本文選題：WTO + 區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定�。� 參考：《上海外國語大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：近年來,世界貿(mào)易組織多哈回合談判停滯不前,各國紛紛通過區(qū)域性經(jīng)濟體制促進經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易的進一步發(fā)展。隨著區(qū)域性經(jīng)濟體制的增加,WTO及其法律制度逐漸受到了影響與沖擊,不同的區(qū)域性體制構(gòu)建不同的爭端解決機制,進而產(chǎn)生管轄權(quán)沖突等問題的可能性也日漸提高。根據(jù)《關(guān)稅及貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》第24條、授權(quán)條款及《服務(wù)貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》第5條的規(guī)定,WTO成員國可以同時擁有區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定成員的雙重身份。因此,爭端解決機制選擇的不同導(dǎo)致了管轄權(quán)沖突。這一問題將帶來判決沖突等一系列問題,不利于國際貿(mào)易秩序的穩(wěn)定及國際貿(mào)易法律秩序有序發(fā)展。鑒于此,對二者沖突進行協(xié)調(diào)十分必要。中國在WTO具有一國四席的特殊地位,同時又積極與多個國家和地區(qū)開展區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定談判,推進區(qū)域經(jīng)濟一體化的進程。在二者爭端解決機制下發(fā)生的管轄權(quán)沖突的情況已有先例,這一議題的研究對我國處理國際貿(mào)易爭端時對管轄權(quán)沖突的處理也有很大的借鑒作用和參考價值。基于此,本文通過對WTO與區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定爭端解決機制下的管轄權(quán)沖突現(xiàn)狀的梳理,從而嘗試從法律規(guī)范的角度對這一問題進行分析,進而以實踐中解決方式為基礎(chǔ)提出可行性建議。在這一思路下,本文主要分為三個部分,各部分主要內(nèi)容如下:第一部分:從管轄權(quán)沖突問題的發(fā)生說起,對管轄權(quán)沖突的原因進行研究。管轄權(quán)沖突的情形分為兩類:一為爭端一方在WTO與RTA重復(fù)申訴、二為爭端各方在WTO與區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定分別申訴。通過對加拿大軟木案、巴西家禽案和墨西哥軟飲料案的分析將問題引出,并對原因進行分析。本文認為,管轄權(quán)沖突發(fā)生的原因主要有.:管轄范圍的重疊、管轄權(quán)的制度差異、當事方的利益平衡三點。并圍繞此三點進行了深入討論。第二部分:WTO與區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定中關(guān)于爭端解決管轄問題的規(guī)定。這一部分從條文入手,對WTO及區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定下的管轄權(quán)規(guī)則分別進行了分析。目的在于從規(guī)則的角度,以條文分析的方式研究WTO及區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定對于相互之間的管轄權(quán)沖突問題的認定,進而對區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定下調(diào)和管轄權(quán)沖突的管轄權(quán)選擇條款的有效性進行了進一步分析。該類條款雖然在制度設(shè)計上考慮到了管轄權(quán)沖突情形的出現(xiàn),但實則只能對區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定下的爭端解決機構(gòu)產(chǎn)生單向效力,而無法在區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定的范圍之外,對WTO爭端解決機構(gòu)產(chǎn)生任何約束力。第三部分:協(xié)調(diào)沖突的路徑——管轄沖突問題的解決。這一部分結(jié)合前兩章的案例分析,提煉出實踐中現(xiàn)行的調(diào)和管轄權(quán)沖突的三種方式:其一為通過區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定中管轄權(quán)選擇條款進行調(diào)和;其二為WTO上訴機構(gòu)通過法律障礙進行調(diào)和;其三為通過國際法原則的運用對管轄權(quán)沖突進行調(diào)和。通過對上述三種方式的研究,嘗試提出在現(xiàn)行法律規(guī)范的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合國際私法領(lǐng)域及其他國際組織已有實踐及相關(guān)制度對管轄權(quán)沖突問題的解決提出相應(yīng)建議并可行性分析。借鑒國際法院、國際刑事法院、國際投資爭端解決中心等其他國家組織中對管轄權(quán)及可受理性概念的區(qū)分,進而將其與區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定之間的管轄權(quán)沖突以及上述一事不再理等國際法原則視為WTO行使管轄權(quán)的法律障礙拒絕對案件行使管轄的方式,也是實踐中較為務(wù)實的做法。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the Doha Round negotiations of the world trade organization have stagnated. Countries have promoted the further development of economic and trade through regional economic systems. With the increase of regional economic system, the WTO and its legal system are gradually affected and impacted. Different regional systems build different dispute settlement mechanisms, and then produce management. The possibility of conflict of jurisdiction and other issues is increasing. In accordance with the general agreement on Tariffs and trade (GATT) twenty-fourth, the provisions of the authorization clause and the fifth article of the general agreement on trade in services, the WTO member states can have the dual identity of the members of the regional trade agreements. Therefore, the difference in the choice of the dispute settlement mechanism leads to the conflict of jurisdiction. It is not conducive to the stability of the international trade order and the orderly development of the legal order of international trade. In view of this, it is necessary to coordinate the conflict between the two parties. China has a special position of four seats in WTO, and actively negotiations with a number of countries and regions to open regional trade agreements to advance the regional economy. There is a precedent in the case of the conflict of jurisdiction in the two party dispute settlement mechanism. The study of this topic also has a great reference and reference value for the handling of the conflict of jurisdiction in China's handling of international trade disputes. Based on this, this article through the jurisdiction of the dispute settlement mechanism under the WTO and the regional trade agreement. The present situation of the right conflict is combed, so as to try to analyze the problem from the perspective of legal norms, and then put forward the feasibility proposal based on the practical solution. Under this idea, this article is divided into three parts, the main contents of each part are as follows: the first part: from the occurrence of the issue of jurisdiction conflict, the conflict of jurisdiction The reasons for the conflict are divided into two categories: one is the repeated complaint by the party in the WTO and the RTA, and the second is the parties to the dispute in WTO and the regional trade agreement. The analysis of the Canadian cork case, the Brazil poultry case and the Mexico soft drink case is cited, and the reasons are analyzed. This article holds that jurisdiction The main reasons are: the overlap of the jurisdiction, the institutional difference of jurisdiction, the balance of the interests of the parties three points. And the three points are discussed in depth. The second part: the provisions on the dispute settlement jurisdiction in the WTO and the regional trade agreements. This part begins with the provisions, and the jurisdiction under the WTO and the regional trade agreements. The right rules are analyzed respectively. The purpose is to study the identification of the conflict of jurisdiction between WTO and regional trade agreements from the perspective of rules, and further analyze the effectiveness of the jurisdiction selection clauses of the regional trade agreements and jurisdiction conflicts. In the design of the system, the conflict of jurisdiction is taken into account, but it can only produce one way effect to the dispute settlement agency under the regional trade agreement, but can not be binding on the WTO dispute settlement body outside the scope of the regional trade agreement. The third part: the path of coordination conflict: the solution of the conflict of jurisdiction. This part combines the case analysis of the first two chapters to extract three ways of the current conflict of harmonized jurisdiction in practice: one is to reconcile the jurisdiction selection clause in the regional trade agreement, and the second is to reconcile the WTO appellate body through legal obstacles; thirdly, the third is to adjust the conflict of jurisdiction through the application of the principles of international law. Through the study of the above three ways, we try to put forward some suggestions and feasibility analysis on the settlement of the conflict of jurisdiction on the basis of the current legal norms and the existing practice and related systems of international private law and other international organizations. It is also a practical practice in practice in other countries, such as the distinction between jurisdiction and the concept of admissibility, and then the conflict between the jurisdiction of the regional trade agreements and the principle of the no longer principle of international law as the legal impediments to the exercise of jurisdiction by the WTO.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海外國語大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D996.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王春婕;;區(qū)域與WTO管轄權(quán)沖突協(xié)調(diào)機制探析——以NAFTA的實踐為例[J];東岳論叢;2012年12期

