GATT/WTO 판례를 통한 GATT 제20조의 분석과 평가

Being the de facto successor to “GATT 1947”, the already twenty-year-old WTO Agreement has accomplished many things it has planned. It is conspicuous, among others, in clarifying the legal regime of GATT, especially Article XX thereof. This provision, entitled “General Exceptions”, provides for important exceptions to national treatment obligations; it is composed of two parts: the introductory (commonly called “chapeau”) and ten(“a” to “j”) lettered clauses. The ten lettered clauses are separate from each other and therefore should be examined separately. Many questions ensue in interpreting Article XX: what is the relationship between the chapeau and each lettered clause?; are the ten lettered clauses exhaustive or illustrative?; can Article XX equally apply to other agreements than GATT within the WTO regime?; is there any priority in application between the chapeau and the lettered clauses, and if so, why is that?; and how should each clause be interpreted?This paper focused on three exceptions in actuality frequently relied on, that is, clauses (b)(health measures), (d)(enforcement measures), and (g)(conservation measures) of Article XX. It took special note of the difference between “necessary” of clauses (b) and (d), on the one hand, and "relating to" of clause (g), on the other. The common requirement (“chapeau”) also has been examined by reference to case law of GATT/WTO. This paper traced how the strain between trade and environment triggered by US-Tuna case of GATT 1947 has been relieved by US-Shrimp (Article 21.5-Malaysia) of WTO. Finally, does Article XX permit for Members of WTO to excercise extraterritorial jurisdiction? If so, how far? The case law is not consistent; this question is waiting for a clear answer.