Welcome to Francis Academic Press

The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology, 2022, 4(4); doi: 10.25236/FSST.2022.040403.

Security Exception Negotiation from the Perspective of Habermas’ Discourse Ethics


Ruoyuan Hao

Corresponding Author:
Ruoyuan Hao

Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710000, China


Security exception negotiation is conducive to improving the WTO security exception clause and promoting the correct and reasonable use of the clause, so as to balance the conflicts and contradictions between safeguarding national security and realizing free trade in multilateral trade. Habermas's discourse ethics advocates that in an ideal discourse environment, communication subjects with communication qualifications seek understanding and reach consensus through dialogue and negotiation in accordance with rational requirements and preset norms and procedures, in order to solve the multivariate conflict problems of modern society. Based on this theory, the dilemma of security exception negotiation lies in the inability of equal dialogue, the lack of semantic identity and the lack of pragmatic effectiveness. Therefore, we should respect the dominant position of each country, create an ideal discourse environment and realize equal dialogue among countries. Paying attention to the interpretation of WTO security exception clauses will be a desirable way to solve the dilemma of security exception negotiation.


Discourse ethics; WTO security exception clause; Security exception negotiation

Cite This Paper

Ruoyuan Hao. Security Exception Negotiation from the Perspective of Habermas’ Discourse Ethics. The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology (2022) Vol. 4, Issue 4: 11-15. https://doi.org/10.25236/FSST.2022.040403.


[1] Chen Weidong. “Interpretation of WTO Exception Clauses”. University of International Business and Economics Publications, 2002.

[2] Stuart S. Malawer. “Pending Section 232 Litigation and Broader Trade Trends: Will the US Courts Restrict Presidential Authority from Relying upon “National Security”?”. China and WTO Review, Vol. 5(2019), p.183-194.

[3] Habermas. “Between Facts and Norms: A Discourse Theory on Law and Democracy and the Rule of Law”. Sanlian Publications, 2014.

[4] Habermas. “The Theory of Communicative Behavior”. Shanghai People's Publications, 2004.

[5] Geng Chao. “Research on Habermas's Discourse Ethics in the View of International Relations”. Guangxi Normal University, 2008, p.18.

[6] Li Dianlai. “Habermas' Contribution to Contemporary Political Philosophy”. Dongyue Lun Cong, Vol. 40 (2019) No.8, p.158-167.

[7] Wang Fengcai. “Social Philosophy from the Perspective of Habermas”. Marxism and Reality, Vol. 4 (2019), p.108-115.

[8] Wang Jin. “From the nation of the national spirit to the nation of state citizens—Habermas's philosophical logic of reconstructing the concept of nation”. Journal of South-Central University for Nationalities, Vol. 39 (2019) No.6, p.21-24.

[9] Luo Shidian. “Rational Reconstruction and Rational Dilemma in Modern State Governance: A Comparative Study of Rousseau, Weber, Rawls, and Habermas's Rational Governance”. Guangxi Social Sciences, Vol. 7 (2019), p.99-105.

[10] Richard Wolin. “Habermas and Hermeneutics: From Understanding to Lifeworld”. Research in Literary Theory Vol. 39 (2019) No.2, p.145-155.