{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028156996587030716, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006825938566552901, 'mean_word_length': 5.141361256544503, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Indonesia’s Export Ban on Nickel Ore: Does It Violate the World Trade Organization (WTO) Rules?

Many countries have imposed export restrictions based on economic and non-economic objectives. In 2020, Indonesia has followed this trend by imposing an export ban on nickel ore. The European Union reacted by launching a complaint at the WTO, claiming Indonesia’s export ban has unfairly limited its producers’ access to nickel. This article explores the way in which Indonesia could justify banning export on nickel ore, by looking at the current WTO rules and its judicial decisions. This article claims that Indonesia has no justification to impose this ban. Although it will most likely be temporarily applied, and be designed to prevent a critical shortage, nickel is not essential in Indonesia based on its domestic demand, ongoing plans, economic contribution, and the current mining law. Also, the ban will most likely not be justified based on general exception provisions under Article XX of the 1994.
Export Bans, Export Restrictions, General Exception, Article XI GATT, Article XX GATT, Indonesia, Nickel Ore, the European Union, WTO Rules, WTO Dispute Settlement