One of the interesting things about the zeroing cases (some might say more interesting than the issue of zeroing itself) is how the existence of many, many prior panel/Appellate Body reports addressing zeroing leads to discussions of the role of precedent in WTO law. This is from the U.S. opening statement in the U.S. - Zeroing (Korea) (DS402) case:
To be clear, as Korea and the United States agree, prior adopted panel and Appellate Body reports are not binding on panels considering other disputes. Rather, the rights and obligations of Members flow from the text of the covered agreements. In that regard, we disagree strongly with the presentation by one third party relating to the status of adopted Appellate Body reports under the DSU and their relation to the role of this Panel. In addressing the issues presented in this dispute, what we have asked you to do, and are confident you will do, is to fulfill your function under Article 11 of the DSU, and make an objective assessment of the matter before you, including an objective assessment of the facts and the conformity of the challenged measures with the relevant covered agreements.
I'm curious to see what this third party had to say (hopefully there will be some details in the panel report). Perhaps the disagreement among the Members as part of this dispute will lead to further clarification on exactly how persuasive prior panel and Appellate Body reports are supposed to be.