發(fā)布時間：2018-06-30 03:35

  本文選題：國民待遇原則 + 《TBT協(xié)定》第條第款　； 參考：《法學論壇》2017年02期

【摘要】：由于《TBT協(xié)定》中缺少類似《GATT1994》第20條的一般例外規(guī)定,因此上訴機構對該協(xié)定第2條第1款國民待遇原則"不低于待遇"要求的判定適用了合法監(jiān)管區(qū)分例外標準,以維護成員方的監(jiān)管自主權。根據(jù)該標準,如果技術法規(guī)對進口產品造成的不利影響完全源于合法監(jiān)管區(qū)分,那么該法規(guī)就不構成對"不低于待遇"要求的違反。然而,合法監(jiān)管區(qū)分例外標準能否真正保障成員方的監(jiān)管自主權值得懷疑,因為該標準不但本身存在模糊和矛盾之處,其與《GATT1994》第3條第4款和第20條的適用法理也不盡相同,從而會導致成員方就同一事項在不同條款下享有不同監(jiān)管自主空間。我國宜在今后TBT案件的參與策略和技術法規(guī)的制定兩方面著手應對合法監(jiān)管區(qū)分例外標準。
[Abstract]:Since the TBT Agreement lacks a general exception similar to article 20 of the Agreement, the appellate body applied the criterion of legal regulatory distinction exception to the requirement of "no less than treatment" for the principle of national treatment in article 2, paragraph 1, of the Agreement, To safeguard the members of the regulatory autonomy. According to the standard, if the adverse effects of technical regulations on imported products are entirely due to legal regulatory distinctions, the regulations do not constitute a violation of the "no less treatment" requirement. However, it is doubtful whether the criterion of exception to the legal regulatory distinction can really guarantee the regulatory autonomy of the members, because it is not only vague and contradictory in itself, but also different from the applicable jurisprudence of Article 3, paragraph 4, and Article 20 of GATT1994. As a result, members will enjoy different regulatory autonomy on the same matter under different terms. Our country should deal with the exception standard of legal supervision in two aspects: the participation strategy of TBT cases and the formulation of technical regulations in the future.
【作者單位】： 廈門大學法學院;
【分類號】：D996.1

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 崔廣平,王中偉;論國民待遇原則在中國的實施[J];河北法學;2003年05期

2 賀，

本文編號：2084692