,
12 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Big news
(It's Friday afternoon, and trade twitter is going to be full of this)
(It's Friday afternoon, and trade twitter is going to be full of this)
Links for these findings:
Summary of key findings: wto.org/english/tratop…
Full report: wto.org/english/tratop…
Extract: findings and conclusions: wto.org/english/tratop…
Addendum (Annexes A to E): wto.org/english/tratop…
All info on this dispute DS512: wto.org/english/tratop…
Summary of key findings: wto.org/english/tratop…
Full report: wto.org/english/tratop…
Extract: findings and conclusions: wto.org/english/tratop…
Addendum (Annexes A to E): wto.org/english/tratop…
All info on this dispute DS512: wto.org/english/tratop…
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me: while the finding is that Russia was within its rights this is not a blank cheque, ie, there has to be an emergency in international relations
Source: Summary of key findings wto.org/english/tratop… (click the down arrow to see this text)
Source: Summary of key findings wto.org/english/tratop… (click the down arrow to see this text)
Someone who knows more than I do (from a thread)
And another from the same thread
This is how some trade lawyers explain the finding (if I understand correctly)
Is it up to the country concerned to decide for itself whether there is a security justification?
The security exceptions have both *objective* and *subjective* components.
1/4
Is it up to the country concerned to decide for itself whether there is a security justification?
The security exceptions have both *objective* and *subjective* components.
1/4
Objective: It’s up to dispute panels to determine whether *objectively* a “war or other emergency in international relations exists”. In other words, not self-determined by the country claiming to act in its national security interests.
2/4
2/4
Subjective (1): the country concerned can define its own essential security interests and the need to act in defence of those interests. It also has to do so in good faith.
3/4
3/4
Subjective (partial) (2): This limits a panel’s ruling to whether the country is truthful in defining its interests and whether the measures are plausible.
The objective part is in these paragraphs (note “not totally” in “not totally ‘self-judging’”) wto.org/english/tratop…
The objective part is in these paragraphs (note “not totally” in “not totally ‘self-judging’”) wto.org/english/tratop…
