中國政策性貸款的WTO合規(guī)性研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-29 08:15
【摘要】：自2004年加拿大首次對原產(chǎn)于中國的產(chǎn)品適用反補貼調(diào)查以來,WTO成員方開始逐漸對中國適用反補貼法。美國和加拿大對原產(chǎn)于中國的產(chǎn)品發(fā)起的反補貼調(diào)查逐漸增多,在這些反補貼調(diào)查中,美國和加拿大指控中國政策性銀行和國有商業(yè)銀行向特定企業(yè)提供了政策性貸款。在美國和加拿大對原產(chǎn)于中國的產(chǎn)品的反補貼調(diào)查中,均有一半以上的案件涉及對中國政策性銀行和國有商業(yè)銀行向特定企業(yè)發(fā)放優(yōu)惠貸款的調(diào)查。在他們看來,由于中國政策性銀行和國有商業(yè)銀行實際上被政府控制,這些政策性貸款構(gòu)成由中國政府提供的財政資助,并具有專向性,因此很多“政策性貸款項目”都被其認定為構(gòu)成補貼。那么,中國政策性銀行和國有商業(yè)銀行向特定企業(yè)提供的貸款是否構(gòu)成WTO補貼與反補貼規(guī)則所禁止的政策性貸款便值得我們探究。 本文分為四章。第一章首先比較系統(tǒng)地介紹了政策性貸款的內(nèi)涵,分析了政策性貸款中“政策”的含義、表現(xiàn)形式以及其與貸款之間的關系,并指出政策性貸款中“政策”必須是對貸款提供主體有約束力的文件,“政策”與貸款之間需存在直接因果關系,否則不能斷然認定一項貸款為政策性貸款。隨后,通過對主要國家和中國政策性貸款的種類的研究,筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)目前中國的確存在大量通過政策性銀行和國有商業(yè)銀行向特定產(chǎn)業(yè)或企業(yè)發(fā)放的政策性貸款。第二章通過對美國和加拿大針對中國政策性貸款的反補貼調(diào)查情況分析了目前中國政策性貸款遭受WTO成員方反補貼調(diào)查的現(xiàn)狀。第三章對WTO反補貼規(guī)則的貸款紀律進行了研究,探討了何種貸款是WTO補貼與反補貼規(guī)則所禁止的貸款,并通過對SCM協(xié)定中補貼的構(gòu)成要件的分析以及“雙反案”中美方和中方對中國政策性貸款的WTO合規(guī)性論證,探究中國政策性貸款在貸款提供主體、專向性以及利益授予方面是否符合SCM協(xié)定項下可訴補貼的構(gòu)成要件。第四章對中國如何應對政策性貸款面臨的WTO合規(guī)性挑戰(zhàn)提出了建議,指出中國一方面應當從根本上轉(zhuǎn)變思路,減少政策性貸款的運用,并在立法層面完善相關立法、規(guī)范產(chǎn)業(yè)政策,另一方面應當調(diào)整應訴思路,積極應對反補貼調(diào)查。
[Abstract]:Since Canada first applied countervailing investigation to products originating in China in 2004, WTO members have gradually applied countervailing law to China. In a growing number of U.S. and Canadian countervailing investigations into products originating in China, the United States and Canada accused Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks of providing policy-oriented loans to specific companies. In both U.S. and Canadian countervailing investigations into products originating in China, more than half of the cases involved investigations into preferential loans to specific enterprises by Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks. In their view, since China's policy banks and state-owned commercial banks are effectively controlled by the government, these policy loans constitute financial assistance provided by the Chinese government and have a special orientation. As a result, many "policy loan projects" have been recognized as constituting subsidies. Therefore, whether the loans provided by Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks to specific enterprises constitute policy loans prohibited by WTO subsidies and countervailing rules are worth exploring. This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter systematically introduces the connotation of policy loan, analyzes the meaning of "policy" in policy loan, its forms of expression and the relationship between policy loan and loan. It is also pointed out that "policy" must be a binding document for the main body of the loan, and there must be a direct causal relationship between the "policy" and the loan, otherwise, a loan cannot be categorically regarded as a policy loan. Then, through the study of the types of policy loans in major countries and China, the author finds that there are a large number of policy loans issued to specific industries or enterprises through policy banks and state-owned commercial banks at present in China. The second chapter analyzes the current situation of countervailing investigation of China's policy loans by WTO members through the investigation of the United States and Canada on China's policy loans. The third chapter studies the discipline of WTO countervailing rules and discusses what kind of loans are prohibited by WTO subsidy and countervailing rules. Through the analysis of the constituent elements of subsidy in the SCM agreement and the demonstration of the WTO compliance of the United States and China to the Chinese policy loan in the "double countervailing case", this paper probes into the main body of the Chinese policy loan in the loan supply. The exclusivity and the conferral of benefits accord with the constitution of actionable subsidy under SCM agreement. The fourth chapter puts forward some suggestions on how to deal with the WTO compliance challenges faced by policy loans, and points out that on the one hand, China should fundamentally change its thinking, reduce the use of policy loans, and improve the relevant legislation at the legislative level. Standardize industrial policy, on the other hand, should adjust the train of thought to respond to suit, deal with countervailing investigation actively.
