GATT XXI國家安全例外的可審查性？——以Russia Traffic in Transit案為核心探討

世界貿易組織（World Trade Organization, WTO）在降低關稅及非關稅貿易障礙而促進國際貿易發展，維護國際貿易公平競爭場域之餘，WTO在《關稅暨貿易總協定》（General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT）第XX條及第XXI條下，也分別制定一般性例外（general exception）及安全例外（security exception），允許會員得在基於特定事由並符合特定條件時，得採取與GATT相違背的貿易限制措施。然而，相較第XX條一般性例外在多次被援引後，有豐富之爭端解決裁決先例，可指引此條款之解釋及適用；第XXI條之安全例外規定，則因鮮少被援引且未曾被爭端解決機構（Dispute Settlement Body）審理，導致其解釋適用留有諸多爭議。在實務上，美國川普總統自上任以來，即援引美國「1962年貿易擴張法第232條款（1962 Trade Expansion Act Section 232）」，以維護國家安全為由，對鋼鐵產品實施進口限制，並主張其措施與GATT第XXI條第2項第3款之國家安全例外規定相符，且美國有權自行判斷是否有危害其實質國家利益情狀發生，並可自行決定採取何種措施為適當，引發國際間對安全例外條款可能被濫用之疑慮。且除美國外，當前烏克蘭與俄羅斯，沙烏地阿拉伯、巴林以及阿拉伯聯合大公國對卡達實施的貿易限制措施，均亦援引GATT第XXI條第2項第3款國家安全例外為正當化事由。
有鑒於WTO會員對於國家安全例外條款中，關於「涉及會員重大安全利益」以及「國際關係緊張時期」等抽象及概括要件之解釋存有歧異，並因該條款是否為「自我審查條款（self-judging provision）」，使援引者得排除WTO其他會員以及WTO爭端解決機構對措施合法性、合目的性及必要性審查，且著眼於各國似有擴大援引國家安全例外條款實施貿易限制措施之趨勢，凸顯在國際貿易法律研究上，有充實對國家安全例外條款研究之必要。本文分為五個部分分析GATT第XXI條國家安全例外條款之解釋適用。在前言中，本文將檢視近年各國援引國家安全例外條款而實施之貿易限制措施，述明當前因國家安全例外適用而引發之國際貿易法律問題爭議，以及國家安全例外條款被濫用之可能。第貳部分則透過文義解釋、歷史性解釋以及體系解釋等法學方法以及學者論述分析，統整國家安全例外條款之解釋適用見解。第參部分以WTO爭端解決小組於2019年6月做成的「俄羅斯－過境轉運案（Russia－Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit）」裁決為核心，除說明該案事實背景及涉及國家安全例外條款適用之爭點外，更將聚焦小組對第XXI條第2項第3款適用之論理，以及小組在該案中否定國家安全例外為「自我審查條款」，但肯認會員就「認定國家安全利益」及「決定措施必要性」擁有廣泛裁量權之見解。第肆部份就Russia－Traffic in Transit小組裁決提出評析，除分析本案對國家安全例外條款整體適用之影響外，並將說明本裁決對其他涉及安全例外條款爭端解決之可參考性，以及本案未能釋疑而尚待後案處理之問題。第伍部分提出結論。

Comparing to the well-interpreted GATT Article XX General Exception Clause with abundant dispute settlement ruling precedents guiding its use, the GATT Article XXI security exception is rarely invoked and discussed through the history of GATT and WTO. However, after President Trump took office and invoked Article 232 of the 1962 U.S. Trade Expansion Act to impose restrictions on steel and aluminum products on the grounds of safeguarding national security, the applicability of GATT Article XXI has now grasped the world’s attention. In the recent trade disputes between Ukraine and Russia, and between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, GATT Article XXI was also the core matter of the case. In order to better understand how GATT Article should be applied, referencing recent Russia－Traffic in Transit Panel Report, this article shall analyze the application of the GATT Article XXI National Security Exception. Matters such as the justiciability of GATT Article XXI, whether WTO dispute settlement mechanism may exercise jurisdiction upon GATT Article XXI disputes, and about the“self-judging nature”GATT Article XXI shall be discussed.
In part one, this article shall start with reviewing the recent WTO-Members’invocation of GATT Article XXI national security exceptions, and shall highlight the possibility of the abusive use of such provision. Part two then starts by addressing the GATT Article XXI provision, and shall interpret the provision through contextual interpretation, historical interpretation, and shall supplement the discussion with scholars’comments and analyses. Part three focuses on illustrating the Russia－Traffic in Transit decision, with particular focus on assessing the Panel’s interpretation and application of GATT Article XXI. Part four comments on the Panel’s Russia－Traffic in Transit ruling and shall illustrate the potential impact this decision may cause to later disputes. Part five concludes.