Interpretation and Application of the “Necessity” Test under the GATT/WTO Agreement

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper examines the two approaches employed by the WTO adjudicating bodies in the application of the “necessity” test, including the least trade restrictive approach and the weighing and balancing approach.
It discusses the problems resulting from the application of “necessity”. Firstly, the GATT Panel interpreted the term “necessary” narrowly, thereby, no challenged measures were justified under the GATT Art. XX. Secondly, the WTO adjudicating bodies failed to apply a weighing and balancing approach test because the freedom to choose their own level of protection was inconsistent with the weighing and balancing test. Thirdly, due to the difficulty on considering the proper interference into the national regulatory autonomy from the WTO adjudicating body, the application of the “necessity” test would likely cause a negative impact on domestic regulatory autonomy.
This paper gives some suggestions to the WTO adjudicating bodies for a clear and definite interpretation on the “necessity” test. Considering the criticisms resulting from the application of the “necessity” test, it is very important to clarify the uncertainty of the “necessity” test and provide predictability for future cases.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Lester, Simon, "The WTO Seal Products Dispute: A Preview of the Key Legal Issues" 14 : 36-, 2010

2 Regan, Donald H, "The Meaning of 'Necessary' in GATT Article XX and GATS Article XIV: the Myth of Cost-benefit Balancing" 349-, 2007

3 Sykest, Alan O, "The Least Restrictive Means" 70 : 403-, 2003

4 Knox, John H, "The Judicial Resolution of Conflicts between Trade and the Environment" 28 : 70-71, 2004

5 World Trade Organization, "The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947)"

6 Dunoff, Jeffrey L, "The Death of the Trade Regime" 10 : 757-758, 1999

7 Mclaughlin, Richard J, "Sovereignty, Utility, and Fairness: Using U.S. Takings Law to Guide the Evolving Utilitarian Balancing Approach to Global Environmental Disputes in the WTO" 78 : 935-936, 2010

8 "Panel Report, United States-Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930"

9 "Panel Report, Thailand-Restrictions on Importation of and Internal Taxes on Cigarettes"

10 "Panel Report, Korea-Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef"

11 "Panel Report, European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products"

12 "Panel Report, Brazil-Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres"

13 Sum Yan Nan, "Necessity“ test under the GATT/WTO agreement" 2015

14 Fontanelli, Filippo, "Necessity Killed the GATT- Art XX GATT and the Misleading Rhetoric about 'Weighing and Balancing" 5 : 40-, 2012

15 McGrady, Benn, "Necessity Exceptions in WTO Law: Retreaded Tyres, Regulatory Purpose and Cumulative Regulatory Measures" 12 : 160-, 2008

16 Venzke, Ingo, "Making General Exceptions: The Spell of Precedents in Developing Article XX GATT into Standards for Domestic Regulatory Policy" 12 : 1137-, 2011

17 Shoenbaum, Thomas J, "International Trade and Protection of the Environment: The Continuing Search for Reconciliation" 91 : 276-, 1997

18 Corea, Carlos, "Implementing National Public Health Policies in the Framework of WTO Agreements" 34 : 89-92, 2000

19 Zeitler, Helge Elisabeth, "Good Faith' in the WTO Jurisprudence Necessary Balancing Element or An Open Door to Judicial Activism" 8 : 5-9, 2005

20 Doyle, Christopher, "Gimme Shelter: The 'Necessary' Element of GATT Article XX in the Context of the China-Audiovisual Products Case" 29 : 154-, 2011

21 Hudec, Robert E, "GATT/WTO Constraints on National Regulation: Requiem for an 'Aim and Effects' Test" 20 : 634-, 1998

22 Charnovitz, Steve, "Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX" 25 : 54-55, 1991

23 Ahn, Dukgeun, "Environmental Disputes in the GATT/WTO: Before and After US-Shrimp Case" 20 : 859-, 1999

24 Wofford, Carrie, "A Greener Future at the WTO : the Refinement of WTO Jurisprudence on Environmental Exceptions to GATT" 24 : 575-, 2000