本文選題：特定產品過渡性保障措施　切入點：《中國入世議定書》16條　出處：《中國政法大學》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：2008年金融危機使美國經濟遭受重創(chuàng),消費者信心大幅下降,開始節(jié)衣縮食。在輪胎市場中消費者逐漸將眼光投向物美價廉的中國產品,中國輪胎在美國市場所占比例上升。正是在這種背景下,2009年奧巴馬政府宣布對來自中國的輪胎實施附加關稅。中國對此問題提出磋商,磋商未果后,中國將美國實施的保障措施訴至WTO,專家組判決中國敗訴。美國的這種以市場擾亂為由對中國實施的保障措施,是特定產品過渡性保障措施,在WTO法律中的依據是《中國入世議定書》第16條(以下簡稱“16條”)。本文正是依據16條對專家組裁決進行分析。 本文主要通過對16條與《保障措施協定》之間的關系、16.1與16.4之間的關系以及條款本身所含詞語的含義的分析,對16條進行了深入的研究,從而對專家組關于相關問題的認定進行分析。 此篇論文分為四個部分： 第一部分：輪胎特保案概述,主要分析了輪胎特保案情,《中國入世議定書》中的特定產品過渡性保障措施的形成以及輪胎特保案涉及的主要法律問題。其中重點闡述了《中國入世議定書》中的特定產品過渡性保障措施的形成。其他部分分別論述輪胎特保案涉及的主要法律問題。 第二部分：對輪胎特保案中所涉及的法律問題進行研究,論述了特定產品過渡性保障措施是否能直接適用《保障措施協定》。通過對WTO法律解釋規(guī)則的介紹和運用,結合特定產品過渡性保障措施產生的原因、相關法律條文等方面進行闡述。 第三部分：分析專家組對16.4中“正在迅速增長”的認定。通過對《保障措施協定》中WTO審判實踐確定的“數量已經如此增長”的闡述,結合《中國入世議定書》16.4自身的法律文本以及目的和意圖,運用法律解釋方法,分析專家組對于“正在迅速增長”的認定是否合理。 第四部分：分析專家組對因果關系和必需的限度的認定。首先列舉了各方在因果關系和必需限度這兩個問題上的分歧；其次,針對分歧,通過對《保障措施協定》下WTO審判實踐中的相關解釋的介紹,結合《中國入世議定書》16條自身規(guī)定和輪胎特保案的案情,分析專家組的認定。 通過各部分的論證,最終得出專家組對16條的解釋是不充分、不完全的,因為其并沒有解釋16.6條中規(guī)定的“必需的時限”,也沒有解釋16.3中規(guī)定的“必需的限度”,而這兩者的解釋直接關系到美國確定的調查期間是否合法,從而關系到美國采取的特保措施是否合法。另外,對于因果關系的證明方法、不可歸因原則,專家組的認定雖然是合理的,但是,筆者認為專家組可以依據公平公正原則以及WTO的基本精神對《中國入世議定書》16條進行解釋,以使特定產品過渡性保障措施實施方負有分析競爭情況以及履行不可歸因原則的義務,這樣才能同時實現對保障措施相對方的公平正義,也有利于實現WTO貿易自由與提升成員方福利的宗旨。
[Abstract]:In 2008 the financial crisis in the U.S. economy hit consumer confidence fell sharply in the tire market began to tighten their belts. Consumers gradually will look into the Chinese Chinese by high quality and inexpensive products, the proportion of rising tire market in the United States. It is in this context, the Obama government in 2009 announced the implementation of additional tariffs on tires from China. Put forward consultation China in this regard, the negotiations fail, Chinese security measures will be taken to the United States to implement the WTO, expert group decision Chinese lost. The market to disrupt the security measures on the grounds of the Chinese implementation, is a transitional product specific safeguard measures, in the WTO legal basis is the "Chinese Accession Protocol > sixteenth (hereinafter referred to as the" 16 "). This paper is based on the 16 article of the expert group decision analysis.
This article mainly studies the 16 articles through the analysis of the relationship between the 16 articles and the agreement of safeguard measures, the relationship between 16.1 and 16.4, and the meaning of the words contained in the terms, so as to analyze the cognizance of the expert group on related issues.
This paper is divided into four parts:
The first part: the overview of tires, the main analysis of the tire special safeguard case, "the main legal problems of the formation of the transitional safeguard measures specific products China Accession Protocol > and the tyres case involved. Which focuses on the formation of" China Accession Protocol > in the specific product transitional safeguard measures. The other part discusses the main legal problems of tires involved.
The second part: the tires safeguard the legal issues involved in the case study, discusses the transitional product specific safeguard measures whether it is applicable to "safeguard agreement through interpretation. Introduction and application of WTO legal rules, combined with the causes of transitional product specific safeguard measures, the relevant legal provisions and other aspects.
The third part: the analysis of the expert group on the identification of 16.4 "is growing rapidly." according to the < security measures agreement > WTO to determine the trial practice in the "quantity has been described, combined with the" growth "Chinese Accession Protocol >16.4 its legal text and the intention of the use of legal interpretation methods, analysis of the expert group for the identification of" growing "is reasonable.
The fourth part: the analysis of the expert group identification of causal relationship and the necessary limits. It lists the parties in the causal relationship and the necessary limits of these two issues; secondly, according to the differences, through the interpretation of WTO related security measures agreement in the trial practice of < >, with < Chinese accession protocol >16 a self regulation and tire special safeguard case, identification and analysis of the expert group.
After all the analysis, finally draws the expert group's interpretation of Article 16 is not sufficient, not completely, because it does not explain the provisions of article 16.6 of the required time limit ", also did not explain the 16.3 provisions of the" necessary ", which is directly related to the interpretation of the United States during the determination the investigation is legal, which is related to the United States to take the special safeguard measures are legitimate. In addition, the method to prove a causal relationship, can not be attributed to principle, the expert group that although is reasonable, but the author thinks, the expert group can according to the China < accession protocol >16 to explain the basic spirit and principles of fair justice WTO, in order to make the transitional product specific safeguard measures shall analyze competition situation and performance does not attributable to the principle of the obligation, so as to realize the security measures of each phase of fairness and justice, but also conducive to Realizing the freedom of WTO trade and promoting the purpose of member Fang Fuli.

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

【引證文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 陸董豪;中美輪胎特保案之法律思考[D];華東政法大學;2012年

，

本文編號：1721039