美国对华“双反”实践的法律分析与应对思考

发布时间：2018-04-24 07:10

  本文选题：双反 + 特征　； 参考：《南京财经大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：2007年美国对中国铜版纸发起的第一起反倾销和反补贴双重调查，开创了美国对华“双反”的进程。此后的几年间，美国对华“双反”实践从未停止，特别是2008年全球性金融危机之后，更是愈演愈烈，但这更多的是美国贸易保护主义本质的体现。美国对华“双反”频发既有外部因素的影响，也有我国自身存在的问题。美国商务部对原产于中国的产品并用“双反”措施，国内法和国际法依据都不明晰，特别是“中美双反措施争端案”后美国失利，更是使美国并用“双反”缺乏支持依据，但该案中上诉机构的一些论断对中国并非有利，同时美国不会轻易放弃“双反”使用，如何有效应对美国“双反”成为我国政界、学界亟待研究的问题，本文就是在该背景下对美国对华并用“双反”问题进行探讨，，希望通过对美国对华并用“双反”相关问题的分析找出应对“双反”调查的法律对策。 本文主要从五个方面就美国对华并用“双反”调查进行论述。 第一部分梳理了美国对华“双反”的实践进程，通过对美国频繁发起“双反”的案件考察得出美国对华“双反”的特征，特别是国际金融危机爆发后呈现出来的新特点，分析出美国对华“双反”本质上是一种贸易保护主义的行为。 第二部分分析了我国频遭美国“双反”调查的外部因素和内部原因，近年来美中贸易逆差居高不下，使得美国国内贸易保护主义抬头，同时由于反倾销反补贴同时发起不但增加了我国的应诉难度也会对我国未来的外贸政策发生影响，这些种种方面都是重要的外部诱因，但同时我国自身存在的问题也是不可忽视的，需要引起重视。 第三部分讨论了美国对华“双反”实践在美国国内法和国际法上的依据。一方面，通过对美国国内相关成文法和判例法的分析，得出美国对华“双反”其国内法依据不足；另一方面，通过对2011年3月的WTO判决，考察美国对华“双反”是否具有国际法支撑，通过对案件争议焦点的分析，得出其也没有有力的国际法依据。 第四部分是对第三部分所提案例的进一步分析，虽然中国在该案判决中获胜，但胜诉中存在的法律隐忧不容忽视，世贸组织上诉机构的报告并没有完全支持中国主张，甚至在一些问题上的论断会对中国的外贸发展产生不利影响。 第五部分是在对前面几部分分析的基础上，提出笔者对我国应战美国“双反”的一些意见和建议。从国际和国内两个层面进行讨论，国际方面我们要适用WTO争端解决机制来保护我国利益，同时也不能忽视利用美国国内的救济；国内层面则从应诉、完善法律、提升企业实力几方面进行探讨。
[Abstract]:In 2007, the United States launched the first double anti-dumping and countervailing investigation against China's coated Paper, which initiated the process of "double antidumping". In the following years, the practice of "double opposition" to China has never stopped, especially after the global financial crisis in 2008, but it is more the embodiment of the essence of American trade protectionism. The frequent occurrence of American double-reaction to China is influenced by external factors as well as its own problems. The United States Department of Commerce has not clearly defined the basis of domestic and international law for the use of "double reaction" measures on products originating in China. In particular, the failure of the United States after the "dispute case between China and the United States on dual countermeasures" has made the United States lack the support basis for the use of "double counter measures". However, some of the arguments of the appellate bodies in this case are not beneficial to China, and the United States will not give up the use of "double reactions" easily. How to effectively deal with the "double reactions" of the United States has become a problem that needs to be urgently studied by the academic community in China's political circles. Under this background, this paper probes into the problem of "double reactives" used by the United States against China, and hopes to find out the legal countermeasures for the investigation of "double reactions" through the analysis of the related problems of the United States' use of "double reactions" to China. This article mainly discusses the American double-opposition investigation on China from five aspects. The first part combs the practice process of the US "double opposition" to China, and through the investigation of the frequent "double opposition" cases initiated by the United States, it concludes the characteristics of the "double opposition" of the United States to China, especially the new features presented after the outbreak of the international financial crisis. The analysis shows that the "double opposition" of the United States to China is essentially a protectionist act. The second part analyzes the external factors and internal reasons that our country is frequently investigated by the United States. In recent years, the trade deficit between the United States and China has remained high, which has led to the rise of domestic trade protectionism in the United States. At the same time, since anti-dumping and countervailing has not only increased the difficulty of responding to lawsuits in China, but will also have an impact on China's future foreign trade policy. These aspects are important external incentives. But at the same time, our own problems can not be ignored, need to be paid attention to. The third part discusses the basis of American "double opposition" to China in American domestic law and international law. On the one hand, through the analysis of the relevant statute law and case law in the United States, the author draws a conclusion that the domestic law of "double opposition" of the United States against China is insufficient; on the other hand, through the WTO judgment in March 2011, Through the analysis of the dispute focus of the case, it is concluded that there is no strong basis for international law. The fourth part is a further analysis of the case mentioned in the third part. Although China won the judgment in this case, the legal hidden worries in the victory cannot be ignored. The report of the WTO Appellate body does not fully support China's claim. Even on some issues the argument will have a negative impact on the development of China's foreign trade. In the fifth part, based on the analysis of the previous parts, the author puts forward some opinions and suggestions on our country's "double opposition" to the United States. From the international and domestic levels, we should apply the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to protect the interests of our country. At the same time, we should not ignore the use of domestic remedies in the United States. At the domestic level, we should respond to the suit and improve the law. Enhance the strength of enterprises to explore several aspects.
【学位授予单位】：南京财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.1

【参考文献】

中国期刊全文数据库 前10条

1 彭育园;;美国反补贴法的修改与我国的应对方略[J];对外经贸实务;2006年10期

2 单一;;反补贴措施的司法审查[J];法律适用;2007年06期

3 李仲平;李炼;;“美国对华铜版纸案”述评——基于反补贴申诉的考察[J];法商研究;2008年01期

4 徐泉;;美国反补贴法适用探析——以对“非市场经济国家”的适用为考察对象[J];法商研究;2008年01期

5 臧立;;WTO法律体系下实施“双反”措施的合法性研究——由“美国对华铜版纸案”引发的思考[J];法商研究;2008年01期

6 胡晓红;;国外对华产品实施反补贴的法律反思[J];法学家;2007年04期

7 苟大凯;;美国对华实施“双反”之违法性分析[J];法学;2010年03期

8 王胜伟;许开华;金栋;;《中国入世议定书》第十五条研究[J];法制与经济;2006年04期

9 邓德雄;;反倾销和反补贴重复救济问题及其司法审查研究——兼析美国国际贸易法院非公路用轮胎双反案判决[J];国际贸易;2009年11期

10 龚柏华;陈云晓;;美国对源自中国的铜版纸适用反补贴税案评析[J];国际商务研究;2007年03期

中国硕士学位论文全文数据库 前3条

1 毕聪;中美贸易摩擦新问题探析[D];吉林大学;2011年

2 吴雅萍;美国对华同时适用反倾销和反补贴措施问题研究[D];苏州大学;2009年

3 陈云秀;美国对华并用“两反调查”法律问题研究[D];西南政法大学;2010年

本文编号：1795655