ANTIGUA HANDED DECISIVE VICTORY IN WTO GAMBLING CASE
The World Trade Organisation today released the decision of a three-member panel established to assess the compliance of the United States with the 2005 ruling by the trade body against the United States in the dispute over Internet gambling brought by the Caribbean country of Antigua and Barbuda.
Antigua’s original triumph in April 2005 is reaffirmed in this final report, with the WTO panel decisively ruling that the US has done nothing to comply with the original ruling. By rejecting US arguments that the country applies its laws against remote gambling in a non-discriminatory fashion, the WTO has handed Antigua a resounding victory, and offers hope to the global online gambling industry currently under siege by the US Department of Justice.
Dr. John W. Ashe, Antigua’s Ambassador to the WTO, stated, “This is a smashing success for Antigua in every possible way. The report will sweep away any lingering doubt that Antigua has obtained a clear and convincing win over the United States in this matter. It is now time for the United States to meet its international trade obligations to Antigua and work with us in a constructive manner to resolve this dispute.”
Featuring prominently in the WTO’s new decision was the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) - a baldly protectionist measure to stamp out non-domestic supply of remote gambling services - and the high-profile prosecutions of a number of foreign service providers in recent months.
Following the 2005 decision of the WTO’s appeals body, the United States had asserted that it had only to clarify a “narrow” point of US law regarding horse racing in order to come into compliance with the ruling. Today’s decision, while also noting that the United States had failed to provide any clarification at all on the horse racing issue, pointed out that Antigua had demonstrated that a “flourishing remote account wagering industry” exists in the United States, despite US claims that it prohibited all remote gambling throughout the country. Critically as well, the panel took note of the fact that US law does not prohibit remote gaming that occurs solely within the borders of a particular state - an exemption which was confirmed in the UIGEA.
“We are extremely pleased by this most positive report of the panel,” announced The Honourable L. Errol Cort, Minister of Finance and the Economy for Antigua. “It vindicates all that we have been saying for years about the discriminatory trade practices of the United States in this area, and we look forward to the United States opening its markets on a fair and balanced basis as the WTO agreements and the international community require.”
Kaye McDonald, Antigua’s Director of Gaming, expressed her relief at the decision, “The principles in this well-crafted opinion will be clear to everyone. This really is a landmark day for our country and I simply could not be more pleased.”
Although the United States may appeal this latest finding back to the appeals body of the WTO, the head of Antigua’s legal team, Mark Mendel, believes that the chances of reversal are remote. “The panel’s logic is impeccable and the law and facts are just as much in our favour as they could possibly be. The United States on one hand prohibits competition in remote gambling from Antigua while on the other promoting and protecting a massive domestic industry. If the WTO agreements apply under any scenario, they apply here.”
Antigua, a small, twin-island nation in the Caribbean Sea, is one of the smallest WTO members, with a population of only about 80,000. It has dedicated significant resources since the early 1990s in an attempt to diversify its economy with a closely regulated and supervised cross-border gaming industry. Despite having offered on many occasions to work with US officials on a cooperative basis to ensure the safety and fairness of the Antiguan services offered to American consumers, Antigua’s efforts have been consistently rebuffed, with US officials opting instead to embark on an aggressive assault on the offshore provision of gaming services.
The World Trade Organisation today released the decision of a three-member panel established to assess the compliance of the United States with the 2005 ruling by the trade body against the United States in the dispute over Internet gambling brought by the Caribbean country of Antigua and Barbuda.
Antigua’s original triumph in April 2005 is reaffirmed in this final report, with the WTO panel decisively ruling that the US has done nothing to comply with the original ruling. By rejecting US arguments that the country applies its laws against remote gambling in a non-discriminatory fashion, the WTO has handed Antigua a resounding victory, and offers hope to the global online gambling industry currently under siege by the US Department of Justice.
Dr. John W. Ashe, Antigua’s Ambassador to the WTO, stated, “This is a smashing success for Antigua in every possible way. The report will sweep away any lingering doubt that Antigua has obtained a clear and convincing win over the United States in this matter. It is now time for the United States to meet its international trade obligations to Antigua and work with us in a constructive manner to resolve this dispute.”
Featuring prominently in the WTO’s new decision was the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) - a baldly protectionist measure to stamp out non-domestic supply of remote gambling services - and the high-profile prosecutions of a number of foreign service providers in recent months.
