禁止性补贴“适当反措施”的法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-07-18 13:02

【摘要】：世界贸易组织(WTO)在1995年成立后,全球多边贸易体制进入一个新的发展阶段,对WTO体制继续改革的呼声也在不断加强。相较于GATT时代,WTO争端解决机制具有更强地执行力,WTO争端解决机制改革的关键点之一便在于当败诉成员不履行义务时,胜诉成员可以被授权采取报复措施以强化专家组或上诉机构裁决执行力。在成员采取报复措施产生争议时,败诉成员可以就报复措施的程度提出报复水平仲裁,要求判断胜诉成员提出的报复措施是否符合WTO法的规定。报复水平仲裁运行多年,也产生过各种争议,其中对于禁止性补贴案件反措施的水平判断仍存在许多疑惑和不确定性,本文根据《补贴与反补贴措施协定》(下称“SCM协定”)第4.10条和第4.11条的相关规定,结合迄今涉及报复程序水平仲裁所有案件,对报复水平仲裁之一的“适当反措施”之法律问题进行研究。本文除了结语外,共有五部分,计42000字左右。第一部分是绪论,文献综述置于该部分,研究显示,“反措施”一词首先是在国际法案例中得到人们关注,其后得到国际法委员会的认可并写入《国家责任条款草案》中,但目前WTO法缺乏对“反措施”的准确界定;“适当”一词在GATT时代就用于争端解决机制,但在《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》(下称“DSU”)中被舍弃,之后被SCM协定采纳。现有文献对“适当”的认定也不明确。WTO争端解决的目的在于快速有效解决争端、促进规则遵守等,报复机制的目的则是“权利义务再平衡”或“促进执行”,这也为SCM协定中特殊报复制度的设置也带来争议。第二部分是对禁止性补贴“适当反措施”进行规则分析,首先简要描述补贴与反补贴国际规制的发展进程,表明SCM协议形成的过程,通过阐述SCM协定对禁止性补贴的救济措施、分析反措施“适当性”的相关规定,明确其具有的特殊性。然后对“反措施”规则进行分析,讨论反措施的渊源,根据《国家责任条款草案》的规则分析和明确“反措施”在国际法上的含义,探讨国际法上的“反措施”在WTO规则中适用的可能性。第三部分是对“适当反措施”现有司法实践的分析,通过对案件争议双方观点的阐述以及个案仲裁人裁决的对比,明确仲裁人对“适当反措施”的法律问题持有的观点,指明实践存在的问题与困境。第四部分结合第二部分的规则分析与第三部分的案例分析,对WTO法禁止性补贴的“反措施”进行界定,明确“适当性”的法律标准,使“适当反措施”规定明晰化。第五部分是中国应对禁止补贴“适当反措施”案的法律思考和建议,比较SCM协定对禁止性补贴规定与中国对补贴措施的规定,进行思考并提出建议;同时简要总结了中国涉及禁止性补贴案件的情况,站在中国的立场,提出中国面对“适当反措施”时的应对策略。
[Abstract]:With the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, the global multilateral trading system has entered a new stage of development. One of the key points of the reform of WTO dispute settlement mechanism is that when the defeated member fails to fulfill its obligations, one of the key points of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism reform is that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism has a stronger executive power than the GATT era. Winning members may be empowered to take retaliatory measures to strengthen enforcement of panel or appellate decisions. When the member takes the retaliatory measure to cause the dispute, the losing member may propose the retaliatory level arbitration on the retaliatory measure degree, requests to judge whether the victorious member puts forward the retaliatory measure conforms to the WTO law stipulation. The level of retaliation arbitration has run for many years, and has also produced various disputes, among which there are still many doubts and uncertainties about the level of judgment of countermeasures in prohibited subsidy cases. In accordance with the relevant provisions of articles 4.10 and 4.11 of the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures (hereinafter referred to as the SCM Agreement), and in the light of all cases so far involving the level of retaliation procedures, This paper studies the legal issue of "appropriate countermeasures" in one of the arbitration of retaliation level. In addition to the conclusion, there are five parts, about 42000 words. The first part is an introduction, where the literature review shows that the term "countermeasures" first gained attention in cases of international law and was subsequently endorsed by the International Law Commission and included in the draft articles on State responsibility. However, WTO law lacks an accurate definition of "countermeasures"; the term "appropriate" was used in the dispute settlement mechanism in the GATT era, but was abandoned in the understanding on dispute settlement rules and procedures (hereinafter referred to as "DSU") and subsequently adopted by the SCM Agreement. The purpose of WTO dispute settlement is to settle disputes quickly and effectively, to promote the observance of rules, and the purpose of retaliation mechanism is to "rebalance rights and obligations" or "promote enforcement". This also brings controversy to the establishment of special retaliation system in SCM agreement. The second part is to analyze the "appropriate countermeasures" of prohibited subsidies. Firstly, it briefly describes the development process of international regulation of subsidies and countervailing, and shows the process of the formation of SCM agreement. To analyze the relevant provisions of the "appropriateness" of countermeasures and to clarify their particularities. The "countermeasures" rules are then analysed, the origin of countermeasures is discussed, and the meaning of "countermeasures" in international law is analysed and clarified in accordance with the rules of the draft articles on State responsibility. To explore the possibility of the application of "countermeasures" in international law in WTO rules. The third part is the analysis of the existing judicial practice of "appropriate countermeasures", through the elaboration of the views of both parties to the case dispute and the comparison of the arbitration award in the case, it is clear that the arbitrator holds the view on the legal issue of "appropriate countermeasures". The problems and difficulties in practice are pointed out. The fourth part combines the rule analysis of the second part and the case analysis of the third part, defines the "countermeasures" of the prohibition of subsidy in WTO law, clarifies the legal standard of "appropriateness", and clarifies the provisions of "appropriate countermeasures". The fifth part is the legal thinking and suggestion of China to prohibit subsidies "appropriate countermeasures", comparing the SCM Agreement on prohibited subsidies and China's provisions on subsidy measures, and put forward some suggestions; At the same time, this paper briefly summarizes the situation of China involving prohibited subsidy cases, and puts forward the countermeasures of China in the face of "appropriate countermeasures" from the standpoint of China.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D996.1

【相似文献】