In the last two decades, World Trade Organization law’s public interest exceptions (Article XX GATT, Article XIV GATS, Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and Article 20 TRIPS) have seen the emergence and evolution of the doctrine of ‘weighing and balancing.’ This paper provides a criticism of this doctrine through a comparative ontological analysis and demonstrates three propositions. First, it shows that the concept of ‘weighing and balancing’ results from the ill-considered reception of a doctrine pertaining to federal systems. Second, the paper demonstrates through the analysis of the case law that the role of ‘weighing and balancing’ is rather poetical and, in reality, the Appellate Body does not engage in balancing. Third, it proposes that an outspoken ‘necessity’ analysis should be carried out that is tailored to arrangements based on contractual promises and is guided by the notion of quasi-reservation. The paper re-conceptualizes the Appellate Body’s case law and elaborates a doctrinal framework warranted by the function of World Trade Organization law’s public interest exceptions.

中文翻译：

---

WTO法中贸易与国家公共利益的冲突：“权衡与平衡”的错觉与保留理论

在过去的 20 年里，世界贸易组织法律的公共利益例外（GATT 第 XX 条、GATS 第 XIV 条、TBT 协定第 2.2 条和 TRIPS 第 20 条）见证了“……权衡与平衡。这篇论文通过比较本体论分析对这一学说进行了批评，并论证了三个命题。首先，它表明“权衡和平衡”的概念源于对与联邦制度有关的学说考虑不周。其次，本文通过判例法分析表明，“权衡和平衡”的作用颇具诗意，而实际上上诉机构并不参与平衡。第三，它建议应该进行直言不讳的“必要性”分析，该分析适合基于合同承诺的安排，并以准保留的概念为指导。该文件重新构思了上诉机构的判例法，并阐述了世界贸易组织法公共利益例外的功能所保证的理论框架。