Comment on the Invocation of Article XX for Violation of Para.11.3 in China—Raw Materials ()
Abstract
The failure to mention the relationship between China’s WTO-plus obligation in Paragraph 11.3 and the GATT 1994 does not mean the negotiators had meant to deny China the right to invoke Article XX of the GATT 1994. If that was the case, the intention would have been recorded in the Protocol and the Working Party Report. Contexts provided by the Working Party Report and provisions of the GATT 1994 and other provisions of the WTO Agreement prove that China cannot be denied the right to invoke Article XX. WTO-plus obligations are still integral parts of the WTO Agreement and the decision of the Panel and the AB in this case will lead to absurd results.
Share and Cite:
L. Hua, "Comment on the Invocation of Article XX for Violation of Para.11.3 in China—Raw Materials,"
Beijing Law Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, 2012, pp. 152-157. doi:
10.4236/blr.2012.34021.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
|
[1]
|
J. Y. Qin, “‘WTO-PLUS’ Obligations and Their Implica- tions for the World Trade Organization Legal System: An Appraisal of the China Accession Protocol,” 2003.
http://www.worldtradelaw.net/articles/qinwtoplus.pdf.
|
|
[2]
|
J. M. Feinman, “Law One Hundred One,” Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, 2010.
|