Shedding Light on WTO Jurisdiction and Preventing Abuse of The Security Exception Provision
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/lslr.v8i2.13473Keywords:
Security Exception, WTO, Self Judging, AbuseAbstract
This paper critically analyzes the World Trade Organization (WTO) jurisdiction over disputes involving the use of the Security Exception (SE) under Article XXI(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, and explores measures the WTO could take to prevent the abuse of this provision. The study utilizes legislative, case-based, and historical approaches within a normative juridical framework to examine the complexities surrounding the invocation of the SE. First, the paper demonstrates that the WTO does indeed have jurisdiction over disputes involving the SE, countering the perception that the 'self-judging' nature of Article XXI(b) absolves the WTO of oversight. This argument is supported by the WTO panel’s ruling in Russia – Traffic in Transit and reinforced by historical precedents, which confirm that affected countries can engage in consultations with the invoking state. Second, the paper identifies two critical instruments that could prevent the abuse of the SE provision. These instruments are rooted in the interpretation of the SE’s text, guided by the ordinary meaning of its terms, in accordance with the principle of good faith. The paper argues that more precise definitions of what constitutes an emergency situation affecting state security are essential to prevent the misuse of the SE for protectionist or politically motivated purposes. Ultimately, the research calls for a more robust framework to ensure that the Security Exception serves its intended purpose—protecting legitimate national security interests—while preventing its exploitation for unjustifiable trade barriers. The WTO must develop clearer guidelines and stronger mechanisms for transparency and accountability to maintain the integrity of the global trading system.
References
Aditi Warrier. “The Essential Security Interest Conundrum for India.” New York University Journal of International Law & Politics 53, no. 3 (Spring 2021): 1031–41.
Amna Saif Al-Naemi, Fatma Ghulam Usman, Khadeeja Nasser Al-Seagh, Maha Jawhar Al-Jassim, Noora Abdullah Al-Semaiti, and Sara Ibrahim Al-Obaidli. “The Blockade Imposed Against Qatar: An Analytical Study of WTO Principles.” International Review of Law 2018, no. 1 (January 2018): 19–44. https://doi.org/10.29117/irl.2019.0008.
Bogdanova, Iryna. “Adjudication of the GATT Security Clause: To Be or Not to Be, This Is the Question.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3359187.
Boklan, Daria, and Amrita Bahri. “The First WTO’s Ruling on National Security Exception: Balancing Interests or Opening Pandora’s Box?” World Trade Review 19, no. 1 (January 2020): 123–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745619000430.
Buzan, Barry. People, States, and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1983.
“Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2, of the Charter).” Advisory Opinion. International Court of Justice, July 20, 1962.
Chang, Yen-Chiang. “Letter to the Journal Dual-Use Products in the Course of Considering National Security Exceptions under GATT Article XXI.” Chinese Journal of International Law 21, no. 2 (September 23, 2022): 383–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmac021.
“Decision Concerning Article XXI of the General Agreement.” World Trade Organization, 1982. https://www.wto.org/gatt_docs/english/SULPDF/91000212.pdf.
Eisenhut, Dominik. “Sovereignty, National Security and International Treaty Law. The Standard of Review of International Courts and Tribunals with Regard to ‘Security Exceptions.’” Archiv Des Völkerrechts, 48. Bd., no. 4 (2010): 431–66.
European Union. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (n.d.).
Feret, Gabriela. “Invocation of the GATT Security Exception after the Russia – Traffic in Transit Case.” Acta Iuridica Resoviensia 35, no. 4 (2021): 36–46. https://doi.org/10.15584/actaires.2021.4.3.
Gunawan, Yordan, M Fabian Akbar, and Eva Ferrer Corral. “WTO Trade War Resolution for Japan’s Chemical Export Restrictions to South Korea.” PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) 9, no. 3 (2022): 408–31. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v9n3.a6.
Ikeda, Kentaro. “A Proposed Interpretation of GATT Article XXI (B) (II) in Light of Its Implications For Export Control.” Cornell International Law Journal 54 (February 1, 2021). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3815334.
Juliannoor, Aris Rahmat, and Sefriani Sefriani. “Itar and the Security Exception: Lessons For Developing Indonesian Defensive Satellites.” Prophetic Law Review 5, no. 1 (June 1, 2023): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.20885/PLR.vol5.iss1.art1.
