Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35147
|
| Title: | 論WTO爭端解決程序中審查基準之爭議：以反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條為中心
ISSUES ON STANDARDS OF REVIEW UNDER WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION: FOCUS ON ARTICLE 17.6(ii) OF ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT |
| Authors: | 陳言博
Chen, Yen-Po |
| Contributors: | 楊光華
Yang,Connie Guang-Hwa
陳言博
Chen, Yen-Po |
| Keywords: | 世界貿易組織
反傾銷
爭端解決
審查基準
World Trade Organization (WTO)
Anti-Dumping
Dispute Settlement
Standards of Review |
| Date: | 2004 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-18 14:16:35 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 隨著WTO爭端解決機構近年來的實踐，許多制度性問題紛紛浮現，特別是WTO爭端解決小組或上訴機構在反傾銷爭端中審查基準實踐上所引發之爭議。批評者主要認為上訴機構於反傾銷規範之法律解釋上不當適用解釋規則，並未遵循反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條之規範。另外，上訴機構實質上近乎重新審理被訴會員之法律見解，似乎違反第17.6(ii)條之規範意旨。本文嘗試整理相關經由WTO上訴機構裁決之反傾銷爭端，觀察及彙整第17.6(ii)條於現行運作中之實踐情形，並檢視上述兩項爭議之正反意見。經分析後發現，上述兩項爭議皆涉及不同之政策考量與WTO組織間的互動。易言之，除爭端解決機構對於協定條文之法律解釋外，偏重與選擇不同之政策考量做為正當性基礎，將決定著審查基準之面貌。在進一步分析並檢討在反傾銷制度下可能影響審查基準之政策價值後，本文認為WTO爭端解決機制為維繫其準司法機關之正當性與確保經由多邊架構所帶來之合作利益，有統一法律解釋與重新審理被控訴會員之法律解釋之必要。另外，反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條審查基準之解釋上，不宜採取其立法來源—美國法Chevron doctrine—之規範內涵。同時，為避免反傾銷制度遭濫用成為貿易保護政策之工具，應賦予WTO爭端解決機構於審理反傾銷爭端時較為自主之法律解釋權力。然而，基於適度尊重WTO會員主權之考量與司法自制之要求，本文建議，WTO爭端解決機構在審理反傾銷案件時，除須正確地援引並靈活運用國際法上習慣解釋規則外，更需適度參照第17.6(ii)條之立法目的，藉由嚴格適用WTO協定，以充實其所採取審查基準之正當性基礎。
With practices of WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the institutional issues on Standards of Review have emerged, especially on WTO Anti-dumping disputes. Contestations are focus on whether Appellate Body has mal-applied rules of interpretations on Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) as to go beyond Article 17.6(ii). Moreover, Critics query whether Appellate Body De Novo reviewed member’s legal interpretations as to disregard purpose of Article 17.6(ii). By examining relevant anti-dumping penal and appellate body reports, current modes of practices on ADA Article 17.6(ii) are concluded, and probed to its different critiques. Further, issues of such are result from policy considerations of Standards of Review under Anti-Dumping System. In other words, apart from penal and appellate body’s interpretations on ADA, different policy ends will influence current practices of Standards of Review. Consequently, the article checks on and assays on relevant policy justifications of deferential standards of review under anti-dumping system. Concluded, for retaining its institution justifications and ensuring the cooperation gains under multilateral approach, WTO dispute settlement institutes have the necessities in de novo review and leveling legal interpretations. Moreover, due to the different characters, the Chevron mode interpretations on standards of review is without analogy to ADA article 17.6(ii); meanwhile, for preventing distorting antidumping measures as trade protection tools, WTO dispute settlement institutes should have much room on discretion of reviewing members’ ADA legal interpretations. However, in respecting WTO Member’s sovereignty and the requiring of judicial restraint, when taking the standards of review on examining anti-dumping disputes, WTO dispute settlement institutes would strictly and nimbly retain customary rules of interpretation of public international law with considering purposes of ADA article 17.6(ii). |
| Reference: | 中文書目：
1. Arthur Kaufmann 著，吳從周 譯，《類推與「事務本質」–兼論類型理論》，台北：學林，1999年1月。
2. 羅昌發，《國際貿易法》，台北，原照，1999年7月。
3. ______，《美國貿易救濟制度：國際經貿法研究（一）》，台北，月旦，1994年3月
英文書目：
1. Aust, Anthony, MODERN TREATY LAW AND PRACTICE, Cambridge University Press, (2000).
2. Brownlie, Ian, Principles of International Law, 5th ed. (1998)
3. Cottier, Thomas and Mavroidis, Patros C.(eds.), THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION: EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FOR THE WTO, World Trade Forum Vol.4, The University of Michigan Press (2003).
