【摘要】：2008年的金融危機對世界經(jīng)濟產(chǎn)生的負面影響,導致了貿(mào)易保護主義的抬頭,越來越多國家由采用傳統(tǒng)的貿(mào)易保護手段向采用非關(guān)稅壁壘轉(zhuǎn)變,這其中就包括了“本地化貿(mào)易壁壘”——以外國的進口商品、服務(wù)或國外開發(fā)所有的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)為代價保護或扶持國內(nèi)的產(chǎn)業(yè)、服務(wù)提供方和知識產(chǎn)權(quán)。本地化貿(mào)易壁壘是目前增長速度最快的貿(mào)易保護形式之一,而且可能是全球貿(mào)易系統(tǒng)進一步自由化的最大威脅。當?shù)爻煞忠蟠胧┑男问阶兓絹碓蕉?現(xiàn)有規(guī)則難以有效規(guī)制其使用。與此同時,技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓要求的問題一直未能在多邊框架下予以規(guī)制,而強制數(shù)據(jù)本地化要求在斯諾登事件之后被越來越多國家采用,本地化貿(mào)易壁壘問題不容忽視。第一章為導論部分,主要介紹本文的選題背景、對相關(guān)研究進行文獻綜述、并介紹本文的研究框架、研究方法及創(chuàng)新和突破。第二章主要厘清本地化貿(mào)易壁壘的基本概念問題。“本地化貿(mào)易壁壘”這一概念個在WTO多邊規(guī)則中并不存在。從2012年開始,美國逐漸在G20、APEC、OECD以及某些新的貿(mào)易和投資框架協(xié)議中使用這一概念。有關(guān)“本地化貿(mào)易壁壘”的具體含義目前在學界并沒有統(tǒng)一的權(quán)威界定,為了本文研究的目的,筆者初步將“本地化貿(mào)易壁壘”定義為:一國采取的要求外國企業(yè)本地化其經(jīng)濟活動的措施的總和,這類措施不合理地區(qū)別對待本國和外國的產(chǎn)品、服務(wù)或技術(shù),對外國企業(yè)的貨物的生產(chǎn)、服務(wù)的提供、數(shù)據(jù)的儲存和處理以及技術(shù)的轉(zhuǎn)移等施加本地化限制措施,以獲取外國企業(yè)在其本國投資、生產(chǎn)、或提供服務(wù)的價值。2008年金融危機引發(fā)的貿(mào)易保護主義抬頭是本地化貿(mào)易壁壘產(chǎn)生的內(nèi)在原因,而各國經(jīng)濟和技術(shù)發(fā)展的不平衡是本地化貿(mào)易壁壘產(chǎn)生的客觀原因,現(xiàn)有多邊貿(mào)易規(guī)則或因存在漏洞,或因完全空白而難以有效規(guī)制本地化壁壘是其產(chǎn)生的規(guī)則原因。第三章結(jié)合有關(guān)的WTO貿(mào)易爭端案例分析本地化貿(mào)易壁壘在現(xiàn)有WTO規(guī)則下的規(guī)制現(xiàn)狀。從整體上看,WTO法律框架下的一些具體協(xié)定已為本地化貿(mào)易壁壘的規(guī)制提供了一定的法律依據(jù)。尤其是有關(guān)當?shù)爻煞忠蟮拇胧┓矫?GATT第3條、GATS第17條、TRIMs協(xié)定第2條、SCM第3條、GPA協(xié)定第3條均有限制當?shù)爻煞忠蟠胧┑囊?guī)定。但這些規(guī)則仍存在一定局限性,主要表現(xiàn)在以下幾個方面:第一,GATT第3條和TRIMs協(xié)定第2條的國民待遇義務(wù)受到GATT第3條第8(a)款政府采購例外的限制,為政府采購中的當?shù)爻煞忠蟠胧┝粝铝艘?guī)則漏洞;第二,GATS第17條的國民待遇義務(wù)僅適用于成員方在減讓表中做出承諾的服務(wù)部門,GATS的國民待遇減讓表所采用的“正面清單”模式大大限制了國民待遇原則在服務(wù)貿(mào)易中的適用范圍,因此有許多在服務(wù)貿(mào)易領(lǐng)域施加的當?shù)爻煞忠鬅o法得到有效規(guī)制;第三,因為當?shù)爻煞忠蟠胧┦莝cm第3條規(guī)定的禁止性補貼,而且scm適用于政府采購,這使得scm對于規(guī)制在政府采購中實施當?shù)爻煞中袨槎址莋pa協(xié)定簽字國的國家顯得有特別的價值,但由于補貼利益認定困難等問題使得scm的適用并不容易;第四,由于gpa協(xié)定僅約束部分wto成員,而且許多政府實體被排除在gpa協(xié)定的適用范圍之外,對于非gpa協(xié)定簽字國的那部分wto成員的政府采購行為,以及不屬于gpa協(xié)定涵蓋實體的政府采購行為,gpa協(xié)定無法進行有效規(guī)制;第五,除了上述當?shù)爻煞忠?現(xiàn)在越來越多的國家開始采用技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓要求、數(shù)據(jù)本地化要求等其他形式的本地化貿(mào)易壁壘,對于這些措施,wto框架并沒有相關(guān)規(guī)則對其進行規(guī)制,留下了規(guī)則空白。第四章研究技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓要求這一本地化貿(mào)易壁壘的規(guī)制問題。本章對現(xiàn)有的有關(guān)技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓的規(guī)則進行了系統(tǒng)梳理和歸納并對其可能面臨的焦點爭議進行分析,并對我國如何應(yīng)對新的變化提出建議。首先通過系統(tǒng)梳理和歸納,總結(jié)出新一代技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓履行要求禁止規(guī)則的特點:第一,禁止強制技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓,但不禁止鼓勵性的技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓要求;第二,新的技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓履行要求禁止規(guī)則是既適用于投資準入階段也適用于經(jīng)營階段的“trims+”義務(wù)條款;第三,確立了系統(tǒng)的例外規(guī)定。然后就強制性技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓要求的范圍界定、技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓履行要求禁止規(guī)則例外條款的設(shè)置方式、環(huán)境保護例外的適用以及知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護例外的適用四個焦點問題進行了分析。首先,通過美孚石油公司訴加拿大案與merrillring林業(yè)公司訴加拿大案的不同裁決結(jié)果的對比,得出判斷某一措施是否構(gòu)成nafta第1106條第1款意義上強制技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓取決于仲裁庭對條款的理解——一個措施背后的目的更重要還是該爭議措施的實際影響(直接導致了一個強制性的后果)更重要。之后,分析了新一代技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓履行要求禁止規(guī)則的三種不同類型例外規(guī)定,一種是專門針對技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓履行要求禁止規(guī)則的具體例外,第二種是“不符措施”例外,第三種是根本安全例外。上述三種不同形式的例外條款的結(jié)合,共同構(gòu)成了一個體系完整、層層設(shè)防、能最大限度保障東道國核心利益的例外規(guī)則體系,十分有借鑒價值。