非市场经济主体与反补贴制度关系研究——以美国反补贴法为视角

发布时间：2018-05-02 02:02

本文选题：反补贴协议 + 反补贴法　；参考：《上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2010年02期

【摘要】：非市场经济主体不是一个法律命题,而是源自关贸总协定期间各缔约方的实践。反补贴制度是否适用于非市场经济主体?世贸组织成员之间有不同的标准。美国的反补贴法虽然对此没有明确规定,但是,1984年联邦第二巡回上诉法院在"钾碱案"中的裁决确立了美国反补贴法不适用于非市场经济主体的司法先例。国人曾普遍认为中国的市场经济主体地位被承认之前,世贸组织成员不会对中国采取反补贴措施。最近发生在中美之间的"铜版纸案"和"反倾销与反补贴案"引发了对非市场经济主体实施反补贴制裁是否违反多边贸易协议规定的争议。事实上,补贴与反补贴协议的适用对象并不区分市场经济主体与非市场经济主体。美国的做法没有违反多边贸易协议的规定,而是打破了不向非市场经济主体适用反补贴法的国内司法先例。
[Abstract]:The subject of non-market economy is not a legal proposition, but comes from the practice of contracting parties during GATT. Is the countervailing system applicable to non-market economic subjects? There are different standards among WTO members. Although the United States countervailing law has not clearly stipulated this, the judgment of the second Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the "potassium Alkali case" in 1984 established the judicial precedent that the United States countervailing law does not apply to the non-market economy subject. It was widely believed that until China's market economy was recognized, WTO members would not take countervailing measures against China. The recent "coated Paper case" and "Anti-dumping and countervailing case" between China and the United States have triggered a dispute over whether the imposition of countervailing sanctions on non-market economic subjects violates the provisions of multilateral trade agreements. In fact, the object of subsidy and countervailing agreement does not distinguish between market economy and non-market economy. The practice of the United States does not violate the provisions of multilateral trade agreements, but breaks the domestic judicial precedent of not applying countervailing laws to non-market economy subjects.
【作者单位】：上海交通大学凯原法学院;
【基金】：上海交通大学文科特色创新项目(08TS7)
【分类号】：D971.2;D996.1

【相似文献】