WTO争端审查标准研究

发布时间：2018-05-26 22:44

本文选题：WTO + 审查标准　；参考：《哈尔滨工业大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：WTO争端解决机构在审理争端案件的过程中,一般会对当事方的国内法或者当事方当局的裁定作出判断,由此产生了国家主权与WTO管辖权之间的冲突。两者间如何进行权力分配,是WTO争端审查标准所要解决的问题。中国近年来涉案量急遽上升,并出现了为履行争端解决机构报告被迫修改国内法的立法实践,这使得对此问题的研究十分迫切。本文结合近年来中国参与WTO争端解决机制的实践,运用规范分析法和案例分析法,分析了现行审查标准规范和中国涉案案例,并针对中国诉讼参与过程中存在的问题,提出了相应对策。论文首先介绍和分析了WTO争端审查标准的基本理论,包括三方面的内容。第一,审查标准的内涵解决审查标准是什么的问题,并对事实问题和法律问题进行了区分。第二,审查标准与其他程序规则的关系,包括审查标准与WTO争端解决机构管辖权、证据规则间的联系、区别等。第三,审查标准的发展趋势。它以发展的视角分析了从GATT时期到多哈回合谈判三个时期的审查标准。之后,对WTO争端审查标准进行了规范分析,主要分析了《反倾销协定》第17.6条和DSU第11条。通过分析《反倾销协定》第17.6条,可以发现:对于此类案件的事实证据、事实结论和法律问题的审查,争端解决机构分别采用了适当性标准、客观公正标准和从头再查标准。通过分析DSU第11条,发现对此类案件,无论是事实问题还是法律问题,争端解决机构均采取了客观标准。而通过对比分析这两个法律条款,得出结论:相较于反倾销事实问题,专家组在非反倾销案件事实问题上,享有上更大的自由裁量权。在法律问题上,无论反倾销领域或非反倾销领域,争端解决机构均采取了从头再查标准。最后,分析了中国涉案争端中体现的审查标准及从审查标准角度考虑的中国应对WTO争端解决机制的对策。通过分析可以发现,审查标准问题在案件中主要表现为以下实际问题:对事实问题与法律问题的区分,对成员方国内法的解释权,对管辖权之管辖权等。通过对案例的反思,得出结论:DSB对审查标准问题的基本立场是反倾销类案件,明确列明;非反倾销类案件,讳莫如深;DSB审查标准的明晰程度与审查机构的司法能动性成反比;DSB将对国内法进行补充解释作为事实审查的一种方式。最后,针对中国在应对审查标准问题方面存在的问题,提出了一些建议。
[Abstract]:In the process of handling dispute cases, WTO dispute settlement bodies usually judge the domestic laws of the parties or the ruling of the authorities of the parties, which leads to the conflict between the state sovereignty and the jurisdiction of the WTO. How to distribute the power between the two is the problem to be solved by the WTO dispute review standard. In recent years, the number of cases involved in China has risen sharply, and the legislative practice of forced revision of domestic laws in order to fulfill the reports of the dispute settlement bodies has emerged, which makes the study of this issue very urgent. Based on the practice of China's participation in the dispute settlement mechanism of WTO in recent years, this paper analyzes the current standards and norms of the review and the cases involved in China by means of normative analysis and case analysis, and aims at the problems existing in the process of China's litigation participation. The corresponding countermeasures are put forward. This paper first introduces and analyzes the basic theory of WTO dispute review standard, including three aspects. First, the connotation of the standard solves the question of what the standard is, and distinguishes between the fact and the law. Second, the relationship between the examination standard and other procedural rules, including the jurisdiction of the WTO dispute settlement body, the relationship between the rules of evidence, and the differences. Third, review the development trend of standards. It analyzes the review standards from the GATT period to the Doha Round negotiation from the perspective of development. After that, the standard of WTO dispute review is analyzed, including Article 17.6 of ADA and Article 11 of DSU. By analyzing Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, it can be found that for the examination of factual evidence, factual conclusions and legal issues in such cases, the dispute settlement bodies have adopted the standards of appropriateness, objectivity and impartiality, and re-examination from the beginning, respectively. Through the analysis of Article 11 of DSU, it is found that the dispute settlement bodies have adopted objective criteria for this kind of cases, whether it is a question of fact or a question of law. Through the comparative analysis of these two legal provisions, the conclusion is drawn: compared with the fact of anti-dumping, the expert group enjoys more discretion on the factual issues of non-anti-dumping cases. On legal issues, both antidumping and non-antidumping fields, dispute settlement bodies have adopted re-examination standards. Finally, the paper analyzes the standard of examination in the disputes involved in China and the countermeasures of China's dispute settlement mechanism in response to WTO from the point of view of the review standard. Through the analysis, it can be found that the main problems in the case are as follows: the distinction between the factual and legal issues, the power of interpretation to the domestic law of the members, the jurisdiction over the jurisdiction, and so on. Through the reflection of the case, it is concluded that the basic position of the DSB on the standard of examination is the anti-dumping case, which is clearly listed; the non-antidumping case, There is no doubt that the degree of clarity of the DSB review standard is inversely proportional to the judicial initiative of the review body. DSB takes the supplementary interpretation of domestic law as a way of reviewing the facts. Finally, some suggestions are put forward to deal with the problems in China.
【学位授予单位】：哈尔滨工业大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D996.1

【参考文献】