Gatt 1994 Article 11
The WTO panel in Brazil interpreted the term “quantitative restriction on imports” to refer to measures prohibiting the import of goods from other Members from accessing their markets. Such import restrictions may take the form of embargoes. Examples include the US Shrimp case and the Canada Periodical case. In the latter case, the Panel concluded that the Canadian Regulation, which completely prohibited certain reviews, violated Article XI(1) of the GATT 1994. In the first case, the United States had imposed a moratorium on shrimp products and shrimp that had not been harvested using sea turtle protection methods. The quantitative restrictions on imports notified to the WTO by its Members concern narcotics, environmental protection, weapons and nuclear materials. Some quantitative restrictions go beyond the obligations of WTO Members. These are the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Convention for the Protection of Endangered Species and the Montreal Convention on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The introduction of such a quantitative restriction should be followed by notification to the WTO. This requirement was introduced by the 2012 WTO Decision on Procedures for the Notification of Quantitative Restrictions. Quantitative restrictions on exports Several articles of GATT 1994 deal with quantitative restrictions; these include Articles XI, XII, XIV, XIX, XX and XXI. Prohibited acts under Article XI of the GATT include restrictions other than customs duties imposed or maintained by a WTO Member on the import or export of goods.
Such restrictions may take the form of, inter alia, quotas, embargoes, export or import authorisation procedures. The abolition of quantitative restrictions was included in the GATT 1994 because it can restrict trade more than tariffs actually do. Nor should the introduction of quantitative restrictions be carried out in a transparent manner and have the effect of imposing absolute restrictions on imports, thereby distorting competition. Quantitative import restrictions WTA/WTO and GATT Uruguay 1994 © WTO Multilateral copy @ <> This document argues that restrictions on the export or import of Covid-19 are justified under GATT in three ways; Articles XI, XX and XXI of the GATT 1994. First, quantitative restrictions on general animal welfare objectives consistent with Articles XX and XXI of the GATT. However, the above articles are not an empty exception. Article XX(2) allows for its application in a three-part review. (i) the export restriction applies temporarily; (ii) it must be applicable in order to avoid or mitigate significant bottlenecks, and (iii) significant bottlenecks must relate to food or other essential substances. Member States that also wish to invoke Article XX are required to issue a public notice stating that medical products whose export to their country is restricted due to the coronavirus are essential and that the restriction would be temporary.
Export restrictions on medical products related to Covid-19 are aimed at protecting human life and health. This corresponds to the sales analysis part of Article XX of the GATT. However, this is not enough. WTO Member States wishing to invoke Article XX of the GATT are required to ensure that quantitative restrictions in the face of Covid-19 are neither discriminatory nor distort international trade. Such discrimination would occur in circumstances where, for example, County A imposes restrictions on the export of gloves, but continues to export gloves to other countries and exclude others. Article XXI OF THE GATT on the national security exception expressly allows Member States to restrict the disclosure of information which they consider to be crucial to their national security. However, the definition of essential security interests has been clarified in order to extend it to interests related to the essential functions of the State, including the protection of its territory and population from external threats and the maintenance of public order and the law. Finally, States wishing to refer to Article XXI of the GATT have the burden of proof that the quantitative restrictions imposed by corona are intended to ensure national security in international relations in the event of an emergency, since the corona virus is clearly not a war. The Group of Experts on Transit Traffic of Russia, in explaining the phrase “another state of emergency in international relations”, noted that political or economic differences between States do not constitute an emergency in international relations, unless they lead either to defence and military interests or to the maintenance of public order and law.
Article XXI of the GATT 1994 allows WTO Members to take other measures inconsistent with their obligations in three specific cases to protect their national security. The first and second cases are quite closely related, as they both extend to the restriction of fissile material, weapons, ammunition and other war equipment. The third case offers a broader interpretation of the measures taken in response to the protection of national security. It allows “measures taken in time of war or in case of emergency in international relations”. The entire Article XXI of the national security exception has been criticized for giving States parties greater flexibility to use the exception, as the WTO does not define critical terms such as “deems necessary”, “essential security interests”, “time of war” and a state of emergency in international relations. There were also issues related to whether the WTO is responsible for deciding on issues related to the articles, but the same was settled in the panel in Russian Traffic in Transit. How the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) deals with quantitative restrictions and exceptions the African Continental Free Trade Area comprehensively addresses quantitative restrictions imposed by the AfCFTA Agreement, the Protocol on Trade in Goods and the Protocol on Trade in Goods. Article 4 of the Agreement sets out one of its objectives, namely the progressive abolition of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Quantitative restrictions fall within the definition of non-tariff barriers. Quantitative restrictions are also prohibited by Article 9 of the Protocol on Trade in Goods. It argues that States parties may not impose quantitative restrictions on imports from other States or exports to other States, except in the cases provided for in the Protocol itself, in its annexes, in Article XI of the GATT 1994 and in other relevant WTO agreements. General exceptions to the afCfTA Agreement are comprehensively governed by Article 26 of the Protocol on Trade in Goods.
In addition to Article 26 of the Protocol, which provides for the analysis of the paragraph and the chapeau, it reflects verbatim and copies Article XX of the GATT 1994. Article 27 of the Protocol on Trade in Goods provides for exceptions to national security. This provision is also similar to that of Article XXI of the GATT 1994. The present document considers that the interpretation of both articles; Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Protocol on Trade in Goods must be interpreted in the light of Articles XX and XXI of the GATT for two reasons. First, because the AfCfTA, as a regional economic community within the meaning of Article XXIV of the GATT, derives its authority from the WTO. Secondly, many cases have been decided on both GATT Articles, which would shed light on the interpretation of Articles 26 and 27 of the Protocol. Conclusion 10 May 2020 A reading of the travaux préparatoires to Article XXI of the GATT shows that the GATT Parties did not foresee that a global pandemic such as a virus could constitute a national security exception under that Article. .