本文選題：WTO + 審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)�。� 參考：《哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)在審理爭(zhēng)端案件的過(guò)程中,一般會(huì)對(duì)當(dāng)事方的國(guó)內(nèi)法或者當(dāng)事方當(dāng)局的裁定作出判斷,由此產(chǎn)生了國(guó)家主權(quán)與WTO管轄權(quán)之間的沖突。兩者間如何進(jìn)行權(quán)力分配,是WTO爭(zhēng)端審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)所要解決的問(wèn)題。中國(guó)近年來(lái)涉案量急遽上升,并出現(xiàn)了為履行爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)報(bào)告被迫修改國(guó)內(nèi)法的立法實(shí)踐,這使得對(duì)此問(wèn)題的研究十分迫切。本文結(jié)合近年來(lái)中國(guó)參與WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的實(shí)踐,運(yùn)用規(guī)范分析法和案例分析法,分析了現(xiàn)行審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī)范和中國(guó)涉案案例,并針對(duì)中國(guó)訴訟參與過(guò)程中存在的問(wèn)題,提出了相應(yīng)對(duì)策。 論文首先介紹和分析了WTO爭(zhēng)端審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的基本理論,包括三方面的內(nèi)容。第一,審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的內(nèi)涵解決審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是什么的問(wèn)題,并對(duì)事實(shí)問(wèn)題和法律問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了區(qū)分。第二,審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與其他程序規(guī)則的關(guān)系,包括審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)管轄權(quán)、證據(jù)規(guī)則間的聯(lián)系、區(qū)別等。第三,審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)。它以發(fā)展的視角分析了從GATT時(shí)期到多哈回合談判三個(gè)時(shí)期的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 之后,對(duì)WTO爭(zhēng)端審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行了規(guī)范分析,主要分析了《反傾銷(xiāo)協(xié)定》第17.6條和DSU第11條。通過(guò)分析《反傾銷(xiāo)協(xié)定》第17.6條,可以發(fā)現(xiàn):對(duì)于此類(lèi)案件的事實(shí)證據(jù)、事實(shí)結(jié)論和法律問(wèn)題的審查,爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)分別采用了適當(dāng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、客觀公正標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和從頭再查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。通過(guò)分析DSU第11條,發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)此類(lèi)案件,無(wú)論是事實(shí)問(wèn)題還是法律問(wèn)題,爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)均采取了客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。而通過(guò)對(duì)比分析這兩個(gè)法律條款,得出結(jié)論:相較于反傾銷(xiāo)事實(shí)問(wèn)題,專(zhuān)家組在非反傾銷(xiāo)案件事實(shí)問(wèn)題上,享有上更大的自由裁量權(quán)。在法律問(wèn)題上,無(wú)論反傾銷(xiāo)領(lǐng)域或非反傾銷(xiāo)領(lǐng)域,爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)均采取了從頭再查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 最后,分析了中國(guó)涉案爭(zhēng)端中體現(xiàn)的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及從審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)角度考慮的中國(guó)應(yīng)對(duì)WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的對(duì)策。通過(guò)分析可以發(fā)現(xiàn),審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問(wèn)題在案件中主要表現(xiàn)為以下實(shí)際問(wèn)題:對(duì)事實(shí)問(wèn)題與法律問(wèn)題的區(qū)分,對(duì)成員方國(guó)內(nèi)法的解釋權(quán),對(duì)管轄權(quán)之管轄權(quán)等。通過(guò)對(duì)案例的反思,得出結(jié)論:DSB對(duì)審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問(wèn)題的基本立場(chǎng)是反傾銷(xiāo)類(lèi)案件,明確列明;非反傾銷(xiāo)類(lèi)案件,諱莫如深;DSB審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的明晰程度與審查機(jī)構(gòu)的司法能動(dòng)性成反比;DSB將對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)法進(jìn)行補(bǔ)充解釋作為事實(shí)審查的一種方式。最后,針對(duì)中國(guó)在應(yīng)對(duì)審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問(wèn)題方面存在的問(wèn)題,提出了一些建議。
[Abstract]:In the process of handling dispute cases, WTO dispute settlement bodies usually judge the domestic laws of the parties or the ruling of the authorities of the parties, which leads to the conflict between the state sovereignty and the jurisdiction of the WTO. How to distribute the power between the two is the problem to be solved by the WTO dispute review standard. In recent years, the number of cases involved in China has risen sharply, and the legislative practice of forced revision of domestic laws in order to fulfill the reports of the dispute settlement bodies has emerged, which makes the study of this issue very urgent. Based on the practice of China's participation in the dispute settlement mechanism of WTO in recent years, this paper analyzes the current standards and norms of the review and the cases involved in China by means of normative analysis and case analysis, and aims at the problems existing in the process of China's litigation participation. The corresponding countermeasures are put forward. This paper first introduces and analyzes the basic theory of WTO dispute review standard, including three aspects. First, the connotation of the standard solves the question of what the standard is, and distinguishes between the fact and the law. Second, the relationship between the examination standard and other procedural rules, including the jurisdiction of the WTO dispute settlement body, the relationship between the rules of evidence, and the differences. Third, review the development trend of standards. It analyzes the review standards from the GATT period to the Doha Round negotiation from the perspective of development. After that, the standard of WTO dispute review is analyzed, including Article 17.6 of ADA and Article 11 of DSU. By analyzing Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, it can be found that for the examination of factual evidence, factual conclusions and legal issues in such cases, the dispute settlement bodies have adopted the standards of appropriateness, objectivity and impartiality, and re-examination from the beginning, respectively. Through the analysis of Article 11 of DSU, it is found that the dispute settlement bodies have adopted objective criteria for this kind of cases, whether it is a question of fact or a question of law. Through the comparative analysis of these two legal provisions, the conclusion is drawn: compared with the fact of anti-dumping, the expert group enjoys more discretion on the factual issues of non-anti-dumping cases. On legal issues, both antidumping and non-antidumping fields, dispute settlement bodies have adopted re-examination standards. Finally, the paper analyzes the standard of examination in the disputes involved in China and the countermeasures of China's dispute settlement mechanism in response to WTO from the point of view of the review standard. Through the analysis, it can be found that the main problems in the case are as follows: the distinction between the factual and legal issues, the power of interpretation to the domestic law of the members, the jurisdiction over the jurisdiction, and so on. Through the reflection of the case, it is concluded that the basic position of the DSB on the standard of examination is the anti-dumping case, which is clearly listed; the non-antidumping case, There is no doubt that the degree of clarity of the DSB review standard is inversely proportional to the judicial initiative of the review body. DSB takes the supplementary interpretation of domestic law as a way of reviewing the facts. Finally, some suggestions are put forward to deal with the problems in China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D996.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 朱欖葉;;WTO爭(zhēng)端解決程序中的證據(jù)問(wèn)題[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2007年01期

2 楊國(guó)華,李?yuàn)`{，

本文編號(hào)：1939259