WTO法中的必要性检验法律问题研究
|
摘要
在世界贸易组织法律体制下,为了实现国际贸易自由化,要求各成员方取消或限制各种贸易壁垒,对其国家主权进行相应的限制。同时,各国也有权根据其本国的实际情形采取措施对本国的事务进行自主管理,各成员方为实现本国公共政策目标而采取的措施又在一定程度上会限制贸易自由化。这样就产生了促进贸易自由化与实现公共政策目标之间的价值冲突。因此,如何保持贸易自由化与国家管制权之间的平衡具有重要的理论意义与现实价值,这是本文要研究的出发点。
WTO许多协定中都包括必要性检验条款,但什么是必要性检验,其构成要素是什么?必要性检验有何作用和价值,其理论基础是什么?这是本文第一章“必要性检验基本理论”所要回答的问题。必要性检验是WTO相关协定中的重要概念之一。对于成员追求国内政策目标与多边贸易规则交错的情形日益增加的冲突,WTO以必要性检验作为平衡成员的管制权与自由贸易的重要工具。WTO协定中必要性检验的基本含义是要求：如果成员方的法律或措施对贸易产生了限制效果,则该等法律或措施限制贸易的程度不应当超过为了实现其政策目标所“必要的”的程度。其基本价值在于平衡WTO成员方所面临的两种潜在冲突的价值：一方面承认成员可以采取一定措施以实现政策目标,另一方面防止成员采取过度限制贸易的措施。在WTO法中,必要性检验作用的发挥是以比例原则和善意原则为理论基础的。
必要性检验的实体问题是什么,它们在WTO相关协定中有什么不同,乃至在不同时期有什么不同?这是本文要解决的核心问题。本文用大部分篇幅来分析必要性检验的三个要素：措施(即必要性检验的适用对象)、合法目标和判断标准。因此本文对必要性检验实体问题的讨论分别为“必要性检验的适用对象”(第二章)、“必要性检验中的合法目标”(第三章)和“必要性判断标准(一)”(第四章)以及“必要性判断标准(二)”(第五章)。由于判断标准是必要性检验中最为复杂的问题,本文在分析必要性检验中的措施和合法目标之后,对这一问题进行详细探讨。
其中第四章在专家组或上诉机构对GATT第20条中必要性检验判断标准实践的基础上,阐述必要性检验判断标准的发展变化及其含义。在GATT时期,必要性检验被解释为,被诉方在援引第20条的例外规定时,必须证明为实现其目的,“没有其他符合WTO协定的措施”或该措施是“最低贸易限制”的方法。因此,在GATT时期,第20条中的必要性检验,是指争议措施必须是为实现其保护目的或政策,在合理的前提下,所采取的违反GATT规定程度最低的措施,换言之,如果有其他不违反GATT规定,或违反程度较低且合理可用的替代措施存在时,就不符合必要性的要件,这也就是所谓的最低贸易限制标准。
但是,进入WTO时期后,通过案例的发展,出现了与GATT时期不同的必要性审查标准。在韩国牛肉案中,上诉机构在判断必要性要件时,另外增加了利益权衡的概念,即就贸易利益与政策目标加以权衡。权衡中需要考虑以下几个因素,包括争议措施对国内法规所追求的目的是否有所贡献、该国内法规所保护的价值与公共利益的重要性及该国内法规所伴随而来对进出口的冲击等。当国内法规所保护的价值或公共利益越重要,争议措施就越容易符合必要性的要件；如果争议措施越能实现国内法规所追求的目的,争议措施就越容易被认为具有必要性；如果争议措施对于进口产品的影响相对较小,就越容易被认定为具有必要性。
因此,在GATT时期,对于必要性检验的含义仅限于所谓的最小损害手段原则,即比例原则中的第二项原则,但到了WTO时代,尤其在韩国牛肉案之后,增加了合法保护价值与贸易限制成本问题之间的衡量,就这一权衡概念而言,可以说已经加入了比例原则中的第三个原则,即狭义比例原则的概念,使得GATT第20条必要性的判断扩大为比例原则的判断。因此,就必要性要件而言,已经从最低贸易限制标准,通过狭义比例原则的解释,而放宽为较低贸易限制标准。
第五章主要探讨GATT之外的其他WTO相关协定中必要性检验的判断标准。虽然WTO其他协定中的必要性检验条款与第20条不尽一样,但是GATT第20条中的必要性检验实践对SPS和TBT中的必要性检验产生了重要的影响,SPS和TBT协定中的必要性检验也纳入了权衡的因素。
由于GATS第14条和GATT第20条一样,都是一般例外条款,两者的措词也大同小异,这两个条款都允许成员方为实现合法公共政策目标而违背GATS或GATT协定下的其他实体义务。由于这两个条款的相似性,过去专家组或上诉机构对GATT第20条的分析对于解释GATS第14条无疑具有重要的启示意义。因此,在美国博彩案中,上诉机构对GATS第14条中的必要性检验进行分析时,遵循了对GATT第20条必要性检验分析的路径。另外,必要性检验作为国内规章谈判的一个重要议题,在服务贸易工作小组中已经引起广泛的讨论,一旦依据第6条第4款的授权制定出适用于所有服务部门的必要性检验规则,那么该规则对于WTO其他协定中的必要性检验的解释无疑会有重要的指导意义,从而保证WTO协定中必要性检验适用的稳定性和可预见性。就TRIPS而言,目前虽然还没有出现关于适用必要性检验的案例,但可以预见,在未来有关TRIPS的案件中适用必要性检验时,可能会吸收权衡的因素。
总之,专家组和上诉机构在实践中,在必要性检验的适用上,逐渐发展出具有一定雷同性的解释,如此使WTO协定中的必要性检验的含义趋向于一致,从而在某种程度上可以避免在必要性检验的判断上发生冲突。
必要性检验中除了上述实体问题之外,还有一个重要的程序问题,即举证责任。第六章“必要性检验的举证责任规则”对这一问题进行详细的探讨。根据法律性质的不同,WTO相关协定中的必要性检验条款可以分为积极主张条款和积极抗辩条款。举证责任的基本原则是不区分申诉方或被诉方,由提出积极主张或抗辩者负担举证责任。特定当事方(原则上为申诉方)主张其他成员(原则上为被诉方)违反特定WTO协定条款时,必须提出其主张,并证明该主张。因此,判断举证责任的分配标准,在于争议条款的法律性质,究竟属于主张条款还是抗辩条款,这同样适用于必要性检验条款。
第七章以第二章至第六章为基础,分析不同WTO协定下必要性检验存在的异同,探讨关于必要性检验的解释在WTO协定间有无相互参照、对照及援引套用的可能,以及必要性检验条款间有重复和竞合的情形时,应以什么原则进行解释和适用,并指出事实上的遵循先例是WTO相关协定中必要性检验趋同的主要方法。
最后,对本文的内容作了简单的总结。
The WTO legal system requires all the parties to cancel or restrict various trade barriers, in the mean time, place some restriction on the state sovereignty of the parties involved in order to realize the freedom of international trades. But on the other hand, the parties are entitled to take measures to administrate their domestic affairs according to the related circumstances, so the measures which were taken in the aims of public policy would, to some degree, limit the freedom of international trades, while these give rise to the value conflict of the freedom of international trades between the aims of public policies Thus, the balance of the above-mentioned two, which weighs heavily at both theoretical and practical level, is the very starting point of this dissertation.
Among the agreements of WTO, there are clauses of necessity test. What are necessity test and its elements? How does it work and why is it significant? These are the questions that First Chapter"Basic theory of necessity test" tries to answer. Necessity test is the vital conception of WTO agreements in that necessity test, as under the circumstances of the mounting conflicts between member states pursuing public policies and regulations of multinational trades, is a tool of balancing the administrative power of relevant parties with the freedom of international trades. The basic prerequisites of necessity test is that, if the measures or rules issued by the members create an effect of restriction on multinational trades, then the degree of the measures or rules should not surpass the necessary degree that the realization of the public policies require to achieve. The fundamental value of necessity test lies in the balancing of the potential conflicts that the members would face with, one is to acknowledge the right of taking measures to realize the policy ends, the other is to prevent the members take measures too excessively. In WTO law, the principle of proportionality and the principle of good faith are the theoretical basis to necessity test.
What are the substantial problems of necessity test? And what are the differences when they are applied in the WTO agreements? In most parts of this dissertation, the author analyzes the three elements of the necessity test:measures (the applicable objects of necessity test), the legitimate goals and judging criteria. Therefore the substantive issues of the necessity test are discussed in three parts:"The applicable objects of necessity test" (ChapterⅡ), "Legitimate goals of necessity test" (ChapterⅢ) and the "Judging criteria of necessity test (Ⅰ) "(ChapterⅣ) and the" Judging criteria of necessity test (Ⅱ) "(chapterⅤ). As the judging criteria issues are the most complex ones in necessity test and therefore the dissertation probes into them in details, after analyzing the measures and legal objectives.
Chapter IV sets forth the changes and development and implications of the judging criteria, based on the practice of judging criteria about Article 20 of the GATT of the panel or the Appellate Body. During the GATT, necessity test was explained as the following:when the exceptional stipulation of Article 20 is invoked by the prosecuted, it has to be proved that in the purpose of achieving its goal, there are no other measures satisfy the WTO agreements or the measures taken are within the lowest restriction of the freedom of international trades.Consequently, during GATT, the necessity test in the Article 20 refers that the discussed measures in the aims of realizing its protection or policy ends, is supposed to be the ones that violates the GATT rules to the minimal degree provides reasonable prerequisites. In other words, if there are any other replaceable and reasonable measures that would not violate the GATT rules or violate the GATT rules at a minimal degree, then the measures are considered not to live up to the necessity standard, that is, what is called the criterion of the lowest restriction of the freedom of international trades.
But as is stepping into WTO times, a standard of necessity test that differs from GATT's came into being with the development of cases. For instance, in the Korean Beef case, when the Appellate Body judges the factors of necessity, it introduces a concept of interest balance, which is the balancing between trade interests and policy ends. Several elements are taken into consideration, such as, if the discussed measures do any contribution to the pursuing policy ends of domestic rules, the significance of the value and public interests that the domestic rules protect, together with the impact that the domestic rules exert on the import and export activities, and so forth. Thus, the more important the value and interests protected are, the easier for the measures to meet the requirements of necessity, that is, the more that the measures can achieve the goals that domestic rules had set, the more necessary the measures are considered, meanwhile, the lesser impact that the measures exert on the imported products, the easier for the measures to be taken as necessity, and vise versa.
