Purpose

This paper aims to further study the panel report in Russia – Traffic in Transit regarding the interpretation and application of 1994 general agreements on tariffs and trade (GATT) Article XXI(b). It analyses the threshold applied by the panel in applying Article XXI(b)(iii) and further discusses the potential problem that may arise in the future dispute. This study also investigates the notion of emergency and security interest and its development in international law.

Design/methodology/approach

This normative research uses a qualitative legal methodology. This study conducts desk analysis of primary legal materials and existing literature to assess the concept of security interest within the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework.

Findings

This paper finds that the panel in Russia – Traffic in Transit applied subjective and objective test in reviewing Russia’s invocation of GATT Article XXI(b)(iii). Despite the adjectival self-judging clause and the political tension of the dispute, the panel is capable to review its application. This study further finds that the term security interest and emergency in international relations still leaves the possibility of open interpretation.

Research limitations/implications

Because of the normative research approach, the research results lack empirical data and implications. Therefore, future research is encouraged to inquire on the empirical research.

Originality/value

This paper fulfils the need to study and explore security exception clause within the WTO framework as a normative rule of law and in the wider conceptual notion of security and emergency in international law.

中文翻译：

---

在俄罗斯解释 GATT 第 XXI(b)(iii) 条的问题 – 过境运输

目的

本文旨在进一步研究俄罗斯的小组报告——过境运输关于 1994 年关税和贸易总协定 (GATT) 第 XXI(b) 条的解释和应用。它分析了专家组在适用第 XXI(b)(iii) 条时应用的门槛，并进一步讨论了未来争议中可能出现的潜在问题。本研究还调查了紧急情况和安全利益的概念及其在国际法中的发展。

设计/方法/方法

这项规范性研究使用了定性的法律方法。本研究对主要法律材料和现有文献进行案头分析，以评估世界贸易组织 (WTO) 框架内的担保权益概念。

发现

本文认为，俄罗斯 – 过境运输专家组在审查俄罗斯援引 GATT 第 XXI(b)(iii) 条时应用了主观和客观的测试。尽管有形容词自我判断条款和争议的政治紧张局势，但专家组有能力审查其适用。本研究进一步发现，国际关系中的“安全利益”和“紧急情况”一词仍然存在开放解释的可能性。

研究限制/影响

由于规范的研究方法，研究结果缺乏经验数据和启示。因此，鼓励未来的研究询问实证研究。

原创性/价值

本文满足了在 WTO 框架内作为规范性法治和国际法中更广泛的安全和紧急情况概念研究和探索安全例外条款的需要。