本文關(guān)鍵詞： 美國 反傾銷 歸零計(jì)算法　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：歸零法是美國商務(wù)部運(yùn)用的一種計(jì)算方法,用來計(jì)算外國生產(chǎn)商向美國出口的產(chǎn)品的加權(quán)平均傾銷幅度。歸零方案的定義本質(zhì)是,在國內(nèi)市場的銷售價(jià)格等于或者高于正常價(jià)值即被視為傾銷幅度是零,而非負(fù)的傾銷幅度。因此,當(dāng)這些銷售與同一外國生產(chǎn)商所為的低于正常價(jià)值的銷售共同計(jì)算,從而求得平均數(shù)時(shí),整個(gè)傾銷幅度明顯更高而且通常會導(dǎo)致反傾銷稅的執(zhí)行。 本文將會從追溯國際和國內(nèi)的爭端解決領(lǐng)域的歸零爭論的歷史開始,并且重點(diǎn)討論美國法院和WTO以及NAFTA爭端解決機(jī)制對歸零法的區(qū)別對待。接著,筆者將會從兩方面來探討否定美國歸零法的不正當(dāng)性。一方面,總結(jié)國際組織對美國歸零法的態(tài)度;另一方面,將會考察歸零問題與美國的Chevron標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和Charming Betsy原則的聯(lián)系。最后,通過國際爭端解決機(jī)制對美國歸零法的分析,以及美國的國內(nèi)原則在國內(nèi)法律的合理應(yīng)用表明:為了使美國的貿(mào)易實(shí)踐與其在WTO《反傾銷協(xié)議》以及NAFTA中的義務(wù)相符,美國商務(wù)部應(yīng)該拋棄負(fù)的傾銷幅度的歸零實(shí)踐。然而,本文也指出,鑒于有利于歸零法持續(xù)應(yīng)用的政治主張以及那些譴責(zé)歸零法的國際機(jī)構(gòu)的內(nèi)在執(zhí)行力的缺乏,美國可能在未來會繼續(xù)在反傾銷過程中采取歸零計(jì)算法。最后,針對目前美國仍然堅(jiān)持使用歸零法的現(xiàn)狀,對中國在國際貿(mào)易中面臨該威脅該如何應(yīng)對提出建議。 第一部分簡要介紹美國歸零計(jì)算法。首先界定了歸零計(jì)算法的概念和類型,并介紹歸零法的產(chǎn)生背景,反傾銷以及反傾銷措施的運(yùn)用,接著對美國廣泛使用歸零計(jì)算法的消極影響進(jìn)行了分析,這是為了方便從宏觀上認(rèn)識歸零計(jì)算法,有利于對歸零計(jì)算法進(jìn)行闡述和說明。最后對歸零法產(chǎn)生的爭端進(jìn)行了概述,并分析了不同的觀點(diǎn)及其依據(jù)。 第二部分是美國適用歸零計(jì)算法引起的爭端及其解決。主要包括兩大部分,一個(gè)是至今美國歸零計(jì)算法的運(yùn)用在實(shí)踐中引起的爭端。另一部分是,以上爭端的解決,在本部分,分別介紹了美國國際貿(mào)易法院,NAFTA爭端解決機(jī)構(gòu)和WTO爭端解決機(jī)構(gòu)對歸零計(jì)算法的態(tài)度,并分析了它們的不同態(tài)度以及為什么會有這些差異存在。 第三部分針對美國歸零計(jì)算法展開理論分析,從第二部分歸零爭端解決的差異入手,分析美國國內(nèi)法在解決歸零問題上與國內(nèi)原則和國際法存在的沖突,這是本文的重點(diǎn),筆者從美國國內(nèi)法和國際法兩個(gè)層面展開分析,說明了歸零計(jì)算法的不正當(dāng)性,駁斥美國堅(jiān)持使用歸零計(jì)算法的狡辯。 第四部分分析美國在現(xiàn)實(shí)中仍然憑借其在經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域的強(qiáng)勢地位,在其歸零計(jì)算法多次被國際爭端解決機(jī)構(gòu)否定的情況下,仍然不愿意從根本上放棄適用歸零計(jì)算法的現(xiàn)狀,并分析了美國歸零計(jì)算法的適用對中國的影響,對中國在國際貿(mào)易中面臨該威脅該如何應(yīng)對提出建議,以期減少因此而可能受到的損害。
[Abstract]:Zeroing is a U.S. Department of Commerce by the weighted calculation method used to calculate the foreign producers of products exported to the United States the average margin of dumping. Definition of the nature of zero solution is, in the domestic market sales price is equal to or higher than the normal value shall be regarded as the dumping margin is zero, rather than a negative dumping margin so when these sales with foreign producers is lower than the normal value of sales to calculate, so as to obtain the average number, the dumping margin significantly higher and usually results in the imposition of antidumping duties.
This paper will address dating from the international and domestic disputes in the field of zero in the history of the debate, and focuses on the United States Court and WTO NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism as well as discrimination zero method. Then, the author will from two aspects to explore the negation of zeroing is not when. On the one hand, the summary of international the attitude of the United States organization of zeroing; on the other hand, will examine zero problem with the American Chevron standard and Charming Betsy principle. Finally, solve the mechanism analysis of American zeroing through domestic and international disputes, the principle of American in the reasonable application of domestic law shows that in order to make the trade of the United States with the WTO< anti dumping agreement and NAFTA > obligation in the match, the U.S. Department of commerce should abandon the practice of zero negative dumping margin. However, this paper also pointed out that in favor of the continued use of zeroing The lack of internal politics and those who condemned the execution of zeroing international institutions force, the United States may in the future will continue to adopt anti-dumping zeroing process. Finally, according to the current situation of the United States still insist on the use of zeroing, the China facing the threat of the suggestions on how to deal with it in international trade.
The first part is a brief introduction of the zeroing. First defines the concept and types of zeroing, and introduces the background of zeroing, the use of anti dumping and anti-dumping measures, then widely used zeroing on the negative impact of the analysis, it is easy to realize zero calculation from the macroscopic view, is conducive to the zero calculation method are elaborated. Finally the zeroing disputes are summarized and analyzed, and according to different views.
The second part is the application of zeroing dispute and its solution. Mainly includes two parts, one is the use of American zeroing caused in the practice of the dispute. The second part is to solve the above issues, in this part, introduced the United States Court of international trade, the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and the attitude of the zeroing, and analyzes their different attitudes and why these differences exist.
The third part of the United States zeroing on theoretical analysis, starting from the differences between the second part zero dispute settlement of conflicts, the domestic law of the United States in solving problems with the principle of zero domestic and international law, which is the focus of this paper, the author starts from the two aspects of domestic law and international law analysis. That is not the legitimacy of zeroing, refuted the United States insist on the use of zeroing sophistry.
The fourth part is the analysis of the United States in reality still by virtue of its strong position in the economic field, the zeroing mechanism has been solved the case of negative international disputes, still not willing to give up the current application of zeroing fundamentally, and analyzed the influence for American zeroing of Chinese. On the face of the threat Chinese suggestions on how to deal with it in international trade, in order to reduce the potential damage.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.1;D971.2;DD912.29

