GATT第20条下中国资源出口保障措施研究
|
摘要
资源是人类社会赖以生存和发展的重要物质基础,也是当今国际政治、经济、军事和外交等关注的焦点。尤其是在经历了全球金融危机而经济亟待全面复苏的背景下,自然资源贸易在国际贸易中更是占有举足轻重的地位。
自改革开放以来,由于自然资源被长期滥开滥挖、重复开发和降价贱卖,中国的自然资源浪费十分严重。面对自然资源濒临枯竭的危险,为了经济的可持续发展,中国不得不采取自然资源出口保障措施。然而,作为最大的发展中贸易成员国,中国的自然资源出口限制等措施损害了WTO其他成员国的相关经济利益,诱发了一系列贸易争端。2004年,由于不满中国的焦炭出口配额等限制措施,欧盟向WTO争端解决机构提出申诉,以中国做出让步告终。2009年,美国、欧盟、墨西哥等三个成员国,又就中国自然资源限制出口提出申诉。
自然资源出口贸易之争的实质是国家利益之争,但是一旦将国际贸易争端提交WTO争端解决机构,则完全表现为法律规范问题。中国要捍卫本国的自然资源主权以及利用自然资源的权利,最可行的办法就是援引GATT第20条等一般例外条款,以法律手段为基础向WTO争端解决机构提起抗辩。
本文主要运用了规范分析方法和案例分析方法,致力于研究中国自然资源出口贸易的保障措施事宜。对于GATT第20条(g)项和GATT第20条序言的适用条件的解释,本文首先运用传统的规范分析方法探讨了法理问题,接着尝试结合GATT/WTO时期的进出口限制方面的典型案例展开分析,这是本文的创新之处。对于2004年的“中欧焦炭贸易争端”,本文在前文分析的基础上,援引GATT第20条进行自然资源出口保障的可行性分析。最后,针对中国的自然资源出口保障问题,本文提出一些粗浅的对策建议以抛砖引玉。
本文写作的基本框架是：
第一章是绪论,依次阐述了本文选题的背景和选题的意义,研究的思路和研究的方法,以及本文创新点和不足之处。
第二章分析了中国自然资源出口限制的WTO法律规范问题,依次介绍了中国自然资源出口限制案及其涉及的主要争议问题,分别从出口限制、出口税和GATT第20条对《加入议定书》的适用性等方面,对中国自然资源出口保障作法理分析。
第三章是对GATT/WTO第20条相关内容的解释。首先是对GATT第20条(g)项的解释：本文认为,中国政府要成功援引GATT第20条(g)项则必须注意三个方面,一是必须针对属于可用竭的自然资源,二是必须针对养护可用竭的自然资源,三是该措施要与国内的生产或消费一同实施；然后是对GATT第20条序言的解释：一是阐述序言的目的与功能,二是专门介绍GATT第20条(g)款与序言之间的逻辑适用顺序,三是从四个方面解释GATT第20条序言。
第四章是援引GATT第20条进行自然资源出口保障的可行性分析——以中欧焦炭贸易争端为例：首先综述了中欧焦炭贸易争端的案情,然后对该案的相关措施与GATT第20条进行相符性分析。
第五章是中国自然资源出口措施对策分析：一是确保资源出口限制措施契合GATT第20条；二是积极利用WTO争端解决机制,解决自然资源保障争端；三是建立稀缺资源保护机制,为合理限制出口奠定基础；四是完善资源保障措施的国内立法,使其与WTO法律接轨。
第六章是结论,简要总结了本文的基本内容,寄望本文的对策建议能够对即将面对的稀土案和以后可能出现的国际贸易争端有一定的指导意义。
Resource is an important material foundation for the human society's survival and development, and is also the focus of the current international politics, economy, military and diplomacy. Especially in the context of global financial crisis and the economy is hoped to recover fully, the natural resources trade occupies a pivotal position in the international trade.
Since the reform and opening up, due to the abuse of natural resources have long been dug indiscriminately, developed repeatedly and sold cheaply, the natural resources in China is wasted very seriously. To face the danger of the natural resources to be depleted, and to sustain the economy development, China is forced to take measures to safeguard the exports of natural resources. However, the natural resources export restrictions and other relevant measures adopted by China as the largest developing trade member damaged the relevant economic benefits of other WTO member states, and caused a series of trade disputes. In 2004, due to the dissatisfaction with China's coke export quotas and other restrictions, the EU appealed to WTO Dispute Settlement Body, and China made concessions to end the case. In 2009, three member states of WTO, the United States, European Union and Mexico appealed to WTO Dispute Settlement Body to China's exports restriction of natural materials.
