WTO争端解决中的可诉性问题释微——基于成案的视角

GATT/WTO争端解决的判例显示,WTO成员的立法行为本身、尚未生效的法规措施、没有法律约束力的行政指导在WTO体制中都具有可诉性。已失效的法规措施通常不具有可诉性,但若相关措施是在进入专家组程序后失效的,专家组或上诉机构仍可能对之作出裁决。以上行为具有可诉性体现出了多边贸易体制保护竞争条件的精神。     

上诉机构停摆后的WTO争端解决

世界贸易组织(WTO)上诉机构的停摆虽然对WTO产生了巨大的影响,但并不意味着其争端解决机制的终结。我们不应该扔掉整个皇冠,即使它上面的宝石出现了裂缝。通过对上诉机构停止运作后将主导WTO争端解决机制的若干方案及其利弊的考察分析可见,WTO上诉机构的停摆对于目前及未来发生的贸易争端将意味着,WTO争端解决尤其是如何处理专家组报告将从一揽子、统一适用的模式进入到多元化、碎片化的模式。当前,在贸易保护主义、单边主义抬头,“逆全球化”浪潮时隐时现,多边贸易体制处于风雨飘摇之际,如何继续保证WTO规则的一致性和捍卫以规则为基础的多边贸易体制,将是摆在WTO成员面前的迫切课题。中国需要与其他成员一起,通过必要的革新和改进,致力于为上诉机构重新恢复运转寻求永久且迅速的解决方案。     

The Standard of Review Strikes Back: the US-Korea Drams Appeal

This article contains a brief analysis of how the WTO AppellateBody identified and applied a standard of review in the recentUS–Korea DRAMS Appeal and its implications for this aspectof WTO jurisprudence in the future. Section I discusses theformulation of the objective assessment test and its developmentthrough subsequent cases. Section II sets out the backgroundto the US–Korea DRAMS decision and summarizes the reasoningof the Appellate Body in determining that the panel had notcomplied with its obligations under Article 11 of the DisputeSettlement Understanding. Section III discusses the implicationsof this decision for panels and parties. It is suggested thatthis decision evidences the significant development of the standardof review under the WTO dispute-settlement system. However,it is suggested that the standard is becoming more complex innature, and it may be increasingly difficult for panels to complywith Article 11 without a clear restatement of applicable principlesby the Appellate Body.     

Completing the Analysis in WTO Appeals: The Practice and its Limitations

Since its creation in 1995, the Appellate Body of the WorldTrade Organization (WTO) has gradually constructed a consistentapproach to completing panels’ analysis where the circumstancespermit. The need for this practice stems from the limitationof WTO appeals to issues of law and the absence of remand inWTO disputes. The Appellate Body can be seen to complete a panel’sanalysis in two different scenarios: to deal with a claim thatthe panel failed to address; or to apply a different legal interpretationto the facts of the case, where the Appellate Body has reversedor modified the panel’s legal interpretation. In decidingwhether to complete a panel’s analysis, the AppellateBody appears to consider three criteria: the existence of uncontestedfacts to resolve the matter, the connection between the legalissues to be addressed in completing the analysis and thoseconsidered by the panel, and the due process rights of the partiesto the dispute. Where these criteria are not satisfied, theAppellate Body is unable to complete the analysis, and the disputemay go unresolved. This is an increasing problem, highlightingthe need for WTO Members to agree on a suitable remand mechanism.     

