Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Position of the National-Security Exeption in the World Trade ‎Organization and International Judicial Practice

Document Type : Article

Authors

Mohammad Jafar Ghanbari Jahromi 1
Mohammad Javad Manavi Attar 2

1 Associate Pro., Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, ‎Tehran, Iran‎

2 Ph.D. International Commercial and Investment Law, University of Study Faculty of Law, Shahid ‎Beheshti Universtiy, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2025.383459.3618
Abstract
An examination of the position of national security exeptrion in the World Trade Organization and international case law is of great importance, especially as we have recently witnessed unprecedented references by states to the national security exeption as a means to avoid fulfilling their obligations. The continuation of this trend in the near future will undoubtedly present significant challenges to the international legal system. In this context, the most important questions include: the conditions for invoking the national security exception, its legal implications, and ultimately the mechanisms to address the challenges ahead. By analyzing the latest findings from international judicial practices, particularly the Russia Transit case in the World Trade Organization and the Certain Iranian Assets case in the International Court of Justice, it can be concluded that a state is exempt from fulfilling its obligations under the guise of national security only when the invocation of national security is "necessary," the actions taken are "proportional" to the goal of maintaining national security, and they have been taken in "good faith." The establishment of a balance between conflicting interests by the court and the acceptance of the invocation of national security within the limits of rationality are two mechanisms to counter the challenges posed by the national security exception.

Keywords

national security exeption
‎proportionality
World ‎Trade Organization
‎necessity
responsibility of ‎governments.‎
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Cui, F, C Hoeffler & S C Hofmann (2021). National security and other non-trade objectives under WTO law. London: CEPR Press.
    3. Herdegen, M. (2016). Principles of International Economic Law. London: Oxford University Press.
    4. Kawashima, F. (2024). Trade Sanctions Against Russia and Their WTO Consistency: Focusing on Justification Under National Security Exceptions. Singapore: Springer.
    5. Singh, S. (2023). Future Unready: Does the WTO Need to Bolster Its Security Exceptions. Cham: Springer.
    6. Vranes, E. (2023). Introduction: The “Sleeping Dragon” of WTO Law. Cham: Springer.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Bismono, R., and others (2022). The Problems of interpreting GATT Articles XXI (b) (iii) in Russia - Traffic in Transit. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy. 21 (1), 65-78, https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-10-2021-0054.
    3. Emmanuel Kolawole Oke (2021). COVID-19, Pandemics, and the National Security Exception in the TRIPS Agreement. INTELL. PROP. INFO. TECH. & ELEC. COM. L. 12 (397), 396-407.
    4. Godsell, D., and others (2023). U.S. National Security and De-globalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 54 (8), 1471-1494. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00621-2.
    5. Jaemin Lee (2021). A Blind Side of Security Exceptions?: New Legal Complexities of the "Refusal to Furnish Information" Clause. KOREAN L. 20 (1), 173-216. https://doi.org/10.23110/jkl.2021.20.1.006.
    6. Jia Wang (2021). Certain Iranian Assets: The Judgment on Preliminary Objections and the Terrorism Exception to State Immunity. 18 US-CHINA L. REV, 18 (4), 162-172. https:// doi.org/10.17265/1548-6605/2021.04.002.
    7. Kevin J. Fandl (2021). National Security Tariffs: A Threat to Effective Trade Policy. University of Pennsilvania Journal of Business Law 23, 340-389.
    8. Massimo Lando (2018). Plausibility in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, Leiden Journal of International Law, 31(3), 641-668.
    9. Philipp Janig & Sara Mansour Fallah (2016). Certain Iranian Assets: The Limits of Anti-Terrorism Measures in Light of State Immunity and Standards of Treatment. 59 German YearBook of International Law, 59, 355-391.
    10. Ruys, T., Deweerdt, M. (2023). From Tehran to Moscow: The ICJ’s 2023 Certain Iranian Assets Judgment and Its Broader Ramifications for Unilateral Sanctions, Including Against Russia. Netherlands International Law Review, T.M.C Asser Press, 70, 273-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-023-00240-6.
    11. T., Ringaret, C. (2020), Secondary Sanctions: A Weapon Out of Control? The International Legality of, And European Responses to, US Secondary Sanctions. The British Yearbook of International Law, Oxford University Press, 0(0). 1-116.
    12. Samantha Franks (2021). Exploring Climate Security to Article XXI of the GATT. Washington University Global Studies Law Review. 20(2), 523-533.
    13. Scott PF. (2023). State threats’, security, and democracy: the National Security Act 2023. Legal Studies. 44(2), 260-276. https//. doi:10.1017/lst.2023.39.
    14. Voon, Tania. (2023). The Security Exception In WTO Law: Entering a New Era. American Journal of International Law Unbound. 113, 45-50. https://doi.org/10.1017.aju.2019.3.

     

    1. C) Decisions
    2. ‏Bank Markazi v. Peterson, United States Court of Apeals 2016.
    3. Belgium v. Senegal, ICJ Reports 2009
    4. Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), ICJ Reports 2023.
    5. EC Banans III (Ecuador v. European Communities), WTO Reports 2012.
    6. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), ICJ Reports 1986.
    7. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States), ICJ Reports 2003.
    8. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), ICJ Reports 2006.
    9. United States- Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products (China v. United States), WTO Reports 2022.
    10. US - Helms Burton (European Communities v. United States), WTO Reports 1998.
    11. Rosneft v. Her Majesty’s Treasury, European Court of Justice 2017.
    12. Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit (Ukraine v. Russia), WTO Reports 2019.
    13. Saudi Arabia – Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (Qatar v. Saudi Arabia), WTO Reports 2020.

     

    References In Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Falsafi, H.A. (2014). Eternal Peace and the Rule of Law, the Dialectic of Similarities and Difference. Tehran: Farhang-e Nashr-e Nu. (in Persian)
    3. Wallace, R. & Martin Ortega, O. (2013). International Law. translated by Seyyed Ghasem Zamani & Mahnaz Bahramlou. Tehran: Shahr-e Danesh. (in Persian)

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Kadkhodaee, A., & Jalili, S. R. (2022). Citing National Security Exceptions in the System of International Treaties. The Quarterly Journal of Public Law Research, 24(75), 45-78. DOI: 10.22054/QJPL.2021.58257.2553. (in Persian)
    3. Mousavi Zenuz, M., & Moradi, H. (2013). National Security Considerations in the World Trade Organization. Law Quarterly, the Journal of Faculty of Law and Political Studies, 2(43), 135-152. (In Persian)
    4. Noori, J., & Pirmoradi, A. (2021), Intrepretation of the Security Exception in the WTO in the Light of the Panel Report in Russia-Ukraine Dispute. Private Law Studies Quarterly, 51(4), 807-826. DOI: 10.22059/JLQ.2022.303294.1007384. (in Persian)
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 2 - Serial Number 42
Summer 2025
Summer 2025
Pages 1481-1503

  • Receive Date 01 November 2024
  • Revise Date 01 March 2025
  • Accept Date 05 March 2025

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us