The UAE Government declared that they have introduced World Trade Organization, WTO which will continue the proceedings for the settlement of the disagreement against Qatar pursuing its ban of the sale of UAE products in the Qatari markets. The move started following the ban of the Economy ministry of Qatari on the sale of the goods manufactured in UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. The decision of the Public Health Ministry of the country to shut down the pharmacies from selling medicines and various products imported from the four countries.
Qatar has also withdrawn the names of UAE companies from the list of vendors approved for the basic organizational projects and has prolonged an unannounced ban on the products from the UAE.
The initiatives have taken by Qatar, are an audacious violation of WTO rules. Qatar took this action after its initiation for settling disagreements against the UAE through the WTO in 2017, August, which is an ongoing case till now.
However, rather than valuing the WTO to rule on its complaint, Qatar has decided to enforce one-sided attacking measures, violating the same rules it claims about the violation by UAE.
WTO rules specify that members who claim that another member has violated a WTO agreement must relent such claims to the Dispute Settlement Administration. The rules ban members in a clear and detail manner from the one-sided taking action in attack for alleged WTO violations. Yet that is vividly what Qatar has done in this matter. Filing a WTO case, Qatar should not overlook the rules of the WTO and enforce one-sided enactment on its own without a decision of WTO.
Since the beginning of the Qatar case, as UAE has clearly informed, WTO rules define that countries may take any move they ponder as urgent to safeguard their basic organizational security interests.
Qatar has taken initiatives for justifying its decision by claiming that these actions were taken to safeguard the security of the consumers and to fight over the illegal dealing and trafficking of goods, but it offered no clarification as for which reason consumer products from the four countries trigger a consumer risk, and how the specific products carry a risk of illegal dealing.