초록 close

The purpose of this article is to examine the concept of direction and entrustment in WTO jurisprudence. Under Article 1.1.(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, a “financial contribution” conferring a benefit is deemed to exist when a government itself directly provides a financial contribution or when it directs or entrusts private bodies to do so. In Export Restraints, a WTO panel decided that the act of entrusting and that of directing requires an explicit government action addressed to a particular entity for a particular task or duty. In US DRAMS, this decision was modified to the extent that the act of direction or entrustment need not be explicit as long as it is affirmative, since such act can be explicit or implicit, formal or informal. Furthermore, the DRAMS Panel held that the evidence of direction must be probative and compelling. In the DRAMS Appeal, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel finding that had in effect replaced the notion of direction with “command” and that of entrustment with “delegation”. The Appellate Body also faulted the Panel for having reviewed the DOC determination in substantial deviation from the agency’s “totality of evidence” approach. It is suggested that the WTO law of subsidies as it stands today in respect of direction and entrustment is more or less in favor of national investigating authorities and may give rise to additional disputes in the future.