Interpretation of the Security Exceptions in United States — Origin Marking Requirement

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

For the first time in the history of the WTO, the security exception was interpreted in the dispute Russia — Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit. For the second time, a similar provision was interpreted in the dispute Saudi Arabia — Measures concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights concerning the protection of intellectual property rights. The two panels in the two disputes followed a similar approach and used a combined approach to interpret the national security exceptions: a subjective approach for one part of the exception and an objective approach for the other part. In doing so, the panels took a narrow approach to interpreting the term “emergency in international relations”. The described, rather balanced and logical approach was substantially changed in the recent dispute US — Origin Marking Requirement. Unlike the panels in the previous two disputes, the Panel in the US — Origin Marking Requirement undertook a broad approach to interpreting the term “emergency in international relations”. The use of this approach may further exacerbate the current crisis in the WTO dispute settlement system and facilitate abuse by respondents in using the security exceptions in order to justify measures which are inconsistent with WTO agreements. Applying such a broad interpretation would result in a situation in which WTO law is complied with at will, as WTO Members would be able to rely on any situation involving tension in any international relations in order to justify trade-restrictive protectionists measures.

About the authors

Daria Sergeevna Boklan

HSE University

Email: boklan5@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1218-7485
Doctor of Sciences in Law, Professor, School of International Law, Faculty of Law, HSE University, Moscow, Russia

Elena Andreevna Murashko

HSE University; "Rybalkin, Gortsunyan, Dyakin & Partners" Law Firm

Email: elena.murashko@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8817-7860
Doctoral Student, School of International Law, Faculty of Law, HSE University; junior associate at Rybalkin, Gortsunyan, Dyakin Partners, Moscow, RussiaThe research was carried out within the framework of the project “New Approaches to the Regulation of International Economic Relations to Counter Sanctions: the Experience of Russian-Chinese Relations at the Global and Regional Level” by the Laboratory for the Study of Public Interest Protection under Economic Sanctions Doctoral Student, School of International Law, Faculty of Law, HSE University; junior associate at Rybalkin, Gortsunyan, Dyakin Partners, Moscow, Russia The research was carried out within the framework of the project “New Approaches to the Regulation of International Economic Relations to Counter Sanctions: the Experience of Russian-Chinese Relations at the Global and Regional Level” by the Laboratory for the Study of Public Interest Protection under Economic Sanctions. The opinions expressed in the article are the personal opinions of the authors and may not reflect the position of the organizations for which they work.

References

  1. Boklan D., Bahri A. (2020) The First WTO’s Ruling on National Security Exception: Balancing Interests or Opening Pandora’s Box? World Trade Review, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 123–136. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474745619000430
  2. Boklan D., Murashko E. (2022) Sanktsii v otnoshenii uslug i natsional’naya bezopasnost’: opravdanie ili zloupotreblenie? [Sanctions on trade in services and national security: justification or abuse?] Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 139–156. (In Russian).
  3. Bossche P. van de, Akpofure S. The Use and Abuse of the National Security Exception under Article XXI(b)(iii) of the GATT 1994. WTI Working Paper No. 03/2020. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004470354_004
  4. Bossche P., Zdouc W. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization. Cambridge University Press, 2013. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316662496
  5. Lindsay P. (2003) The Ambiguity of GATT Article XXI: Subtle Success or Rampant Failure? Duke Law Journal, vol. 52. no. 6, pp. 1277–1313. DOI:http://doi.org/10.2307/1373171 doi: 10.2307/1373171

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2023 Boklan D.S., Murashko E.A.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).