欧盟香蕉案Banana III : European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas HEADNOTEAB-1997-3, WT/DS27/AB/R, Adopted by Dispute Settlement Body, November 17 1997, Ecuador, European Communities, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States, Appellants; Ecuador, European Communities, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States, Appellees; Belize, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Jamaica, Japan, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Suriname and V enezuela, Third Participants; Division: Bacchus, Beeby and El-Naggar. IntroductionOn 9 September 1997, the WTO Appellate Body (the “AB”) issued its report on the case European Communities- Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas1. This is only the last episode of a long battle and the practical result is still to come2. The EC insisted on separate panel reports for each complaining party. The panel accepted, but made identical sections for factual aspects and party’s arguments. Only the findings were different to the extent that the respective submissions differed3. The four panel reports appealed were circulated on 22 May 1997. In those reports, the Panel concluded that the EC import regime for bananas was inconsistent with obligations under Articles I:1, III: 4, and XIII GATT, Articles II and XVII GATS and some provisions of the Licensing Agreement. Both the complaining parties and the EC presented their claims on appeal. Numerous other Members filed their submissions as third participants, belonging to the ACP group4 or to the Members of the Framework Agreement5, as well as Japan. The number of participants and the length of the procedure and of the reports6 are an indication of the importance of the case. Several issues of both General and Trade International Law were1WT/DS27/AB/R. The three members of the AB serving on this case are Mr. J. Bacchus (US) as president, Mr. C. Beeby (New Zealand) and Professor Said El-Nagar (Egypt). It is interesting to note that the president is a national of the US, a Member that has a great interest in the case. This will not be possible at the panel procedure, according to Article 8 DSU, unless the parties agreed.2The EC has been granted a period to implement the ruling of the DSB ending on 1 January 1999.3Therefore, the claims of Guatemala and Honduras were treated together, since those parties filed a joint first submission. This report does not discuss GATS issues, since their initial submission did not allege infringementsof GATS.4ACP States are those African Caribbean and Pacific States which are parties to the Fourth ACP-EC Convention of Lomé (Lomé IV Convention) signed in Lomé, 15 December 1989, as revised by the Agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995.5This Agreement was signed as a result of the second GATT panel initiated by Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Venezuela against the EC banana regime. Guatemala was not a member of the Agreement and therefore appears as a complainant in the present case.6Normally, the AB procedure takes one month. In exceptionally complicated cases, this period may be extended to three months. This period was respected, since the notice of appeal was filed by the EC on 11 June 1997. Each report counts around 400 pages, while the AB report is more than 100.examined and given innovative solutions. The AB is building on the WTO provisions to play its institutional role. The rulings of this initial period furnish the fundamental orientation and principles for the future functioning of the dispute settlement of the Organisation. The analysis is therefore separated in two parts, one relating to the issues of importance for International Law and the second one dealing with International Trade rules.ConclusionsAs a result of the AB it has been confirmed that main aspects of the EC import regime for bananas is inconsistent with WTO rules. The EC will be faced with the obligation of implementing the AB Report, while complying with its commitments under the LoméConvention, namely, giving traditional imports of ACP bananas treatment not less favourable than in the past. This ruling will also encourage the EC to negotiate the next Lomé Convention in a manner which will conform with WTO obligations, according to the different possibilities foreseen by the European Commission in its Green Paper7.The EC regime as it stands today is inconsistent with non-discrimination obligations both under GA TT and under GATS, since it favours imports coming from some regions (EC, DOM and ACP countries and those parties to the Framework Agreement on Bananas) to the expense of other exporting countries. The Commission has proposed the following modifications: To maintain the present tariff quota for non-traditional ACP and third country bananas at 2.2 million tonnes at a duty of 75 ECU/tonne (in stead of 100 ECU/tonne). Additionally, a supplementary quota of 353.000 tonnes at a duty of 300 ECU/tonne would be established to take account of the enlargement.The current licensing system would be dismantled by abolishing Category B licenses and export certificates for FAB countries. This will alter the market conditions. The existing licences are designed to allow cross-subsidies between }mporters of dollar bananas and those of traditional ACP and EC bananas, which are less efficient. To compensate the foreseeable income loss for ACP bananas, the Commission proposes a system of technical and financial assistance, defined for each ACP country8. Another effect is to abolish the FAB modifications to the EC Regime. As before those modifications, all Latin American bananas will be treated in the same way, with the difference that they will not be disadvantaged with respect to ACP bananas. Some of the features of the current system, which do not conflict with WTO obligations, such as the existence of tariff quotas, will be maintained.The overall impact of the reform should benefit the European consumers. Dollar bananas will be available at a lower price and this will influence their choices. ACP bananas will still be accessible, since the quota for traditional imports will probably be maintained, at least until the next Loménegotiation. EC bananas will also maintain their quota.Concerning the operators in the European market, those who are benefiting of Category B licenses are going to loose their quota rent. Since most of them are European based companies, the European operators are the most harmed by this AB ruling. On the contrary, those operators traditionally importing dollar bananas, mainly big transnational companies, will benefit from an7Green Paper on relations between the European Union and the ACP countries on the eve of the 21st century, European Commission, 1997. (http://europa.eu.int)8The use of a system of production subsidies had already been pointed out by the doctrine to minimise the distortionary impact of the internal banana market. See READ R. “The EC Banana Market: The Issues and the Dilemma”, The World Economy, 2(1994), 219-235, at 234.additional income due to the lower import tariff.It remains to be seen whether the producers in the developing countries of the tropical areas will really gain from the reform to be undertaken or if the profit will stay in the trading companies.It is widely acknowledged that the current WTO dispute settlement has moved towards a more rule-oriented system9. The Report in this case contains several innovative conclusions which have a meaning in the definition of the institutional role of the AB. The possibility for private lawyers to represent a Member’s delegation in the AB hearing represents some openness of a purely intergovernmental system. Private lawyers may give a more legally oriented reasoning than government officials. Furthermore, the way in which the AB modifies the reasoning of the Panel in certain points such as the interpretation of the Japan-Alcoholic Beverages case10 reveals a concern for clarity of the legal reasoning, towards a more predictable system. The call for a system of preliminary rulings goes certainly in the same direction. Their impact would depend much on whether they would be admitted as authoritative interpretation or not11.The AB is building up its own identity. As a young institution, it has to provide in its early rulings with principles and guidance that will probably be followed in the future. As in other Reports12, the AB is contributing to the consolidation of the rule of law in the field of international trade.9See YOUNG, M. “Dispute resolution in the Uruguay Round: Lawyers triumph over diplomats”, The International Lawyer, 2(1995) 29 389-409 and MONTAÑÀ I MORA, “A GATT with teeth: Law wins over politics in the resolution of international trade disputes”, 31 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 103 (1993), 128-136.10See supra note 错误！未定义书签。
