【摘要】：自2004年加拿大首次對(duì)原產(chǎn)于中國的產(chǎn)品適用反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查以來,WTO成員方開始逐漸對(duì)中國適用反補(bǔ)貼法。美國和加拿大對(duì)原產(chǎn)于中國的產(chǎn)品發(fā)起的反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查逐漸增多,在這些反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查中,美國和加拿大指控中國政策性銀行和國有商業(yè)銀行向特定企業(yè)提供了政策性貸款。在美國和加拿大對(duì)原產(chǎn)于中國的產(chǎn)品的反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查中,均有一半以上的案件涉及對(duì)中國政策性銀行和國有商業(yè)銀行向特定企業(yè)發(fā)放優(yōu)惠貸款的調(diào)查。在他們看來,由于中國政策性銀行和國有商業(yè)銀行實(shí)際上被政府控制,這些政策性貸款構(gòu)成由中國政府提供的財(cái)政資助,并具有專向性,因此很多“政策性貸款項(xiàng)目”都被其認(rèn)定為構(gòu)成補(bǔ)貼。那么,中國政策性銀行和國有商業(yè)銀行向特定企業(yè)提供的貸款是否構(gòu)成WTO補(bǔ)貼與反補(bǔ)貼規(guī)則所禁止的政策性貸款便值得我們探究。 本文分為四章。第一章首先比較系統(tǒng)地介紹了政策性貸款的內(nèi)涵,分析了政策性貸款中“政策”的含義、表現(xiàn)形式以及其與貸款之間的關(guān)系,并指出政策性貸款中“政策”必須是對(duì)貸款提供主體有約束力的文件,“政策”與貸款之間需存在直接因果關(guān)系,否則不能斷然認(rèn)定一項(xiàng)貸款為政策性貸款。隨后,通過對(duì)主要國家和中國政策性貸款的種類的研究,筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)目前中國的確存在大量通過政策性銀行和國有商業(yè)銀行向特定產(chǎn)業(yè)或企業(yè)發(fā)放的政策性貸款。第二章通過對(duì)美國和加拿大針對(duì)中國政策性貸款的反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查情況分析了目前中國政策性貸款遭受WTO成員方反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查的現(xiàn)狀。第三章對(duì)WTO反補(bǔ)貼規(guī)則的貸款紀(jì)律進(jìn)行了研究,探討了何種貸款是WTO補(bǔ)貼與反補(bǔ)貼規(guī)則所禁止的貸款,并通過對(duì)SCM協(xié)定中補(bǔ)貼的構(gòu)成要件的分析以及“雙反案”中美方和中方對(duì)中國政策性貸款的WTO合規(guī)性論證,探究中國政策性貸款在貸款提供主體、專向性以及利益授予方面是否符合SCM協(xié)定項(xiàng)下可訴補(bǔ)貼的構(gòu)成要件。第四章對(duì)中國如何應(yīng)對(duì)政策性貸款面臨的WTO合規(guī)性挑戰(zhàn)提出了建議,指出中國一方面應(yīng)當(dāng)從根本上轉(zhuǎn)變思路,減少政策性貸款的運(yùn)用,并在立法層面完善相關(guān)立法、規(guī)范產(chǎn)業(yè)政策,另一方面應(yīng)當(dāng)調(diào)整應(yīng)訴思路,積極應(yīng)對(duì)反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查。
[Abstract]:Since Canada first applied countervailing investigation to products originating in China in 2004, WTO members have gradually applied countervailing law to China. In a growing number of U.S. and Canadian countervailing investigations into products originating in China, the United States and Canada accused Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks of providing policy-oriented loans to specific companies. In both U.S. and Canadian countervailing investigations into products originating in China, more than half of the cases involved investigations into preferential loans to specific enterprises by Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks. In their view, since China's policy banks and state-owned commercial banks are effectively controlled by the government, these policy loans constitute financial assistance provided by the Chinese government and have a special orientation. As a result, many "policy loan projects" have been recognized as constituting subsidies. Therefore, whether the loans provided by Chinese policy banks and state-owned commercial banks to specific enterprises constitute policy loans prohibited by WTO subsidies and countervailing rules are worth exploring. This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter systematically introduces the connotation of policy loan, analyzes the meaning of "policy" in policy loan, its forms of expression and the relationship between policy loan and loan. It is also pointed out that "policy" must be a binding document for the main body of the loan, and there must be a direct causal relationship between the "policy" and the loan, otherwise, a loan cannot be categorically regarded as a policy loan. Then, through the study of the types of policy loans in major countries and China, the author finds that there are a large number of policy loans issued to specific industries or enterprises through policy banks and state-owned commercial banks at present in China. The second chapter analyzes the current situation of countervailing investigation of China's policy loans by WTO members through the investigation of the United States and Canada on China's policy loans. The third chapter studies the discipline of WTO countervailing rules and discusses what kind of loans are prohibited by WTO subsidy and countervailing rules. Through the analysis of the constituent elements of subsidy in the SCM agreement and the demonstration of the WTO compliance of the United States and China to the Chinese policy loan in the "double countervailing case", this paper probes into the main body of the Chinese policy loan in the loan supply. The exclusivity and the conferral of benefits accord with the constitution of actionable subsidy under SCM agreement. The fourth chapter puts forward some suggestions on how to deal with the WTO compliance challenges faced by policy loans, and points out that on the one hand, China should fundamentally change its thinking, reduce the use of policy loans, and improve the relevant legislation at the legislative level. Standardize industrial policy, on the other hand, should adjust the train of thought to respond to suit, deal with countervailing investigation actively.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D996.1;D922.28;F832.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 管守安,張宇潤;政策性貸款法律制度探析[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);1999年06期