Natural resource export trade dispute is essentially the dispute for the national interest, and if the international trade dispute is offered to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, it is to represent fully as legal norms. To defend its sovereignty over natural resources and the right to exploit natural resources, the most feasible way for China is to invoke GATT Article XX and other general exceptions clauses to appeal to WTO Dispute Settlement Body based on legal means.
The article uses the standard methods of analysis and case studies which are dedicated to the study of China's export trade protection measures on natural resources. To explain the conditions applicable to GATT Article XX (g) and the preface of GATT Article XX, the article analyses firstly the legal problems with traditional norms of standard analysis, then tries to spread out the analysis on the typical cases of import and export restrictions during GATT/WTO period, which are the innovations of the article. For the 2004 "China-EU trade disputes of coke ", the article offer a feasibility analysis on the export safeguards of natural resources based on the preceding analysis according to GATT ArticleⅩⅩ. Finally, to address China's export protection of natural resources, the article offers some superficial measures proposed to start a valuable discussion.
The basic framework of the article is:
The first chapter is the introduction, which describes successively the background and significance of the topics in the article, the research ideas and research methods, and the innovations and inadequacies in the article.
ChapterⅡanalyses the legal norms on export limits of natural materials in WTO system, and introduce successively China's restrictions on exports of natural resources and the main disputes involved in the case, and offer a legal analysis on China's natural resource exports protection based respectively on export restrictions, export taxes and the applicability from GATT ArticleⅩⅩto "Accession Protocol".
ChapterⅢexplains the relevant issues about GATT ArticleⅩⅩ. First is the explanation to GATT ArticleⅩⅩ(g):The article argues that to successfully invoke GATT ArticleⅩⅩ(g), China's government must pay attention to three aspects. The first aspect is to address exhaustible natural resources, the second aspect is to address the conservation of exhaustible natural resources, and the third aspect is that the measures are exerted synchronously with domestic production or consumption. The following is the explanation to the preface of GATT ArticleⅩⅩ:the first part explains the purpose and function of the preface; the second part is devoted to introduce the logic application sequence of the preamble and GATT ArticleⅩⅩ(g); the third part explains GATT ArticleⅩⅩon four aspects.
ChapterⅣdoes some feasibility analyses on the export protection of natural resources based on GATT ArticleⅩⅩ, which offers China-EU trade dispute of coke as an example:to review firstly China-EU trade dispute of coke, then to offer a conformity analysis about GATT Article XX and the relevant measures involved in the case.
Chapter V analyses relevant countermeasures about China's natural resources export:the first part describes the importance of making sure the restrictive measures of resources export comply with GATT Article XX, the second part advocates that the natural resources protection should be appealed to WTO Dispute Settlement Body, the third part suggests that China's government should establish mechanisms of the protection of scarce resources to lay the foundation for limiting export legitimately, the forth part emphasizes that the domestic legislation about resource protection measures should be improved in line with WTO law.
Chapter VI is the conclusion, which offers a brief summary on the basic content of the article, and hopes the countermeasures in the article have a certain significance to the imminent case about rare earth and future potential international trade disputes.
