發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-30 17:59

  本文選題：美國反傾銷法 + 保護(hù)主義　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 自美國反傾銷法誕生至今已有百余年的歷史,從《1916年反傾銷法》中反傾銷規(guī)則的首次確立到《1921年反傾銷法》,再到《1974年貿(mào)易法》和《1979年貿(mào)易協(xié)定法》以及《1984年關(guān)稅與貿(mào)易法》和《1988年綜合貿(mào)易競爭法》,隨后2000年又出臺(tái)《伯德修正案》,美國反傾銷法的稱謂不斷改變,但是萬變中不變的是其保護(hù)主義的內(nèi)核。美國反傾銷立法與實(shí)踐相互為用,豐富的反傾銷實(shí)踐使其反傾銷法日臻完善,同時(shí)反傾銷法的完善更是繼續(xù)推動(dòng)美國反傾銷實(shí)踐得以順利開展。本文即是沿著美國反傾銷法的歷史沿革,從其內(nèi)容的不斷更新充實(shí)中探尋出其保護(hù)主義因子。為更好地揭示美國反傾銷法的保護(hù)主義內(nèi)核,本文分為六大部分展開論述。 第一部分,對(duì)美國早期的反傾銷法進(jìn)行闡述研究。由于《1916年反傾銷法》是美國第一部國內(nèi)反傾銷法,各方面的規(guī)定都不甚完善,隨之即被《1921年反傾銷法》取代,該法初步實(shí)現(xiàn)了反傾銷司法化到行政化,選擇性預(yù)防作用突出的轉(zhuǎn)變,并大大降低了傾銷成立的門檻,賦予行政機(jī)關(guān)較大自由裁量權(quán)。自此,美國反傾銷法就已經(jīng)凸顯其對(duì)國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)的保護(hù)傾向。 第二部分,關(guān)注美國反傾銷法的發(fā)展與完善。經(jīng)歷了二十世紀(jì)七八十年代的四次修訂,從《1921年反傾銷法》到《1974年貿(mào)易法》和《1979年貿(mào)易協(xié)定法》,以及后來的《1984年關(guān)稅與貿(mào)易法》和《1988年綜合貿(mào)易競爭法》,反傾銷條款具體內(nèi)容不斷向利于國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)起訴、便于反傾銷程序操作、更易裁定征收反傾銷稅的道路上邁進(jìn)。非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)國家條款的設(shè)定、實(shí)質(zhì)損害標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的確立、累積損害和持續(xù)傾銷內(nèi)容的增加無不彰顯美國反傾銷法對(duì)國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)面臨外國競爭處于劣勢(shì)時(shí)保駕護(hù)航的力度。 第三部分,轉(zhuǎn)向?qū)γ绹磧A銷法現(xiàn)狀的分析。美國反傾銷法經(jīng)過半個(gè)多世紀(jì)的發(fā)展,最終在WTO貿(mào)易體制下穩(wěn)定下來,因此注入了國際元素,加入了與《世界貿(mào)易反傾銷守則》一致的內(nèi)容。“日落復(fù)審”的規(guī)定、“微量”問題的攝入以及可忽略問題的條款都是應(yīng)運(yùn)而生的產(chǎn)物。但是,諸多新鮮元素與國際反傾銷規(guī)則貌合神離,依然以方便國內(nèi)企業(yè)提起反傾銷訴訟、人為創(chuàng)造國內(nèi)企業(yè)的競爭優(yōu)勢(shì)為依歸,《伯德修正案》更是拋開國際反傾銷規(guī)則的外衣,利用反傾銷法對(duì)國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)給予赤裸裸的貿(mào)易保護(hù)。 第四部分,對(duì)美國反傾銷法具有的保護(hù)主義特性展開利益因素的分析。既然已經(jīng)指出美國反傾銷法的貿(mào)易保護(hù)性質(zhì),那么是哪些利益因素的較量造就了這一特性,便是這一部分要回答的問題。利益因素的分析無疑能幫助認(rèn)清反傾銷的貿(mào)易保護(hù)本質(zhì)。 第五部分,引入美國對(duì)華反傾銷典型案例剖析美國反傾銷法的保護(hù)主義特性。面對(duì)美國創(chuàng)設(shè)的針對(duì)以中國為代表的所謂“非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)”條款,長虹在接到美國商務(wù)部和國際貿(mào)易委員會(huì)的最終裁定后,向美國國際貿(mào)易法院提出上訴,雖然美國國際貿(mào)易法院判決商務(wù)部和國際貿(mào)易委員會(huì)就此重新做出裁定,但是最終商務(wù)部和國際貿(mào)易委員會(huì)都維持了先前的裁定。中國再一次遭受了美國反傾銷法的不公平待遇。 第六部分,面對(duì)美國反傾銷法愈演愈烈的保護(hù)主義特性,提出因應(yīng)之策。國家層面是遵守《國際反傾銷統(tǒng)一規(guī)則》,充分利用我國的反傾銷法抵制美國產(chǎn)品的傾銷行為;企業(yè)緯度即是避免以往的“多米諾”重演,積極迎戰(zhàn),不打無準(zhǔn)備之仗。
[Abstract]:The anti dumping law of the United States has been born for more than a hundred years, from the first establishment of the anti dumping law in <1916 to the anti dumping law of <1921, and to the trade law of <1974 and the <1979 year trade agreement law, and the <1984 years of tariff and Trade Law and the comprehensive trade competition law of <1988, followed by the subsequent 2000 < Byrd Amendment >, The appellation of antidumping law in the United States has been changing, but it is the core of its protectionism. The anti-dumping legislation and practice of the United States are used mutually, and the antidumping law is perfected by the rich antidumping practice. At the same time, the perfection of the antidumping law continues to promote the practice of anti dumping in the United States. This article is along the United States The historical evolution of the antidumping law explores its protectionist factors from the continuous renewal and enrichment of its content. In order to better reveal the protectionist core of the anti dumping law of the United States, this article is divided into six parts.
In the first part, the early anti dumping law of the United States was expounded and studied. As the anti dumping law of <1916 was the first domestic antidumping law in the United States, the provisions of all aspects were not perfect, and then they were replaced by the anti dumping law of <1921. Lowering the threshold of dumping and giving the executive authorities greater discretion, since then, the US anti-dumping law has highlighted its protective tendency towards domestic industries.
