PRESS RELEASE
PRESS/353
11 September 2003
(03-4731)
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
WTO disputes overtake 300 mark
Three hundred and one disputes have been initiated under the dispute settlement system of the
World Trade Organization since its creation less than  nine years ago.  This compares to the roughly
300 disputes brought to its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),
during its entire existence of almost 50 years.
"The fact that we have already reached this figure underscores two important points," said WTO
Director-General Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi. "The first is that Member governments have
confidence in the WTO dispute settlement system.  The second is that the WTO system ofagreements, and therefore Members' rights and ob ligations, is far more extensive than was the
case under the GATT, which is now just one of 16 multilateral and three plurilateral agreements
covered by the dispute settlement system.  As a result, we still have a great many areas ofdisagreement between Members under the new system  of agreements that need to be worked out.
This latter point reinforces the need for all of us to continue to make progress on clarifying and
improving the rules of the multilateral trading system through a successful and timely conclusionof the Doha Development Agenda."
Under the WTO dispute settlement system, once a Member government has initiated a dispute
settlement proceeding against another Member government, there is a mandatory 60-day
consultation period between the disputants before either Member can request the establishment of
an independent three-person panel to hear and rule on the dispute.  Significantly, in over
100 cases the dispute has been clearly settled or defused as a result of these mandatory bilateral
consultations.  With respect to another 70 or so of the complaints, the parties are either continuing
to consult bilaterally or the complaint has not been pursued further.  Of the 301 disputes initiatedso far in the WTO,  only about one third have led to the creation of a panel.  Any panel report can
be appealed by either party to the WTO Appella te Body, which has happened for seven of every
ten panel reports to date.
Overall, since 1995 developing countries have brou ght nearly 40% of the complaints filed in the
WTO. However, since 2000, developing countries have brought nearly 60% of the complaints.
"The WTO's unique system of settling disputes continues to show how even the most intractable
international issues can be resolved successfully under a multilaterally-agreed system," saidDr. Supachai. "A few headline-grabbing disputes belie the fact that a large number of cases
brought to the WTO are settled without litigation.  However, where litigation is necessary, the WTO
offers an efficient, impartial, and highly credible system within which Members can present theirarguments and receive rulings to help them to resolve their differences."  It is noteworthy that the
146 WTO Member governments account for some 97% of the US$8 trillion worth of international
trade annually. Only a small part of that trade is affected by disputes brought to the WTO.  ThePRESS/353
Page 2 of 4
existence of a WTO dispute settlement system encourages countries to abide by the WTO rules
they have agreed and to look to the WTO for multilateral solutions when problems arise.  The WTO
system advances international cooperation by discouraging unilateral action by Members and
encouraging agreed trade solutions to trade disputes. 
Under the former GATT's procedure for settling disputes, there were no fixed timetables, adoption
of rulings could be blocked by the losing party,   there was no Appellate Body, and many cases
dragged on for a long time inconclusively.  Un der the WTO, access to panels and the Appellate
Body is automatic, rulings by Panels and the Appellate Body are automatically adopted unless
there is a consensus to reject a ruling,  binding arbitration is available, and surveillance of aParty's implementation of adverse rulings is more rigorous.  These new features in the WTO
dispute settlement system have led to a greater percentage of disputes being resolved successfully
and on a more timely basis than was previously the case under the GATT.PRESS/353
Page 3 of 4
Note to Editors
All figures as at 11 September  2003.
