自由贸易对-à-vis道德:重新审视世界贸易组织的公共道德例外条款

IF 1.1 Q4 BUSINESS Foreign Trade Review Pub Date : 2021-06-14 DOI:10.1177/00157325211015468
Swargodeep Sarkar
{"title":"自由贸易对-à-vis道德:重新审视世界贸易组织的公共道德例外条款","authors":"Swargodeep Sarkar","doi":"10.1177/00157325211015468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The most sanctified obligation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the promotion and facilitation of international trade and liberalisation of the world economy. Although WTO members are committed to the WTO principle of free flow of goods and services among its members, the WTO permits its members to retain certain regulatory powers under its system to impose trade-restrictive measures based on certain exceptions, like, among other things, public morality under Article XX(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, 1994). Nevertheless, the question remains: what is public morality for a WTO member, and how far may this clause be invoked in defence of adopting trade-restrictive measures? Recently, the WTO panel on the US tariff case revived the long-standing debate on international trade versus public morality. Is a WTO member free to choose any trade-restrictive measure under the cloak of public morality? Then, what mechanism has the WTO panel/AB (Appellate Body) envisaged to check WTO members from adopting any trade-restrictive measure based on public morals? This article tries to answer these questions by analysing previous WTO disputes related to trade and morality. Against this background, this article looks back at the history of the public-morals exception clause, revisits previous WTO case laws on the public-morals exception and tries to ascertain the precise meaning of public morality—how the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) checks and balances two conflicting principles, that is, the right to regulate and the principle of free trade—and whether WTO has successfully developed a coherent jurisprudential approach to deal with contradictory interests, that is, trade versus morality. JEL Codes: F, F1, F13","PeriodicalId":29933,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Trade Review","volume":"27 1","pages":"476 - 490"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Free Trade vis-à-vis Morality: Revisiting the Public-Morals Exception Clause in the World Trade Organization\",\"authors\":\"Swargodeep Sarkar\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00157325211015468\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The most sanctified obligation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the promotion and facilitation of international trade and liberalisation of the world economy. Although WTO members are committed to the WTO principle of free flow of goods and services among its members, the WTO permits its members to retain certain regulatory powers under its system to impose trade-restrictive measures based on certain exceptions, like, among other things, public morality under Article XX(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, 1994). Nevertheless, the question remains: what is public morality for a WTO member, and how far may this clause be invoked in defence of adopting trade-restrictive measures? Recently, the WTO panel on the US tariff case revived the long-standing debate on international trade versus public morality. Is a WTO member free to choose any trade-restrictive measure under the cloak of public morality? Then, what mechanism has the WTO panel/AB (Appellate Body) envisaged to check WTO members from adopting any trade-restrictive measure based on public morals? This article tries to answer these questions by analysing previous WTO disputes related to trade and morality. Against this background, this article looks back at the history of the public-morals exception clause, revisits previous WTO case laws on the public-morals exception and tries to ascertain the precise meaning of public morality—how the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) checks and balances two conflicting principles, that is, the right to regulate and the principle of free trade—and whether WTO has successfully developed a coherent jurisprudential approach to deal with contradictory interests, that is, trade versus morality. JEL Codes: F, F1, F13\",\"PeriodicalId\":29933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foreign Trade Review\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"476 - 490\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foreign Trade Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00157325211015468\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foreign Trade Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00157325211015468","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

世界贸易组织(WTO)最神圣的义务是促进和便利国际贸易和世界经济的自由化。尽管世贸组织成员致力于其成员之间货物和服务自由流动的世贸组织原则,但世贸组织允许其成员在其体系下保留一定的监管权力,以基于某些例外实施贸易限制措施,例如,除其他外,关税与贸易总协定(GATT, 1994)第20 (a)条规定的公共道德。然而,问题依然存在:对于一个WTO成员国来说,什么是公共道德?在为采取贸易限制措施辩护时,这一条款可以援引到什么程度?最近,世贸组织针对美国关税案的专家组重启了长期以来关于国际贸易与公共道德的辩论。WTO成员是否可以在公共道德的外衣下自由选择任何贸易限制措施?那么,世贸组织专家组/上诉机构设想了什么机制来阻止世贸组织成员基于公共道德采取任何贸易限制措施?本文试图通过对以往WTO贸易与道德争端的分析来回答这些问题。在此背景下,本文回顾了公共道德例外条款的历史,回顾了以往WTO关于公共道德例外的判例法,并试图确定公共道德的确切含义——WTO争端解决机构(DSB)如何制衡两个相互冲突的原则,即管制权和自由贸易原则,以及WTO是否成功地发展了一套协调一致的法理方法来处理利益冲突。也就是说,贸易对抗道德。JEL代码:F, F1, F13
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Free Trade vis-à-vis Morality: Revisiting the Public-Morals Exception Clause in the World Trade Organization
The most sanctified obligation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the promotion and facilitation of international trade and liberalisation of the world economy. Although WTO members are committed to the WTO principle of free flow of goods and services among its members, the WTO permits its members to retain certain regulatory powers under its system to impose trade-restrictive measures based on certain exceptions, like, among other things, public morality under Article XX(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, 1994). Nevertheless, the question remains: what is public morality for a WTO member, and how far may this clause be invoked in defence of adopting trade-restrictive measures? Recently, the WTO panel on the US tariff case revived the long-standing debate on international trade versus public morality. Is a WTO member free to choose any trade-restrictive measure under the cloak of public morality? Then, what mechanism has the WTO panel/AB (Appellate Body) envisaged to check WTO members from adopting any trade-restrictive measure based on public morals? This article tries to answer these questions by analysing previous WTO disputes related to trade and morality. Against this background, this article looks back at the history of the public-morals exception clause, revisits previous WTO case laws on the public-morals exception and tries to ascertain the precise meaning of public morality—how the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) checks and balances two conflicting principles, that is, the right to regulate and the principle of free trade—and whether WTO has successfully developed a coherent jurisprudential approach to deal with contradictory interests, that is, trade versus morality. JEL Codes: F, F1, F13
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
23.10%
发文量
37
期刊最新文献
Trading in Turbulent Times: Unravelling the Interplay between Trade Policy Uncertainty and Geopolitics in Russian Mineral Resource Supply Search Friction and Costly Entry in the Specific Factors Model Trade Gap and Public Debt Sustainability in Nigeria Imported Inputs and Export Performance: A Gravity Analysis Book review: Rajib Bhattacharyya, Ramesh Chandra Das, and Achintya Ray (Eds.), COVID-19 Pandemic and Global Inequality: Reflections in Labour Market, Business and Social Sectors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1