WTO架構下的協定訂有一些例外條款，WTO爭端解決機制的上訴機構(Appellate Body)多次表達其必要性，並表示這些例外條款是WTO會員的法律權利，用以執行在貿易自由化範圍之外國家所追求合法的政策或利益。表面上，這些例外條款就像是所有法律體系共同具有的現象，亦即原則法與例外法的情形。因此，在解釋這些例外條款時，理論上也都應適用從嚴解釋原則。但是從上訴機構的報告，特別是本文所進行評析的巴西禁止翻新輪胎進口案中，卻發現其解釋原則並非如此，甚至於正好相反，而是採取從寬解釋原則。從本文對於巴西禁止翻新輪胎進口案判決的評析，我們可以瞭解此等例外條款的意義與應採用的解釋方法，對於WTO會員不論是履行其國際貿易上之義務或是於國內釐定貿易政策時，或許可以提醒彼等對於國際貿易條件以外的目的，例如，人與動、植物的生命與健康；環境保障與維護；可用盡資源的愛惜等問題應特別注意。貿易雖然是以獲取經濟利益為主要目的，但是國家的主權行為卻不僅限於貿易行為；而從國際法觀之，國家所承擔的國際法義務，也不是只有WTO架構下國際貿易法有關的義務而已，各種不同或甚至是彼此矛盾、衝突的國際法義務，藉由此等一般例外條款的調和或許才能獲得合理的解決。

There exists some general exceptions in the WTO Agreements. The Appellate Body has pointed out in its reports the importance of the clauses of general exceptions. Given that general exceptions as legal rights of the WTO Members, the main purpose of the exceptional clauses is to avail Members to purse some legitimate interests or policies that are not included in the Agreement. Superficially, these exceptional clauses are similar to those as stipulated in all legal regimes in which they are to be applied in special circumstances and thus interpreted narrowly. However, viewing from the reports of the Appellate Body, one could find that the theory in that connection has been deviated, and general exceptions have been interpreted broadly but cautiously. In analyzing the reports in the Brazil Import Ban case, we have found that the methodology of interpretation on general exception provisions is evolutionary and dynamic; and the approach is holistic, especially on the balancing and weighing process in the determination of the necessity of the Import Ban measure within the limits of GATT1994 Article 20. In that connection, general exceptions, seemingly, constitute a pillar of equilibrium in balancing rights and duties of WTO members in carrying out or implementing their other international obligations within the limits of the WTO rules.