IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v13y2014i02p393-408_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

China–Raw Materials: a controversial step towards evenhanded exploitation of natural resources

Author

Listed:
  • BRONCKERS, MARCO
  • MASKUS, KEITH E.

Abstract

This case sheds light on the question whether WTO members, when exploiting their natural resources, can give priority to the needs of their domestic market as opposed to the needs of other WTO Members. From the ruling of the Appellate Body, and the unappealed part of the panel decision, one can conclude that a WTO Member normally must ensure an evenhanded distribution of the natural resources that it decides to mine or harvest amongst the WTO membership. The only difference arises where a Member's citizens or industries face a crisis because of a temporary shortage of an essential product. For those who share an international outlook on the world, this is an acceptable, and even a desirable outcome. The ruling potentially has far-reaching implications for international trade, not only in minerals and metals, but for agricultural and energy goods as well. However, in reaching this laudable result, circumscribing the use of export restrictions, the Appellate Body also made a highly regrettable finding. It ruled that China, because of the wording of its Accession Protocol, was not allowed to invoke a public policy justification for certain of its export restrictions (notably: its export duties, on which it had assumed additional commitments). The underlying assumption that sovereign states can sign away their rights to pursue public policies, such as environmental protection, which are generally admitted amongst the WTO membership, is deplorable.

Suggested Citation

  • Bronckers, Marco & Maskus, Keith E., 2014. "China–Raw Materials: a controversial step towards evenhanded exploitation of natural resources," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 393-408, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:13:y:2014:i:02:p:393-408_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474745614000032/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bown, Chad & Crowley, Meredith A., 2016. "The Empirical Landscape of Trade Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 11216, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Eugene Beaulieu & Denise Prévost, 2019. "Subsidy Determination, Benchmarks and Adverse Inferences: Assessing ‘benefit' in US – Coated Paper (Indonesia)," RSCAS Working Papers 2019/76, European University Institute.
    3. Beshkar, Mostafa & Chilton, Adam S., 2016. "Revisiting Procedure and Precedent in the WTO: An Analysis of US – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures (China)," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 375-395, April.
    4. Bond, Eric W. & Trachtman, Joel, 2016. "China–Rare Earths: Export Restrictions and the Limits of Textual Interpretation," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 189-209, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:13:y:2014:i:02:p:393-408_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/wtr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.