 Please subscribe to this YouTube channel mentor talk and do press bell button for notifications. India is contemplating a series of economic actions against Chinese companies, investors and interests in India as a retaliatory measure for the border conflicts. The process of economic onslaught started by India banning 59 Chinese apps. Further, the Indian Minister for Road and Transport and Highways has stated that Chinese companies would not be allowed to take part in the road projects. It is also being reported in some sections of the media that the government is considering trade and import restrictions targeting China in days to come. The enhanced scrutiny of Chinese investments in many sectors has taken place and the government might be evaluating decisions how to keep out the Chinese companies from 5G trials. As per reports, several public sector undertakings have by now begun to revoke contracts given to the Chinese firms regarding telecom, BSNL and railways. These unilateral actions from India may cause losses to the tune of billions of dollars in deals, bids, contracts and revenues to the Chinese firms and investors. I want to examine the legal implications of these economic sanctions which India may be subjected to in view of the World Trade Organization, that is, WTO obligations. These legal repercussions, if any, need to be examined because both India and China are part of the WTO agreements. It is a well-accepted proposition that one-sided acts, the unilateral acts, short of falling within the exceptions under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, that is, GATT, shall be believed to be in violation of the non-discrimination rule under the WTO legal mechanism. The basic foundation of the rules of the global trade is based on the premise that the transnational worldwide trade among countries should be non-discriminatory, whether India's actions in the past few days against Chinese economic interests in India would be considered as violative of the principles of non-discrimination or not is something which we need to examine. The doctrine of non-discrimination embodied in the WTO law is like a coin with two sides, one dealing with the most favored nation, that is, MFN treatment commitment, meaning reciprocity, when a WTO member gives specific favorable treatment to another member nation. Then it is required for that recipient member nation to reciprocate by giving the same favorable treatment to the grantor member nation. It has to be based on reciprocity, the MFN status. And the other side of the point of the WTO deals with the national treatment, that is, anti-treatment, N-T, not A-N-T-I, anti-treatment, which is national treatment. This means and obligates a WTO member nation to consider the foreign product services and the suppliers of services at par with the domestic product services and service providers. There should not be any disparity or discrimination between the domestic and foreign economic streams. One cannot give less favorable treatment to the foreign economic line or let's say one cannot give preference to domestic over the foreign investors. That is equal national treatment obligation. As I had touched upon earlier, that unilateral action can be branded as discriminatory unless it falls within a stipulated exception or exceptions. On the face of it, one could say that India's economic actions against China are one-sided and unilateral, hence discriminatory. But that may or may not be true. That is what I'm going to examine now. In the current context, I am of the premise you opinion that India's economic actions in the past few days against China should qualify Indian actions, should qualify as legitimate, valid and lawful for being squarely covered under an exception stipulated by Article 21, Roman 21, Article 21 of GATT, which deals with the security exception. As per the said exception, no member nation be prevented from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests. Yes, further such a nation can also not be required to furnish any information, be it obligatory, the disclosure of which it considers contrary to its essential security interests. So it may not disclose information. And such a nation is free to take any action, any action in pursuance of its obligations under the United Nations Charter for the Maintenance of International Peace and Security. Yes. So this exception squarely applies to India's actions. India's retaliatory economic actions are justified according to me, considering the overwhelming evidence of aggression by the Chinese forces on several border points with India. So consequently under Article 21 of GATT, any individual and independent actions taken by India cannot be deemed, cannot be deemed or judged as being a violative of non-discriminatory principles embodied in the WTO and GATT legal regime. Well, hope you found this video talk informative. I will see you again sometime soon with another video on law or public policy topic of your interest. Keep watching mentor talk and stay safe. Thank you. See you again. Bye for now.