The Appellate Body report in January 2012 had supported the decision of Panel in the"China-measures related to the exportation of various raw materials"case(WT/DS394,395,398)and affirmed that China's res...The Appellate Body report in January 2012 had supported the decision of Panel in the"China-measures related to the exportation of various raw materials"case(WT/DS394,395,398)and affirmed that China's restrictions(such as tariffs and quota measures)on the exportation of raw materials violated rules put forth by the WTO,which were required to be modified.In this case China's right to invoke Article 20 of GATT1994("general exception")to justify its exemption from the guidelines in Article 11.3 of the WTO Accession Protocol was denied by the Panel and the Appellate Body.This was due to the fact that the phrasing in Article 11.3 of Protocol failed to mention"GATT."This was the consequence of the two interpretation approaches the Dispute Settlement Body(DSB)adopted-a narrow textual interpretation and a subjective presumption of"legislative silence."The inappropriate use of the two methods of interpretation lead to an imbalance between the right and obligation of China under the additional obligations that were imposed upon China by the WTO,which create a negative impact on China's rare earth case and the protection of domestic natural resources.展开更多
文摘The Appellate Body report in January 2012 had supported the decision of Panel in the"China-measures related to the exportation of various raw materials"case(WT/DS394,395,398)and affirmed that China's restrictions(such as tariffs and quota measures)on the exportation of raw materials violated rules put forth by the WTO,which were required to be modified.In this case China's right to invoke Article 20 of GATT1994("general exception")to justify its exemption from the guidelines in Article 11.3 of the WTO Accession Protocol was denied by the Panel and the Appellate Body.This was due to the fact that the phrasing in Article 11.3 of Protocol failed to mention"GATT."This was the consequence of the two interpretation approaches the Dispute Settlement Body(DSB)adopted-a narrow textual interpretation and a subjective presumption of"legislative silence."The inappropriate use of the two methods of interpretation lead to an imbalance between the right and obligation of China under the additional obligations that were imposed upon China by the WTO,which create a negative impact on China's rare earth case and the protection of domestic natural resources.
