DSU补偿措施的革新路径

在WTO新一轮谈判中,争端解决机制中的补偿是一个极具争议性的议题。补偿所具有的功能性缺陷及其文本规定上的内在不足使其倍受指责。为此,WTO成员当局和学者提出了许多关于改进DSU补偿措施的对策。本文对这些对策作了详尽的分析,并结合我国实际提出了我国理论与实务界应采取的因应策略。     

WTO与我国仲裁法律制度的变革

在WTO争端解决机制中,具体的争端解决方式有协商、斡旋、调解、调停、诉讼和仲裁等,其中仲裁是常选的方式。加入WTO对我国仲裁事业产生了深刻的影响,特别是WTO争端解决机制中有关仲裁的规定给我国仲裁法律制度的发展带来了新的机遇与挑战。而现阶段我国仲裁法律制度中还存在着一些缺陷,从客观上影响了与WTO规则的一致性。该文从WTO仲裁规则的历史发展和主要内容出发,分析WTO规则对我国仲裁法律制度的要求,提出了我国仲裁法律制度具体变革的措施。     

WTO disputes settlement

How to understand China’s policies and practices on the WTO dispute settlement since its accession to WTO and conduct objective and reasonable assessment on its performance and achievements in WTO dispute settlement is currently an important issue of concerns. By analyzing China’s performance in the WTO dispute settlement in the broad environment of the WTO dispute settlement activities over the past thirteen years, this paper holds that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism has made remarkable achievements over the past 13 years, strongly promoted the trade relationship of the WTO members and settled tough and complicated trade disputes in a timely, effective and proper manner; and over the past seven years after China’s accession to WTO, China’s practice in WTO dispute settlement mechanism has rendered the following initial impression: High-profile positive policies and low-profile moderate acts; not hesitate to file complaints but be good at responding to complaints in participating in the WTO dispute settlement activities; more consultations should be made with less litigations; diligent in participation and strict in implementation; and handling trade disputes related to the WTO rules in a reasonable, effective and moderate manner.     

China’s ten years in the wto: its performance and new challenges

Becoming a member of the WTO in 2001 was a historic event of great significance during the process of China’s reform and opening up. Since then, China has steadily pushed forward the reform and opening up policy, proactively seizing the opportunities of economic globalization and positively utilizing the multilateral trading system to develop economic and trade relations with other countries, all of which have contributed to the great economic and social achievements during the first decade of 21st century. However, there are different opinions on China’s futuristic role in the WTO, and those disagreements resulting from various interest preferences are not only one-sided and limited, but also triggering off the discussions on the criteria to assess China’s performance in the WTO. This article argues that China’s activities in the WTO (i.e., implementing WTO commitments, participating in the Doha Round negotiation, the dispute settlement and trade policy review) should be a kind of assessment criteria. Based on comprehensive observation of China’s performance in the WTO, it is concluded in this article that China’s participation in the WTO system and global trade governance extends the scope of world trade law, improves its effectiveness, constitutes China’s new contributions to implement treaty obligations in good faith, resolves peacefully international trade disputes, and maintains substantively the international rule of law. At the same time, it has not only caused new driving forces for international trading system, but also made China face new challenges in the WTO.     

The European Community and the Member States in the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO: United or Divided?

Opinion 1/94 of the European Court of Justice determined the competence of the European Community and the Member States to conclude and implement WTO Agreements. Whilst the European Community enjoys exclusive competence to implement the Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods, it shares joint competence with the Member States in respect of the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. However, the Court’s recognition of a division of competences between the Community and the Member States in WTO agreements has given rise to many fears that such a division would greatly complicate Community and Member State participation in WTO Agreements, would create many problems for them in doing so and, as a result, would greatly impede their successful participation in the WTO. Given the benefit of a number of years’ experience in the WTO, this paper focuses on the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) of the WTO and addresses the extent to which the division of competences between the Community and the Member States has affected their participation in the DSU. Primarily, it aims to examine the extent to which the provisions of the DSU affect Community and Member State participation in dispute settlement within the WTO. It then analyses the duty of co-operation imposed on the Community and on Member States by the Court of Justice in Opinion 1/94 in the implementation of the WTO Agreements and the degree to which this duty influences their pursuit of dispute settlement. Finally, the paper examines the manner in which Community and Member State dispute settlement proceedings have evolved in practice, the extent to which the division of powers has penetrated dispute settlement proceedings and the manner in which the Community, the Member States and other WTO members have addressed it. In essence, the paper attempts both to highlight some of the more obvious consequences and effects that the internal division of powers between the Community and the Member States has for their participation in the DSU and to suggest some ways in which these consequences may be manipulated for their mutual and successful settlement of disputes.     

