反补贴规则中“公共机构”认定问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-19 03:14

本文选题：公共机构 + 反补贴　；参考：《华东政法大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：近年来，，我国频繁遭到许多国家的反补贴调查，在贸易争端中处于不利境地。在反补贴调查中，确定补贴存在的前提是对“公共机构”的认定。但是WTO法律规则和各国立法均未对“公共机构”的定义作出明确规定，导致WTO成员方在各自的判例实践中操作标准不一致。 2011年，WTO上诉机构公布“中美双反措施争端案”的裁决报告，推翻专家组关于“公共机构政府控制论”的解释，从结论上支持中国的观点。但是上诉机构在对中国国有企业和银行是否属于“公共机构”的问题上作出的相关法律判断对我们不利，存在重大法律隐患。本文以“反补贴规则中‘公共机构’认定问题研究”为题，对公共机构的认定进行阐述和探讨。本文结合案例，通过对WTO争端案例及美国、加拿大和欧盟等主要发达国家和地区的认定标准进行分析后整理出一些主要的分析方法，专家组对公共机构的认定采用的是“政府控制法”，而上诉机构适用的是“政府职能法”；美国视具体情况在不同的案件中适用不同的认定方法，主要的有“五要素分析法”、“股权大多数分析法”等，在结尾部分针对这些认定标准提出借鉴经验和完善应对策略，化被动为主动，减轻我国在贸易争端中承担的沉重负担。同时得出结论，这些发达国家在没有充足证据的情形下，对中国出口产品贸然发起反补贴调查，以严苛的标准认定公共机构，违背了公平贸易的原则，严重打击到我国的出口贸易。对此，我国应当作出回应表明态度，争取从根本上改变国有企业和银行在反补贴调查中遇到的逆境，呼吁以宽松的标准认定公共机构。在本文第一章中，作者论述了WTO反补贴规则中的“公共机构”的定义，并以WTO中美双反措施案为例，对“公共机构”的认定引发的争议进行分析，并探讨各国对此争议带来的意义；第二章主要结合案例阐述WTO关于“公共机构”的认定方法，主要有“权威词典分析法”、“政府控制分析法”和“政府职能分析法”等，并在此基础上对WTO的实践做法进行评析；第三章分别讨论美国、加拿大和欧盟等国家与主要地区关于“公共机构”的认定标准，及其在具体案例中应用的表现，分析其做法是否与WTO相符，从而为后文提出应对策略作铺垫。第四章中，作者分析了中国反补贴法关于“公共机构”的规定，并就我国在相关问题中的缺陷如何弥补，及今后如何完善应对反补贴调查提出建议。希望在比较分析WTO成员方的相关立法和判例的基础上总结经验教训，为扭转我国国有企业和银行面临的不利境况作出有益启示，充分运用WTO规则维护贸易的稳步发展。
[Abstract]:In recent years, China has been frequently investigated by many countries, and is at a disadvantage in trade disputes.In the countervailing investigation, the premise of determining the existence of subsidy is the recognition of "public institution".However, the definition of "public organization" is not clearly defined in WTO laws and national legislations, which leads to inconsistent operating standards of WTO members in their respective case practice.In 2011, the WTO Appellate body published a ruling in the Sino-US case, overturning the panel's interpretation of "public agency government cybernetics" and supporting China's view in conclusion.But the appellate body's legal judgment on whether China's state-owned enterprises and banks are "public bodies" is unfavorable to us, and there are major legal hidden dangers.In this paper, the identification of public bodies in the anti-subsidy rules is discussed.This article combines the case, through the WTO dispute case and the United States, Canada and the European Union and other major developed countries and the European Union and other major developed countries and regional standards for the analysis of some of the main analysis methods.The Panel's determination of public bodies is based on the Government Control Act, while the Appellate body applies the Government function Act; the United States applies different methods of determination in different cases depending on the circumstances, the main ones being the "five-factor analysis method".At the end of this paper, the author puts forward some suggestions on how to use experience for reference and perfect the countermeasures to reduce the heavy burden our country bears in the trade dispute.At the same time, it is concluded that these developed countries, without sufficient evidence, have rashly launched countervailing investigations into Chinese exports, and have found public institutions to be in violation of the principle of fair trade according to stringent standards.The export trade of our country has been dealt a severe blow.In response, our country should make a clear attitude, strive to fundamentally change the adversities encountered by state-owned enterprises and banks in countervailing investigations, and call for the identification of public institutions by loose standards.In the first chapter of this paper, the author discusses the definition of "public organization" in the WTO countervailing rules, and analyzes the controversy caused by the confirmation of "public organization" by taking the case of WTO, China and the United States as an example.The second chapter mainly discusses the identification methods of "public organization" by WTO, such as "authoritative dictionary analysis", "government control analysis" and "government function analysis".On this basis, the author analyzes the practice of WTO. The third chapter discusses the standards of "public institution" in the United States, Canada and the European Union, and its application in specific cases.This paper analyzes whether the method is consistent with WTO, thus laying the groundwork for the following strategies.In the fourth chapter, the author analyzes the provisions of China's countervailing law on "public organizations", and puts forward some suggestions on how to remedy the defects of China's related problems and how to perfect the countervailing investigation in the future.It is hoped that on the basis of comparative analysis of the relevant legislations and precedents of the members of the WTO, this paper will sum up the experience and lessons, so as to provide useful inspiration for reversing the unfavorable situation faced by the state-owned enterprises and banks in China, and fully apply the WTO rules to safeguard the steady development of trade.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.1

【相似文献】