“本地化贸易壁垒”法律规制研究
发布时间：2018-08-30 09:08
【摘要】：2008年的金融危机对世界经济产生的负面影响,导致了贸易保护主义的抬头,越来越多国家由采用传统的贸易保护手段向采用非关税壁垒转变,这其中就包括了“本地化贸易壁垒”——以外国的进口商品、服务或国外开发所有的知识产权为代价保护或扶持国内的产业、服务提供方和知识产权。本地化贸易壁垒是目前增长速度最快的贸易保护形式之一,而且可能是全球贸易系统进一步自由化的最大威胁。当地成分要求措施的形式变化越来越多,现有规则难以有效规制其使用。与此同时,技术转让要求的问题一直未能在多边框架下予以规制,而强制数据本地化要求在斯诺登事件之后被越来越多国家采用,本地化贸易壁垒问题不容忽视。第一章为导论部分,主要介绍本文的选题背景、对相关研究进行文献综述、并介绍本文的研究框架、研究方法及创新和突破。第二章主要厘清本地化贸易壁垒的基本概念问题。“本地化贸易壁垒”这一概念个在WTO多边规则中并不存在。从2012年开始,美国逐渐在G20、APEC、OECD以及某些新的贸易和投资框架协议中使用这一概念。有关“本地化贸易壁垒”的具体含义目前在学界并没有统一的权威界定,为了本文研究的目的,笔者初步将“本地化贸易壁垒”定义为:一国采取的要求外国企业本地化其经济活动的措施的总和,这类措施不合理地区别对待本国和外国的产品、服务或技术,对外国企业的货物的生产、服务的提供、数据的储存和处理以及技术的转移等施加本地化限制措施,以获取外国企业在其本国投资、生产、或提供服务的价值。2008年金融危机引发的贸易保护主义抬头是本地化贸易壁垒产生的内在原因,而各国经济和技术发展的不平衡是本地化贸易壁垒产生的客观原因,现有多边贸易规则或因存在漏洞,或因完全空白而难以有效规制本地化壁垒是其产生的规则原因。第三章结合有关的WTO贸易争端案例分析本地化贸易壁垒在现有WTO规则下的规制现状。从整体上看,WTO法律框架下的一些具体协定已为本地化贸易壁垒的规制提供了一定的法律依据。尤其是有关当地成分要求的措施方面,GATT第3条、GATS第17条、TRIMs协定第2条、SCM第3条、GPA协定第3条均有限制当地成分要求措施的规定。但这些规则仍存在一定局限性,主要表现在以下几个方面:第一,GATT第3条和TRIMs协定第2条的国民待遇义务受到GATT第3条第8(a)款政府采购例外的限制,为政府采购中的当地成分要求措施留下了规则漏洞;第二,GATS第17条的国民待遇义务仅适用于成员方在减让表中做出承诺的服务部门,GATS的国民待遇减让表所采用的“正面清单”模式大大限制了国民待遇原则在服务贸易中的适用范围,因此有许多在服务贸易领域施加的当地成分要求无法得到有效规制;第三,因为当地成分要求措施是scm第3条规定的禁止性补贴,而且scm适用于政府采购,这使得scm对于规制在政府采购中实施当地成分行为而又非gpa协定签字国的国家显得有特别的价值,但由于补贴利益认定困难等问题使得scm的适用并不容易;第四,由于gpa协定仅约束部分wto成员,而且许多政府实体被排除在gpa协定的适用范围之外,对于非gpa协定签字国的那部分wto成员的政府采购行为,以及不属于gpa协定涵盖实体的政府采购行为,gpa协定无法进行有效规制;第五,除了上述当地成分要求,现在越来越多的国家开始采用技术转让要求、数据本地化要求等其他形式的本地化贸易壁垒,对于这些措施,wto框架并没有相关规则对其进行规制,留下了规则空白。第四章研究技术转让要求这一本地化贸易壁垒的规制问题。本章对现有的有关技术转让的规则进行了系统梳理和归纳并对其可能面临的焦点争议进行分析,并对我国如何应对新的变化提出建议。首先通过系统梳理和归纳,总结出新一代技术转让履行要求禁止规则的特点:第一,禁止强制技术转让,但不禁止鼓励性的技术转让要求;第二,新的技术转让履行要求禁止规则是既适用于投资准入阶段也适用于经营阶段的“trims+”义务条款;第三,确立了系统的例外规定。然后就强制性技术转让要求的范围界定、技术转让履行要求禁止规则例外条款的设置方式、环境保护例外的适用以及知识产权保护例外的适用四个焦点问题进行了分析。首先,通过美孚石油公司诉加拿大案与merrillring林业公司诉加拿大案的不同裁决结果的对比,得出判断某一措施是否构成nafta第1106条第1款意义上强制技术转让取决于仲裁庭对条款的理解——一个措施背后的目的更重要还是该争议措施的实际影响(直接导致了一个强制性的后果)更重要。之后,分析了新一代技术转让履行要求禁止规则的三种不同类型例外规定,一种是专门针对技术转让履行要求禁止规则的具体例外,第二种是“不符措施”例外,第三种是根本安全例外。上述三种不同形式的例外条款的结合,共同构成了一个体系完整、层层设防、能最大限度保障东道国核心利益的例外规则体系,十分有借鉴价值。但对于这些例外条款的具体解释和适用,仍然存在许多争议,其实焦点也就在于如何平衡东道国利益保护和投资保护两者之间的关系,本章详细分析了环境保护例外和知识产权例外适用中存在的限制条件,说明了作为东道国的发展中国家权益得不到充分保护的事实:发展中国家很难利用环境例外规定要求外资转移环境友好型技术,同时现有的强制许可制度未能真正满足发展中国家应对公共健康危机的需求。最后分析我国有关有关技术转让要求的立法及实践情况并对提出应对建议。第五章研究对数据本地化要求的规制,主要聚焦相应的跨境数据流动规则。数据本地化要求是本地化贸易壁垒的新形式之一,对于其概念,目前并无统一界定。它通常包括了数据中心本地化和数据本地存储两种措施。越来越多国家采用强制本地化要求,限制了数据跨境自由流动,也催生了有关跨境数据自由流动的国际规则和纪律的制定,本章数据本地化要求规制中的以下三个问题进行了分析。第一,跨境数据的自由流动与合法政策目标的矛盾协调方面,各国尚未达成一致意见,但oecd和apec的有益尝试已为个人信息保护确立了最低的标准,具有很大参考价值,未来或可考虑将这类国际标准纳入fta。并需要进一步明确限制数据跨境自由流动的合法例外的具体范围,尽力做到既能确保政府有合适空间实现“合法政策目标”同时最小化对国际贸易产生扭曲和阻碍。第二,在规制路径的选择上,以“地理区域为基准”的规制路径和“以组织机构为基准”规制路径各有其合理性且二者呈现相互融合的趋势,笔者认为更佳的选择是采用“以组织机构为基准”的规制路径,同时允许将“地理区域”作为判断数据转移是否适当的考量因素。第三,针对越来越多国家对于涉及国家和政府部门的数据的跨境流动制定数据本地化要求的现实,有必要在以后的贸易谈判中对有关国家安全的数据的跨境流动规制进行讨论。同时应注意到通过贸易协定协调有关国家主权的敏感问题的难度,在此基础上寻求共识尽可能减少不必要的限制,特别是要防止以保护国家数据安全的名义实施的贸易保护。第六章研究可再生能源领域的当地成分要求的规制。有研究数据表明,自2008年以来,有超过100个当地成分要求被各国所采用,其中有20个影响着可再生能源产业。本章对可再生能源产业当地成分要求的合理性进行了辨析,从政治经济学理论、幼稚产业保护、创造绿色就业和环境溢出效应四个方面论证了其合理性,同时从低效率的资源配置、电力价格提高、难以预测能否创造绿色就业、对贸易的负面影响四个方面分析了其不合理的部分。总体来讲,现在学界并未就可再生能源产业当地成分要求的合理性达成一致意见。但可以说,可再生能源产业当地成分要求既有一定合理性但同时也存在不合理或者说存在疑问的部分。然后本章分析了可再生能源产业中的当地成分要求能对国内经济产生有利影响条件,它们分别是:有发展潜力的大而稳定的市场、适当限制当地成分的比例要求、企业和政府充分合作、附带财政补贴、强调技术知识的溢出效应。尽管明确了上述五项判断当地成分要求是否能对东道国经济产生有利影响的前提条件,但仍存在许多不确定性。之后就可再生能源产业当地成分要求在wto框架下的合法性问题展开分析,结论是包含当地成分要求的可再生能源支持措施无法满足gatt一般例外条款的条件。紧接着分析了对可再生能源产业的当地成分要求进行规制的思路和具体路径。首先,在规制思路上,应该寻求贸易自由化目标和其他政策目标的协调;其次对于规制平台,一个独立的可再生能源协定最为合适;最后就具体规则的制定提出了几点建议,如就未来采用的当地成分要求制定一个“静止条款”或考虑用“区域成分要求”替代当地成分要求。最后就中国应如何应对提出建议。第七章对本文的研究成果进行系统的总结,并提出存在的问题和疏漏,以及尚待进一步研究的问题。
