本文選題：市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位　切入點(diǎn)：反傾銷　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：我國加入WTO以來,雖然在市場經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型中已取得了很大成效,但是以歐盟和美國為代表的一些國家仍然不愿承認(rèn)中國的市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位。2016年12月11日,中國《入世議定書》第15條(a)(ii)款將到期,反傾銷領(lǐng)域的市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位問題再次成為各方關(guān)注焦點(diǎn)。為了探究2016年后中國是否能自動取得WTO成員國一致承認(rèn)市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位這一問題,本文以《入世議定書》第15條原文為基礎(chǔ),結(jié)合2014年“中國非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)問題”論戰(zhàn)中外國學(xué)者的觀點(diǎn)、上訴機(jī)構(gòu)在“緊固件案”中的觀點(diǎn),遵從《維也納條約法公約》中的條約解釋原則,從法律解釋的角度預(yù)估第15條(a)(ii)款到期后的實(shí)際效果,得出第15條(a)(ii)款到期將導(dǎo)致“非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)計(jì)算方法”終止,雖然不能認(rèn)定為自動取得“市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位”,但“市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位”問題可能被架空的結(jié)論。然而,由于WTO規(guī)則與成員國國內(nèi)法規(guī)則分屬不同的法律體系,取得法律解釋上的依據(jù)并不意味著消除成員國“非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)待遇”的歧視性做法,進(jìn)而需要探討我國對于到期后不被承認(rèn)“市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位”可以做出哪些回應(yīng)。本文從國際法與國內(nèi)法兩個(gè)角度出發(fā),一方面探究在歐盟和美國法律體系內(nèi)起訴的可能性,包括企業(yè)和國家兩個(gè)主體的申訴依據(jù);另一方面提出利用WTO爭端解決機(jī)制的訴訟策略。而無論在哪一層面申訴,贏得第15條就意味著初步贏得“市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位”。此外,在國內(nèi)法層面,結(jié)合烏克蘭的做法,本文還提出了可以應(yīng)用反傾銷復(fù)審這一行政審查程序爭取“市場經(jīng)濟(jì)待遇”的思路。另外,因?yàn)闅W盟和美國對他國施加歧視性待遇的依據(jù)不僅限于“非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位”問題,即使未來歐盟和美國承認(rèn)了中國市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位,也并不會實(shí)際消除“非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)計(jì)算方法”,所以還要對歐盟和美國了可能濫用的其他規(guī)則做出預(yù)警分析。本文結(jié)合俄羅斯訴歐盟案、亞美尼亞案、澳大利亞《海關(guān)法》的特殊規(guī)則,探究其他歧視性待遇在國內(nèi)法與國際法中的依據(jù)。著重分析了歐盟和美國最可能利用的“特殊市場狀況”規(guī)則,并通過解讀相關(guān)條文提出了應(yīng)對措施,即瓦解“特殊市場狀況”的依據(jù)。本文僅從法律的角度出發(fā),不考慮政治博弈等其他因素,通過分析論證,提出了第15條對我國有利的解釋方法,落實(shí)了相關(guān)訴訟的策略與法律依據(jù)。盡管從分析中不能認(rèn)定我國可以自動取得市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位,但是仍然可以通過多種途徑爭取市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位,對此我國需要做好在此問題上長期訴訟的準(zhǔn)備。同時(shí)為徹底消除“非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)計(jì)算方法”,本文發(fā)掘了歐盟與美國可能采取的其他歧視性待遇依據(jù),并提出了應(yīng)對措施。
[Abstract]:Since China's entry into WTO, although great achievements have been made in the transformation of the market economy, some countries, represented by the European Union and the United States, are still unwilling to recognize China's market economy status. In December 11th 2016, Article 15 of the Protocol on China's accession to the WTO will expire. The issue of market economy status in the field of anti-dumping has once again become the focus of attention of all parties. In order to explore whether China can automatically obtain the status of market economy recognized unanimously by WTO members after 2016, Based on the original text of Article 15 of the Protocol to the WTO and the views of foreign scholars in the debate on "China's Non-market economy" in 2014, the point of view of the Appellate body in the "Fastener case" is presented in this paper. Complying with the principle of treaty interpretation in the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties, and from the point of view of legal interpretation, estimating the actual effect of article 15 after its expiration, and arriving at the conclusion that the expiration of article 15 will result in the termination of the "non-market economy method of calculation", Although it cannot be considered as automatic acquisition of "market economy status", the question of "market economy status" may be put on the shelf. However, since the WTO rules and the rules of the domestic law of member States are different legal systems, Access to the basis of legal interpretation does not imply the elimination of discriminatory practices of "non-market economy treatment" in member States, Then we need to explore the possible responses of our country to not being recognized as "market economy status" after expiration. This paper, from the perspectives of international law and domestic law, on the one hand, explores the possibility of prosecution within the legal systems of the EU and the United States. On the other hand, it proposes a litigation strategy to utilize the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. However, no matter at any level, winning Article 15 means winning the "market economy status" initially. At the level of domestic law, combined with the practice of Ukraine, this paper also puts forward the idea that the administrative review procedure of anti-dumping review can be applied to strive for "market economy treatment". Because the basis for discriminatory treatment of other countries by the EU and the United States is not limited to the issue of "non-market economy status," even if the EU and the United States recognize China's market economy status in the future. Nor will it actually eliminate the "non-market economy calculation method," so it is necessary to make an early warning analysis of other rules that may have been abused by the EU and the United States. This article combines Russia v. the European Union case, Armenia case, The special rules of Australia's Customs Act, exploring the basis for other discriminatory treatment in domestic and international law, and focusing on the "special market conditions" rules most likely to be used by the European Union and the United States, And through the interpretation of the relevant articles put forward countermeasures, that is, the basis for the disintegration of "special market conditions." this article only from the perspective of the law, do not consider other factors such as political games, through analysis and demonstration, This paper puts forward the interpretation method of Article 15 in favor of our country, and implements the strategy and legal basis of the relevant litigation. Although it cannot be concluded from the analysis that China can automatically acquire market economy status, But we can still fight for market economy status through a variety of channels. In order to eliminate the "calculation method of non-market economy", this paper explores the basis of other discriminatory treatment that may be adopted by the European Union and the United States, and puts forward some countermeasures.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D996.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 何志鵬;;國際經(jīng)濟(jì)法治格局的研判與應(yīng)對——兼論TPP的中國立場[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2016年01期