Following the 2005 decision of the WTO’s appeals body, the United States had asserted that it had only to clarify a “narrow” point of US law regarding horse racing in order to come into compliance with the ruling. Today’s decision, while also noting that the United States had failed to provide any clarification at all on the horse racing issue, pointed out that Antigua had demonstrated that a “flourishing remote account wagering industry” exists in the United States, despite US claims that it prohibited all remote gambling throughout the country. Critically as well, the panel took note of the fact that US law does not prohibit remote gaming that occurs solely within the borders of a particular state - an exemption which was confirmed in the UIGEA.
“We are extremely pleased by this most positive report of the panel,” announced The Honourable L. Errol Cort, Minister of Finance and the Economy for Antigua. “It vindicates all that we have been saying for years about the discriminatory trade practices of the United States in this area, and we look forward to the United States opening its markets on a fair and balanced basis as the WTO agreements and the international community require.”
Kaye McDonald, Antigua’s Director of Gaming, expressed her relief at the decision, “The principles in this well-crafted opinion will be clear to everyone. This really is a landmark day for our country and I simply could not be more pleased.”
Although the United States may appeal this latest finding back to the appeals body of the WTO, the head of Antigua’s legal team, Mark Mendel, believes that the chances of reversal are remote. “The panel’s logic is impeccable and the law and facts are just as much in our favour as they could possibly be. The United States on one hand prohibits competition in remote gambling from Antigua while on the other promoting and protecting a massive domestic industry. If the WTO agreements apply under any scenario, they apply here.”
Antigua, a small, twin-island nation in the Caribbean Sea, is one of the smallest WTO members, with a population of only about 80,000. It has dedicated significant resources since the early 1990s in an attempt to diversify its economy with a closely regulated and supervised cross-border gaming industry. Despite having offered on many occasions to work with US officials on a cooperative basis to ensure the safety and fairness of the Antiguan services offered to American consumers, Antigua’s efforts have been consistently rebuffed, with US officials opting instead to embark on an aggressive assault on the offshore provision of gaming services.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.fpR5xw6FIk&refer=home
WTO Rules U.S. Web Gaming Ban Illegal; Shares Jump (Update1)
By Warren Giles
March 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. ignored a ruling that found it discriminates against foreign gambling companies by banning payments to gaming Web sites while allowing bets on its own soil, the World Trade Organization's highest judges said.
PartyGaming Plc shares jumped as much as 16 percent after the decision.
Antigua and Barbuda, a Caribbean nation of 80,000 people and the smallest government ever to lodge a WTO complaint, scored an initial victory against U.S. online gambling restrictions when the WTO found in April 2005 that the U.S. had pledged to open the industry to competition 10 years earlier. Today's ruling rejects a U.S. appeal against that.
The U.S. passed legislation five months ago to close the estimated $12 billion global business to domestic residents, who account for half of the market. The U.S. banned credit card companies from processing payments to betting sites such as Sportingbet Plc, Leisure & Gaming Plc, PartyGaming and Empire Online Ltd., which then ceased U.S. operations or sold them for nominal amounts.
Today's ruling ``offers hope to the global online gambling industry currently under siege by the U.S. Department of Justice,'' Antiguan Finance Minister Errol Cort said in an e- mailed statement. ``It vindicates all that we have been saying for years about the discriminatory trade practices of the United States.''
The U.S. agreed that today's ruling finds it failed to comply with the two-year old decision.
Still, the U.S. says the report allows it to maintain a ban on Internet gambling to ``protect public order and public morals'' as long as it doesn't discriminate against foreign companies, Gretchen Hamel, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office in Washington, said in an e-mailed statement. ``We are currently reviewing our options,'' Hamel said.
The U.S. has argued that the prohibitions pre-dating the October law apply to both foreign and American betting services, and the WTO's decision only applies to gambling on horseracing, which is allowed to discriminate against foreign companies.
The U.S. adds that its latest law isn't covered by the WTO ruling and said that its 1995 commitment to open gambling to foreign companies was an oversight by the Clinton administration.
Drop in Income
Income for the 32 registered online casinos in Antigua and Barbuda has fallen to $130 million a year from $1 billion in 2000, the Antiguan government says. The country developed online gambling to boost a tourism-dependent economy after several hurricanes in the 1990s.
Antigua successfully argued in its complaint that the U.S. protects a domestic gambling industry while failing to live up to its international commitments.
Charlie McCreevy, commissioner for the European Union's internal market, labeled the U.S. law ``a protectionist measure'' on Jan. 30, saying the EU should complain to the U.S. after Congress passed the legislation barring credit card companies from processing payments. President George W. Bush signed the measure into law on Oct. 13.
