This paper analyzes the most recent WTO Appellate Body (AB) report in a series of disputes between the US and the EU over government support to aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus. The measures under dispute in US–Tax Incentives were investment promotion subsidies provided to Boeing by the State of Washington. The EU contended that the Washington State subsidies, which were conditioned on Boeing locating production of specific parts of its new 777X program within the state, were prohibited import substitution subsidies. The AB took this case as an opportunity to consolidate WTO case-law on import substitution subsidies. It confirmed a single legal standard for export promotion and import substitution subsidies but with a stricter requirement for a finding of a violation in the case of import substitution subsidies. We argue that the AB, in allowing the subsidies to Boeing, unnecessarily blurred the distinction between contingency in law and contingency in fact by ruling that identifying a condition requiring the use of domestic inputs would be a necessary element for a determination of a de facto contingency. This appears to be an unduly formalistic view that leaves little legal space for any de facto contingency claim in the future.

中文翻译：

---

航空领域的补贴和投资促进达到新高度：美国与税收优惠的争议

本文分析了 WTO 上诉机构 (AB) 在美国和欧盟之间就政府支持飞机制造商波音和空中客车公司的一系列争端中的最新报告。争议中的措施美国税收优惠是华盛顿州向波音公司提供的投资促进补贴。欧盟争辩说，华盛顿州的补贴以波音将其新 777X 计划的特定部件的生产地点设在该州为条件，被禁止进口替代补贴。AB 以此案为契机，整合了 WTO 关于进口替代补贴的判例法。它确认了出口促进和进口替代补贴的单一法律标准，但对进口替代补贴案件的违规认定要求更为严格。我们认为，AB 在允许向波音公司提供补贴时，裁定认定需要使用国内投入的条件是确定事实上的或有事项的必要因素，从而不必要地模糊了法律上的或有事项与事实上的或有事项之间的区别。这似乎是一种过度形式主义的观点，在未来几乎没有为任何事实上的应急索赔留下法律空间。