Koul, Autar Krishen. Guide to the WTO and GATT: Economics, Law and Politics. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2089-7.
Liebman, John R, and Kevin J Lombardo. “Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount A Guide to Export Controls for the Non-Specialist.” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 28, no. 3 (2006): 497–519.
Lohmeyer, Whitney Q., Morgan Dwyer, Gwendolyn V. Gettliffe, Annie Marinan, Farah Alibay, Annalisa Weigef, and Kerri Cahoy. “The Global Impact of ITAR on the For-Profit and Non-Profit Space Communities,” Vol. 25th. Naples, Italy: International Astronautical Federation, 2012. http://www.iafastro.net/iac/paper/id/14466/summary/.
Mantilla Blanco, Sebastián, and Alexander Pehl. National Security Exceptions in International Trade and Investment Agreements: Justiciability and Standards of Review. SpringerBriefs in Law. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38125-7.
Misra, Kartikey Vipul. “Analysing the ‘Self Judging’ Nature of Article XXI of the GATT.” International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation 4, no. 1 (2022): 593–606. https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLSI.111358.
Organization, World Trade. “WTO Analytical Index: GATT 1994,” 2023. https://www.wto-ilibrary.org/content/reports/25193368/10.
Peter Van den Bossche and Sarah Akpofure. “The Use and Abuse of the National Security Exception under Article XXI(b)(Iii) of the GATT 1994.” In WTI Working Paper No. 03/2020, 31. Beijing: Universitat Bern, n.d.
Pinchis-Paulsen, Mona. “Trade Multilateralism and U.S. National Security: The Making of The GATT Security Exceptions.” Michigan Journal of International Law 41, no. 1 (Spring 2020): 109–94.
Prazeres, Tatiana Lacerda. “Trade and National Security: Rising Risks for the WTO.” World Trade Review 19, no. 1 (January 2020): 137–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745619000417.
Ramadhan Bismono, Joko Priyono, and Nanik Trihastuti. “The Problems of Interpreting GATT Article XXI(b)(Iii) in Russia – Traffic in Transit.” Journal of International Trade Law and Policy 21, no. 1 (February 14, 2022): 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-10-2021-0054.
Rashid, Zahida, and A. Z. Hilali. “Geo-Politics of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) Status under the WTO and Future of Trade between India-Pakistan.” Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal (LASSIJ) 4, no. 1 (September 18, 2020): 54–65. https://doi.org/10.47264/idea.lassij/4.1.6.
Ravikumar, Sandeep. “The GATT Security Exception: Systemic Safeguards Against Its Misuse.” NUJS Law Review 9, no. 3–4 (2016): 322.
Rotimi, Olufunlola. “The Qatari Blockade: Was an International Legal Resolution Possible?” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4056619.
“RUSSIA - MEASURES CONCERNING TRAFFIC IN TRANSIT (Action by the Dispute Settlement Body).” Panel Report. World Trade Organization, April 26, 2019.
Sacerdoti, Giorgio. “The Wto and Its Dispute Settlement System in 2022: From the First Appellate Arbitrations to the Unsuccessful Invocation of the Security Exception.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4369702.
Sanklecha, Jay Manoj. “The Limitations on the Invocation of Self-Judging Clauses in the Context of WTO Dispute Settlement.” Indian Journal of International Law 59, no. 1–4 (February 2021): 77–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-019-00108-6.
“Saudi Arabia – Measures Concerning The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights.” Report of the Panel. World Trade Organization, June 16, 2020.
Sefriani, Sefriani, and Nur Gemilang Mahardhika. “Implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution under the Indonesian Legal System.” Journal of East Asia and International Law 14, no. 2 (November 30, 2021): 341–56. https://doi.org/10.14330/jeail.2021.14.2.06.
Sekine, Takemasa. “Security Exception Clauses under Free Trade Agreements.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4370053.
Slawotsky, Joel. “The Fusion of Ideology, Technology and Economic Power: Implications of the Emerging New United States National Security Conceptualization.” Chinese Journal of International Law 20, no. 1 (July 26, 2021): 3–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmab007.