`Smashing Success'
At the time, U.K. Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell compared the U.S. law to the American alcohol ban of the 1920s, saying the measure may force online gambling underground into an unregulated black market.
``This is a smashing success for Antigua in every possible way,'' John Ashe, the Caribbean island nation's ambassador to the WTO in Geneva, said in a statement. The ruling clears up ``any lingering doubt that Antigua has obtained a clear and convincing win over the United States and it is now time for the United States to meet its international trade obligations.''
Antigua may seek sanctions in the form of withdrawing intellectual property protection for U.S. trademarks or copyright. Known as ``cross-retaliation,'' such sanctions are legal at the WTO when an economy can't afford to impose sanctions in the form of higher customs duties on goods.
WTO Rules U.S. Web Gaming Ban Illegal; Shares Jump (Update1)
By Warren Giles
March 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. ignored a ruling that found it discriminates against foreign gambling companies by banning payments to gaming Web sites while allowing bets on its own soil, the World Trade Organization's highest judges said.
PartyGaming Plc shares jumped as much as 16 percent after the decision.
Antigua and Barbuda, a Caribbean nation of 80,000 people and the smallest government ever to lodge a WTO complaint, scored an initial victory against U.S. online gambling restrictions when the WTO found in April 2005 that the U.S. had pledged to open the industry to competition 10 years earlier. Today's ruling rejects a U.S. appeal against that.
The U.S. passed legislation five months ago to close the estimated $12 billion global business to domestic residents, who account for half of the market. The U.S. banned credit card companies from processing payments to betting sites such as Sportingbet Plc, Leisure & Gaming Plc, PartyGaming and Empire Online Ltd., which then ceased U.S. operations or sold them for nominal amounts.
Today's ruling ``offers hope to the global online gambling industry currently under siege by the U.S. Department of Justice,'' Antiguan Finance Minister Errol Cort said in an e- mailed statement. ``It vindicates all that we have been saying for years about the discriminatory trade practices of the United States.''
The U.S. agreed that today's ruling finds it failed to comply with the two-year old decision.
Still, the U.S. says the report allows it to maintain a ban on Internet gambling to ``protect public order and public morals'' as long as it doesn't discriminate against foreign companies, Gretchen Hamel, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office in Washington, said in an e-mailed statement. ``We are currently reviewing our options,'' Hamel said.
The U.S. has argued that the prohibitions pre-dating the October law apply to both foreign and American betting services, and the WTO's decision only applies to gambling on horseracing, which is allowed to discriminate against foreign companies.
The U.S. adds that its latest law isn't covered by the WTO ruling and said that its 1995 commitment to open gambling to foreign companies was an oversight by the Clinton administration.
Drop in Income
Income for the 32 registered online casinos in Antigua and Barbuda has fallen to $130 million a year from $1 billion in 2000, the Antiguan government says. The country developed online gambling to boost a tourism-dependent economy after several hurricanes in the 1990s.
Antigua successfully argued in its complaint that the U.S. protects a domestic gambling industry while failing to live up to its international commitments.
Charlie McCreevy, commissioner for the European Union's internal market, labeled the U.S. law ``a protectionist measure'' on Jan. 30, saying the EU should complain to the U.S. after Congress passed the legislation barring credit card companies from processing payments. President George W. Bush signed the measure into law on Oct. 13.
`Smashing Success'
At the time, U.K. Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell compared the U.S. law to the American alcohol ban of the 1920s, saying the measure may force online gambling underground into an unregulated black market.
``This is a smashing success for Antigua in every possible way,'' John Ashe, the Caribbean island nation's ambassador to the WTO in Geneva, said in a statement. The ruling clears up ``any lingering doubt that Antigua has obtained a clear and convincing win over the United States and it is now time for the United States to meet its international trade obligations.''
Antigua may seek sanctions in the form of withdrawing intellectual property protection for U.S. trademarks or copyright. Known as ``cross-retaliation,'' such sanctions are legal at the WTO when an economy can't afford to impose sanctions in the form of higher customs duties on goods.
You guys are off base if you don't think this isn't a small step in the right direction. From what I have read this is the best news concerning all this in months.
Is it making things better? Maybe not yet but it is something going in the right direction and that is a plus. We have to start being a little more positive as a group and this is posititve news from what I have read and is being reported.
Is it making things better? Maybe not yet but it is something going in the right direction and that is a plus. We have to start being a little more positive as a group and this is posititve news from what I have read and is being reported.
