当前位置:主页 > 法律论文 > 国际法论文 >

中国政策性贷款的WTO合规性研究

发布时间:2018-08-29 08:15
【摘要】:自2004年加拿大首次对原产于中国的产品适用反补贴调查以来,WTO成员方开始逐渐对中国适用反补贴法。美国和加拿大对原产于中国的产品发起的反补贴调查逐渐增多,在这些反补贴调查中,美国和加拿大指控中国政策性银行和国有商业银行向特定企业提供了政策性贷款。在美国和加拿大对原产于中国的产品的反补贴调查中,均有一半以上的案件涉及对中国政策性银行和国有商业银行向特定企业发放优惠贷款的调查。在他们看来,由于中国政策性银行和国有商业银行实际上被政府控制,这些政策性贷款构成由中国政府提供的财政资助,并具有专向性,因此很多“政策性贷款项目”都被其认定为构成补贴。那么,中国政策性银行和国有商业银行向特定企业提供的贷款是否构成WTO补贴与反补贴规则所禁止的政策性贷款便值得我们探究。 本文分为四章。第一章首先比较系统地介绍了政策性贷款的内涵,分析了政策性贷款中“政策”的含义、表现形式以及其与贷款之间的关系,并指出政策性贷款中“政策”必须是对贷款提供主体有约束力的文件,“政策”与贷款之间需存在直接因果关系,否则不能断然认定一项贷款为政策性贷款。随后,通过对主要国家和中国政策性贷款的种类的研究,笔者发现目前中国的确存在大量通过政策性银行和国有商业银行向特定产业或企业发放的政策性贷款。第二章通过对美国和加拿大针对中国政策性贷款的反补贴调查情况分析了目前中国政策性贷款遭受WTO成员方反补贴调查的现状。第三章对WTO反补贴规则的贷款纪律进行了研究,探讨了何种贷款是WTO补贴与反补贴规则所禁止的贷款,并通过对SCM协定中补贴的构成要件的分析以及“双反案”中美方和中方对中国政策性贷款的WTO合规性论证,探究中国政策性贷款在贷款提供主体、专向性以及利益授予方面是否符合SCM协定项下可诉补贴的构成要件。第四章对中国如何应对政策性贷款面临的WTO合规性挑战提出了建议,指出中国一方面应当从根本上转变思路,减少政策性贷款的运用,并在立法层面完善相关立法、规范产业政策,另一方面应当调整应诉思路,积极应对反补贴调查。
[Abstract]:Since Canada first applied countervailing investigation to products originating in China in 2004, WTO members have gradually applied countervailing law to China. In a growing number of U.S. and Canadian countervailing investigations into products originating in China, the United States and Canada accused Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks of providing policy-oriented loans to specific companies. In both U.S. and Canadian countervailing investigations into products originating in China, more than half of the cases involved investigations into preferential loans to specific enterprises by Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks. In their view, since China's policy banks and state-owned commercial banks are effectively controlled by the government, these policy loans constitute financial assistance provided by the Chinese government and have a special orientation. As a result, many "policy loan projects" have been recognized as constituting subsidies. Therefore, whether the loans provided by Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks to specific enterprises constitute policy loans prohibited by WTO subsidies and countervailing rules are worth exploring. This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter systematically introduces the connotation of policy loan, analyzes the meaning of "policy" in policy loan, its forms of expression and the relationship between policy loan and loan. It is also pointed out that "policy" must be a binding document for the main body of the loan, and there must be a direct causal relationship between the "policy" and the loan, otherwise, a loan cannot be categorically regarded as a policy loan. Then, through the study of the types of policy loans in major countries and China, the author finds that there are a large number of policy loans issued to specific industries or enterprises through policy banks and state-owned commercial banks at present in China. The second chapter analyzes the current situation of countervailing investigation of China's policy loans by WTO members through the investigation of the United States and Canada on China's policy loans. The third chapter studies the discipline of WTO countervailing rules and discusses what kind of loans are prohibited by WTO subsidy and countervailing rules. Through the analysis of the constituent elements of subsidy in the SCM agreement and the demonstration of the WTO compliance of the United States and China to the Chinese policy loan in the "double countervailing case", this paper probes into the main body of the Chinese policy loan in the loan supply. The exclusivity and the conferral of benefits accord with the constitution of actionable subsidy under SCM agreement. The fourth chapter puts forward some suggestions on how to deal with the WTO compliance challenges faced by policy loans, and points out that on the one hand, China should fundamentally change its thinking, reduce the use of policy loans, and improve the relevant legislation at the legislative level. Standardize industrial policy, on the other hand, should adjust the train of thought to respond to suit, deal with countervailing investigation actively.
【学位授予单位】:复旦大学
【学位级别】:硕士
【学位授予年份】:2011
【分类号】:D996.1;D922.28;F832.4

【参考文献】

相关期刊论文 前10条

1 管守安,张宇润;政策性贷款法律制度探析[J];安徽大学学报;1999年06期

2 黄文旭;;加拿大反补贴法律制度初探[J];大经贸;2007年12期

3 李仲平;李炼;;“美国对华铜版纸案”述评——基于反补贴申诉的考察[J];法商研究;2008年01期

4 张乃根;;论WTO争端解决的国内法审查[J];法学家;2008年03期

5 黄青燕;姜发根;;我国面临的反补贴形势及对策分析[J];改革与战略;2009年10期

6 龚柏华;倪洁颖;;中美有关铜版纸征收反倾销和反补贴税WTO磋商案评析[J];国际商务研究;2007年06期

7 王弈通;;论补贴专向性的标准与评判——兼议专向性标准在美国对华反补贴调查案中的适用[J];国际商务研究;2009年01期

8 孙南申;彭岳;;中国补贴现状与面临反补贴措施的法律应对[J];河北法学;2007年06期

9 彭毛字;专项贷款与政策性贷款的异同[J];经济问题;1998年12期

10 陈利强;;美国反补贴税法之事实专向性标准探究[J];商场现代化;2008年13期

相关博士学位论文 前2条

1 郭新双;国外政策性金融机构研究[D];吉林大学;2005年

2 毛骁骁;WTO框架下的中国国企补贴法律问题研究[D];复旦大学;2007年

相关硕士学位论文 前3条

1 吕莹;论SCM协议中的补贴构成与认定[D];中南大学;2005年

2 邓广磊;论WTO《SCM协定》下补贴的认定[D];华东政法大学;2007年

3 张琼芳;WTO框架下欧盟、美国补贴与反补贴规则之比较[D];湖南师范大学;2010年



本文编号:2210714

资料下载
论文发表

本文链接:https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/guojifa/2210714.html


Copyright(c)文论论文网All Rights Reserved | 网站地图 |

版权申明:资料由用户a16a1***提供,本站仅收录摘要或目录,作者需要删除请E-mail邮箱bigeng88@qq.com