本文選題：“雙反” + “重復救濟”��； 參考：《復旦大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：自2007年以來,以美國為代表的WTO成員方在貿(mào)易救濟領域發(fā)生重大實踐轉(zhuǎn)折,開始對非市場經(jīng)濟(以下簡稱“NME”)國家采取反補貼措施,并且往往與反傾銷措施合并使用,形成“雙反”。愈演愈烈的“雙反”措施對中國出口企業(yè)造成沉重打擊,中方認為“雙反”對中國造成了“雙重歧視”：一方面在反傾銷領域?qū)⒅袊暈椤癗ME”國家,采用“替代國制度”確定正常價值,高估傾銷幅度；另一方面在反補貼領域?qū)⒅袊暈槭袌鼋?jīng)濟(以下簡稱“ME”)國家適用反補貼措施。不僅如此,反傾銷調(diào)查中“替代國”制度與反補貼措施的并用還會導致美國商務部(以下簡稱“DOC”)對國內(nèi)補貼授予企業(yè)的利益進行重復抵消,形成“重復救濟”,違反WTO規(guī)則。 從本質(zhì)上看,美國對中國發(fā)起的“雙反”與其以往對“ME”國家所發(fā)起的“雙反”相比存在特殊性,對此類“雙反”合法性的探討需結(jié)合這一特性進行分析。本文在澄清“雙反”的一般規(guī)則之后,著重研究對中國“雙反”的兩個特殊問題——反補貼法對中國的適用爭議以及“重復救濟”問題。 立足于WTO成員方對中國“雙反”的特殊性,區(qū)分“雙反”對出口補貼和對國內(nèi)補貼的“重復救濟”是本文邏輯的起點；研究WTO規(guī)則的更替以及美國反傾銷和反補貼法的發(fā)展歷程是本文的一條主線；而分析中美雙方在WTO爭端解決程序以及美國國內(nèi)法院的一系列申訴、對抗實踐進展則是本文的另一條主線；兩條主線相互促進、推動,最終導向美國對華“雙反”存在普遍違法性這一主要論斷,以及達到對現(xiàn)狀進行客觀評述和對未來中方繼續(xù)申訴提出建議這一期待價值。
[Abstract]:Since 2007, the members of WTO, represented by the United States, have taken an important practical turn in the field of trade relief. They have begun to take countervailing measures against non-market economy (hereinafter referred to as "NME") countries, and often use them in combination with anti-dumping measures. The formation of "double opposition". The intensifying "double counter" measures have dealt a heavy blow to Chinese export enterprises. China believes that "double opposition" has caused "double discrimination" against China: on the one hand, it is regarded as a "NME" country in the area of anti-dumping. The "surrogate country system" is used to determine the normal value and overestimate the dumping margin. On the other hand, China is regarded as a market economy (ME) country to apply countervailing measures in the field of countervailing. Moreover, the combination of "surrogate country" system and countervailing measures in anti-dumping investigations will result in the repeated cancellation of the benefits of domestic subsidies granted to enterprises by the United States Department of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as "DOC"), which will result in "repeated relief". Violation of WTO rules. In essence, there are particularities in the "double reactions" initiated by the United States against China compared with those initiated by the "ME" countries in the past. The discussion on the legitimacy of such "double reactions" should be combined with this characteristic. After clarifying the general rules of "double countervailing", this paper focuses on the two special problems of "double countervailing" in China, namely, the dispute on the application of countervailing law to China and the question of "repeated relief". Based on the particularity of WTO member's "double reaction" to China, it is the logical starting point of this paper to distinguish "double counterparty" from "duplicate relief" to export subsidy and domestic subsidy. To study the replacement of WTO rules and the development of American anti-dumping and countervailing laws is one of the main lines of this paper. The development of confrontation practice is another main line of this paper. The two main lines promote each other and lead to the main conclusion that the United States has universal illegality against China. And the expected value of objectively commenting on the status quo and making suggestions to the Chinese side to continue to complain in the future.
【學位授予單位】：復旦大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.1

【引證文獻】

相關期刊論文 前1條

1 盛琦雯;丁朋超;;歐盟對華光伏產(chǎn)品“雙反”案法律分析及我國的應對策略[J];青年文學家;2013年22期

，

本文編號：1777150