[Abstract]:The negative impact of the financial crisis in 2008 on the world economy has led to the rise of trade protectionism. More and more countries have shifted from traditional means of trade protection to the use of non-tariff barriers, which include "localized trade barriers" - the development of all intellectual property from foreign imports, services or abroad. Localized barriers to trade are one of the fastest growing forms of trade protection and may be the greatest threat to further liberalization of the global trading system. At the same time, the issue of technology transfer requirements has not been regulated under the multilateral framework, and mandatory data localization requirements have been adopted by more and more countries after the Snowden Incident. The problem of localization trade barriers can not be ignored. Chapter 1 is the introduction, mainly introduces the background of the topic of this paper, and carries on the related research. Chapter 2 clarifies the basic concepts of localized trade barriers. The concept of "localized trade barriers" does not exist in the multilateral rules of the WTO. Since 2012, the United States has gradually been in the G20, APEC, OECD and some new trade and investment framework associations. There is no unified authoritative definition of the specific meaning of "localized trade barriers". For the purpose of this study, the author initially defines "localized trade barriers" as the sum of the measures taken by a country to require foreign enterprises to localize their economic activities. Such measures are unreasonable. Localization restrictions on the production, delivery, storage and processing of data, and transfer of technology by foreign firms to capture the value of foreign firms'investment, production, or provision of services in their own countries. Trade protectionism triggered by the 2008 financial crisis The rise of local trade barriers is the internal cause, while the imbalance of economic and Technological Development in various countries is the objective cause. The existing multilateral trade rules are either due to loopholes, or because of complete blankness, it is difficult to effectively regulate the local trade barriers. Dispute cases analyze the regulation status of localized trade barriers under the existing WTO rules. On the whole, some specific agreements under the WTO legal framework have provided certain legal basis for the regulation of localized trade barriers. Article 3 of the GPA Agreement stipulates measures to restrict local component requirements. However, these rules still have certain limitations, mainly in the following aspects: First, the national treatment obligations of Article 3 of the GATT and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement are limited by the exceptions to Article 3, paragraph 8 (a), of the GATT to the local component requirements in government procurement. Secondly, the national treatment obligations of Article 17 of GATS only apply to the service departments which the members have promised in the Schedule. The "positive list" model adopted in the Schedule of National Treatment of GATS greatly limits the scope of application of the principle of national treatment in service trade, so there are many measures in the field of service trade. The local component requirement cannot be effectively regulated; third, because the local component requirement measure is a prohibited subsidy under Article 3 of the SCM and the SCM is applicable to government procurement, SCM is of particular value to countries that are not signatories to the GPA agreement but are subject to subsidy measures to regulate local component behavior in government procurement Difficulties in identifying interests and other issues make the application of SCM difficult; fourthly, because the GPA agreement only restricts some WTO members, and many government entities are excluded from the scope of application of GPA agreement, the government procurement of those WTO members who are not signatories to GPA