论文标题:WTO保障措施制度理论与争端解决实践研究
Online Arbitration and Its Legal Issues
论文作者 肖又贤
论文导师 王传丽,论文学位 博士,论文专业 国际法学
论文单位 中国政法大学,点击次数 94,论文页数 216页File Size14868k
2004-04-01论文网 http://www.lw23.com/lunwen_271026757/ 保障措施,不可预见的发展,进口增加,严重损害,因果关系,对应性原则,特殊保障措施
Safeguard Measures;Unforeseen Development;Increased Import;Serious Injury;Causual Link;Parellalism;Special Safeguards
与反倾销、反补贴措施一样，保障措施是WTO允许成员采用的一种保护国内产业的贸易救济措施。它是指当不可预见的发展及成员承担协定义务的结果导致一产品的进口数量激增，对生产同类或直接竞争产品的国内产业造成严重损害或严重损害威胁时，进口成员方可以在非歧视原则的基础上对该产品的进口实施限制。保障措施制度的法律渊源主要是GATT1994第19条和《保障措施协定》。WTO成员的国内保障措施立法基本上与《保障措施协定》保持一致。 保障措施制度保护国内产业的安全，比其他贸易救济措施更直接、更有效。由于保障措施是针对公平贸易采取的措施，其实施条件应当比针对不公正贸易的反倾销、反补贴措施更加严格。保障措施的实施需要满足四个条件：(1)存在不可预见的发展；(2)一产品的进口增长；(3)对生产同类或直接竞争产品的国内产业造成了严重损害或严重损害威胁；(4)进口增加和严重损害或严重损害威胁之间存在因果关系。 “不可预见的发展”是指在一成员作出关税减让承诺和承担其他WTO协定义务时，不可预见的事件。保障措施是“紧急措施”，进口增长必须由不可预见的发展引起，才能采取保障措施。WTO的专家组和上诉机构多次确认了这一点，即“不可预见的发展”虽然不是采取保障措施的独立条件，但其必须要作为一个事实问题得到证明。进口增长是指进口数量的绝对增长和相对于国内产量的相对增长。仅仅证明进口增长了是不够的，这种增长必须可能对国内生产同类或直接竞争产品的产业造成严重损害或严重损害威胁。因此，进口增长必须是“最近的、突然的、急剧的和显著的”。 “严重损害”是指对国内产业状况的重大全面减损。在确定是否存在严重损害或严重损害威胁时，主管机关应评估影响该产业状况的所有有关的客观和可量化的因素，特别是《保障措施协定》第4．2条(a)列举的因素。由于严重损害的定义是针对整个产业而言的，所以主管机关必须考虑进口增长对国内产业造成的“重大全面损害”，而不能只考虑产业的某个部分。 因果关系是原因和结果之间的“真正实质性”的关系。在分析进口增长和严重损害之间的因果关系时，有三个基本步骤：首先，主管机关将进口增长造成的损害与其他因素造成的损害分开；然后，将所有不同因素造成的损害一方面归咎于进口增长，另一方面归咎于其他因素；最后，主管机关才能判断进口增长和严重损害之间是否存在真正实质性的原因和结果关系。美国的《1974年贸易法》规定了“实质原因”标准，即进口增长是一个重要原因，而且不比任何其他原因更次要，就可以认定因果关系的存在。 成员在采取保障措施前必须按预定的调查程序进行调查，调查机关应当遵守“正当程序”要求，对所有利害关系方作出合理公告，举行公开听证会以便利进口商、出口商和其他利害关系方提出证据及其意见，包括对其他方的陈述作出答复并提出意见。保障措施的形式包括征收或提高关税、关税配额和数量限制。成员应仅在防止或补救严重损害并便利调整所必需的限度内实施保障措施，并应选择对实现这些目标最合适的措施。提议实施保障措施或寻求延长保障措施的成员，应努力在它与可能受该措施影响的出口成员之间维持与在GATT1994项下存在的水平实质相等的减让和其他义务中国政法大学博士学位论文wTO保障措施制度理论与争端解决实践研究水平。受保障措施影响的成员可以要求任何适当的贸易补偿。如果双方不能就补偿问题达成协议，则受保障措施影响的成员可以对实施保障措施成员的贸易中止实施GATT1994项下实质相等的减让或其他义务。 对应性(也称平行性)原则是根据《保障措施协定》第2条和第4条抽象出来的一个实施保障措施的重要原则。第2.2条明确规定了保障措施应针对一正在进口的产品实施，而不考虑其来源。如果一成员将被调查的部分产品排除在保障措施之外，它必须“清楚地”证明被采取保障措施的进口本身满足了《保障措施协定》第2.1条和第4.2条列出的条件，并就该裁定提供合理充分的解释。在涉及关税同盟和自由贸易区时，采取保障措施的成员可以援引GAI，1，1 994第24条的抗辩，将来自关税同盟和自由贸易区伙伴的进口排除在保障措施之外。但是，该成员应当证明来自关税同盟和自由贸易区以外来源的进口本身满足了《保障措施协定》第2.1条和第 4.2条规定的条件。采取保障措施的成员还可以将部分产品豁免保障措施，但应遵守非歧视原则。 对于来自发展中国家成员的产品，只要其有关产品的进口份额在进口成员中不超过3%，即不得对该产品实施保障措施，但是进口份额不超过3%的发展中国家成员份额总计不得超过有关产品总进口的9%。但到目前为止，WTO没有关于发展中国家的一般定义，也没有一份发展中国家的完整名单。确定一个国家发展中国家身份的方法一般采用自选方法(s elf-selection或self-designated)。有些发达国家根据本国普惠制受惠国名单来判断贸易伙伴是否发展中国家，是不恰当的。出口国可以结合自身的经济发展水平及其他成员的认同情况主张自己的发展中国家身份。如果进口国不同意这种认定，应当举出?
Like anti-dumping measures and countervailing measures, safeguard measures are trade remedies allowed by WTO to protect domestic industries. A Member may apply a safeguard measure to a product only if that Member has determined a product is being imported into its territory in such increased quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive products. The main regulations of safeguard measures include Article XXI of GATT1994 and Agreement on Safeguards. Most WTO members keep their own safeguards regulations basically comply with Agreement on Safeguards.The effect of safeguard measures is more direct and effective than that of other trade remedies. As safeguard measures apply to fair trade practice, their preconditions