本文選題：傾銷幅度 + 歸零法��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 在反傾銷調(diào)查中,傾銷幅度計算過程中的歸零計算法是一種備受爭議的技術(shù)處理方式。歸零法一直被以美國為代表的一些國家廣泛應(yīng)用于反傾銷調(diào)查實踐中,有關(guān)歸零法的爭議屢次被提交爭端解決,WTO爭端解決機(jī)構(gòu)已經(jīng)否定了歸零法的合法性。但由于其司法效力的有限性、裁決執(zhí)行機(jī)制的強(qiáng)制力有待加強(qiáng),我們很難要求以美國為首的這些堅持歸零實踐的國家做出改變,特別是美國國內(nèi)法院的強(qiáng)硬態(tài)度也說明這種不公平的貿(mào)易實踐將會在美國繼續(xù)存在下去。唯一徹底的解決方法是在多哈回合談判中修改《反傾銷協(xié)議》,明文禁止歸零法。但當(dāng)前的談判情況依然令人擔(dān)憂,不容樂觀。 作為世界上遭受反傾銷最多的國家,中國飽受歸零法之苦,特別是來自美國的反傾銷歸零調(diào)查,因為美國幾乎在所有反傾銷原審調(diào)查階段都使用歸零法。但時至今日,我國并沒有就所受到的歸零法不公平待遇向WTO爭端解決機(jī)制提起告訴,僅僅以第三方身份參與了WTO爭端解決機(jī)構(gòu)對某些相關(guān)案件的審理。 歸零問題在國內(nèi)學(xué)界尚未引起足夠的重視,有關(guān)文獻(xiàn)也只是做了簡要介紹和評論,研究不夠全面、系統(tǒng)。鑒于此,本文試圖對各種形式的歸零計算法做一個全面的介紹,并且深入分析美國的歸零計算法的違法性。本文將分三部分進(jìn)行論述,具體結(jié)構(gòu)如下: 第一部分是對傾銷問題的基本概述。這部分首先界定了傾銷認(rèn)定過程中的基本概念。然后,這部分著重介紹了傾銷幅度的計算方法,引出正常價值與出口價格比較中的歸零計算法,并對歸零實踐常見的幾種類型一一進(jìn)行介紹。 第二部分介紹了美國歸零法實踐的歷史演進(jìn)。這部分首先介紹了烏拉圭回合協(xié)議前美國的歸零實踐和法院的態(tài)度。然后,梳理了WTO爭端解決機(jī)構(gòu)對美國歸零操作的意見。并且指出,盡管有關(guān)國際組織爭端解決機(jī)制已經(jīng)認(rèn)定歸零法是對國際條約的錯誤解讀,美國法院的態(tài)度卻非常強(qiáng)硬,一直維持歸零實踐在美國的合法性。 第三部分是對美國反傾銷歸零實踐的違法性分析。這是本文的核心所在。首先,這部分從美國國內(nèi)法的角度審視歸零法的違法性:首先引出了與國際義務(wù)緊密相關(guān)的兩個重要的美國行政法原則,并在這兩個原則之下分析,從國內(nèi)法的角度,美國的歸零法是沒有法律依據(jù)的。其次,這部分論述了WTO框架下歸零計算法的違法性:首先介紹WTO爭端解決機(jī)制下對反傾銷案件的評審標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和條款解釋依據(jù),明晰產(chǎn)生歸零法爭議的法律條款,然后通過對GATT1994和《反傾銷協(xié)議》相關(guān)條款的解讀,逐一分析論述了各種歸零計算法在WTO框架下的違法性。最后,本文簡要介紹了多哈回合談判中歸零計算法的發(fā)展趨勢。
[Abstract]:In anti-dumping investigation, the method of zero-to-zero in the calculation of dumping margin is a controversial technique. The zeroing law has been widely used in the practice of anti-dumping investigation by some countries represented by the United States. The disputes about the zeroing law have been submitted to the dispute settlement repeatedly. The WTO dispute settlement body has denied the legitimacy of the zeroing law. However, due to its limited judicial effectiveness, the enforcement mechanism of adjudication needs to be strengthened. It is very difficult for us to ask those countries led by the United States to make changes in their practice of returning to zero. In particular, the tough stance of U.S. domestic courts suggests that unfair trade practices will continue to exist in the United States. The only radical solution is to amend the anti-dumping agreement in the Doha Round to explicitly prohibit the return to zero. But the current negotiations are still worrying, not optimistic. As a country that suffered the most anti-dumping in the world, China suffered from zero law, especially from the United States, because the United States used zero law in almost all stages of the original anti-dumping investigation. But up to now, China has not told the WTO dispute settlement mechanism about the unfair treatment of return to zero, and only participated in some related cases of WTO dispute settlement body as a third party. The problem of returning to zero has not been paid enough attention to in the domestic academic circles, and the relevant literature has only made a brief introduction and comments, and the research is not comprehensive and systematic. In view of this, this paper attempts to make a comprehensive introduction to various forms of zeroing calculation method, and deeply analyzes the illegality of American zeroing calculation method. This paper will be divided into three parts, the specific structure is as follows: The first part is the basic overview of dumping. This part first defines the basic concept of dumping identification process. Then, this part mainly introduces the calculation method of dumping margin, leads to the zero calculation method in the comparison of normal value and export price, and introduces several common types of return to zero practice one by one. The second part introduces the historical evolution of the practice of returning to zero in the United States. This part first introduces the zero-return practice of the United States and the attitude of the court before the Uruguay Round Agreement. Then, the author combs the opinion of WTO dispute settlement body on the operation of American return to zero. It is also pointed out that although the dispute settlement mechanism of international organizations has recognized that the zeroing law is a misinterpretation of international treaties, the attitude of American courts is very tough and has always maintained the legitimacy of the practice of returning to zero in the United States. The third part is the analysis of the illegality of American anti-dumping practice. This is the core of this paper. First of all, this part examines the illegality of zeroing law from the angle of American domestic law. Firstly, it draws out two important American administrative law principles closely related to international obligations, and analyzes them from the angle of domestic law. There is no legal basis for zeroing in the United States. Secondly, this part discusses the illegality of zeroing calculation method under the framework of WTO: firstly, it introduces the evaluation criteria and interpretation basis of anti-dumping cases under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, and clarifies the legal provisions that produce the disputes in the zero-returning law. Then through the interpretation of the relevant articles of GATT1994 and the Anti-dumping Agreement, this paper discusses the illegality of various methods of zero calculation under the framework of WTO one by one. Finally, this paper briefly introduces the trend of zero-to-zero calculation in Doha Round negotiations.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D996.1;D971.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 劉勇;;論反傾銷調(diào)查程序中的“歸零法”[J];法治研究;2008年10期

2 呂曉杰;;美國的Charming Besty原則與WTO協(xié)定的內(nèi)國效力[J];暨南學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2008年04期

3 段濤;;國際條約在國內(nèi)的效力及其適用考察——以WTO協(xié)定的實施為例[J];理論探索;2006年04期

4 顧賓;俸雅妮;;“歸零法”的終結(jié)者:“美國——歸零法(日本)”案介評[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2008年01期

5 李嘉;;反傾銷歸零問題的新發(fā)展——歐共體訴美國反傾銷歸零案剖析[J];WTO經(jīng)濟(jì)導(dǎo)刊;2007年10期

6 余盛興;;“后歸零”時代:警惕美國反傾銷新花樣[J];WTO經(jīng)濟(jì)導(dǎo)刊;2008年06期

，

本文編號：1937044