The Good Case: Decisions to Litigate at the World Trade Organization

This article draws upon the law-in-action, repeat players, and motive to understand how legal actors construct the "good case" in dispute settlement systems. The construction of "good cases" is examined at the World Trade Organization (WTO), a relatively new and unexplored site for the study of dispute settlement. Findings show that the good case encompasses flexible sets of motives including economic, political, and symbolic characteristics of trade grievances to mobilize WTO law. The flexibility is due to uncertainties associated with litigation, which are manifestations of four features of the WTO: the newness of the system, the organizational and legal structure of the dispute system, the context of the WTO as an intergovernmental agreement, and the persistence of inequality between states. Six variations of the good case are identified.     

Membership and its Privileges: the WTO, Civil Society, and the Amicus Brief Controversy

Abstract: In a series of rulings, beginning with the notorious Shrimp/Turtle dispute, the high court of the WTO, the so‐called Appellate Body, has ruled that it, as well as the panels of first instance, may, on a discretionary basis, accept and consider amicus curiae briefs from, inter alia, non‐governmental organisations and private individuals. This has been highly controversial and subject to wide and intense criticism by trade diplomats who are the political representatives of WTO Member states in Geneva; the officials have reacted with anger and hostility to the notion that governments are not exclusive gatekeepers of access to the WTO dispute settlement tribunals. This article shows that the decision that amicus briefs are admissible at the discretion of the adjudicator has a sound basis in the legal framework for WTO dispute settlement, as well as conforming to trends in the practice of international courts and tribunals more generally. The article examines various ‘due process’ issues concerning the modalities for acceptance and consideration of amicus briefs and how they have been so far dealt with by the Appellate Body, as well as how they are handled in certain proposals for reform of the legal framework of WTO dispute settlement, the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).     

略论中国在WTO争端解决机制中的角色转换

虽然目前多哈回合谈判进程严重受挫,但这并不意味着与争端解决机制的重要性将逐渐降低,只要WTO继续存在,其争端解决机制仍必将继续在整个WTO多边贸易体制中占据至关重要的地位。中国已于2006年12月11日迎来了入世五周年,因而非常有必要从各个方面加以回顾、总结和展望。但这五年来,中国未能在争端解决机制中扮演重要的角色。本文对有关现状及未来在该争端解决机制中实现角色转换的相关问题加以分析和探讨,并提出相应的建议。     

Securing Compliance Through the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Implementation of DSB Recommendations

The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement systemhas been making substantial contributions to improved compliancewith the WTO Agreements. Of particular note are the elaboratemultistage mechanisms installed in the system that facilitateand ensure the implementation of the DSB recommendations. However,these multistage mechanisms are not devoid of problems and shortcomings.Several improvements are proposed by Members and scholars buta number of disagreements exist, reflecting varied understandingof the nature of the dispute settlement system. Against thisbackground, this article first analyses the nature of the disputesettlement system. It argues that the primary purpose of thedispute settlement system is not to secure compliance in abstractobut to settle a dispute and remedy injury, and its compliancefunction is exerted only in the course of dispute settlement.Thereafter, in the light of the nature of the dispute settlementsystem, this article presents a comprehensive analysis of themanner in which the multistage mechanisms currently functionand how they should function.     

论国际法在WTO体制中的作用

国际法中的WTO规则以及国际法在WTO争端解决机制中的作用都是我们急待研究的问题。WTO规则是国际法一般规则的一部分。WTO争端解决机制是WTO体制中具有核心作用的机制。WTO争端解决机制不仅仅是适用WTO规则 ,而且还会涉及适用国际法的其它一般规则 ,如国际人权法、国际环境法、国际劳工法等。也就是说 ,WTO的内涵及外延已经超出了经济和贸易的范畴。中国加入WTO就意味着接受国际司法管辖。     

非政府组织参与WTO争端解决机制的角色定位

非政府组织以"法庭之友"身份间接参与争端解决程序,向争端解决各方提供客观、科学和公允的信息,有效发挥其辅助争端解决的角色功能,具有十分充分的正当性。但是,由于非政府组织对WTO争端解决机制的参与缺乏明确的法律依据、成员方过于担忧WTO的政府间性质会受到非政府组织的冲击、一些非政府组织的代表性亦需要仔细甄别,使得非政府组织的参与行为仍然面临巨大的角色困境。因此,只有客观分析困境,厘清对非政府组织的角色困惑,进而科学应对,方可走向共赢。     

论WTO争端解决的条约解释

WTO争端解决的条约解释提供了迄今为止国际条约法领域最丰富、最具研究价值的实践。本文从国际公法角度,以1995年WTO建立后至2005年6月的158项争端解决报告为实证考察对象,首先阐明条约解释在WTO争端解决中的重要性,然后着重概述WTO争端解决中条约解释通则的问题,扼要分析其特别规则,最后略比国际法院60年来诉讼案件中的条约解释实践,并得出若干结论,以期对我国参加WTO争端解决有所裨益。     

WTO争端解决机制中的专家决策与公众参与

专家决策在WTO争端解决机制中起着主导性作用.依照DsU的有关规定,专家组成员可以请求其他专家帮助他们评估某一WTO成员方的政策,以界定该成员方所采取的措施是否符合其所承担的自由贸易义务.然而,不论是专家的选任还是专家意见的征求,都有需要改进之处.WTO争端解决的法律化及民主化是公众参与的先决条件.实质上,公众参与的法律基础是透明度.公众参与作为一项手段,可以大大加强WTO争端解决机制的效力.     

