第五节 世界贸易组织的特殊差别待遇与普遍优惠待遇（第3页）

Iio，thePanelwilldescribethemeasureatissueaswellasitsbroaderfatext，ingtheUes’legalregimefortobaarketfarettesiedStates，andtheWHOFrameworkonTobatrol。

&iesdisagreeoualissues。TotheextentitisnecessaryforthePahosedisputedfactualissues，itwilldosoinitsFindings。

Themeasureatissue

ThemeasureatissueisSe907（a）（1）（A）oftheFederalFa（“FFDCA”），whichwasaddedtotheFFDCAbySe101（b）oftheFamilySmokiionandTobatrolAct（“FSPTCA”）。[3]

PARTIES’REQUESTSFSAIONS

I，IndohePaofiion907（a）（1）（A）isih[4]:

Article2。1oftheTBTAgreementaively，ArticleⅢ:4oftheGATT1994[5]，becauseitresultsiislessfavourabletoimportedclovecigarettesthanthataccordedtoalikedomestientholcigarettes;

Article2。2oftheTBTAgreemeismoretrade-restriofulfilalegitimateobjective;

Article2。5oftheTBTAgreemeedStatesdidoquestionsfromIndonesiaseekiionandjustififorthebansubmittedduringbilateraldissheld27August20htheTBTitteeon20August2009（GTBTW323）;

Article2。8oftheTBTAgreemehebanohcharagflavoursisbasedoivecharacteristics;

Article2。9oftheTBTAgreemeedStatesdidnotplywiththerequirementsofArticles2。9。1，2。9。2，2。9。3，and2。9。4oftheTBTAgreemeingateicalregulationthathasasigoradeofIndonesia;

Article2。10oftheTBTAgreemeheeveedStatesbelievedtherewasajustififornotfollowingtheproArticle2。9oftheTBTAgreement，itdidnotprovidetheSecretariatwithnotifieasureaheproblem;

Article2。12oftheTBTAgreemeedStatesfailedtoallowforareasoimebetweeeofpublieasureahatthemeasurewe;and

Article12。3oftheTBTAgreemehebanohcharagflavoursunnecessarybarriertoexportsfromIndonesia，adevelopingtry。

&edStatesrequeststhatthePaIndonesia'stheirey。[6]

FINDINGS

Introdu

ThisdisputesSe907（a）（1）（A），atobaeasureadoptedbytheUesforreasonsofpublichealth。Cigarettesareilyharmfultohumah，asreizedbytheWHO，thestifiunityandbothpartiestothisdispute。

Attheoutset，thisPanelwouldliketoemphasizethatmeasurestoprotectpublichealthareoftheutmostimportahattheWTOAgreementsfullyredrespecttheshtulateiimatepublichealths。

&hattheWTOseeksteneralwell-beingthroughtradeliberalizatiofWTOMemberstoadoptmeasurestoprotectpublichealth。Infabershavealargemeasureofautoheirowehealth。ThisautonomyisonlycircumscribedbythehatthemeansfthosepoliciesaretwithWTOrules。TheserulesrequireMemberstoehosemeansbenon-disatory，andotherwiseinacewiththeprovisioOAgreemehpreambularrecitaloftheTBTAgreemeinthisregard:

“Regthatnotryshouldbepreveakingmeasuresoeyofitsexports，orfortheprotean，animalorplah，ofthee，orforthepreventioivepractices，atthelevelsitsidersappropriate，subjecttotherequirementthattheyarenotappliedinamannerwhichwouldstituteameansofarbitraryorunjustifiabledisatiorieswherethesamesprevailuisedrestriiionaltrade，aherwiseinacewiththeprovisionsofthisAgreement”。

&anceofpublichealthwasalsohighlightedbyWTOMembersierialDelaungtheDohaRound，inwhiistersuOrulesdoMembersfromtakiheproteahsubjeplyingwiththeWTOAgreements。[7]

Furthermore，weareawareoftheimportaiowithioftheWHOFditsWHuidelines。

&askbeforeusistoobjectivelyassesswhetherSe907（a）（1）（A）isinitywithU。S。obligationspursuanttotheprovisioOAgreementswithinourtermsofreferehewordsoftheAppellateBodywhenitaowledgedthattheobjectivehumanlifeah“isbothvitalandimportadegree”[8]，andthat“fewisaremore‘vital’and‘important’thainghumanbeingsfromhealthrisks”。[9]

AnalysisbythePanel

Introdu

IndonesiaclaimsthattheUeshasasistentlywithArticles2。1，2。2，2。5，2。8，2。9，2。10，2。12，and12。3oftheTBTAgreemehat，bytheirowheseprovisionsapplyto“teicalregulations”。[10]Thismeansthat，ifSe907（a）（1）（A）isnota“teicalregulation”withinthemeaniAgreement，theseprovisionswouldnotapplytothatmeasure。Thus，athresholdissueiionofIndonesia'sdertheTBTAgreemeion907（a）（1）（A）isa“teicalregulation”。

Thelegalprovisionatissue

Article1。2oftheTBTAgreeme“forthepurposesofthisAgreementthemeaniermsgiveninAnnex1applies”。Annex1。1oftheTBTAgreemeeicalregulation”asfollows:

“Dotroductcharacteristicsortheirrelatedprodproduethods，ingtheapplicableadministrativeprovisions，withwhipliandatory。Itmayalsoincludeordealexclusivelywithterminology，symbols，pag，markingorlabellisastheyapplytoaproduct，processorproduethod。”

&hatthedefinitioeicalregulation”inAnnex1。1oftheTBTAgreementhasalreadybeeheAppellateBody:firstinEC-Asbestos，andthenagaininEes。[11]IheAppellateBodysetoutthreecriteriathatadotmustmeettofallwithiionof“teicalregulation”inAnnex1。1:

“…First，thedotmustapplytoaifiableprroupofproducts。Theideroupofproduot，however，beexpresslyidehedot。Sed，thedotmustlaydownoeristicsoftheproduct。Theseproductcharacteristicsmaybeintrinsiayberelatedtotheproduct。Theymaybepresposediiveativeform。Third，pliaheproductcharacteristicsmustbemandatory。AswestressedinEC-Asbestos，thesethreecriteriaarederivedfrofthedefinitioninAnnex1。1。…”[12]

ThePahereforeproalysewhetherSe907（a）（1）（A）stitutesa“teicalregulation”withinthemeaningofAnnex1。1oftheTBTAgreementbyexamihreecriteria。

&hedefinitionofateicalregulation

Firstelemeion907（a）（1）（A）appliestoaifiableprroupofproducts”

Seeion907（a）（1）（A）laysdownocharacteristics”