自改革开放以来,由于自然资源被长期滥开滥挖、重复开发和降价贱卖,中国的自然资源浪费十分严重。面对自然资源濒临枯竭的危险,为了经济的可持续发展,中国不得不采取自然资源出口保障措施。然而,作为最大的发展中贸易成员国,中国的自然资源出口限制等措施损害了WTO其他成员国的相关经济利益,诱发了一系列贸易争端。2004年,由于不满中国的焦炭出口配额等限制措施,欧盟向WTO争端解决机构提出申诉,以中国做出让步告终。2009年,美国、欧盟、墨西哥等三个成员国,又就中国自然资源限制出口提出申诉。
自然资源出口贸易之争的实质是国家利益之争,但是一旦将国际贸易争端提交WTO争端解决机构,则完全表现为法律规范问题。中国要捍卫本国的自然资源主权以及利用自然资源的权利,最可行的办法就是援引GATT第20条等一般例外条款,以法律手段为基础向WTO争端解决机构提起抗辩。
本文主要运用了规范分析方法和案例分析方法,致力于研究中国自然资源出口贸易的保障措施事宜。对于GATT第20条(g)项和GATT第20条序言的适用条件的解释,本文首先运用传统的规范分析方法探讨了法理问题,接着尝试结合GATT/WTO时期的进出口限制方面的典型案例展开分析,这是本文的创新之处。对于2004年的“中欧焦炭贸易争端”,本文在前文分析的基础上,援引GATT第20条进行自然资源出口保障的可行性分析。最后,针对中国的自然资源出口保障问题,本文提出一些粗浅的对策建议以抛砖引玉。
本文写作的基本框架是：
第一章是绪论,依次阐述了本文选题的背景和选题的意义,研究的思路和研究的方法,以及本文创新点和不足之处。
第二章分析了中国自然资源出口限制的WTO法律规范问题,依次介绍了中国自然资源出口限制案及其涉及的主要争议问题,分别从出口限制、出口税和GATT第20条对《加入议定书》的适用性等方面,对中国自然资源出口保障作法理分析。
第三章是对GATT/WTO第20条相关内容的解释。首先是对GATT第20条(g)项的解释：本文认为,中国政府要成功援引GATT第20条(g)项则必须注意三个方面,一是必须针对属于可用竭的自然资源,二是必须针对养护可用竭的自然资源,三是该措施要与国内的生产或消费一同实施；然后是对GATT第20条序言的解释：一是阐述序言的目的与功能,二是专门介绍GATT第20条(g)款与序言之间的逻辑适用顺序,三是从四个方面解释GATT第20条序言。
第四章是援引GATT第20条进行自然资源出口保障的可行性分析——以中欧焦炭贸易争端为例：首先综述了中欧焦炭贸易争端的案情,然后对该案的相关措施与GATT第20条进行相符性分析。
第五章是中国自然资源出口措施对策分析：一是确保资源出口限制措施契合GATT第20条；二是积极利用WTO争端解决机制,解决自然资源保障争端；三是建立稀缺资源保护机制,为合理限制出口奠定基础；四是完善资源保障措施的国内立法,使其与WTO法律接轨。
第六章是结论,简要总结了本文的基本内容,寄望本文的对策建议能够对即将面对的稀土案和以后可能出现的国际贸易争端有一定的指导意义。
Resource is an important material foundation for the human society's survival and development, and is also the focus of the current international politics, economy, military and diplomacy. Especially in the context of global financial crisis and the economy is hoped to recover fully, the natural resources trade occupies a pivotal position in the international trade.
Since the reform and opening up, due to the abuse of natural resources have long been dug indiscriminately, developed repeatedly and sold cheaply, the natural resources in China is wasted very seriously. To face the danger of the natural resources to be depleted, and to sustain the economy development, China is forced to take measures to safeguard the exports of natural resources. However, the natural resources export restrictions and other relevant measures adopted by China as the largest developing trade member damaged the relevant economic benefits of other WTO member states, and caused a series of trade disputes. In 2004, due to the dissatisfaction with China's coke export quotas and other restrictions, the EU appealed to WTO Dispute Settlement Body, and China made concessions to end the case. In 2009, three member states of WTO, the United States, European Union and Mexico appealed to WTO Dispute Settlement Body to China's exports restriction of natural materials.
Natural resource export trade dispute is essentially the dispute for the national interest, and if the international trade dispute is offered to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, it is to represent fully as legal norms. To defend its sovereignty over natural resources and the right to exploit natural resources, the most feasible way for China is to invoke GATT Article XX and other general exceptions clauses to appeal to WTO Dispute Settlement Body based on legal means.
The article uses the standard methods of analysis and case studies which are dedicated to the study of China's export trade protection measures on natural resources. To explain the conditions applicable to GATT Article XX (g) and the preface of GATT Article XX, the article analyses firstly the legal problems with traditional norms of standard analysis, then tries to spread out the analysis on the typical cases of import and export restrictions during GATT/WTO period, which are the innovations of the article. For the 2004 "China-EU trade disputes of coke ", the article offer a feasibility analysis on the export safeguards of natural resources based on the preceding analysis according to GATT ArticleⅩⅩ. Finally, to address China's export protection of natural resources, the article offers some superficial measures proposed to start a valuable discussion.
The basic framework of the article is:
The first chapter is the introduction, which describes successively the background and significance of the topics in the article, the research ideas and research methods, and the innovations and inadequacies in the article.
