本文關(guān)鍵詞： 歸零法 違法性 效力約束 發(fā)展趨勢　出處：《西南政法大學》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：歸零方法是某些國家在反傾銷調(diào)查中計算傾銷幅度的一種方法。該種方法的適用由來已久,其適用引發(fā)了諸多國家的不滿和國家之間的貿(mào)易摩擦。雖然一直以來許多國家對該方法的適用質(zhì)疑,但是對該方法的規(guī)制卻少之又少。在GATT時代,由于缺乏相應(yīng)制度保障和法律約束,盡管該種方法被質(zhì)疑和訴諸專家組,但是該種方法存在卻得到了支持。在WTO時代,歸零方法被頻繁訴諸WTO爭端解決機構(gòu),質(zhì)疑該方法本身的合法性和適用的合法性。但是隨著《反傾銷協(xié)定》的進一步完善,歸零方法舉證責任分配的改變,WTO爭端解決機構(gòu)越來越傾向于否定這一方法本身的存在以及適用。 但是以美國為代表的國家不僅堅持適用歸零方法,而且試圖將其塞入多哈回合談判協(xié)議文本中使其合法化。這種情況的出現(xiàn)不得不讓我們重新思考我們“聲稱”已經(jīng)取得的歸零方法的“成果”:WTO爭端解決機構(gòu)對歸零方法的全面否定是否意味著歸零方法的終結(jié)?筆者的回答是否定的。筆者認為原因主要有以下幾個方面:第一,WTO爭端解決機構(gòu)對案件的裁決只對該案件有約束力,而對于其他案件沒有直接的約束力。因此即使案件相似,WTO爭端解決機構(gòu)對上一個案件的裁決也不能直接應(yīng)用到下一個案件之中,而僅僅具有參考價值。這也是美國雖頻頻敗訴,但是依舊堅持使用歸零方法的原因。第二,在進行的多哈回合談判中,歸零方法是反傾銷談判中爭論的焦點。在談判中,支持歸零方法的國家和反對歸零方法的國家爭持不下,歸零方法的未來充滿了變數(shù)。但是從2007年主席文本中可以看出支持歸零方法的國家占據(jù)了有利地位。在這種情況下僅僅憑借WTO爭端解決機構(gòu)全面否定歸零方法使用的裁決而認為歸零方法已經(jīng)被終結(jié),有失偏頗。 近年來,國內(nèi)學者開始關(guān)注歸零方法,并進行了研究。但是這些研究大多集中在歸零方法的個別案例的分析上,而沒有從整體上分析和梳理歸零方法所涉及到國際反傾銷理論和實踐問題。筆者試圖通過本文來梳理歸零法產(chǎn)生、發(fā)展以及趨勢,并通過案例分析歸零方法所涉及到的國際條約和協(xié)定,為中國應(yīng)對反傾銷歸零問題提供參考。 本文分為三部分:引言、正文和結(jié)語。在正文中筆者主要分為四部分來介紹: 第一部分為“歸零法的概念以及歷史發(fā)展”,是本文的理論基石。在該部分中,筆者首先根據(jù)《反傾銷協(xié)議》和GATT1994對傾銷幅度進行闡釋,從而對歸零方法進行界定。然后對于歸零方法的歷史發(fā)展進行梳理,以便讀者有一個清晰的脈絡(luò)。 第二部分為“歸零方法主要法律癥結(jié)分析”。在該部分中,筆者分階段來闡述歸零方法的適用,在各個階段歸零方法是如何適用的,在個案中其存在和適用是否違反了相關(guān)的國際條約和協(xié)定,同時專家組和上訴機構(gòu)的裁決又是如何,進而梳理歸零方法違法性和存在的不合理性。 第三部分為“WTO爭端解決機構(gòu)與歸零方法裁定效力”。這一部分涉及到WTO專家組和上訴機構(gòu)裁決的效力以及其對后來案件的約束力這類基本的理論問題。在這一部分中筆者還將涉及到歸零方法在美國國內(nèi)的適用以及美國國內(nèi)對于歸零方法的態(tài)度問題。筆者試圖通過對這一問題的闡述來分析美國頻頻敗訴而依舊堅持適用該方法的原因。 第四部分為“歸零法的發(fā)展趨勢”。筆者將分析2007年主席文本以及其他的資料,對歸零法的“命運”進行預測,并提出中國的應(yīng)對之策。
[Abstract]:Zero method is a method of calculating dumping margins in some countries in the anti-dumping investigation. The application of the method for its long-standing, caused a lot of trade friction between countries and countries. Although the application of discontent to question the method that many countries have been, but the regulation of the method is less and less in the GATT era, due to lack of laws and regulations, although this method has been questioned and resorting to the group of experts, but this method is supported in the WTO era, the zero method is frequently resort to WTO dispute settlement mechanism, the method itself questioned the legality and legitimacy. But for with the "anti dumping agreement" to further improve the zero method for the distribution of burden of proof, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is more and more inclined to deny the method itself exists and applicable.
But the countries represented by the United States not only insist on the application of zero method, and attempts to legitimize it into the text of the agreement in Doha Round negotiations. We rethink the "claims" zero method has achieved the "results": the emergence of this situation we have to negate the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to zero method does that mean the end of return to zero method? The answer is no. I think the reason mainly has the following several aspects: first, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism on the case and ruling only binding on the case, but there is no direct binding to other cases. So even if the case is similar to that of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism of ruling a case cannot be directly applied to the next case, but only has the reference value. This is also the United States is frequently lost, but still insist on using zero method Reason. Second, in the Doha round of negotiations, the zero method is the focus of anti-dumping negotiations in the dispute. In the negotiations, support zero method zero method against state and national deadlock, full of variables zero method in the future. But from 2007 the text can be seen in the support to the president zero method countries occupy a favorable position. In this case only by virtue of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism completely zero method using the judgment that the zero method has been concluded, biased.
In recent years, domestic scholars began to focus on zero method, and carried out the research. But most of these studies focused on the analysis of individual cases of zero method, but not from the overall analysis and combing zero method involved in the international anti-dumping theory and practice. The author tries to sort out to zero method well, the development trend, and through the case analysis of international treaties and agreements relating to the zero method, for China anti-dumping zero and provide a reference.
This article is divided into three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. In the text, the author is divided into four parts to introduce:
The first part is "zeroing the concept and historical development", is the theoretical foundation of this paper. In this part, the author firstly according to the interpretation of the margin of dumping and anti dumping agreement > GATT1994, which defines the zero method. Then the historical development of zeroing in comb, so that readers have a clear context.
The second part is the analysis of "zero" method of main legal problem. In this part, the author expounds application of zero phase method, zero return method in each stage is how to apply, in the case of the existence and applicability is a violation of the relevant international treaties and agreements, at the same time, the panel and the appellate body the ruling is how unreasonable and combing zeroing illegality and existence.
The third part is "the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and the method of zero ruling validity". This part involves the WTO effect of the panel and the Appellate Body ruling and the later case binding this kind of basic theoretical problems. In this part, the author will also involve the zero method in the application of the domestic and the United States for attitude zero method. The author tries to explain this problem to analyze why the United States frequently lost and still adhere to the application of the method.
The fourth part is "the development trend of the zeroing method". The author will analyze the 2007 chairman's text and other materials, predict the fate of the zeroing method, and propose China's countermeasures.