但對于這些例外條款的具體解釋和適用,仍然存在許多爭議,其實焦點也就在于如何平衡東道國利益保護和投資保護兩者之間的關(guān)系,本章詳細分析了環(huán)境保護例外和知識產(chǎn)權(quán)例外適用中存在的限制條件,說明了作為東道國的發(fā)展中國家權(quán)益得不到充分保護的事實:發(fā)展中國家很難利用環(huán)境例外規(guī)定要求外資轉(zhuǎn)移環(huán)境友好型技術(shù),同時現(xiàn)有的強制許可制度未能真正滿足發(fā)展中國家應(yīng)對公共健康危機的需求。最后分析我國有關(guān)有關(guān)技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓要求的立法及實踐情況并對提出應(yīng)對建議。第五章研究對數(shù)據(jù)本地化要求的規(guī)制,主要聚焦相應(yīng)的跨境數(shù)據(jù)流動規(guī)則。數(shù)據(jù)本地化要求是本地化貿(mào)易壁壘的新形式之一,對于其概念,目前并無統(tǒng)一界定。它通常包括了數(shù)據(jù)中心本地化和數(shù)據(jù)本地存儲兩種措施。越來越多國家采用強制本地化要求,限制了數(shù)據(jù)跨境自由流動,也催生了有關(guān)跨境數(shù)據(jù)自由流動的國際規(guī)則和紀律的制定,本章數(shù)據(jù)本地化要求規(guī)制中的以下三個問題進行了分析。第一,跨境數(shù)據(jù)的自由流動與合法政策目標的矛盾協(xié)調(diào)方面,各國尚未達成一致意見,但oecd和apec的有益嘗試已為個人信息保護確立了最低的標準,具有很大參考價值,未來或可考慮將這類國際標準納入fta。并需要進一步明確限制數(shù)據(jù)跨境自由流動的合法例外的具體范圍,盡力做到既能確保政府有合適空間實現(xiàn)“合法政策目標”同時最小化對國際貿(mào)易產(chǎn)生扭曲和阻礙。第二,在規(guī)制路徑的選擇上,以“地理區(qū)域為基準”的規(guī)制路徑和“以組織機構(gòu)為基準”規(guī)制路徑各有其合理性且二者呈現(xiàn)相互融合的趨勢,筆者認為更佳的選擇是采用“以組織機構(gòu)為基準”的規(guī)制路徑,同時允許將“地理區(qū)域”作為判斷數(shù)據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)移是否適當?shù)目剂恳蛩�。第�?針對越來越多國家對于涉及國家和政府部門的數(shù)據(jù)的跨境流動制定數(shù)據(jù)本地化要求的現(xiàn)實,有必要在以后的貿(mào)易談判中對有關(guān)國家安全的數(shù)據(jù)的跨境流動規(guī)制進行討論。同時應(yīng)注意到通過貿(mào)易協(xié)定協(xié)調(diào)有關(guān)國家主權(quán)的敏感問題的難度,在此基礎(chǔ)上尋求共識盡可能減少不必要的限制,特別是要防止以保護國家數(shù)據(jù)安全的名義實施的貿(mào)易保護。第六章研究可再生能源領(lǐng)域的當?shù)爻煞忠蟮囊?guī)制。有研究數(shù)據(jù)表明,自2008年以來,有超過100個當?shù)爻煞忠蟊桓鲊捎?其中有20個影響著可再生能源產(chǎn)業(yè)。本章對可再生能源產(chǎn)業(yè)當?shù)爻煞忠蟮暮侠硇赃M行了辨析,從政治經(jīng)濟學理論、幼稚產(chǎn)業(yè)保護、創(chuàng)造綠色就業(yè)和環(huán)境溢出效應(yīng)四個方面論證了其合理性,同時從低效率的資源配置、電力價格提高、難以預測能否創(chuàng)造綠色就業(yè)、對貿(mào)易的負面影響四個方面分析了其不合理的部分�？傮w來講,現(xiàn)在學界并未就可再生能源產(chǎn)業(yè)當?shù)爻煞忠蟮暮侠硇赃_成一致意見。但可以說,可再生能源產(chǎn)業(yè)當?shù)爻煞忠蠹扔幸欢ê侠硇缘瑫r也存在不合理或者說存在疑問的部分。然后本章分析了可再生能源產(chǎn)業(yè)中的當?shù)爻煞忠竽軐鴥?nèi)經(jīng)濟產(chǎn)生有利影響條件,它們分別是:有發(fā)展?jié)摿Φ拇蠖�(wěn)定的市場、適當限制當?shù)爻煞值谋壤�、企業(yè)和政府充分合作、附帶財政補貼、強調(diào)技術(shù)知識的溢出效應(yīng)。盡管明確了上述五項判斷當?shù)爻煞忠笫欠衲軐|道國經(jīng)濟產(chǎn)生有利影響的前提條件,但仍存在許多不確定性。之后就可再生能源產(chǎn)業(yè)當?shù)爻煞忠笤趙to框架下的合法性問題展開分析,結(jié)論是包含當?shù)爻煞忠蟮目稍偕茉粗С执胧o法滿足gatt一般例外條款的條件。緊接著分析了對可再生能源產(chǎn)業(yè)的當?shù)爻煞忠筮M行規(guī)制的思路和具體路徑。首先,在規(guī)制思路上,應(yīng)該尋求貿(mào)易自由化目標和其他政策目標的協(xié)調(diào);其次對于規(guī)制平臺,一個獨立的可再生能源協(xié)定最為合適;最后就具體規(guī)則的制定提出了幾點建議,如就未來采用的當?shù)爻煞忠笾贫ㄒ粋�“靜止條款”或考慮用“區(qū)域成分要求”替代當?shù)爻煞忠�。最后就中國�?yīng)如何應(yīng)對提出建議。第七章對本文的研究成果進行系統(tǒng)的總結(jié),并提出存在的問題和疏漏,以及尚待進一步研究的問題。
[Abstract]:The negative impact of the financial crisis in 2008 on the world economy has led to the rise of trade protectionism. More and more countries have shifted from traditional means of trade protection to the use of non-tariff barriers, which include "localized trade barriers" - the development of all intellectual property from foreign imports, services or abroad. Localized barriers to trade are one of the fastest growing forms of trade protection and may be the greatest threat to further liberalization of the global trading system. At the same time, the issue of technology transfer requirements has not been regulated under the multilateral framework, and mandatory data localization requirements have been adopted by more and more countries after the Snowden Incident. The problem of localization trade barriers can not be ignored. Chapter 1 is the introduction, mainly introduces the background of the topic of this paper, and carries on the related research. Chapter 2 clarifies the basic concepts of localized trade barriers. The concept of "localized trade barriers" does not exist in the multilateral rules of the WTO. Since 2012, the United States has gradually been in the G20, APEC, OECD and some new trade and investment framework