Therefore, in the GATT period, the meaning of the necessity test is limited to the so-called principle of minimal harm, the second principle in the principle of proportionality, but in the WTO era, especially after the South Korea Beef case, the balancing between the value of trade protection and the cost of trade resistance is added. In terms of the concepts, it can be said to have acceded the third principle to the principle of proportionality, namely, the concept of a narrow proportionality principle, making the necessity judgment of Article 20 of the GATT expand as the judgment of the principle of proportionality. Thus, the standard of the necessity, has been extended from the lowest trade restrictions, through a narrow interpretation of the principle of proportionality, to the lower standard of trade restrictions.
Chapter V mainly discusses the necessity test criteria in other WTO agreements out of GATT. Although the necessity test in other agreements of WTO is not the same as in Article 20, the practice of the necessity test in Article 20 of GATT had a significant impact on the necessity test in SPS and TBT, which also include balancing consideration. In the case of TRIPS, there is no any dispute about the application of necessity test so far, however, the necessity test in TRIPS will absorb the element of balance in the future.
Article 14 of GATS and Article 20 of GATT, with certain similar words, are general exceptional provisions. These two articles allow members'departure from substantial obligations under the GATS or the GATT in order to achieve legitimate objectives of public policies. Since the similarity of these two articles, the interpretation of Article 20 of the GATT of the panel or the Appellate Body in the past is of important significance for interpretation of Article 14 of GATS. Thus, in the U.S. Gambling case, the analyzes of the necessity test of the Appellate Body on GATS Article 14 followed the course of interpreting necessity of Article 20 of the GATT. In addition, necessity test as an important topic in negotiations on domestic regulations, the Working Group in the service trade has been widely discussed, If, in accordance with the authority of Paragraph 4, Article 6, the necessity test rules are made for all the service sectors, They undoubtedly have instructive significance for the interpretation of necessity of other WTO agreements, and ensure the stability and predictability of necessity test of WTO agreements.
In short, the Panel and Appellate Body made certain similar interpretations about the application of necessity test in practice, and thus help make consistent interpretation of the necessity test of WTO agreements in order to avoid conflicts in the judgment of necessity to some extent.
In addition to these substantive issues about the necessity test, there is an important procedural issue, the burden of proof. ChapterⅤ, " the burden of proof in the necessity test" discusses this issue in details. According to the different legal nature, the various terms about necessity test in WTO agreements can be divided into positive claim terms arid vigorous defense terms. The basic principle is that the burden of proof does not distinguish between the complainant and the defend, therefore, those who make a positive claim or defense have the burden of proof. Particular party (in principle, as the Complainant) claims the other members (in principle, as the respondent party) violated certain provisions of WTO agreements, it must submit its claims and prove the claim. Therefore, the standards of allocating of the burden of proof is the legal nature of terms about the disputes, positive claim terms or vigorous defense terms, as is the same with the terms about the necessity test.
ChapterⅦ, based on ChapterⅡtoⅥ, analyses the similarities and differences of the necessity test of various WTO agreements, and probes into the possibility of cross-references and citing about the necessity test, and the principles of interpretation and application in the situation of overlap and concurrence of the necessity test terms, and points that stari decisis in fact is the main method of the necessity test in WTO agreements to converge.
Finally, this dissertation ends with a brief summary.
WTO许多协定中都包括必要性检验条款,但什么是必要性检验,其构成要素是什么?必要性检验有何作用和价值,其理论基础是什么?这是本文第一章“必要性检验基本理论”所要回答的问题。必要性检验是WTO相关协定中的重要概念之一。对于成员追求国内政策目标与多边贸易规则交错的情形日益增加的冲突,WTO以必要性检验作为平衡成员的管制权与自由贸易的重要工具。WTO协定中必要性检验的基本含义是要求：如果成员方的法律或措施对贸易产生了限制效果,则该等法律或措施限制贸易的程度不应当超过为了实现其政策目标所“必要的”的程度。其基本价值在于平衡WTO成员方所面临的两种潜在冲突的价值：一方面承认成员可以采取一定措施以实现政策目标,另一方面防止成员采取过度限制贸易的措施。在WTO法中,必要性检验作用的发挥是以比例原则和善意原则为理论基础的。
必要性检验的实体问题是什么,它们在WTO相关协定中有什么不同,乃至在不同时期有什么不同?这是本文要解决的核心问题。本文用大部分篇幅来分析必要性检验的三个要素：措施(即必要性检验的适用对象)、合法目标和判断标准。因此本文对必要性检验实体问题的讨论分别为“必要性检验的适用对象”(第二章)、“必要性检验中的合法目标”(第三章)和“必要性判断标准(一)”(第四章)以及“必要性判断标准(二)”(第五章)。由于判断标准是必要性检验中最为复杂的问题,本文在分析必要性检验中的措施和合法目标之后,对这一问题进行详细探讨。
其中第四章在专家组或上诉机构对GATT第20条中必要性检验判断标准实践的基础上,阐述必要性检验判断标准的发展变化及其含义。在GATT时期,必要性检验被解释为,被诉方在援引第20条的例外规定时,必须证明为实现其目的,“没有其他符合WTO协定的措施”或该措施是“最低贸易限制”的方法。因此,在GATT时期,第20条中的必要性检验,是指争议措施必须是为实现其保护目的或政策,在合理的前提下,所采取的违反GATT规定程度最低的措施,换言之,如果有其他不违反GATT规定,或违反程度较低且合理可用的替代措施存在时,就不符合必要性的要件,这也就是所谓的最低贸易限制标准。
但是,进入WTO时期后,通过案例的发展,出现了与GATT时期不同的必要性审查标准。在韩国牛肉案中,上诉机构在判断必要性要件时,另外增加了利益权衡的概念,即就贸易利益与政策目标加以权衡。权衡中需要考虑以下几个因素,包括争议措施对国内法规所追求的目的是否有所贡献、该国内法规所保护的价值与公共利益的重要性及该国内法规所伴随而来对进出口的冲击等。当国内法规所保护的价值或公共利益越重要,争议措施就越容易符合必要性的要件；如果争议措施越能实现国内法规所追求的目的,争议措施就越容易被认为具有必要性；如果争议措施对于进口产品的影响相对较小,就越容易被认定为具有必要性。
因此,在GATT时期,对于必要性检验的含义仅限于所谓的最小损害手段原则,即比例原则中的第二项原则,但到了WTO时代,尤其在韩国牛肉案之后,增加了合法保护价值与贸易限制成本问题之间的衡量,就这一权衡概念而言,可以说已经加入了比例原则中的第三个原则,即狭义比例原则的概念,使得GATT第20条必要性的判断扩大为比例原则的判断。因此,就必要性要件而言,已经从最低贸易限制标准,通过狭义比例原则的解释,而放宽为较低贸易限制标准。
第五章主要探讨GATT之外的其他WTO相关协定中必要性检验的判断标准。虽然WTO其他协定中的必要性检验条款与第20条不尽一样,但是GATT第20条中的必要性检验实践对SPS和TBT中的必要性检验产生了重要的影响,SPS和TBT协定中的必要性检验也纳入了权衡的因素。
由于GATS第14条和GATT第20条一样,都是一般例外条款,两者的措词也大同小异,这两个条款都允许成员方为实现合法公共政策目标而违背GATS或GATT协定下的其他实体义务。由于这两个条款的相似性,过去专家组或上诉机构对GATT第20条的分析对于解释GATS第14条无疑具有重要的启示意义。因此,在美国博彩案中,上诉机构对GATS第14条中的必要性检验进行分析时,遵循了对GATT第20条必要性检验分析的路径。另外,必要性检验作为国内规章谈判的一个重要议题,在服务贸易工作小组中已经引起广泛的讨论,一旦依据第6条第4款的授权制定出适用于所有服务部门的必要性检验规则,那么该规则对于WTO其他协定中的必要性检验的解释无疑会有重要的指导意义,从而保证WTO协定中必要性检验适用的稳定性和可预见性。就TRIPS而言,目前虽然还没有出现关于适用必要性检验的案例,但可以预见,在未来有关TRIPS的案件中适用必要性检验时,可能会吸收权衡的因素。
总之,专家组和上诉机构在实践中,在必要性检验的适用上,逐渐发展出具有一定雷同性的解释,如此使WTO协定中的必要性检验的含义趋向于一致,从而在某种程度上可以避免在必要性检验的判断上发生冲突。
必要性检验中除了上述实体问题之外,还有一个重要的程序问题,即举证责任。第六章“必要性检验的举证责任规则”对这一问题进行详细的探讨。根据法律性质的不同,WTO相关协定中的必要性检验条款可以分为积极主张条款和积极抗辩条款。举证责任的基本原则是不区分申诉方或被诉方,由提出积极主张或抗辩者负担举证责任。特定当事方(原则上为申诉方)主张其他成员(原则上为被诉方)违反特定WTO协定条款时,必须提出其主张,并证明该主张。因此,判断举证责任的分配标准,在于争议条款的法律性质,究竟属于主张条款还是抗辩条款,这同样适用于必要性检验条款。
第七章以第二章至第六章为基础,分析不同WTO协定下必要性检验存在的异同,探讨关于必要性检验的解释在WTO协定间有无相互参照、对照及援引套用的可能,以及必要性检验条款间有重复和竞合的情形时,应以什么原则进行解释和适用,并指出事实上的遵循先例是WTO相关协定中必要性检验趋同的主要方法。
最后,对本文的内容作了简单的总结。
The WTO legal system requires all the parties to cancel or restrict various trade barriers, in the mean time, place some restriction on the state sovereignty of the parties involved in order to realize the freedom of international trades. But on the other hand, the parties are entitled to take measures to administrate their domestic affairs according to the related circumstances, so the measures which were taken in the aims of public policy would, to some degree, limit the freedom of international trades, while these give rise to the value conflict of the freedom of international trades between the aims of public policies Thus, the balance of the above-mentioned two, which weighs heavily at both theoretical and practical level, is the very starting point of this dissertation.
Among the agreements of WTO, there are clauses of necessity test. What are necessity test and its elements? How does it work and why is it significant? These are the questions that First Chapter"Basic theory of necessity test" tries to answer. Necessity test is the vital conception of WTO agreements in that necessity test, as under the circumstances of the mounting conflicts between member states pursuing public policies and regulations of multinational trades, is a tool of balancing the administrative power of relevant parties with the freedom of international trades. The basic prerequisites of necessity test is that, if the measures or rules issued by the members create an effect of restriction on multinational trades, then the degree of the measures or rules should not surpass the necessary degree that the realization of the public policies require to achieve. The fundamental value of necessity test lies in the balancing of the potential conflicts that the members would face with, one is to acknowledge the right of taking measures to realize the policy ends, the other is to prevent the members take measures too excessively. In WTO law, the principle of proportionality and the principle of good faith are the theoretical basis to necessity test.
