Mavroidis Trade in Goods (2nd ed) lays out early XXI #GATT claims (pp367-375). 1949 Czechoslovakia complained that the US failed to carry out its GATT obligation through its administration of export licences. Excerpts below. Find it here: sice.oas.org/dispute/gatt/4… 1/
Mr. Evans (US) argued "Article I would not require uniformity of formalities, as applied to different countries, in respect of restrictions imposed for security reasons." 2/
Mr. Shackle (UK) stated under XXI, the US action "would seem to be justified because every country must have the last resort on questions relating to its own security. On the other hand, the CONTRACTING PARTIES should be cautious not to take any step which might have[...] 3/
the effect of undermining the [GATT]. The nature of the question seemed to suggest that it should be examined in detail by the two governments concerned, and that no purpose would be served by a general decision given by the CONTRACTING PARTIES." 4/
Chairman (Wilgress) summarized matter as the US justified any discrimination on the basis of article XX and XXI, and it was called to a vote: whether the US failed to carry out its obligations under the [GATT] through its administration of the issue of export licences.
Outcome of vote 17 negatives. Voting has been discontinued. Also will add, though in the context of a dispute, the named delegates were all instrumental in designing the ITO/GATT.
