技术中立原则与中国的服务贸易承诺——兼评美国诉中国出版物及视听制品案

发布时间：2018-06-11 23:12

本文选题：技术中立原则 + 服务贸易　；参考：《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2011年02期

【摘要】：技术中立原则最早出自电子商务领域,意指法律对电子商务的技术手段一视同仁,不限定使用或不禁止使用何种技术,也不对特定技术在法律效力上进行区别对待。首先将技术中立原则引入WTO争端解决的是安提瓜和巴布达诉美国影响跨国提供赌博服务措施案,而该原则再次引起人们的关注是美国诉中国部分出版物和视听制品贸易权以及分销服务案。从法律解释角度讲,从GATS和WTO各成员的承诺中推导出技术中立原则似乎有其一定的合理性。然而从现实角度讲,技术中立原则对于那些无法把握相关技术走向以及在作出贸易承诺时忽略这一问题的成员却具有很大的不确定性。如何解决技术中立原则的适用与中国服务贸易承诺范围界定之间的矛盾,这需要我们从国内政策制定的技巧上和承诺范围确定的技术上给予更多的关注。
[Abstract]:The principle of technology neutrality first comes from the field of electronic commerce, which means that the law treats the technical means of electronic commerce equally, and does not restrict or prohibit the use of any technology, nor does it discriminate the legal effect of specific technologies. First of all, introducing the principle of technological neutrality into the WTO dispute settlement is the case of Antigua and Barbuda v. the United States affecting the transnational provision of gambling services. This principle has aroused the attention of the people again is the United States v. China part of the publication and audio-visual products trade rights and distribution services case. From the angle of legal interpretation, it seems reasonable to deduce the principle of technology neutrality from the promises of GATS and WTO members. However, from a practical point of view, the principle of technology neutrality has great uncertainty for those members who cannot grasp the direction of relevant technology and ignore this issue when making trade commitments. How to solve the contradiction between the application of the principle of technology neutrality and the definition of the scope of China's service trade commitments requires us to pay more attention to the skills of domestic policy making and the technical aspects of the determination of the scope of commitments.
【作者单位】：上海交通大学凯原法学院;
【基金】：上海交通大学文科科研创新计划项目(特色研究项目)“中国参与WTO争端解决机制实证分析研究”的部分研究成果(项目编号08TS7)
【分类号】：D996.1

【参考文献】