What are the substantial problems of necessity test? And what are the differences when they are applied in the WTO agreements? In most parts of this dissertation, the author analyzes the three elements of the necessity test:measures (the applicable objects of necessity test), the legitimate goals and judging criteria. Therefore the substantive issues of the necessity test are discussed in three parts:"The applicable objects of necessity test" (ChapterⅡ), "Legitimate goals of necessity test" (ChapterⅢ) and the "Judging criteria of necessity test (Ⅰ) "(ChapterⅣ) and the" Judging criteria of necessity test (Ⅱ) "(chapterⅤ). As the judging criteria issues are the most complex ones in necessity test and therefore the dissertation probes into them in details, after analyzing the measures and legal objectives.
Chapter IV sets forth the changes and development and implications of the judging criteria, based on the practice of judging criteria about Article 20 of the GATT of the panel or the Appellate Body. During the GATT, necessity test was explained as the following:when the exceptional stipulation of Article 20 is invoked by the prosecuted, it has to be proved that in the purpose of achieving its goal, there are no other measures satisfy the WTO agreements or the measures taken are within the lowest restriction of the freedom of international trades.Consequently, during GATT, the necessity test in the Article 20 refers that the discussed measures in the aims of realizing its protection or policy ends, is supposed to be the ones that violates the GATT rules to the minimal degree provides reasonable prerequisites. In other words, if there are any other replaceable and reasonable measures that would not violate the GATT rules or violate the GATT rules at a minimal degree, then the measures are considered not to live up to the necessity standard, that is, what is called the criterion of the lowest restriction of the freedom of international trades.
But as is stepping into WTO times, a standard of necessity test that differs from GATT's came into being with the development of cases. For instance, in the Korean Beef case, when the Appellate Body judges the factors of necessity, it introduces a concept of interest balance, which is the balancing between trade interests and policy ends. Several elements are taken into consideration, such as, if the discussed measures do any contribution to the pursuing policy ends of domestic rules, the significance of the value and public interests that the domestic rules protect, together with the impact that the domestic rules exert on the import and export activities, and so forth. Thus, the more important the value and interests protected are, the easier for the measures to meet the requirements of necessity, that is, the more that the measures can achieve the goals that domestic rules had set, the more necessary the measures are considered, meanwhile, the lesser impact that the measures exert on the imported products, the easier for the measures to be taken as necessity, and vise versa.
Therefore, in the GATT period, the meaning of the necessity test is limited to the so-called principle of minimal harm, the second principle in the principle of proportionality, but in the WTO era, especially after the South Korea Beef case, the balancing between the value of trade protection and the cost of trade resistance is added. In terms of the concepts, it can be said to have acceded the third principle to the principle of proportionality, namely, the concept of a narrow proportionality principle, making the necessity judgment of Article 20 of the GATT expand as the judgment of the principle of proportionality. Thus, the standard of the necessity, has been extended from the lowest trade restrictions, through a narrow interpretation of the principle of proportionality, to the lower standard of trade restrictions.
Chapter V mainly discusses the necessity test criteria in other WTO agreements out of GATT. Although the necessity test in other agreements of WTO is not the same as in Article 20, the practice of the necessity test in Article 20 of GATT had a significant impact on the necessity test in SPS and TBT, which also include balancing consideration. In the case of TRIPS, there is no any dispute about the application of necessity test so far, however, the necessity test in TRIPS will absorb the element of balance in the future.
Article 14 of GATS and Article 20 of GATT, with certain similar words, are general exceptional provisions. These two articles allow members'departure from substantial obligations under the GATS or the GATT in order to achieve legitimate objectives of public policies. Since the similarity of these two articles, the interpretation of Article 20 of the GATT of the panel or the Appellate Body in the past is of important significance for interpretation of Article 14 of GATS. Thus, in the U.S. Gambling case, the analyzes of the necessity test of the Appellate Body on GATS Article 14 followed the course of interpreting necessity of Article 20 of the GATT. In addition, necessity test as an important topic in negotiations on domestic regulations, the Working Group in the service trade has been widely discussed, If, in accordance with the authority of Paragraph 4, Article 6, the necessity test rules are made for all the service sectors, They undoubtedly have instructive significance for the interpretation of necessity of other WTO agreements, and ensure the stability and predictability of necessity test of WTO agreements.
In short, the Panel and Appellate Body made certain similar interpretations about the application of necessity test in practice, and thus help make consistent interpretation of the necessity test of WTO agreements in order to avoid conflicts in the judgment of necessity to some extent.
In addition to these substantive issues about the necessity test, there is an important procedural issue, the burden of proof. ChapterⅤ, " the burden of proof in the necessity test" discusses this issue in details. According to the different legal nature, the various terms about necessity test in WTO agreements can be divided into positive claim terms arid vigorous defense terms. The basic principle is that the burden of proof does not distinguish between the complainant and the defend, therefore, those who make a positive claim or defense have the burden of proof. Particular party (in principle, as the Complainant) claims the other members (in principle, as the respondent party) violated certain provisions of WTO agreements, it must submit its claims and prove the claim. Therefore, the standards of allocating of the burden of proof is the legal nature of terms about the disputes, positive claim terms or vigorous defense terms, as is the same with the terms about the necessity test.
ChapterⅦ, based on ChapterⅡtoⅥ, analyses the similarities and differences of the necessity test of various WTO agreements, and probes into the possibility of cross-references and citing about the necessity test, and the principles of interpretation and application in the situation of overlap and concurrence of the necessity test terms, and points that stari decisis in fact is the main method of the necessity test in WTO agreements to converge.
Finally, this dissertation ends with a brief summary.
引文
1.陈安主编：《国际经济法学专论》(上编总论)(下编分论),研究生教学用书,高等教育出版社2002年版。
2. 陈卫东著：《WTO例外条款解读》,对外经济贸易大学出版社2002年版。
3.房东：《wTO服务贸易总协定法律约束力研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
4.韩龙：《wTO金融服务贸易的法律问题研究》,湖南人民出版社2004年版。
5.韩立余著：《美国外贸法》,法律出版社1999年版。
6.韩立余编著：《GATT／WTO案例及评析(1995-1999)》,(上、下卷),中国人民大学出版社2001年版。
7.韩立余编著：《GATT／WTO案例及评析(1948-1995)》,(上、下卷),,中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
8.韩立余编著：《GATT／WTO案例及评析(2000)》,中国人民大学出版社2001年版。
9.韩立余编著：《GATT／WTO案例及评析(2001)》,中国人民大学出版社2004年版。
10.韩立余著：《既往不咎——WTO争端解决机制研究》,北京大学出版社2009年版。
11.韩龙：《金融服务贸易规制与监管研究——基于入世过渡期后银行业局势的探讨》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
12.贺小勇著：《国际贸易争端解决与中国对策研究——以WTO为视角》,法律出版社2006年版。
13.黄胜强著：《国际服务贸易多边规则利弊分析》,中国社会科学出版社2000年版。
14.回沪明、赵松岭主编：《世界贸易组织(WTO)及其争端解决经验》,中国方正出版社2002年版。