4. Craig, Paul ＆de Búrca, Gráinne, EU LAW—TEXT, CASES AND MATERIALS 132-37 3d. ed., Oxford University Press (2003).
5. Dale, Richard, ANTI-DUMPING LAW IN A LIBERAL TRADE ORDER (1980).
6. Evans, Gali E., LAWMAKING UNDER THE TRADE CONSTITUTION (2002).
7. Harris, D.J., CASES AND MATERIALS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, 5th ed Sweet＆Maxwell (1998).
8. Hoekman, Bernard M. and Kostecki, Michel M., THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE WORLD TRADING SYSTEM, 2d. ed. (2001).
9. Kennedy, Daniel L. ＆ Southwick, James D. (eds.), THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERT E. HUDEC, Cambridge University Press (2002).
10. Jackson, John H., THE WORLD TRADING SYSTEM－LAW AND POLICY OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS, 2d. ed., MIT Press (1997).
11. Jackson, John H., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: CONSTITUTION AND JURISPRUDENCE, Chatham House Papers (1998).
12. Jennings, Robert and Watts, Arthur, OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW, 9th ed., Harlow: Longman Group (1996).
13. Matsushita, M, Schoenbaum, T., and Macroidis, P., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: LAW, PRACTICE, AND POLICY, Oxford university Press (2003).
14. Oesch, Matthias, STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION (2003).
15. Treiblicock, Michael J. and Howse, Robert, THE REGULATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, 2d. ed., (1999).
16. Viner, Jacob, DUMPING: A PROBLEM IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE (1966).
17. Weiler, J.H.H., THE EU, THE WTO, AND THE NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of International Trade?, Oxford University Press (2000).
英文期刊論文：
1. Akakwam, Philip A., The Standard of Review in the 1994 Antidumping Code: Circumscribing the Role of GATT Panels in Reviewing National Antidumping Determinations, 5 Minnesota Journal of Global Trade (1996).
2. Croley, Steven P. and Jackson, John H., WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments, 90(193) American Journal of International Law (1996).
3. Davey, William J., Has the WTO Dispute Settlement System Exceed its Authority? A Consideration of Deference Shown by the System to Member Government Decisions and its Use of Issue-Avoidance Techniques, 4 Journal of International Economic Law (2001).
4. Durling, James P. Deference but Only When Due: WTO Review of Anti-dumping Measures, 6(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2003).
5. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter, Tensions between the Dispute Settlement Process and the Diplomatic and Treaty–making Activities of the WTO, 1(3) World Trade Review (2002).
6. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter, Reflections on the Appellate Body of the WTO, American Society of International Law Proceedings (2003).
7. Howse, Robert ＆ Nicilaidis, Kalypso, Legitimacy through “Higher Law”? Why Constitutionalizing the WTO is a step TOO Far, in THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION: EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FOR THE WTO, World Trade Forum Vol.4, The University of Michigan Press (2003).
8. Howse, Robert, The Most Dangerous Branch? WTO Appellate Body Jurisprudence in the Nature and Limits of the Judicial Power, in THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION：EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FOR THE WTO, World Trade Forum Vol.4, The University of Michigan Press (2003).
9. Howse, Robert, Adjudicative Legitimacy and Treaty Interpretation in International Trade Law: The Early Years of WTO Jurisprudence, in THE EU, THE WTO, AND THE NAFTA: TOWARDS A COMMON LAW OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE?, Oxford University Press (2000).
10. Jackson, John H., The GATT 1994 Sovereignty Debate: United States Acceptance and Implementation of the Uruguay Round Results, 36 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1997).
11. Jackson, John H., Sovereignty, Subsidiary, and Separation of Power : The High-Wire Balancing Act of Globalisation, in THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERT E. HUDEC, Cambridge University Press (2002).
12. Jackson, John H., The WTO “Constitution” and Proposed Reforms: Seven “Mantras” Revised, 4(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2001).
13. Jackson, John H.,Sovereignty-Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept, Vol. 97 American Journal of International Law (2003).
