¹ See the India – Autos panel, where the first step in the analysis in determining whether there could be res judicata was to consider whether certain legal claims and measures already adjudicated were identical to those now before the panel. (paras. 7.83–7.103). The India – Autos panel never reached the issue of whether res judicata actually applies in WTO proceedings but began with investigating whether, assuming res judicata did apply, the criteria of identity of claims and measures could be met in this particular case. Having determined that they could not, the panel considered it unnecessary to provide a definitive answer to the question of whether res judicata is available in WTO law. In the Argentina – Poultry case the panel rejected an argument that res judicata applied with respect to previous proceedings in a non-WTO forum, MERCOSUR, but it also seemed to question whether res judicata could exist even as between an earlier and later WTO proceeding. In Argentina – Poultry, the panel seemed to confuse the issue of whether the res judicata could apply in later proceedings between the same parties on the same matter, with the question of whether panel rulings have binding precedential authority, i.e. are stare decisis in different matters between different parties (which of course they are not).