2 黃文旭;;加拿大反補(bǔ)貼法律制度初探[J];大經(jīng)貿(mào);2007年12期

3 李仲平;李煉;;“美國對(duì)華銅版紙案”述評(píng)——基于反補(bǔ)貼申訴的考察[J];法商研究;2008年01期

4 張乃根;;論WTO爭端解決的國內(nèi)法審查[J];法學(xué)家;2008年03期

5 黃青燕;姜發(fā)根;;我國面臨的反補(bǔ)貼形勢(shì)及對(duì)策分析[J];改革與戰(zhàn)略;2009年10期

6 龔柏華;倪潔穎;;中美有關(guān)銅版紙征收反傾銷和反補(bǔ)貼稅WTO磋商案評(píng)析[J];國際商務(wù)研究;2007年06期

7 王弈通;;論補(bǔ)貼專向性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與評(píng)判——兼議專向性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在美國對(duì)華反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查案中的適用[J];國際商務(wù)研究;2009年01期

8 孫南申;彭岳;;中國補(bǔ)貼現(xiàn)狀與面臨反補(bǔ)貼措施的法律應(yīng)對(duì)[J];河北法學(xué);2007年06期

9 彭毛字;專項(xiàng)貸款與政策性貸款的異同[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)問題;1998年12期

10 陳利強(qiáng);;美國反補(bǔ)貼稅法之事實(shí)專向性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)探究[J];商場現(xiàn)代化;2008年13期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 郭新雙;國外政策性金融機(jī)構(gòu)研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2005年

2 毛驍驍;WTO框架下的中國國企補(bǔ)貼法律問題研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 呂瑩;論SCM協(xié)議中的補(bǔ)貼構(gòu)成與認(rèn)定[D];中南大學(xué);2005年

2 鄧廣磊;論WTO《SCM協(xié)定》下補(bǔ)貼的認(rèn)定[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

3 張瓊芳;WTO框架下歐盟、美國補(bǔ)貼與反補(bǔ)貼規(guī)則之比較[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：2210714