Advertisement

The First Generation of National Security Exceptions: The GATT and Its Legacy

  • Sebastián Mantilla Blanco
  • Alexander Pehl
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Law book series (BRIEFSLAW)

Abstract

Article XXI of the GATT is at the heart of the first generation of security exceptions in post-Second World War economic treaties. The GATT national security exception grants a Member State discretion to adopt trade-restrictive security measures which ‘it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests’. An analysis of the GATT exception’s wording, object and purpose, and drafting history, shows that such discretion was never intended to apply without limits.

References

  1. Alexandroff AS, Sharma R (2005) The national security provision: GATT Article XXI. In: Appleton AE, Plummer MG (eds) The world trade organization: legal, economic and political analysis. Springer, Boston, pp 1571–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alford R (2011) The self-judging WTO exception. Utah Law Rev 3:697–759Google Scholar
  3. Anuradha RV (2018) Petrificus Totalus: the spell of national security! Asian J WTO & Int Health Law & Policy 13:311–332Google Scholar
  4. Balan G-D (2018) On fissionable cows and the limits to the WTO security exceptions. Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), Sixth Biennial Global Conference, 2 July 2018Google Scholar
  5. Bartels L (2015) The chapeau of the general exceptions in the WTO GATT and GATS agreements: a reconstruction. Am J Int Law 109:95–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benzing M (2010) Das Beweisrecht vor internationalen Gerichten und Schiedsgerichten in zwischenstaatlichen Streitigkeiten. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berrisch G (2003) Das Allgemeine Zoll- und Handelsabkommen (GATT 1994). In: Prieß HJ, Berrisch G (eds) WTO-Handbuch. CH Beck, München, 71–16Google Scholar
  8. Bhala R (1998) National security and international trade law: what the GATT says, and what the United States does. Univ Pa J Int Law 19(2):263–317Google Scholar
  9. Bogdanova I (2019) The WTO panel ruling on the national security exception: has the panel “Cut” the baby in half? EJIL Talk, 12 April 2019. https:\\ejiltalk.org/the-wto-panel-ruling-on-the-national-security-exception-has-the-panel-cut-the-baby-in-half. Accessed 1 Sept 2019
  10. Burke-White W, von Staden A (2008) Investment protection in extraordinary times: the interpretation and application of non-precluded measures provisions in bilateral investment treaties. Va J Int Law 48(2):307–410Google Scholar
  11. Charnovitz S (2018) EU can retaliate immediately against Trump’s metal tariffs. International Economic Law and Policy Blog, 9 March 2018. https:\\worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2018/03/eu-can-retaliate-immediately-against-trumps-metal-tariffs.html. Accessed 1 Sept 2019
  12. Communication to the Members of the GATT Council (1982) Trade Restrictions Affecting Argentina Applied for Non-Economic Reasons. L/5319//Rev. 1Google Scholar
  13. Desierto DA (2012) Necessity and national emergency clauses: sovereignty in modern treaty interpretation. Brill, Nijhoff, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deutscher Bundestag (2018) Sachstand – Auslegung des Artikel XXI GATT (Ausnahmen zur Wahrung wesentlicher nationaler Sicherheitsinteressen) durch den Dispute Settlement Body der Welthandelsorganisation. WD 2- 3000 – 073/18Google Scholar
  15. Eisenhut D (2010) Sovereignty, national security and international treaty law: the standard of review of international courts and tribunals with regard to security exceptions. AVR 48:431–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emmes M (2019) Die Nachgeschichte des Ersten Weltkrieges: Vom Frieden, der zunächst keiner werden sollte. LIT, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Fukuyama F (1989) The end of history? Nat Interest 16:3–18Google Scholar
  18. Fukuyama F (1992) The end of history and the last man. First published 1992, Free Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  19. Fukuyama F (2018) Identity: contemporary identity politics and the struggle for recognition. Profile Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Glöckle C (2019) Nationale Sicherheitsinteressen in Russia-Traffic in Transit: Die erste Panel-Entscheidung zu Art. XXI-GATT. EuZW 15:652–659Google Scholar
  21. Goldsmith J, Posner E (2005) The limits of international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldstein J (1998) Creating the GATT rules: politics, institutions, and American policy. In: Howse R (ed) The world trading system: critical perspectives on the world economy, vol 1. Routledge, London, pp 22–49Google Scholar
  23. Hahn M (1991) Vital Interests and the Law of GATT: an analysis of GATT’s security exception. Mich J Int Law 12:558–620Google Scholar