15.李国安主编：《WTO服务贸易多边规则》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
16.李仁真：《国际金融法学》,复旦大学出版社2004年版。
17.屈广清、蒋新苗主编：《世贸组织规则研究的理论与案例》,人民法院出版社2004年版。
18.石静霞：《WTO服务贸易法专论》,法律出版社2006年版。
19.石静霞、陈卫东：《WTO国际服务贸易成案研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
20.孙振宇主编：《wTO多哈回合谈判中期回顾》,人民出版社2005年版。
21.陶凯元著：《国际服务贸易法律的多边化与中国对外服务贸易法制》,法律出版社2000年版。
22.王传丽主编：《国际贸易法》,中国政法大学出版社2003年修订版。
23.王贵国著：《世界贸易组织法》,法律出版社2003年版。
24.王新奎等著：《世界贸易组织与发展中国家》,上海远东出版社1998年版。
25.汪尧田、李力主编：《国际服务贸易总论》,上海交通大学出版社1997年版。
26.温迪·多布森、皮埃尔·雅凯：《wTO中的金融服务自由化》,彭龙译,北京出版社2000年版。
27.温树英：《金融服务贸易的国际法律规制》,人民法院出版社2005年版。
28.肖冰：《WTO<实施卫生与植物卫生措施协定)研究》,法律出版社2004年版。
29.徐泉著：《国家经济主权论》,人民出版社2006年版。
30.曾令良著：《世界贸易组织法》,武汉大学出版社1996年版。
31.曾筱清：《金融全球化与金融监管立法研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
32.张汉林等著：《经贸竞争新领域——服务贸易总协定与国际服务贸易》,中国经济出版社1997年版。
33.张汉林、张军生,刘洪敏等著：《复兴之路：WTO与中国经济未来服务业卷：服务业承诺与开放和崛起》(上、下册),人民日报出版社,2002年版。
34.张新平著：《世界贸易组织下之服务贸易》,月旦出版社1996年版。
35.张玉卿主编：《WTO新回合法律问题研究》,中国商务出版社2004年版。
36.赵维田著：《世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度》,吉林人民出版社2000年版。
37.朱揽叶编著：《世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析》,法律出版社2003年版。
38.左海聪：《国际经济法的理论与实践》,武汉大学出版社2003年版。
39.左海聪：《国际贸易法》,法律出版社2004年版。
40.左海聪：《1994年关贸总协定逐条释义》,湖南科学技术出版社2006年版。
41.世界贸易组织秘书处编；《乌拉圭回合协议导读》,索必成、胡盈之译,法律出版社2000年版。
42.对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司、关贸总协定上海研究中心编：《乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果最后文件》,法律出版社1995年版。
1. 蔡霜： 《从美国汽油标准案看GATT/WTO第20条环保例外规定——兼论我国对环境保护例外措施的应对》,《玉林师范学院学报》(社会科学版)2009年第l期。
2. 陈儒丹：《“非WTO协议”在WTO争端解决中的适用》,《法学》2009年第2期。
3. 陈卫东：《美国禁止通过互联网提供赌博服务的贸易争端评述》,《国际商务——对外经济贸易大学学报》2006年第1期。
4. 陈卫东：《从国际法角度论多边贸易自由化与国内公共健康政策的冲突和协调》,《当代法学》2006年第20卷第2期。
5. 崔广平： 《论世界贸易组织规则中的环境保护条款》,,《河北法学》2004年第12期
6. 封延会、贾晓燕:《论我国市场准入制度的构建》,《山东社会科学》2006年第12期。
7. 龚伯华：《“中美出版物市场准入WTO案”援引GATT第20条“公共道德例外”的法律分析》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第10期。
8. 韩龙：《GATS第一案——“美国赌博案”评析》,《甘肃政法学院学报》2005年第7期。
9. 韩龙、张良：《论国民待遇在世贸组织法律体系中的科学定位》,《江海学刊》2006年第1期。
10.胡雪梅：《服务贸易总协定中的市场准入与国民持遇问题——兼论中国的服务业开放问题》,《政法论坛》2001年第2期。
11.黄瑶:《论<联合国宪章>的解释方法问题》,《中国法学》2003年第6期。
12.黄志雄：《WTO自由贸易与公共道德第一案——安提瓜诉美国网络赌博服务争端评析》,《法学评论》2006年第2期。
13.黄征：《WTO公共健康例外条款与我国的对策分析》,《法制与经济》2007年第7期。
14.江保国:《wTO转基因农产品贸易争端第一案述评》,《法商研究》2007年第5期。
15.姜作利、武轶尘：《WTO专家组和上诉机构举证责任分配标准的经济分析》,《东岳论丛》2009年第第30卷第9期。
16.李景义：《WTO体制下环境贸易纠纷法律问题浅析》,《当代法学》2003年第9期。
17.李玲：《GATS中权利和义务平衡问题当议》,《湖南税务高等专科学校学报》2002年第5期。
18.李仁真、温树真：《国际金融服务贸易的多边法律框架——WTO与金融服务贸易有关的协议评析》,《政法论坛》2001年第6期。
19.李仁真：《区域经济一体化对GATT／WTO体制的冲击和影响》,《法学论坛》2006年第2期。
20.李仁真：《国际金融服务贸易的多边法律框架—WTO与金融服务贸易有关的协议评析》,《政法论坛》2001年第6期。
21.李伟芳： 《贸易与环境关系的理论及实证分析》, 《当代法学》2005年第4期。
22.李先波、徐莉：《GATT"公共道德例外条款”探析》,《湖南师范大学学报》(社会科学版)2010年第1期。
23.梁丹妮：《自由贸易与环境保护：欧盟与巴西的一场攻防战——WTO首例发达国家诉发展中国家环境贸易措施案研究》,《学术研究》2009年第8期。
24.廖益新：《经济全球化与国际经济法学》,《厦门大学学报》(哲社版)2000年第3期。
25.刘超：《解析<服务贸易总协定>中的最惠国待遇》,《甘肃社会科学》2001年第6期。
26.刘汉鹏、赵航：《GATT1994第20条中的引言及(b)(g)款的解释》,《国际关系学院学报》2004年第5期。
27.刘金花：《金融服务贸易壁垒的法律问题探讨》,《山西青年管理干部学院学’报》2006年第4期。
28.刘晴：《论在GATS下对以电子手段跨境提供服务的适当监管——对“美国赌博案”的再思考》,《肃社会科学》2006年第5期。
29.刘笋、李国赓：《关于“与贸易有关的问题”及WTO调整范围的若干思考》,《法商研究》2003年第5期。
30.刘志云：《论全球化时代国际经济法的公平价值取向——兼论发展中国家及我国的角色定位与战略选择》,《法律科学》2007年第5期。
31.莫世健：《技术性贸易壁垒中贸易和环保的平衡》,《政法论坛》2007年第25卷第2期。
32.慕亚平、冼一帆：《对WTO体制下经济一体化的法律分析》,《学术研究》2003年第6期。
33.慕亚平、冼一帆：《WTO协议在我国国内适用的问题》,《暨南学报》(哲学社会科学)2003年第25卷第1期。
34.彭景、宋娜： 《“为保证国内法执行而采取的限制措施”例外条款研究》,《金卡工程》2009年第5期。
35.漆彤：《《实施卫生与动植物检疫措施协议》及相关争端解决案例评析》,《法学评论》2003年第1期。
36.任际：《国际服务贸易的特殊性及<服务贸易总协定>宗旨分析》,《辽宁大学学报》(哲社版)2002年第3期。
37. 申进忠：《从石棉案看WTO协调环境与贸易关系的未来走势》,《中国海洋大学学报》(社会科学版),2005年第4期。
38.沈桥林：《wTO的宪法解读》,《政治与法律》2007年第6期。
39.石静霞、胡荣国：《试从GATS第6条与第16条的关系角度评“美国博彩案”》,《法学》2005年第8期。
40.石静霞：《新一轮服务贸易谈判若干问题》,《法学研究》2006年第3期。
41.宋相林：《GATS第6条与第16条关系探析——对“美国赌博案”重新审视》, 《法制与社会》2008年第28期。
42.孙晓云：《卫生服务贸易的国际规制探析——以GATS为中心》,《金融与经济》2007年第11期。
43.汤涛：《“审慎例外”条款的限制性应用与发展趋势探析》,《法制与经济》2008年第8期。
44.陶立峰、陈明聪：《论WTO透明度原则及我国的法律对策》,《国际商务研究》2007年第2期。
45.王传丽：《析世界贸易组织争端解决机制——兼评贸易报复》,《政法论坛》1996年第4期。
46.汪倩：《论<服务贸易总协定>中的国民待遇,《国际经贸探索》2002年第5期。
47.韦经建、何志鹏：《论国际经济法的公平原则》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》2002年第3期。
48.温树英：《WTO体制下金融服务贸易目标与监管目标的冲突与协调》,《法学家》2006年第5期。
49. 肖冰：《技术性贸易壁垒国内法规制的涵义、共性态势与难点》,《法学》2006年第8期。
50. 肖伟：《论欧共体反倾销法中反吸收的法律问题及启示》,《国际贸易问题》2005年第9期。
51.徐崇利：《WTO贸易议题与社会政策连接的内在途径——以农业“多功能性”为例的分析》,《法律科学》2008年第3期。
52.徐崇利：《经济全球化与国际经济条约谈判方式的创新》,《比较法研究》,2001年第3期。
53.徐泉：《试论世界贸易组织的基本原则》,《甘肃社会科学》2005年第1期。
54.徐泉：《国家经济主权原则析论》,《甘肃政法学院学报》2006年总第88期。
55.杨文云：《金融监管法律国际协调实践评介》,《外国经济与管理》2006年第6期。
56.余劲松：《构建互利共赢的国际经济合作法制》,《法学家》2007年第1期。
57.余敏友、陈喜峰：《论解决WTO法内部冲突的司法解释原则(下)》,《法学 评论》2002年第6期。
58.余敏友、席晶：《论WTO争端解决中的证据规则(下)》,《法学评论》2003年第5期。
59.臧立：《论国际服务贸易中的国民待遇问题》,《法商研究》1998年第5期。
60. 曾令良：《贸易自由化与环境保护的法理思考》,《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2003年第56卷第4期。
61. 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》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期。
62.张乃根：《论WTO争端解决的条约解释》,《复旦大学学报(社会科学版)》2006年第1期。
63.张湘兰：《WTO与中国海运服务贸易法律制度》,《武汉大学学报》(社会科学版)2003年第1期。
64.钟立国：《WTO争端解决机制非违反之诉的适用分析》,《武汉大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2007年第2期。
65.钟筱红：《WTO环保例外条款解读》,《南昌大学学报》(人社版)2003年第5期。
66.朱榄叶：《WTO争端解决程序中的证据问题》,《当代法学》2007年第21卷第1期。
67.左海聪：《GATT环境保护例外条款判例法的发展》,《法学》2008年第3期。
68.左海聪：《对我国WTO争端解决实践的反思》,《法学》2007年第4期。
69.左海聪：《WTO专家组和上诉机构可适用的法律》,《东岳论丛》2006年第3期。
70.左海聪：《论GATT/WTO争端解决机制的性质》,《法商研究》2004年第5期。
1. Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, 2002.
2. Anthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
3. Bernard M. Hoekman, The World Trade Organization:Law, Economics, and Politics, Routledge,2007.
4. Christopher Arup,The New World Trade organization Agrrements:Globalizing Law through Services and Intellectual Property, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
5. David Palmeter and Petros C Mavroidis, Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization:practice and procedure,2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
6. Drusilla K. Brown and Robert Mitchell Stern, The WTO and Labour and Employment, Edward Elgar,2007.
7. Gabriel Moens and Roger Jones, International Trade and Business Law Review,Routledge-Cavendish,2007.
8. George A. Bermann and Petros C. Mavroidis, WTO Law and Developing Countries, Cambridge University Press,2007.
9. Jan Wouters and Bait De Meester, The World Trade Organization:A Legal and Institutional Analysis,Intersentia,2007.
10. J.D.Heydon, Case and Material on Evidence, Butterworth,1975.
11. Jeffrey Waincymer, WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement, Cameron,2002.
12. J.H.H. Weiler,The EU, the WTO, and the NAFTA:Towards a Common Law of International Trade? Oxford University Press,2000.
13. John H. Jackson, The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO, Cambridge University Press,2000.
14. John H.Jackson, The World Tradeing System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations,2nd ed, The MIT Press,1997.
15. John.H.Jackson, The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO:Insights on Treaty Law and Economic Relations,Higher Education Press,2002.
16. Kern Alexander and Mads Andenas,The World Trade Organization and trade in services, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2008.
17. Kevin Kennedy, Competition Law and the World Trade Organization:Limits of Multilateralism, Sweet & Maxwell,2001.
18. Koen Byttebier and Kim van der Borght, WTO Obligations and Opportunities: Challenges of Implementation,Cameron May,2007.
19. K.R. Gupta, World Trade Organisation, Atlantic Publishers,2006.
20. Larry Crump and Javed Maswood, Developing Countries and Global Trade Negotiations,Routledge,2007.
21. Luis Abugattas and Simonetta Zarrilli, Challenging Conventional Wisdom: Development Implications of Trade in Services Liberalization. UNCTAD. Division on International Trade in Goods and Services, and Commodities, Trade Analysis Branch,2007.
22. Marion Panizzo, Nicole Pohl, Pierre Sauve, ed., GATS and the regulation of international trade in services, Cambridge University Press,2008.
23. M. Matsushita, T. J. Schoenbaum and P. Mavroidis, The World Trade Organization Law, Practice and Policy, Oxford,2003.
24. Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Precednt in the World Court, Cambridge University Press,1996.
