The China – Rare Earths WTO Dispute: A Precious Chance to Revise the China-Raw Materials Conclusions on the Applicability of GATT Article XX to China’s WTO Accession Protocol
Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 2012
- 178Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage178
- Abstract Views178
- 178
Paper Description
On 23 July 2012, the Dispute settlement body (Dsb) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) established a single panel to examine the complaints brought by the united states, the european union and Japan against the chinese export restrictions on rare earth elements (rees), tungsten and mo-lybdenum. The controversy is very sensitive for at least three series of reasons: a) the economic and stra-tegic relevance of the materials involved in the dispute (rare earths being essential, in particular, for high-tech, information, military, and green industry); b) the difficult balance to find between mining and trading REEs while protecting the environment and thus respecting the principle of sustainable development enshrined in the Preamble of the Agreement establishing the WTO; c) the challenging task of defining the relation of the WTO-plus obligation to eliminate export duties, characterizing china’s accession to the Marrakech system, with the multilateral public policy exceptions clause enshrined in GATT Article XX. In this essay, we intend to offer a presentation of the above listed salient aspects of the Chi-na- Rare earths controversy in the light of the recent China-Raw Materials case. In particular, we will concentrate on the necessity, for the Geneva jurisdictional pillar, to revisit the highly problematical conclusions reached last January by the Appellate body (Ab) on the applicability of GATT Article XX to China’s WTO Accession Protocol (AP). We are, in fact, convinced that the new mineral trade dis-pute may be positively —and durably— settled only if the under regulated area of WTO law on export restrictions is adequately addressed also at political level: and such a target may, of course, be conside-rably fostered, inspired and supported by a well-balanced interpretative activity of the WTO judiciary. Consequently, we will try in this essay to propose a different perspective on the way in which GATT public policy exceptions and china’s Accession protocol should be connected, grounding our suggested interpretative approach on each of the hermeneutic elements for treaty interpretation codified in Articles 31 and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know