赢多输少还是输多赢少?——WTO争端解决机制申诉方败诉案件解析

利用WTO争端解决机制处理的国际贸易纠纷中申诉方完全败诉的案件占专家组处理案件的10%强,主要原因是申诉方未能完成举证义务,申诉方没有正确提出诉请,被申诉方政府的声明使得专家组不支持诉请。     

WTO争端胜诉方"申请授权报复"的程序问题研究——"世贸组织争端解决规则与程序的谅解"第21.5条和第22.6条之间的顺序问题

WTO争端解决机制(Dispute Settlement Mechanism)是乌拉圭回合谈判的一个重要成果,而WTO争端解决机制比起GATT时代的争端解决程序的优越性主要在于它对执行裁决的监督上。体现在"WTO争端解决程序与规则的谅解"(DSU)中,就在于第21条"履行措施的合法性审查"和第22条"申请授权报复"的规定。这两条规定在WTO司法实践中已经成为WTO法执行的砥柱规则,使多边贸易体系解决纠纷的法律体系功能更为强大。但是,WTO的立法和任何立法一样,在具有前瞻性、预测性的同时,不可避免地具有一些滞后性,甚至在立法的当时受各种利益因素的制约,在立法上留有一些空白。针对DSU第21条和第22条规定的内在冲突,从分析WTO以往发生的案例入手,综合WTO专家小组对此问题的解释,结合各国提出的建议,对此问题进行论述。     

RECONCILING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WITH NATURAL RESOURCES TRADE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: A PERSPECTIVE FROM CHINA — RARE EARTHS

This article intends to shed light on key legal issues that emerged from the recently released WTO Appellate Body’s adjudication over China — Rare Earths dispute, exploring possible policy options for China to reach its environmental goals on natural resources in a WTO-consistent manner. The article first spotlights positive variations in the Appellate Body’s interpretative approach regarding the applicability of GATT general exceptions to defend the violation of WTO-Plus commitments under China’s Accession Protocol; second, given the fact that the Appellate Body, pursuant to the elements inscribed in GATT Article XX(g), confirmed the Panel’s objective assessment based on the design and structure of the challenged measures of GATT, this paper provides reflections and recommendations on China’s domestic environmental legislation. The third part probes into the interface between the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and the WTO legal regime, with an attempt to offer thought-provoking ideas on how to reconcile potential conflicts between the two.     

Compliance by WTO Members with Adverse WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings: The Record to Date

The generally positive record of Members in complying with adverserulings by panels, the Appellate Body or both has been an importantfactor in the success of the WTO dispute settlement system todate. In approximately 90 percent of the adopted reports, oneor more violations of WTO obligations have been found by panelsand/or the Appellate Body. In virtually all of these cases theWTO Member found to be in violation has indicated its intentionto bring itself into compliance and the record indicates thatin most cases has already done so. It is noticeable, if notunsurprising, that compliance has been more rapid where theWTO violations can be corrected through administrative actionas opposed to legislative action. A closer review of the compliancerecord of the United States and the European Communities, whichtogether have been the object of approximately half of all adverseWTO rulings, shows that these Members have generally succeededin bringing themselves into compliance with such rulings, althoughboth Members have experienced some residual compliance difficultiesin a small number of cases. As a final note, the overall positiverecord of Members in complying with adverse WTO rulings is reflectedin, and confirmed by, the low number of cases where Membershave sought and received authorization to impose retaliatorymeasures.     

King Cotton, Developing Countries and the 'Peace Clause': The WTO's US Cotton Subsidies Decision

Although the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a powerful vehiclefor promoting economic development, the Uruguay Round has beenperceived by developing country WTO members as an unequal bargain.Especially with respect to agriculture, the Uruguay Round yieldedonly limited concessions. In September 2003, Doha Round effortsstalled at Cancún when developing countries coalescedto oppose a proposal that insufficiently liberalized trade inagriculture. In March 2005, the Dispute Settlement Body adopteda panel decision upholding Brazil’s legal challenge ofUS subsidies to cotton producers. The US Cotton Subsidies decisionrepresents a dramatic victory for Brazil and other developingcountry WTO members. The timing of the decision, coincidingwith ongoing Doha Round agriculture negotiations, ensures thatit will influence any outcome of the Round. This article examinesthe US Cotton Subsidies decision, describes the subsidy programsat issue in the dispute, reviews applicable WTO rules, and outlinesthe major findings of the panel and Appellate Body. The articleconcludes that Brazil’s victory in US Cotton Subsidiesmay represent a broader shift within the WTO away from a systemdominated by the US and EC toward a system that increasinglyis influenced by emerging market economies.     