associations. There is no unified authoritative definition of the specific meaning of "localized trade barriers". For the purpose of this study, the author initially defines "localized trade barriers" as the sum of the measures taken by a country to require foreign enterprises to localize their economic activities. Such measures are unreasonable. Localization restrictions on the production, delivery, storage and processing of data, and transfer of technology by foreign firms to capture the value of foreign firms'investment, production, or provision of services in their own countries. Trade protectionism triggered by the 2008 financial crisis The rise of local trade barriers is the internal cause, while the imbalance of economic and Technological Development in various countries is the objective cause. The existing multilateral trade rules are either due to loopholes, or because of complete blankness, it is difficult to effectively regulate the local trade barriers. Dispute cases analyze the regulation status of localized trade barriers under the existing WTO rules. On the whole, some specific agreements under the WTO legal framework have provided certain legal basis for the regulation of localized trade barriers. Article 3 of the GPA Agreement stipulates measures to restrict local component requirements. However, these rules still have certain limitations, mainly in the following aspects: First, the national treatment obligations of Article 3 of the GATT and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement are limited by the exceptions to Article 3, paragraph 8 (a), of the GATT to the local component requirements in government procurement. Secondly, the national treatment obligations of Article 17 of GATS only apply to the service departments which the members have promised in the Schedule. The "positive list" model adopted in the Schedule of National Treatment of GATS greatly limits the scope of application of the principle of national treatment in service trade, so there are many measures in the field of service trade. The local component requirement cannot be effectively regulated; third, because the local component requirement measure is a prohibited subsidy under Article 3 of the SCM and the SCM is applicable to government procurement, SCM is of particular value to countries that are not signatories to the GPA agreement but are subject to subsidy measures to regulate local component behavior in government procurement Difficulties in identifying interests and other issues make the application of SCM difficult; fourthly, because the GPA agreement only restricts some WTO members, and many government entities are excluded from the scope of application of GPA agreement, the government procurement of those WTO members who are not signatories to GPA agreement, and the government procurement of entities not covered by GPA agreement Fifthly, in addition to the above-mentioned local requirements, more and more countries have begun to adopt other forms of local trade barriers, such as technology transfer requirements, data localization requirements, and so on. For these measures, the WTO framework does not have relevant rules to regulate them, leaving a rule blank. This chapter systematically combs and summarizes the existing rules on technology transfer and analyzes the possible focus of disputes, and puts forward suggestions on how to deal with new changes in China. First of all, it summarizes the new generation of technology transfer by systematically combing and summarizing. The characteristics of the prohibition of