论文部分内容阅读
晚近以来,国内司法层面的裁决理论与技术逐渐渗透到国际争端解决实践中,如先例制度。在国际司法实践中,先例作用力体现为国际争端解决机构寻求裁决相同法律问题的“合意”。然而,国际司法实践的“合意”并非必然可得,由此发展出超越先例作用力的制度。虽然WTO各协定并未明文规定先例的作用力,但是其争端解决实践已然发展出遵循先例和背离先例的法理。晚近以来,美国归零案、美国双反案和中国稀土案均直接涉及超越先例作用力的问题。更进一步,针对《中国入世议定书》特定条款能否适用一般例外条款的法律问题仍应进行抗辩。在中国稀土案之后,我国应积极发展新主张和新理由,在随后相关案件中,针对相同法律问题提请专家组和上诉机构重新审查,进而寻求以“强有力的理由”迫使上诉机构做出合理地认定。
Since recently, the judiciary theory and technology at the domestic judicial level have gradually infiltrated the practice of international dispute settlement, such as the precedent system. In international judicial practice, the exertion of precedent manifests itself as “Consensus ” of the International Dispute Settlement Body seeking to decide the same legal issue. However, the “consensual” of international judicial practice is not necessarily available, thus developing a system that goes beyond the precedent force. Although the WTO agreements do not clearly define the precedent’s force, its dispute settlement practice has developed jurisprudence that follows the precedent and departs from the precedent. Since recent years, the zero case in the United States, the double anti-case in the United States and the rare earth case in China have all directly involved the issue of transcending the precedent force. Furthermore, the legal issue of whether general exceptions apply to specific provisions of the “China’s Accession Protocol” should still be defended. After China’s Rare Earth Case, our country should actively develop new ideas and new reasons. In subsequent related cases, the panel and the appellate body should be reexamined for the same legal issues so as to seek to force the Appellate Body to do “strong reasons” Reasonable to identify.