Maybe I am reading different reports than you. I am hearing this from pretty reputable other forums and reputable posters they are saying that this was a REALLY BIG RULING this time.
You are right about some other reports in the past but this seems to be something most in the know have said was important towards taking the steps (which I am sure we all know this isn't going to change quickly) in the right direction.
MENDEL BLUMENFELD, LLP
30 March 2007
M E M O R A N D U M
Summary of Report of the Compliance Panel
United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Provision of Gambling and Betting Services – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Antigua and Barbuda
Introduction
The Report of the Panel (the “Report”) was issued on 15 February 2007 to Antigua and the United States, and is now available for review by other persons and public discussion. The Report represents a comprehensive and compelling victory for Antigua in the proceeding. In addition to clearly ruling that the United States remains out of compliance with the rulings and recommendations rendered against the United States by the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) of the World Trade Organisation (the “WTO”) in the original proceeding back in April 2005, the Report also contains some very helpful findings regarding the DSB rulings and should go a long way in dispelling any doubts as to the nature and extent of Antigua’s overall success in the case. In particular, the Report sets out much more clearly than was done in the original report of the Appellate Body what was found against the United States and what its continuing obligations are.
Status of United States’ Compliance
In the Report, the Panel basically made precisely the findings which we asked them to make. The three major findings with respect to compliance were as follows:
• The United States has taken no action towards compliance with the DSB recommendations and thus is out of compliance (para. 6.38)
• The United States was not entitled in the compliance proceeding to reargue the case that failed before the original panel and the Appellate Body (paras. 6.57, 6.85)
• Even assuming that the United States was entitled to present new, or more, argument on its failed case, based upon the materials before the Panel in this proceeding the United States case would still fail (para. 6.110).
Other Major Findings of the Panel
The Panel also made findings or came to conclusions that were not directly related to compliance by the United States but that have a significant impact on the case going forward. These include:
• A key ruling that the United States was not entitled to maintain its offending measures–the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act (para. 6.26)
“The original Panel found that, by maintaining these three measures, the United States was acting inconsistently with its obligations under (...) the GATS. The Appellate Body upheld this finding. Neither the Panel nor the Appellate Body found that the United States was entitled to maintain these measures under [the ‘public morals’ exception] or any other article in the covered agreements.”
• An important clarification that, because the United States measures were inconsistent with the GATS and the United States did not satisfy both parts of the “public morals” exception, it lost the case (paras. 6.28-6.29)
“[T]here was no finding in the original proceeding that the measures at issue in this dispute were consistent with the United States’ obligations under the GATS, notwithstanding an invocation of the [‘public morals’ defence]. Instead, there was a finding that maintaining these measures was inconsistent with the United States’ obligations, which was the basis for the recommendation of the DSB.”
“It is true that the Appellate Body found that the United States had demonstrated that the measures at issue were ‘justified’ under paragraph (a) of [the ‘public morals’ defence]. However, this was not a finding on [the defence] in its entirety. The Appellate Body expressly confirmed that [the defence] contemplates a ‘two-tier analysis’ – first, under one of the paragraphs of Article XIV and then under the chapeau. There was no finding that the measures were consistent with the chapeau or with Article XIV in its entirety nor, hence, with the United States’ obligations under the GATS.”
• Another key clarification that the United States attempt to justify its offending measures under the “public morals” exception had failed (para. 6.64)
“The Appellate Body’s findings in this dispute, which use the terms ‘show’, ‘demonstrate’ and ‘establish’, indicate that the United States failed to discharge its burden of proof. This was a ruling on the defence in relation to the measures at issue. It was not equivalent to a statement that the Appellate Body ‘does not rule’ or an exercise of judicial economy. Instead, it indicates that the United States’ affirmative defence failed.”
• A key clarification that the United States’ use of the “public morals” exception is based upon an assertion that its measures do not discriminate at all between domestic and foreign service providers–meaning that the United States says that so-called “remote” gambling is completely prohibited in the United States (para. 6.100)
• With respect to the Interstate Horseracing Act itself, the Panel stated that it would appear that the language of the statute allows interstate remote gambling notwithstanding the Wire Act (para. 6.105)
• Based upon significant evidence provided to the Panel by Antigua regarding various State regulatory schemes for remote gambling on horse racing as well as facts regarding specific operators, a conclusion that there is significant domestic remote gambling in the United States (para. 6.116)
“The evidence regarding these suppliers demonstrates the existence of a flourishing interstate remote account wagering industry on horseracing in the United States operating in ostensible legality.”