performance requirements are as follows: firstly, the prohibition of compulsory technology transfer but not the prohibition of encouraging technology transfer requirements; secondly, the prohibition of new technology transfer performance requirements is a "trims +" obligation clause applicable to both the investment admission stage and the operation stage; thirdly, the systematic exceptions are established; and then the compulsory requirements are put forward. The scope of technology transfer requirements, the way to set up exceptions to the prohibition of technology transfer performance requirements, the application of environmental protection exceptions and the application of intellectual property protection exceptions are analyzed. Firstly, the different rulings in Mobil Oil Company v. Canada and Merrillring Forestry Company v. Canada are adopted. By comparing the results, it is concluded that whether a measure constitutes a compulsory transfer of technology within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 1106 of the Nafta depends on the understanding of the arbitral tribunal as to whether the purpose behind a measure is more important or whether the actual impact of the disputed measure (which directly leads to a compulsory consequence) is more important. There are three different types of exceptions to the rule of prohibition of performance requirements for transfer of technology. One is specific exceptions to the rule of prohibition of performance requirements for transfer of technology. The second is "non-conforming measures" exceptions, and the third is fundamental security exceptions. The system of exceptional rules, which can maximize the core interests of the host country, is of great value for reference. However, there are still many disputes on the specific interpretation and application of these exceptional provisions. In fact, the focus is on how to balance the relationship between the protection of the interests of the host country and the protection of investment. The limitations in the application of exceptions and intellectual property exceptions illustrate the fact that the rights and interests of developing countries as host countries are not adequately protected: it is difficult for developing countries to make use of environmental exceptions to require foreign investment to transfer environmentally friendly technologies, and the existing compulsory licensing system does not really meet the needs of developing countries to cope with public affairs. Chapter 5 studies the regulation of data localization requirements, focusing on the corresponding cross-border data flow rules. Data localization requirements are one of the new forms of local trade barriers, and the concept of them. There is no uniform definition at present. It usually includes data center localization and data local storage. More and more countries have adopted mandatory localization requirements, which restrict the free flow of data across borders. This has also led to the formulation of international rules and disciplines governing the free flow of data across borders. Three issues are analyzed. Firstly, countries have not yet reached consensus on the contradiction between the free flow of cross-border data and legitimate policy objectives. However, the beneficial attempts of OECD and APEC have established the lowest standards for personal information protection, which is of great reference value. It may be considered to incorporate such international standards into the FTA in the future. Further clarify the specific scope of legal exceptions