TheAppellateBodyreportinJanuary2012hadsupportedthedecisionofPanelinthe"China-measuresrelatedtotheexportationofvariousrawmaterials"case(WT/DS394,395,398)andaffirmedthatChina’srestrictions(suchastariffsandquotameasures)ontheexportationofrawmaterialsviolatedrulesputforthbytheWTO,whichwererequiredtobemodified.InthiscaseChina’srighttoinvokeArticle20ofGATT1994("generalexception")tojustifyitsexemptionfromtheguidelinesinArticle11.3oftheWTOAccessionProtocolwasdeniedbythePanelandtheAppellateBody.ThiswasduetothefactthatthephrasinginArticle11.3ofProtocolfailedtomention"GATT."ThiswastheconsequenceofthetwointerpretationapproachestheDisputeSettlementBody(DSB)adopted-anarrowtextualinterpretationandasubjectivepresumptionof"legislativesilence."TheinappropriateuseofthetwomethodsofinterpretationleadtoanimbalancebetweentherightandobligationofChinaundertheadditionalobligationsthatwereimposeduponChinabytheWTO,whichcreateanegativeimpactonChina’srareearthcaseandtheprotectionofdomesticnaturalresources.