  24. Hahn M (1996) Die einseitige Aussetzung von GATT-Verpflichtungen als Repressalie. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Herdegen M (2016) Principles of international economic law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herdegen M (2019) Völkerrecht, 18th edn. CH Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  27. Herrmann C, Weiß W, Ohler C (2007) Welthandelsrecht. CH Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson J (2006) Sovereignty, the WTO and changing fundamentals of international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koh H (2019) The Trump administration and international law. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Kolb R (2017) Good faith in international law. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Koul AK (2018) Guide to the WTO and the GATT: economics, law and politics. Springer, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krummeich G, Schröder J (eds) (2004) Der Schatten des Weltkrieges: Die Ruhrbesetzung 1923. Klartext, EssenGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee J (2017) Commercializing national security? National security exceptions’ outer parameter under GATT Article XXI. Asian J WTO Int Health Law Policy 13:277–310Google Scholar
  34. Lester S (2018) How should countries retaliate against the steel/aluminum tariffs? International Economic Law and Policy Blog, 6 March 2018. https:\\worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2018/03/how-should-countries-retaliate-against-the-steelaluminum-tariffs.html. Accessed 1 Sept 2019
  35. Lindsay P (2003) The ambiguity of GATT Article XXI: subtle success or rampant failure? Duke Law J 52:1277–1313Google Scholar
  36. Loewenfeld A (2008) International economic law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Matsushita M, Schoenbaum T, Mavroidis P, Hahn M (2015) The world trade organization: law, practice, and policy, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Mavroidis P (2005) The general agreement on tariffs and trade. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Mavroidis P (2012) Trade in goods. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Mendenhall J (2012) The evolution of the essential security exception in U.S. trade and investment agreements. In: Sauvant K, Sachs L, Schmit Jongbloed W (eds) Sovereign investment: concerns and policy reactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 310–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pelc KJ (2016) Making and bending international rules. The design of exceptions and escape clauses in trade law. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Sanger DE (1997) US won’t offer trade testimony on Cuba Embargo. New York Times, 21 Feb 1997Google Scholar
  43. Schill S, Briese R (2009) If the state considers: self-judging clauses in international dispute settlement. Max Planck Yearb UN Law Online 13:61–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schloemann HL, Ohlhoff S (1999) “Constitutionalization” and dispute settlement in the WTO: national security as an issue of competence. Am J Int Law 93(2):424–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schulze S-H (2015) Cyber-“War”-Testfall der Staatenverantwortlichkeit. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slawotsky J (2018) The national security exception in US-China FDI and trade: lessons from delaware corporate law. Chin J Comp Law 6(2):228–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spagnole J (1998) Can Helms-Burton be challenged under WTO? Stetson Law Rev 27:1313–1340Google Scholar
  48. van den Bossche P (2008) The law and policy of the world trade organization: text. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Cases and MaterialsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vandevelde KJ (2017) The first bilateral investment treaties: U.S. postwar friendship, commerce, and navigation treaties. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Voon T (2019) Can International trade recover? The security exception in WTO law: entering a new era. Am J Int Law Unbound 113:45–50Google Scholar
  51. Weiler J (2018) Black Lies, White Lies and Some Uncomfortable Truths in and of the International Trading System. EJIL Talk, 25 July 2018. https:\\ejiltalk.org/black-lies-white-lies-and-some-uncomfortable-truths-in-and-of-the-international-trading-system. Accessed 1 Sept 2019
  52. Wilcox C (1947) International trade organization: the London draft of a charter for an international trade organization. Am Econ Rev 37(2):529–541Google Scholar
  53. WTO, Analytical Index of the GATT (pre-1995). https:\\wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/gatt1994_e.html. Accessed 1 Sept 2019
  54. WTO, WTO Analytical index: interpretation and application of WTO agreements. https:\\wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/ai17_e.html. Accessed 1 Sept 2019

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastián Mantilla Blanco
    • 1
  • Alexander Pehl
    • 2
  1. 1.BonnGermany
  2. 2.CologneGermany

Personalised recommendations