14. Maki, Peter C., Interpreting GATT Using the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty: A Method to Increase the Legitimacy of the Dispute Settlement System, 9 Minnesota Journal of Global Trade (2000)
15. McRae, Donald, The WTO in International Law: Tradition Continued or New Frontier? 3(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2002).
16. Lennard, Michael, Navigating by the Stars: Interpreting the WTO Agreements, 5(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2002).
17. Rosenthal, Paul C. ＆ Vermylen, Robert T.C., The WTO Antidumping and Subsidies Agreement: Did the U.S. Achieve Its Objectives during the Uruguay Round? 31(3) Law ＆ Policy in International Business.
18. Steinberg, Richard H., Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints, 98 American Journal of International Law (2004).
19. Tarullo, Daniel K., The Hidden Cost of International Dispute Settlement: WTO Review of Domestic Anti-dumping Decisions, 34 Law ＆ Policy in International Business.
20. Tarullo, Daniel K., Paved with good intentions: The Dynamic Effects of WTO Review of Anti-dumping Action, 2(3) World Trade Review (2003).
21. Weiss, Wolfgang, Security and Predictability under WTO Law, 2(2) World Trade Review (2003).
22. Yocis, David A., Guatemala Cement and WTO Review of National Anti-dumping Determinations, 76 New York University Law Review (2001).
23. Zleptnig, Stefan, The Standard Review in WTO Law: An Analysis of Law, Legitimacy and the Distribution of Legal and Political Authority, 6(2) European Integration online Papers (EIoP) (2002)
WTO文件：
1. WTO Legal Text, Declaration on Dispute Settlement Pursuant to The Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 Or Part V of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
2. WTO Legal Text, Decision on Review of Article 17.6 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article Ⅵ of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1994, in The Legal Text- the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations.
3. 美國—石油案（US－Reformulated Gasoline）, WT/DS2/R
4. 歐體—荷爾蒙案（EC—Hormones）, WT/DS48/11, WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R
5. 日本—酒精飲料案（Japan－Alcoholic Beverages）, WT/DS11/AB/R
6. 美國—內衣案（United States—Underwear）, WT/DS24/R and WT/DS24/AB/R,
7. 瓜地馬拉—波特蘭水泥案(Guatemala-Portland Cement from Mexico), WT/DS60/AB/R, WT/DS60/R
8. 泰國—結構鋼案(Thailand-Structural Steel from Poland), WT/DS122/AB/R, WT/DS122/R;
9. 墨西哥—HFSC案(Mexico-HFSC from U.S.), WT/DS132/AB/RW, WT/DS132/R;
10. 美國—1916 反傾銷法案(US-1916 Act from EC and Japan), WT/DS141/AB/R, WT/DS141/R
11. 歐體—寢具案(EC- Bed Linen from India), WT/DS141/AB/R, WT/DS141/R
12. 美國—熱軋鋼案(US-Hot-Rolled Steel from Japan), WT/DS184/AB/R, WT/DS184/R
13. 歐體—鑄鐵圓管及配件案(EC-Cast Iron Tubes＆Fittings from Brazil), WT/DS219/AB/R, WT/ DS219/R
14. 美國—柏德修正案(US-Byrd Amendment from Australia, Brazil et al), WT/DS234/AB/R, WT/DS234/R
15. 美國-鋼鐵產品落日審查案(US-Steel Sunset Review from Japan), WT/ DS244/AB/R, WT/DS244/R;
16. 美國-軟木傾銷案(US-Soft Lumber from Canada), WT/ DS264/AB/R, WT/DS264/R.
國際協定：
1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty, 23 May 1969, 1155 United Nations Treaty Series 331 (1980); 8 International Legal Materials 679.
2. Final Act Embodying The Results of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Marrakesh Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization), 15 April 1994, The Legal Texts: The Results of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, published by the WTO, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
外國裁判：
1.Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837(1984)
網站資料：
www.wto.org
www.ustr.gov
其他：
1. Ending the Uruguay Round: An Interview with GATT Chief Sutherland, Inside U.S. Trade, 24 Dec. 1993.
2. Official says U.S. Rulings could complicate WTO Zeroing Case, Inside U.S. Trade, 9 April 2004.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Judy Pearsall ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford (1998). |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營與貿易研究所
91351042
93 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0913510421 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [國際經營與貿易學系 ] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
