Ideally, a mutually agreed solution will be achieved before a panel issues its report. However, if this does not occur, a general panel recommendation that directs a party to conform with its obligations still leaves parties with the necessary room to cooperate in arriving at a mutually agreed solution. Indeed, a Member generally has many options available to it to bring a measure into conformity with its WTO obligations. A panel cannot, and should not, prejudge by its recommendation the solution to be arrived at by the parties to the dispute after the DSB adopts the panel's report. In addition, the requirement that panels issue general recommendations comports with the nature of a panel's expertise, which lies in the interpretation of covered agreements.
Panels generally lack expertise in the domestic law of a defending party.
Thus, while it is appropriate for a panel to determine in a particular case that a Member's legislation was applied in a manner inconsistent with that country's obligations under a WTO agreement, it is not appropriate for a panel to dictate which of the available options a party must take to bring its actions into conformity with its international obligations. 1.677 The compliance process under the DSU makes the precise manner of implementation a matter to be determined in the first instance by the Member concerned, subject to limited rights to compensation or retaliation by parties that have successfully invoked the dispute settlement procedures. In Article 19 of the DSU, the drafters precluded a panel from prejudging the outcome of this process in their recommendations. Therefore, regardless of how the merits of this case are decided, Korea's request for revocation of the anti-dumping order on DRAMs should be rejected. There are two sentences in Korea's remedy request.