This paper examines whether supply chain resilience measures that may violate WTO non-discrimination principles can be justified under WTO exception clauses. Analyzing security exceptions, FTA/EPA exceptions, and general exceptions through recent case law, the paper concludes that general exceptions (GATT Article XX/GATS Article XIV) provide the most appropriate framework. For trade in services, GATS Article XIV(a) offers the best routes for justification. Even for trade in goods, GATT Article XX(d) with proper domestic legislation and other subparagraphs such as (b)—to the extent a stable supply of certain products leads to fulfilling the policy objectives provided for in such subparagraphs—may provide justifications. However, in any route of justification, appropriate limitations are indispensable to avoid the risk of over-generalization that could create loopholes for protective measures under the guise of supply chain resilience. The paper proposes an analytical framework based on two core elements: (1) likelihood of supply disruption risk, and (2) degree of adverse impact from shortages. These objective criteria distinguish legitimate resilience measures from protectionism. Actual supply disruptions, especially through economic coercion, strengthen justification, while hypothetical or over-generalized risks should be rejected. Product-specific analysis is essential.