GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit

Year 2019, , 511 - 552, 03.12.2019

Ömer Faruk Direk

https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015

Abstract

It has been witnessed - especially for the last couple of years - that several states have relied on GATT Article XXI (or the so-called the WTO national security exception) to derogate from their WTO obligations. GATT Article XXI states that contracting parties are not precluded from taking any action which they consider necessary for the protection of their essential national security interests. In turn, such an exception has raised difficult legal questions since the inception of the GATT. First, is the authority vested in the contracting parties self-judging, or can it be reviewed by WTO adjudicatory bodies? Second, what is the standard for a review to be conducted in respect of Article XXI ratione materiae? This Article examines the reviewability and meaning of the WTO national security exception in depth. It also pays specific attention to Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit (DS 512), which is the first ever adjudication of GATT Article XXI by a WTO panel. Overall, this Article argues that while the question of its reviewability should no longer be disputable, there still exists a continuous quest to clarify the entire material scope of GATT Article XXI. 

Keywords

GATT Article XXI, WTO National Security Exception, Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, the Good Faith Obligation, Djibouti v. France, Certain Iranian Assets

Supporting Institution

The author received no financial support for this work.

Gümrük Tarifeleri ve Ticaret Genel Anlaşması Madde XXI, Süregelen Muğlak Içeriğinin Açıklığa Kavuşturulması ve Russia-Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit Kararı

Abstract

Dünya Ticaret Örgütü’ne taraf birçok devlet, son yıllarda Gümrük Tarifeleri ve Ticaret Genel Anlaşması Madde XXI tahtında DTÖ Anlaşmalarındaki yükümlülüklerinden kaçınmaya başlamıştır. DTÖ Anlaşmalarında istisnai bir hüküm olarak kabul edilen Madde XXI, üye devletlere ulusal güvenliğin korunması adına önemli bir takdir yetkisi vermektedir. Ancak hem bu Maddenin muğlak ve tartışmalı olan içeriği hem de şimdiye kadar olan uygulaması uluslararası hukuk açısından ayrıntılı bir incelemeyi gerektirmektedir. Bu bağlamda, bu makale Madde XXI ile ilgili iki temel soruya cevap aramaktadır. Makalede, ilk olarak üye devletlere verilen takdir yetkisinin münhasır olup olmadığı yada DTÖ panelleri tarafından yargılanıp yargılanamayacağı irdelenmektedir. Daha sonra ise, söz konusu takdir yetkisinin yargılanabilir olduğu kabul edildiği durumda, yapılacak olan yargılamanın hangi ölçütlere göre yapılması gerektiği tartışılmaktadır. Yapılan bu incelemeler, Madde XXI uygulaması ile ilgili ilk DTÖ panel kararı niteliğini haiz ve çok yakın zamanda verilmiş olan Russia- Measures concerning Traffic in Transit kararı ışığında ele alınmıştır. Makale, özetle, üye devletlere bırakılan takdir yetkisin münhasır olmadığını, ancak bu yetkinin süregelen muğlak içeriğinin açıklığa kavuşturulma ihtiyacının devam etmekte olduğunu iddia etmektedir. 

Keywords

Dünya Ticaret Örgütü, Gümrük Tarifeleri ve Ticaret Genel Anlaşması Madde XXI, Russia- Measures concerning Traffic in Transit, Uluslararası hukukta iyiniyet kuralı, Djibouti v. France, Certain Iranian Assets

