【摘要】：貿(mào)易壁壘調(diào)查制度是在自由貿(mào)易與貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義并存的國際貿(mào)易背景下產(chǎn)生的,以促進(jìn)自由貿(mào)易、保障本國產(chǎn)業(yè)的出口利益、維護(hù)本國的互惠利益為目的而產(chǎn)生的貿(mào)易救濟(jì)措施。從美國的“301條款”到中國的《對(duì)外貿(mào)易壁壘調(diào)查規(guī)則》,兩者的歷史演變表明：貿(mào)易壁壘調(diào)查制度作為消除貿(mào)易壁壘、維護(hù)國家貿(mào)易秩序的有力武器,其產(chǎn)生的根本出發(fā)點(diǎn)是維護(hù)國家利益；同時(shí),兩國歷史發(fā)展的社會(huì)基礎(chǔ)差異導(dǎo)致法的內(nèi)容與理念也相應(yīng)地不同。在制度架構(gòu)上,除受社會(huì)歷史條件、法治水平、公民的法律意識(shí)等因素影響之外,法律傳統(tǒng)和立法技術(shù)是導(dǎo)致中美兩國貿(mào)易壁壘調(diào)查制度在立法模式、立法理念及制度體系差異的主要原因。在適用范圍、申訴主體及損害認(rèn)定等實(shí)體內(nèi)容上,我國和美國的貿(mào)易壁壘調(diào)查立法都賦予了主管部門較大的裁量權(quán),但美國在具體概念的界定方面更為明確,法定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也更具有可操作性。通過對(duì)貿(mào)易壁壘調(diào)查制度的立案、調(diào)查及裁決等程序規(guī)則的比較,我國立法的程序規(guī)定上雖具有自己的特色,但在程序的完整性及透明度上不及美國。相較美國而言,我國的貿(mào)易壁壘調(diào)查制度還存在諸多不足,可通過借鑒美國經(jīng)驗(yàn),完善制度體系與內(nèi)容,提高立法等級(jí),明確相關(guān)定義,增加規(guī)則的可操作性,完善聽證及信息披露制度,引入行政復(fù)議及司法審查機(jī)制,協(xié)調(diào)與多邊爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的關(guān)系,從而增強(qiáng)我國在國際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)中對(duì)外貿(mào)易調(diào)查和應(yīng)對(duì)外國對(duì)我國的貿(mào)易調(diào)查能力。
[Abstract]:The investigation system of trade barriers comes into being under the background of international trade in which free trade and trade protectionism coexist in order to promote free trade and safeguard the export interests of domestic industries. Trade relief measures arising for the purpose of safeguarding the mutual benefit of the country. From "Section 301" of the United States to "rules of investigation of Foreign Trade barriers", the historical evolution of the two shows that the investigation system of trade barriers is a powerful weapon for removing trade barriers and maintaining national trade order. The fundamental starting point of its emergence is to safeguard the national interests; At the same time, the differences in the social basis of the historical development of the two countries lead to different contents and concepts of the law. In the institutional framework, in addition to the social and historical conditions, the level of the rule of law, the legal awareness of citizens and other factors, legal tradition and legislative technology are leading to China and the United States trade barrier investigation system in the legislative model, The main reason of the difference of legislative idea and system. In terms of the scope of application, the subject of complaint and the determination of damages, the legislation on investigation of trade barriers in China and the United States has given the competent authorities greater discretion, but the definition of specific concepts in the United States is more clear. Statutory standards are also more operational. By comparing the procedural rules of the investigation system of trade barriers, such as case filing, investigation and adjudication, the procedural provisions of China's legislation have their own characteristics, but the integrity and transparency of the procedures are not as good as those of the United States. Compared with the United States, China's trade barrier investigation system still has many shortcomings. We can improve the system and content of the system, improve the level of legislation, clarify the relevant definitions, and increase the maneuverability of the rules by drawing lessons from the experience of the United States. Improve the hearing and information disclosure system, introduce the administrative review and judicial review mechanism, coordinate the relationship with the multilateral dispute settlement mechanism, so as to enhance the ability of foreign trade investigation and foreign trade investigation against China in the international trade practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D971.2;D922.295

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張夢(mèng)華;貿(mào)易壁壘調(diào)查法律制度發(fā)展趨勢(shì)研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2454683