本文關(guān)鍵詞：美國(guó)“337調(diào)查”問(wèn)題研究　出處：《內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 337調(diào)查 貿(mào)易保護(hù)措施 侵犯商業(yè)秘密 國(guó)民待遇原則 普遍排除令 不公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)方法或不公平行為

【摘要】：美國(guó)"337調(diào)查"是中國(guó)出口企業(yè)所遭遇的最為嚴(yán)重貿(mào)易的保護(hù)措施之一。實(shí)踐中"337調(diào)查"主要用于識(shí)別專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)行為。美國(guó)海關(guān)依"337調(diào)查"的結(jié)果阻止侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品進(jìn)入美國(guó)市場(chǎng)。本文意圖通過(guò)對(duì)美國(guó)《1930年關(guān)稅法》第337條(簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)美國(guó)"337條款")及其相關(guān)案例進(jìn)行分析,研究"337調(diào)查"的程序及其特點(diǎn),揭示該程序中可能存在的貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義。同時(shí),依據(jù)"337條款"(a)(1)(A)的規(guī)定,"337調(diào)查"的適用范圍遠(yuǎn)不止專(zhuān)利權(quán),它可以規(guī)制所有"損害國(guó)內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)"的"不公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)方法或不公平行為"。這就擴(kuò)大了 "337調(diào)查"中"普遍排除令"等救濟(jì)手段的打擊范圍。GATT專(zhuān)家組曾在個(gè)案中認(rèn)定"337調(diào)查"中的普遍排除令違反了 GATT國(guó)民待遇原則,并且認(rèn)為就該案而言,適用普遍排除令不滿(mǎn)足GATT20(d)的規(guī)定,即不能作為國(guó)民待遇原則的例外。專(zhuān)家組同時(shí)建議美國(guó)對(duì)"普遍排除令"的使用加以限制。但在"天瑞集團(tuán)訴美國(guó)國(guó)際貿(mào)易委員會(huì)案"(下文簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)"天瑞案")后,"337調(diào)查"這個(gè)飽受爭(zhēng)議、帶有貿(mào)易保護(hù)色彩的制度擁有了域外管轄效力。這不但沒(méi)有限制普遍排除令的使用,反而賦予了普遍排除令域外效力。本文第一部分是對(duì)"337調(diào)查"基本問(wèn)題的概述。通過(guò)對(duì)"337條款"的法律條文進(jìn)行分析,了解"337調(diào)查"的管轄范圍、啟動(dòng)要件和程序。第二部分通過(guò)案例分析認(rèn)定"337調(diào)查"中的普遍排除令違反了 GATT國(guó)民待遇原則,并且在該案中,普遍排除令不能作為GATT20(d)國(guó)民待遇原則的例外。第三部分是結(jié)合中國(guó)實(shí)際介紹三個(gè)依據(jù)"337條款"(a)(1)(A)以"不公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)方法或不公平行為"為由對(duì)中國(guó)企業(yè)發(fā)起的"337調(diào)查"。在"天瑞案"之后,"337條款"在管轄內(nèi)容和管轄范圍上都有所擴(kuò)張。同時(shí),普遍排除令的適用也被擴(kuò)大到域外管轄和非專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)的案件。對(duì)此,筆者認(rèn)為:"337條款"寬泛的管轄權(quán)和域外效力不僅是一種貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義的擴(kuò)大與膨脹,甚至影響了我國(guó)司法主權(quán)的獨(dú)立性。在隨后的第四部分筆者提出了一些應(yīng)訴建議。
[Abstract]:The "337 investigation" is one of the most serious trade protection measures for export enterprises encountered China. In the practice of "337 investigation" is mainly used for the identification of patent infringement. The United States Customs in accordance with the "337 investigation" results stop infringing products into the U.S. market. This article attempts to <1930 the United States Tariff Law > 337th (the United States referred to as "section 337") were analyzed and the related cases, procedures and characteristics of the "337 investigation", reveals the trade protectionism may exist in the program. At the same time, on the basis of the "337 terms" (a) (1) (A) provisions, "the scope of investigation of 337 is far more than the patent right and it can regulate all injury to the domestic industry" unfair methods of competition and unfair acts ". This has extended the" 337 investigation "in the" general exclusion order "and other means of relief against the scope.GATT in case of a group of experts had identified" general exclusion 337 investigation in violation of G order The national treatment principle of ATT, and that in that case, for the general exclusion order does not meet the provisions of GATT20 (d), which can not be used as the principle of national treatment group of experts also suggested that the United States exceptions. Restrictions on the "general exclusion order". But in the "Tian Rui group v. United States International Trade Commission (hereinafter" case referred to as "Tian Rui case"), "337 investigation" the controversial, protectionist system have extraterritorial jurisdiction effect. It not only does not restrict the use of general exclusion order, but gives the general exclusion order of extraterritorial effect. The first part is an overview of the basic problems of 337 investigation. Analysis through the law of "section 337", "understanding the jurisdiction of 337 investigation, starting elements and procedure. The second part through the analysis of a case that" general exclusion order violated the national treatment principle of GATT 337 investigation ", and in this case In the general exclusion order can be regarded as GATT20 (d) of the national treatment principle exception. The third part is the combination of the actual Chinese introduced three according to "section 337" (a) (1) (A) to the "unfair methods of competition and unfair acts on the grounds of the China Enterprises launched the" 337 investigation "in". After Tianrui case "," section 337 "are expanded in content and scope of jurisdiction. At the same time, for the general exclusion order was also extended to the extraterritorial jurisdiction and non patent infringement cases. In this regard, the author thinks:" article 337 "broad jurisdiction and extraterritorial effect not only is a kind of expansion the expansion of trade protectionism, and even affect the independence of China's judicial sovereignty. In the fourth part the author puts forward some suggestions for the respondent.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D971.2;DD912.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 曹海晶,周昕;行政壟斷與國(guó)民待遇原則的沖突及對(duì)策研究[J];江漢論壇;2003年01期

2 崔廣平,王中偉;論國(guó)民待遇原則在中國(guó)的實(shí)施[J];河北法學(xué);2003年05期

3 賀，

本文編號(hào)：1431573