“中美双反措施案”中的“公共机构”认定问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-06 06:13

本文选题：“中美双反措施案”　切入点：补贴　出处：《法商研究》2011年06期

【摘要】：近年来,世界贸易组织成员方频繁对中国出口产品同时采取反倾销和反补贴措施。在"中美双反措施案"中,世界贸易组织上诉机构综合运用多种条约解释方法,否决了美国和专家组仅根据中国国有企业的所有权性质而将其视为"公共机构"的做法,继而否定了美国将中国国有企业向涉案企业提供原材料的行为认定为构成《补贴与反补贴协议》第1条意义上的补贴并征收反补贴税的做法。中美双方关于"公共机构"的争论实际上是自由竞争经济理念与计划经济体制冲突的体现。因世界贸易组织上诉机构认为公共机构的范围和特性因其所属国家不同而不同,也因具体案件的案情而异,且维持了专家组将中国国有商业银行界定为"公共机构"的裁定,故中国应当及时就涉案法律或法规以及产业政策、宏观经济规划和各级政府相关文件进行修正,以避免再次被有关国家以"公共机构"为由而发起的反补贴措施。
[Abstract]:In recent years, WTO members frequently take anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures against Chinese exports.In the case concerning dual countermeasures between China and the United States, the appeals body of the World Trade Organization used a combination of treaty interpretation methods to reject the practice of the United States and the Panel of experts regarding Chinese state-owned enterprises as "public bodies" solely on the basis of their ownership nature.Then it negates the way that the United States regards the supply of raw materials by Chinese state-owned enterprises to the enterprises involved as a subsidy in the sense of Article 1 of the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing and collects countervailing duties.The controversy between China and the United States about public institutions is actually the embodiment of the conflict between the concept of free competition economy and the planned economy system.Because the appellate body of the World Trade Organization considered that the scope and characteristics of public bodies varied from country to country and from case to case, and upheld the Panel's decision that China's state-owned commercial banks should be defined as "public bodies",Therefore, China should amend the relevant laws or regulations, industrial policies, macroeconomic planning and relevant documents of governments at all levels in time to avoid the countervailing measures initiated by the countries concerned on the grounds of "public institutions".
【作者单位】：北京师范大学法学院;
【分类号】：D996.1

【相似文献】