美国对华“双反”措施的WTO合规性研究

发布时间：2018-04-20 09:08

本文选题：“双反” + “重复救济”　；参考：《复旦大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：自2007年以来,以美国为代表的WTO成员方在贸易救济领域发生重大实践转折,开始对非市场经济(以下简称“NME”)国家采取反补贴措施,并且往往与反倾销措施合并使用,形成“双反”。愈演愈烈的“双反”措施对中国出口企业造成沉重打击,中方认为“双反”对中国造成了“双重歧视”：一方面在反倾销领域将中国视为“NME”国家,采用“替代国制度”确定正常价值,高估倾销幅度；另一方面在反补贴领域将中国视为市场经济(以下简称“ME”)国家适用反补贴措施。不仅如此,反倾销调查中“替代国”制度与反补贴措施的并用还会导致美国商务部(以下简称“DOC”)对国内补贴授予企业的利益进行重复抵消,形成“重复救济”,违反WTO规则。从本质上看,美国对中国发起的“双反”与其以往对“ME”国家所发起的“双反”相比存在特殊性,对此类“双反”合法性的探讨需结合这一特性进行分析。本文在澄清“双反”的一般规则之后,着重研究对中国“双反”的两个特殊问题——反补贴法对中国的适用争议以及“重复救济”问题。立足于WTO成员方对中国“双反”的特殊性,区分“双反”对出口补贴和对国内补贴的“重复救济”是本文逻辑的起点；研究WTO规则的更替以及美国反倾销和反补贴法的发展历程是本文的一条主线；而分析中美双方在WTO争端解决程序以及美国国内法院的一系列申诉、对抗实践进展则是本文的另一条主线；两条主线相互促进、推动,最终导向美国对华“双反”存在普遍违法性这一主要论断,以及达到对现状进行客观评述和对未来中方继续申诉提出建议这一期待价值。
[Abstract]:Since 2007, the members of WTO, represented by the United States, have taken an important practical turn in the field of trade relief. They have begun to take countervailing measures against non-market economy (hereinafter referred to as "NME") countries, and often use them in combination with anti-dumping measures. The formation of "double opposition". The intensifying "double counter" measures have dealt a heavy blow to Chinese export enterprises. China believes that "double opposition" has caused "double discrimination" against China: on the one hand, it is regarded as a "NME" country in the area of anti-dumping. The "surrogate country system" is used to determine the normal value and overestimate the dumping margin. On the other hand, China is regarded as a market economy (ME) country to apply countervailing measures in the field of countervailing. Moreover, the combination of "surrogate country" system and countervailing measures in anti-dumping investigations will result in the repeated cancellation of the benefits of domestic subsidies granted to enterprises by the United States Department of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as "DOC"), which will result in "repeated relief". Violation of WTO rules. In essence, there are particularities in the "double reactions" initiated by the United States against China compared with those initiated by the "ME" countries in the past. The discussion on the legitimacy of such "double reactions" should be combined with this characteristic. After clarifying the general rules of "double countervailing", this paper focuses on the two special problems of "double countervailing" in China, namely, the dispute on the application of countervailing law to China and the question of "repeated relief". Based on the particularity of WTO member's "double reaction" to China, it is the logical starting point of this paper to distinguish "double counterparty" from "duplicate relief" to export subsidy and domestic subsidy. To study the replacement of WTO rules and the development of American anti-dumping and countervailing laws is one of the main lines of this paper. The development of confrontation practice is another main line of this paper. The two main lines promote each other and lead to the main conclusion that the United States has universal illegality against China. And the expected value of objectively commenting on the status quo and making suggestions to the Chinese side to continue to complain in the future.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.1

【引证文献】