论WTO争端解决的国内法审查

随着我国对外贸易的迅速扩增,与其他WTO成员的贸易争端也日趋频繁。WTO争端解决的关键是通过条约解释澄清其成员的权利与义务,审查系争国内法是否符合WTO有关协定。本文首先论述WTO争端解决中的国内法概念,然后着重地分别探讨专家组审理与上诉复审的国内法审查,最后分析我国应对WTO争端解决的国内法审查问题。     

Post-‘Brexit’ Financial Governance: Which Dispute Settlement Framework Should Be Utilised?

This contribution to the ongoing Brexit discussions addresses topical legal and regulatory issues in the post-Brexit policy debate, especially the questions surrounding the important area of financial governance and dispute resolution. Specifically, a number of future UK/EU legal disputes with respect to financial services may emerge post-Brexit. The article examines the UK's track record at the Court of Justice of the European Union, and discusses some likely future challenges. It then considers which institutional framework should be used for resolving disagreements. The article assesses the strengths and weaknesses of three potential models (the proposed Swiss/EU institutional framework; the EFTA ‘docking’ option; and the WTO system) and provides an original cross-model evaluation. It also discusses the associated design challenges that EU and UK negotiators may encounter in the attempt to devise a post-Brexit dispute settlement system.     

论世贸组织法律救济的特性

世贸组织法律救济,主要表现为其争端解决机制对因违反WTO协定的行为而受害的WTO成员提供的三种救济:终止违法行为、补偿、暂停关税减让或者其他义务。这些救济具有层次性、连贯性、预期性和非惩罚性。作为一套救济制度,世贸组织法律救济具有双重性:一方面有利于激发WTO成员善意、引导遵守和履行义务的积极作用,另一方面又容易滋生“屡犯屡改、屡改屡犯”的弊端。整个救济体制虽说制度上有所创新,但在理论与实践方面引发了争议,有待进一步研究与改进。     

WTO争端解决中“规则冲突”的概念界定

无论是在国际公法中,还是在WTO争端解决中,如何界定"规则冲突"的概念,都是一个悬而未决、难以确定的问题。在国际公法和WTO争端解决中,关于规则冲突的概念,都存在定义的广义与狭义之争。在国际公法中,比较流行的是狭义的冲突定义,不承认权利可能与义务或禁止相冲突;在WTO争端解决实践中,究竟是应该采用狭义的还是广义的规则冲突的定义,目前尚未有定论。然而,狭义的冲突定义在法律上是不恰当的,并且导致自相矛盾,因此,在WTO争端解决中,关于规则冲突的狭义定义是不可取的,必须首选一个广泛的定义,把允许与义务或禁止之间冲突的情况,即矛盾的冲突,也视为构成规则冲突。     

审慎抑或轻率地扩大权利？——WTO争端解决机制第三方制度改革问题述评

作为WTO调整争端解决法律依据的规范性文件——《关于争端解决规则和程序的谅解书》在第三方问题上的规定存在着不够明确和完善的地方,由此带来的规则和实践的不一致减损了WTO的可预见性,第三方制度成为WTO争端解决实践中存在较大争议的地方之一。有关第三方制度的改革问题,必须建立在一个正确认识第三方参与对WTO争端解决进程之影响的基础之上。鉴于第三方对于争端解决进程的过多参与将会对争端解决的成本、争端得到早期解决的可能性、争端解决的结果等方面带来众多不可忽视的消极影响,因此,应该在改革第三方制度的过程中采取审慎的而不是轻率的态度。     

论国际仲裁在WTO争端解决机制中的嬗变

国际仲裁是解决国际争端的重要法律方法之一,传统上具有当事方自治、一裁终局等特点。目前的WTO争端解决机制是一套综合了各种外交及法律争端解决手段、独具特色的新型国际争端解决机制。随着社会的发展,国际仲裁在WTO争端解决机制中具有了一些新形式,也发生了一些新变化,值得进一步辨析和考察。     

从世贸组织争端解决机制谈国际法效力的强化

国际法一直以来都是以“软法”、“弱法”的形式出现,努力加强国际法的拘束力,以有效解决国际争端,是国际法发展的一个方向。世贸组织争端解决机制作为一个司法性国际争端解决机制,不论是其制度设计,还是其司法实践,都体现了国际法拘束力不断加强的发展趋势。