THE APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXCEPTIONS OF THE GATT TO CHINA’S WTO-PLUS OBLIGATIONS — WTO PANEL AND APPELLATE BODY RULINGS ON THE CHINESE EXPORT RESTRICTIONS OF RARE EARTHS, TUNGSTEN AND MOLYBDENUM

Abstract

On March 26, 2014, a panel, established by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, circulated its final report regarding the China — Rare Earths case to WTO Members. This dispute concerns China’s export restrictions on rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum. In its report, the panel agreed with the findings of another dispute, the China — Raw Materials case. It concluded that the environmental exceptions under Article XX GATT 1994 cannot be applied to China’s actions. This conclusion is reconfirmed in the latest appellate body’s report of China — Rare Earths on August 7, 2014. Therefore, China was not able to justify the violation of their WTO-plus obligation to eliminate all export duties, contained in paragraph 11.3 of China’s Accession Protocol. As a consequence of the panel’s decision, it seems impossible for China to justify trade barriers with environmental interests and to invoke any exceptions. Such findings are subject to a fundamental controversy within the WTO multilateral trade system, trying to solve the tensions between environmental protection and trade liberalization. This essay examines the general applicability of environmental exceptions by analyzing the panel’s and appellate body’s approaches to the China — Rare Earths case and their findings, in connection with the purpose of sustainable development as prescribed by the preamble of the WTO Agreement. It has to be examined whether the non-application of the WTO environmental exceptions complies with Article 31 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and is consistent with the balance between the different values pursued by the WTO. This article argues that Article XX GATT 1994 should be applicable to China’s WTO-plus obligation specified in paragraph 11.3 of its Accession Protocol as far as environmental interests are concerned.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Thomson Reuters