本文選題：WTO + 審查標準　； 參考：《哈爾濱工業(yè)大學》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：WTO爭端解決機構在審理爭端案件的過程中,一般會對當事方的國內法或者當事方當局的裁定作出判斷,由此產生了國家主權與WTO管轄權之間的沖突。兩者間如何進行權力分配,是WTO爭端審查標準所要解決的問題。中國近年來涉案量急遽上升,并出現(xiàn)了為履行爭端解決機構報告被迫修改國內法的立法實踐,這使得對此問題的研究十分迫切。本文結合近年來中國參與WTO爭端解決機制的實踐,運用規(guī)范分析法和案例分析法,分析了現(xiàn)行審查標準規(guī)范和中國涉案案例,并針對中國訴訟參與過程中存在的問題,提出了相應對策。 論文首先介紹和分析了WTO爭端審查標準的基本理論,包括三方面的內容。第一,審查標準的內涵解決審查標準是什么的問題,并對事實問題和法律問題進行了區(qū)分。第二,審查標準與其他程序規(guī)則的關系,包括審查標準與WTO爭端解決機構管轄權、證據規(guī)則間的聯(lián)系、區(qū)別等。第三,審查標準的發(fā)展趨勢。它以發(fā)展的視角分析了從GATT時期到多哈回合談判三個時期的審查標準。 之后,對WTO爭端審查標準進行了規(guī)范分析,主要分析了《反傾銷協(xié)定》第17.6條和DSU第11條。通過分析《反傾銷協(xié)定》第17.6條,可以發(fā)現(xiàn):對于此類案件的事實證據、事實結論和法律問題的審查,爭端解決機構分別采用了適當性標準、客觀公正標準和從頭再查標準。通過分析DSU第11條,發(fā)現(xiàn)對此類案件,無論是事實問題還是法律問題,爭端解決機構均采取了客觀標準。而通過對比分析這兩個法律條款,得出結論:相較于反傾銷事實問題,專家組在非反傾銷案件事實問題上,享有上更大的自由裁量權。在法律問題上,無論反傾銷領域或非反傾銷領域,爭端解決機構均采取了從頭再查標準。 最后,分析了中國涉案爭端中體現(xiàn)的審查標準及從審查標準角度考慮的中國應對WTO爭端解決機制的對策。通過分析可以發(fā)現(xiàn),審查標準問題在案件中主要表現(xiàn)為以下實際問題:對事實問題與法律問題的區(qū)分,對成員方國內法的解釋權,對管轄權之管轄權等。通過對案例的反思,得出結論:DSB對審查標準問題的基本立場是反傾銷類案件,明確列明;非反傾銷類案件,諱莫如深;DSB審查標準的明晰程度與審查機構的司法能動性成反比;DSB將對國內法進行補充解釋作為事實審查的一種方式。最后,針對中國在應對審查標準問題方面存在的問題,提出了一些建議。
[Abstract]:In the process of handling dispute cases, WTO dispute settlement bodies usually judge the domestic laws of the parties or the ruling of the authorities of the parties, which leads to the conflict between the state sovereignty and the jurisdiction of the WTO. How to distribute the power between the two is the problem to be solved by the WTO dispute review standard. In recent years, the number of cases involved in China has risen sharply, and the legislative practice of forced revision of domestic laws in order to fulfill the reports of the dispute settlement bodies has emerged, which makes the study of this issue very urgent. Based on the practice of China's participation in the dispute settlement mechanism of WTO in recent years, this paper analyzes the current standards and norms of the review and the cases involved in China by means of normative analysis and case analysis, and aims at the problems existing in the process of China's litigation participation. The corresponding countermeasures are put forward. This paper first introduces and analyzes the basic theory of WTO dispute review standard, including three aspects. First, the connotation of the standard solves the question of what the standard is, and distinguishes between the fact and the law. Second, the relationship between the examination standard and other procedural rules, including the jurisdiction of the WTO dispute settlement body, the relationship between the rules of evidence, and the differences. Third, review the development trend of standards. It analyzes the review standards from the GATT period to the Doha Round negotiation from the perspective of development. After that, the standard of WTO dispute review is analyzed, including Article 17.6 of ADA and Article 11 of DSU. By analyzing Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, it can be found that for the examination of factual evidence, factual conclusions and legal issues in such cases, the dispute settlement bodies have adopted the standards of appropriateness, objectivity and impartiality, and re-examination from the beginning, respectively. Through the analysis of Article 11 of DSU, it is found that the dispute settlement bodies have adopted objective criteria for this kind of cases, whether it is a question of fact or a question of law. Through the comparative analysis of these two legal provisions, the conclusion is drawn: compared with the fact of anti-dumping, the expert group enjoys more discretion on the factual issues of non-anti-dumping cases. On legal issues, both antidumping and non-antidumping fields, dispute settlement bodies have adopted re-examination standards. Finally, the paper analyzes the standard of examination in the disputes involved in China and the countermeasures of China's dispute settlement mechanism in response to WTO from the point of view of the review standard. Through the analysis, it can be found that the main problems in the case are as follows: the distinction between the factual and legal issues, the power of interpretation to the domestic law of the members, the jurisdiction over the jurisdiction, and so on. Through the reflection of the case, it is concluded that the basic position of the DSB on the standard of examination is the anti-dumping case, which is clearly listed; the non-antidumping case, There is no doubt that the degree of clarity of the DSB review standard is inversely proportional to the judicial initiative of the review body. DSB takes the supplementary interpretation of domestic law as a way of reviewing the facts. Finally, some suggestions are put forward to deal with the problems in China.
【學位授予單位】：哈爾濱工業(yè)大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 朱欖葉;;WTO爭端解決程序中的證據問題[J];當代法學;2007年01期

2 楊國華,李奰{，

本文編號：1939259