• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.303-325
• /
• 2008

China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 revised in 2004 like "Foreign Trade law" 16.2 in 1994 is still stipulated resource restriction to protect domestic resources and it does not satisfy the introduction of article 20 and section (g) of GATT 1994. Through an interpretation of related regulations and China-EU cokes dispute, the paper points out that China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 has no validity of the introduction of article 20 and section (g) of GATT 1994. Comparing China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 to GATT 1994 20(g), China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 does not include important conditions of GATT 1994 20 introduction such as not being arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination and disguised restriction on international trade. For example, based upon China's "Foreign Trade law" , if she restricts or prohibits important natural resources that Korea mainly relies on China, it will effects not only trade between two countries but also our lives and securities. Hence, it is highly time to analyze China's the Validity of the China's Resource Export-Quota Restrictive Measures under the GATT/WTO. In the process of resolving China-EU cokes dispute in 2004, ministry of Commerce of China shows well its characteristics of dispute settlement and also we can find out EU's logical countermeasures. Therefore, because of the high possibility of disputes between Korea and China in the area of natural resources, Korea needs to pay attention to the China's resource protecting policies, and if it violates GATT 1994 20 introduction and (g), we should consider to sue China to WTO. The paper believes that it will play an important role as an aggressive demand and effect on amendment of China's "Foreign Trade law" in the long term.