25. M.Trebilcock and R.Howse, The Regulation of International Trade,3nd ed., Routledge,2005.
26. Nicholas Emiliou, The Principle of Porportionality in European Law, Kluwer Law International,1996.
27. Panagiotis Delimatsis,International Trade in Service and Domestic Regulations,Oxford University Press,2007.
28. Peter Gallagher, A Handbook on Reading WTO Schedules,Cambridge University Press,2007.
29. Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade in Goods:The GATT and the Other Agreements Regulating Trade in Goods, Oxford University Press,2007.
30. Pierre Sauve and Robert M. Stem ed., GATS 2000:New DireCtions in Services Trade Liberalization, Brookings Institution Press,2000.
31.Rainer Hofmann and Gabriele Tondl, The European Union and the WTO Doha Round, Baden-Baden, Nomos,2007.
32. Robert Howse, The WTO System:Law, Politics & Legitimacy,Cameron May Ltd,
2007.
33. Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G. de Burca and J. Scott,2001.
34. Rudiger Wolfrunm ed., WTO:Technical Barriers and SPS Measures, Martinus Nijhoff Publsihers,2007.
35. Rupe Cross, Cross on Evidence, 4th ed. Butterworth,1974.
36. Scott Sinclair and Jim Grieshaber-Otto, Facing the Facts:A Guide to the GATS Debate, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives,2002.
37. Sharif Bhuiyan, National Law in WTO Law:Effectiveness and Good Governance in the World Trading System, Cambridge University Press,2007.
38. Sidney L. Phipson et al.,Phipson on evidence,13th ed., Sweet&Maxwell,1987.
39. Thomas Cottier, The Challenge of WTO Law:Collected Essay, Cameron May, 2007.
1. Aaditya Mattoo, Service in a Development Round:Three Goals and Three Proposal, Journal of World Trade, Vol.39, No.6,2005.
2.Aaditya Mattoo and Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade, Environment and the WTO:The Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to Article ⅩⅩ of GATT, ed. by Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, in:International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System,1997.
3. Aaditya Mattoo and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, Pre-Empting Protectionism in Services:The GATS and Outsourcing(2004)7 Journal of International Economic Law 765.
4. A.Desmedt, Proportionality in WTO Law, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.4, 2001.
5. A Guzman and BA Simmons, To Settle or Empanel?An Empirical Analysis of Litigation and Settlement at the World Trade Organization, Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.31,2002.
6. A.Mattoo and A.Subramanian, Regulatory Autonomy and Multilateral Disciplines:the dilemma and a possible resolution, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.13, No.1,1998.
7. Andrew Lang, The GATS and Regulatory Autonomy:A Case Study of Social Regulation of the Water Industry, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.7, 2004.
8. A.O. Skyes, The Least Restrictive Means, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70,2003.
9. Arthur E. Appleton, Shrimp/Turtle:Untangling the Nets, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.3,1999.
10. Arthur E. Appleton, GATT Article ⅩⅩ's Chapeau:A Disguised 'Necessary'Test?: The WTO Appellate Body's Ruling in United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, Vol.6, No.2,1997.
11. Axel Desmedt, Proportionality in WTO Law, Journal of International Economic Law,2001, Vol.4,No.3.
12. B Kingsbury,N Krisch,and RB Stewart, The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.68,2005 15.
13. B Wilson, Compliance by WTO Members with Advers WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings:The Record to Date, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2, 2007.
14. C Gamberale and A Mattoo, Domestic Regulations and Liberalization of Trade in Service, ed. by B Hoekman, Mattoo, P English, in:Development, Trade in Services:An Overview and Blueprint for Negotiations,1988.
15. C Harlow, Global Administrative Law:The Quest for Principles and Values, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.17,2006.
16. DA Motaal,The 'Multilateral Scientific Consensus'and the World Trade Organization, Journal of World Trade Law, Vol.38,2005.
17. Daniel Farber and Robert Hudec, GATT Legal Constraints on Domestic Environmental Regulations, in:Fair Trade and Harmonization:Prerequisites for Free Trade? ed. by Jagdish Bhagwati and Robert Hudec,1996, vol.2.
18. David W. Leebron, Regulatory Discrimination in Domestic United States Law: A Model for the GATS? In:Domestic Regulation and Service Trade Liberalization, ed. by Aaditya Mattoo,Pierre Sauve,2003.
19. D. A.Osiro,GATT/WTO Necessity Analysis:Evolutionary Interpretation and its Impact on the Autonomy of Domestic Regulation, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.2,2002.
20. DC Esty, Good Governance at the Supranational Scale:Globalizing Administrative Law, Yale Law Journal, Vol.115,2006.
21. Doaa Abdel Motaal, The 'Multilateral Scientific Consensus'and the World Trade Organization, Journal of World Trade, Vol.38, No.5,2004.
22. Donald H.Regan, The Meaning of 'Necessary'in GATT Article ⅩⅩ and GATS Article ⅩⅣ:the Myth of Cost-benefit Balancing, World Trade Review,2007, Vol.6, No.3.
23. DZ Cass, The "Constitutionalization" of the International Trade Law:Judicial Norm-Gerneration as the Engine of Constitutional Development in International Trade, European Journal of International Law, Vol.12,2001.
24. E Colombatto, An Explanation of the Dynamics of Protectionism, Open Economies Review, Vol.11,2000.
25. Friedl Weiss, Transparency as an Element of Good Governance in the Practice of the EU and the WTO:Overview and Comparison, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.30,2007.
26. Gabriel Gari, Legal instruments for the liberalization of trade in services at the sub-regional level:the MERCOSUR case, Penn State International Law Review, Vol.25,2007.
27. Gabrielle Marceau and Joel P. Trachtman, The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement and General Agreement on Tariffs.and Trade, Journal of World Trade, Vol.36, No.5,2002.
28. George C. Nnona, Multidisciplinary Practice Under the World Trade Organization's Services Regime, Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.16,2005.
29. Hans-Joachim Priess and Christian Pitschas, Protection of Public Health and the Role of the Precautionary Principle under WTO Law:a Trojan Horse Before Geneva's Walls? Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.24,2000.
30. Hilf, Meihard, Power, Rules and Principles:Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.4, No.1,2001.
31. Hilf, Meihard and Puth, Sebastian, The Principle of Proportionality on its Way into WTO/GATT Law, in:European Integration and International Coordination:Studies in Transnational Economic Law in Honour of Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, ed. by Armin von Bogdandy,Petros C. Mavroidis,Yves Meny, Kluwer Law International,2002.
32. Irem Dogan, Taking a Gamble on Public Morals:Invoking the Article ⅩⅣ Exception to GATS, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Vol.32,2007.
33. I Van Damme, The Interpretation of Schedules of Commitments, Journal of World Trade, Vol.41, No.6,2007.
34. Jan H. Jans. Proportionality Revisited, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.27, No.3,2000.
35. J Bacchus, The Bicycle Club:Affirming the American Interest in the Future of the WTO, Journal of World Trade, Vol.37,2003.
36. Jeffrey. L. Dunoff, Reconciling International Trade with Preservation of the Global Commons:Can we Prosper and Protect?, Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol.49,1992.
37. Jeffrey Waincymer, Reformulated gasoline under reformulated WTO Dispute Settlement procedures:pulling Pandora out of the Chapeau? Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol.18, No.1,1996.
38. JHH Weiler,The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats:Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement, Journal of World Trade, Vol.35,2001.
39. J.Neumann and E.Turk, Necessity Revisited:Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea-Beef,EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, Journal of World Trade 1, Vol.37,2003.
40. Joel P. Trachtman, The 'NecessityTest'in Domestic Services Regulation:How to Move Forward in the GATS, APEC Group in Services Workshop Ⅱ:Towards Improving Regulation in the Service Sector,2002.
41. Joel P. Trachtman, Trade in financial services under GATS, NAFTA and the EC: A Regulatory Jurisdiction Analysis, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol.34,1995.
42. Joel P.Trachtman, Trade and... Problems, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiary, European Journal of International Law, Vol.9,1998.
43. Joel P. Trachtman, Regulatory Jurisdiction and the WTO, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.10,2007.
44. John H.Jackson, World Trade Rules and Environmental Policies:Congruence or Conflict? Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol.49,1992.
45. Joost Pauwelyn, The WTO Agreement on SPS Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.4,1999.
46. Joost Pauwelyn, Evidence,Proff and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement. Who Bears the Burden? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.1, No.2,1998.
47. Joost Pauwelyn, Does the WTO Stand for 'Deference to' or 'Interference with' National Health Authorities When Applying the SPS Agreement?, ed. by T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis, in:The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation Experience and Lessons for the WTO,2003.
48. J Snell, True Proportionality and Free Movement of Goods and Services, European Business Law Review, Vol.11,No.1,2000.
49. Kishani Kalupahana, Choosing Between Liberalization and Regulatory Autonomy under GATS:Implications of U.S.-Gambling for Trade in Cross Border E-Services, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol.40,2007.
50. Lorand Bartels, Article ⅩⅩ of GATT and the rules of public international law on extraterritorial jurisdiction:the case of trade measures for the protection of human rights, Journal of World Trade vol.36,2002.
51. Mads Andenas and Stefan Zleptnig, Proportionality:WTO Law:in Compara.tive Perspective, Texas International Law Journal, Vol.42,2007.
52. Mahmood Bagheri and Chizu Nakajima, Optimal Level of Financial Regulation under the GATS:A Regulatory Competition and Cooperation Framework for Capital Adequacy and Disclosure of Information, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.5,2002.
53:Margareta Djordjevic, Domestic Regulation and Free Tradein Services-A Balancing Act, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.3,2002.
54. Michael Park, Market Access And Exceptions Under The GATS And Online Gambling Services, Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas, Vol.12,2006.
55. Miguel A. Gonzalez, Trade and Morality:Preserving Public Morals without Sacrificing the Global E-conomy, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol.39,2006.
56. Mitsuo Matsushita, Some Issues of the SPS Agreement? in:The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation Experience and Lessons for the WTO, ed. by T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis,2003.
57. M Krajewski, Public Services and Trade Liberalization-Mapping the Legal Framework, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2,2003.
58. M Krajewski, Article VI GATS, in:Max-Planck Commentaries on World Trade Law, ed. by R Wolfrum,P-T Stoll,and C Feinaugleeds,2008, Volume 6.
59. M Lennard, Navigating by the Stars:Interpreting the WTO Agreements, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.5,2002.
60. M. Montini, The Nature and Function of the Necessity and Proportionality Principles in the Trade and Environment Context, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Vol.6, No.2,1997.
