IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsc/rsceui/2015-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

China–Rare Earths: Export Restrictions and the Limits of Textual Interpretation

Author

Listed:
  • Eric W. Bond
  • Joel Trachtman

Abstract

The China—Rare Earths decision of the Appellate Body addressed two main issues: (i) whether China’s obligations not to impose export duties under its accession protocol are subject to exceptions under Article XX of GATT, and (ii) the scope of the exception for China’s export quota measures relating to conservation under Article XX(g) of GATT. In accord with its China—Raw Materials decision, the Appellate Body found that there is no textual basis for application of the Article XX exception to China’s export duty obligations. This interpretation exalted a narrow contextual approach over an approach to interpretation that would focus on broader context, object, and purpose. The Appellate Body also approved the Panel’s overall approach to determining the availability of the Article XX(g) exception. This approach focused on the design and structure of China’s quota measure, but left unresolved important issues, including the extent to which non-conservation purposes may prevent use of the exception and the role of empirical evidence of effects in these determinations. While the Appellate Body found that there is no “even-handedness” requirement in Article XX(g) itself, we argue that the chapeau’s requirement of non-discrimination is an appropriate additional criterion for determining whether a policy with a target of reducing extraction of a natural resource satisfies the requirements of Article XX.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric W. Bond & Joel Trachtman, 2015. "China–Rare Earths: Export Restrictions and the Limits of Textual Interpretation," RSCAS Working Papers 2015/66, European University Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2015/66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/37056/RSCAS_2015_66.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1814/37056
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Irwin, Douglas A. & Weiler, Joseph, 2008. "Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (DS 285)," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 71-113, January.
    2. Bronckers, Marco & Maskus, Keith E., 2014. "China–Raw Materials: a controversial step towards evenhanded exploitation of natural resources," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 393-408, April.
    3. Horn,Henrik & Mavroidis,Petros C. (ed.), 2005. "The WTO Case Law of 2002," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521834223.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bown,Chad P. & Crowley,Meredith A & Bown,Chad P. & Crowley,Meredith A, 2016. "The empirical landscape of trade policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7620, The World Bank.
    2. Kyle Bagwell & Chad P. Bown & Robert W. Staiger, 2016. "Is the WTO Passé?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1125-1231, December.
    3. Staiger, Robert & Bagwell, Kyle & Bown, Chad, 2015. "Is the WTO Passé?," CEPR Discussion Papers 10672, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Bernard M. Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2015. "A Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement for Services?," RSCAS Working Papers 2015/25, European University Institute.
    5. Mostafa Beshkar & Adam S. Chilton, 2015. "Revisiting Procedure and Precedent in the WTO: An Analysis of US – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures (China)," RSCAS Working Papers 2015/68, European University Institute.
    6. Ahn, Dukgeun & Levy, Philip I., 2020. "US–OCTG (Korea): Legal Boundary of ‘Political’ Remedy," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 164-181, April.
    7. Eugene Beaulieu & Denise Prévost, 2019. "Subsidy Determination, Benchmarks and Adverse Inferences: Assessing ‘benefit' in US – Coated Paper (Indonesia)," RSCAS Working Papers 2019/76, European University Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    WTO Article XX; Dispute Settlement;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2015/66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: RSCAS web unit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rsiueit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.