本文選題：SPS措施 + 貿(mào)易壁壘�。� 參考：《中國政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 2004年,中美雙方協(xié)議相互解除禽肉產(chǎn)品相關(guān)禁令,由中國對(duì)美國冷凍禽肉及制品開放市場(chǎng),而美國則承諾對(duì)中國熟制禽肉制品開放市場(chǎng)。但是,美國卻在中國履約后拖延對(duì)中國禽肉制品開放市場(chǎng),更于《2009年綜合撥款法案》第“727條款”中以限制政府資金使用途徑的方式將中國禽肉制品拒之門外。為維護(hù)本國在WTO協(xié)議下的合法權(quán)益,商務(wù)部于2009年4月將美國訴至WTO。就在“中國訴美國禽肉進(jìn)口措施爭端”解決程序向前推進(jìn)的過程中,2009年10月,美國總統(tǒng)簽署通過了《2010年農(nóng)業(yè)撥款法》,其中以第“743條款”取代了“727條款”。從字面上看,“743條款”的內(nèi)容似乎放寬了“727條款”對(duì)中國禽肉出口美國的限制,但根據(jù)該條款規(guī)定,美國農(nóng)業(yè)部要使用財(cái)政資金檢驗(yàn)中國禽肉體系需要滿足一系列苛刻標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并經(jīng)歷十分繁復(fù)冗長的程序,這嚴(yán)重阻礙著中國禽肉制品對(duì)美出口的實(shí)現(xiàn)。 為了有理有據(jù)又有力地應(yīng)對(duì)美國“743條款”可能給中國國內(nèi)禽肉產(chǎn)業(yè)帶來的不利影響,我們有必要分析該條款的性質(zhì)并判斷其是否構(gòu)成國際貿(mào)易壁壘。 “743條款”出臺(tái)不久,尚未見到官方中文譯文,所以,筆者在引言中簡要介紹了美國“743條款”出臺(tái)的背景,并在文章第一部分介紹了該條款主要內(nèi)容。 接下來,在第二部分,筆者對(duì)照《SPS協(xié)定》規(guī)定的SPS措施定義,對(duì)“743條款”的性質(zhì)加以分析。從其實(shí)施目的、實(shí)施效果和措施形式入手,得出“743條款”構(gòu)成SPS措施,屬于《SPS協(xié)定》約束范圍的結(jié)論。 確定了“743條款”的SPS措施性質(zhì)后,筆者在文章的第三部分著力對(duì)《SPS協(xié)定》的主要原則,包括科學(xué)證據(jù)原則、風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估和適度保護(hù)原則、非歧視原則及等效性原則在協(xié)定中的地位及其相互關(guān)系展開分析;在此基礎(chǔ)上,又結(jié)合WTO經(jīng)典爭端案例,進(jìn)一步對(duì)各原則的內(nèi)容及其涉及的爭議點(diǎn)進(jìn)行研究。其中:科學(xué)證據(jù)原則的研究重點(diǎn)是科學(xué)證據(jù)“充分性”的認(rèn)定及該原則與“臨時(shí)措施”的關(guān)系;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估與適度保護(hù)原則的分析重點(diǎn)是風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估的考量因素、適度保護(hù)的基本要求、適當(dāng)保護(hù)水平與具體措施的關(guān)系這三個(gè)問題;對(duì)非歧視原則的研究集中在判斷SPS措施違反該原則所必須具備的條件上;對(duì)等效性原則的分析則圍繞該原則的重要性及其不斷具體化、可操作化的進(jìn)程展開。 最后,對(duì)照文章第三部分中對(duì)《SPS協(xié)定》各重要原則含義的分析,筆者進(jìn)一步分析美國“743條款”的性質(zhì),并得出該條款違背了《SPS協(xié)定》的科學(xué)證據(jù)原則、風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估和適度保護(hù)原則及非歧視原則的結(jié)論,論證了“743條款”的貿(mào)易壁壘性質(zhì)。
[Abstract]:In 2004, China and the United States agreed to lift each other's ban on poultry products, allowing China to open its markets to frozen poultry meat and products from the United States, while the United States pledged to open the market to Chinese cooked poultry products. However, the United States delayed opening the market for Chinese poultry products after China's compliance, and in section 727 of the 2009 Comprehensive Appropriations Act, it barred Chinese poultry products by restricting the use of government funds. To protect its legitimate rights and interests under the WTO agreement, the Commerce Department sued the United States in April 2009. In the course of the settlement of the dispute over measures for the importation of poultry meat from China v. the United States, in October 2009, the President of the United States signed and passed the Agricultural Appropriations Act of 2010, which replaces section 727 with section 743. Literally, the content of Section 743 appears to relax the restrictions on the export of Chinese poultry meat to the United States under Section 727, but under that provision, The USDA's use of financial funds to test China's poultry system needs to meet a series of tough standards and go through a cumbersome and lengthy process that seriously hampers exports of Chinese poultry products to the United States. In order to deal with the possible adverse effects of the US "Section 743" on China's domestic poultry industry, it is necessary to analyze the nature of the clause and determine whether it constitutes an international trade barrier. "743 clause" has not seen official translation in Chinese, so the author briefly introduces the background of "743 clause" in the introduction, and introduces the main content of the article in the first part of the article. Then, in the second part, the author analyzes the nature of "743 clause" with reference to the definition of SPS measures stipulated in the SPS Agreement. Starting with the purpose, effect and form of implementation, it is concluded that "743 clause" constitutes SPS measures and belongs to the binding scope of SPS Agreement. After determining the nature of SPS measures in Section 743, the author focuses on the main principles of the SPS Agreement, including the principle of scientific evidence, the principle of risk assessment and the principle of appropriate protection, in the third part of the article. On the basis of the analysis of the position of the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of equivalence in the agreement and the relationship between them, this paper further studies the contents of the principles and their controversial points in the light of the classic dispute cases of WTO. Among them, the research emphasis of the principle of scientific evidence is the recognition of "adequacy" of scientific evidence and the relationship between the principle and "interim measures", and the analysis of the principle of risk assessment and appropriate protection is the consideration of risk assessment. The basic requirements of appropriate protection, the relationship between the appropriate level of protection and the specific measures, the research on the principle of non-discrimination focuses on the conditions necessary for judging the violation of the principle by SPS measures; The analysis of the principle of equivalence revolves around the importance of the principle and its concrete and operable process. Finally, according to the analysis of the meaning of the important principles of the SPS Agreement in the third part of the article, the author further analyzes the nature of the "743 Clause" in the United States, and draws a conclusion that the Article violates the principle of scientific evidence of the "SPS Agreement". The conclusion of risk assessment, moderate protection principle and non-discrimination principle demonstrates the nature of Trade Barrier in Article 743.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D971.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉漢榮,薛荊枝,張霞;WTO主要條款對(duì)我軍裝備建設(shè)的適用與影響[J];裝備指揮技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年01期

