From the summary of the DSB meeting where the recent U.S. - Stainless Steel from Mexico case was adopted:
There was a debate among members on whether or not panels were obliged to follow AB decisions.
Some members argued that prior AB rulings constituted a clear line of jurisprudence that should be used by panels if relevant to the case examined.
Some others argued that there was no provision in the Dispute Settlement Understanding that requires panels to follow prior AB or other panel findings. The panel or AB decisions are binding only to the parties involved in a dispute.
More on this when the full minutes of the meeting are circulated. I'm curious to see which Members took the different sides in the debate. The U.S. view was mentioned ("On the obligation by panels to follow previous AB rulings, the United States declared that panels were not required to follow previous AB decisions but could take them into account if relevant to the case") but I'd like to hear what others said.
