I was quite surprised when I was told about the "principle of national treatment" among the three conditions of the Paris Convention.

Furthermore, I was astonished when I learned about the "most-favored-nation treatment" under GATT (I learned it from the TRIP article).

Most-favored-nation treatment is "the granting by one party to a treaty of commerce and navigation or commercial agreement of treatment no less favorable than that of a third country which gives the most favorable treatment to the other party in matters of commerce, customs, navigation, etc." -- but

To put this in a meta-expression without fear of misunderstanding, it is O.K. to understand it like this: "If you sell rice to a foreign country, you must sell it at the same price as the country that sells the lowest price.

Moreover, the rule is very open: "We don't care whether the country selling at the lowest price is a member of the WTO or not.

Needless to say, modern international trade has been supported by this "most-favored-nation treatment.

This "MFN" international trade is one of the principles of "World Peace through Trade," and I have heard that "The World Trade Center" was established in Manhattan, New York.

Well, it was later doomed to collapse in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

-----

I'm trying very hard right now to remember what it used to be like.

"Which article applies to "the 'withdrawal' of MFN treatment"?"

I am doing a lot of research on this.

Of course, this refers to the "withdrawal of MFN treatment" of Russia by the G7 countries, but I don't recall studying such a case.

So, after a long time, I opened the "Six Laws of Intellectual Property" and read through them, but I still could not find such a "sanction clause".

Then the last article of the TRIPS Agreement,

======

Article 73 Exceptions for Security

Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as providing for any of the following

(B) Preventing a Member State from taking any of the following measures that it deems necessary for the protection of its vital security interests (iii) Measures taken in time of war or other emergency of international relations

(C) preventing Member States from taking measures in accordance with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security

======

I wonder if the G7 countries apply the above article.

In other words, it could be interpreted as 'It is not a provision that must be observed until (1) Japan is in a state of war, (2) Japan is disadvantaged, or (C) Japan is in violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

I see, hence the (strange) phrase 'withdrawal of "MFN treatment"'.

But there doesn't seem to be any provision for "expulsion" from the WTO in TRIP, only "withdrawal" from GATT Article 31 here.

In any case, it seems to me that "withdrawal of MFN treatment" is about as powerful as "nuclear missiles on trade".

-----

And well, now I am escaping reality because I cannot identify the conditions under which a bug in the program occurs.

# Now identified and corrected. It is 3:00 AM.