ARE RESTRICTIVE MEASURES AND COUNTERMEASURES JUSTIFIABLE BY WTO SECURITY EXCEPTIONS: OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE APPROACH? RESPONSIBILITY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

INTRODUCTION. This paper is devoted to interpretation of so-called WTO “Security Exception Articles”, namely Article XXI of the GATT, XIV bis of the GATS and 73 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to their possible applicability to trade restrictive measures adopted against Russia, and Russian countermeasures, based on the assumption that these trade restrictive measures violate WTO disciplines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials for the article were norms of general international law and norms of WTO law, containing so-called security exception provisions and their respective interpretation by international tribunals, international organizations and scholars. The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific and special methods.

RESEARCH RESULTS. Taking into account that there is a lack of WTO jurisprudence and no common view of WTO members regarding the issue at hand, the analysis is based on the scope of Security Exception Articles and on the Panel’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising from them. In particular, the paper addresses whether security exceptions are of a self-declaratory nature; and, as it was stated by the GATT Council in 1985 in relation to the US trade embargo against Nicaragua, “the Panel cannot examine or judge the validity or motivation for the invocation of article XXI (b) (iii) by the United States” or whether it is possible to apply an objective test to Security Exception Articles.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. With respect to the objective test, the interpretation of the following notions should be analyzed: “essential security interests”, “emergency in international relations” and “necessary to protect”. The analysis should be based on rules of general international law and the Appellate Body’s approach according to which previously established interpretations of certain provisions of one WTO Agreement can be used to inform the content of the same ‘words’ in another WTO Agreement. With respect to the subjective approach we may face a tendency to interpret “self-judging clause”, in the light of “a good faith” principle and therefore the issue at hand can be subject to the Dispute Settlement Body's analysis.

1. Amanzholov Zh. M. 2007. Mnogostoronnie mezhdunarodnye dogovory v obespechenii vodnoi bezopasnosti v Tsentral'noi Azii [Multilateral International Treaties Ensuring Water Security in Central Asia]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2007. No. 4 (68). P. 226–244. (In Russ.)

2. Boklan D., Korshunova A. 2017. National Security as a Foundation and a Limit on a State's Right to Rely on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources. – Kutafin University Law Review. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 299–314. DOI: 10.17803/2313-5395.2017.2.8.299-314

3. Boklan D.S. 2014a. Praktika razresheniya mezhdunarodnym sudom OON sporov, vytekayushchikh iz mezhdunarodnykh ekologicheskikh i mezhdunarodnykh ekonomicheskikh otnoshenii [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Case Law on cases arising from international environmental and international economic relations]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie. No. 4. (12). P. 80–86. (In Russ.)

4. Boklan D.S., Kopylov M.N. 2014. Vzaimodeistvie mezhdunarodnogo ekologicheskogo i mezhdunarodnogo ekonomicheskogo prava kak otraslei sistemy mezhdunarodnogo prava [Interconnection of International Environmental and International Economic Law as Branches of International Law]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 3 (95). P. 171–191. (In Russ.)

5. Bossche P., Zdouc W. 2013. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1045 p.

6. Hahn M.J. 1991. Vital Interests and the Law of GATT: An Analysis of GATT's Security Exception. – Michigan Journal of International Law. Vol. 12. Issue 3. P. 558–620.

7. International Investment Perspectives: Freedom of Investment in a Changing World. 2007. P. 93–134. URL: https:// www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/40243411.pdf (accessed date: 18.07.2018).

8. Kemerova D., Zhalkubaev G. 2003. Water, Conflict and Regional Security in Central Asia revisited. – New York University Environmental Law Journal. Vol. 11. Issue 2. P. 479–502.

9. Low P., Marceau G., Reinaud J. 2012. Interface between the Trade and Climate Change Regimes: Scoping the Issues. – Journal of World Trade. Vol. 46. Issue 3. P. 485–505

10. Lukashuk I.I., Boklan D.S. 2003. The Concept of the US National Security and International Law: a View from Moscow. – Chinese Journal of International Law. Vol. 2. Issue 2. P. 587–597.

11. Marceau G. 2001. Conflicts of Norms of Jurisdictions: The Relationship between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and Other Treaties. – Journal of World Trade. Vol. 35. Issue 6. P. 1081–1131.

12. Mavroidis P.C., Bermann G.A., Wu M. 2013. The Law of the World Trade Organization (WTO): Documents, Cases & Analysis. 2nd ed. Saint Paul: West Academic Publishing. 1162 p.

13. McRae D.M. 2000. The WTO in International Law: Tradition Continued or New Frontier? – Journal of International Economic Law. Vol. 3. Issue 1. P. 21–47

14. Moon W.J. 2012. Essential Security Interests in International Investment Agreements. – Journal of International Economic Law. Vol. 15. Issue 2. P. 481–502. DOI: 10.1093/ jiel/jgs024

15. Note L. 2003. The Ambiguity of GATT Article XXI: Subtle Success or Rampant Failure? – Duke Law Journal. Vol. 52. P. 1277–1313.

16. Pauwelyn J. 2003. Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO law Relates to Other Norms of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 491 p.

17. Pauwelyn J. 2013. Carbon Leakage Measures and Border Tax Adjustments under WTO Law. – Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO. Ed. by G. van Calster, D. Prevost. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar P. 448–506.

18. Trachtman J.P. 2016. WTO Law Constraints on Border Tax Adjustment and Tax Credit Mechanisms to Reduce the Competitive Effects of Carbon Taxes. – 16-03 Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 1-41. 45 p. URL: http://www. rff.org/files/document/file/RFF-DP-16-03.pdf (accessed date: 17.07.2018).

19. Vorontsova N.A. 2015. Mezhdunarodno-pravovye normy vremennogo vvoza (dopuska) tovarov na territoriyu gosudarstv [International Legal Rules of the Temporary Entry (Admission) of Goods into the Territory of States]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 2 (98). P. 93–106. (In Russ.)

20. Vorontsova N.A. 2017. Cozdanie setevykh al'yansov Rossiiskoi Federatsii s inostrannymi gosudarstvami i mezhdunarodnymi organizatsiyami [Creation of Network Alliances of the Russian Federation with Foreign States and International Organizations]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 2. P. 136–143. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.24833/0869-0049-2017-106-2-136-143.