The second part, focusing on the development and improvement of the anti dumping law in the United States, has undergone four revisions in 70s and 80s twentieth Century, from the <1921 anti dumping law to the <1974 Trade Law and the <1979 trade agreement law, as well as the later <1984 year tariff and Trade Law and the <1988 comprehensive trade competition law. Domestic industrial prosecution is convenient for anti-dumping procedures and easier to determine the way to levy anti-dumping duties. Non market economic state provisions, the establishment of substantive damage standards, cumulative damage and the increase of continuous dumping content to highlight the force of the United States anti dumping law to protect domestic industry facing foreign competition at a disadvantage. Degree.
The third part, turning to the analysis of the current situation of American antidumping law. After more than half a century of development, the American antidumping law has finally stabilized under the WTO trade system, so the international elements have been injected into the United States and the content of the agreement with the world trade anti dumping code has been added. The provisions of the minor problems are the product of the emergence of the times. However, many fresh elements and international antidumping rules are beautiful, still convenient for domestic enterprises to bring antidumping lawsuits, to create the competitive advantage of domestic enterprises, and the Byrd Amendment is the outer garment of the international anti dumping rules, and the anti-dumping law is used to the domestic industry. Give naked trade protection.
The fourth part analyses the interests of the American antidumping law. Since it has already pointed out the nature of the trade protection of the anti dumping law of the United States, it is a question to answer which part of the interest factor has created this characteristic. The analysis of interest factors can undoubtedly help to recognize the trade of anti-dumping. It is easy to protect the nature.
In the fifth part, the American antidumping law is introduced to the United States to analyze the protectionist characteristics of the anti dumping law of the United States. Facing the so-called "non market economy" created by the United States, Changhong appeals to the U. S. International Trade Court after receiving the final ruling from the United States Department of commerce and the International Trade Commission. The U. S. International Trade Court decided that the Ministry of Commerce and the International Trade Commission had reissued the ruling, but the final ruling was maintained by the Ministry of Commerce and the International Trade Commission. China was once again subjected to unfair treatment of the US anti-dumping law.
The sixth part, facing the more and more protectionist characteristics of the United States anti dumping law, puts forward the countermeasures. The national level is to abide by the unified rules of international anti-dumping, and make full use of the anti-dumping law of our country to resist the dumping of American products; the enterprise latitude is to avoid the previous replay of "Domino", actively engage and do not fight unprepared battles.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D971.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 丁邦開,劉恩媛;對(duì)中國首例反傾銷案的述評(píng)[J];財(cái)經(jīng)研究;2000年03期

2 田慧;;我國應(yīng)對(duì)“非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位”問題的對(duì)策思考[J];中共烏魯木齊市委黨校學(xué)報(bào);2005年01期

3 左孝濤;;熟悉規(guī)則 利用規(guī)則——處理反傾銷訴訟的對(duì)策[J];政策w，

本文編號(hào)：2086364