Public and Private International Law Bulletin

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015   IUP :10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015    Full Text (PDF)

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

Ömer Faruk Direk

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
DOI :10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015   IUP :10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015    Full Text (PDF)

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

Ömer Faruk Direk

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

PDF View

References

  • Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom (App No 27021/08) ECHR 07 July 2011 google scholar
  • Appellate Body, United States- Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (1996) WT/DS2/AB/R google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) [1986] ICJ 14 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France) [2008] ICJ Oral Proceedings of France google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Nada v. Switzerland (App No 10593/08) ECHR 12 September 2012 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Panel Report, United States- Trade Measures Affecting Nicaragua (1986) L/6053 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Territorial Dispute Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Chad) [1994] ICJ Reports 6 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • United States Department of the Treasury, “Iran Sanction” <https://www.treasury.gov/resourcecenter/sanctions/programs/pages/iran.aspx> accessed 27 April 2019 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • World Trade Organization, “Article XXI- Security Exceptions”, GATT-Al-2012-Art21 www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art21_e.pdf> accessed 15 April 2019 google scholar
  • World Trade Organization, “Dispute Settlement Body” <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ dispu_e/dispu_body_e.htm> accessed 14 April 2019 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • World Trade Organization, “WTO Legal Texts” <https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/ legal_e.htm> accessed 14 April 2019 google scholar
  • Secondary Sources google scholar
  • Alain Pellet, “Sanctions Unilatérales et Droit International / Unilateral Sanctions and International Law” (2015) 76 Yearbook of Institute of International Law 721 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Andrew Emmerson, “Conceptualizing Security Exceptions: Legal Doctrine or Political Excuse” (2010) 11 Journal of International Economic Law 135 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Chad P. Pown, Self-Enforcing Trade: Developing Countries and WTO Dispute Settlement (Brookings Institution Press, 2009) 14 google scholar
  • Christopher Layne, “The Global Power Shift from West to East” (2012) 119 The National Interest 21 google scholar
  • Dapo Akande & Sope Williams, “International Adjudication on National Security Issues: What Role for the WTO?” (2003) 43 Vanderbilt Journal of International Law 365 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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) google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Jack Goldsmith & Daryl Levinson, “Law for States: International Law, Constitutional Law, Public Law” (2008-2009) 122 (1) Harvard Law Review 1791 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Joaquín Alcaide Fernández, “Countermeasures” in Anthony Carter (eds), Oxford Bibliographies in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2013) google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Omer Faruk Direk, Security Detention in International Territorial Administration of Kosovo, East Timor, and Iraq (Brill Nijhoff, 2015) google scholar
  • Peter Lindsay, “The Ambiguity of GATT Article XXI; Subtle Success or Rampant Failure” (2003) 52 Duke Law Journal 1277 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Robert Kolb, “Principles as Sources of International Law: With Special Reference to Good Faith” (2006) 53 Netherland International Law Review 1 google scholar
  • Robyn Briese & Stephan Schill, “Djibouti v France: Self-Judging Clauses before the International Court of Justice” (2009) 10 Melbourne Journal of International Law 308 google scholar
  • Roger P. Alford, “The Self-Judging WTO Security Exception” (2011) 3 Utah Law Review 697 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Sıtkı Egeli, “Making Sense of Turkey’s Air and Missile Defense Merry-go-round”, (2019) 8 All Azimuth 69 google scholar
  • Steven Reinhold, “Good Faith in International Law” (2013) 2 UCL Journal of International Law 40 google scholar
  • Susan Rose-Ackerman & Benjamin Billa, “Treaties and National Security Exceptions” (2008) 40 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 437 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Direk, Ö. (2019). GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 39(2), 511-552. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015


AMA

Direk Ö. GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit. Public and Private International Law Bulletin. 2019;39(2):511-552. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015


ABNT

Direk, Ö. GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, [Publisher Location], v. 39, n. 2, p. 511-552, 2019.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Direk, Ömer Faruk,. 2019. “GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 39, no. 2: 511-552. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015


Chicago: Humanities Style

Direk, Ömer Faruk,. “GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 39, no. 2 (May. 2025): 511-552. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015


Harvard: Australian Style

Direk, Ö 2019, 'GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit', Public and Private International Law Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 511-552, viewed 29 May. 2025, https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Direk, Ö. (2019) ‘GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit’, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 39(2), pp. 511-552. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015 (29 May. 2025).


MLA

Direk, Ömer Faruk,. “GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 2, 2019, pp. 511-552. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015


Vancouver

Direk Ö. GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit. Public and Private International Law Bulletin [Internet]. 29 May. 2025 [cited 29 May. 2025];39(2):511-552. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015 doi: 10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015


ISNAD

Direk, Ömer Faruk. “GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit”. Public and Private International Law Bulletin 39/2 (May. 2025): 511-552. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0015



TIMELINE


Submitted06.05.2019
Last Revision16.05.2019
Accepted19.07.2019
Published Online03.10.2019

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE



Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.