“中美轮胎特保案”分析

发布时间：2018-03-07 05:38

本文选题：特别保障措施　切入点：快速增长　出处：《广西师范大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：2011年9月5日,上诉机构对“中美轮胎特保案”做出了最终裁决。在“中美轮胎特保案”中所依据的特别保障措施是在中国加入WTO之初所签订的《中国入世议定书》第16条的规定。其主要内容是：原产地为中国的产品在进口至任何WTO成员国市场时,其快速增长的数量对同类产品或与其直接竞争产品的国内产业造成实质损害或实质损害威胁时,则因此受到影响的WTO成员可以请求与中国进行磋商,来寻求可令双方满意的解决办法,其中包括受影响的成员国是否可根据《保障措施协定》采取相应的措施。如果在磋商过程中,双方一致认为原产于中国的产品的快速增加是造成市场扰乱的重要原因,同时有必要采取措施,则中国应该采取行动和措施以防止或补救所造成的损害。若磋商未果,则因此受到损害的WTO成员国可以在防止或者补救这种市场损害所必需的限度内,采取相应的救济措施。对特保措施,很多学者认为存在歧视性和不公平性。在本案中双方争论的焦点,主要有：1)美国是否成功举证从中国进口的轮胎产品如16.4条所要求的“快速增长”(rapidly)；2)此案中美国法生效的原因标准与《中国入世议定书》中16.1条和16.4条规定是否不符；3)美国国际贸易委员会是否成功地表明中国轮胎的进口是造成其市场混乱的一个重要原因(significant cause)；4)美国在此案中所采取的救济措施是否超出了《入世议定书》第16.3条中规定的“所必需的限度内”；5)美国在此案中采取为期三年的救济时限是否超出了《入世议定书》第16.3条中规定的“所必需的时限”。并针对以上五点展开了详细的分析。最后,通过分析此案件个人观点：一是要积极履行举证责任并灵活运用数据举证；二是完善国内有关的原产地原则的国内立法。
[Abstract]:September 5th 2011, The appeal body made the final ruling in the Sino-u. S. Tire protection case. The special safeguard measures relied on in the china-u. S. Tire special protection case were the provisions of article 16 of the protocol on china's accession to the WTO signed at the beginning of china's accession to the WTO. Its main content is: when products of Chinese origin are imported to any WTO member market, If their rapidly growing numbers cause substantial damage or threat of substantial damage to domestic industries of their kind or directly competing with them, the affected WTO members may request consultations with China, To seek a solution that would satisfy both parties, including whether the affected member States could take appropriate measures in accordance with the safeguards Agreement... if in the course of the consultations, The two sides agreed that the rapid increase in products originating in China was an important cause of market disruption and that measures should be taken by China to prevent or remedy the damage. As a result, the member states of the WTO who have been injured can take corresponding relief measures to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy such market damage. Many scholars believe that there is discrimination and unfairness in the special safeguard measures. The focus of the dispute in this case, (1) is the United States successful in proving that imports of tire products from China, such as the "rapid growth" required by article 16.4, are inconsistent with the provisions of articles 16.1 and 16.4 of the Protocol to China's accession to the World Trade Organization, and whether the criteria for the reasons for the entry into force of the United States law in this case are inconsistent with the provisions of articles 16.1 and 16.4 of the Protocol to China's accession to the WTO. (3) is the United States International Trade Commission successful in demonstrating that the import of Chinese tyres is an important cause of confusion in its market? (4) is the relief measures taken by the United States in this case in excess of Article 16.3 of the Protocol to the WTO? (5) whether the United States' adoption of a three-year period of relief in this case exceeds the "necessary time limit" specified in Article 16.3 of the Protocol on accession to the WTO... and carries out a detailed analysis of the above five points... finally, Through the analysis of the individual point of view of this case: first, to actively fulfill the burden of proof and flexible use of data to prove; second, to improve domestic domestic legislation related to the principle of origin.
【学位授予单位】：广西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.1

【参考文献】