WT/DS162/R/Add.1 Page 1
III. CLAIMS AND MAIN ARGUMENTS
A. REQUEST BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES FOR ENHANCED THIRD PARTY RIGHTS
The European Communities, which is a third party in the present case and has requested the establishment of another panel in respect of the 1916 Act,1 requests to be granted enhanced third party rights.2 In particular, the European Communities requests to be present throughout both substantive meetings of the Panel and be able to make a submission on each occasion.
In response, Japan states that it accepts the European Communities' request that it be accorded enhanced third party rights. On the same basis, Japan requests that it in turn receive all the necessary documents, including submissions, and written versions of statements by the parties in the case initiated by the European Communities in respect of the 1916 Act (WT/DS136).
The United States, in reply to the a request by the Panel, notes that it strongly objects to expanded third party rights for the European Communities in the present case, since the circumstances of the case do not warrant it.
For the United States, expanded third party rights are not needed in order to obtain access to the parties' submissions. The United States supports full transparency in the WTO and will be making its submissions and oral statements available to the public. Furthermore, the United States recalls that it has requested in both panel proceedings dealing with the 1916 Act (WT/DS136 and WT/DS162) that each party provide a non‑confidential summary of the information contained in each submission that could be disclosed to the public unless the party has made the submission public. The United States further recalls that the DSU provides that parties shall make such non‑confidential versions available upon request. Accordingly, both the European Communities and Japan will have access to each others' submissions as soon as they comply with the requirements of the DSU in this regard.
The United States argues, moreover, that, as individual complaining parties, Japan and the European Communities have more than adequate opportunity to present their views and respond to the arguments of the United States. In EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)3, the panel allowed expanded third party rights because the panel had stated that it intended to conduct concurrent deliberations in those cases meaning that its deliberations were going to be based upon the arguments and presentations in both cases, including presentations by experts made jointly to both panels. The panel proceeded with this approach despite the fact that the United States had expressed its unequivocal concern with the panel's "concurrent deliberations" approach. Thus, because the panel was going to consider arguments made in one case in the course of deciding another case, the United States requested and was allowed enhanced third party rights. Otherwise, without an opportunity for the United States to respond, the panel would have been considering what would have been, in effect, ex parte submissions.
The United States notes that, in the present case, the Panel has not stated that it intends to conduct concurrent deliberations, and for the reasons expressed in the European Communities - Hormones proceeding, the United States would not support concurrent deliberations. Accordingly, the European Communities will not be denied an opportunity to respond to arguments of the United States that will
1 See WT/DS162/3. That panel was established on 26 July 1999 and composed on 11 August 1999 (WT/DS162/4).
2 As stated in the European Communities' letter to the Chairman of the Panel, dated 25 August 1999.
3 Panel Report on EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), adopted on 13 February 1999, WT/DS26/R/USA, WT/DS48/R/CAN (hereinafter "Panel Report on European Communities – Hormones").