Russian Federation: Measures Concerning Traffic In Transit. WTO Dispute Settlement System. Report Of The Panel

I. INTRODUCTION

The dispute Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit (DS512) relates to multiple restrictions on traffic in transit from Ukraine through Russia to third countries. In particular, Russia banned all international cargo transit from the territory of Ukraine that is destined primarily for Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic.

This is a landmark case not only for Ukraine but also for the WTO and world trade in general. The main question confronting the panel in this dispute was whether violations of Ukraine's transit rights by Russia may be justified under the security exception of Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994). Until now, no other WTO Member had invoked the security exception, and the predominant view within the WTO has been that Article XXI could open the door to frequent use of this exception as a justification for purely protectionist measures. The panel report was circulated on 5 April 2019. The objective of this review is the identification of the panel's key conclusions, which might have systemic implications for the functioning of the WTO multilateral trading system.

II. MEASURES AT ISSUE

Ukraine complained about four categories of measures applied by the Russian Federation:

(i) The 2014 transit restrictions and bans;
(ii) The 2016 general transit ban and transit restrictions;
(iii) The 2016 product-specific transit ban and transit restrictions; and Ukraine claimed that the measures at issue fail to comply with Russia's obligation under Articles V, X of the GATT 1994 and related commitments in Russia's Accession Protocol.

Russia, in turn, deemed it unnecessary to rebut Ukraine's claims and did not address factual evidence and legal arguments provided by Ukraine. Russia, thus, (i) focused on jurisdiction objections and (ii) invoked the provisions of Article XXI(b)(iii) stating that transit restrictions against Ukraine were adopted to ensure its "essential security interests ... in time of war or other emergency in international relations".

III. JURISDICTION

Russia claimed that the panel lacks jurisdiction to review its invocation of Article XXI(b)(iii)6 due to the alleged "self-judging" nature of the present exception. According to Russia, the panel has to limit its findings to recognizing that Russia has invoked Article XXI without engaging in any further analysis. Ukraine, in turn, considered Article XXI as an affirmative defence for a measure that would otherwise fail to comply with obligations under the GATT 1994.

The panel, however, ruled that it has the power to review whether the requirements of Article XXI are satisfied since the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) lacks any special or additional rules of procedure applying to disputes involving Article XXI.7 The panel also noted that for action to fall within the scope of Article XXI(b), it must objectively be found to meet the requirements in one of the enumerated subparagraphs of Article XXI. Accordingly, the panel cleared up all doubts regarding its jurisdiction to review invocation of the security exception, and concluded that disputes under Article XXI(b)(iii) are justiciable.

IV. SECURITY EXCEPTION UNDER ARTICLE XXI(B)(III) OF THE GATT 1994

First, the panel has examined whether the measures were "taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations" under Article XXI(b)(iii). The emergency in international relations was interpreted by the panel as "a situation of armed conflict, or of latent armed conflict, or of heightened tension or crisis, or of general instability engulfing or surrounding a state".

It has to be noted that the present measures were introduced in a broader context of Ukraine-Russia relations and related to a change in government in Ukraine in February 2014 as well as to Ukraine's decision to pursue political and economic integration with the EU, which meant refusing to join the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union. These events in Ukraine led to an escalation of conflict between the states, which Russia tried to address by using economic sanctions and free trade limitations tools.

In the case at hand, Russia referred to the emergency in international relations that occurred in 2014 and contended that this dispute raised issues "concerning politics, national security and international peace and security".10 Ukraine argued that Russia had not discharged its burden of proof as the 2014 emergency was not identified or described in an adequate manner.

Quite remarkably, the panel began its analysis with the explanation that 'it is not relevant to this determination which actor or actors bear international responsibility for the existence of this situation to which Russia refers. Nor is it necessary for the panel to characterize the situation between Russia and Ukraine under international law in general'.

In the course of its analysis, the panel explained that it had evidence that, starting from March 2014, the situation between Ukraine and Russia had deteriorated and became a matter of concern on the international stage. By December 2016, it was recognized by the UN General Assembly as involving armed conflict. Further evidence of the gravity of the situation, according to the panel, is the fact that, since 2014, economic sanctions were imposed against Russia by the international community.