ChapterⅡanalyses the legal norms on export limits of natural materials in WTO system, and introduce successively China's restrictions on exports of natural resources and the main disputes involved in the case, and offer a legal analysis on China's natural resource exports protection based respectively on export restrictions, export taxes and the applicability from GATT ArticleⅩⅩto "Accession Protocol".
ChapterⅢexplains the relevant issues about GATT ArticleⅩⅩ. First is the explanation to GATT ArticleⅩⅩ(g):The article argues that to successfully invoke GATT ArticleⅩⅩ(g), China's government must pay attention to three aspects. The first aspect is to address exhaustible natural resources, the second aspect is to address the conservation of exhaustible natural resources, and the third aspect is that the measures are exerted synchronously with domestic production or consumption. The following is the explanation to the preface of GATT ArticleⅩⅩ:the first part explains the purpose and function of the preface; the second part is devoted to introduce the logic application sequence of the preamble and GATT ArticleⅩⅩ(g); the third part explains GATT ArticleⅩⅩon four aspects.
ChapterⅣdoes some feasibility analyses on the export protection of natural resources based on GATT ArticleⅩⅩ, which offers China-EU trade dispute of coke as an example:to review firstly China-EU trade dispute of coke, then to offer a conformity analysis about GATT Article XX and the relevant measures involved in the case.
Chapter V analyses relevant countermeasures about China's natural resources export:the first part describes the importance of making sure the restrictive measures of resources export comply with GATT Article XX, the second part advocates that the natural resources protection should be appealed to WTO Dispute Settlement Body, the third part suggests that China's government should establish mechanisms of the protection of scarce resources to lay the foundation for limiting export legitimately, the forth part emphasizes that the domestic legislation about resource protection measures should be improved in line with WTO law.
Chapter VI is the conclusion, which offers a brief summary on the basic content of the article, and hopes the countermeasures in the article have a certain significance to the imminent case about rare earth and future potential international trade disputes.
引文
①贺小勇。论中美欧“稀有资源出口限制争端”的法律问题。政治与法律,2009,(10)：第12页。
①倪世雄。当代西方国际关系理论。上海：复旦大学出版社,2004。第356-357页。
①黄志雄。从“市场准入”到“资源获取”——由“中国原材料出口限制措施案”引发的思考。法商研究,2010,(3)：第36页。
②同上。
①黄志雄。从“市场准入”到“资源获取”——由“中国原材料出口限制措施案”引发的思考。法商研究,2010,(3)：第38页。
② China-Value-Added Tax on Integrated Circuits, Request for Consultation by the United States, WT/DS309/1,23 March 2004.
③ China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, Request for Consultation by the United States, WT/DS363/1,10 April 2007.
④ China-Grants, Loans and Other Incentives, Request for Consultation by the United States, WT/DS387/1,19 December 2008;Request for Consultation by Mexico, WT/DS388/1,19 December 2008; Request for Consultation by Guatemala, WT/DS390/1,19 January 2009.
①贺小勇。WTO框架下中美原材料出口限制争端的法律问题。国际商务研究,2010,(3)：第8页。
①黄志雄。从“市场准入”到“资源获取”——由“中国原材料出口限制措施案”引发的思考。法商研究,2010,(3)：第39页。
①Peter Sutherland etc., The Future of the WTO:Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium, Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi (WTO,2004), para.39.
②李静。GATT一般例外条款的适用研究,第2页。
① United States-Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS58/AB/R.
②李静。GATT一般例外条款的适用研究,第13页。
① United States-Prohibition of Imports of Tuna and Tuna Products from Canada, Panel Report, L5198.
②李静。GATT一般例外条款的适用研究,第14页。
①United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS2/R,29 January 1996.
①李瑞宏。GATT第20条“环境例外”条款研究,第44页。
①赵涛宇。由GATT第二十条(g)款谈能源产品的出口限制——WTO视野下的世界能源危机,第12页。
①赵涛宇。由GATT第二十条(g)款谈能源产品的出口限制——WTO视野下的世界能源危机,第13页。
① European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS135/AB/R,12 March 2001.