【學位授予單位】：復旦大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.1;D922.28;F832.4
本文編號：2210714
[Abstract]:Since Canada first applied countervailing investigation to products originating in China in 2004, WTO members have gradually applied countervailing law to China. In a growing number of U.S. and Canadian countervailing investigations into products originating in China, the United States and Canada accused Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks of providing policy-oriented loans to specific companies. In both U.S. and Canadian countervailing investigations into products originating in China, more than half of the cases involved investigations into preferential loans to specific enterprises by Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks. In their view, since China's policy banks and state-owned commercial banks are effectively controlled by the government, these policy loans constitute financial assistance provided by the Chinese government and have a special orientation. As a result, many "policy loan projects" have been recognized as constituting subsidies. Therefore, whether the loans provided by Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks to specific enterprises constitute policy loans prohibited by WTO subsidies and countervailing rules are worth exploring. This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter systematically introduces the connotation of policy loan, analyzes the meaning of "policy" in policy loan, its forms of expression and the relationship between policy loan and loan. It is also pointed out that "policy" must be a binding document for the main body of the loan, and there must be a direct causal relationship between the "policy" and the loan, otherwise, a loan cannot be categorically regarded as a policy loan. Then, through the study of the types of policy loans in major countries and China, the author finds that there are a large number of policy loans issued to specific industries or enterprises through policy banks and state-owned commercial banks at present in China. The second chapter analyzes the current situation of countervailing investigation of China's policy loans by WTO members through the investigation of the United States and Canada on China's policy loans. The third chapter studies the discipline of WTO countervailing rules and discusses what kind of loans are prohibited by WTO subsidy and countervailing rules. Through the analysis of the constituent elements of subsidy in the SCM agreement and the demonstration of the WTO compliance of the United States and China to the Chinese policy loan in the "double countervailing case", this paper probes into the main body of the Chinese policy loan in the loan supply. The exclusivity and the conferral of benefits accord with the constitution of actionable subsidy under SCM agreement. The fourth chapter puts forward some suggestions on how to deal with the WTO compliance challenges faced by policy loans, and points out that on the one hand, China should fundamentally change its thinking, reduce the use of policy loans, and improve the relevant legislation at the legislative level. Standardize industrial policy, on the other hand, should adjust the train of thought to respond to suit, deal with countervailing investigation actively.
【學位授予單位】：復旦大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.1;D922.28;F832.4
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 管守安,張宇潤;政策性貸款法律制度探析[J];安徽大學學報;1999年06期
2 黃文旭;;加拿大反補貼法律制度初探[J];大經(jīng)貿(mào);2007年12期
3 李仲平;李煉;;“美國對華銅版紙案”述評——基于反補貼申訴的考察[J];法商研究;2008年01期
4 張乃根;;論WTO爭端解決的國內(nèi)法審查[J];法學家;2008年03期
5 黃青燕;姜發(fā)根;;我國面臨的反補貼形勢及對策分析[J];改革與戰(zhàn)略;2009年10期
6 龔柏華;倪潔穎;;中美有關銅版紙征收反傾銷和反補貼稅WTO磋商案評析[J];國際商務研究;2007年06期
7 王弈通;;論補貼專向性的標準與評判——兼議專向性標準在美國對華反補貼調(diào)查案中的適用[J];國際商務研究;2009年01期
8 孫南申;彭岳;;中國補貼現(xiàn)狀與面臨反補貼措施的法律應對[J];河北法學;2007年06期
9 彭毛字;專項貸款與政策性貸款的異同[J];經(jīng)濟問題;1998年12期
10 陳利強;;美國反補貼稅法之事實專向性標準探究[J];商場現(xiàn)代化;2008年13期
相關博士學位論文 前2條
1 郭新雙;國外政策性金融機構(gòu)研究[D];吉林大學;2005年
2 毛驍驍;WTO框架下的中國國企補貼法律問題研究[D];復旦大學;2007年
相關碩士學位論文 前3條
1 呂瑩;論SCM協(xié)議中的補貼構(gòu)成與認定[D];中南大學;2005年
2 鄧廣磊;論WTO《SCM協(xié)定》下補貼的認定[D];華東政法大學;2007年
3 張瓊芳;WTO框架下歐盟、美國補貼與反補貼規(guī)則之比較[D];湖南師范大學;2010年
，本文編號：2210714
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2210714.html