• A key finding that the Wire Act does not prohibit remote wagering within the United States to the extent that the wagers do not cross State lines, affirming Antigua’s argument that the individual States themselves are by and large free to permit or to prohibit intrastate remote gambling as they see fit (para. 6.121)
• A key observation that, in light of recent prosecutions by the United States of foreign operators such as BetonSports and WWTS combined with a clear lack of prosecutions of domestic operators, remote, interstate, wagering under the IHA is “tolerated, even if not authorized under federal law.” (para. 6.128)
• With respect to the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006,” key observations that the United States Congress (1) appears to have recognised that regulation of remote gambling is feasible and (2) affirmatively decided to retain any ambiguity regarding the IHA rather than “clarifying” it in the way the United States had argued to the Panel (paras. 6.130, 6.133)
What the Ruling Means
Although the United States can, and most likely will, appeal the Report to the WTO’s Appellate Body, the Panel’s reasoning is sound and by and largely unassailable. While it is possible that the Appellate Body may have language of its own or dilute some of the findings in one way or another, it is extremely unlikely that the key findings will be changed in any material respect. The appeal, if there is one, will take about three months, so we can expect a final resolution of the issue sometime in the summer.
The Report has three major implications:
• It concludes that the United States is out of compliance with an adverse WTO decision
• As a result, Antigua will be free to impose trade sanctions against the United States, if Antigua affirmatively decides to do so, directed at “encouraging” the United States to meet its international trade obligations to Antigua
• It will make it virtually impossible for the United States to continue to maintain the pretense that it somehow “won” the dispute or that the WTO had ruled that the United States was entitled to prohibit the provision of Internet gambling services from Antigua
Conclusion
The Report represents an outstanding, positive result for Antigua in this dispute. While we were confident that we would prevail on the issue of United States non-compliance with the DSB rulings, the Report is much more positive and beneficial for our case than we had expected. All other things being equal, such a clearly adverse ruling might be expected to encourage the United States to consider negotiating with Antigua in a meaningful way to resolve the dispute.
30 March 2007
M E M O R A N D U M
Summary of Report of the Compliance Panel
United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Provision of Gambling and Betting Services – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Antigua and Barbuda
Introduction
The Report of the Panel (the “Report”) was issued on 15 February 2007 to Antigua and the United States, and is now available for review by other persons and public discussion. The Report represents a comprehensive and compelling victory for Antigua in the proceeding. In addition to clearly ruling that the United States remains out of compliance with the rulings and recommendations rendered against the United States by the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) of the World Trade Organisation (the “WTO”) in the original proceeding back in April 2005, the Report also contains some very helpful findings regarding the DSB rulings and should go a long way in dispelling any doubts as to the nature and extent of Antigua’s overall success in the case. In particular, the Report sets out much more clearly than was done in the original report of the Appellate Body what was found against the United States and what its continuing obligations are.
Status of United States’ Compliance
In the Report, the Panel basically made precisely the findings which we asked them to make. The three major findings with respect to compliance were as follows:
• The United States has taken no action towards compliance with the DSB recommendations and thus is out of compliance (para. 6.38)
• The United States was not entitled in the compliance proceeding to reargue the case that failed before the original panel and the Appellate Body (paras. 6.57, 6.85)
• Even assuming that the United States was entitled to present new, or more, argument on its failed case, based upon the materials before the Panel in this proceeding the United States case would still fail (para. 6.110).
Other Major Findings of the Panel
The Panel also made findings or came to conclusions that were not directly related to compliance by the United States but that have a significant impact on the case going forward. These include:
• A key ruling that the United States was not entitled to maintain its offending measures–the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act (para. 6.26)
“The original Panel found that, by maintaining these three measures, the United States was acting inconsistently with its obligations under (...) the GATS. The Appellate Body upheld this finding. Neither the Panel nor the Appellate Body found that the United States was entitled to maintain these measures under [the ‘public morals’ exception] or any other article in the covered agreements.”
• An important clarification that, because the United States measures were inconsistent with the GATS and the United States did not satisfy both parts of the “public morals” exception, it lost the case (paras. 6.28-6.29)
“[T]here was no finding in the original proceeding that the measures at issue in this dispute were consistent with the United States’ obligations under the GATS, notwithstanding an invocation of the [‘public morals’ defence]. Instead, there was a finding that maintaining these measures was inconsistent with the United States’ obligations, which was the basis for the recommendation of the DSB.”
