However, the primary purpose for introducing appeal has been that of avoiding mistakes in the legal finding by panels, although the improvement in the panels’ composition and independence and the possibility of seeking experts’ advice by them on technical issues should reduce this risk. Appeals from panel cases, heard by the standing Appellate Body, are “limited to issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretation developed by the panel” (Art. 17.6). And the Appellate Body “may uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of the panel” (Art. 17.13). The Appellate Body consequently passes upon the legal merits of the case with full jurisdiction and may either confirm or replace in whole or in part the panel’s report with its decision. It may also confine itself to correcting the legal interpretation of the panel modifying its legal findings but leaving its overall conclusions and recommendations unaffected. Therefore, a preliminary question as to the scope of appellate review is central to the Appellate Body’s disposition of the specific issues raised in the appeal. In addressing this issue, we think it helpful to recall the Appellate Body’s ruling in EC – Hormones (DS26/DS48) that: 1
　“Under Art. 17.6 of the DSU, appellate review is limited to appeals on questions of law covered in a panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel. Findings of fact, as distinguished from legal interpretations or legal conclusions, by a panel are, in principle, not subject to review by the Appellate Body. The determination of whether or not a certain event did occur in time and space is typically a question of fact; for example, the question of whether or not Codex has adopted an international standard, guideline or recommendation on MGA is a factual question. Determination of the credibility and weight properly to be ascribed to (that is, the appreciation of) a given piece of evidence is part and parcel of the fact-finding process and is, in principle, left to the discretion of a panel as the trier of facts. The consistency or inconsistency of a given fact or set of facts with the requirements of a given treaty provision is, however, a legal characterization issue. It is a legal question. Whether or not a panel has made an objective assessment of the facts before it, as required by Art. 11 of the DSU, is also a legal question which, if properly raised on appeal, would fall within the scope of appellate review.”

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 页 共[7]页