论文部分内容阅读
WTO规则主要涉及成员方政府的行为,但是对政府履行义务的规定间接地决定了境内私人的行为模式和利益。作为一个依靠国际条约建立起来的国际法主体,能否在加入WTO的同时否认WTO规则或者DSB裁决的直接效力,这是摆在欧盟面前的难题。从司法判例分析,除了两个特例,ECJ拒绝承认WTO规则或者DSB裁决的直接效力。私人在ECJ通过援引DSB裁决胜诉的可能性微乎其微。《里斯本条约》的生效对私人主张损害赔偿提供了另外一条法律途径和诉由。欧盟拒绝承认DSB裁决直接效力的原因来自WTO机制自身的缺陷、政治平衡的考量、区域保护主义、法院无法明确和统一解释WTO协定等。鉴于目前WTO成员方对DSB裁决采取谨慎的立场,总体上排除DSB报告的直接效力和优先效力并制定例外情况是适宜中国现状的选择。
WTO rules mainly involve the actions of member governments, but the regulations on the performance of obligations by the government indirectly determine the domestic private behavior patterns and interests. As a main body of international law established by relying on international treaties, whether it can deny the direct effect of the WTO rules or the DSB ruling while joining the WTO is a challenge for the EU. From the analysis of judicial precedents, except for two special cases, the ECJ refused to recognize the direct effect of WTO rules or DSB rulings. Private individuals at ECJ have little chance of winning by invoking the DSB. The entry into force of the “Lisbon Treaty” provides another legal avenue and an appeal to private claims of damages. The reason why the EU refuses to acknowledge the direct effect of the DSB ruling comes from the defects of the WTO mechanism itself, the consideration of political balance, regional protectionism, and the fact that the court can not clearly and uniformly interpret the WTO agreement. In view of the current WTO member’s cautious approach to the DSB ruling, generally speaking, excluding the direct and prioritized effects of DSB reporting and making exceptions is an appropriate choice for China’s status quo.