To the extent that they affect trade in goods, services or investments, the economic sanctions imposed on Russia and Russia’s retaliatory sanctions on Western products could give the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Dispute Settlement Body an opportunity to consider the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”) Security Exceptions that apply in the WTO. Russian Economy Minister Aleksey Ulyukaev’s September 12, 2014, comments to reporters that Russia is prepared to appeal the economic sanctions imposed to the WTO, seemed to point to a possible dispute. Since the economic sanctions imposed by the E.U., the U.S., Russia and other nations likely violate WTO obligations if they affect trade in goods or similar obligations, any of these sanctions could be challenged. In such a case, the Party maintaining the measure would likely have to resort to the Security Exception in GATT 1994 Article XXI to justify its sanction, thus giving the WTO the opportunity to interpret the extent and application of the Security Exceptions. However, President Putin’s more recent comment that the best way to respond to the sanctions is to develop the domestic market, coupled with Russia’s apparent decision to fight sanctions with sanctions, tend to point to political resolution of these measures rather than WTO dispute settlement. The Security Exceptions in GATT 1994 Article XXI have not been considered by the WTO and were not fully considered by the GATT. The Report of the only GATT Panel to consider the Security Exceptions, United States – Trade Measures Affecting Nicaragua (L/6053) (“Nicaragua Panel”), was never adopted and the Nicaragua Panel proceeded under terms of reference that precluded it from considering the validity of or motivation for the U.S. invocation of Article XXI(b)(iii). The Security Exception in Article XXI(a), which allows a WTO Member to refuse to furnish any information if it considers that the disclosure of the information would be contrary to its essential security interests, does not impose any restrictions on application of the exception. The WTO Member is free to define its essential security interests, does not impose any restrictions on application of the exception. The WTO Member is free to define its essential security interests and to refuse...
Read MoreAmendments to the Investment Canada Act – Impact on SOEs
With the announcement of the ratification of the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (“Canada-China FIPA“), investment between Canada and China will take on added importance and be subject to more scrutiny. As promised, we are publishing an updated review of Canada’s new regulations and rules with respect to Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI“) by State-Owned Enterprises (“SOE“). While the revisions apply to all foreign SOEs, it is clear that they are particularly relevant in the case of investment from China. The article was drafted by Paul Moen and Catherine Walsh of Woods, LaFortune LLP and Madelaine Mackenzie of Power Law/Juristes Power. We are pleased to acknowledge Ms. Mackenzie’s important contribution and thank her and our friends at the firm. Power Law/Juristes Power is a boutique law firm focused on litigation and public law (http://www.juristespower.ca/english/index.php). Please see our publications tab for the complete...
Read MoreSCC Rulings on Aboriginal Title and their Impact on Business
The Supreme Court of Canada has recently released two very important decisions pertaining to Aboriginal Title, namely Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 and Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario (Natural Resources), 2014 SCC 48. Woods, LaFortune LLP, in collaboration with Garwill Law, have drafted a brief note touching on the implications of these two landmark decisions for First Nations, as well as domestic/foreign investors and businesses, which can be found in our Publications section....
Read More
