WTO法律解释的申诉方利益取向

WTO争端解决机构的“法官”经常面临如何解释WTO规则的棘手难题.从表面上看,无论是WTO争端解决规则还是WTO争端解决机构作出的司法解释都强调应该秉持中立态度.但事实上,专家组或者上诉机构的“法官”在解释WTO法时并非完全中立,而是存在大量司法造法行为,在解释法律时常采用法律实用主义的方法,扩大WTO协定的涵盖范围,深化国际贸易自由,使诉讼结果有利于申诉方.一方面,有效解释原则为主、疑义从轻解释原则为辅的解释格局主导模糊性WTO规则的解释;另一方面,对被诉方据以辩解的国内法解释的效力进行严格限制.这些现象的发生可以用法律不完备理论、囚徒困境理论、国际贸易自行车理论和法官最高效用理论等进行解释.     

自制与开拓:WTO上诉机构管辖权的法律边界

WTO《争端解决规则与程序谅解》将上诉机构的管辖权限定于上诉通知中对专家小组裁决报告的法律结论和法律解释问题的上诉。然而,在争端解决实践中,上诉机构一方面遵循其边界限制,甚至在事实客观评估问题上进行了自我限制;另一方面,在有关对专家小组管辖权和司法经济原则适用的上诉问题上,为有效解决贸易争端,上诉机构又谨慎地突破了其管辖权的法律边界。上诉机构这种“抓大放小”的态度有利于WTO自身的发展,得到了WTO成员方的认同。     

WTO服务贸易承诺减让表之解释问题研究——以“中美出版物和视听产品案”为例

服务贸易承诺减让表的解释是WTO服务贸易争端中的难点问题,也是中美出版物和视听产品案的重点问题。目前,服务贸易承诺减让表的解释方法存在一定的缺陷。WTO争端解决机构在对服务贸易承诺减让表进行解释时,不仅应当考虑WTO各成员服务贸易承诺减让表的特性,还应体现成员的公共政策考量,以促进WTO法的健康发展。服务贸易承诺减让表的解释问题不仅是WTO成员在服务贸易争端个案中成败的关键,而且也给WTO成员的国内立法、应诉策略提出了很高的要求,因此,WTO成员在WTO服务贸易谈判中应具有高度的前瞻意识。     

论WTO规则的法解释主体

享有WTO规则法定解释权的解释主体有四,即:部长级会议、总理事会、专家组、上诉机构。部长级会议和总理事会所享有的法律解释的专有权力与专家组和上诉机构的法律解释权之间并无冲突。虽然根据《马拉喀什建立世界贸易组织协定》,部长级会议和总理事会对该《协定》和其他多边贸易协定拥有绝对的解释权,但是WTO规则的法律解释权事实上是由专家组和上诉机构在行使。     

WTO规则的法解释学初探

WTO规则需要解释,WTO的部长级会议、总理事会以及争端解决机构中的专家组和上诉机构均是WTO规则的法定解释主体,享有法定解释权。根据WTO有关协定的规定和争端解决机构的具体实践,WTO规则的法律解释方法主要有文义解释、体系解释、目的解释和法意解释等四种。     

试论WTO争端解决机构的法律解释权

根据WTO的规定,部长会议和总理事会拥有对WTO协定和多边贸易协议进行解释的专有权力;而专家组与上诉机构也可以在解决具体争端过程对WTO涵盖协议进行解释。作为争端解决报告的一部分,专家组与上诉机构的法律解释对争端当事方具有约束力。但由于WTO不存在严格的"遵循先例"原则,因此争端解决机构在特定案件中作出的法律解释在法律上也不具有先例效力;然而却具有事实上的先例效果。由于争端解决报告在事实上的先例效力,引发了关于争端解决机构"造法"的问题,有必要采取措施防止争端解决机构超越权限进行法律解释。     

条约解释初探——以DS379案为例

在WTO争端解决实践中,WTO争端解决机构的报告对WTO各涵盖协定进行了丰富的解释。中国诉美国反倾销和反补贴措施争端解决案中,中国与美国围绕"公共机构"的认定这一问题展开激烈的辩驳。专家组与上诉机构采用近乎完全相同的条约解释方法,却对该问题作出截然不同的裁决。本文拟通过分析专家组和上诉机构的报告中关于"公共机构"的法律解释,探求导致不同裁决的主要原因,以期对条约解释作出更为深入的理解。     

