本文選題：反傾銷日落復(fù)審 + 損害繼續(xù)或再度發(fā)生　； 參考：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：將日落復(fù)審制度納入國(guó)際反傾銷多邊法律體系,是烏拉圭回合談判的重要成果。雖然作為成員方妥協(xié)的產(chǎn)物,《反傾銷協(xié)定》僅對(duì)日落復(fù)審條款進(jìn)行了原則性規(guī)定,但是這一制度的出現(xiàn),對(duì)防止反傾銷措施的濫用仍具有重要意義。隨著實(shí)踐中越來(lái)越多五年反傾銷措施期限的屆滿,日落復(fù)審制度日益受到各國(guó)關(guān)注。這一制度的核心在于考察:如果取消反傾銷措施,傾銷和損害是否會(huì)繼續(xù)或者再度發(fā)生。由此可見(jiàn),傾銷和損害發(fā)生的可能性認(rèn)定,是日落復(fù)審制度的重點(diǎn)。 本文主要研究反傾銷日落復(fù)審中“損害繼續(xù)或再度發(fā)生可能性”問(wèn)題,從制度層面入手,通過(guò)比較分析反傾銷日落復(fù)審領(lǐng)域制度較為完善的歐盟和美國(guó)的相關(guān)立法與實(shí)踐,為改進(jìn)我國(guó)反傾銷日落復(fù)審中“損害繼續(xù)或再度發(fā)生可能性”的認(rèn)定規(guī)則提供參考和建議。 第一部分,考察WTO反傾銷領(lǐng)域中日落復(fù)審“損害繼續(xù)或再度發(fā)生可能性”問(wèn)題的發(fā)展歷程,通過(guò)分析制度的演變體會(huì)其真正的立法價(jià)值。由于《反傾銷協(xié)定》對(duì)日落復(fù)審制度的規(guī)定較為模糊,使得相關(guān)的法律解釋變得十分重要。WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)通過(guò)審理各國(guó)提交的有爭(zhēng)議案件,對(duì)反傾銷日落復(fù)審中有關(guān)損害發(fā)生可能性問(wèn)題進(jìn)行解釋,為各國(guó)實(shí)踐提供指導(dǎo)。 第二部分,考察歐盟和美國(guó)在反傾銷日落復(fù)審“損害繼續(xù)或再度發(fā)生可能性”認(rèn)定中的相關(guān)立法和實(shí)踐。兩者的立法、裁決方式各有特點(diǎn),相比較而言,歐盟的立法與《反傾銷協(xié)定》更為相似,僅對(duì)日落復(fù)審中的損害認(rèn)定問(wèn)題進(jìn)行概括性規(guī)定,更多的規(guī)則見(jiàn)諸于案件和內(nèi)部解釋;美國(guó)的立法則較為細(xì)致,概括式列舉了損害發(fā)生可能性認(rèn)定中應(yīng)當(dāng)考查的指標(biāo)。 第三部分,考察當(dāng)前中國(guó)反傾銷日落復(fù)審制度中“損害繼續(xù)或再度發(fā)生可能性”的認(rèn)定問(wèn)題。中國(guó)的日落復(fù)審制度是在借鑒西方發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家的基礎(chǔ)上發(fā)展起來(lái)的,無(wú)論是立法上還是實(shí)踐中,都能找到歐美國(guó)家的影子。鑒于日落復(fù)審制度重要性的提升,建議中國(guó)參照美國(guó)的做法,進(jìn)一步完善日落復(fù)審規(guī)定,采用概括列舉的方式明確在損害發(fā)生可能性認(rèn)定中應(yīng)當(dāng)考查的指標(biāo)。同時(shí),由于中國(guó)產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展結(jié)構(gòu)與西方發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家相比,具有自己的特點(diǎn),建議中國(guó)在制訂損害可能性考查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時(shí),充分考慮國(guó)內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)的利益,使得我國(guó)的反傾銷日落復(fù)審制度既與WTO《反傾銷協(xié)定》保持一致,又能維護(hù)國(guó)內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)的正當(dāng)權(quán)益。
[Abstract]:The incorporation of sunset review system into the multilateral legal system of international anti-dumping is an important result of the Uruguay Round negotiations. Although the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as a result of compromise among its members, only provides for the sunset review clause in principle, the emergence of this system is still of great significance in preventing the abuse of anti-dumping measures. With the expiration of more and more five-year anti-dumping measures in practice, sunset review system has attracted more and more attention. The core of this system is to examine whether dumping and injury will continue or occur again if anti-dumping measures are lifted. Thus, the possibility of dumping and injury is the focus of sunset review system. This paper mainly studies the possibility of continuing or reoccurrence of damages in antidumping sunset review, and analyzes the relevant legislation and practice of the EU and the United States, which are relatively perfect in the field of antidumping sunset review, starting from the system level. It provides reference and suggestions for improving the rules of "possibility of continuing or reoccurrence of damage" in China's antidumping sunset review. In the first part, the author examines the development of the issue of "possibility of continuing or reoccurrence of damage" in the field of WTO anti-dumping, and finds out its real legislative value through the analysis of the evolution of the system. As the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement on the sunset review system are rather vague, the relevant legal interpretations become very important. The dispute settlement body of the WTO hears controversial cases submitted by various countries. To explain the possibility of damage in the review of anti-dumping sunset, to provide guidance for the practice of various countries. The second part examines the relevant legislation and practice of the EU and the United States in the anti-dumping sunset review of "the possibility of continued or recurrence of damage". The legislation and adjudication of the two countries have their own characteristics. Compared with the Anti-dumping Agreement, the legislation of the EU is more similar to that of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. It only makes a general provision on the issue of the determination of damages in the sunset review, and more rules are found in the case and the internal interpretation. The legislation of the United States is more meticulous, enumerating the indicators that should be examined in the determination of the possibility of damage. In the third part, the author examines the determination of the possibility of continuing or reoccurrence of damages in the current antidumping sunset review system in China. China's sunset review system is developed on the basis of drawing lessons from western developed countries. In legislation and practice, the shadow of European and American countries can be found. In view of the promotion of the importance of sunset review system, it is suggested that China should follow the practice of the United States, further improve the sunset review regulations, and make clear the indicators that should be examined in the determination of the possibility of damage by way of general enumeration. At the same time, since the industrial development structure of China has its own characteristics compared with that of the western developed countries, it is suggested that China fully consider the interests of domestic industries when formulating standards for examination of the possibility of damage. The system of antidumping sunset review in China is consistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement and can safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of domestic industries.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D996.1

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 劉冰;;WTO《反傾銷協(xié)定》日落復(fù)審制度研究及對(duì)我國(guó)的啟示[J];哈爾濱學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年09期

，

本文編號(hào)：2041059