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陸蓉;何祖普;;對NAFTA爭端解決機(jī)構(gòu)權(quán)限缺失的思考[J];邊疆經(jīng)濟(jì)與文化;2007年04期

2 吳偉;;試析WTO爭端解決機(jī)制[J];商業(yè)研究;2009年01期

3 張章盛;;論“歸零法”在國際貿(mào)易法中法律地位的歷史演變[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

4 謝妍;;美國國際貿(mào)易法院對反傾銷案件的司法審查[J];法制與社會;2008年17期

5 劉勇;;論反傾銷調(diào)查程序中的“歸零法”[J];法治研究;2008年10期

6 鄧德雄;比較應(yīng)公平——?dú)W共體反傾銷“零”做法及引發(fā)的爭議[J];國際貿(mào)易;2001年05期

7 張輝;;NAFTA爭端解決機(jī)制的內(nèi)容和特點(diǎn)[J];甘肅政法成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期

8 朱廣東;;反傾銷歸零屢禁不止的原因及對策[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)問題探索;2010年07期

9 呂曉杰;;美國的Charming Besty原則與WTO協(xié)定的內(nèi)國效力[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2008年04期

10 孫雯;;司法與仲裁的融合——NAFTA爭端解決機(jī)制的特點(diǎn)[J];南京大學(xué)法律評論;2005年01期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 陳曦;論反傾銷中的“歸零計(jì)算法”[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

2 張譯丹;從WTO反傾銷歸零爭議看美國法律解釋原則之沖突[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號：1492115