This is from a communication from Japan and Australia:
2 DRAFT DECISION
The Dispute Settlement Body,
Having regard to paragraph 1 of Article 2 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
Affirming that recommendations and rulings made by the DSB are aimed at achieving a satisfactory settlement of the matter in accordance with the rights and obligations under the DSU and the covered agreements, and cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements,
Mindful that the dispute settlement system of the WTO is a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system,
Decides as follows:
...
Issue of precedential value of interpretation by the Appellate Body
7. Members confirm that an interpretation by the Appellate Body of any WTO provision does not constitute a precedent for posterior interpretations.
8. Members confirm that panels may adopt an interpretation of a WTO provision that is different from the one developed by the Appellate Body.
9. Members reaffirm the important role of the dispute settlement system in providing security and predictability, as stated in paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the DSU.
What does it mean that interpretations by the Appellate Body do "not constitute a precedent for posterior interpretations"? Does it mean that parties to WTO disputes cannot cite to past interpretations? Does it mean these interpretations are not binding, but can still be persuasive? How does that differ from the current situation?
How much value is there in panels adopting different interpretations than those developed by the Appellate Body? Is there a worry that when the Appellate Body reverses, it will be difficult to complete the analysis in some cases?