【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10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 鄧德雄;比較應(yīng)公平——歐共體反傾銷“零”做法及引發(fā)的爭議[J];國際貿(mào)易;2001年05期

3 鄧旭 ,謝冰;WTO反傾銷守則對發(fā)展中國家的“優(yōu)惠”規(guī)定——歐共體床單案的啟示[J];國際經(jīng)貿(mào)探索;2001年06期

4 唐宇;顯失公允的傾銷幅度裁定過程探析[J];國際經(jīng)貿(mào)探索;2005年01期

5 韋靜;熊志堅;;反傾銷調(diào)查中的“歸零”法及其爭端[J];國際經(jīng)貿(mào)探索;2006年03期

6 盛建明;美國反傾銷法對傾銷幅度的規(guī)定之例釋[J];世界機電經(jīng)貿(mào)信息;1996年06期

7 鄧德雄;;印度訴歐共體棉織床上用品反傾銷爭端介評[J];世界貿(mào)易組織動態(tài)與研究;2002年04期

8 張宏樂;;WTO《反傾銷協(xié)議》中的公平價格比較——最近案例中對歸零方法的否定[J];世界貿(mào)易組織動態(tài)與研究;2004年07期

9 顧賓;俸雅妮;;“歸零法”最新案例介評——“美國-歸零法(日本)”案[J];世界貿(mào)易組織動態(tài)與研究;2007年11期

10 劉勇;;多哈回合反傾銷規(guī)則改革的最新成果探析[J];世界貿(mào)易組織動態(tài)與研究;2008年08期

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前4條

1 陳琳;美國反傾銷調(diào)查中關(guān)于“歸零”處理的案例研究[D];對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易大學;2007年

2 陳曦;論反傾銷中的“歸零計算法”[D];中國政法大學;2007年

3 姬保英;WTO反傾銷爭端之“歸零法”探析[D];中國政法大學;2009年

4 張譯丹;從WTO反傾銷歸零爭議看美國法律解釋原則之沖突[D];復旦大學;2009年

，

本文編號：1550672