①参见财政部、国家税务总局：《关于调整出口货物退税率的通知》。财税[2003]222号,2003年10月14日。
②胡涛、张凌云、黄志雄。中国——欧盟焦炭贸易争端及其解决途径。武大国际法评论,第316页。
①钢铁炉料煤焦供需分析及前景展望。http://www.sxcoal.eom/coke/21805/articlenew.html, 2005-06-27。
②梁若东。稳定出口政策,发展焦炭行业。国际商报,2004年8月3日。
①贺小勇。论WTO体制下资源保障措施的法律问题——以中欧焦炭贸易争端为分析视角。比较法研究,2004,[5]：第119-120页。
①朱伟。专家解读宏观调控下的三大行业。中国经济时报,2004年7月29日。
②贺小勇。论WTO体制下资源保障措施的法律问题——以中欧焦炭贸易争端为分析视角。比较法研究,2004,[5]：第120页。
③贺小勇。论WTO体制下资源保障措施的法律问题——以中欧焦炭贸易争端为分析视角。比较法研究,2004,[5]：第120页。
①何旦喜。WTO一般例外条款研究,第50页。
①李晓玲。WTO成员限制自然资源产品出口的权利——中国原材料出口措施案评述。国际商务研究,2010,(1)：第38页。
②同上,第39页。
①贺小勇。论中美欧“稀有资源出口限制案”。政治与法律,2009,(10)：第16页。
①刘江梅。中国自然资源的现状及可持续利用途径探讨。陕西教育学院院报,2011,17(4)：第35页。
②贺小勇。论中美欧“稀有资源出口限制争端案”的法律问题。政治与法律,2009,(10)：第15页。
③樊瑛、樊慧。自然资源贸易：中国应对之道。国际贸易,2010,(5)：第44页。
①贺小勇。论中美欧“稀有资源出口限制争端”的法律问题。政治与法律,2009,(10)：第16页。
[1]李晓玲.WTO成员限制自然资源产品出口的权利——中国自然资源出口措施案评述[J].国际商务研究,2010,(1)：33-40,80.
[2]李瑞宏GATT第20条“环境例外”条款研究[D].2005.
[3]贺小勇.论中美欧“稀有资源出口限制争端”的法律问题[A].政治与法律,2009,(10)：11-17.
[4]樊瑛、樊慧.自然资源贸易：全球治理难题[J].国际贸易,2010,(3)：41-46.
[5]樊瑛,樊慧.自然资源贸易：中国应对之道[J].国际贸易,2010,(5)：40-44.
[6]曾令良,陈卫东.论WTO一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策[A],法学论坛,2001,(4)：32-49.
[7]赵涛宇.由GATT第二十条(g)款谈能源产品的出口限制——WTO视野下的世界能源危机[D].2008.
[8]江滨.多边贸易体制下的环境与贸易问题—GATT/WTO环境例外条款案例法研究[D].2004.
[9]胡涛,张凌云,黄志雄.中国-欧盟焦炭贸易争端及其解决途径[R].武大国际法评论,2006：312-328.
[10]李雪平.WTO争端解决机制在“贸易与环境”问题上的裁量标准——对“中国-原材料出口限制案”的思考[A].世界贸易组织动态与研究,2010,(6)：50-56,62.
[11]黄志雄.从“市场准入”到“资源获取”——由“中国原材料出口限制措施案”引发的思考[J].法商研究,2010,(3)：35-44.
[12]姚小兰、顾佳.环保一般例外条款的发展趋势和我国对策研究[A].亚太经济2003,(5)：83-86.
[13]殷菲菲.WTO环境保护例外条款的解读[A].法制与社会.2010,(1)：103-104.
[14]韩立余.WTO(1995-1999)案例及评析(上下卷)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[15]韩立余.WTO(2000)案例及评析(上下卷)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社，2001.
[16]周林彬、郑远远.WTO规则例外与例外规则[M].广州：广东人民出版,2001.
[17]朱榄叶.世界贸易组织国际贾易纠纷案例评析[M].北京：法律出版社,2000.
[18]李金玲.物以稀为贵打好稀有资源保卫战[N].中国产业新闻,2009-06-29.
[19]徐淑萍.贸易与环境的法律问题研究[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.2002.
[20]朱橄叶.世界贸易组织贸易纠纷案例评析[M].北京：法律出版社.2000.
[21]贺小勇.论WTO体制下资源保障措施的法律问题——以中欧焦炭贸易争端为分析视角[J].比较法研究,2004,(5)：115-122.
[22]卢苇平、贺小勇.世贸组织的环保例外措施及我国的对策[J].国际商务研究,1998,(1)：51-54.
