2016年后中国市场经济地位的取得

发布时间：2018-03-20 19:03

本文选题：市场经济地位　切入点：反倾销　出处：《吉林大学》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：我国加入WTO以来,虽然在市场经济转型中已取得了很大成效,但是以欧盟和美国为代表的一些国家仍然不愿承认中国的市场经济地位。2016年12月11日,中国《入世议定书》第15条(a)(ii)款将到期,反倾销领域的市场经济地位问题再次成为各方关注焦点。为了探究2016年后中国是否能自动取得WTO成员国一致承认市场经济地位这一问题,本文以《入世议定书》第15条原文为基础,结合2014年“中国非市场经济问题”论战中外国学者的观点、上诉机构在“紧固件案”中的观点,遵从《维也纳条约法公约》中的条约解释原则,从法律解释的角度预估第15条(a)(ii)款到期后的实际效果,得出第15条(a)(ii)款到期将导致“非市场经济计算方法”终止,虽然不能认定为自动取得“市场经济地位”,但“市场经济地位”问题可能被架空的结论。然而,由于WTO规则与成员国国内法规则分属不同的法律体系,取得法律解释上的依据并不意味着消除成员国“非市场经济待遇”的歧视性做法,进而需要探讨我国对于到期后不被承认“市场经济地位”可以做出哪些回应。本文从国际法与国内法两个角度出发,一方面探究在欧盟和美国法律体系内起诉的可能性,包括企业和国家两个主体的申诉依据;另一方面提出利用WTO争端解决机制的诉讼策略。而无论在哪一层面申诉,赢得第15条就意味着初步赢得“市场经济地位”。此外,在国内法层面,结合乌克兰的做法,本文还提出了可以应用反倾销复审这一行政审查程序争取“市场经济待遇”的思路。另外,因为欧盟和美国对他国施加歧视性待遇的依据不仅限于“非市场经济地位”问题,即使未来欧盟和美国承认了中国市场经济地位,也并不会实际消除“非市场经济计算方法”,所以还要对欧盟和美国了可能滥用的其他规则做出预警分析。本文结合俄罗斯诉欧盟案、亚美尼亚案、澳大利亚《海关法》的特殊规则,探究其他歧视性待遇在国内法与国际法中的依据。着重分析了欧盟和美国最可能利用的“特殊市场状况”规则,并通过解读相关条文提出了应对措施,即瓦解“特殊市场状况”的依据。本文仅从法律的角度出发,不考虑政治博弈等其他因素,通过分析论证,提出了第15条对我国有利的解释方法,落实了相关诉讼的策略与法律依据。尽管从分析中不能认定我国可以自动取得市场经济地位,但是仍然可以通过多种途径争取市场经济地位,对此我国需要做好在此问题上长期诉讼的准备。同时为彻底消除“非市场经济计算方法”,本文发掘了欧盟与美国可能采取的其他歧视性待遇依据,并提出了应对措施。
[Abstract]:Since China's entry into WTO, although great achievements have been made in the transformation of the market economy, some countries, represented by the European Union and the United States, are still unwilling to recognize China's market economy status. In December 11th 2016, Article 15 of the Protocol on China's accession to the WTO will expire. The issue of market economy status in the field of anti-dumping has once again become the focus of attention of all parties. In order to explore whether China can automatically obtain the status of market economy recognized unanimously by WTO members after 2016, Based on the original text of Article 15 of the Protocol to the WTO and the views of foreign scholars in the debate on "China's Non-market economy" in 2014, the point of view of the Appellate body in the "Fastener case" is presented in this paper. Complying with the principle of treaty interpretation in the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties, and from the point of view of legal interpretation, estimating the actual effect of article 15 after its expiration, and arriving at the conclusion that the expiration of article 15 will result in the termination of the "non-market economy method of calculation", Although it cannot be considered as automatic acquisition of "market economy status", the question of "market economy status" may be put on the shelf. However, since the WTO rules and the rules of the domestic law of member States are different legal systems, Access to the basis of legal interpretation does not imply the elimination of discriminatory practices of "non-market economy treatment" in member States, Then we need to explore the possible responses of our country to not being recognized as "market economy status" after expiration. This paper, from the perspectives of international law and domestic law, on the one hand, explores the possibility of prosecution within the legal systems of the EU and the United States. On the other hand, it proposes a litigation strategy to utilize the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. However, no matter at any level, winning Article 15 means winning the "market economy status" initially. At the level of domestic law, combined with the practice of Ukraine, this paper also puts forward the idea that the administrative review procedure of anti-dumping review can be applied to strive for "market economy treatment". Because the basis for discriminatory treatment of other countries by the EU and the United States is not limited to the issue of "non-market economy status," even if the EU and the United States recognize China's market economy status in the future. Nor will it actually eliminate the "non-market economy calculation method," so it is necessary to make an early warning analysis of other rules that may have been abused by the EU and the United States. This article combines Russia v. the European Union case, Armenia case, The special rules of Australia's Customs Act, exploring the basis for other discriminatory treatment in domestic and international law, and focusing on the "special market conditions" rules most likely to be used by the European Union and the United States, And through the interpretation of the relevant articles put forward countermeasures, that is, the basis for the disintegration of "special market conditions." this article only from the perspective of the law, do not consider other factors such as political games, through analysis and demonstration, This paper puts forward the interpretation method of Article 15 in favor of our country, and implements the strategy and legal basis of the relevant litigation. Although it cannot be concluded from the analysis that China can automatically acquire market economy status, But we can still fight for market economy status through a variety of channels. In order to eliminate the "calculation method of non-market economy", this paper explores the basis of other discriminatory treatment that may be adopted by the European Union and the United States, and puts forward some countermeasures.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D996.1

【参考文献】