agreement, and the government procurement of entities not covered by GPA agreement Fifthly, in addition to the above-mentioned local requirements, more and more countries have begun to adopt other forms of local trade barriers, such as technology transfer requirements, data localization requirements, and so on. For these measures, the WTO framework does not have relevant rules to regulate them, leaving a rule blank. This chapter systematically combs and summarizes the existing rules on technology transfer and analyzes the possible focus of disputes, and puts forward suggestions on how to deal with new changes in China. First of all, it summarizes the new generation of technology transfer by systematically combing and summarizing. The characteristics of the prohibition of performance requirements are as follows: firstly, the prohibition of compulsory technology transfer but not the prohibition of encouraging technology transfer requirements; secondly, the prohibition of new technology transfer performance requirements is a "trims +" obligation clause applicable to both the investment admission stage and the operation stage; thirdly, the systematic exceptions are established; and then the compulsory requirements are put forward. The scope of technology transfer requirements, the way to set up exceptions to the prohibition of technology transfer performance requirements, the application of environmental protection exceptions and the application of intellectual property protection exceptions are analyzed. Firstly, the different rulings in Mobil Oil Company v. Canada and Merrillring Forestry Company v. Canada are adopted. By comparing the results, it is concluded that whether a measure constitutes a compulsory transfer of technology within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 1106 of the Nafta depends on the understanding of the arbitral tribunal as to whether the purpose behind a measure is more important or whether the actual impact of the disputed measure (which directly leads to a compulsory consequence) is more important. There are three different types of exceptions to the rule of prohibition of performance requirements for transfer of technology. One is specific exceptions to the rule of prohibition of performance requirements for transfer of technology. The second is "non-conforming measures" exceptions, and the third is fundamental security exceptions. The system of exceptional rules, which can maximize the core interests of the host country, is of great value for reference. However, there are still many disputes on the specific interpretation and application of these exceptional provisions. In fact, the focus is on how to balance the relationship between the protection of the interests of the host country and the protection of investment. The limitations in the application of exceptions and intellectual property exceptions illustrate the fact that the rights and interests of developing countries as host countries are not adequately protected: it is difficult for developing countries to make use of environmental exceptions to require foreign investment to transfer environmentally friendly technologies, and the existing compulsory licensing system does not really meet the needs of developing countries to cope with public affairs. Chapter 5 studies the regulation of data localization requirements, focusing on the corresponding cross-border data flow rules. Data localization requirements are one of the new forms of local trade barriers, and the concept of them. There is no uniform definition at present. It usually includes data center localization and data local storage. More and more countries have adopted mandatory localization requirements, which restrict the free flow of data across borders. This has also led to the formulation of