61. M.Montini, The Necessity Principle as an Instrument to Balance Trade and the Environment, in:Environment,Human Right & International Trade, ed. by Francesco Francioni, Hart Publishing,2001.
62. Nicholas Emiliou, The Principle of Porportionality in European Law, Kluwer Law International,1996.
63. Panagiotis Delimatsis, Sovereignty-Modern:A New Approch to an Outdated Concept,American Journal of International Law, Vol.97,2003.
64. Panagiotis Delimatsis and D Geradi, Regulatory Co-opetition, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2,2000.
65. Panagiotis Delimatsis, Determining the Necessity of Domestic Regulations in Services - The Best is Yet to Come, European Journal of International Law, Vol.19, No.2,2008.
66. Panagiotis Delimatsis and I Wooton, Market Structure, Trade Liberalization,and the GATS, European Journal of Political Economy, Vol.17,2001.
67. Panagiotis Delimatsis and M Roy, Turining Hill into Mountains?Current Commitments under the GATS and Prospects for Change, Journal of World Trade, Vol.39,2005.
68. Panagiotis Delimatsis, PC Mavroidis, and R W Staiger, It's a Question of Market Access, American Journal of International Law, Vol.96,2002.
69. P Chang,G Karsenty,A Mattoo,and J Richtering,GATS, the Modes of Supply and Statistics on Trade in Services, American Economic Review, Vol.88,1999.
70. PC Mavroidis, Highway ⅩⅥ Re-Visited-The Road from Non-discrimination to Market Access in GATS, World Trade Review, Vol.6,2007.
71. P Delimatsis, Don t Gamble with GATS - The Interaction between Articles Ⅵ,ⅩⅥ,ⅩⅦ and ⅩⅧ GATS in the Light of the US - Gambling Case, Journal of World Trade, Vol.40,2006.
72. Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade and Environment after the Shrimps-Turtles Litigation, Journal of World Trade, Vol.34, No.1,2000.
73. Rafael Leal-Arcas, The Resumption of the Doha Round and the Future of Services Trade, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law' Review, Vol.29,2007.
74. R Adlung, Services Negotiations in the Doha Round:Lost in Flexibility? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.4,2006.
75. Reinhard Quick and Andreas Bluhner, Has the Appellate Body Erred? An appraisal and criticism of the ruling in the WTO Hormones case, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2, No.4,1999.
76. Reinhard Quick, The Community's Regulationon Leghold Traps, in:New Directions in International Economic Law, ed. by M.Bronckers and R.Quick, 2000.
77. R Howse, From Poltics to Technocracy - and Back Again:The Fate of the Multilateral Tading Regime, American Journal of International Law, Vol.96, 2002.
78. RJ Zedalis, When Do the Activities of Private Parties Trigger WTO Rules? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2,2007.
79. Robert Howse, The Appellate Body Rulings in the Shrimp/Turtle Case:A New Legal Baseline for the Trade and Environment Debate, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol.27,2002.
80. Robert Howse and Petros G.Mavroidis, Europe's Evolving Regulatory Strategy for GMOs-the Issue of Consistency with WTO Law:of Kine and Brine, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.24,2000.
81. Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G de Burca and J. Scott,2001.
82. Rudolf Adlung, Services Negotiations in the Doha Round:Lost in Flexibility? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.9,2006.
83. Rudolf Adlung, Public Services and the GATS, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.9,2006.
84. RW Hahn and RE Litan, Counting Regulatory Benefits and Costs:Lessons for the US and Europe, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.8,2005.
85. Sabino Cassese, Global standards for national administrative procedure, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.68,2005.
86. S Cassese, Global Standards for National Administrative Procedure, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.68,2005.
87. SP Croley, Theories of Regulation:Incorporating the Administrative Process, Columbial Review, Vol.98,1998.
88. Steve Charnovitz, Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX, Journal of World Trade, Vol.25, No.5, 1991.
89. Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol.38,1998.
90. Steve Charnovitz, Internet roundtable:The Appellate Body's GSP decision, World Trade Review, Vol.3, No.2,2004.
91. Tania Voon, A New Approach to Audiovisual Products in the WTO: Rebalancing GATT and GATS, UCLA Entertainment Law Review, Vol.14, 2007.
92. Thomas Cottier, From Progressive Liberalization to Progressive Regulation in WTO Law, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.9,2006.
93. Tom Ginsburg, Bounded Discretion in International Judicial Lawmaking,Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol.45,2005.
94. T.Tridimas, Proportionality in Community Law:Searching for the Appropriate Standard of Scrutiny, in:The principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, ed. By E. Ellis,1999; T. Tridimas, The General Principles of EC law, Oxford, 1999.
95. Wilfred Jenks, Conflict of law-making treaties, British Year Book of International Law, Vol.30,1953.
96. William J.Davey, Hasthe WTO Dispute Settlement System Exceeded Its Authority? A Consideration of Deference Shown byt he Systemto Member Government Decisions and Its Uses of Issue-Avoidance Techniques, in:The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation Experience and Lessons for the WTO, ed. by T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis,2003.
97. Y Shany, Toward a Gerneral Margin of Appreciation Doctrinr in International Law? European Journal of International Law, Vol.16,2005.
1. http://www.worldbank.org
2. http://www.oecd.org
3. http://www.unctad.org
4. http://www.wto.org
5. http://www.southcentre.org
①曾令良：《贸易自由化与环境保护的法理思考》,《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2003年第56卷第4期,第415页。
② M.Montini, The Nature and Function of the Necessity and Proportionality Principles in the Trade and Environment Context, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Vol.6, No.3,1997, p.129.
③ M.Montini, The Necessity Principle as an Instrument to Balance Trade and the Environment, in: Environment,Human Right & International Trade, ed. by Francesco Francioni, Hart Publishing,2001, p.135.
④ D.A.Osiro,GATT/WTO Necessity Analysis:Evolutionary Interpretation and its Impact on the Autonomy of Domestic Regulation, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.2,2002, p.124.
⑤ Mads Andenas and Stefan Zleptnig, Proportionality:WTO Law:in Compara.tive Perspective, Texas International Law Journal, Vol.42,2007, p.372.
⑥ Hilf,Meihard and Puth,Sebastian, The Principle of Proportionality on its Way into WTO/GATT Law, in:European Integration and International Coordination:Studies in Transnational Economic Law in Honour of Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, ed. by Armin von Bogdandy,Petros C. Mavroidis,Yves Meny, Kluwer Law International, pp.199-218,2002; Hilf,Meihard, Power,Rules and Principles:Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.4, No.1,2001, p.117.
① Joel P. Trachtman, The'NecessityTest'in Domestic Services Regulation:How to Move Forward in the GATS, APEC Group in Services Workshop Ⅱ:Towards Improving Regulation in the Service Sector,2002.
② Panagiotis Delimatsis, International Trade in Services and Domestic Regulations:Necessity, Transparency, and Regulatory Diversity,OXFORD University Press,2007, p.362.
③ Donald H.Regan, The Meaning of 'Necessary' in GATTArticle XX and GATS Article ⅩⅣ:the Myth of Cost-benefit Balancing, World Trade Review,2007, Vol.6, No.3, p.347.
④ Axel Desmedt, Proportionality in WTO Law, Journal of International Economic Law,2001, Vol.4, No.3, p.441.
⑤韩秀丽：《论WTO法中的比例原则》,厦门大学出版社2007年4月。
⑥周芬芬：《GATT环保例外条款中的“必需性”审查标准研究》,清华大学法学硕士学位论文,2007年。
⑦朱俊：《GATS第6条第4款中的必要性测试研究》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,2007年。
①关于“necessity test"的中文名称,国内翻译的有“必需性测试”、“必要性标准”、“必需性测试”和“必要性测试”等。笔者认为“必要性检验”不仅可以反映有关成员方的措施须符合该标准和尺度这一静态结果,还可以体现对争议措施进行审查的动态过程,故本文采取“必要性检验”这一名称。
② Joel P. Trachtman, Trade in financial services under GATS, NAFTA and the EC:A Regulatory Jurisdiction Analysis, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol.34, pp.37-55.
③ "Necessity Tests" in the WTO, S/WPDR/W/27,2 December 2003, p.4.
④ John H. Jackson, The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO, Cambridge University Press,2000, p.126.
①肖冰：《WTO<实施卫生与植物卫生措施协定>研究》,法律出版社2004年版,第187页。
①肖冰：《技术性贸易壁垒国内法规制的涵义、共性态势与难点》,《法学》2006年第8期,第83页。
①石静霞、陈卫东：《WTO服务贸易成案研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第96页。
①徐泉：《试论世界贸易组织的基本原则》,《甘肃社会科学》2005年第1期,第94页。
②赵维田：《世界贸易组织(WTO)的法律制度》,吉林人民出版社2000年版,第51页。
③王贵国：《世界贸易组织法》,法律出版社2003年版,第39页。
①赵维田：《世界贸易组织(WTO)的法律制度》,吉林人民出版社2000年版,第139页。
② GATT第3条第4款规定：“任何缔约方领土的产品进口至任何其他缔约方领土时,在有关影响其国内销售、标价出售、购买、运输、分销或使用的所有法律、法规和规定方面,所享受的待遇不得低于同类国产品所享受的待遇。本款的规定不得阻止国内差别运输费的实施,此类运输费仅根据运输工具的经济营运,而不根据产品的国别。”
①徐泉：《国家经济主权原则析论》,《甘肃政法学院学报》2006年总第88期,第73页。
②梁西：《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2000年版,第100页。
①詹宁斯·瓦茨修订：《奥本海国际法》,王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第295页。
②刘志云：《论全球化时代国际经济法的公平价值取向——兼论发展中国家及我国的角色定位与战略选择》,《法律科学》2007年第5期,第87页。
③刘笋、李国赓：《关于“与贸易有关的问题”及WTO调整范围的若干思考》,《法商研究》2003年第5期,第47页。
④沈桥林：《WTO的宪法解读》,《政治与法律》2007年第6期,第40页。
①徐崇利：《WTO贸易议题与社会政策连接的内在途径——以农业“多功能性”为例的分析》,《法律科学》2008年第3期,第107页。
② John H.Jackson, The World Tradeing System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations,2nd ed, The MIT Press,1997, p.214.
① Nicholas Emiliou, The Principle of Porportionality in European Law, Kluwer Law International,1996, p.23.
① Jan H. Jans. Proportionality Revisited, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.27, No.3,2000, p.241.
