WTO“稀土案”与中国自然资源出口管制的完善

发布时间：2018-04-21 16:35

本文选题：稀土案 + 自然资源　；参考：《中国人口·资源与环境》2017年01期

【摘要】：举世瞩目的 WTO"稀土案"于2014年8月7日终落帷幕。同先前的"原料案"一样,中国还是难逃败诉的命运。上诉机构支持申诉方的大部分指控,再次否决了《1994年关税与贸易总协定》(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994,以下简称GATT)第20条对中国《入世议定书》的可适用性,从而确认中国对稀土、钨、钼三种原材料采取的出口税及配额等管制措施违背了WTO相关规则和入世所作的特殊承诺。作为自然资源的进出口大国,在自然资源贸易纠纷(特别是出口管制问题)不断"升温"和WTO争端解决机制运用愈来愈频繁的今天,中国应认真总结和反思这场"稀土保卫战"失利带来的经验教训,以从源头上破解中国出口管制措施在WTO体制下遭遇的法律困境,避免今后类似案件败诉的重现。基于此,本文综合应用案例分析、文本分析、历史分析和比较分析等方法对"稀土案"争讼的焦点和争端解决机构(DSB)的裁决意见做了详尽的透析,结果发现此案中DSB的审理不同程度存在着解释僵化、无视中国缔约真意及主观随意、前后矛盾等失范之处,对中国颇为不公。不过,该案也从另外一方面暴露出中国出口管制立法的疏漏与实施缺陷。是故,本文建议中国:1请求部长级会议/总理事会对GATT与《入世议定书》关系做出统一解释,并单独将出口税承诺纳入减让表;2重视DSB既有的裁决思路,根据WTO规则修改相关出口管制法规;3加强资源开采的法律管控,提高资源税的征收标准;4确保对内外资源需求企业的管制一致,优化出口许可管理,努力从WTO法和国内法两个层面推动现行自然资源出口秩序的完善,使中国今后对自然资源的出口管制既能符合WTO规则又能达致确保本国经济可持续性发展之目的。
[Abstract]:The world-renowned WTO rare Earth case ended on August 7, 2014. Like the previous Raw material case, China is still doomed to defeat. The Appellate body upheld most of the complaints made by the complainant and again rejected the applicability of Article 20 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 to China's accession Protocol, thereby confirming China's commitment to rare earths and tungsten, The export tax and quota of molybdenum three kinds of raw materials violate the relevant rules of WTO and the special commitments made by WTO. As a large country of import and export of natural resources, today, trade disputes of natural resources (especially export control issues) are constantly "heating up" and the dispute settlement mechanism of WTO is being used more and more frequently. China should seriously sum up and reflect on the experience and lessons brought about by the defeat of the "rare earth defense war", so as to solve the legal dilemma of China's export control measures under the WTO system and avoid the recurrence of similar cases in the future. Based on this, this paper makes a detailed analysis of the focus of the "rare earth case" and the ruling opinion of the dispute settlement body (DSBs) by using the methods of case analysis, text analysis, historical analysis and comparative analysis. The results show that the trial of DSB in this case has different degrees of interpretation ossification, ignoring the true intention of China's contracting, subjective and arbitrary, contradictions and other irregularities, which is quite unfair to China. However, the case also exposed the oversight and implementation of China's export control legislation. Therefore, this paper suggests that China 1 should request the Ministerial Conference / General Council to make a unified interpretation of the relationship between the GATT and the Protocol to the WTO, and separately incorporate the export tax commitment into the concession schedule and attach importance to the existing ruling ideas of DSB. According to the WTO rules, we should amend the relevant export control laws and regulations to strengthen the legal control of resource exploitation, raise the standard of resource tax collection and ensure the consistency of the control over domestic and foreign enterprises in need of resources, and optimize the management of export licenses. This paper tries to promote the perfection of the current natural resource export order from the two aspects of WTO law and domestic law, so that China's export control of natural resources in the future can not only conform to the WTO rules but also achieve the purpose of ensuring the sustainable development of the country's economy.
【作者单位】：华侨大学法学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金项目“WTO扩散效应研究”(批准号:12CFX109) 2012年华侨大学“哲学社会科学青年学者成长工程”(批准号:12SKGC-QT15) 2016年福建省高等学校新世纪优秀人才支持项目
【分类号】：D996.1

【相似文献】