The ambiguous expression of the security exception provision has rendered it susceptible to multiple interpretations, potentially leading to divergent judicial outcomes. In DS512, the DSB fundamentally established the interpretation approach for security exceptions. In DS567,the DSB largely followed the interpretation approach set forth in DS512 and clarified the criteria for the“good faith principle”test. In DS544 and DS597 cases,the DSB conducted a reexamination of the interpretation approach of the security exception clause in accordance with the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Following these pivotal cases—DS512, DS567, DS544, and DS597—the WTO has developed a relatively stable jurisprudence. The WTO Dispute Settlement Body assesses whether the objective circumstances warrant the application of the security exception, granting members the authority to determine the “essential security interests”and the“necessity”of measures but retaining the WTO Dispute Settlement Body’s power to review these decisions based on the “good faith principle”. China’s lessons learned from these cases include the necessity of employing legal means to address “legalized political issues”. By Implementing a dual approach of“guidance”and“containment”, China can apply the security exception clause in foreign trade to uphold its a holistic view of national security. Simultaneously, China should act in good faith alongside other WTO members to prevent the abuse of security exceptions, thus averting the emergence of a“broken window effect”.