Soprano, Roberto. WTO Trade Remedies in International Law: Their Role and Place in a Fragmented International Legal System. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon [UK] ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2018. |: Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315189963.
Sundaram, Jae. WTO Law and Policy: A Political Economy Approach. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2022. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367028183.
Sutrasna, Yudi. “Strategi Pertahanan Indonesia Dalam Menghadapi Ancaman Militer Dan Non Militer Melalui Prespektif Ekonomi Pertahanan.” Syntax Literate ; Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia 8, no. 7 (July 6, 2023): 4812–23. https://doi.org/10.36418/syntax-literate.v8i7.12871.
Tao Du and Ziwen Ye. “Trade Control and Wto Law: Examining the Adequacy of the Gatt Exception.” In A Chinese Perspective on WTO Reform, edited by Lei Zhang and Xiaowen Tan, 171–89. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8230-9.
the North American Free Trade Agreement (n.d.).
United Nations. United Nations Charter (n.d.).
Verensia Vista Monzalsha, Arie Kusuma Paksi, and Muhammad Dafa Hanggariksa. “Australia-China Trade Tensions During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Australia’s Reaction to China Trade Sanctions.” International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding 10, no. 2 (February 2023): 154–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v10i2.4293.
Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties 1969 (1969).
Viktoriia Lapa. “The WTO Panel Report in Russia – Traffic in Transit: Cutting the Gordian Knot of the GATT Security Exception?” Question of International Law, Zoom In 69 (2020): 5–27.
Voon, Tania. “Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit.” American Journal of International Law 114, no. 1 (January 2020): 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2019.72.
Wang, Chao. “Invocation of National Security Exceptions under GATT Article XXI: Jurisdiction to Review and Standard of Review.” Chinese Journal of International Law 18, no. 3 (September 1, 2019): 695–712. https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmz029.
Wolff, Alan Wm., and Warren Maruyama. “Saving the WTO from the National Security Exception.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4453718.
World Trade Organization. “Russia - Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit (WT/DS512/R).” Report of the Panel. World Trade Organization, April 5, 2019.
World Trade Organization. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994).
World Trade Organization. Notification on GATT Council. “Addendum to Sweden - Import Restriction on Certain Footwear.” Notification on GATT Council, March 17, 1977. https://docs.wto.org/gattdocs/q/GG/L4399/4250A1.PDF.
World Trade Organization. “Council of Representatives - Report on Work Since Thirtieth Session.” Summary. GATT Council, November 25, 1975. https://docs.wto.org/gattdocs/q/GG/L4399/4254.PDF.
World Trade Organization. “Summary Record on Twenty-Second Meeting.” Summary. Annecy: GATT Council, June 8, 1949. https://docs.wto.org/gattdocs/q/GG/GATTCP3/SR22.PDF.
World Trade Organization. Notification on GATT Council. “Sweden - Import Restriction on Certain Footwear.” Notification on GATT Council, November 17, 1975. https://www.wto.org/gatt_docs/English/SULPDF/90920073.pdf.
World Trade Organization. Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (1986). https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/28-dsu.pdf.
World Trade Organization. “United States – Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products: Report of The Panel.” Report of the Panel. World Trade Organization, December 9, 2022.
World Trade Organization. “WTO | Dispute Settlement - DS526: United Arab Emirates — Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services, and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.” Accessed March 5, 2023. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds526_e.htm.
Yong-Shik Lee. “Three Wrongs Do Not Make a Right: The Conundrum of the US Steel and Aluminum Tariffs.” World Trade Review 18, no. 3 (July 2019): 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474561900020X.
Zhou, Weihuan, Huiqin Jiang, and Zhe Chen. “Trade vs. Security: Recent Developments of Global Trade Rules and China’s Policy and Regulatory Responses from Defensive to Proactive.” World Trade Review 22, no. 2 (May 2023): 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474562200026X.
Downloads
Published
Article ID
13473Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Prof. Dr. Sefriani, S.H., M.Hum., Aris Rahmat Julian, Dr. Seguito Monteiro, S.H., M.H. (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
All writings published in this journal are personal views of the authors and do not represent the view of this journal and the author's affiliated institutions. Authors retain the copyrights under this license, see our copyrights notice.