[23]邢洪涛、班永陟.WTO第20条b、g款适用的限制及其发展趋势[J].烟台师范学院学报,2003,(20)：20-23,60.
[24]何旦喜.WTO一般例外条款研究[D].2003.
[25]郑远远.试论GATT第20条三项环境例外的规则[J].对外经济贫易大学学报,2003,(4)：76-79.
[26]武从斌、赵劲松.从海龟案看GATT/WTO环保条款的缺陷级我国的应对之策[J].2002中国环境资源法学研讨会论文集：626-629.
[27]王勇.从金枪鱼案到海龟/海虾案——浅析WTO体制下环境与贸易争端解决机制的发展、不足与建议[J].福建法学,2001,(4)：45-48.
[28]成红、李兴华.对自由贸易与环境保护的法律思考——以“金枪鱼案”、“海虾-海龟案”为例[J].扬州大学学报,2003,(7)：83-85.
[29]周艳丽.论GATT第20条(g)款的适用及发展——以虾龟案为视角[J].科协论坛,2008,(5)：138-139.
[30]赵维田.协调贸易规则与环境需要——评WTO海龟案[J].国际贸易,2000,(11)：44-47.
[31]赵维田.世界贸易组织(WTO)的法律制度[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,2000.
[32]邓炯.环境争议的新实践——“海虾—海龟之诉”评析[J].国际贸易问题,1999,(8)：54-60.
[33]赵劲松.以海龟案为视角论GATT/WTO环境保护条款[J].河南公安高等专科学校学报,2006,(4)：54-57.
[34]Thomas Andersson, Carl Folke, Stefan Nystrom,黄晶、周乃君、陆永琪译,1998,环境与贸易—生态、经济、体制和政策,清华大学出版社版.
[35]倪世雄.当代西方国际关系理论[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2004.第356-357页.
[1]Allan Rosas,2001,Implementation and Enforcement of WTO Dispute Settlement Findings:an EU Perspective, Journal of International Economic Law, pp.79-100.
[2]Bernard Hoekman, Miekel kosteeki, The Political Economy of The World Trading System-From GATT to WTO, The University of Michigan Press.
[3]Ernst-Ulrich Peterman,1996, International Trade Law and International Environmental Law, Journal of World Trade, Vol.30,No.2, pp.43-81.
[4]European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, Report of Appellate Body, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted on 12 March 2001.
[5]Gary Sampson and John Whalley,2005, The WTO, Trade and the Environment, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
[6]John-H-Jaekson,1969, World Trade and the Law of GATT.
[7]Petro C., Marroidis,2000, Trade and Environment after the Shrimps-Turtles Litigation, Journal of World Trade, Vol.34, No.1.
[8]Steve Charnovitz,1991, Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX, Journal of World Trade,Vol.25, pp.37-55.
[9]Steve Charnovitz,2000,The Regulation of International Trade, Routledge.
[10]Thailand-Restrictions on Importation of and International Taxes on Cigarettes, Report of the Panel, DS10/R-37S/200, adopted on 7 November 1990.
[11]United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Report of Appellate Body, WT/DS2/AB/R,29 April 1996.
[12]United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of Panel, WT/DS58/R,15 May 1998.
[13]United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted on 12 October 1998.
[14]United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of Appellate Body, WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001.
①倪世雄。当代西方国际关系理论。上海：复旦大学出版社,2004。第356-357页。
①黄志雄。从“市场准入”到“资源获取”——由“中国原材料出口限制措施案”引发的思考。法商研究,2010,(3)：第36页。
②同上。
①黄志雄。从“市场准入”到“资源获取”——由“中国原材料出口限制措施案”引发的思考。法商研究,2010,(3)：第38页。
② China-Value-Added Tax on Integrated Circuits, Request for Consultation by the United States, WT/DS309/1,23 March 2004.
③ China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, Request for Consultation by the United States, WT/DS363/1,10 April 2007.
④ China-Grants, Loans and Other Incentives, Request for Consultation by the United States, WT/DS387/1,19 December 2008;Request for Consultation by Mexico, WT/DS388/1,19 December 2008; Request for Consultation by Guatemala, WT/DS390/1,19 January 2009.
①贺小勇。WTO框架下中美原材料出口限制争端的法律问题。国际商务研究,2010,(3)：第8页。
①黄志雄。从“市场准入”到“资源获取”——由“中国原材料出口限制措施案”引发的思考。法商研究,2010,(3)：第39页。
①Peter Sutherland etc., The Future of the WTO:Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium, Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi (WTO,2004), para.39.
