论文部分内容阅读
《保障措施协议》是对GATT第19条规定的保障措施规则的澄清和细化。但GATT第19条“未预见的情况”条款并没有出现在《保障措施协议》里。对于这一规定上的差异引发的争议,WTO争端解决机构已通过一系列案例和解释对“未预见的情况”作出了判断即GATT第19条应与《保障措施协议》累加适用,成员方在援用保障措施时必须证明“未预见的情况”的存在。此种做法值得商榷,从乌拉圭回合的谈判过程、WTO协定和文本、保障措施的实践以及各国国内立法等都表明“未预见的情况”不应被继续适用。否则,可能会给现行的保障措施体制带来更大程度上的不确定性和造成适用上的混乱。
The Safeguards Agreement is a clarification and refinement of the rules of safeguards under Article 19 of the GATT. However, the “unforeseen circumstances” clause of Article 19 of the GATT does not appear in the Safeguards Agreement. As to disputes arising from the discrepancy between the provisions, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body has made a judgment on “unforeseen circumstances” through a series of cases and explanations that Article 19 of the GATT should be applied cumulatively with the “Safeguards Agreement” The invocation of safeguards must prove the existence of “unforeseen circumstances”. Such an approach is debatable. The negotiation process from the Uruguay Round, the WTO agreements and texts, the practice of safeguards and the domestic legislation of various countries all show that “unforeseen circumstances” should not continue to be applied. Otherwise, there may be greater uncertainty about the current safeguards regime and consequential confusion.