An overview of all the 301 disputes is available on the WTO website:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm
A summary of some of the statistics is given below:Annual Progress of Disputes
1995 25 cases filed
1996                       39 cases filed
1997                       50 cases filed1998                       41 cases filed
1999                       30 cases filed
2000 34 cases filed2001 23 cases filed
2002 37 cases files
2003 (till 11 September) 22 cases filed (up to DS301)
Number of Cases By Country
Country Complainant Respondent Country Complainant Respondent
Antigua and
Barbuda1 0 Mexico 13 10
Argentina 9 15 Netherlands 0 1
Australia 7 9 New Zealand 6 0
Belgium 0 3 Nicaragua 1 2
Brazil 22 12 Norway 1 0
Canada 24 12 Pakistan 2 2
Chile 8 10 Panama 2 0
China 1 0 Peru 2 4
Colombia 4 1 Philippines 4 4
Costa Rica 3 0 Poland 3 1
Croatia 0 1 Portugal 0 1
Czech Republic 1 2 Romania 0 2
Denmark 0 1 Singapore 1 0
Dominican
Republic0 1 Slovak Republic 0 3
Ecuador 2 2 South Africa 0 2
Egypt 0 2 Sri Lanka 1 0
European
Communities62 47 Sweden 0 1
France 0 2 Switzerland 4 0
Greece 0 2 Chinese Taipei 1 0
Guatemala 5 2 Thailand 10 1
Honduras 5 0 Trinidad and
Tobago02
Hong Kong,
China10 T u r k e y 27
Hungary 5 2 United
Kingdom01
India 15 14 United States 75 81
Indonesia 2 4 Uruguay 1 1
Ireland 0 3 Venezuela 1 2
Japan 11 13
Korea 10 12
Malaysia 1 1
TOTAL 301PRESS/353
Page 4 of 4WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT STATISTICS - as at 11 September 2003
Action 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 TOTAL
R e q u e s t s  f o r  c o n s u l t a t i o n s 2 53 95 04 13 03 42 33 72 2 3 0 1
Panels established by DSB15 1 21 51 42 01 11 51 11 5 1 1 8
Number of disputes covered by panels established29 1 22 21 52 31 21 61 81 9 1 4 6
Panels composed34 9 13 11 19 7 12 8 8 91
Number of disputes covered by panels composed 8 9 20 12 22 8 13 15 8 115
DG composition4–37494966 4 8
M u t u a l l y  a g r e e d  s o l u t i o n s 3 71 0 1 11 71 05 35 7
Panel Reports circulated5– 4 10 10 13 18 7 10 7 79
Panel Reports adopted – 2 5 12 9 15 13 11 6 73
Appeals notified6 ( n o t  i n c l u d i n g  2 1 . 5  a p p e a l s ) –4689 1 1 563 5 2
A p p e l l a t e  B o d y  R e p o r t s  a d o p t e d –25878963 4 8
A r t i c l e  2 1 . 3  A w a r d s  c i r c u l a t e d ––1323422 1 7
A r t i c l e  2 1 . 5  P a n e l  R e p o r t s  c i r c u l a t e d ––––25520 1 4
A r t i c l e  2 1 . 5  P a n e l  R e p o r t s  a d o p t e d ––––14412 1 2
A r t i c l e  2 1 . 5  a p p e a l s  n o t i f i e d –––––24118
A r t i c l e  2 1 . 5  A p p e l l a t e  B o d y  r e p o r t s  a d o p t e d –––––23128
A r t i c l e  2 2 . 6  A r b i t r a t i o n  D e c i s i o n s  c i r c u l a t e d ––––320117
A r t i c l e  2 5  A r b i t r a t i o n s  A w a r d  c i r c u l a t e d ––––––1001
M e d i a t i o n –––––––101
                                               
1  As the dates of the establishment of a panel and the constitution of a panel may be in two different years, the date of estab lishment of a panel is taken as the base
for these statistics.
2   In some cases, several similar disputes were consolidated into one panel proceeding;  thus, the number of disputes that have  gone to a panel exceed the number of
panels established i.e. the recent US – Steel Safeguards  case was established as one panel but deals with eight complaints (WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251,
WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258, WT/DS259).
3   In some cases where there have been decisions by the DSB to establish a panel, the dispute has been settled before the actua l constitution of the panel; in other
cases, panels are still in the composition stage.
4   Pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU, if, within 20 days after the establishment of a panel, the parties cannot decide on the selection of the panellists either party can
request the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel either in its entirety or partially in those cases where  the parties have agreed on some but not
all of the panellists.
5   In three instances, the parties notified a mutually agreed solution before the issuance of the final panel report.  Therefor e, a short panel report was circulated but
was not adopted i.e. WT/DS7/R and WT/DS12/R, WT/DS14/R in 1996;  and WT/DS72/R in 1999.
6   In the disputes EC – Hormones  (WT/DS26 and WT/DS48) and US – 1916 Act  (WT/DS136 and WT/DS162), there were separate panel reports but they were joined
at the appeal stage.
END