②李静。GATT一般例外条款的适用研究,第2页。
① United States-Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS58/AB/R.
②李静。GATT一般例外条款的适用研究,第13页。
① United States-Prohibition of Imports of Tuna and Tuna Products from Canada, Panel Report, L5198.
②李静。GATT一般例外条款的适用研究,第14页。
①United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS2/R,29 January 1996.
①李瑞宏。GATT第20条“环境例外”条款研究,第44页。
①赵涛宇。由GATT第二十条(g)款谈能源产品的出口限制——WTO视野下的世界能源危机,第12页。
①赵涛宇。由GATT第二十条(g)款谈能源产品的出口限制——WTO视野下的世界能源危机,第13页。
① European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS135/AB/R,12 March 2001.
①参见财政部、国家税务总局：《关于调整出口货物退税率的通知》。财税[2003]222号,2003年10月14日。
②胡涛、张凌云、黄志雄。中国——欧盟焦炭贸易争端及其解决途径。武大国际法评论,第316页。
①钢铁炉料煤焦供需分析及前景展望。http://www.sxcoal.eom/coke/21805/articlenew.html, 2005-06-27。
②梁若东。稳定出口政策,发展焦炭行业。国际商报,2004年8月3日。
①贺小勇。论WTO体制下资源保障措施的法律问题——以中欧焦炭贸易争端为分析视角。比较法研究,2004,[5]：第119-120页。
①朱伟。专家解读宏观调控下的三大行业。中国经济时报,2004年7月29日。
②贺小勇。论WTO体制下资源保障措施的法律问题——以中欧焦炭贸易争端为分析视角。比较法研究,2004,[5]：第120页。
③贺小勇。论WTO体制下资源保障措施的法律问题——以中欧焦炭贸易争端为分析视角。比较法研究,2004,[5]：第120页。
①何旦喜。WTO一般例外条款研究,第50页。
①李晓玲。WTO成员限制自然资源产品出口的权利——中国原材料出口措施案评述。国际商务研究,2010,(1)：第38页。
②同上,第39页。
①贺小勇。论中美欧“稀有资源出口限制案”。政治与法律,2009,(10)：第16页。
①刘江梅。中国自然资源的现状及可持续利用途径探讨。陕西教育学院院报,2011,17(4)：第35页。
②贺小勇。论中美欧“稀有资源出口限制争端案”的法律问题。政治与法律,2009,(10)：第15页。
③樊瑛、樊慧。自然资源贸易：中国应对之道。国际贸易,2010,(5)：第44页。
①贺小勇。论中美欧“稀有资源出口限制争端”的法律问题。政治与法律,2009,(10)：第16页。
[1]李晓玲.WTO成员限制自然资源产品出口的权利——中国自然资源出口措施案评述[J].国际商务研究,2010,(1)：33-40,80.
[2]李瑞宏GATT第20条“环境例外”条款研究[D].2005.
[3]贺小勇.论中美欧“稀有资源出口限制争端”的法律问题[A].政治与法律,2009,(10)：11-17.
[4]樊瑛、樊慧.自然资源贸易：全球治理难题[J].国际贸易,2010,(3)：41-46.
[5]樊瑛,樊慧.自然资源贸易：中国应对之道[J].国际贸易,2010,(5)：40-44.
[6]曾令良,陈卫东.论WTO一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策[A],法学论坛,2001,(4)：32-49.
[7]赵涛宇.由GATT第二十条(g)款谈能源产品的出口限制——WTO视野下的世界能源危机[D].2008.
[8]江滨.多边贸易体制下的环境与贸易问题—GATT/WTO环境例外条款案例法研究[D].2004.
[9]胡涛,张凌云,黄志雄.中国-欧盟焦炭贸易争端及其解决途径[R].武大国际法评论,2006：312-328.
[10]李雪平.WTO争端解决机制在“贸易与环境”问题上的裁量标准——对“中国-原材料出口限制案”的思考[A].世界贸易组织动态与研究,2010,(6)：50-56,62.
[11]黄志雄.从“市场准入”到“资源获取”——由“中国原材料出口限制措施案”引发的思考[J].法商研究,2010,(3)：35-44.
[12]姚小兰、顾佳.环保一般例外条款的发展趋势和我国对策研究[A].亚太经济2003,(5)：83-86.
