本文選題：337調(diào)查　切入點(diǎn)：337條款　出處：《華中科技大學(xué)》2009年碩士論文

【摘要】： 337調(diào)查制度作為美國(guó)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)邊境保護(hù)措施,是美國(guó)處理國(guó)際貿(mào)易領(lǐng)域知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛的重要平臺(tái)。因337調(diào)查制度快捷有效的處理程序以及厲害的排除令措施,使得出口美國(guó)市場(chǎng)的外國(guó)產(chǎn)品生產(chǎn)商和銷售商深受其擾。伴隨著GATT/WTO機(jī)制的形成,以及TRIPS協(xié)議的完善,國(guó)際社會(huì)開始挑戰(zhàn)美國(guó)的337調(diào)查制度,質(zhì)疑該制度有違WTO/TRIPS協(xié)議的規(guī)則,指其系貿(mào)易保護(hù)的表現(xiàn),認(rèn)為該制度存在嚴(yán)重的不合理性,要求美國(guó)予以修正或廢除。然而美國(guó)自始至終沒有廢除該制度,只是迫于壓力對(duì)該制度進(jìn)行了部分的修正,以求消弭其他貿(mào)易國(guó)家的責(zé)備。 本文從337調(diào)查制度的條款內(nèi)容入手,對(duì)該制度的合法性做細(xì)致的條文比較分析,并結(jié)合兩則典型的337調(diào)查糾紛案例,探討了337調(diào)查制度是否合法性的命題。第一部分闡述了美國(guó)337調(diào)查制度的起源及其歷史發(fā)展過程,介紹了337調(diào)查程序的內(nèi)容。第二部分透過337調(diào)查制度,主要討論了圍繞該制度合法性問題進(jìn)行爭(zhēng)論的背后蘊(yùn)涵,表現(xiàn)在三個(gè)方面:第一,美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)優(yōu)勢(shì)的衰退與新貿(mào)易保護(hù)的抬頭;其次337調(diào)查制度特有的法律規(guī)范和執(zhí)行功能使得合法性命題爭(zhēng)論趨于復(fù)雜;最后則主要表達(dá)了研究該制度的合法與否問題所具有的積極意義。第三部分,從美國(guó)內(nèi)國(guó)法視野角度指出337調(diào)查制度不但是美國(guó)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)邊境保護(hù)措施,更是美國(guó)貿(mào)易保護(hù)政策產(chǎn)物。第四部分是從GATT/WTO規(guī)則角度出發(fā),結(jié)合專家組對(duì)彈簧組件案和尼龍纖維案的處理,論述了337調(diào)查制度有違GATT/WTO框架下的國(guó)民待遇原則。同時(shí)指出,1994年美國(guó)《烏拉圭回合協(xié)議法》對(duì)337條款的修正從本質(zhì)上沒有改變337條款的貿(mào)易保護(hù)性質(zhì)。第五部分通過對(duì)比337調(diào)查制度與TRIPS協(xié)議的條文,并重點(diǎn)分析了該制度的價(jià)值理念,最終得出結(jié)論,337調(diào)查制度與TRIPS協(xié)議條文上的一致性并不能掩蓋二者在本質(zhì)上的沖突,337調(diào)查制度構(gòu)成了對(duì)合法貿(mào)易的扭曲與障礙。結(jié)論部分指出337調(diào)查制度在未來仍將擔(dān)任著美國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)邊境保護(hù)者的角色,那么,筆者針對(duì)這個(gè)問題提出了將來挑戰(zhàn)337調(diào)查制度合法性的可能性途徑,并對(duì)中國(guó)是否設(shè)立類似的“337調(diào)查制度”,以求既能對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)實(shí)施行之有效的保護(hù)而又符合國(guó)際貿(mào)易規(guī)則提出了自己的建議。
[Abstract]:As an intellectual property border protection measure of the United States, the investigation system is an important platform for the United States to deal with intellectual property disputes in the field of international trade. With the formation of the GATT/WTO mechanism and the perfection of the TRIPS agreement, the international community has begun to challenge the U.S. investigation system of 337, questioning that the system violates the rules of the WTO/TRIPS Agreement. Referring to the expression of trade protection, which considers that the system is seriously irrational and requires the United States to amend or abolish it. However, the United States has not abolished the system from beginning to end, but has only been partially amended by pressure, In order to eliminate the blame of other trading countries. This paper begins with the provisions of the 337 investigation system, makes a detailed comparative analysis of the legality of the system, and combines two typical cases of 337 investigation disputes. The first part expounds the origin and historical development of the 337 investigation system in the United States, and introduces the contents of the 337 investigation procedure. The second part introduces the 337 investigation system through the 337 investigation system. This paper mainly discusses the implications of the controversy over the legitimacy of the system, which are manifested in three aspects: first, the decline of American economic advantage and the rise of new trade protection; Secondly, the special legal norms and executive functions of 337 investigation system make the controversy of legality proposition more complicated. Finally, it mainly expresses the positive significance of studying the legality of the system. It is pointed out from the angle of view of American domestic law that the investigation system is not only the intellectual property protection measure of the United States, but also the product of American trade protection policy. The fourth part is from the point of view of GATT/WTO rules. In conjunction with the expert Group's treatment of the Spring Assembly case and the Nylon Fiber case, This paper discusses that the investigation system of 337 violates the principle of national treatment under the framework of GATT/WTO, and points out that the amendment of Section 337 of the United States Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994 does not in essence change the nature of trade protection of Section 337. By comparing the Section 337 investigation system with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, The value concept of the system is also analyzed. Finally, it is concluded that the consistency between the investigation system and the articles of the TRIPS Agreement does not cover up the conflict between the two systems in essence. The conclusion part points out that the investigation system in the future will be a distortion and obstacle to the legitimate trade. Will continue to act as a protector of the U.S. intellectual property border, Then, the author puts forward the possible ways to challenge the legality of 337 investigation system in the future. It also puts forward some suggestions on whether China should set up a similar "337 investigation system" in order to protect the domestic industry effectively and accord with the rules of international trade.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號(hào)】：D971.2;D997.1

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 李巍;美國(guó)貿(mào)易法337條款研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2011年

2 劉謙;對(duì)外貿(mào)易中我國(guó)企業(yè)的專利權(quán)保護(hù)問題研究[D];西南大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1671017