Korea, Japan Resume WTO Litigation Procedure... "No Willingness to Resolve Issues" (Comprehensive)

Achieving Requirements with Japan, Explained 'Faithfully and Sufficiently'
Comprehensive Permit Only for Korea → Restriction to Individual Permits... "Proof of Illegality and Unfairness"
Prevention of Export Permit System Abuse, Preemptive Measures for Similar Cases
Government "Requested WTO Panel Installation, Proceeding According to Procedures"

The 12th Korea-China-Japan Economic and Trade Ministers' Meeting held last year. Minister Sung Yun-mo of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (left) and Hiroshi Kajiyama, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan (right), shaking hands. There is still a long and difficult road ahead before the export regulations between Korea and Japan are resolved.
(Photo by Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy)

[Asia Economy Reporter Moon Chaeseok] "There was a response from Japan, but it was not the answer we expected."

South Korea has decided to refile a complaint against Japan at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Our government demanded the withdrawal or meaningful improvement of Japan's export restrictions on three items and the removal from the whitelist (security-related export screening preferential countries), but since the response was unsatisfactory, it decided to file a complaint.

Na Seung-sik, Director of the Trade and Investment Office at the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, announced this at a press conference held at the Government Complex Sejong on the 2nd. This complaint concerns export restrictions on three items: EUV photoresist, fluorinated polyimide, and hydrogen fluoride, and does not pertain to the removal from the whitelist.

He said, "Our government decided to resume the WTO dispute settlement procedure regarding Japan's export restrictions on the three items, which had been temporarily suspended on November 22 last year."

The South Korean government judged that although it had 'faithfully and sufficiently' met and explained the demands made by Japan, Japan was 'not conducting normal dialogue.' 'Conducting normal dialogue' was originally a condition for suspending the WTO dispute settlement procedure.

Director Na stated, "The reason for resuming the WTO dispute procedure this time is due to the illegality and unfairness of Japan imposing export restrictions only on our country, and changing general permits to individual permits," adding, "We believe that through the complaint, it will be effective in objectively proving the illegality of the (Japanese regulations), preventing abuse of export licensing, and preemptively preventing similar measures."

The two governments resumed director-level policy talks on November 22 last year. South Korea conveyed that during the dialogue period, it had temporarily suspended the WTO dispute settlement procedure regarding Japan's three major export restriction items.

Director Na recalled that South Korea had thoroughly resolved Japan's demands, including ▲suspension of Korea-Japan policy dialogue ▲insufficient catch-all controls on conventional weapons ▲insufficient export control organization and personnel.

He especially emphasized that during the past 11 months of operation, no security concerns cited by Japan as the cause of export restrictions on the three items had occurred. In other words, South Korea has clearly eliminated Japan's justification for continuing export restrictions.

He said, "We plan to request the establishment of a panel at the WTO for this case and proceed with the subsequent procedures," emphasizing, "We will concentrate all our capabilities to protect the legitimate interests of our companies and to promptly resolve the uncertainties cast over companies in both countries and the global value chain (GVC)."

Once the complainant country South Korea requests the WTO to establish a panel, which is the first-instance tribunal, the procedure restarts, and it usually takes about two years until the first-instance ruling. If either country rejects the panel report, the Appellate Body makes the final decision.

However, since six of the seven WTO appellate members are vacant and the Appellate Body is effectively paralyzed, and with the United States strongly demanding reform of the Appellate Body, it is expected to take considerable time before normalization.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.