Trade Law Daily is a Warren News publication.

New China Law Targets Foreign 'Restrictive Measures'

China last week issued a new “foreign relations law” that could bolster the country’s ability to respond to foreign trade restrictions, including sanctions. The law, adopted by the Standing Committee of the 14th National People's Congress and effective July 1, says that China can take “law enforcement and judicial measures” to protect its national interests and those of its companies against restrictions imposed by other countries, and “has the right to take corresponding countermeasures and restrictive measures,” according to an unofficial translation of the document. The law specifically authorizes China to use “legislation, law enforcement, and judicial means to fight against acts of containment, interference, sanctions, and sabotage.”

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.

In an interview with Xinhua, a state-controlled media outlet, a government official said the law “stipulates that China has the right to take, as called for, measures to counter or take restrictive measures against acts that endanger its sovereignty, national security and development interests.” The state-run Global Times said in a June 30 editorial that “Western media and public opinion” feel “nervous” about the law but said that reaction is a “projection of the US' long-standing history of abusing legal actions.”

“Now that they see China has enacted such a law, they naturally and subconsciously worry about whether China will use the same means to ‘retaliate’ against the US,” the piece said. “In plain terms, this is their habitual double standard and a manifestation of their guilty conscience due to their extensive history of wrongdoing.”