of application are more restrictive than that of anti-dumping measures and countervailing measures which apply to unfair trade practice. Four requirements must be satisfied when applying safeguard measures: (a) the existence of unforeseen development; (b) increased imports of a product; (c) serious injury or threat thereof caused to domestic industries and (d) the casual link between increased imports and serious injury or threat thereof.Unforeseen developments are developments occurring after the negotiations of the relevant tariff concession which it would not be reasonable to expect that the negotiators of the country making the concession could and should have foreseen at the time when the concession was negotiated. Safeguard measures constitute "emergency action" and are only to be imposed when the alleged increase in imports arises out of unforeseen developments. It was recognized by the Panel and Appellate Body that unforeseen developments must be demonstrated as a matter of fact though they are not independent conditions for the application of a safeguard measure. An increase in imports means imports increase in absolute and relative terms. Simply an increase in imports is not enough; it must cause or threat to cause serious injury to domestic industries producing like or directly competitive products. Anyway, an increase in imports must be "recent, sudden, sharp and significant"."Serious injury" shall be understood to mean a significant overall impairment in the position of a domestic industry. In the investigation to determine whether increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury to a domestic industry, the competent authorities shall evaluate all relevant factors of an objective and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of that industry, in particular, the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms, the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports, changes in the level of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilization, profits and losses, and employment. The competent authorities shall consider the overall conditions of the industry rather one segment of it and they can seek information from any relevant sources.Causal link means a genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect between increased imports and serious injury. The competent authorities" first step is to determine that the injurious effects caused to the domestic industry by increased imports aredistinguished from the injurious effects caused by other factors. Then, as a second step in their examination, attribute to increased imports, on the one hand, and to other relevant factors, on the other hand, injury caused by all of these different factors, including increased imports. In this way, the competent authorities determine, as a final step, whether "the causal link" exists between increased imports and serious injury, and whether this causal link involves a genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect between these two elements. The causation test in US Trade Act of 1974 is "substantial cause" that diverges from the causation
|