[13]殷菲菲.WTO环境保护例外条款的解读[A].法制与社会.2010,(1)：103-104.
[14]韩立余.WTO(1995-1999)案例及评析(上下卷)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[15]韩立余.WTO(2000)案例及评析(上下卷)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社，2001.
[16]周林彬、郑远远.WTO规则例外与例外规则[M].广州：广东人民出版,2001.
[17]朱榄叶.世界贸易组织国际贾易纠纷案例评析[M].北京：法律出版社,2000.
[18]李金玲.物以稀为贵打好稀有资源保卫战[N].中国产业新闻,2009-06-29.
[19]徐淑萍.贸易与环境的法律问题研究[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.2002.
[20]朱橄叶.世界贸易组织贸易纠纷案例评析[M].北京：法律出版社.2000.
[21]贺小勇.论WTO体制下资源保障措施的法律问题——以中欧焦炭贸易争端为分析视角[J].比较法研究,2004,(5)：115-122.
[22]卢苇平、贺小勇.世贸组织的环保例外措施及我国的对策[J].国际商务研究,1998,(1)：51-54.
[23]邢洪涛、班永陟.WTO第20条b、g款适用的限制及其发展趋势[J].烟台师范学院学报,2003,(20)：20-23,60.
[24]何旦喜.WTO一般例外条款研究[D].2003.
[25]郑远远.试论GATT第20条三项环境例外的规则[J].对外经济贫易大学学报,2003,(4)：76-79.
[26]武从斌、赵劲松.从海龟案看GATT/WTO环保条款的缺陷级我国的应对之策[J].2002中国环境资源法学研讨会论文集：626-629.
[27]王勇.从金枪鱼案到海龟/海虾案——浅析WTO体制下环境与贸易争端解决机制的发展、不足与建议[J].福建法学,2001,(4)：45-48.
[28]成红、李兴华.对自由贸易与环境保护的法律思考——以“金枪鱼案”、“海虾-海龟案”为例[J].扬州大学学报,2003,(7)：83-85.
[29]周艳丽.论GATT第20条(g)款的适用及发展——以虾龟案为视角[J].科协论坛,2008,(5)：138-139.
[30]赵维田.协调贸易规则与环境需要——评WTO海龟案[J].国际贸易,2000,(11)：44-47.
[31]赵维田.世界贸易组织(WTO)的法律制度[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,2000.
[32]邓炯.环境争议的新实践——“海虾—海龟之诉”评析[J].国际贸易问题,1999,(8)：54-60.
[33]赵劲松.以海龟案为视角论GATT/WTO环境保护条款[J].河南公安高等专科学校学报,2006,(4)：54-57.
[34]Thomas Andersson, Carl Folke, Stefan Nystrom,黄晶、周乃君、陆永琪译,1998,环境与贸易—生态、经济、体制和政策,清华大学出版社版.
[35]倪世雄.当代西方国际关系理论[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2004.第356-357页.
[1]Allan Rosas,2001,Implementation and Enforcement of WTO Dispute Settlement Findings:an EU Perspective, Journal of International Economic Law, pp.79-100.
[2]Bernard Hoekman, Miekel kosteeki, The Political Economy of The World Trading System-From GATT to WTO, The University of Michigan Press.
[3]Ernst-Ulrich Peterman,1996, International Trade Law and International Environmental Law, Journal of World Trade, Vol.30,No.2, pp.43-81.
[4]European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, Report of Appellate Body, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted on 12 March 2001.
[5]Gary Sampson and John Whalley,2005, The WTO, Trade and the Environment, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
[6]John-H-Jaekson,1969, World Trade and the Law of GATT.
[7]Petro C., Marroidis,2000, Trade and Environment after the Shrimps-Turtles Litigation, Journal of World Trade, Vol.34, No.1.
[8]Steve Charnovitz,1991, Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX, Journal of World Trade,Vol.25, pp.37-55.
[9]Steve Charnovitz,2000,The Regulation of International Trade, Routledge.
[10]Thailand-Restrictions on Importation of and International Taxes on Cigarettes, Report of the Panel, DS10/R-37S/200, adopted on 7 November 1990.
[11]United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Report of Appellate Body, WT/DS2/AB/R,29 April 1996.
[12]United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of Panel, WT/DS58/R,15 May 1998.
[13]United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted on 12 October 1998.
[14]United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of Appellate Body, WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001.