补贴与反补贴守则中“法律”专项性与“事实”专项性关系解读
发布时间：2018-07-22 20:21
【摘要】：在补贴与反补贴守则("SCM"协定)下,对于补贴的专项性的认定有两点:一是"法律上"的专项性,二是"事实上"专项性。上述两项的认定主要集中在SCM协定的中的2.1(a)、2.1(b)、2.1(c)三款。一般认为,前两款可以认为是"法律上"的专项性,最后一款为"事实上"的专项性。调查机关如何适用"SCM"协定中的2.1款,是一个很有争议的问题。从条约解释的视角,以中方就美国对中国部分产品实施反补贴措施世贸争端案(DS437)为背景,阐述上诉机构只有按照先"法律"后"事实"上的逻辑顺序认定补贴的"专项性",才能确保争诉各方对案件结果有合理的预期,维护WTO规则体系的稳定性。
[Abstract]:Under the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing (SCM), there are two aspects in the determination of the specificity of subsidies: one is the specificity in law and the other is the specificity in fact. The above two determinations are mainly concentrated in the 2. 1 (a) / 2. 1 (b) / 2. 1 (c) in the SCM Agreement. Generally speaking, the first two paragraphs can be regarded as "de jure" specificity and the last as "de facto" specificity. It is a controversial question how the investigation agency applies paragraph 2.1 of the SCM Agreement. From the perspective of treaty interpretation, the context of the dispute between China and the United States over the imposition of countervailing measures on some Chinese products (DS437) is as follows. Only when the appellate body determines the specificity of the subsidy according to the logical order of "law" and "fact", can it ensure that the litigant parties have reasonable expectation on the result of the case and maintain the stability of the WTO rule system.
【作者单位】： 中国人民大学法学院;
【分类号】：D996.1
本文编号：2138463
[Abstract]:Under the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing (SCM), there are two aspects in the determination of the specificity of subsidies: one is the specificity in law and the other is the specificity in fact. The above two determinations are mainly concentrated in the 2. 1 (a) / 2. 1 (b) / 2. 1 (c) in the SCM Agreement. Generally speaking, the first two paragraphs can be regarded as "de jure" specificity and the last as "de facto" specificity. It is a controversial question how the investigation agency applies paragraph 2.1 of the SCM Agreement. From the perspective of treaty interpretation, the context of the dispute between China and the United States over the imposition of countervailing measures on some Chinese products (DS437) is as follows. Only when the appellate body determines the specificity of the subsidy according to the logical order of "law" and "fact", can it ensure that the litigant parties have reasonable expectation on the result of the case and maintain the stability of the WTO rule system.
【作者单位】： 中国人民大学法学院;
【分类号】：D996.1
【相似文献】
相关重要报纸文章 前2条
1 天津市工商局 实现“四个转变”课题研究组;监管方法如何向日常规范监管转变[N];中国工商报;2009年
2 本报记者 陈清华 刘明中 周瀛 廖康;共尝改革“甜头”[N];中国财经报;2012年
，本文编号：2138463
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/guojifa/2138463.html
