論WTO與RTAS爭端解決的管轄權沖突與協(xié)調(diào)
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-13 08:18
【摘要】：近年來,隨著區(qū)域貿(mào)易安排的迅猛發(fā)展,WTO和區(qū)域貿(mào)易安排的爭端解決機制的并存情況已經(jīng)成為一個不爭的事實,同時,WTO體系下的DSU(《關于爭端解決規(guī)則與程序的諒解》)并未涉及區(qū)域貿(mào)易安排的爭端管轄權的規(guī)定,僅對自身的管轄權作出了規(guī)定�，F(xiàn)行WTO與區(qū)域貿(mào)易安排關于管轄權的規(guī)定不可避免的導致了兩者之間管轄權的沖突,那么當爭端發(fā)生時,成員方如何選擇爭端解決機構?亦或是先后或者同時向不同的爭端解決機構提交了解決爭端的申請,該機構又該如何處理?本文采用實證分析與比較分析相結合的方法來探討協(xié)調(diào)WTO與RTAs爭端解決機制的管轄權沖突問題,通過比較分析北美自由貿(mào)易區(qū)和歐盟的實踐,對WTO與RTAs爭端解決機制的管轄權沖突的產(chǎn)生原因以及協(xié)調(diào)途徑等幾個基本問題進行了初步探討,并結合具體的案例進行詳盡的剖析,提出相應的觀點或者解決方案,以期望能夠協(xié)調(diào)WTO與RTAs之間的運行關系,在WTO和其他的其他區(qū)域貿(mào)易安排之間合理分配管轄權,對于中國——東盟自由貿(mào)易區(qū)的爭端解決機制作出適當?shù)钠饰?結合我國的國情探討如何有效的利用該機制,真正維護我國合法權益。本文共分為四個章節(jié)。 第一章從WTO與區(qū)域貿(mào)易安排的關系的角度入手,分析了區(qū)域貿(mào)易安排的發(fā)展對WTO帶來的影響,并且比較了兩者的爭端解決的特點。 第二章研究了WTO與區(qū)域貿(mào)易安排爭端解決的管轄權沖突的表現(xiàn)以及這一沖突產(chǎn)生的原因,同時借由墨西哥飲料案的管轄權競合問題來詳細說明了“管轄排除條款”有效性問題。 第三章承接管轄權沖突的產(chǎn)生,探討了兩者沖突的協(xié)調(diào)問題,其中包括沖突的協(xié)調(diào)方法和原則,另外還分析了北美自由貿(mào)易區(qū)和歐盟的爭端解決機制,以期提供借鑒和啟示。 第四章研究了中國——東盟自由貿(mào)易區(qū)與WTO的爭端解決管轄權的沖突與協(xié)調(diào)問題,分析了CAFTA的現(xiàn)狀和《中國——東盟關于爭端解決機制的協(xié)議》的特點以及兩者的沖突協(xié)調(diào)問題,最后提出我國應采取的對策建議。
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the rapid development of regional trade arrangements (RTAs), it has become an indisputable fact that WTO and the dispute settlement mechanism of RTAs coexist. At the same time, the DSU (understanding on the rules and procedures of dispute settlement) does not deal with the dispute jurisdiction of regional trade arrangements, but only its own jurisdiction. The existing provisions of WTO and RTA on jurisdiction inevitably lead to the conflict of jurisdiction between the two parties, so when the dispute occurs, how does the member choose the dispute settlement body? Or if a dispute settlement application has been submitted to a different dispute settlement body successively or simultaneously, what should be done by the dispute settlement body? This paper uses the method of combining empirical analysis and comparative analysis to discuss the conflict of jurisdiction in the dispute settlement mechanism between WTO and RTAs, and analyzes the practice of North American Free Trade area (NAFTA) and European Union (EU). This paper discusses the causes of jurisdiction conflict between WTO and RTAs dispute settlement mechanism and some basic problems, such as the ways of coordination and so on, and makes a detailed analysis in combination with specific cases, and puts forward the corresponding viewpoints or solutions. In order to coordinate the operational relationship between WTO and RTAs and distribute jurisdiction between WTO and other regional trade arrangements reasonably, this paper makes an appropriate analysis of the dispute settlement mechanism of China-ASEAN Free Trade area. This paper discusses how to make effective use of this mechanism in order to protect our legal rights and interests. This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter analyzes the influence of the development of regional trade arrangement on WTO from the angle of the relationship between WTO and RTA, and compares the characteristics of dispute settlement between RTA and RTA. The second chapter studies the conflict of jurisdiction between WTO and RTA and the causes of the conflict, and explains the validity of jurisdiction exclusion clause in detail by the issue of jurisdiction concurrence in the Mexican beverage case. Chapter three deals with the conflict of jurisdiction, discusses the coordination of the conflict, including the methods and principles of conflict, and analyzes the dispute settlement mechanism of the North American Free Trade area and the European Union in order to provide reference and enlightenment. Chapter four studies the conflict and coordination of dispute settlement jurisdiction between China-ASEAN Free Trade area (CAFTA) and WTO. This paper analyzes the present situation of CAFTA, the characteristics of the Agreement on dispute settlement Mechanism between China and ASEAN, and the conflict coordination between the two, and finally puts forward some countermeasures and suggestions to be taken by our country.