2 許多;;論WTO區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定透明度機制委托執(zhí)行機構(gòu)的結(jié)構(gòu)調(diào)整[J];江蘇社會科學(xué);2012年04期

3 嚴蓉;;區(qū)域貿(mào)易協(xié)定與WTO爭端解決機制的管轄權(quán)博弈——美墨糖類產(chǎn)品系列爭端引發(fā)的思考[J];國際經(jīng)濟法學(xué)刊;2010年03期

4 Leon E. Trakman;杜麗源;;論雙邊自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定擴張的利與弊[J];經(jīng)濟資料譯叢;2009年03期

5 徐運良;;協(xié)調(diào)WTO與RTAs爭端解決機制管轄權(quán)沖突的方法探析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年05期

6 黃萃;紀文華;;世貿(mào)組織體制下自貿(mào)區(qū)爭端管轄沖突問題研究[J];國際貿(mào)易問題;2006年11期

7 紀文華;黃萃;;從案例看WTO如何處理RTA爭端管轄權(quán)問題[J];河北法學(xué);2006年11期

8 王宇飛,高翔;中國——東盟自由貿(mào)易區(qū)貿(mào)易創(chuàng)造與貿(mào)易轉(zhuǎn)移效應(yīng)[J];當代經(jīng)濟;2005年07期

9 鐘立國;GATT1994第24條的歷史與法律分析[J];法學(xué)評論;2003年06期

10 韓龍;世貿(mào)組織的區(qū)域經(jīng)濟一體化制度芻議[J];國際貿(mào)易問題;2003年03期

，

本文編號：1872771