WTO先前上诉机构裁决的地位——专家组职能行使的视角

发布时间：2018-11-23 06:33

【摘要】：美国自墨西哥进口不锈钢反倾销最终认定案与先前处理归零的案件类似:针对美国提出了相同的法律诉求,专家组得出了相同的结论,且上诉机构再次以相同的理由对此予以撤销。但专家组拒绝遵循先前上诉机构裁定,并以已被先前上诉机构裁定明确否定的理论为依据进行认定,使得有关上诉机构裁决先例性的基本问题再次引发思考。学者及实践中WTO成员方对专家组是否应遵循先前上诉机构的裁决(尤其是问题相同时)有不同的认识。而要解决该问题,首先需明确先前上诉机构裁决的地位。鉴于先前上诉机构的裁决并非有约束力的先例,先前上诉机构裁决中的解释并非权威解释,也不构成嗣后惯例,作为当事方提出的一种主张或支持自己主张的论据,专家组行使客观评估职能时对先前上诉机构裁决中的解释应予以考虑,但遵循与否还关涉"合法预期"等相关问题。
[Abstract]:The final determination of the United States import of stainless steel from Mexico is similar to that of the previous zero case: the panel of experts reached the same conclusion with regard to the same legal claims made by the United States. And the Appellate body again annulled it on the same grounds. However, the Panel refused to follow the previous Appellate body ruling and found it based on the theory that had been explicitly rejected by the previous Appellate body decision, which made the basic question of the precedent of the appellate body ruling rekindled. Scholars and members of WTO in practice have different views on whether the panel should follow the previous decision of the appellate body (especially when the question is the same). To solve this problem, first of all, it is necessary to clarify the status of the previous Appellate body ruling. Whereas previous decisions of the appellate body are not binding precedents, the interpretations in previous decisions of the appellate bodies are not authoritative interpretations and do not constitute subsequent practice as an argument advanced by the parties or in support of their claims, In exercising its objective assessment function, the Panel should take into account the interpretation of previous decisions of the appellate body, but whether or not it follows also concerns related issues such as "legitimate expectations".
【作者单位】：南京大学法学院;
【基金】：南京大学2011年度文科青年基金项目“先例与否:WTO上诉机构裁决的拘束力” 南京大学985三期项目
【分类号】：D996.1

【共引文献】