… We must assume that WTO members will respect their contractual obligations in good faith, in accordance with the principle of the pacta sunt servanda set out in Article 26 of the Vienna Agreement. As far as dispute resolution is concerned, each WTO member must assume the good faith of any other member. The European Communities also questions whether the proceedings have established a coincidence in the retroactive effect of Articles II and XVII of the GATS, in violation of the principle set out in Article 28 of the Vienna Convention. Article 28 sets out the general principle of international law: “Without any other intention that the treaty appears or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party with regard to … any situation that no longer existed before the treaty came into force… ». The group stated in its statement that the United States is a demand point in this area and that, given its scientific, diplomatic and financial means, it is reasonable to expect this member to be more than less than less in good faith with regard to serious efforts. The ability to convince the United States is evident in the successful negotiation of the Inter-American Agreement. (Panel report, paragraph 5.76) It follows that the principles of good faith and ordinary procedure require an responding party to express its defence immediately and clearly.
This will allow the complainant to understand that a specific defence has been made, “to be aware of its dimensions and to have a good opportunity to deal with and respond to it.” … … We… There is nothing in the DSU that prevents a defender from seeking further clarification of the claims made in a motion by the complainant`s panel prior to the filing of the first written document. In this context, we refer to Article 3.10 DSU, which, in the event of a dispute, invites WTO members to initiate dispute resolution procedures “in good faith in the direction of dispute resolution”. As we have already said, “the WTO dispute settlement procedural rules are intended not to encourage the development of processing techniques, but only to resolve trade disputes fairly, quickly and effectively.” … Regardless of the nature of the procedure, where a WTO member has not made it clear that he or she will not take legal action on a particular measure, it cannot be considered that he is not acting in good faith when he is questioning that measure. In this context, the appeal body of the EC – Sugar Export Subsidies found that it was not possible to establish facts or statements of the complainants acknowledging that the European Communities measure was consistent with the WTO or that it had promised not to take legal action against the European Communities. If, in the present cases, the complainants were to be deterred from opening the Article 21.5 procedure, such Estoppel should be attached to a representation outside the banana agreements.