【摘要】：在補(bǔ)貼與反補(bǔ)貼守則("SCM"協(xié)定)下,對(duì)于補(bǔ)貼的專項(xiàng)性的認(rèn)定有兩點(diǎn):一是"法律上"的專項(xiàng)性,二是"事實(shí)上"專項(xiàng)性。上述兩項(xiàng)的認(rèn)定主要集中在SCM協(xié)定的中的2.1(a)、2.1(b)、2.1(c)三款。一般認(rèn)為,前兩款可以認(rèn)為是"法律上"的專項(xiàng)性,最后一款為"事實(shí)上"的專項(xiàng)性。調(diào)查機(jī)關(guān)如何適用"SCM"協(xié)定中的2.1款,是一個(gè)很有爭(zhēng)議的問題。從條約解釋的視角,以中方就美國(guó)對(duì)中國(guó)部分產(chǎn)品實(shí)施反補(bǔ)貼措施世貿(mào)爭(zhēng)端案(DS437)為背景,闡述上訴機(jī)構(gòu)只有按照先"法律"后"事實(shí)"上的邏輯順序認(rèn)定補(bǔ)貼的"專項(xiàng)性",才能確保爭(zhēng)訴各方對(duì)案件結(jié)果有合理的預(yù)期,維護(hù)WTO規(guī)則體系的穩(wěn)定性。
[Abstract]:Under the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing (SCM), there are two aspects in the determination of the specificity of subsidies: one is the specificity in law and the other is the specificity in fact. The above two determinations are mainly concentrated in the 2. 1 (a) / 2. 1 (b) / 2. 1 (c) in the SCM Agreement. Generally speaking, the first two paragraphs can be regarded as "de jure" specificity and the last as "de facto" specificity. It is a controversial question how the investigation agency applies paragraph 2.1 of the SCM Agreement. From the perspective of treaty interpretation, the context of the dispute between China and the United States over the imposition of countervailing measures on some Chinese products (DS437) is as follows. Only when the appellate body determines the specificity of the subsidy according to the logical order of "law" and "fact", can it ensure that the litigant parties have reasonable expectation on the result of the case and maintain the stability of the WTO rule system.
【作者單位】： 中國(guó)人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【分類號(hào)】：D996.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 天津市工商局 實(shí)現(xiàn)“四個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)變”課題研究組;監(jiān)管方法如何向日常規(guī)范監(jiān)管轉(zhuǎn)變[N];中國(guó)工商報(bào);2009年

2 本報(bào)記者 陳清華　劉明中 周瀛 廖康;共嘗改革“甜頭”[N];中國(guó)財(cái)經(jīng)報(bào);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2138463