This is from last week's India - Export Related Measures panel report:
1.3.2 Single substantive meeting of the Panel with the parties
1.9. On 3 August 2018, the Chairperson of the Panel, on behalf of the Panel, held a meeting with the parties to obtain their views in preparation of the Panel's draft Working Procedures and timetable. He stressed the need to reconcile different considerations, namely, the provision for accelerated procedures in Article 4 of the SCM Agreement, the obligation to provide special and differential treatment to developing country Members, and resource constraints in the Secretariat. At that meeting, the United States proposed that the Panel hold a single meeting with the parties in this case, a proposal which India opposed.
1.10. As a means to balance the competing obligations and constraints in the particular circumstances of this case, in its draft Working Procedures and timetable sent to the parties on 8 August 2018, the Panel proposed holding a single meeting with the parties, after the filing of both parties' first and second written submissions, and reserved the right to schedule further meetings with the parties as required. On 22 August 2018, the Panel adopted its draft Working Procedures and timetable. In response to communications from India to the Chairperson, on 9 and 19 October 2018 the Panel confirmed that it would proceed with the adopted Working Procedures and timetable, while reserving the right to schedule additional meetings as necessary. On 19 October 2018, the Panel indicated that it would communicate the reasons supporting its decision in due course.
1.11. India objected to the Panel's approach in its comments on the draft Working Procedures and timetable, comments on the United States' comments, first written submission, and in communications dated 5 October and 16 October 2018, and sought a preliminary ruling from the Panel that an additional substantive meeting with the parties should be held before the filing of the second written submissions.
1.12. In its own communications, the United States took the view that the Panel could hold a single substantive meeting with the parties, or even decide the case entirely on the basis of the parties' written submissions, without holding any substantive meeting with the parties. The United States set out its arguments on the matter in its comments on the draft Working Procedures and timetable, comments on India's comments, and second written submission.
1.13. Brazil commented on this matter in its third-party submission. In Brazil's view, a panel's decision to deviate from the working procedures set out in Appendix 3 to the DSU and hold a single substantive meeting with the parties should only happen with the agreement of both parties to the dispute.
1.14. On 22 January 2019, the Panel, as it had anticipated, communicated the reasons for its earlier decision to proceed with the adopted Working Procedures and timetable, while reserving the right to schedule additional meetings, as necessary (see Annex D-1).
1.15. During the substantive meeting with the parties and subsequently in writing, the Panel asked the parties whether they considered a second substantive meeting necessary. On both occasions, it also asked India whether and how concretely the fact of holding a single substantive meeting affected India's ability to defend itself. The parties responded to these questions on 4 March 2019 and commented on each other's responses on 18 March 2019. Having studied the parties' responses and comments, and in light of the proceedings thus far, the Panel did not consider that there was a need to depart from the structure of the proceedings as originally envisaged in this dispute by adding a second substantive meeting with the parties; the Panel communicated its decision to the parties on 16 April 2019.
(footnotes omitted)
I was excited to read this because it happens that I just wrote something along these lines in a forthcoming Cato paper with Jim Bacchus, in which we offer suggestions for speeding up WTO disputes. Here is what we said on the issue of single panel meetings:
Turning to the litigation stage in dispute settlement proceedings, there is only so much shortening that can occur. Litigation requires the presentation of arguments and evidence, which means written submissions and hearings. But there are some areas where change is possible. For example, instead of always having two panel meetings, one panel meeting could be the norm, and the second meeting could be held on an exceptional basis (as is the case in Article 21.5 compliance proceedings); panel meetings could be held over secure video call rather than in person in Geneva; and there could be page limits for parties' written submissions.
...
One panel meeting may be enough: The DSU provides for two meetings of the panel with the parties. In a world where communication was difficult, these meetings had a particular value. In the 1970s, if a GATT panel had follow-up questions for the parties after the first meeting, organizing the effort to compile written questions and convey them to the parties was a major task. Today, by contrast, coordinating such questions and getting answers from the parties is fairly easy. For that reason, we think the second panel meeting could be eliminated.
In a particular case, it may be difficult to convince the responding party to agree to a single panel meeting, because responding parties always have an incentive to delay. But as a general principle that applies to future disputes, I think the case for a single panel meeting as the default rule is strong, and it's possible WTO Members could agree to this change.
