A view of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., March 7, 2024. /CFP

Editor's note: The author is a professor at the University of International Business and Economics' School of Law. The views don't necessarily represent those of CGTN.

The United States' imposition of additional tariffs on China over the fentanyl issue are seemingly justifiable as a measure to protect public health and safety. Yet from an international trade law perspective, they lack valid arguments for exemption under the legal framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The U.S. additional tariffs ignore fundamental WTO obligations such as most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment and schedule of concessions. The U.S. may cite Section 301 of its Trade Act of 1974 or Section 232 of its Trade Expansion Act to justify its unilateral actions, but domestic legal provisions do not guarantee exemption from WTO commitments.

In order to successfully invoke the exception clauses under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994), particularly its Article XX (General Exception) and Article XXI (Security Exception), the U.S. must demonstrate that its tariff measures are necessary and do not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination on international trade. In line with the existing rulings of WTO precedents and interpretation of rules, it is hardly likely that the U.S. can justify its measures with either general exception or national security exception.

Should the U.S. proceed with them, members that are affected may initiate consultations within the WTO, request for the establishment of a panel to adjudicate the matter, or pursue trade retaliation in parallel, in accordance with the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU). Given the current global economic situation, a U.S. that abuses unilateral tariff measures will render the multilateral trading system even less stable and predictable.