Necessity Exceptions in WTO Law: Retreaded Tyres, Regulatory Purpose and Cumulative Regulatory Measures

The recent decisions of the panel and Appellate Body in Brazil– Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres touchedupon a number of issues of ongoing significance to the applicationof necessity tests, such as those in Article XX of the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade. This article argues that thedispute represents a mixed outcome for the application of necessitytests. The express recognition that some regulatory measuresare complementary to one another rather than reasonably availablealternatives constitutes a welcome step forward. On the otherhand, the panel's characterization of Brazil's regulatory goalhighlights an approach common to a number of panel reports thatcould justify a perception of arbitrariness in application ofnecessity tests. Similarly, comments made by the Appellate Bodyto the effect that a panel is obliged to consider the importanceof a state's regulatory goal extend the role of a panel in anunjustifiable manner.     

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).     

Precaution, Scientific Development and Scientific Uncertainty under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body has noted that the precautionary principle will be relevant to the interpretation of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures in various ways, although the Appellate Body has declined to determine the status of the precautionary principle for international law or to find that it has been written into the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body's awareness of precaution, the dynamics of scientific research and the nature of scientific uncertainty is to be welcomed. This awareness is helpful in dealing with new and emerging issues, such as the question of when a risk assessment relied upon by a WTO member becomes outdated by virtue of subsequent scientific developments. If maintained, an overly rigid approach to risk assessment, with a tight temporal focus, will inadequately acknowledge the natural processes of flux in the development of scientific knowledge.     

诚信原则在WTO争端解决机制中的适用评析

诚信原则作为各国民法中最重要的原则,已经成为国际法中的一般法律原则,越来越频繁地应用在WTO争端解决中。由于诚信原则存在明显的不确定性,难以在实践中适用,专家组和上诉机构在诸多案例中对诚信原则的含义及其解释法律和弥补法律漏洞的司法职能进行了确认,并成功地解决了不少争端。遗憾的是,上诉机构的司法限制制约了专家组的有益探索,过分谨慎。当前国际国内经济与法律的发展为专家组和上诉机构进行更大胆的探索准备了良好的条件,WTO争端解决机制应充分发挥诚信原则的司法职能,确立成员方诚信履行WTO实体法律的独立的义务,这将有利于弥补WTO的相关法律漏洞,迅速有效地解决争端。     

WTO专家组和上诉机构举证责任分配标准的合理性分析

WTO专家组和上诉机构为了完成其迅速而有效地解决争端的义务,在DSU没有对举证责任分配规则做出任何规定的情形下,在判例中基本采用了谁主张谁举证的原则,同时,也发展了一些举证责任分配规则和标准。遗憾的是,专家组和上诉机构的实践表明,他们并没有严格遵守其形成的相关举证责任分配规则,其形成的相关标准也缺乏合理性:传统的谁主张谁举证原则由于忽视了实质公平,在WTO审理实践中容易被滥用;例外规定与排除规定之间存在区别的分析多此一举;重要性等级标准缺乏合理性及例外规定作为举证责任分配的标准既没有法律依据,其合理性也受到质疑。这必然削弱了WTO争端解决机制的权威性,因此,对WTO专家组和上诉机构所形成的举证责任分配规则和标准实行必要的改革,已成为当务之急。     

'Good Faith' in the WTO Jurisprudence - Necessary Balancing Element or an Open Door to Judicial Activism?