②韩秀丽：《论WTO法中的比例原则》,厦门大学出版社2007年版,第76页。
① Cicero, De Officiis, Book1, Harvard University Press,1990, pp.23-25.
②徐国栋：《诚实信用原则二题》,《法学研究》2002年第4期,第74页。
③韩立余：《既往不咎——WTO争端解决机制研究》,北京大学出版社2009年版,第246页。
①韩立余：《善意原则在WTO争端解决中的适用》,《法学家》2005年第6期,第158页。
②M·维拉利：《国际法上的善意原则》,刘听生译,《国外法学》1984年第4期,第54页。
③李浩培：《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年版,第272页。
①韩立余：《善意原则在WTO争端解决中的适用》,《法学家》2005年第6期,第151-152页。
① US-Gasoline, Appellate Body Report, p.16.
② Joel P.Trachtman, Trade and...Problems,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiary, European Journal of International Law, Vol.9,1998, p.74.
① US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, para.5.27.
② US-Gasoline, Appellate Body Report, p.13.
①吴喜梅：《对WTO<实施卫生与植物卫生措施协定>主要条款的分析》,《河南财政税务高等专科学校学报》2003年4月第17卷第2期,第26页。
②王海峰：《WTO框架下卫生检疫措施的合理性认识》,《社会科学》2007年第11期,第110页。
③江保国：《wTO转基因农产品贸易争端第一案述评》,《法商研究》2007年第5期,第150页。
④ Joost Pauwelyn, The WTO Agreement on SPS Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.4,1999, pp.643-644.
① Gabrielle Marceau and Joel P. Trachtman, The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Journal of World Trade, Vol.36, No.5,2002, p.862.
①1947年诞生的国际标准化组织(International standard Organization,简称为ISO)和1906年国际电工委员会(IEC),二者是主要的国际标准组织。这两个非政府机构承担制定全球一致的国际标准的任务, ISO和IEC每年制定和修订1000多个标准,涉及广泛。其制定的标准都是自愿性的。
②张云、陶丽琴：《WTO机制下的技术法规基本理论问题研究》,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2004年第4期,第79页。
③陈立虎、李晓琼：《从看中国动植物检疫法的完善》,《华东船舶工业学院学报》(社会科学版)2004年第3期,第2页。
① EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, para.8.36.
① EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, paras.8.38-8.39.
② EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, paras.8.41-8.43.
③ EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, para.8.44.
④ EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, paras.8.54-8.56.
① EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, paras.8.65-8.70.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.62.
③ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.64.
① EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, paras.67-68.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, paras.69-74.
① EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.75.
① EC-Sardines,Panel Report,paras.7.37.7.42.
② EC-Sardines,Panel Report,paras.7.43.7.47.
③ EC-Sardines,Appellate Body Report,paras.173-174.
① EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.176.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.70.
③ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.180.
④ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, paras.182-183.
⑤ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, paras.185-186.
⑥ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.67.
⑦ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.190上诉机构并特别提出,欧共体于上诉中虽然要求上诉机构审查该命名要求(欧共体规则中的第2条)是否为技术规章,但上诉机构认为要对争议措施作适当的定性,一定必须对该措施进行整体的审查,因而并不适当仅观察命名要求而作决定。
① EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, paras.194.
① WTO.WPDR, Report on the Meeting Held on 29 November 2001, S/WPDR/M/14,29 January 2002, para.8.
① WTO, WPDR, Report of the Chairman of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation to the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Service, JOB(05)/280,15 November 2005, p.4.
② WTO, WPDR, Proposed Elements for Disciplines on Qualification Requirements and Procedures, Communication from Bolivia, Chile, India, Mexico, Pakistan and Thailand, JOB(05)/50,30 March 2005, p.13.
① Directive (EC) 2006/123 on services in the internal market (2006) OJ L376/36, Chapter V; notably Art 4:7.
① WTO, Trade in Services, Disciplines on Domestic Regulation in the Accountancy Sector, S/L/64,17 December 1998, paras 9,24.
② WPDR, Disciplines on Domestic Regulation Pursuant to GATTArticle Ⅵ:4, Informal Note by the Chairman, Room Document,18 April 2007, paras,17-28.
① WTO, WPDR, Report on the Meeting Held on 22 June 2005, S/WPDR/M/30,6 September 2005, para.120.
② WTO, WPDR, Proposal for Disciplines on Technical Standards in Services, Communication from Switzerland and Mexico, S/WPDR/W/32/Rev.1,28 October 2005.
①孔祥俊：《WTO知识产权协定及其国内适用》,法律出版社2002年版,第75-76页。
① United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment,Nov.21,1947-Mar.24,1948,Final Act and Related Documents,U.N. Doc. E/Conf./2/78, Apr.1948.
①李先波、徐莉：《GATT"公共道德例外条款”探析》,《湖南师范大学学报(社会科学版)》,2010年第1期,第53页。
② Miguel A. Gonzalez, Trade and Morality:Preserving Public Morals without Sacrificing the Global E-conomy, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol.39,2006, p.939.
③ US-Malt Beverages, GATT Panel Report, paras.5.74-5.75.
④ US-Gambling, Panel Report, para.6.455-6.456.
⑤龚伯华：《“中美出版物市场准入WTO案”援引GATT第20条“公共道德例外”的法律分析》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第10期,第36页。
⑥ China-Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, Panel Report, para.7.759.
①彭岳：《贸易与道德：中美文化产品争端的法律分析》,《中国社会科学》2009年第2期,第141页。
②体系解释,又称为整体解释,它是以法律条文在法律体系中的地位；即依其编、章、节、条、款、项之前后关联位置,或相关法条的法意,阐明其规范意旨的解释方法。
③ Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol.38,1998, p.694. Lorand Bartels, Article ⅩⅩ of GATT and the rules of public international law on extraterritorial jurisdiction:the case of trade measures for the protection of human rights, Journal of World Trade vol.36,2002, p.356.
④ Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol.38,1998, pp.742-743.
①黄征：《WTO公共健康例外条款与我国的对策分析》,《法制与经济》2007年第7期,第24页。
① Thailand-Cigarettes, Panel Report, para.73.
③默示表示的为美国金枪鱼海豚案(Ⅰ)；明示表示的为美国金枪鱼海豚案(Ⅱ).See Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, paras.5.24-5.29 and Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para. 5.30.
④ EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, para.8.186.
⑤钟筱红：《WTO环保例外条款解读》,《南昌大学学报(人社版)》2003年第5期,第60页。
① EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, para.8.193.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.162.本案上诉机构提出,只有在专家组为审查事实而评估证据时,逾越其裁量权的范围时,上诉机构方会对专家组的证据审查进行干预；本案上诉机构认为并无迹象显示专家组逾越其法定自由裁量权的权限。
③ Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.160.
④ EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.194.
⑤ Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G. de Burca and J. Scott, p.322, 2001.
⑥高晓露：《从WTO争端解决实践看风险预防原则的适用》,《中州学刊》2009年第5期,第108页。
① Lorand Bartels, Article ⅩⅩ of GATT and the rules of public international law on extraterritorial jurisdiction:the case of trade measures for the protection of human rights, Journal of World Trade vol.36,2002, p.358.
②陈立虎:《论WTO规则与MEAS贸易条款的协调》,《法制现代化研究》第八卷,第406页。
③ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.25
① Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.26
② Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.27
③ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.31
④李景义：《WTO体制下环境贸易纠纷法律问题浅析》,《当代法学》2003年第9期,第95页。
⑤ Lorand Bartels, Article ⅩⅩ of GATT and the rules of public international law on extraterritorial jurisdiction:the case of trade measures for the protection of human rights, Journal of World Trade vol.36,2002, p.359.
⑥ Steve Charnovitz, Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX, Journal of World Trade, Vol.25, No.5,1991,pp.44-45.
① Jeffrey. L. Dunoff, Reconciling International Trade with Preservation of the Global Commons:Can we Prosper and Protect?, Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol.49,1992, p.14.
②李伟芳： 《贸易与环境关系的理论及实证分析》, 《当代法学》2005年第4期,第99页。
③ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.15.
④ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, paras.5.16.
⑤ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, paras.5.17.
⑥ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, paras.5.31-5.33.
① Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade and Environment after the Shrimps-Turtles Litigation, Journal of World Trade, Vol.34, No.1,2000, pp.75-76.
②该案争议法条为美国国内法(Public Law 101-162第609节),其规定为：(a)授权由美国国务卿开始同有关国家共同磋商关于海龟保护的国际条约,并定期就谈判情况向国会进行汇报；(b)授权由美国国务院负责制定具体实施措施,禁止所有未符合海龟脱逃器装备使用要求、达到相应美国海龟保护标准的国家或地区捕获的野生虾及虾类制品进入美国市场。
③ Robert Howse, The Appellate Body Rulings in the Shrimp/Turtle Case:A New Legal Baseline for the Trade and Environment Debate, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol.27,2002, p.504.
④ US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.133.
⑤ A. Qureshi, Extraterritorial Shrimps, NGOs and the WTO Appellate Body, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48,1999, p.204.
① Japan-Agricultural Products,GATT Panel Report, paras.229-230.
① Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.40.
② Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.41.
③彭景、宋娜：《“为保证国内法执行而采取的限制措施”例外条款研究》,《金卡工程》2009年第5期,第5页。
① EEC-arts and Components, GATT Panel Report, paras.5.17-5.18.
② US-Gasoline, Panel Report, para.6.33.
① See 4th-8th Annual Review of the Implementation and Operation of the Agreement, G/TBT/7, G/TBT/8, G/TBT/10. G/TBT/11 and G/TBT/12.
② EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.7.11
① EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.7.120.
① Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Panel Report, para 7.69.
② EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.7.122.
③ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.286.
④ J.Neumann and E.Turk, Necessity Revisited:Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, Journal of World Trade 1, Vol.37,2003, p.218-219.有学者认为TBT协定第2条第2款明白指出评估“未实现合法目标所产生的风险”时特别须考量的一些因素,依据第2条第2款所进行的风险评估就是为了决定争议目标是否合法。See Margareta Djordjevic, Domestic Regulation and Free Tradein Services-A Balancing Act, Legallssues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.3,2002, p.312.
① US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para.296.
② US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, paras.296-298.
③ EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.194.
④ Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G de Burca and J. Scott, p.322,
① WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 20 March 2001, S/WPDR/M/10,10 May 2001. p.25.
② Application of the Necessity Test:Issues for Consideration, Job No.5929,8 October 1999, p.2.
③ WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 20 March 2001, S/WPDR/M/10,10 May 2001, p.21.
① US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, para.5.26.
① US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, paras.5.25-5.34.
