• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.615-641
• /
• 1999

Trade and the environment emerged as a major and complex issue for trade negotiators in the final stages of the Uruguay Round negotiations. The agreements and other international measures employing trade measures and trade sanctions for achieving global environmental objectives are Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer(1985), the Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer(1987), The Framework Convention on Climate Change(1992), the Convention on Biological Diversity(1992), the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal(1992), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Faunna and Flora(1975), the Rio Declaration, the Agenda 21, etc. The texts of the World Trade Organization(WTO) incorporated certain provisions which were designed to reflect some of the environmental concerns are Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Properity Rights(TRIPs), Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), the General Agreement on Trade in Services(GATS), and Technical Barriers to Trade(TBT) There is the possibility of conflict between multilateral environmental agreements and WTO agreements granting waivers against trade measures and sanctions. This remains a possibility, especially between countries which are Member of WTO and which are not Members of the relevant multilateral environment agreements, and countries which are Members of both the WTO and the relevant MEAs. Measures taken under the trade-related provisions of MEAs could potentially give rise to conflicts under obligations arising in WTO texts. If the parties in dispute are WTO members while they are not members of MEAs, the WTO provisions can be granted a certain priority in terms of international norms and vice versa. When the parties concerned are both WTO members and MEAs, it will be rational to grant the WTO provisions a priority. However, such measures should neither constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where similar conditions prevail, nor create a disguised restriction on trade. Also any trade measures taken should be necessary to prevent developments in trade from endangering the effectiveness of an MEA and they should be proportional and least trade restrictive.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.247-271
• /
• 2012

This paper finds out that the WTO's member countries' environmental measures have sometimes reflected the interests from their domestic industrial fields under the name of environmental protection. For the harmonious linkage between the trade and environments under the WTO mechanism, it is required for the concerned parties to reach the consensus for the measures to be imposed domestically and internationally, as well as the WTO's judicial efforts to make more scientific approach. Such coordination and consensus among the concerned parties to the domestic and international environments would be the efficient way to solve the conflicts between the trade and the environments, together with the WTO's more scientific approach in interpreting and applying the environmental provisions.