Japanese media sources reported that on September 4, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced its formal submission to the World Trade Organization (WTO), denouncing China's seafood import restrictions as "completely unacceptable." These restrictions were imposed following Japan's decision to release treated radioactive water into the sea. Japan also indicated its intention to clarify its stance at relevant WTO committees and urged China to immediately revoke its actions.
"This can be seen as Japan's response to China's move at the WTO," said Zhang Guihong, Director of the United Nations and International Organizations Research Center at Fudan University. He further noted that it would be interesting to see if Japan escalates the issue to the WTO's dispute resolution mechanism.
On August 31, China informed the WTO of its decision to suspend seafood imports from Japan. This decision came in response to Japan's August 24 announcement to release treated radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear disaster into the ocean. China's Customs Administration justified the suspension as a measure to protect Chinese consumers from potential radioactive contamination, citing both domestic food safety laws and the WTO's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
Under WTO regulations concerning sanitary and phytosanitary measures, countries are obligated to notify the WTO if they adopt measures that significantly affect trade with other nations.
In response to Japan's recent move, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning stated that China has repeatedly expressed its stance on Japan's release of radioactive water. He emphasized that Japan's decision to discharge the water into the ocean is unprecedented and lacks universally recognized disposal standards. The international community has expressed concerns about the potential risks to marine environments and public safety, leading to preventive measures. China's actions, he argued, are entirely justified and necessary.
Some Japanese officials have hinted at the possibility of filing a complaint with the WTO over China's import suspension. Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry, who was visiting Israel, mentioned considering a WTO-based response to China's notification. Japan's Foreign Minister, Toshimitsu Motegi, also indicated that Japan would "take necessary actions through various means within the WTO framework." Earlier, Japan's Economic Security Minister, Takamori Yoshikawa, suggested that filing a complaint with the WTO might be an option if diplomatic protests to China prove ineffective. The U.S. Ambassador to Japan expressed support for Japan should it decide to take this step.
In addition to the WTO, Japan has also called for discussions with China based on the provisions of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) trade agreement regarding the import ban.
However, the WTO's dispute resolution mechanism is currently dysfunctional. Its Appellate Body, the highest arbitration institution for trade disputes, has been paralyzed for over three years. The body ceased operations in December 2019 after the Trump administration blocked the appointment of new judges. President Trump criticized the Appellate Body for overstepping its mandate and making "harmful judicial actions" detrimental to the U.S. President Biden has maintained this freeze and called for fundamental reforms to the WTO's dispute resolution system.
Despite this, member countries can still file complaints and receive preliminary rulings. However, if the losing party appeals, the dispute enters a legal limbo. This situation allows governments to take measures without fearing WTO-sanctioned retaliation.
Still, Zhang Guihong believes that turning to the WTO can serve as a symbolic gesture, signaling the initiation of formal procedures.
Last year, WTO members agreed to restore a "fully functional dispute settlement system" by 2024. However, expectations for a breakthrough remain low, given the U.S.'s continued obstructionist stance. This is especially true considering the Biden administration's reluctance to expend political capital to repair an institution that, in Trump's words, "harms U.S. interests."
To fill the void left by the WTO's paralyzed appellate mechanism, the European Union, China, and several other member countries established the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA). However, neither Japan nor the U.S. participated.
Apart from China, South Korea has also imposed an import ban on seafood from Fukushima. In August, South Korean Prime Minister Han Deok-soo stated that the country would maintain its import ban on seafood from Fukushima and surrounding areas until its citizens felt safe.
South Korea's ban dates back to 2013. Due to concerns about radioactive contamination, South Korea has consistently prohibited imports of seafood from Fukushima and seven surrounding areas affected by the nuclear accident. In 2015, Japan formally protested South Korea's import restrictions and additional testing requirements for Japanese seafood at the WTO. Initially, in 2018, the WTO's dispute resolution body ruled in favor of Japan. However, the following year, the Appellate Body overturned this decision, siding with South Korea.
Despite the ban, there are growing concerns in Seoul about the possibility of lifting the restriction, especially as President Yoon Seok-youl's administration seeks to mend ties with Japan.
Although seafood accounts for less than 1% of Japan's global trade, dominated by automobiles, Japan exported seafood worth approximately $600 million to mainland China in 2022. This made China Japan's largest export market, accounting for 22.5% of the total, followed by Hong Kong at 20%.
With the loss of its primary seafood export destination, Japan is now planning to cultivate new export markets in regions like Taiwan, the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia and Singapore.
Tokyo wholesaler Yoshinobu Yoshihashi reported that exports of products like oysters, sea urchins, and snappers to some Asian neighbors have "decreased by more than half." The company told French media last weekend that "our situation is quite difficult," especially exports to Hong Kong and Macau, where "the losses are quite severe."
Meanwhile, Fukushima fishermen have never ceased their opposition to the government's release of radioactive water, and they are about to take legal action. On September 5, over 100 fishermen living near Fukushima announced their intention to file a lawsuit in the Fukushima District Court on September 8, seeking to prevent the government from releasing the radioactive water.
The group of fishermen set to appeal stated in a declaration that the Kishida administration failed to honor its commitment to obtain the fishermen's consent before the official discharge. They described the release of radioactive water into the ocean as an "absolutely intolerable" policy that disregards the strong opposition from Fukushima fishing groups and related organizations across Japan. "Releasing nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean is absolutely intolerable as it would inflict further suffering on the victims of the nuclear accident."
