The Application of Article XXI of the GATT and the Violation of the Non-Discrimination Principle in Tariff Policy under Executive Order 14323

Authors

  • Adri Naufal Saniy Universitas Airlangga, Jawa Timur, Indonesia
  • Sulthan Aldrian Universitas Airlangga, Jawa Timur, Indonesia
  • Muhammad Ammar Farhan Universitas Airlangga, Jawa Timur, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37729/amnesti.v8i2.8210

Abstract

The DS640 dispute between Brazil and the United States raises important questions in international trade law concerning the limits of WTO members’ authority to impose tariff measures on national-security grounds under Article XXI of the GATT 1994. The United States imposed additional tariffs on Brazilian steel products through the Section 232 mechanism, claiming that the measures protected national-security interests, whereas Brazil argued that they violated the principle of non-discrimination and the United States’ bound-tariff commitments. This article examines the legality of the tariff measures through three principal GATT disciplines: most-favoured-nation treatment under Article I, national treatment under Article III, and bound-tariff obligations under Article II. The study concludes that the tariffs are discriminatory because selective exemptions were granted to certain countries without an objective basis related to product differences, thereby contravening Article I. The measures also reflect protection of the United States’ domestic steel industry, which is inconsistent with Article III. In addition, the additional tariffs exceed the bound rates recorded in the United States Schedule of Concessions and therefore violate Article II. The national-security justification under Article XXI is considered inapplicable because the measures do not satisfy the “emergency in international relations” standard articulated in Russia – Traffic in Transit. Accordingly, the article argues that the United States’ measures in DS640 are inconsistent with its multilateral obligations and underscores the role of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in preventing the national-security exception from being used as an instrument of protectionism.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bartels, L. (2002). Article XX of GATT and the Problem of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (The Case of Trade Measures for the Protection of Human Rights). Journal of World Trade, 36(2), 353–403.

Bhala, R. (2005). Modern GATT law: a treatise on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Common Market Law Review, 44(2), 545–547.

Bossche, P. Van den. (2026). From Afterthought to Centerpiece: The WTO Appellate Body and Its Rise to Prominence in the World Trading System.

Bossche, P. Van Den, & Prévost, D. (2016). Essentials of WTO Law. Cambridge University Press.

Bown, C. P. (2025). US-China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart. Www.Piie.Com. http://piie.com/research/piie-charts/2019/us-china-trade-war-tariffs-date-chart

Bureau of Industry and Security. (2018). The Effect of Imports of Steel on the National Security: An Investigation Conducted Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as Amended.

Howse, R., & Langille, J. (2023). Continuity and Change in the World Trade Organization: Pluralism Past, Present, and Future. American Journal of International Law, 117(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2022.82

Marzuki, P. M. (2019). Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Mavroidis, P. C. (2016). The Regulation of International Trade: The WTO Agreements on Trade in Goods. MIT Press.

Pinchis-Paulsen, M., Saggi, K., & Mavroidis, P. C. (2024). The National Security Exception at the WTO : Should It Just Be a Matter of When Members Can Avail of It? What About How? World Trade Review, 23, 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745624000065

Priyono, F. J. (2013). Prinsip Most Favoured Nations dan Pengecualiannya dalam World Trade Organization (WTO). Masalah-Masalah Hukum, (2), 593–600.

Voon, T. (2019). The Security Exception in WTO Law: Entering a New Era. AJIL Unbound, (ii), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2019.3

WTO. (1994). General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. www.wto.org.

WTO. (1996). Appellate Body report, Japan—Taxes on alcoholic beverages. www.wto.org. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds8_e.htm

WTO. (2014). Appellate Body reports, European Communities—Measures prohibiting the importation and marketing of seal products. www.wto.org. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/400_401abr_e.pdf

WTO. (2019). Panel report, Russia—Measures concerning traffic in transit. www.wto.org. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/512r_e.pdf

WTO. (2022). Panel reports, United States—Certain measures on steel and aluminium products. www.wto.org.

WTO. (2025). Dispute Settlement - DS640 : US – Tariff Measures (Brazil). www.wto.org. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds640_e.htm

Downloads

Published

2026-08-25

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

The Application of Article XXI of the GATT and the Violation of the Non-Discrimination Principle in Tariff Policy under Executive Order 14323. (2026). Amnesti: Jurnal Hukum, 8(2), 412-428. https://doi.org/10.37729/amnesti.v8i2.8210