China—Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publication and Audiovisual Entertainment Products
World Trade Organization, Appellate Body
WT/DS363/AB/R (January 19, 2010)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
China (defendant) used a state system that exerted strict control over the importation of reading materials, audiovisual materials, sound recordings, and movies. Under this system, only state-owned enterprises were permitted to import such materials. The continuation of this system was a violation of China’s commitments in its Protocol of Accession, which was an agreement with other World Trade Organization (WTO) member countries permitting China to join the WTO. The United States (plaintiff) challenged the system and alleged that it was a violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). China argued that the system was justified under GATT Article XX(a) as a measure necessary to protect public morals. China asserted that the burden would be too great on private companies to have them review materials prior to importation. China also argued that simply having the Chinese government conduct all the import reviews was not a reasonable alternative because of additional staffing and cost. The GATT Panel determined that the system violated the GATT, and China appealed to the WTO Appellate Body.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.