论中美轮胎特保案中专家组的裁决

发布时间：2018-04-08 09:36

本文选题：特定产品过渡性保障措施　切入点：《中国入世议定书》16条　出处：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：2008年金融危机使美国经济遭受重创,消费者信心大幅下降,开始节衣缩食。在轮胎市场中消费者逐渐将眼光投向物美价廉的中国产品,中国轮胎在美国市场所占比例上升。正是在这种背景下,2009年奥巴马政府宣布对来自中国的轮胎实施附加关税。中国对此问题提出磋商,磋商未果后,中国将美国实施的保障措施诉至WTO,专家组判决中国败诉。美国的这种以市场扰乱为由对中国实施的保障措施,是特定产品过渡性保障措施,在WTO法律中的依据是《中国入世议定书》第16条(以下简称“16条”)。本文正是依据16条对专家组裁决进行分析。本文主要通过对16条与《保障措施协定》之间的关系、16.1与16.4之间的关系以及条款本身所含词语的含义的分析,对16条进行了深入的研究,从而对专家组关于相关问题的认定进行分析。此篇论文分为四个部分：第一部分：轮胎特保案概述,主要分析了轮胎特保案情,《中国入世议定书》中的特定产品过渡性保障措施的形成以及轮胎特保案涉及的主要法律问题。其中重点阐述了《中国入世议定书》中的特定产品过渡性保障措施的形成。其他部分分别论述轮胎特保案涉及的主要法律问题。第二部分：对轮胎特保案中所涉及的法律问题进行研究,论述了特定产品过渡性保障措施是否能直接适用《保障措施协定》。通过对WTO法律解释规则的介绍和运用,结合特定产品过渡性保障措施产生的原因、相关法律条文等方面进行阐述。第三部分：分析专家组对16.4中“正在迅速增长”的认定。通过对《保障措施协定》中WTO审判实践确定的“数量已经如此增长”的阐述,结合《中国入世议定书》16.4自身的法律文本以及目的和意图,运用法律解释方法,分析专家组对于“正在迅速增长”的认定是否合理。第四部分：分析专家组对因果关系和必需的限度的认定。首先列举了各方在因果关系和必需限度这两个问题上的分歧；其次,针对分歧,通过对《保障措施协定》下WTO审判实践中的相关解释的介绍,结合《中国入世议定书》16条自身规定和轮胎特保案的案情,分析专家组的认定。通过各部分的论证,最终得出专家组对16条的解释是不充分、不完全的,因为其并没有解释16.6条中规定的“必需的时限”,也没有解释16.3中规定的“必需的限度”,而这两者的解释直接关系到美国确定的调查期间是否合法,从而关系到美国采取的特保措施是否合法。另外,对于因果关系的证明方法、不可归因原则,专家组的认定虽然是合理的,但是,笔者认为专家组可以依据公平公正原则以及WTO的基本精神对《中国入世议定书》16条进行解释,以使特定产品过渡性保障措施实施方负有分析竞争情况以及履行不可归因原则的义务,这样才能同时实现对保障措施相对方的公平正义,也有利于实现WTO贸易自由与提升成员方福利的宗旨。
[Abstract]:In 2008 the financial crisis in the U.S. economy hit consumer confidence fell sharply in the tire market began to tighten their belts. Consumers gradually will look into the Chinese Chinese by high quality and inexpensive products, the proportion of rising tire market in the United States. It is in this context, the Obama government in 2009 announced the implementation of additional tariffs on tires from China. Put forward consultation China in this regard, the negotiations fail, Chinese security measures will be taken to the United States to implement the WTO, expert group decision Chinese lost. The market to disrupt the security measures on the grounds of the Chinese implementation, is a transitional product specific safeguard measures, in the WTO legal basis is the "Chinese Accession Protocol > sixteenth (hereinafter referred to as the" 16 "). This paper is based on the 16 article of the expert group decision analysis.
This article mainly studies the 16 articles through the analysis of the relationship between the 16 articles and the agreement of safeguard measures, the relationship between 16.1 and 16.4, and the meaning of the words contained in the terms, so as to analyze the cognizance of the expert group on related issues.
This paper is divided into four parts:
The first part: the overview of tires, the main analysis of the tire special safeguard case, "the main legal problems of the formation of the transitional safeguard measures specific products China Accession Protocol > and the tyres case involved. Which focuses on the formation of" China Accession Protocol > in the specific product transitional safeguard measures. The other part discusses the main legal problems of tires involved.
The second part: the tires safeguard the legal issues involved in the case study, discusses the transitional product specific safeguard measures whether it is applicable to "safeguard agreement through interpretation. Introduction and application of WTO legal rules, combined with the causes of transitional product specific safeguard measures, the relevant legal provisions and other aspects.
The third part: the analysis of the expert group on the identification of 16.4 "is growing rapidly." according to the < security measures agreement > WTO to determine the trial practice in the "quantity has been described, combined with the" growth "Chinese Accession Protocol >16.4 its legal text and the intention of the use of legal interpretation methods, analysis of the expert group for the identification of" growing "is reasonable.
The fourth part: the analysis of the expert group identification of causal relationship and the necessary limits. It lists the parties in the causal relationship and the necessary limits of these two issues; secondly, according to the differences, through the interpretation of WTO related security measures agreement in the trial practice of < >, with < Chinese accession protocol >16 a self regulation and tire special safeguard case, identification and analysis of the expert group.
After all the analysis, finally draws the expert group's interpretation of Article 16 is not sufficient, not completely, because it does not explain the provisions of article 16.6 of the required time limit ", also did not explain the 16.3 provisions of the" necessary ", which is directly related to the interpretation of the United States during the determination the investigation is legal, which is related to the United States to take the special safeguard measures are legitimate. In addition, the method to prove a causal relationship, can not be attributed to principle, the expert group that although is reasonable, but the author thinks, the expert group can according to the China < accession protocol >16 to explain the basic spirit and principles of fair justice WTO, in order to make the transitional product specific safeguard measures shall analyze competition situation and performance does not attributable to the principle of the obligation, so as to realize the security measures of each phase of fairness and justice, but also conducive to Realizing the freedom of WTO trade and promoting the purpose of member Fang Fuli.

【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D996.1

【引证文献】