international rules and disciplines governing the free flow of data across borders. Three issues are analyzed. Firstly, countries have not yet reached consensus on the contradiction between the free flow of cross-border data and legitimate policy objectives. However, the beneficial attempts of OECD and APEC have established the lowest standards for personal information protection, which is of great reference value. It may be considered to incorporate such international standards into the FTA in the future. Further clarify the specific scope of legal exceptions that restrict the free flow of data across borders, and strive to ensure that the government has the appropriate space to achieve "legitimate policy objectives" while minimizing distortions and obstacles to international trade. Second, in the choice of regulatory paths, the "geographical region-based" regulatory path and "organization-based" regulatory path should be adopted. Institutional benchmarking has its rationality and the trend of integration. The author thinks that the better choice is to adopt an institutional benchmarking approach, while allowing "geographical areas" as a consideration factor to determine whether data transfer is appropriate. The reality of data localization requirements for cross-border flows of data from countries and government departments makes it necessary to discuss the regulation of cross-border flows of data on national security in future trade negotiations. It is also important to note the difficulty of coordinating sensitive issues related to national sovereignty through trade agreements and to seek consensus on this basis. Chapter VI examines the regulation of local component requirements in the field of renewable energy. Data show that more than 100 local component requirements have been adopted by countries since 2008, 20 of which affect renewable energy. Source industry. This chapter analyzes the rationality of the local component requirements of renewable energy industry, demonstrates its rationality from four aspects: political and economic theory, protection of infant industry, creation of green employment and environmental spillover effect, and at the same time, from the inefficient allocation of resources, electricity price increase, it is difficult to predict whether green employment can be created or not. Generally speaking, there is no consensus on the rationality of the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry. However, it can be said that the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry are both reasonable but also unreasonable or doubtful. The following chapter analyzes the conditions under which the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry can have a beneficial impact on the domestic economy: a large and stable market with potential for development, appropriate restrictions on the proportion of local components, full cooperation between enterprises and the government, accompanied by financial subsidies, and emphasis on the spillover effect of technical knowledge. After that, the legitimacy of the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry under the framework of the WTO is analyzed. The conclusion is that the renewable energy support measures including the local component requirements can not meet the GA requirements. First of all, the coordination of trade liberalization objectives and other policy objectives should be sought; secondly, an independent renewable energy agreement is the most appropriate regulatory platform; Some suggestions are put forward on the formulation of specific rules, such as formulating a "static clause" or considering substituting "regional component requirement" for "local component requirement" in the future. Problems and omissions, and problems to be further studied.