that restrict the free flow of data across borders, and strive to ensure that the government has the appropriate space to achieve "legitimate policy objectives" while minimizing distortions and obstacles to international trade. Second, in the choice of regulatory paths, the "geographical region-based" regulatory path and "organization-based" regulatory path should be adopted. Institutional benchmarking has its rationality and the trend of integration. The author thinks that the better choice is to adopt an institutional benchmarking approach, while allowing "geographical areas" as a consideration factor to determine whether data transfer is appropriate. The reality of data localization requirements for cross-border flows of data from countries and government departments makes it necessary to discuss the regulation of cross-border flows of data on national security in future trade negotiations. It is also important to note the difficulty of coordinating sensitive issues related to national sovereignty through trade agreements and to seek consensus on this basis. Chapter VI examines the regulation of local component requirements in the field of renewable energy. Data show that more than 100 local component requirements have been adopted by countries since 2008, 20 of which affect renewable energy. Source industry. This chapter analyzes the rationality of the local component requirements of renewable energy industry, demonstrates its rationality from four aspects: political and economic theory, protection of infant industry, creation of green employment and environmental spillover effect, and at the same time, from the inefficient allocation of resources, electricity price increase, it is difficult to predict whether green employment can be created or not. Generally speaking, there is no consensus on the rationality of the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry. However, it can be said that the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry are both reasonable but also unreasonable or doubtful. The following chapter analyzes the conditions under which the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry can have a beneficial impact on the domestic economy: a large and stable market with potential for development, appropriate restrictions on the proportion of local components, full cooperation between enterprises and the government, accompanied by financial subsidies, and emphasis on the spillover effect of technical knowledge. After that, the legitimacy of the local component requirements of the renewable energy industry under the framework of the WTO is analyzed. The conclusion is that the renewable energy support measures including the local component requirements can not meet the GA requirements. First of all, the coordination of trade liberalization objectives and other policy objectives should be sought; secondly, an independent renewable energy agreement is the most appropriate regulatory platform; Some suggestions are put forward on the formulation of specific rules, such as formulating a "static clause" or considering substituting "regional component requirement" for "local component requirement" in the future. Problems and omissions, and problems to be further studied.
【學位授予單位】：對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D996.1

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 叢德奇,劉慧,楊義鵬;吉林省可再生能源現(xiàn)狀、潛力及發(fā)展對策探討[J];延邊黨校學報;2000年03期

2 ;我國積極推動可再生能源產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展[J];領(lǐng)導決策信息;2000年49期

3 苗俊杰;“激勵”可再生能源開發(fā)[J];w攣胖蕓，

本文編號：2212627