CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ THE CZECHOSLOVAKIAN CASE OF 1949 IN THE GATT: LUCK IN MISFORTUNE? though, rejected its participation. 3 At the same time, following the Soviet Union’s coup d’etat in Czechoslovakia in 1948, 4 the United States imposed export licensing requirements on the Soviet bloc countries including Czechoslovakia. 5 The export controls were imposed as a matter of foreign policy of the US in order to isolate “rogue regimes”. 6 The fight against the Soviet regime is evident from the Memorandum of the UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, E.Bevin: It has really become a matter of the defence of western civilisation, or everyone will be swamped by this Soviet method of infiltration. 7 The US trade-restrictive measures were adopted according to the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948 (section 112) 8 and Comprehensive Export Schedule No. 26 of 1 October 1948 which established various groups of countries for the purpose of export controls. 9 The nature of the export controls under international law is controversial. 10 First, export controls fall between the permitted economic pressure and prohibited intervention and it is difficult to draw a line between the two of them due to a varying state practice, as pointed by P. Kunig. 11 Second, due to their extraterritorial effect, the legality of export controls is debatable: on the one hand, they might be perceived as violating the principles of international law such as non-interference, comity and the sovereign equality of states. On the other hand, there is a view that legality of export controls could be justified under the protective and passive CASHMAN, Laura. ‘Remembering 1948 and 1968: Reflections on Two Pivotal Years in Czech and Slovak History’ (2008) 60 Europe-Asia Studies 1645. p. 1647. 3 One should not oversee the impact of the Marshall Plan on successful outcome of the GATT talks in 1947. See more on this SANTANA, Roy. ‘GATT 1947: How Stalin and the Marshall Plan Helped to Conclude the Negotiations’ . 4 DUCHACEK, Ivo. ‘The February Coup in Czechoslovakia’ (1950) 2 World Politics 511. 5 More on the context of the case see KRÁTKÝ, Karel. ‘Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan’ in WESTAD, O. A., HOLTSMARK, S. and NEUMANN, I. B. (eds), The Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, 1945–89 (Palgrave Macmillan UK 1994) accessed 30 July 2018. On the extraterritorial enforcement of the Export Control Act of 1949 see SILVERSTONE, PAUL H., ‘The Export Control Act of 1949: Extraterritorial Enforcement’ (1959) 107 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 331. 6 R. Bhala mentions three policy rationales behind the US export controls: protection of commodities in short supply, national security and advancement of US foreign policy aims. He puts the Cold War export controls under national security rational, although the line between the latter two is blurred. RAJ BHALA, International 8 ‘Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, 80th Congress, 20 Session, Chapter 169 April 3,1948 (Foreign Assistacne Act 1948)’ accessed 3 August 2018. 9 TAMOTSU AOI, ‘Historical Background of Export Control Development in Selected Countries and Regions U.S., U.K., Germany, France, Hungry, Russia, Ukraine, Japan, South’ (Center for Information on Security Trade Controls Contributing to World peace and Promoting Effective Security Export Control) . 10 For a detailed analysis of the legality of the US export controls under international law see MARCUSS, Stanley J., MATHIAS, D. Stephen. ‘U.S. Foreign Policy Export Controls: Do They Pass Muster under International Law’ accessed 8 August 2018. pp. 17-28. 11 KUNIG, Philip. ‘Intervention, Prohibition Of’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL] (Oxford University Press 2008) . Trade Law: Interdisciplinary Theory and Practice (3rd ed, LexisNexis 2008). pp. 606-607. 7 Ernest Bevin, ‘Ernest Bevin’s Third Force Memos’ (2007) 8 Democratiya 131. p. 144.

301