References

• Primary Sources
• Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom (App No 27021/08) ECHR 07 July 2011
• Appellate Body, United States- Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (1996) WT/DS2/AB/R
• Appellate Body, US — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China) WT/DS379/AB/R Appellate Body, US — Gambling, WT/DS285/AB/R, WT/DS285/AB/R/Corr.1
• Case Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France) [2008] ICJ Judgment <https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/136/136-20080604-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf> accessed 16 April 2019
• Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) [1986] ICJ 14
• Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) [2019] ICJ Preliminary Objections <https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/164/164-20190213-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf> accessed 15 April 2019
• Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France) [2006] ICJ Application Institution Proceedings <https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/136/13104.pdf> accessed 16 April 2019
• Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France) [2008] ICJ Oral Proceedings of France
• European Office of the United Nations, “Adoption and Signature of the Final Act” <http:// sulderivatives.stanford.edu/derivative?CSNID=90260240&mediaType=application/pdf> accessed 14 April 2019
• GATT Multilateral Trade Negotiations – the Uruguay Round, “Article XXI- Note by the Secretariat” (1987) <https://docs.wto.org/gattdocs/q/UR/GNGNG07/W16.PDF> accessed 15 April 2019
• Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan, “2015 Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade Agreements- WTO, FTA/EPA and IIA-“ (Part II WTO Rules and Major Cases Chapter 17) https://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/2015WTO/02_17.pdf> accessed 14 April 2019
• Nada v. Switzerland (App No 10593/08) ECHR 12 September 2012
• Panel Report, Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit (DS 512) <https://www.wto.org/ english/tratop_e/dispu_e/512r_e.pdf> accessed 25 April 2019
• Panel Report, United States- Trade Measures Affecting Nicaragua (1986) L/6053
• Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) [1992] ICJ Rep 3
• Territorial Dispute Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Chad) [1994] ICJ Reports 6
• Third Party Oral Statement by the European Union, Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit (DS 512) <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/february/tradoc_156603.pdf> accessed 15 April 2019
• Third Party Oral Statement of the United States of America, Russia- Measures concerning Traffic in Transit (DS512), (2018) <https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/DS/US.3d.Pty. Stmt.%28as%20delivered%29.fin.%28public%29.pdf#page=7> accessed 14 April 2019
• United States Department of the Treasury, “Iran Sanction” <https://www.treasury.gov/resourcecenter/sanctions/programs/pages/iran.aspx> accessed 27 April 2019
• White House, “Presidential Proclamation on Adjusting Imports of Aluminium into the United States” (2018) <https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamationadjusting-imports-aluminum-united-states-4/> accessed 14 April 2019
• White House, “Presidential Proclamation on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States” (2018) para 2 <https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamationadjusting-imports-steel-united-states/>accessed 14 April 2019
• World Trade Organization, “Appendix 3 to Article 12 of the DSU” <https://www.wto.org/english/ res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/dsu_app3_jur.pdf> accessed 14 April 2019
• World Trade Organization, “Article XXI- Security Exceptions”, GATT-Al-2012-Art21 <https:// www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art21_e.pdf> accessed 15 April 2019
• World Trade Organization, “Dispute Settlement Body” <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ dispu_e/dispu_body_e.htm> accessed 14 April 2019
• World Trade Organization, “Members and Observers of the WTO” <https://www.wto.org/english/ thewto_e/countries_e/org6_map_e.htm> accessed 14 April 2019
• World Trade Organization, “United States- Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products- Communication from the United States” <https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_ S006.aspx?Query=(%40Symbol%3d+wt%2fds564%2f*)&Language=ENGLISH&Context =FomerScriptedSearch&languageUIChanged=true> accessed 14 April 2019
• World Trade Organization, “United States- Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products” <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds556_e.htm> accessed 14 April 2019
• World Trade Organization, “United States- Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products- Constitution of the panel Established at the Request of China- Note by the Secretariat” <https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.aspx?Query=(%40Symbol%3d+ wt%2fds544%2f*)&Language=ENGLISH&Context=FomerScriptedSearch&language UIChanged=true> accessed 14 April 2019
• World Trade Organization, “WTO Legal Texts” <https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/ legal_e.htm> accessed 14 April 2019
• Secondary Sources
• Alain Pellet, “Sanctions Unilatérales et Droit International / Unilateral Sanctions and International Law” (2015) 76 Yearbook of Institute of International Law 721
