Question

求翻译！英译中。

一
Rather, in view of the Appellate Body's observation on the limitationof its mandate under Articles 17.6 and 17.13 of the DSU in its recent report onthe Periodicals case 56 , the Panel felt all the more strongly the need toavoid a legal vacuum in the event that, upon appeal, the Appellate Body were toreverse the Panel's findings on Article 70.8.

二
.In India's view, the more appropriate question was whetherArticle 70.9 obliged Members to grant exclusive marketing rights to particularproducts that met the conditions specified in that provision or whether thisprovision obliged Members to authorize their executive authorities to grantsuch rights before the occasion to exercise such authority arose.

三
According to India,India did not argue that Article 70.9 applied only as from certain dates oronly during certain periods, nor could India be reasonably expected to indicatesuch dates. India's essential argument was that, because operators would "normally"be interested in exclusive marketing rights only in the five-year periodpreceding patentability, the objective of Article 70.9 could not have been tooblige developing countries to change their laws as from the entry into forceof the WTO Agreement.

Answer 1

一相反，鉴于上诉机构观察其第17.6和17.13 DSU在其最近的报告中强奎期刊案件56下的任务限制，委员会感到了更强烈的需要toavoid一个法律真空的事件，上诉后，上诉机构关于第70.8条的扭转小组的调查结果。
二印度认为，更合适的问题是是否第二十70.9有义务大家来授予的独家销售权特别是产品符合该规定或授权授出之际前的有关权利他们的行政当局是否有义务此提供会员指定的条件行使这种权力产生。
三据印度，印度没有争辩70.9条只适用于特定日期或只在某些时期，印度也可以合理预期表明上述日期。印度的必不可少的论点，因为运营商将“正常”被感兴趣的独家销售权只在专利前五年期间，第70.9条的目标可能不会有一直迫使发展中国家从入门到改变他们的法律强制“WTO协定”。