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。     

评WTO争端解决程序中法律解释的适用法——发展中国家的视角

选择公正的适用法来解释WTO法律,是WTO争端解决机构迅速公正解决争端的关键之一。随着世界文明多样化的快速发展,WTO法律体制的开放性已不容置疑。《条约法公约》作为习惯国际法的编纂,并不完全适合WTO法律解释的特点和要求,作为唯一的适用法显然缺乏足够的合理性,必须适当选择非WTO法来解释WTO法律。当前,我们应该积极构建相应的理论框架,对WTO相关法律进行修改。同时,WTO专家组和上诉机构在司法实践中应通过适当发展判例法来适用非WTO法,认真考虑发展问题和发展中国家的特殊情形,以便做出公正合理的裁决。     

从WTO争端解决机构的报告看条约解释问题

在中国诉美国反倾销和反补贴措施争端解决案中,最重要的一个问题就是《补贴与反补贴措施协定》中的＂公共机构＂的认定问题,WTO争端解决机构的专家组和上诉机构对该问题作出了截然不同的裁决。本文结合专家组和上诉机构的报告,以及《维也纳条约法公约》中对于条约解释的规定,就该案中对于＂公共机构＂的认定作出了系统的分析,提出了专家组在法律解释中出现的一些错误,并分析了专家组和上诉机构对于同一问题不同理解的原因。     

欧盟关税优惠案对发展中国家的影响

欧盟 2 0 0 1年 12月 10日通过的第 2 5 0 1/2 0 0 1号理事会条例就向发展中国家提供优惠关税作出了包括反药品生产在内的五种安排 ,给予 12个发展中国家优于其他发展中国家的关税待遇。印度由此向世贸组织提出申诉 ,认为欧盟条例 (后将其指控限定在药品安排 )违反了关贸总协定第 1条第 1款的规定 ,且不能以授权条款作为抗辩理由。专家组于 2 0 0 3年 12月 1日公布报告 ,支持印度的指控。欧盟就专家组的报告提起上诉。针对欧盟的上诉和其他当事方的意见 ,上诉庭明确了授权条款的地位问题、指控方应承担的提出证据的标准问题、以及非歧视待遇的内涵问题 ,据此 ,欧盟的药品安排被裁定不符合授权条款的规定。上诉庭的裁定意见将对发展中国家在世界贸易组织内享有的权利产生消极和积极两个方面的重要影响     

Medical restrictive covenants in Illinois: at the crossroads of Carter-Shields and Prairie Eye Center

This article examines the history, development and treatment by Illinois courts of medical restrictive covenants. The authors highlight two recent cases from Illinois, one from the Supreme Court and the other authored by an appellate court panel. The article concludes by providing not only a forecast of how such covenants should be treated by Illinois state courts in the future, but also a pathway for the expectations of health care practitioners who wish to use restrictive covenants in their employment relationships with their colleagues.     

直接适用抑或非直接适用:WTO争端解决中的非WTO国际法规则

尽管WTO法没有明确规定专家组和上诉机构可适用法律的范围,但是在WTO争端解决中,直接适用非WTO国际法规则仍缺乏充分的法理依据。适用于WTO成员方之间经济关系的法律并不当然构成WTO争端解决中可适用法律的一部分。DSU的有关条款,比如第7条和第11条,也排除了直接适用其他国际法规则的可能性。DSU第7条限定专家组行使职权时必须适用WTO涵盖协定的有关规定,而DSU第11条仅提到客观评估"有关涵盖协定的适用性",从而排除了非WTO国际法规则的"适用性"。在WTO争端解决中,专家组和上诉机构未被授权直接适用非WTO国际法规则,但可以将其作为解释WTO涵盖协定的有用工具。     

WTO争端解决机制的证明责任分配规则研究

GATT时期,专家组曾明确指出,＂援引例外的缔约方应对其满足例外所有条件承担证明责任＂,另外从一些专家组报告中还可以推断出＂申诉方对被诉方违反GATT的事实负证明责任＂。WTO成立后,＂申诉方承担被诉方违反WTO规则的证明责任＂以及＂被诉方对例外或者肯定性抗辩负证明责任＂成为专家组和上诉机构分配证明责任的一般规则。但是＂申诉方承担被诉方违反WTO规则的证明责任＂有可能被滥用,例外条款的辨别也存在难度。＂主张事实的一方应提供证明＂以及＂当事方应合作提供证据＂作为证明责任分配的特殊规则,可以在一定程度上解决上述一般规则的问题。     

