Abstract
Dunya Ticaret Orgutu’ne taraf bircok devlet, son yillarda Gumruk Tarifeleri ve Ticaret Genel Anlasmasi Madde XXI tahtinda DTO Anlasmalarindaki yukumluluklerinden kacinmaya baslamistir. DTO Anlasmalarinda istisnai bir hukum olarak kabul edilen Madde XXI, uye devletlere ulusal guvenligin korunmasi adina onemli bir takdir yetkisi vermektedir. Ancak hem bu Maddenin muglak ve tartismali olan icerigi hem de simdiye kadar olan uygulamasi uluslararasi hukuk acisindan ayrintili bir incelemeyi gerektirmektedir. Bu baglamda, bu makale Madde XXI ile ilgili iki temel soruya cevap aramaktadir. Makalede, ilk olarak uye devletlere verilen takdir yetkisinin munhasir olup olmadigi yada DTO panelleri tarafindan yargilanip yargilanamayacagi irdelenmektedir. Daha sonra ise, soz konusu takdir yetkisinin yargilanabilir oldugu kabul edildigi durumda, yapilacak olan yargilamanin hangi olcutlere gore yapilmasi gerektigi tartisilmaktadir. Yapilan bu incelemeler, Madde XXI uygulamasi ile ilgili ilk DTO panel karari niteligini haiz ve cok yakin zamanda verilmis olan Russia- Measures concerning Traffic in Transit karari isiginda ele alinmistir. Makale, ozetle, uye devletlere birakilan takdir yetkisin munhasir olmadigini, ancak bu yetkinin suregelen muglak iceriginin acikliga kavusturulma ihtiyacinin devam etmekte oldugunu iddia etmektedir.
Highlights
One salient point of difference between international law and national law is that the former lacks a strong centralised system
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT) Article XXI states that contracting parties are not precluded from taking any action which they consider necessary for the protection of their essential national security interests
Is the authority vested in the contracting parties self-judging, or can it be reviewed by World Trade Organisation (WTO) adjudicatory bodies? Second, what is the standard for a review to be conducted in respect of Article XXI ratione materiae? This Article examines the reviewability and meaning of the WTO national security exception in depth
Summary
One salient point of difference between international law and national law is that the former lacks a strong centralised system. ”to examine, in the light of the relevant GATT provisions, of the understanding reached at the Council on 10 October 1985 that the Panel cannot examine or judge the validity of or motivation for the invocation of Article XXI:(b)(iii) by the United States, of the relevant provisions of the Understanding Regarding Notification, Consultation, Dispute Settlement and Surveillance (BISD 26S/211-218), and of the agreed Dispute Settlement Procedures contained in the 1982 Ministerial Declaration (BISD 29S/13-16), the measures taken by the United States on 7 May 1985 and their trade effects in order to establish to what extent benefits accruing to Nicaragua under the General Agreement have been nullified or impaired, and to make such findings as will assist the CONTRACTING PARTIES in further action in this matter” (C/M/196, page 7)“. The Panel held that the meaning of the term “war or other international emergency” in this paragraph must be determined objectively. a country invoking this national security exception must present objective security reasons, which is to say that it cannot totally self-judge the necessity for adopting the measures in question
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
