Skip Navigation


Journal of International Economic Law Advance Access originally published online on October 17, 2007
Journal of International Economic Law 2008 11(1):43-74; doi:10.1093/jiel/jgm036
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
11/1/43    most recent
jgm036v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Diebold, N. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2007, all rights reserved

The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law: Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole

Nicolas F. Diebold*

* Research and teaching assistant at the Institute of European and International Economic Law, University of Berne; Associate research fellow with the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) on Trade Regulation at the World Trade Institute, Berne. E-mail: nicolas.diebold{at}gmail.com.


  Abstract

On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China regarding trading rights for publications and audiovisual products. Following US—Gambling, this case is likely to provoke the next clash between free trade and public morals. This article takes an abstract approach to the scope and content of the public morals and public order exceptions in the GATS and the GATT and, given the absence of a public order exception under the GATT, analyzes how these two concepts interrelate with one another. In this regard, the finding in US—Gambling that Members should individually define the scope of Article XIV(a) GATS is critically examined, but the article suggests that it deserves support based on an interpretation in accordance with general principles of the law of treaties. Following the identification of instruments that limit the risk for abuse of the morals and order exceptions, the article will turn to the scope-related aspect regarding the justifiability of ‘extraterritorial’ measures.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.