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

In this article, we examine factors that influence appellate supervision in the lower tiers of the federal judicial hierarchy. Drawing on the insights of agency theory, we develop a framework to assess the determinants of circuit panel decisions to affirm or reverse federal district court rulings. Our analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals' published civil rights decisions over a 29-year period (1971–1999) offers support for several hypothesized relationships. As expected, the outcome of appellate review varied with the level of agreement between the preferences of the circuit (as principal) and the policy position of the trial court (as agent). In addition, we found that circuits were more likely to affirm trial court decisions that were contrary to the preferences of the federal district court judge, suggesting that circuit judges may rely on ideological signals when evaluating appeals before them. We also hypothesized that the monitoring activities of circuits would be influenced by individual circuits' relationship with their principal, the Supreme Court. Consistent with these expectations, panels were more likely to reverse district court rulings that were incongruous with the policy predisposition of the High Court. In addition, as Supreme Court scrutiny of a circuit increased, the likelihood of a circuit panel subsequently reversing a district court also increased. Although further inquiry is necessary to clarify the interpretation of this result, the finding does suggest that district courts are more likely to engage in decision making that deviates from circuit preferences when that circuit faces more intense supervision from the Supreme Court.     

我国民事上诉法院审级职能再认识

我国民事上诉审是参照苏联审判监督理论建立的,上诉法院的审级职能本应是上级人民法院依法对一审判决是否合法和有无根据进行审查,并据此定位上下级人民法院的审级关系。但因受诸般历史事情影响,我国民事上诉法院的此种职能至今未得到有效发挥,上级人民法院重复一审法院判案方式审理上诉案件的现象也因此未得到有效克服。藉助原始文献,重述我国民事上诉法院审查式上诉审的审级职能及设计原理,应可资立法者、学界讨论民事审级制度改革时参考。     

GOVERNING STANDARDS OF MEDICAL CARE: State Courts Interpret the Locality Rule

This article analyzes a significant, but little researched, form of legal involvement in the medical profession—state appellate court opinions. Analyzing 100 years of state appellate court decisions on a legal rule called the "locality rule," the author presents four distinct judicial interpretations of the rule. Each has distinctive policy implications for law and medicine pertaining to the setting of standards for professional competency in medicine. Three of the judicial interpretations provide for increasing amounts of judicial deference to the professional autonomy of the medical community. A fourth interpretation within the last decade, however, upholds a judicial prerogative for establishing standards of professional competency. The author concludes that the fourth interpretation is not an aberration and signals a change in the relationship between law and medicine for the future.     

THE APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXCEPTIONS OF THE GATT TO CHINA’S WTO-PLUS OBLIGATIONS — WTO PANEL AND APPELLATE BODY RULINGS ON THE CHINESE EXPORT RESTRICTIONS OF RARE EARTHS,TUNGSTEN AND MOLYBDENUM

On March 26, 2014, a panel, established by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, circulated its final report regarding the China — Rare Earths case to WTO Members. This dispute concerns China’s export restrictions on rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum. In its report, the panel agreed with the findings of another dispute, the China — Raw Materials case. It concluded that the environmental exceptions under Article XX GATT 1994 cannot be applied to China’s actions. This conclusion is reconfirmed in the latest appellate body’s report of China — Rare Earths on August 7, 2014. Therefore, China was not able to justify the violation of their WTO-plus obligation to eliminate all export duties, contained in paragraph 11.3 of China’s Accession Protocol. As a consequence of the panel’s decision, it seems impossible for China to justify trade barriers with environmental interests and to invoke any exceptions. Such findings are subject to a fundamental controversy within the WTO multilateral trade system, trying to solve the tensions between environmental protection and trade liberalization. This essay examines the general applicability of environmental exceptions by analyzing the panel’s and appellate body’s approaches to the China — Rare Earths case and their findings, in connection with the purpose of sustainable development as prescribed by the preamble of the WTO Agreement. It has to be examined whether the non-application of the WTO environmental exceptions complies with Article 31 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and is consistent with the balance between the different values pursued by the WTO. This article argues that Article XX GATT 1994 should be applicable to China’s WTO-plus obligation specified in paragraph 11.3 of its Accession Protocol as far as environmental interests are concerned.     

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。