva

� ELSA Moot Court Competition, Workshop on Basic WTO Principles and Moot Court Best Practices for African Regional Round Coaches for Rhodes University (South Africa), ACWL, Geneva

� CEFTA Workshop on Dispute Settlement, Podgorica, Montenegro � Information Session for ACWL Developing Country Members and the LDCs, ACWL,

Geneva � Commonwealth Secretariat Panel, "Implementing the SDGs and Achieving Inclu-

sive Trade", at the WTO Public Forum, Geneva � Discussion on "Panel on Transparency and the Proliferation of Regional Trade

Agreements: How to Ensure Developing Country Market Access", at the Public Forum side event, Centre for International Governance, Geneva

7 April18 April

18 April-9 June

25 April-2 May

25 April

2-3 May

24 May

10 June

10 June

16-17 June

7 July

8 July

12 July

13-15 July

7 September

12 September

20 September27 September

28 September

28 September

56


� "How to Enhance the Participation of Developing Countries and LDCs in the Devel-opment of International Standards – Challenges and the Way Forward", at the American Society of International Law Biennial Conference on Making Interna-tional Economic Law Work: Integrating Disciplines and Broadening Policy Choices in Washington, United States

� World Bank - ACWL Joint Training for Lao PDR Government Officials on Legal Aspects of Trade Negotiations, Lao PDR

� Information Session for Developed Countries, ACWL, Geneva � "Appellate Body Report in Argentina – Financial Services (DS453)", ACWL Women's

Study Group on WTO Cases, ACWL, Geneva � Moderating panel discussion at the Graduate Institute, "Human Rights in Interna-

tional Trade and Investment Agreements", the Graduate Institute, Geneva � "The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures",

Course on the WTO Regulatory Framework for Trade in Agriculture: The Agree-ments on Agriculture, SPS and TBT, Ramallah

� International Affairs Centre (CEI), Master in Diplomacy, Barcelona � Australian National University (ANU Geneva Program) � Seoul National University � IELPO Programme, University of Barcelona � Istanbul University, Faculty of Law's Dispute Resolution Club � Saint Petersburg University � Amsterdam Law School � University of the West Indies � University of Reading � Queen's University, Canadian Mission, Geneva � Jacques Delors Institute � University of Melbourne Law School � Centre for Comparative and International Studies (CIS) and Institute for Environ-

mental Decisions (IED) � Maastricht University � University of Lausanne

2 February3 February8 February

23 February21 March

18 April12 May20 May7 June

10 June11 July20 July

13 September

14 October21 October

LECTURES AND PRESENTATIONS ON THE ACWL TO STUDENT GROUPS

30 Sept.-1 October

27-28 October

22 November22 November

6 December

15 December

OTHER

� Guest Editors of the Special Edition on the TBT Agreement in the Global Trade & Customs Journal (Kluwer Press), at the ACWL

� Organising Committee of the African Regional Round of the ELSA Moot Court Competition 2016-2017

24 February

Oct. 2016-April 2017

57


APPENDIX 5MEMBERS OF THE ACWL

MEMBERS ENTITLED TO THE SERVICES OF THE ACWL (Dates of accession in parentheses)

CATEGORY AHong Kong, ChinaChinese Taipei (13 May 2004)United Arab Emirates (22 May 2016)

CATEGORY BBolivarian Republic of VenezuelaColombiaEgyptIndiaPakistanPhilippinesThailandUruguayOman (25 April 2003)Mauritius (11 June 2003)Turkey (17 August 2003)Indonesia (28 April 2004)Viet Nam (25 September 2009)Seychelles (27 March 2014)

CATEGORY CBoliviaDominican RepublicEcuadorGuatemalaHondurasKenyaNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruTunisiaJordan (20 January 2002)El Salvador (3 September 2004)Sri Lanka (21 November 2008)Costa Rica (30 April 2009) Cuba (3 November 2013)Côte d'Ivoire (12 January 2017)

DEVELOPED COUNTRY MEMBERS (Dates of accession in parentheses)

CanadaDenmarkFinlandIrelandItalyNetherlandsNorwaySwedenUnited KingdomSwitzerland (5 December 2004)Australia (28 July 2011)

1134

58


MEMBERS OF THE WTO IN THE PROCESS OFACCEDING TO THE WTO

AfghanistanAngolaBangladeshBeninBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCentral African RepublicChadDemocratic Republic of the CongoDjiboutiThe GambiaGuineaGuinea-Bissau HaitiLao People's Democratic RepublicLesothoLiberiaMadagascarMalawiMali Mauritania Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Niger RwandaSenegal Sierra LeoneSolomon IslandsTogoUgandaUnited Republic of TanzaniaVanuatuYemenZambia

BhutanComorosEquatorial GuineaEthiopiaSao Tomé and PrincipeSomaliaSudanTimor-Leste

APPENDIX 6LDCs ENTITLED TO THE SERVICES OF THE ACWL

836

59


APPENDIX 7ACWL LAWYERS

Mr. Niall Meagher has been the Executive Director of the ACWL since July 2012. Before becoming Executive Director, Mr. Meagher had been Senior Counsel at the ACWL since 2004.

Prior to joining the ACWL, Mr. Meagher was a partner in the international trade and dis-pute resolution practice of the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP.

Mr. Meagher was born in Dublin, Ireland. He holds a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) from Trinity College, Dublin, and a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from the Law School of the University of Chicago.

