WORLD TRADE WT/DSB(96)/ST/1
19February 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-0598)
Original: English DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY
31January 1996
Statement byH.E. Mr.D.Kenyon (Australia)
Chairman oftheDispute Settlement Body
Inconcluding mytermasfirstChairman oftheDispute Settlement Body (DSB), Iwould like
tomake afewpersonal comments. Ibelieve thatwehavehadasuccessful firstyearintheoperation
oftheDSB. Theappointment oftheAppellate Body hasnowfinalized theprocess ofputting thecomplete
dispute settlement structure inplace. Intotal, twenty-five requests forconsultations havebeenbrought
totheDSBduring 1995. Some ofthese requests haveinvolved multiple complaints. Taking these
multiple complaints intoaccount, theDSB, inthecourse of1995 hasdealtwithseventeen separate
issues.
There areanumber ofobservations Iwould liketomake about howthehandling ofdispute
settlement processes haveevolved intheDSBoverthecourse of1995.
First, there arealready signs thatdisputes arebeing resolved before reaching thepanel stage.
Thefollowing cases areexamples: (i)Malaysia -Prohibition ofImports ofPolyethylene and
Polypropylene, complaint bySingapore (WT/DS1); (ii)Korea -Measures Concerning theShelf-Life
ofProducts, complaint bytheUnited States (WT/DS5); and(iii)United States -Imposition ofImport
Duties onAutomobiles from Japan under Section 301and304oftheTrade Actof1974, complaint
byJapan (WT/DS6). Thisisalready anindication thatatleastinsome ofthecases thatcame tothe
DSBin1995, thegreater predictability andautomaticity intheDSUrulesisnowencouraging theearly
settlement ofdisputes andthisisclearly consistent withtheintent ofthenewrules.
Thesecond observation Iwould liketomake isthatwhile theUnited States, theEuropean
Communities, andJapan continued todominate inthedispute settlement system asdisputants and
defendants during 1995, there wasagrowing participation andinvolvement ofdeveloping countries
inthedispute settlement process. Some 50percentofalltherequests forconsultations brought to
theDSBin1995 were initiated bydeveloping countries.
Thethirdobservation Ihaveisthatindeveloping theworking procedures oftheDSBinthe
course of1995, pragmatism isprevailing inthewaytheDSBisapproaching itstasks. Asindicated
above, there wereanumber ofmultiple complaints: (i)United States -Standards forReformulated
andConventional Gasoline, complaints byVenezuela (WT/DS2) andBrazil (WT/DS4); (ii)European
Communities -Trade Description ofScallops, complaints byCanada (WT/DS7), Peru(WT/DS12)
andChile (WT/DS14); (iii)Japan -Taxes onAlcoholic Beverages, complaints bytheEuropean
Communities (WT/DS8), Canada (WT/DS10) andtheUnited States (WT/DS11). Inallofthesecases,
themultiple complaints hadbeenhandled bysingle panels which helped tominimize resource and
servicing problems.
./.WT/DSB(96)/ST/1
Page2
Insummary therefore, Ibelieve wegotofftoagood startinthework oftheDSBin1995.
Speaking personally, Iwould liketosaythatithasbeenagreathonour andaprivilege toserve
asthefirstchairman oftheDSB. Although there hadbeensome difficult problems todealwith, I
havegenuinely triedtofindsolutions thatwould ensure thecredible functioning oftheDSUasareliable
multilateral dispute settlement system which hastherespect andconfidence ofall.Iwould liketo
wishmysuccessor --Ambassador C.Lafer (Brazil) --evengreater success inthese efforts andIwould
liketothank members oftheDSBfortheircooperation during 1995.