In another case (Russia Ukraine) the WTO said that ‘national security’ only justifies trade restrictions if there’s an actual national security exception. The WTO dismissed “protectionism under the guise of security,” and distinguished between conflicts that are “considered urgent or serious in a political sense” and those that are war-related. At a minimum, the WTO said that both the existence of an international emergency and the timing of the ostensibly security-protecting measures could be objectively ascertained by adjudicators. And while there was nothing in the GATT text requiring these interpretations, the WTO decided that emergencies exist only when there are unexpected dangers requiring urgent action, that international emergencies under Article XXI are mostly limited to defense and military issues, and that “international relations” are limited to interactions primarily between sovereign states. At a minimum, the WTO said that both the existence of an international emergency and the timing of the ostensibly security-protecting measures could be objectively ascertained by adjudicators. And while there was nothing in the GATT text requiring these interpretations, the WTO decided that emergencies exist only when there are unexpected dangers requiring urgent action, that international emergencies under Article XXI are mostly limited to defense and military issues, and that “international relations” are limited to interactions primarily between sovereign states. The fact that Trump’s steel tariffs are anomalous and not imposed in coordination with trading partners is also unlikely to be viewed favorably by the WTO.
Read more via: Washingtonpost
