Because of the economic importance of this dispute, Boeing`s strong position as a lobbyist and the fairly obvious European violation of WTO and EU state aid rules, the arguments of those who preferred an undisputed negotiated solution were not given any priority. The result is, of course, far from satisfactory for the American interests that are advancing this agenda, because both the European Union and the United States are not in line with their obligations under the SCM. Now, a dispute entirely limited to two commercial superpowers and military allies will feed another generation of lawyers` children (perhaps even cover their expensive postgraduate training…) and employ academics. While we may be pleased with these results, they do not seem sufficient to strike a balance in favour of an overall positive assessment: a good opportunity not to use the multilateral mechanism has been missed. On 29 May 2018, the European Union requested consultations with the United States in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU with regard to the existence or coherence of the measures taken by the European Union to comply with the recommendations and decisions of the subject matter of the dispute with the WTO. On 31 July 2018, the European Union called for the creation of a compliance panel. At its meeting on 15 August 2018, the DSB postponed the establishment of a compliance panel. 10.4. In seeking to investigate commercial claims relating to products covered by this agreement that have been initiated on the basis of private petitions under national trade laws, the contracting parties take into account, in accordance with their right, declarations of compliance with the provisions of this agreement. On 6 October 2004, the United States exercised its right to denounce the agreement between the United States and the EU on large civilian aircraft by sending a diplomatic note to the Council of Ministers of the European Union. At the same time, the United States has filed a request for WTO consultation with the European Communities, France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom on what the US Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, has described as unfair subsidies to Airbus aircraft. The European Union has filed a counter-action with the WTO, claiming that Boeing has received illegal indirect subsidies. The European Commission also claimed that the unilateral denunciation of the 1992 agreement by the United States was invalid, since the agreement stipulates that the United States must give one year or provide evidence that the EU has violated the terms of the agreement.
The United States disagrees with the EU`s interpretation. 10.3. In order to avoid trade disputes, the contracting parties urge private parties to request the application of the provisions of Article 11 relating to the settlement of disputes in the matters covered by this agreement. However, if private petitioners request that action be taken under national legislation on the issues covered by this agreement, the petitioners` government will immediately inform the other party and propose to the other party to engage in consultations in accordance with Article 11. The party that is the subject of such an appeal has the right to suspend the application of certain provisions of this agreement or all the provisions of this agreement or to denounce it a fortnight after the end of the consultations.