SPPU Solved Question Papers
International Economic Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LL.B. (Three Years) · Sem 4
Oct 2025 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LL.B. (Three Years) Sem 4 International Economic Law Oct 2025 Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 5 November 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Savitribai Phule Pune University. It is not affiliated with Savitribai Phule Pune University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Savitribai Phule Pune University at the Oct 2025 examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Savitribai Phule Pune University set it at the Oct 2025 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Oct 2025 examination, reproduced as Savitribai Phule Pune University set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 70 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
SECTION I
PART A
Answer any two · 30 Marks
Q1)Explain the General and Security Exceptions of GATT using relevant cases of WTO.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why exceptions exist; the general exceptions in Article XX: the two-step test (United States: Gasoline), the paragraphs, "necessary" and "relating to", the chapeau, the burden of proof; the cases (United States: Gasoline, United States: Shrimp, Brazil: Retreaded Tyres); the security exceptions in Article XXI: the text, self-judging or justiciable, Russia: Traffic in Transit, the section 232 panel reports; the differences between the two Articles; a table; a conclusion.
Introduction
GATT binds members to open trade: most-favoured-nation treatment, national treatment, bound tariffs and no quotas. But a State must still protect health, the environment, public morals and its own security. Article XX (general exceptions) and Article XXI (security exceptions) let a member adopt such measures, even if they break other GATT rules.
Part A: the general exceptions (Article XX)
Article XX says that, subject to the chapeau, nothing in GATT shall prevent a member from adopting or enforcing measures listed in its paragraphs.
The main paragraphs.
- (a) measures necessary to protect public morals;
- (b) measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health;
- (d) measures necessary to secure compliance with laws consistent with GATT, such as customs and intellectual property laws;
- (e) measures relating to the products of prison labour;
- (f) measures to protect national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value;
- (g) measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources, if made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption; and
- (i) and (j), on domestic price stabilisation and goods in short supply.
"Necessary" and "relating to". Paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) use "necessary". This calls for a weighing of the measure's contribution to its aim and its effect on trade. A measure is not necessary if a reasonably available, less trade-restrictive alternative exists. Paragraphs (e) and (g) use "relating to", a looser test. The measure must be reasonably connected to its aim.
The chapeau. The measure must not be applied in a manner that is:
- a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail; or
- a disguised restriction on international trade.
The chapeau looks at how a measure is applied, not at its content.
Two steps, in order. First the measure must fall within a paragraph. Then its application must satisfy the chapeau. Article XX is an affirmative defence, so the respondent bears the burden of proving it.
The cases on Article XX
1. United States: Gasoline (adopted 20 May 1996). This was the first Appellate Body report. American rules on the quality of gasoline set baselines for refiners. The Appellate Body fixed the two-step order: first the paragraph, then the chapeau. The rule related to clean air, an exhaustible resource, under paragraph (g). But its application failed the chapeau.
2. United States: Shrimp (adopted 6 November 1998). The United States banned imports of shrimp caught with technology that harmed sea turtles. Only countries certified as requiring turtle excluder devices could export shrimp. India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand complained (India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand v. United States).
- Paragraph (g). Living species, such as sea turtles, are exhaustible natural resources. The Appellate Body read paragraph (g) in the light of the WTO's aim of sustainable development.
- The chapeau. The measure failed. The United States had negotiated with some countries but not with the complainants. It gave them little time and no fair procedure. This was unjustifiable and arbitrary discrimination.
- Result. India won on the chapeau. The United States revised the measure. The revised measure was upheld in compliance proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU, on 21 November 2001.
3. Brazil: Retreaded Tyres (adopted 17 December 2007). Brazil banned imports of retreaded tyres, to reduce tyre waste and the health risks it caused. The ban was held necessary under paragraph (b). But Brazil's application of it failed the chapeau. So a measure can be necessary and still be unlawful.
Part B: the security exceptions (Article XXI)
Article XXI says that nothing in GATT shall be construed:
- (a) to require a member to give information whose disclosure it considers contrary to its essential security interests;
- (b) to prevent a member from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests:
- (i) relating to fissionable materials;
- (ii) relating to traffic in arms, ammunition and goods for military supply; or
- (iii) taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations; or
- (c) to prevent a member from taking action under the United Nations Charter for international peace and security.
Self-judging or justiciable? The words "which it considers" led some States to argue that a member alone decides when Article XXI applies. Others argued that a panel can review it. This question stayed open for about seventy years.
The cases on Article XXI
1. Russia: Traffic in Transit (adopted 26 April 2019). Ukraine challenged Russian restrictions on the transit of goods through Russia (Ukraine v. Russia). The panel held:
- Article XXI is justiciable. A panel can review it.
- The words "which it considers" qualify only the necessity of the action. Whether one of the listed situations exists is objective.
- An emergency in international relations means armed conflict, latent armed conflict, heightened tension or crisis, or general instability. A mere political or economic difference is not enough.
- The member must articulate its security interest, and the measure must be plausibly connected to it.
On the facts, there was such an emergency, and Russia succeeded.
2. The section 232 disputes. The United States imposed duties on steel and aluminium under section 232 of its trade law, citing national security. Panel reports of 9 December 2022 rejected its Article XXI defence. The United States appealed them "into the void", since the Appellate Body has no members. So the reports have never been adopted.
A worked example
Country A bans imports of a pesticide-treated fruit to protect health, but lets its own farmers sell the same fruit.
- Paragraph. The ban may fall within paragraph (b). But it must be necessary. If a residue test would protect health with less effect on trade, the ban fails.
- Chapeau. Exempting domestic fruit that carries the same risk is unjustifiable discrimination. The ban fails the chapeau, as in Brazil: Retreaded Tyres.
- Security. Country A cannot simply call the ban a security measure. Under Russia: Traffic in Transit, a listed situation must objectively exist, such as an emergency in international relations.
Article XX and Article XXI compared
| Point | Article XX (general) | Article XXI (security) |
|---|---|---|
| Aim | Health, environment, morals, resources, law enforcement | Essential security interests |
| Test | Paragraph, then chapeau | "Which it considers necessary", within listed situations |
| Chapeau | Yes: no arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination, no disguised restriction | No chapeau |
| Point | Article XX (general) | Article XXI (security) |
|---|---|---|
| Review | Fully reviewed by panels | Reviewable, but with deference on necessity (Russia: Traffic in Transit) |
| Leading cases | United States: Gasoline; United States: Shrimp; Brazil: Retreaded Tyres | Russia: Traffic in Transit; the section 232 reports |
Because Article XXI has no chapeau, it is stronger for the member invoking it than Article XX.
Conclusion
Conclusion. Article XX allows measures to protect morals, health, compliance with laws and exhaustible resources, if they fit a paragraph and pass the chapeau. United States: Gasoline fixed the two steps. United States: Shrimp held living species exhaustible, but faulted the way the ban was applied, and India won. Brazil: Retreaded Tyres showed that a necessary measure can still fail the chapeau. Article XXI protects essential security interests and has no chapeau. Russia: Traffic in Transit held it reviewable, while respecting the member's judgment on necessity. The unadopted section 232 reports show the question remains contested.
The rest of the answers
The rest of the answers come with the SPPU LL.B. (Three Years) Semester 4 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays open to everyone.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.