GATT협정 제XX조 (d)호의 ‘법률 또는 규정의 준수 확보’ 요건에 대한 고찰 = The ‘Securing Compliance with Laws or Regulations’ Requirement under Article XX (d) of GATT

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Article XX (d) of GATT covers measures designed for securing compliance with domestic laws or regulations. For such a measure to be provisionally justified under Article XX (d), it ① must be designed to secure compliance with national laws, such as customs law or monopoly regulation, which is not inconsistent with GATT rules, and, ② must be ‘necessary’ to secure such compliance. With respect to the second element, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) has made a fairly consistent interpretation by applying the so-called ‘weighing and balancing’ test, although such a test has not ceased to evolve. However, with respect to the first element, the WTO DSB has made somewhat unclear in terms of interpreting the scope of ‘laws or regulations’ and the level of ‘securing compliance’, etc. This may distort or, in fact, minimize the ambit of general exceptions justified under Article XX of GATT and, ultimately, intimidate the credibility of the WTO dispute settlement system.
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to point out such vagueness of the WTO DSB’s interpretation and provide some comments regarding the ‘securing compliance with laws or regulations’ requirement under Article XX (d). As trade protectionism has been proliferated over the past years, it is important to have proper understanding on those measures that are trade restrictive, but are justified under Article XX in order to foster a sound trade climate.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

국내 법률 또는 규정을 준수하기 위해 WTO협정에서 제시하고 있는 일반적인 의무와 일치하지 않게 취해지는 조치는 GATT협정 제XX조 전문과 (d)호의 엄격한 기준을 충족하는 범위 내에서 허용된다. 구체적으로 제XX조 (d)호에 따라 동 조치가 정당화되기 위해서는 ①GATT협정에 위배되지 않는 ‘법률 또는 규정의 준수를 확보하기 위해(to secure compliance with laws or regulations)’, ②‘필요한(necessary)’ 것이어야 한다.
두 번째 검토요건에 해당하는 문제의 조치가 ‘필요한’지 여부와 관련하여 WTO 분쟁해결기구는 이른바 ‘비교형량절차’에 따라 나름 일관되고 명료한 검토방식을 구축하고 있다. 반면, 첫 번째 검토요건에 해당하는 문제된 ‘법률 또는 규정의 준수를 확보’하기 위한 조치인지 여부와 관련하여서는 법률 또는 규정의 범위, 준수 확보의 정도 등 일부 요소들을 검토하는 과정에서 다소 명확하지 않은 점이 확인된다. 이러한 WTO 분쟁해결기구의 태도는 GATT협정 제XX조 일반적 의무에 대한 예외의 인정 범위를 자칫 왜곡하거나 축소시킬 수 있으며, 궁극적으로 국내적 규제의 자치권한을 가능한 많이 확보하려는 회원국들의 WTO 분쟁해결절차에 대한 신뢰를 깨뜨릴 우려가 있다.
따라서 본 연구는 GATT협정 제XX조 (d)호의 ‘법률 또는 규정의 준수 확보’ 요건에 대한 WTO 분쟁해결기구의 검토과정을 면밀히 검토하여 명확하지 않은 부분을 지적하고, 이와 관련한 필자의 견해를 밝히고자 한다. 다양한 형태의 보호무역주의가 난무하는 오늘날 제XX조에 대한 올바른 이해를 바탕으로 정당한 무역제한조치를 확보하여 건전한 무역환경을 조성해 나가는 게 필요하다는 점에서 본 연구에 대한 의미를 부여할 수 있다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이성덕, "유럽공동체에 있어서 조약의 직접효력과 직접취소소송" 법무부 (80) : 12-38, 2008
• 2 김호철, "브라질-재생타이어 수입제한조치 사건" 법무부 (89) : 170-202, 2009
• 3 Arnoud R. Willems, "What’s Wrong with EU Anti-Circumvention Rules and How to Fix it" 19 : 2016
• 4 "Third Participant Submission Pursuant to Rule 24 (1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review by the European Communities, Mexico-Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages" 2006
• 5 Michael Ming Du, "The Rise of National Regulatory Autonomy in the GATT/WTO Regime" 14 : 2011
• 6 Donald H. Regan, "The Meaning of 'Necessary' in GATT Article XX and GATS Article XIV : The Myth of Cost-Benefit Balancing" 6 : 2007
• 7 Peter Van den Bossche, "The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization" 2013
• 8 "Report by the Panel, Unites States-Imports of Certain Automotive Spring Assemblies" 1982
• 9 "Report by the Panel, United States–Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930" 1989
• 10 "Report by the Panel, Japan-Restrictions on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products" 1987
• 11 "Report by the Panel, EEC-Regulation on Imports of Parts and Components" 1990
• 12 "Report by the Panel, (unadopted), United States-Restrictions on Imports of Tuna" 1991
• 13 Saud Aldawsari, "Private Enforcement of Trips by Applying the EU Law Principles of Direct Effect and State Liability" 13 : 2014
• 14 "Panel Report, United States–Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products" 2011
• 15 "Panel Report, United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline" 1996
• 16 "Panel Report, Thailand-Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines" 2010
• 17 "Panel Report, Mexico-Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages" 2005
• 18 "Panel Report, European Communities—Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs" 2005
• 19 "Panel Report, European Communities-Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products" 2013
• 20 "Panel Report, Canada–Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain" 2004
• 21 Benn McGrady, "Necessity Exceptions in WTO Law : Retreaded Tyres, Regulatory Purpose and Cumulative Regulatory Measures" 12 : 2009
• 22 Novartis AG v. Union of India, "Madras Law Journal, Vol. 4"
• 23 Priti Patnaik, "India Solar Dispute : Right Intent, Wrong Means : Should Countries Focus on Clean Energy and Worry Less About Making Components Feeding into Clean Energy Industries?"
• 24 김대순, "GATT/WTO 판례를 통한 GATT 제20조의 분석과 평가" 법무부 (119) : 43-75, 2014
• 25 이윤정, "GATT 제III조와 제XX조의 해석 및 적용 : 한국-수입쇠고기 사건을 중심으로" 2 : 2004
• 26 이길원, "EU의 바다표범 제품의 수입금지에 관한 WTO 판례 연구" 한국국제경제법학회 12 (12): 57-87, 2014
• 27 "Contracting Parties to the GATT, Tenth Session–First Report of Working Party 3 on Article XVIII Applications-The Haitian Tobacco Monopoly" 1955
• 28 "Appellate Body Report, United States–Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products" 1998
• 29 "Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products" 2012
• 30 "Appellate Body Report, Mexico-Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages" 2006
• 31 "Appellate Body Report, Korea–Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef" 2000
• 32 "Appellate Body Report, India–Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules" 2016
• 33 "Appellate Body Report, Brazil–Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres" 2007