Mr. Leo Palma has been Deputy Director since 2003. He joined the ACWL in 2001 as Senior Counsel.

He was born in the Philippines. Before joining the Centre, Mr. Palma was Attaché for WTO Legal Affairs, Philippine Mission in Geneva, holding such position since 1996.

He is a graduate of the University of the Philippines, having obtained from that institu-tion a B.S. degree in Business Administration (Accounting Major) in 1967, and an LL.B. degree in 1972.

Ms Cherise Valles has been Deputy Director since 2012. Before becoming Deputy Director, Ms Valles had been Senior Counsel at the ACWL. She joined the ACWL in 2001.

Ms Valles was born in Bombay, India. Before joining the ACWL, Ms Valles was Of Counsel at the U.S. law firm of Sonnenschein, (now SNR Dentons). Previously, Ms Valles was a member of the Canadian Foreign Service.

She has a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Political Science from McGill University, a Master of Arts in International Affairs from the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, and an LL.B. from the University of Ottawa.

60


Mr. Jan Bohanes has been Senior Counsel since 2014. He joined the ACWL in 2010.

Mr. Bohanes is a Czech and Austrian national. He was a member of the Secretariat of the WTO's Appellate Body from 2002 to 2006. He then worked for several years as associate attorney in the Geneva office of Sidley Austin LLP. He holds a law degree from the Uni-versity of Vienna; a doctorate in European law from the University of Vienna; a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from Columbia University; as well as a Master of Arts (M.A.L.D.) degree in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

Ms Kholofelo Kugler joined the ACWL as Counsel in 2015.

Ms Kugler was born in Pretoria, South Africa. Prior to joining the ACWL, Ms Kugler worked as a research assistant on International Economic Law for Professor Markus Krajewski at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. Previously, she worked as a junior associate at WTI Advisors in Geneva. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and International Politics from the University of South Africa, an LL.B. degree from the University of the Witwatersrand, as well as a Master degree in International Law and Economics from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

Ms Maria Alcover joined the ACWL as Counsel in 2013.

Ms Alcover was born in Barcelona, Spain. Prior to joining the ACWL, Ms Alcover worked as a Legal Officer at the Appellate Body Secretariat of the WTO. She previously served as an intern at the Legal Aspects of Trade Policy Unit at the Directorate-General for Trade of the European Commission in Brussels.

She holds a law degree and a Master of Laws degree (LL.M.) in International Economic Law and Policy from the University de Barcelona (IELPO Programme).

Mr. Fernando Piérola has been Senior Counsel since 2012. He joined the ACWL in 2002.

Mr. Piérola was born in Lima, Peru. Prior to joining the ACWL, Mr. Piérola worked as legal counsel for Peru's trade remedies authority (INDECOPI) and research fellow of the World Trade Institute in Bern, Switzerland. Mr. Piérola is Doctor in law from the University of Bern. He has a Master degree in Business Administration from the University of Geneva, and a Master degree in International Law and Economics from the Universities of Bern, Fribourg and Neuchâtel. He obtained his law degree from the Catholic University of Peru.

61


Mr. Christian Vidal-León joined the ACWL as Counsel in May 2016.

Mr. Vidal-León previously worked as a dispute settlement lawyer in both the Legal Affairs Division and the Appellate Body Secretariat of the World Trade Organization, as well as a legal officer in the Directorate-General for Trade of the European Commission. In addition, Mr. Vidal-León worked for a global consulting firm in Johannesburg, and assisted an arbitrator in a number of international investment tribunals.

Mr. Vidal-León is a qualified lawyer in both Mexico and Spain. He holds an LL.M. in International Legal Studies from Georgetown University and a Masters of International Law and Economics from the University of Berne, in Switzerland.

Mr. Vitaliy Pogoretskyy joined the ACWL as Counsel in 2013.

Mr. Pogoretskyy is a Ukrainian national. Prior to joining the ACWL, he worked as an intern and a dispute settlement lawyer at the Rules Division of the WTO. He previously worked as a junior lawyer in a Brussels-based law firm and as a civil servant of the Gov-ernment of Ukraine. Mr. Pogoretskyy is Doctor in law from the University of Dundee (UK). He holds an LL.M. degree in International Commercial Arbitration Law from Stockholm University and a Master degree in International Law and Economics from the World Trade Institute (Bern, Switzerland). He obtained his law degree from the National Law Academy of Ukraine (Kharkov, Ukraine).

Mr. Alejandro Sánchez joined the ACWL as Counsel in 2010.

Mr. Sánchez was born in Mexico. Prior to joining the ACWL, Mr. Sánchez served as legal advisor at the Office of the General Counsel for Trade Negotiations in the Ministry of Economy of Mexico. Before joining the Mexican government, he served as an intern at the Appellate Body of the WTO, the Geneva office of White & Case LLP and the Mission of Mexico to the WTO.

Mr. Sánchez holds a law degree with honorary distinction from the Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara and a Master of Laws degree (LL.M.) from McGill University.

ADVISORY CENTRE ON WTO LAWAvenue Giuseppe-Motta 31-33

Case postale 1321211 Genève 20 – Switzerland

T +41 22 919 21 21F +41 22 919 21 22

[email protected] www.acwl.ch

© Photos: ACWL, The Image Gate and Shutterstock.

report on operations 2016 - home - acwl · report on operations 2016. 2 ... (1 ldc / 3 dcs) (1 f /...

Documents