Механизм урегулирования споров Всемирной торговой организации: практика и процедуры
INTRODUCTION. This paper is devoted to interpretation of so-called WTO “Security Exception Articles”, namely Article XXI of the GATT, XIV bis of the GATS and 73 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to their possible applicability to trade restrictive measures adopted against Russia, and Russian countermeasures, based on the assumption that these trade restrictive measures violate WTO disciplines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials for the article were norms of general international law and norms of WTO law, containing so-called security exception provisions and their respective interpretation by international tribunals, international organizations and scholars. The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific and special methods.
RESEARCH RESULTS. Taking into account that there is a lack of WTO jurisprudence and no common view of WTO members regarding the issue at hand, the analysis is based on the scope of Security Exception Articles and on the Panel’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising from them. In particular, the paper addresses whether security exceptions are of a self-declaratory nature; and, as it was stated by the GATT Council in 1985 in relation to the US trade embargo against Nicaragua, “the Panel cannot examine or judge the validity or motivation for the invocation of article XXI (b) (iii) by the United States” or whether it is possible to apply an objective test to Security Exception Articles.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. With respect to the objective test, the interpretation of the following notions should be analyzed: “essential security interests”, “emergency in international relations” and “necessary to protect”. The analysis should be based on rules of general international law and the Appellate Body’s approach according to which previously established interpretations of certain provisions of one WTO Agreement can be used to inform the content of the same ‘words’ in another WTO Agreement. With respect to the subjective approach we may face a tendency to interpret “self-judging clause”, in the light of “a good faith” principle and therefore the issue at hand can be subject to the Dispute Settlement Body's analysis.
The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is relatively new regional integration block formed in the beginning of 2015 and now consists of five members (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia). The main document that establishes the basic principles of the functioning of the EAEU is the Agreement on EAEU that also covers the specifics of application of non-tariff measures (NTMs) on a very aggregate level. Overall NTMs adopted within EAEU are equally applied by the members of the Union. But still these measures may find their reflection in the national legislation of the member-states.
In order to analyze EAEU NTMs two sources of information were used: website of the Eurasian Economic Commission and TRAINS/WITS database. They were used as complements and allowed to find the most up to date versions of the legal acts that cover trade- and NTM-related aspects of EAEU functioning.
International trade is in continuous development which means there must also be responsive developments in the international economic institutions which regulate it. The authors conclude that the initiatives of international organizations in the global regulation of e-commerce are far behind business practices. Despite the dynamic development of the digital economy, international institutions have not yet been able to work out control mechanisms at the multilateral level. Therefore, today the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a number of other international organizations are faced with the need to develop new mechanisms for regulating trade in conditions of digitalization. This will largely depend not only on the new rules of trade policy, but also on the future of these organizations and their placement in the hierarchy of influence of international institutions.
This article illustrates that countries are able to regulate various aspects of e-commerce more comprehensively at the bilateral and plurilateral levels. The use of digital trade regulations developed at the regional and plurilateral levels, as well as the cooperation of countries in other fora— Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Group of 20 (G20) — may facilitate the creation of future WTO agreements governing digital trade.
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/