The necessity test in the GATT/WTO legal system has long been attacked on two grounds. First, the legal test formulated by the WTO Appellate Body to assess necessity has been described as ambiguous, illogical and arbitrary. Second, the WTO Appellate Body’s stringent interpretation of the necessity requirement has interfered with WTO Members’ domestic choices about policy objectives. This article revisits these conventional criticisms in the light of the recent WTO case law and attempts to make three claims in relation to the necessity test in WTO law. First, we now have a much clearer understanding of the role each element of the necessity test plays, how different elements interact and how to draw a conclusion after weighing and balancing these elements. Second, the WTO Appellate Body has gradually and substantially relaxed the necessity test over the past decade. It is no longer justifiable to depict the necessity test as a straightjacket. Third, the WTO Appellate Body has successfully pushed for a broad convergence in necessity tests across various WTO Agreements, despite their textual and structural differences.

中文翻译：

---

世界贸易法的必要性测试：现在怎么办？

GATT/WTO 法律体系中的必要性检验长期以来受到两个方面的抨击。首先，世贸组织上诉机构为评估必要性而制定的法律测试被描述为模棱两可、不合逻辑和武断。其次，世贸组织上诉机构对必要性要求的严格解释干扰了世贸组织成员对政策目标的国内选择。本文根据最近的 WTO 判例法重新审视这些传统批评，并试图就 WTO 法中的必要性检验提出三项主张。首先，我们现在对必要性测试的每个元素所起的作用、不同元素如何相互作用以及如何在权衡和平衡这些元素后得出结论有了更清晰的了解。第二，WTO 上诉机构在过去十年中逐渐并实质性地放宽了必要性测试。将必要性测试描述为一件紧身衣已不再合理。第三，尽管存在文本和结构上的差异，WTO 上诉机构已经成功地推动了各种 WTO 协议在必要性测试方面的广泛趋同。