The China - Publications Notice of Appeal

is here.  China did not appeal everything, as parties sometimes do.  But it did appeal a decent number of issues.  One of particular interest is the public morals defense under GATT Article XX(a).  There is the potential for the AB to say a lot of interesting things about this (for example, the relationship between Article XX(a) and the Accession Protocol), but it is very possible it will do its best to avoid addressing controversial issues.  Here is China's appeal on this point (with footnotes omitted):

1.    China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal conclusions set out in paragraphs 7.913 and 8.2(a)(i) and (ii) of the Panel Report that China's measures are not justified under Article XX(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"). The Panel committed errors of law and legal interpretation in concluding that none of the relevant measures are "necessary" to protect public morals, within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. In particular:

1)   The Panel erred in law and failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, in violation of Article 11 of the DSU, in considering that the state-ownership requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation makes no material contribution to the protection of public morals in China.

2)   To the extent that it based its findings on its reasoning concerning Article 42 of the Publications Regulation, the Panel also erred in law in considering that the exclusions relating to foreign-invested enterprises in Articles X.2 and X.3 of the Catalogue, Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation, Article 4 of the Several Opinions and Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub‑)Distribution Rule make no material contribution to the protection of public morals in China.

3)   The Panel erred in interpreting Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 as requiring the Panel to also weigh the restrictive impact that the measures at issue may have on those wishing to engage in importing, in particular on their right to trade.

4)   The Panel committed errors of law and legal interpretation, and failed to make an objective assessment of the facts, in violation of Article 11 of the DSU, in considering that at least one of the alternative measures referred to by the United States was an alternative "reasonably available" to China.

Should the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings that China's measures are not "necessary" to protect public morals, within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, China requests that the Appellate Body complete the Panel's analysis and find that China's measures are fully justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.