From Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe:
Free trade isn’t a battle that countries (or states) win or lose. It is a human right - the liberty to engage in voluntary transactions that leave both participants better off. If John wants to sell something that Mary wants to buy, it should make no difference to the lawfulness of their exchange whether they are residents of different neighborhoods, different states, or different nations.
Compare this with the Appellate Body's recent statements in China - Publications on the "right to regulate trade":
221. Thus, our analysis so far suggests that the phrase "China's right to regulate trade" is a reference to China's power to subject international commerce to regulation. As explained above, this power may not be impaired by China's obligation to grant the right to trade, provided that China regulates trade "in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement".
222. We read the phrase "in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement" as referring to the WTO Agreement as a whole, including its Annexes. We note, in this respect, that we see the "right to regulate", in the abstract, as an inherent power enjoyed by a Member's government, rather than a right bestowed by international treaties such as the WTO Agreement. With respect to trade, the WTO Agreement and its Annexes instead operate to, among other things, discipline the exercise of each Member's inherent power to regulate by requiring WTO Members to comply with the obligations that they have assumed thereunder. When what is being regulated is trade, then the reference in the introductory clause to "consistent with the WTO Agreement" constrains the exercise of that regulatory power such that China's regulatory measures must be shown to conform to WTO disciplines.