【学位授予单位】：对外经济贸易大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D996.1
[Abstract]:The negative impact of the financial crisis in 2008 on the world economy has led to the rise of trade protectionism. More and more countries have shifted from traditional means of trade protection to the use of non-tariff barriers, which include "localized trade barriers" - the development of all intellectual property from foreign imports, services or abroad. Localized barriers to trade are one of the fastest growing forms of trade protection and may be the greatest threat to further liberalization of the global trading system. At the same time, the issue of technology transfer requirements has not been regulated under the multilateral framework, and mandatory data localization requirements have been adopted by more and more countries after the Snowden Incident. The problem of localization trade barriers can not be ignored. Chapter 1 is the introduction, mainly introduces the background of the topic of this paper, and carries on the related research. Chapter 2 clarifies the basic concepts of localized trade barriers. The concept of "localized trade barriers" does not exist in the multilateral rules of the WTO. Since 2012, the United States has gradually been in the G20, APEC, OECD and some new trade and investment framework associations. There is no unified authoritative definition of the specific meaning of "localized trade barriers". For the purpose of this study, the author initially defines "localized trade barriers" as the sum of the measures taken by a country to require foreign enterprises to localize their economic activities. Such measures are unreasonable. Localization restrictions on the production, delivery, storage and processing of data, and transfer of technology by foreign firms to capture the value of foreign firms'investment, production, or provision of services in their own countries. Trade protectionism triggered by the 2008 financial crisis The rise of local trade barriers is the internal cause, while the imbalance of economic and Technological Development in various countries is the objective cause. The existing multilateral trade rules are either due to loopholes, or because of complete blankness, it is difficult to effectively regulate the local trade barriers. Dispute cases analyze the regulation status of localized trade barriers under the existing WTO rules. On the whole, some specific agreements under the WTO legal framework have provided certain legal basis for the regulation of localized trade barriers. Article 3 of the GPA Agreement stipulates measures to restrict local component requirements. However, these rules still have certain limitations, mainly in the following aspects: First, the national treatment obligations of Article 3 of the GATT and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement are limited by the exceptions to Article 3, paragraph 8 (a), of the GATT to the local component requirements in government procurement. Secondly, the national treatment obligations of Article 17 of GATS only apply to the service departments which the members have promised in the Schedule. The "positive list" model adopted in the Schedule of National Treatment of GATS greatly limits the scope of application of the principle of national treatment in service trade, so there are many measures in the field of service trade. The local component requirement cannot be effectively regulated; third, because the local component requirement measure is a prohibited subsidy under Article 3 of the SCM and the SCM is applicable to government procurement, SCM is of particular value to countries that are not signatories to the GPA agreement but are subject to subsidy measures to regulate local component behavior in government procurement Difficulties in identifying interests and other issues make the application of SCM difficult; fourthly, because the GPA agreement only restricts some WTO members, and many government entities are excluded from the scope of application of GPA agreement, the government procurement of those WTO members who are not signatories to GPA agreement, and the government procurement of entities not covered by GPA agreement Fifthly, in addition to the above-mentioned local requirements, more and more countries have begun to adopt other forms of local trade barriers, such as technology transfer requirements, data localization requirements, and so on. For these measures, the WTO framework does not have relevant rules to regulate them, leaving a rule blank. This chapter systematically combs and summarizes the existing rules on technology transfer and analyzes the possible focus of disputes, and puts forward suggestions on how to deal with new changes in China. First of all, it summarizes the new generation of technology transfer by systematically combing and summarizing. The characteristics of the prohibition of performance requirements are as follows: firstly, the prohibition of compulsory technology transfer but not the prohibition of encouraging technology transfer requirements; secondly, the prohibition of new technology transfer performance requirements is a "trims +" obligation clause applicable to both the investment admission stage and the operation stage; thirdly, the systematic exceptions are established; and then the compulsory requirements are put forward. The scope of technology transfer requirements, the way to set up exceptions to the prohibition of technology transfer performance requirements, the application of environmental protection exceptions and the application of intellectual property protection exceptions are analyzed. Firstly, the different rulings in Mobil Oil Company v. Canada and Merrillring Forestry Company v. Canada are adopted. By comparing the results, it is concluded that whether a measure constitutes a compulsory transfer of technology within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 1106 of the Nafta depends on the understanding of the arbitral tribunal as to whether the purpose