The Appellate Body argued in the US – Shrimp case that: “In our view, the language of the chapeau makes clear that each of the exceptions in paragraphs (a) to (j) of Article XX is a limited and conditional exception from the substantive obligations contained in the other provisions of the GATT 1994, that is to say, the ultimate availability of the exception is subject to the compliance by the invoking Member with the requirements of the chapeau. (…) the negotiating history of Article XX confirms that the paragraphs of Article XX set forth limited and conditional exceptions from the obligations of the substantive provisions of the GATT. Any measure, to qualify finally for exception, must also satisfy the requirements of the chapeau.”
QUESTION: Are the substantive provisions of Article XX of the GATT 1994 and the jurisprudence of WTO dispute settlement Panels and the Appellate Body consistent with the above stated assertion?
