A couple months ago, I noted how the Australia - Apples panel "accepted" an amicus brief: "the Panel notified the Parties that it had decided to accept the unsolicited communication received from APAL, and would inform that entity accordingly." However, today's Thailand - Cigarettes (Philippines) panel report suggests there may still be some differences of opinion on that issue. This is from para. 2.5 of the report:
On 27 March 2009, the Panel received a request from a private entity wishing to submit information to the Panel with regard to this dispute. On 17 April 2009, the Panel responded by requesting that such amicus curiae briefs be addressed directly to the parties and third parties to the dispute. Upon receiving such briefs, the parties and third parties would decide whether and how to use such briefs and/or any information contained therein in their submissions and arguments to the Panel in these proceedings.
This Panel seemed to take the view that panels shouldn't accept these briefs directly, but rather everything should be filtered through the parties.
