Rule of Law in the Application of WTO Rules: A Study on China's Textile Special Safeguard Measures

Author: Huang Dongli
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2005-10-01
Features: The trade friction between China and Europe and the United States in textiles has been ongoing. These frictions stem from China's signing of the Special Safeguard Measures for Textiles upon joining the WTO. In this economic dispute triggered by the international treaty, the role of law has not been fulfilled as it should. Historically, the most common means of resolving economic conflicts of interest has been politics, particularly political coercion by force. The WTO legal system has the potential to find a peaceful path for the development of world resources and the allocation of economic interests, as the legal system, as the foundation of democracy, is accepted by all. Complete reliance on law in international affairs is naive, but expressing distrust of law under the WTO system is dangerous. American interest groups are concerned about the rule of law in China because they believe it paves the way for breaking through China's economic sovereignty. The American public is concerned about the rule of law in China because they believe it guarantees life, freedom, and property. In electorally governed states, interest groups manipulate ideology, and must first manipulate public perception. Accusing China of lacking the rule of law is a shortcut to gaining broad public support. One evidence of the lack of rule of law is the complete substitution of politics for law. We have always believed that we joined the WTO on the basis of a fundamental balance between rights and obligations. Therefore, the setback in international textile trade is either a result of our own balanced interests or the abuse of rules by other members. If the former is the case, the correct attitude is to calmly face trade restrictions. If the latter is the case, using law to protect our national economic interests is the action that should be taken. This book takes the legal interpretation of the Special Safeguard Measures for Textiles as a clue to explore the basic principles of treaty interpretation in the WTO legal system, exemplify the legal interpretation methods of WTO treaties, analyze the legislation of Europe and the United States targeting China's Special Safeguard Measures for Textiles, and examine the actual application of U.S. legislation, providing a basis for legally resolving the trade friction between China and Europe and the United States in textiles. Law is a good path to resolving textile trade friction and the primary consideration for addressing future trade frictions. It is a crucial purpose of our joining the WTO and a direct weapon to protect our trade interests. It is more likely to become a good start for us to move toward the rule of law and establish an international image of the rule of law. It is another opportunity given to us by history. The trade friction between China and Europe and the United States in textiles has been ongoing. These frictions stem from China's signing of the Special Safeguard Measures for Textiles upon joining the WTO. In this economic dispute triggered by the international treaty, the role of law has not been fulfilled as it should. Historically, the most common means of resolving economic conflicts of interest has been politics, particularly political coercion by force. The WTO legal system has the potential to find a peaceful path for the development of world resources and the allocation of economic interests, as the legal system, as the foundation of democracy, is accepted by all. Complete reliance on law in international affairs is naive, but expressing distrust of law under the WTO system is dangerous. American interest groups are concerned about the rule of law in China because they believe it paves the way for breaking through China's economic sovereignty. The American public is concerned about the rule of law in China because they believe it guarantees life, freedom, and property. In electorally governed states, interest groups manipulate ideology, and must first manipulate public perception. Accusing China of lacking the rule of law is a shortcut to gaining broad public support. One evidence of the lack of rule of law is the complete substitution of politics for law. We have always believed that we joined the WTO on the basis of a fundamental balance between rights and obligations. Therefore, the setback in international textile trade is either a result of our own balanced interests or the abuse of rules by other members. If the former is the case, the correct attitude is to calmly face trade restrictions. If the latter is the case, using law to protect our national economic interests is the action that should be taken. This book takes the legal interpretation of the Special Safeguard Measures for Textiles as a clue to explore the basic principles of treaty interpretation in the WTO legal system, exemplify the legal interpretation methods of WTO treaties, analyze the legislation of Europe and the United States targeting China's Special Safeguard Measures for Textiles, and examine the actual application of U.S. legislation, providing a basis for legally resolving the trade friction between China and Europe and the United States in textiles. Law is a good path to resolving textile trade friction and the primary consideration for addressing future trade frictions. It is a crucial purpose of our joining the WTO and a direct weapon to protect our trade interests. It is more likely to become a good start for us to move toward the rule of law and establish an international image of the rule of law. It is another opportunity given to us by history.