Based on this, the panel concluded that (i) the situation between Ukraine and Russia since 2014 constitutes an emergency in international relations14, and (ii) each of the measures at issue was taken in time of' an emergency in international relations, within the meaning of Article XXI(b)(iii).

Second, the panel examined 'whether the conditions of the chapeau of Article XXI(b) of the GATT 1994 are satisfied'.

In this regard, the panel struggled with interpretation of the "which it considers" clause trying to identify whether it qualifies either "the determination of invoking Member's essential security interests and the necessity of the [challenged] measures" or solely "the determination of their necessity".

Russia, clearly, insisted on the first option, stating it is entirely upon the discretion of the invoking Member to determine the necessity of measures to protect security interests. Ukraine, predictably, viewed the chapeau as requiring an objective analysis of the necessity of Russia's measures to protect security interests.

The panel interpreted "essential security interests" as relating to the quintessential functions of the state, namely, the protection of its territory and its population from external threats, and the maintenance of law and public order internally.18 Due to the nature of essential security interests, the panel stated that it is at the discretion of the Member to define them19 but, at the same time, cautioned that the good faith principle must be considered.

The panel subsequently noted that the invoking Member has to articulate its essential security interests arising from the emergency in international relations.21 Although Russia failed to do so, the panel still accepted its reference to certain characteristics of the 2014 emergency concerning the security of the Ukraine-Russia border22 since, in the present case, the emergency in international relations is very close to the 'hard core' of war or armed conflict.

As to the good faith principle, the panel viewed it as rather a relaxed standard, stating that it only demands demonstrating a minimum requirement of plausibility of the measure in relating to essential security interests.24 No wonder Russia was able to comply with this, regardless of reasonable Ukrainian remarks that the challenged measures are motivated by Russia's economic interests and its desire to prevent Ukraine's economic integration with the EU.25

In the eyes of the panel, however, the measures at hand had nothing to do with Ukraine's decision to sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement but rather related to the emergency in international relations.26 Consequently, the panel ruled that Russia's measures were taken with a view to an emergency in Russia's relations with Ukraine affecting the security of the Ukraine-Russia border and, for these reasons, enjoy justification under Article XXI(b)(iii).

Having done so, the panel analysed Ukraine's claims as to the inconsistency of Russia's measures with Articles V and X of the GATT 1994 and Russia's Accession Protocol. The panel has done so anticipating that if its findings on Article XXI(b)(iii) would be reversed in the event of an appeal (which did not happen), the Appellate Body would have to complete its analysis.27 Russia, in turn, did not rebut any argument or evidence regarding Ukraine's claims since it considered that the measures at issue comply with the GATT 1994 and its Accession Protocol based on Article XXI(b)(iii).

V. ARTICLE V OF THE GATT 1994

A. the first sentence of article v

Ukraine claimed that the measures at issue fail to guarantee freedom of transit though the territory of Russia for traffic in transit coming from Ukraine and/or going to Kazakhstan or the Kyrgyz Republic in violation of the first sentence of Article V:2. Notably, Ukraine argued that where a WTO Member prohibits traffic in transit from the territory of another country with which it shares a border, such a measure necessarily fails to guarantee freedom of transit.

The panel established that the first sentence of Article V:2 requires each WTO Member to guarantee freedom of transit thought its territory for any traffic in transit "entering from" and "exiting to" any other WTO Member.29 Accordingly, if a measure prohibits traffic in transit from another Member from entering at all points along a shared land border, it will necessarily violate the first sentence of Article V:2. Applying this interpretation to the measures at issue, the panel easily determined that they prohibit traffic in transit to enter Russia from the territory of Ukraine. On balance, the panel found that had the measures been taken in "normal times" (not in time of an 'emergency in international relations'), Ukraine would have a prima facie case of inconsistency of the challenged measures with the first sentence of Article V:2.30

B. The second sentence of Article V

Ukraine argued that the challenged measures make distinctions based on the place of departure and entry (the Ukraine-Russia border), the place of exit (the Russia-Kazakhstan border), and the place of destination (Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic) and the place of origin of the traffic in transit, in violation of the second sentence of Article V:2.31 The panel had no difficulties in agreeing with Ukraine's arguments32, however, it similarly states that Ukraine would have a prima facie case of inconsistency of the challenged measures only if they had been taken in 'normal times'.