The purpose of the article is two-fold: first, it seeks to clarifyand structure those contexts in which the principle of goodfaith has entered the WTO jurisprudence; and second, it presentsan analysis of the potential effects and risks accompanyingthis entrance, such as the allegation of judicial activism onthe part of the panels or the Appellate Body and the viabilityof a distinction between violation and non-violation cases.It attempts to define the framework within which a suitableconcept for the application of good faith must be found andexplores the conclusion that thus far the Appellate Body hasapplied good faith with the necessary caution. However, it cautionsthe necessity of avoiding an overbroad use of the concept andmandates the requirement for the judicial bodies to articulatemore clearly the content attributed to the concept in a particularcase and the legal consequences thereof than it has done thusfar. Finally this article urges the judicial bodies to avoidthe idea of an abstract obligation of good faith that adds somethingto the obligation under the WTO Agreements. This would accordwith the traditional international law understanding of whatthe application of the good faith principle implies.     

The Legal Basis for Using Principles in WTO Disputes

This article argues that the use of principles in WTO disputeresolution is both necessary and desirable. However, Panelsand the Appellate Body (WTO Tribunals) have often ignored principlesor not clearly identified the legal basis for their use. Thisarticle establishes a framework for the use of principles (inparticular principles of WTO law, principles of customary internationallaw, and general principles of law) in WTO dispute settlement.Broadly, WTO Tribunals can use principles drawn from these categoriesto interpret WTO provisions, based on Article 3.2 of the DSU,and Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT. This follows most directlyfrom a teleological approach to interpretation, but principlesalso feature under subjective and textual approaches to interpretation.WTO Tribunals may also use certain principles in a non-interpretativemanner. Indeed, this may be necessary, particularly to addressprocedural issues. Precisely how a principle may be used dependson its type, content and status.     

Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US - Gambling: A Critique

‘Before the game begins players should agree on a dictionaryto use in case of a challenge.’ (from the Official Rulesof SCRABBLE®)

Treaty interpretation in WTO law continues to represent a topicof highly theoretical and practical importance. The Panel’sand the Appellate Body’s reports in the recent US –Gambling dispute have critically turned on ascertaining themeaning of the United States’ GATS Schedule and ArticleXVI GATS on the basis of the public international law rulesof treaty interpretation as codified in the Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties. The paper’s principal aim is toreview the interpretative approach followed in particular bythe Appellate Body in reaching its decision in US – Gambling.Its main argument is that, although the Appellate Body appearsto be trying to emancipate itself from a rigorous textual approach,it has not yet embraced a holistic approach to treaty interpretation,one in which the treaty interpreter looks thoroughly at allthe relevant elements of the general rule on treaty interpretationpursuant to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention.     

自由贸易体制下的“绿色能源空间”——以加拿大可再生能源发电设施补贴案为视角

上诉机构通过加拿大可再生能源发电设施案的处理,认为成员方旨在"创建"可再生能源市场的财政资助措施并不构成补贴,但干预如超出所需并"扭曲"市场,则可能构成补贴。上诉机构"创建市场"和"扭曲市场"的二分论虽然在一定程度上保留了成员方资助可再生能源市场的政策空间,但也存在较大的不确定性。在WTO涵盖协定下拓宽绿色能源空间,宜对SCM协定进行修订,将成员方财政资助可再生能源产业的措施列为"不可诉补贴"予以豁免。     

非WTO法在WTO争端解决中的适用

在分析WTO专家组和上诉机构具有充分的理由适用非WTO法的基础上,结合DSB解决争端的实践,认为非WTO法在WTO争端解决程序中具有广泛的效力。非WTO法不仅可以使专家组中止管辖权,甚至在更多的情况下使专家组拒绝管辖,而且非WTO法能有效的证明某些违反WTO规则的做法具有正当性。     

非WTO法在WTO争端解决中的适用

WTO专家组和上诉机构具有充分的理由适用非WTO法,DSB解决争端的实践表明非WTO法在WTO争端解决程序中具有广泛的效力。非WTO法不仅可以使专家组中止管辖权,甚至在更多的情况下使专家组拒绝管辖,而且非WTO法能有效地证明某些违反WTO规则的做法具有正当性。