Following-up on yesterday's post, here's something from Tania Voon:
The Panel did little to clarify the meaning of regulating trade in a WTO-consistent manner pursuant to the ‘[w]ithout prejudice’ clause. It concluded that this clause permits China to regulate goods imported into China or exported from China, as well as importers or exporters of those goods, for example, by: imposing WTO-consistent import licensing requirements, technical regulations in accordance with the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement),9 or health measures in accordance with the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary anPhytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement);10 or limiting, ‘in a WTO-consistent manner, the class of entities or individuals who may engage in importing or exporting the good in question’ (paras.7.258, 7.269, 7.277). However, as these examples themselves refer to WTO-consistency, they are rather circular and do not identify the scope of measures that may be allowed pursuant to China’s right to regulate trade.
That's from the SSRN version of her forthcoming AJIL case note on the China - Publications decision.
