Activity Session 5 – The substantial law of GATT.

Read through the following presentation of a fictive dispute within the WTO system and analyze
carefully how you would (if you are Group 5 or 7) structure a formal complaint to the DSB-
panel set up to resolve the matter in order to show that you – representing Country A – is the
victim of Country B’s violation of WTO-law. Think about to present 1. Legal Arguments (what
articles of the GATT is B violating) 2. Links between facts and legal arguments through
argumentation about WTO goals and objectives, and, 3. Support for your argumentation in
previous WTO cases.

If you are Group 6 or 8 you will first read through the fictive case presentation, then wait for the
formal complaint filed to the panel by Groups 5 and 7, and then – when you have received their
application to the panel – study it and use it to prepare your defense of your measures as well as
counter arguments refuting Country A’s position. You should aim to show that 1. Your measures
do not violate the rules indicated because you have alternative interpretations (based on law and
cases) and/or 2. They can in any way be excused based on existing exceptions to the application
of the rules indicated in other norms of the GATT.

The AUTOMOBILE CASE

Country A and Country B are neighboring countries with vibrant automobile manufacturing
industries. Both countries are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and signatories
to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Country A, recognizing the importance
of its domestic automobile sector, implements a new policy that grants subsidies exclusively to
its domestic automobile manufacturers.

Country A's government introduces generous subsidies and tax incentives aimed solely at
supporting and promoting the production of automobiles by domestic manufacturers.
Foreign automobile manufacturers, including those from Country B, do not receive similar
subsidies and incentives, putting them at a competitive disadvantage in the market.
Country B protests against Country A's policy, arguing that….