2 趙海樂;;論中國“非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)因素”在2016年后的轉(zhuǎn)化——以歐盟對華反傾銷為例[J];華南理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);2015年06期

3 朱兆敏;;論世界貿(mào)易組織與中國的市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位[J];法學(xué);2015年09期

4 劉學(xué)文;朱京安;;國際貿(mào)易救濟(jì)中我國非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位的困境與突圍[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)問題探索;2015年04期

5 趙海樂;;澳大利亞對華反傾銷中“特殊市場情況”的濫用[J];國際經(jīng)貿(mào)探索;2014年06期

6 李雪平;;對中國在WTO體制內(nèi)能否如期取得完全市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位的幾點(diǎn)思考[J];上海對外經(jīng)貿(mào)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2014年02期

7 陳力;;WTO涉華貿(mào)易救濟(jì)爭端案中的NME問題[J];海關(guān)法評論;2013年00期

8 何志鵬;;國際經(jīng)濟(jì)法治:內(nèi)涵、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與路徑[J];國際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2012年04期

9 朱丁普;;歐洲聯(lián)盟反傾銷法上非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)制度本質(zhì)探究[J];中外法學(xué);2012年05期

10 何志鵬;;WTO的法治化與中國立場[J];國際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2010年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陳力;國際貿(mào)易救濟(jì)法律制度中的非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)則研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2006年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 黃帥楠;美國拒絕承認(rèn)中國市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位的戰(zhàn)略意圖、策略及影響分析[D];華東師范大學(xué);2014年

2 曲yN婷;由歐盟緊固件案看中國非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)問題[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

3 馬桂華;中國非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位法律問題研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：1640402