“It is true that the Appellate Body found that the United States had demonstrated that the measures at issue were ‘justified’ under paragraph (a) of [the ‘public morals’ defence]. However, this was not a finding on [the defence] in its entirety. The Appellate Body expressly confirmed that [the defence] contemplates a ‘two-tier analysis’ – first, under one of the paragraphs of Article XIV and then under the chapeau. There was no finding that the measures were consistent with the chapeau or with Article XIV in its entirety nor, hence, with the United States’ obligations under the GATS.”
• Another key clarification that the United States attempt to justify its offending measures under the “public morals” exception had failed (para. 6.64)
“The Appellate Body’s findings in this dispute, which use the terms ‘show’, ‘demonstrate’ and ‘establish’, indicate that the United States failed to discharge its burden of proof. This was a ruling on the defence in relation to the measures at issue. It was not equivalent to a statement that the Appellate Body ‘does not rule’ or an exercise of judicial economy. Instead, it indicates that the United States’ affirmative defence failed.”
• A key clarification that the United States’ use of the “public morals” exception is based upon an assertion that its measures do not discriminate at all between domestic and foreign service providers–meaning that the United States says that so-called “remote” gambling is completely prohibited in the United States (para. 6.100)
• With respect to the Interstate Horseracing Act itself, the Panel stated that it would appear that the language of the statute allows interstate remote gambling notwithstanding the Wire Act (para. 6.105)
• Based upon significant evidence provided to the Panel by Antigua regarding various State regulatory schemes for remote gambling on horse racing as well as facts regarding specific operators, a conclusion that there is significant domestic remote gambling in the United States (para. 6.116)
“The evidence regarding these suppliers demonstrates the existence of a flourishing interstate remote account wagering industry on horseracing in the United States operating in ostensible legality.”
• A key finding that the Wire Act does not prohibit remote wagering within the United States to the extent that the wagers do not cross State lines, affirming Antigua’s argument that the individual States themselves are by and large free to permit or to prohibit intrastate remote gambling as they see fit (para. 6.121)
• A key observation that, in light of recent prosecutions by the United States of foreign operators such as BetonSports and WWTS combined with a clear lack of prosecutions of domestic operators, remote, interstate, wagering under the IHA is “tolerated, even if not authorized under federal law.” (para. 6.128)
• With respect to the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006,” key observations that the United States Congress (1) appears to have recognised that regulation of remote gambling is feasible and (2) affirmatively decided to retain any ambiguity regarding the IHA rather than “clarifying” it in the way the United States had argued to the Panel (paras. 6.130, 6.133)
What the Ruling Means
Although the United States can, and most likely will, appeal the Report to the WTO’s Appellate Body, the Panel’s reasoning is sound and by and largely unassailable. While it is possible that the Appellate Body may have language of its own or dilute some of the findings in one way or another, it is extremely unlikely that the key findings will be changed in any material respect. The appeal, if there is one, will take about three months, so we can expect a final resolution of the issue sometime in the summer.
The Report has three major implications:
• It concludes that the United States is out of compliance with an adverse WTO decision
• As a result, Antigua will be free to impose trade sanctions against the United States, if Antigua affirmatively decides to do so, directed at “encouraging” the United States to meet its international trade obligations to Antigua
• It will make it virtually impossible for the United States to continue to maintain the pretense that it somehow “won” the dispute or that the WTO had ruled that the United States was entitled to prohibit the provision of Internet gambling services from Antigua
Conclusion
The Report represents an outstanding, positive result for Antigua in this dispute. While we were confident that we would prevail on the issue of United States non-compliance with the DSB rulings, the Report is much more positive and beneficial for our case than we had expected. All other things being equal, such a clearly adverse ruling might be expected to encourage the United States to consider negotiating with Antigua in a meaningful way to resolve the dispute.
everyone that reads this.. please go to yahoo news and search for this news item, then click on it... do the same thing at cnn, msnbc, abc and cbs... these organizations look at how many people are viewing online to help them decide what should be broadcast on their evening nationwide broadcasts.
Those that think that this is not a major victory for the online gambling industry are simply uninformed. Here is an excerpt from another article:
></o>
The Geneva-based trade referee has said <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><st1
The horseracing lobby will never allow the eliminiation of off-track betting over the internet. I believe that this is the best news the internet gambling industry has ever seen and that it will be the catalyst for the eventual legalization of online gambling in this country.<o<o
To avoid the penalties, the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1
></o>
