论文部分内容阅读
2014年7月7日,WTO发布中国诉美国关税法修订案上诉机构终裁报告。该报告再次认定美国25起“双反”措施违反了WTO规则,在这一争议问题上支持了中国的主张,驳回了美国的上诉请求。但基于有限的审查权限设置,上诉机构未能完成对美国关税法修订案是否符合WTO规则的分析。赋予上诉机构对事实问题的审查权,应是完善DSU程序设计的题中应有之意。当下情境,中国在WTO争端解决机制对复杂的贸易保护主义措施进行诉讼时,势必以“组合拳”进行反击,但“组合拳”思路往往可能导致基于DSU规则的设置某一诉求被回避的后果。中国应对此保持警惕。
On July 7, 2014, the WTO released the final report of the appellate body of China v. U.S. Tariff Amendment. The report once again finds that the 25 U.S. anti-double measures have violated the WTO rules, supported China’s position on this issue of controversy and rejected the United States appeal. However, based on a limited reviewing authority, the Appellate Body failed to complete an analysis of whether the Amendment to the U.S. Tariff Act meets WTO rules. The right to review the factual issues given to the appellate body should be a matter of perfection in the DSU program design. Under the current circumstances, when China sues WTO dispute settlement mechanisms for complicated trade protectionist measures, it is bound to fight back with “combos”, but the idea of “combo boxing” may often result in setting a certain demand based on DSU rules The consequences of being avoided. China should remain vigilant against this.