2 湯海南!廣州航海高等�？茖W(xué)校航海系!廣州510725;關(guān)于“不應(yīng)妨礙”條款的理解及運(yùn)用[J];廣州航海高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);1998年02期

3 湯海南;關(guān)于“不應(yīng)妨礙”條款的理解及運(yùn)用[J];航海技術(shù);2000年05期

4 彭星東;淺談簽訂合同[J];湖南財(cái)經(jīng)高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2002年02期

5 牛相鋒;勞動(dòng)合同條款的設(shè)定與運(yùn)用[J];河北煤炭;2003年04期

6 陳利;唐軍;胡現(xiàn)存;;對(duì)中華人民共和國招標(biāo)投標(biāo)法個(gè)別條款的商榷[J];山西建筑;2007年04期

7 姚杰,杜春政,文干;關(guān)于修改《1972年國際海上避碰規(guī)則》增加有關(guān)從事捕魚船舶條款的建議[J];大連水產(chǎn)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1998年01期

8 趙程濤;一起提單管轄權(quán)條款糾紛案之我見[J];中國海商法年刊;1999年00期

9 ;簽了“忠誠條款”就能保護(hù)商業(yè)秘密嗎?[J];鄉(xiāng)音;2001年02期

10 張士功;紀(jì)純;;芻議2004版《土地管理法》值得商榷之處[J];中國農(nóng)業(yè)資源與區(qū)劃;2006年02期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 胡仁鎖;;對(duì)《1972年國際海上避碰規(guī)則》條款的理解和修改意見[A];中國航海學(xué)會(huì)海洋船舶駕駛專業(yè)委員會(huì)論文集（1995—1997）[C];1995年

2 金志忠;;對(duì)長江客汽渡船權(quán)利義務(wù)變化的探討[A];2008年度海事管理學(xué)術(shù)交流會(huì)優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2008年

3 羅迪;;鑄件貿(mào)易合同中仿真條款的法律意思[A];2009重慶市鑄造年會(huì)論文集[C];2009年

4 趙承恩;;對(duì)《中華人民共和國人民幣管理?xiàng)l例》個(gè)別條款概念的建議[A];《內(nèi)蒙古金融研究》錢幣文集（第六輯）[C];2006年

5 李曉，

本文編號(hào)：1965860