WTO框架下美国与欧盟补贴与反补贴法律制度的比较研究

发布时间：2018-05-28 16:39

本文选题：反补贴 + 《SCM协定》　；参考：《天津财经大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：补贴是各个国家在发展其经济时都会运用的一种手段,具有其种类繁多、隐蔽性强、非透明度高的特点。一方面,本国政府有权制定政策扶植促进某些领域的经济发展,提高人民的生活水平；另一方面,他国政府也有权利使用救济手段消除对本国经济产生损害的补贴行为。自2004年起,我国至今遭受了69起反补贴调查,占全球总数的22%,其中34起都是由美国提起的,6起由欧盟提起。本文在WTO框架下比较美国与欧盟的反补贴法律制度,旨在探讨如何针对美、欧反补贴规则在实体法与程序法中的差别,为中国的政府与企业在实践操作中制定相应的战略选择。本文的逻辑结构是：分别运用经济学与法学的分析方法,获得了反补贴法律制度存在的经济学基础与法理学基础,并以此作为逻辑起点,在WTO框架下进行了美国与欧盟反补贴法律规则的实体法与程序法的比较分析,分别检验了美、欧反补贴法律规则与WTO多边规则的相符性,最后通过美、欧共同对中国同一产品的反补贴案例,以经济学基础与法理学基础作为判断标准,评价了美国与欧盟反补贴法律制度的效果,并且根据以上比较的结果,得到了我国政府与企业在国际贸易中应对摩擦的战略选择。本文一共分为七个部分,第一部分导论阐述了论文的选题背景与意义、前人的研究成果与逻辑结构以及创新之处与未来的研究方向。第二部分运用经济学的分析方法,分析了本国补贴对本国与他国的福利影响,以及他国进行反补贴措施时的福利变化,以寻找对补贴和反补贴进行规范的合理性。分析表明,对于扭曲国际竞争的出口补贴和具有类似损害后果的国内补贴有必要予以规范和限制,但并不支持反补贴税政策的普遍使用。并且通过构建“权利模型”理论,为反补贴法律制度的存在提供了经济学基础。第三部分在分析了经济学基础的情形后,介绍了美国与欧盟国内反补贴法的发展历程及现行法律,进而剖析了补贴与反补贴措施产生的历史背景、政治经济原因、各国的不同立场,探究了补贴与反补贴措施的渊源、立法精神、和宗旨目标,为补贴与反补贴法律规则提供了法理学基础。第四部分与第五部分分别从实体法与程序法的角度,比较了美国和欧盟反补贴法律的区别。在实体法中,主要比较了补贴认定的要素、提起反补贴措施的要素、受约束国家、不可诉补贴、上游补贴、关于损害的认定以及对“非常经济国家”与“双重救济”的规则。在程序法上,则是比较了两国的反补贴调查机构、调查程序、实施措施程序和审查程序。第六部分印证以上分析的理论差异,选取了美、欧共同对中国提起反补贴调查且征收反补贴税的铜版纸案例,从调查伊始到最终征收反补贴税,把每一步骤都做了比较分析,并且揭示了美、欧差异的背后原因,并评价了美、欧的反补贴法律规则。第七部分针对美国与欧盟反补贴法律制度的不同特点,为中国政府与企业从战略与战术的策略进行协调和应对摩擦的选择。从而使中国对美国与欧盟在反补贴措施与政策中对外承担责任、改善贸易条件、市场的进入选择中获得双赢。本文得出主要结论：第一,反补贴法律制度存在的经济学基础是,进口国受补贴产品损害的厂商有“权利”通过贸易救济措施消除补贴带来的影响；第二反补贴法律制度存在的法理含义在于,在“公平”与“自由”的精神指导下实现国与国之间的良性运作,并达到一种利于全球经济和社会健康稳定发展的综合平衡；第三,美国与欧盟的反补贴实体法与程序法存在很多差异。在实体法方面,美国对被调查方更为严厉与苛刻,在程序法方面,美国的程序设计更为复杂与精细,也对调查机关设定了更多的义务；第四,美国与欧盟反补贴法律制度的差异,主要是由法律渊源不同、法系不同以及独立国家与经济体不同造成的；第五,以经济学基础与法理学基础作为判断标准,美国的反补贴法律规则更倾向于惩罚性,而不是抵消性；第六,美国三权分立、三权制衡的机制,为中国被调查企业提供了更多的申诉机会。本文的创新点表现为：第一,利用“权利模型”对反补贴立法以及法律体系的问题进行经济学的分析；第二,在众多的案例中选取了美国与欧盟对中国同一产品提起反补贴调查的独有典型案例,深度探究了美、欧在实体法与程序法所体现出来的法律执行差异,为我国企业协调摩擦和自我保护提供了法律依据；第三,从国家与经济体的法律行为主体分析反补贴法律制度的差异深刻原因；第四,本文着力于中国与美国、中国与欧盟的反补贴摩擦,具体地提出了中国政府与企业的政策战略选择,有别于其他文献给出的政策建议。
[Abstract]:The subsidy is a kind of means that each country can use in the development of its economy . It has the characteristics of many kinds , strong concealment and high non - transparency . On the one hand , the government has the right to formulate policies to foster economic development in some areas and improve the living standards of the people ;
On the other hand , his government has the right to use remedies to eliminate the subsidies to the domestic economy . Since 2004 , China has suffered 69 anti - subsidy surveys , accounting for 22 % of the global total , which is based on the theory of economics and law . This article compares and analyzes the anti - subsidy laws of the U.S . and EU from the beginning of the investigation to the final collection of countervailing duties . The article draws the conclusion that the first , the economic foundation of the anti - subsidy legal system is that the Chinese manufacturers have the right to eliminate the effects of subsidies through trade remedy measures .
The legal meaning of the second anti - subsidy legal system lies in the realization of the benign operation between the countries under the guidance of " equity " and " freedom " , and achieves a comprehensive balance that is beneficial to the global economic and social health and stability development ;
Third , there are many differences between U.S . and EU anti - subsidy substantive law and procedural law . In substantive law , the United States is more severe and demanding to be investigated . In procedural law , the programming of the United States is more complex and fine , and more obligations are set for the investigating authorities ;
Fourth , the differences between the United States and the EU anti - subsidy law system are mainly caused by different legal sources , different legal systems and different independent states and economies ;
Fifth , based on the basis of economics and jurisprudence , the anti - subsidy law rule of the United States tends to be punitive , rather than offset .
Sixth , the three powers of the United States , the mechanism of the three powers checks and balances , provides more appeal opportunities for the investigated enterprises in China . The innovation points of this paper are as follows : First , use the " rights model " to analyze the anti - subsidy legislation and the problems of the legal system ;
Second , in a number of cases , the United States and the European Union have chosen the unique typical case of China ' s anti - subsidy investigation on the same product in China , deeply probed into the differences between the law and the law embodied in the substantive law and the procedural law , and provided a legal basis for the coordination and self - protection of enterprises in our country ;
Third , the analysis of the difference of the legal system between the state and the economy of the legal behavior of the anti - subsidy law system ;
Fourthly , this paper focuses on the anti - subsidy friction between China and the United States , China and the European Union , and puts forward the policy strategic choice between the Chinese government and the European Union , which is different from the policy suggestions given by other documents .
【学位授予单位】：天津财经大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D996.1

【相似文献】