behind a measure is more important or whether the actual impact of the disputed measure (which directly leads to a compulsory consequence) is more important. There are three different types of exceptions to the rule of prohibition of performance requirements for transfer of technology. One is specific exceptions to the rule of prohibition of performance requirements for transfer of technology. The second is "non-conforming measures" exceptions, and the third is fundamental security exceptions. The system of exceptional rules, which can maximize the core interests of the host country, is of great value for reference. However, there are still many disputes on the specific interpretation and application of these exceptional provisions. In fact, the focus is on how to balance the relationship between the protection of the interests of the host country and the protection of investment. The limitations in the application of exceptions and intellectual property exceptions illustrate the fact that the rights and interests of developing countries as host countries are not adequately protected: it is difficult for developing countries to make use of environmental exceptions to require foreign investment to transfer environmentally friendly technologies, and the existing compulsory licensing system does not really meet the needs of developing countries to cope with public affairs. Chapter 5 studies the regulation of data localization requirements, focusing on the corresponding cross-border data flow rules. Data localization requirements are one of the new forms of local trade barriers, and the concept of them. There is no uniform definition at present. It usually includes data center localization and data local storage. More and more countries have adopted mandatory localization requirements, which restrict the free flow of data across borders. This has also led to the formulation of international rules and disciplines governing the free flow of data across borders. Three issues are analyzed. Firstly, countries have not yet reached consensus on the contradiction between the free flow of cross-border data and legitimate policy objectives. However, the beneficial attempts of OECD and APEC have established the lowest standards for personal information protection, which is of great reference value. It may be considered to incorporate such international standards into the FTA in the future. Further clarify the specific scope of legal exceptions that restrict the free flow of data across borders, and strive to ensure that the government has the appropriate space to achieve "legitimate policy objectives" while minimizing distortions and obstacles to international trade. Second, in the choice of regulatory paths, the "geographical region-based" regulatory path and "organization-based" regulatory path should be adopted. Institutional benchmarking has its rationality and the trend of integration. The author thinks that the better choice is to adopt an institutional benchmarking approach, while allowing "geographical areas" as a consideration factor to determine whether data transfer is appropriate. The reality of data localization requirements for cross-border flows of data from countries and government departments makes it necessary to discuss the regulation of cross-border flows of data on national security in future trade negotiations. It is also important to note the difficulty of coordinating sensitive issues related to national sovereignty through trade agreements and to seek consensus on this basis. Chapter VI examines the regulation of local component requirements in the field of renewable energy. Data show that more than 100 local component requirements have been adopted by countries since 2008, 20 of which affect renewable energy. Source industry. This chapter analyzes the rationality of the local component requirements of renewable energy industry, demonstrates its rationality from four aspects: political and economic theory, protection of infant industry, creation of green employment and environmental spillover effect, and at the same time, from the inefficient allocation of resources, electricity price increase, it is difficult to predict whether green employment can be created or not. Generally speaking, there is no consensus on the rationality of the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry. However, it can be said that the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry are both reasonable but also unreasonable or doubtful. The following chapter analyzes the conditions under which the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry can have a beneficial impact on the domestic economy: a large and stable market with potential for development, appropriate restrictions on the proportion of local components, full cooperation between enterprises and the government, accompanied by financial subsidies, and emphasis on the spillover effect of technical knowledge. After that, the legitimacy of the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry under the framework of the WTO is analyzed. The conclusion is that the renewable energy support measures including the local component requirements can not meet the GA requirements. First of all, the coordination of trade liberalization objectives and other policy objectives should be sought; secondly, an independent renewable energy agreement is the most appropriate regulatory platform; Some suggestions are put forward on the formulation of specific rules, such as formulating a "static clause" or considering substituting "regional component requirement" for "local component requirement" in the future. Problems and omissions, and problems to be further studied.
【学位授予单位】：对外经济贸易大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D996.1
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 丛德奇,刘慧,杨义鹏;吉林省可再生能源现状、潜力及发展对策探讨[J];延边党校学报;2000年03期
2 ;我国积极推动可再生能源产业发展[J];领导决策信息;2000年49期
3 苗俊杰;“激励”可再生能源开发[J];w挛胖芸，
本文编号：2212627
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2212627.html
