When GATT violations through NPA measures are at issue, recent discussions have tended to focus mainly on justification of those measures under Article XX, while questions on the violation of the GATT are often neglected. One reason for this shift might be the assumption that NPA measures are per se illegal under the GATT, or that the WTO adjudicatory bodies would at least rule to this end. Also, since a view promoted in the earlier debate, namely, that NPA measures are excluded from justification, has lost ground, the attention is now mostly on the precise conditions of justification. Another reason could be the almost general perception that production-based measures are typically used as tools to pursue legitimate national policies, such as protection of the environment, and therefore in principle are justifiable under Article XX. The respondent in one of the classical PPM disputes, Tuna-Dolphin II, shrugged off the pressure to rebut the claims that its measures violated the GATT, and called the whole discussion about violation of the GATT an almost ‘academic exercise’, claiming that the measures were clearly within the scope of the general exceptions and consequently justified. Despite these explanations, it seems that there is a general hesitance when it comes to addressing the issue of a GATT violation. Indeed, related questions eventually touch upon the very core of the GATT, and apparently there is little trust in its ‘load-bearing capacity’.