【學位授予單位】：華僑大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.1
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the rapid development of regional trade arrangements (RTAs), it has become an indisputable fact that WTO and the dispute settlement mechanism of RTAs coexist. At the same time, the DSU (understanding on the rules and procedures of dispute settlement) does not deal with the dispute jurisdiction of regional trade arrangements, but only its own jurisdiction. The existing provisions of WTO and RTA on jurisdiction inevitably lead to the conflict of jurisdiction between the two parties, so when the dispute occurs, how does the member choose the dispute settlement body? Or if a dispute settlement application has been submitted to a different dispute settlement body successively or simultaneously, what should be done by the dispute settlement body? This paper uses the method of combining empirical analysis and comparative analysis to discuss the conflict of jurisdiction in the dispute settlement mechanism between WTO and RTAs, and analyzes the practice of North American Free Trade area (NAFTA) and European Union (EU). This paper discusses the causes of jurisdiction conflict between WTO and RTAs dispute settlement mechanism and some basic problems, such as the ways of coordination and so on, and makes a detailed analysis in combination with specific cases, and puts forward the corresponding viewpoints or solutions. In order to coordinate the operational relationship between WTO and RTAs and distribute jurisdiction between WTO and other regional trade arrangements reasonably, this paper makes an appropriate analysis of the dispute settlement mechanism of China-ASEAN Free Trade area. This paper discusses how to make effective use of this mechanism in order to protect our legal rights and interests. This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter analyzes the influence of the development of regional trade arrangement on WTO from the angle of the relationship between WTO and RTA, and compares the characteristics of dispute settlement between RTA and RTA. The second chapter studies the conflict of jurisdiction between WTO and RTA and the causes of the conflict, and explains the validity of jurisdiction exclusion clause in detail by the issue of jurisdiction concurrence in the Mexican beverage case. Chapter three deals with the conflict of jurisdiction, discusses the coordination of the conflict, including the methods and principles of conflict, and analyzes the dispute settlement mechanism of the North American Free Trade area and the European Union in order to provide reference and enlightenment. Chapter four studies the conflict and coordination of dispute settlement jurisdiction between China-ASEAN Free Trade area (CAFTA) and WTO. This paper analyzes the present situation of CAFTA, the characteristics of the Agreement on dispute settlement Mechanism between China and ASEAN, and the conflict coordination between the two, and finally puts forward some countermeasures and suggestions to be taken by our country.
【學位授予單位】：華僑大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.1
【相似文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 雷蕾;;淺談歐盟解決民商事管轄權沖突對我國的啟示[J];佳木斯教育學院學報;2012年12期
2 王郁;;中國-東盟自由貿(mào)易區(qū)內(nèi)我國與東盟國家之間民商事管轄權沖突及其協(xié)調(diào)[J];企業(yè)技術開發(fā);2013年Z1期
3 張淑鈿;;論先受理法院機制在涉港案件管轄權沖突中的適用[J];河南省政法管理干部學院學報;2008年05期
4 陳瑾;;淺談管轄權沖突及其解決[J];當代經(jīng)理人;2005年05期
5 顏林;;論多邊公約體系下的國際民商事案件管轄權沖突及其解決[J];社會科學輯刊;2008年05期
6 王淑敏;;碳捕捉與海底封存的訴訟管轄權沖突研究[J];法學雜志;2013年08期
7 周曉林;;美國法律的域外管轄與國際管轄權沖突[J];國際問題研究;1984年03期
8 茆榮華;論涉外民事管轄權沖突[J];政法學習.新疆公安司法管理干部學院學報;1994年01期
9 劉彬;;論國際貿(mào)易協(xié)定司法管轄權沖突——邁向功能競賽[J];云南大學學報(法學版);2011年02期
10 張淑鈿;;涉港民事管轄權沖突解決機制的重構[J];法學論壇;2011年06期
相關會議論文 前1條
1 陳姝，
本文編號：2240588
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2240588.html