VI. Other claims under Articles V and X of the GATT 1994

Since Ukraine challenged the same aspects of the measures at issue as violating Articles V:3, V:4 and V:5, the panel deemed it unnecessary to complete an analysis under the present parts of Article V. Similarly, the panel ruled that an analysis of Ukraine's claims under Articles X:1, X:2 and X:3(a) would not add any value to the ability of the DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations and rulings.

VII. Russia's Accession Protocol

Ukraine also challenged the consistency of the measures at issue with Russia's Accession Protocol, stating that the first sentence of para. 1161 of Russia's Working Party Report mirrors Article V of the GATT 1994, which implies that violation of Article V automatically ends up in violation of para. 1161.35 Ukraine raised the same argument with regard to paras. 1426-1428 (reaffirming obligations under Article X the GATT 1994) of Russia's Working Party Report.

It worth noting that there is no clear answer in the WTO jurisprudence as to the applicability of the exceptions under the covered agreement to Members' accession protocols, which do not expressly incorporate such exceptions. In China – Rare Earths, the Appellate Body noted that "the relationship between provisions in Members" Accession Protocols and provisions in the WTO Agreement must be determined on a case-by-case basis'.

In casu, the panel believed that "the architecture of the WTO system confers a single package of rights and obligations upon Russia, of which the GATT 1994 and its Accession Protocol are constituent parts".38 To do so, the panel examined the text, context and content of each challenged provision and found textual references to WTO-covered agreements and to security exceptions therein. Notably, the panel considered such phrases as "other relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement" (para. 1161), "in a manner that fulfils applicable requirements of the WTO Agreement" (para. 1426), "except in cases of emergency" (para. 1727), "as provided in the applicable provisions of the WTO Agreement" (para. 1428) as establishing a close link between the Accession Protocol and the GATT 1994 and, accordingly, as justifying the applicability of Article XXI(b)(iii) to the Accession Protocol. Subsequently, the panel found that Russia, while violating commitments under its Accession Protocol, enjoys justification under Article XXI(b)(iii) as its measures were taken in time of an "emergency in international relations".39 For these reasons, the panel made no recommendation to the DSB according to Article 19.1 of the DSU.

VIII. Conclusions and post-developments

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the present ruling since the WTO panel for the first time in the WTO history touched upon the national security exception and its correlation with other obligations under covered agreements.

First, the panel ruled that it has jurisdiction to review the WTO Members' invocation of the security exception. Second, the security exception is not "self-judging" and may not be invoked at the sole discretion of a violator. It was clarified that while subparagraphs (i)(iii) are subject to the panel's objective review, the chapeau of Article XXI(b) envisages rather a subjective standard to be defined by the invoking Member. Thus, the phrase 'which it considers necessary' must be understood as the WTO Member has the discretion to designate what it considers to be an "essential security interest". Finally, the need for balance has always been central to the invocation of justifications under the GATT 1994. Therefore, the assessment of the security exception cannot be invoked by an unfretted discretion of the violator and is limited by a good faith requirement, which is a general principle of law and a principle of general international law.

Regardless of high expectations, neither Russia nor Ukraine appealed the report and it has been adopted by the DSB. This, accordingly, implies that WTO Members would not see for a while the Appellate Body's way of interpretation of Article XXI.
Russia considered the outcome of the dispute as well-balanced, as Article XXI did work to a large extent as a "get-out-of-jail" card for the respondent,40 while Ukraine expressed its disappointment with the results. Additionally, Ukraine and the EU outlined that the report gave the impression that Ukraine and the EU worked towards a free trade agreement following tensions with Russia.

In turn, the US considered the panel's ruling as problematic and was not satisfied with the panel's reasoning over the desired "self-judging" nature of the national security exception. At the same time, the US was not happy with the fact that the panel made the case for the respondent. It appears that the US and other critics of the DSB would leave their footprints on the further fate of the Appellate Body and such dissatisfaction might end up in further blockage of appointments of Appellate Body members.

Finally, it would be especially interesting to look at how this ruling will influence panels' interpretive choices in other pending cases involving Article XXI (notably, Saudi Arabia – Goods, Services and IP rights, United Arab Emirates – Goods, Services and IP rights, Bahrain – Goods, Services and IP rights, US — Steel and Aluminium Products series of cases).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions