Abstract
Individual states increasingly rely upon economic sanctions and sanctions with extraterritorial effects to achieve their foreign policy goals. However, the proliferation of economic sanctions, especially trade control, limits free trade between WTO members and targeted states, which urges them to question WTO consistency. For the WTO, the principal concern is sanction overreach and determining the legality of related trade measures under the WTO framework. Against this backdrop, this article analyses two potential justifications for trade control: invoking Article XX and Article XXI of the GATT 1994. The subsequent analysis focuses on the WTO consistency of the Anti-foreign Sanctions Law of the People’s Republic of China, particularly state practices, possible violations of WTO rules and invocation of the national security exception clause. Additionally, from the perspective of WTO rules, suggestions for the improvement of China’s anti-foreign sanctions regime are put forward. The conclusion emphasizes that the GATT exception cannot be used to justify all types of anti-foreign sanctions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R (adopted Oct. 12, 1998).
- 2.
Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R (adopted Oct. 12, 1998), para. 14.
- 3.
Appellate Body Report, United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, para. 115.
- 4.
Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/RW (adopted Nov. 21, 2001).
- 5.
Panel Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/RW (adopted June 15, 2001), paras. 5.66–5.67.
- 6.
Panel Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/RW (adopted June 15, 2001), para. 5.69.
- 7.
Panel Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/RW (adopted June 15, 2001), para. 3.84.
- 8.
Panel Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/RW (adopted June 15, 2001), para. 3.169.
- 9.
Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/RW (adopted Nov. 21, 2001).
- 10.
Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/RW (adopted Nov. 21, 2001), para. 164.
- 11.
Panel Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/RW (adopted June 15, 2001), para. 3.179.
- 12.
Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/RW (adopted Nov. 21, 2001), para. 141.
- 13.
Panel Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/RW (adopted June 15, 2001), para. 3.169.
- 14.
Panel Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/RW (adopted June 15, 2001), para. 3.169.
- 15.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), para. 7.72.
- 16.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), paras. 7.74, 7.75. An “emergency in international relations” must be understood as eliciting the same type of interests, all defense and military interests and law and public order interests, as those arising from the other matters addressed in the enumerated subparagraphs of Article XXI(b). Additionally, political or economic conflicts With other Members or states are not sufficient, of themselves, to constitute an emergency in international relations, unless they give rise to defence and military interests, or maintenance of law and public order interests.
- 17.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), para. 7.76.
- 18.
Panel Report, Saudi Arabia—Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, WTO Doc. WT/DS567/R (adopted June 16, 2020), paras. 7.257–7.259.
- 19.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), para. 7.70.
- 20.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), para. 7.43.
- 21.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), paras. 7.27,7.28.
- 22.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), paras. 7.28,7.29.
- 23.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), para. 7.45.
- 24.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), para. 7.31.
- 25.
WTO Panel Report, Russia—Traffic in Transit, supra n. 30.
- 26.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), para. 7.36.
- 27.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), para. 7.43.
- 28.
Article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade provides that “No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether made effective through quotas, import or export licences or other measures, shall be instituted or maintained by any contracting party on the importation of any product of the territory of any other contracting party or on the exportation or sale for export of any product destined for the territory of any other contracting party.”
- 29.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), para. 7.53.
- 30.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), para. 7.111.
- 31.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019), para. 7.130.
References
Alben, E. 2001. GATT and the fair wage: Historical perspective on the labor-trade link. Columbia Law Review 101 (6): 1410–1447.
Anti-foreign Sanctions Law of the People’s Republic of China. 2021. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-06/11/content_5616935.htm.
Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R (adopted Oct. 12, 1998).
Appellate Body Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/RW (adopted Nov. 21, 2001).
Appellate Body Report, United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WTO Doc. WT/DS2/AB/R (adopted May 20, 1996).
Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 307 F.2d 845, 866 (2d Cir. 1962). https://openjurist.org/307/f2d/845.
Bowett, D.W. 1958. Self-defense in international law. New York, N.Y.: Frederick A. Praeger.
Biersteker, T.J. 2016. Thinking about United Nations targeted sanctions. In Targeted sanctions: The impacts and effectiveness of United Nations action, ed. T.J. Biersteker, S.E. Eckert, and M. Tourinho, 11–37. Cambridge University Press.
Bogdanova, I. 2021. Targeted economic sanctions and WTO law: Examining the adequacy of the national security exception. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 48 (2): 171–200.
Bowett, D.W. 1972. Economic coercion and reprisals by states. Virginia Journal of International Law 13 (1): 1–12.
Bowett, D.W. 1976. International law and economic coercion. Virginia Journal of International Law 16 (2): 245–260.
Brown, D.K., et al. 1996. International labor standards and trade: A theoretical analysis. In Fair trade and harmonization: Prerequisites for free trade, ed. J.N. Bhagwati and R.E. Hudec, 240. MIT Press.
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, Pub.L. No. 108-61, 117 Stat. 864. 2003. https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ61/PLAW-108publ61.pdf.
Doxey, M.P. 1971. Economic sanctions and international enforcement. Oxford University Press.
Du, T. 2015. Economic sanctions in international law. Law Press.
Further Imposition of Sanctions Against Russia With the Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List, 87 F.R. 13141 (proposed March 9, 2020) (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 744). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/09/2022-04925/further-imposition-of-sanctions-against-russia-with-the-addition-of-certain-entities-to-the-entity.
Garner, B.A. 2004. Black’s law dictionary, 8th ed. Thomson West.
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 15, 1994, https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm#top.
H&M Group. 2021, March 24. H&M group statement on due diligence in Xinjiang. H&M. https://hmgroup.com/content/dam/hmgroup/groupsite/documents/masterlanguage/CSR/duediligence/Update%20on%20Due%20Diligence.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2022.
Hyde, C., and L.B. Wehle. 1933. The boycott in foreign affairs. American Journal of International Law 27 (1): 1–10.
International Labor Organization. 2000. International labor conference: Provisional record, eighty-eighth session, Geneva, 2000. https://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc88/pdf/pr-5.pdf.
Jisong, Jian. 2007. Discussion on the judiciary and legality of unilateral economic sanctions. Law Science 01: 80–87.
Kim, M. 2012. Disguised protectionism and linkages to the GATT/WTO. World Politics 64 (3): 426–475.
Languages, O. 2007. Shorter oxford English dictionary, 6th ed. Oxford University Press.
Lauterpacht, H.H. 1933. Boycott in international relations. British Year Book of International Law 14: 125–140.
Lillich, R.B. 1975. Economic coercion and the international legal order. International Affairs 51 (3): 358–371.
Macak, K. 2016. Decoding article of the international law commission’s articles on state responsibility: Attribution of cyber operations by non-state actors. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 21 (3): 405–428.
McGovern, E.J. 1986. International trade regulation. Globefield Press.
Muir, J. 1974. The boycott in international law. Journal of International Law and Economics 9 (2): 187–204.
National Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, art. 2. 2015. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2015-07/01/content_2893902.htm.
Oppenheim, L., R.Y. Jennings, and A. Watts. 1992. Oppenheim’s international law, vol. 1. Longman.
Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 26, 2019).
Panel Report, Saudi Arabia—Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, WTO Doc. WT/DS567/R (adopted June 16, 2020).
Panel Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/RW (adopted June 15, 2001).
Panel Report, United States—Restrictions on the Imports of Tuna, WTO Doc. DS29/R (June 16, 1994).
Pufendorf, S., B. Kennett, G. Carew, and J. Barbeyrac. 2005. Of the law of nature and nations: Eight books, 4th ed. Lawbook Exchange Ltd.
Qiu, F.L. 2021. Corresponding anti-sanctions against the US relevant officials. Xinhua net, December 21. http://www.news.cn/world/2021-12/21/c_1128186521.htm.
Senz, D., and H. Charlesworth. 2001. Building blocks: Australia’s response to foreign extraterritorial legislation. Melbourne Journal of International Law 2 (1): 69–121.
Shihata, I.F. 1974. Destination embargo of Arab oil: Its legality under international law. American Journal of International Law 68 (4): 591–627.
Stone, J. 2022. Aggression and world order. University of California Press.
Sui, B.K. 2022. Ministry of foreign affairs: China announces corresponding countermeasures. Cctvnewscenter, March 31. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/lnFbORr-k1M43liORqNVVA.
Sutter, K.M. 2020, October 26. China issues new Export Control Law and related policies. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IN11524.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2020.
Thomas, A.V.W. 1972. The concept of aggression in international law. Southern Methodist University Press.
Trebilcock, M.J., and R. Howse. 2005. Trade policy and labor standards. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 14 (2): 261–300.
U.N. Charter art. 2, para. 4.
United Nations General Assembly. 1952. Report of the Secretary-General on the question of defining aggression. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/720794/files/A_2211-EN.pdf.
United States-Restrictions on the Imports of Tuna (Sept. 3, 1991), GATT BISD (39th Supp.), at 155 (1993).
Wang, H.X. 2020. The evolution of unilateral economic sanctions under international law. Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law 35 (04): 93–99.
Whitt, R. 1987. The politics of procedure: An examination of the GATT dispute settlement panel and the article xxi defense in the context of the U.S. embargo of Nicaragua. Law and Policy in International Business 19 (3): 603–632.
World Trade Organization. 2004. Trade policy review: United States. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp226_crc_e.htm.
Xinhua. 2022. Ukraine serves diplomatic relations with Russia. China Daily, February 24. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202202/24/WS621752fba310cdd39bc88bee.html.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Du, T., Ye, Z. (2023). Trade Control and WTO Law: Examining the Adequacy of the GATT Exception. In: Zhang, L., Tan, X. (eds) A Chinese Perspective on WTO Reform. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8230-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8230-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-8229-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-8230-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)