• Alexander Orakhelashvili, ‘R (On the Application of Al-Jedda) (FC) v. Secretary of State for Defence: UK House of Lords Judgment on Relationship between UN Security Council Resolution Authorising Detention in Iraq and European Convention on Human Rights’ (2008) 102 American Journal of International Law 337
• Andrew Emmerson, “Conceptualizing Security Exceptions: Legal Doctrine or Political Excuse” (2010) 11 Journal of International Economic Law 135
• Brandon J. Murrill, “The ‘National Security Exception’ and the World Trade Organization” (2018) Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar, 1 <https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/LSB10223. pdf> accessed 14 April 2019
• Chad P. Pown, Self-Enforcing Trade: Developing Countries and WTO Dispute Settlement (Brookings Institution Press, 2009) 14
• Christopher Layne, “The Global Power Shift from West to East” (2012) 119 The National Interest 21
• Dapo Akande & Sope Williams, “International Adjudication on National Security Issues: What Role for the WTO?” (2003) 43 Vanderbilt Journal of International Law 365
• Diane Desierto, “Protean ‘National Security’ in Global Trade Wars, Investment Walls, and Regulatory Controls: Can ‘National Security’ Ever Be Unreviewable in International Economic Law?” (2018) <https://www.ejiltalk.org/national-security-defenses-in-trade-wars-and-investmentwalls-us-v-china-and-eu-v-us/> accessed 14 April 2019
• Eric Picket & Michael Lux, “Embargo as a Trade Defence against an Embargo: The WTO Compatibility of the Russian Ban on Imports from the EU” (2015) 10
• Global Trade and Customs Journal 2 Frieder Roessler & Petina Gappah “A Re-Appraisal of Non-Violation Complaints under the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures in Patrick F. J. Macrory, Arthur E. Appleton & Michael G. Plummer (eds) The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis (Springer, 2005)
• George-Dian Balan, “On Fissionable Cows and the Limits to the WTO Security Exceptions” (2018) Society of International Economic Law (SEIL) Sixth Biennial Global Conference <https:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3218513> accessed 15 April 2019
• Hannes L. Scholemann & Stefan Ohlhoff, “Constitutionalization and Dispute Settlement in the WTO: National Security as an Issue of Competence” (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 424
• Jack Goldsmith & Daryl Levinson, “Law for States: International Law, Constitutional Law, Public Law” (2008-2009) 122 (1) Harvard Law Review 1791
• Jaemin Lee, “Commercializing National Security? National Security Exceptions’ Outer Parameter under GATT Article XXI” (2018) 13 Asian Center for WTO & International Health Law and Policy 277
• Joaquín Alcaide Fernández, “Countermeasures” in Anthony Carter (eds), Oxford Bibliographies in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2013)
• Judith L. Goldstein & Richard H. Steinberg, “Negotiate or Litigate? Effects of WTO Judicial Delegation on U.S. Trade Politics” (2008) 71 Law and Contemporary Problems 257
• Marko Milanovic, ‘Norm Conflict in International Law: Whither Human Rights?’ (2009) 20 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 69 Meredith A. Crowley, “An Introduction to the WTO and GATT” (2003) 4 Economic Perspective 42
• Michael Cox, “The Rise of Populism and the Crisis of Globalisation: Brexit, Trump and Beyond” (2017) 28 Irish Studies in International Affairs 9 Michael J. Hahn, “Vital Interests and the Law of the GATT- An Analysis of GATT’s Security Exception” (1991) 12
• Michigan Journal of International Law 620 Michael P. Malloy, “Où est Votre Chapeau? Economic Sanctions and Trade Regulations” (2013) 4 Chicago Journal of International Law 371
• Omer Faruk Direk, Security Detention in International Territorial Administration of Kosovo, East Timor, and Iraq (Brill Nijhoff, 2015)
• Peter Lindsay, “The Ambiguity of GATT Article XXI; Subtle Success or Rampant Failure” (2003) 52 Duke Law Journal 1277
• Raj Bhala, “National Security and International Trade Law: What the GATT Says, and What the United States Does” (1998) 19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 263
• Robert Kolb, “Principles as Sources of International Law: With Special Reference to Good Faith” (2006) 53 Netherland International Law Review 1
• Robyn Briese & Stephan Schill, “Djibouti v France: Self-Judging Clauses before the International Court of Justice” (2009) 10 Melbourne Journal of International Law 308
• Roger P. Alford, “The Self-Judging WTO Security Exception” (2011) 3 Utah Law Review 697
• Shahrzad Fazeli, “Restrictions on Trade for Security Reasons: A Legal Analysis of the Scope of Article XXI of the GATT in Light of the Ukraine Crisis and the EU Sanctions on the Export of Dual-Use Goods to Russia” (2015), <http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:792425/ FULLTEXT01.pdf> accessed 14 April 2019
• Sıtkı Egeli, “Making Sense of Turkey’s Air and Missile Defense Merry-go-round”, (2019) 8 All Azimuth 69
• Steven Reinhold, “Good Faith in International Law” (2013) 2 UCL Journal of International Law 40
• Susan Rose-Ackerman & Benjamin Billa, “Treaties and National Security Exceptions” (2008) 40 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 437
• Todd Piczak, “The Helms-Burton Act: US Foreign Policy toward Cuba, the National Security Exception to the GATT and the Political Question Doctrine” (1999) 61 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 287
• Wesley A. Cann, Jr., “Creating Standards and Accountability for the Use of the WTO Security Exception: Reducing the Role of Power-Based Relations and Establishing a New Balance between Sovereignty and Multilateralism” (2001) 26 Yale Journal of International Law 413