从稀土案看WTO争端解决机制中证据规则的不合理之处以及中国应对策略

发布时间：2018-07-13 14:24

【摘要】：法谚有云"举证之所在,败诉之所在"。①从2009年的原材料案到现在的稀土案,中国在WTO争端解决程序中连连败诉,②不夸张地说,证据问题是败诉的主要原因。对证据问题的研究和对举证不能的窘境的突破是我国在参与WTO争端解决机制时所要解决的首要问题。本文的研究目的:中国如何能在WTO争端解决机制应诉中援引GATT1994第20条进行抗辩,并且在援引例外条款进行抗辩的时候完成DSB规定的举证责任。继原材料案之后,中国在美国、日本、欧盟诉中国稀土案中再次败诉,这是我国又一重大的能源方面败诉案件。这次败诉对我国造成的已经不是一个单独案件的影响,而是会对我国的整个能源产业链结构升级带来重重阻碍。③这两个案件中我国都试图援引GATT1994第20条进行抗辩,但是都未能完成关键举证责任,未能证明被诉措施是符合GATT1994第20条宗旨的,进而未能证明被诉措施是符合GATT1994第20条的。如果不能解决这个问题,作为能源大国,恐怕在今后的WTO争端解决中我国在发展能源产业与保护环境、保护动物、植物和中国人民身体健康方面都将承受巨大不利,难以翻身。本文研究方法采用案例分析法,研读分析美国、日本、欧盟三方在WTO争端解决程序中的主张和抗辩,研究专家组对中国举证责任完成情况的评价,研究专家组对争端各方提交的证据的证明力的评价。本文研究结果可以概括为:专家组对证明责任分配规则的表述有很多模棱两可、模糊不清之处。对证据证明力大小和一个事项证明到什么程度算是达到证明标准、成功使举证责任转移规定得不是很清楚。同时,专家组在庭审中查明事实过程存在重实体轻程序、专家组认定证据效力权力过大等问题。其中有些在历次争端解决中形成的惯例做法实际上对发展中国家非常不公平,为发达资本主义国家逃避环境治理责任、以低廉价格掠夺发展中国家资源能源的恶劣行为打开大门,不利于维护国际贸易的公平有序健康发展,建议予以改进。
[Abstract]:From the Raw material case in 2009 to the rare Earth case in 2009, it is no exaggeration to say that China has repeatedly lost in the WTO dispute settlement procedure. The research on the evidence problem and the breakthrough of the difficult situation of proof are the most important problems to be solved when our country participates in the dispute settlement mechanism of WTO. The purpose of this paper is: how can China invoke Article 20 of GATT1994 in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and fulfill the burden of proof stipulated by DSB when invoking the exception clause? After the raw materials case, China lost again in the rare earth case of the United States, Japan and the European Union v. China, which is another major energy case in China. The impact of this defeat on our country is no longer a separate case, but it will cause heavy obstacles to the upgrading of the entire energy industry chain structure of our country. In both cases, our country will try to invoke Article 20 of GATT1994 to defend it. However, they fail to fulfill the key burden of proof, and fail to prove that the measures sued are in conformity with the purpose of Article 20 of GATT 1994, and that the measures sued are in conformity with Article 20 of GATT 1994. If we cannot solve this problem, as a big energy country, I am afraid that in the future WTO dispute settlement, our country will suffer enormous disadvantages in developing the energy industry and protecting the environment, protecting animals, plants and the health of the Chinese people, and it will be difficult to turn over. This paper uses the case analysis method to study and analyze the claims and defences of the United States, Japan and the European Union in the WTO dispute settlement procedure, and to study the evaluation of the completion of the burden of proof in China by the panel of experts. Study the panel's assessment of the evidentiary power of the evidence submitted by the parties to the dispute. The results of this paper can be summarized as follows: there are many ambiguities and ambiguities in the expression of the rules of assignment of burden of proof. The degree to which the power of proof and the extent to which a matter is proved to be up to the standard of proof is not very clear for the successful transfer of the burden of proof. At the same time, the panel of experts in the trial found that the process of facts is more important than the procedure, and the panel finds that the power of evidence is too large. Some of the customary practices developed in the settlement of disputes have in fact been very unfair to developing countries and have evaded the responsibility of environmental governance for the developed capitalist countries. The abominable behavior of plundering resources and energy in developing countries at low prices is not conducive to maintaining the fair, orderly and healthy development of international trade, so it is suggested that it be improved.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D996.1

【相似文献】