① Thailand-Cigarette, GATT Panel Report, para.74.
② A. O. Skyes, The Least Restrictive Means, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70,2003, p.406. M. Montini, The Nature and Function of the Necessity and Proportionality Principles in the Trade and Environment Context, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Vol.6, No.2,1997, p.128.
① US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, para.5.26.
② US-Spring Assemblies, GATT Panel Report, para.58.
③ US-Spring Assemblies, para.60.
④ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.28
① Steve Charnovitz, Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article ⅩⅩ, Journal of World Trade, Vol.25, No.5,1991, p.49.
① Arthur E. Appleton, Shrimp/Turtle:Untangling the Nets, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.3,1999, p.483.
② Steve Charnovitz, Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX, Journal of World Trade, Vol.25, No.5,1991, p.49:
③陈卫东：《从国际法角度论多边贸易自由化与国内公共健康政策的冲突和协调》,《当代法学》2006年第20卷第2期,第32页。
④参见WTO协定前言第三段。
③ J.Neumann and E.Turk, Necessity Revisited:Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, Journal of World Trade 1, Vol.37,2003, p.207. A. Mattoo and A.Subramanian, Regulatory Autonomy and Multilateral Disciplines:the dilemma and a possible resolution, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.13, No.1,1998, pp.317-319文章中提出应在必要性检验中引入“效 率”(efficiency)的要素。
① M.Trebilcock and R.Howse, The Regulation of International Trade,3nd ed., Routledge,2005, p.164.
② John H.Jackson, World Trade Rules and Environmental Policies:Congruence or Conflict? Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol.49,1992, pp.124.9-1250.
① A. O. Skyes, The Least Restrictive Means, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70,2003, p.418.
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, paras.162-167.
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, paras 168-174.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.181.
③ Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, paras.181,185.
④ Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.192.
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.175.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.178.
③ Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.180.
④ Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.182.
① EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report, para.164.
② EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report, para.165.
③ EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report,para.166.
④ EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.186.
⑤ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.167.
① EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.168.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.169
③ Thailand-Cigarettes, GATT Panel Report, para.75.
① EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, paras.171-173.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.174.
③ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.175.
①申进忠：《从石棉案看WTO协调环境与贸易关系的未来走势》,《中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版)》,2005年第4期,第59页。
①Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Appellate Body Report, para.134-136
②European Communities' appellant's submission, para.167.
③European Communities' appellant's submission, para.164.
①Korea-Beef,Appellate Body Report,paras.163 and 164；EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report,para.172； US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.306.
② EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report,para.167.
③ Brazil-Restreaded Tyres,Appellete Body Report,,paras.148-149.
①US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.311.
②US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.308.
③US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.311.
④US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.308.
⑤US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.311.
⑥Brazil-Restreaded Tyres,Appellete Body Report,para.157.
① Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.7.16
② Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Panel Report, para.7.172.
③ Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.167.
④ Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.172.
① Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report,para.173-175.
② Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.179.
③ Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.181.
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.164; EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report,para.172; US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para.306; Dominican Republic-Cigarettes, Appellate Body Report,para.70.
② Brazil-Restreaded Tyres,p Appellete Body Report, para.182.
① T.Tridimas, Proportionality in Community Law:Searching for the Appropriate Standard of Scrutiny, in:The principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, ed. By E. Ellis, p.75,1999; T. Tridimas, The General Principles of EC law, Oxford,1999, p.169.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.180.
③ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.168.
④梁丹妮：《自由贸易与环境保护：欧盟与巴西的一场攻防战——WTO首例发达国家诉发展中国家环境贸易措施案研究》,《学术研究》2009年第8期,第69页。
① Axel Desmedt,Proportionality in WTO Law,Journal of International Economic Law,2001,Vo1.4,No.3,p.458.
② EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report,para.172.
③ EC-Asbestos,Panel Report,para.8.173.
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.178.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.178.
③ Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G. de Burca and J. Scott, p.322, 2001.
④ Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Panel Report, paras 7.166 an
⑤ Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Panel Report, para.7.175.
⑥ Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Panel Report, para.7.159.
① Daniel Farber and Robert Hudec, GATT Legal Constraints on Domestic Environmental Regulations, in:Fair Trade and Harmonization:Prerequisites for Free Trade? ed. by Jagdish Bhagwati and Robert Hudec, p.81,1996, vol.2:
① Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Appellate Body Report, para.172.
① Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Panel Report, para.7.169.
② Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Appellate Body Report,para.154.
③ Jeffrey Waincymer, Reformulated gasoline under reformulated WTO Dispute Settlement procedures:pulling Pandora out of the Chapeau? Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol.18, No.1,1996, p.158.
①陈儒丹：《“非WTO协议”在WTO争端解决中的适用》,《法学》2009年第2期,第123页。
② Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal,1673 UNTS 126; 28 ILM 657 (1989).
③ Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Panel Report, paras 7.81 and 7.187.
Wilfred Jenks, Conflict of law-making treaties, British Year Book of International Law, Vol.30,1953, p.427
① WTO; Secretariat, GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Practice relating to GATT Article ⅩⅩ, Para. (b), (d) and (g), WT/CTE/W/203, paras.40-41,2002.
② Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impaction Internal Regulations-A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, ed. By G. de Burca and J. Scott (s), in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, p.325, 2001.
③ J.Neumann and E.Turk, Necessity Revisited:Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, Journal of World Trade 1, Vol.37,2003, p.212.
④ WTO Secretariat, GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Practice relating to GATT Article ⅩⅩ, Para. (b), (d) and (g), WT/CTE/W/203, para.43,2002.
① Joel P. Trachtman, The 'Necessity Test' in Domestic Services Regulation:How to Move Forward in the GATS, APEC Group in Services Workshop Ⅱ:Towards Improving Regulation in the Service Sector,2002, p.9.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.167.
① A.O. Skyes, The Least Restrictive Means, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70,2003, pp.416-417.
② D.A.Osiro,GATT/WTO Necessity Analysis:Evolutionary Interpretation and its Impact on the Autonomy of Domestic Regulation, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.2,2002, p.129.
③ Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.162.
④ Joel P. Trachtmari, The'Necessity Test'in Domestic Services Regulation:How to Move Forward in the GATS, APEC Group in Services Workshop Ⅱ:Towards Improving Regulation in the Service Sector,2002, p,8.
① Joel P.Trachtman, Trade and...Problems,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiary, European Journal of International Law, Vol.9,1998, pp.74-76.
②WTO中各委员会所提供的建议是不具有法律上拘束力的建议或指导方针。
③如美国虾与海龟案中,上诉机构报告中所提及的联合国海洋法公约。See US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.130.
① Mitsuo Matsushita, Some Issues of the SPS Agreement? in:The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation Experience and Lessons for the WTO, ed. by T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis, p.210,2003.
② Thailand-Cigarettes, GATT Panel Report, para.74.
③ Hilf,Meihard, Power,Rules and Principles:Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.4,No.1,2001, p.111.
④崔广平：《论世界贸易组织规则中的环境保护条款》,《河北法学》2004年第12期,第85页。
①刘汉鹏、赵航：GATT1994第20条中的引言及(b)(g)款的解释》,《国际关系学院学报》2004年第5期,第26页。
② E/PC/T/C.Ⅱ/50, pp.7 and 9; E/PC/T/C.Ⅱ/54/Rev.l,28 November 1946, p.36:
③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》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期,第37页。
①肖冰：《WTO(实施卫生与植物卫生措施协定>研究》,法律出版社2004年版,第48页。
②参见屈广清、蒋新苗主编：《世贸组织规则研究的理论与案例》,人民法院出版社2004年1月,第132页。
③ US-Spring Assembly, GATT Panel Report, paras.54-57.
④ US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report,paras:5.22.
⑤ D.A.Osiro,GATT/WTO Necessity Analysis:Evolutionary Interpretation and its Impact on the Autonomy of Domestic Regulation,Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.2,2002, p.129.
⑥ US-Gasoline, Appellate Body Report, p.22.
⑦ US-Shrimp, Panel Report, para.7.28.
① US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.119.
②程红星：《WTO司法哲学的能动主义之维》,北京大学出版社2006年版,第28页。
③蔡霜： 《从美国汽油标准案看GATT/WTO第20条环保例外规定——兼论我国对环境保护例外措施的应对》,《玉林师范学院学报(社会科学版)》2009年第1期,第86页。
① Reinhard Quick, The Community's Regulationon Leghold Traps, in:New Directions in International Economic Law, ed. by M.Bronckers and R.Quick, p.250,2000.
② Hilf,Meihard and Puth,Sebastian, The Principle of Proportionality on its Way into WTO/GATT Law, in:European Integration and International Coordination:Studies in Transnational Economic Law in Honour of Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, ed. by Armin von Bogdandy,Petros C. Mavroidis,Yves M6ny, Kluwer Law International, p.216, 2002.
③ US-Gasoline, Appellate Body Report, p.25.
①Petros C.Mavroidis,Trade and Environment after the Shrimps-Turtles Litigation,Journal of World Trade, Vo1.34,No.1,2000,p.80.
②US-Shrimp,Appellate Body Report,para.156.
③US-Shrimp,Appellate Body Report,paras.157-161.
① US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.163-166.
② US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.167.
③ US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.168-173.
① US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.174-176.
② US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.180-181.
③也有学者基于上诉机构提出第20条前言是权衡第20条例外规定权利及自由贸易,认为上诉机构不但已将必要性概念纳入前言,更将比例原则概念纳入前言。Arthur E. Appleton, Shrimp/Turtle:Untangling the Nets, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.3,1999, p.492.
① US-Shrimp (DSU 21.5),Appellate Body Report, paras.137.
② US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.167-171, US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.122.
③ William J.Davey, Hasthe WTO Dispute Settlement System Exceeded Its Authority? A Consideration of Deference Shown byt he Systemto Member Government Decisions and Its Uses of Issue-Avoidance Techniques, in:The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation Experience and Lessons for the WTO, ed. by T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis, p.51,2003.
① Reinhard Quick and Andreas Bluhner, Has the Appellate Body Erred? An appraisal and criticism of the ruling in the WTO Hormones case, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2, No.4,1999, p.610.
② EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.171.
③ Joost Pauwelyn, The WTO Agreement on SPS Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.4,1999, p.647.
① EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.176.
①澳大利亚鲑鱼案中,专家组将”必要性”概念分为三项要件的方法也为上诉机构支持,Australia-Salmon, Panel Report, para.8.167; Appellate Body Report, para.194.
② Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.194.
③ Australia-Salmon, Panel Report, para.8.171.
④ Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.195.
① M.Montini, The Necessity Principle as an Instrument to Balance Trade and the Environment, in: Environment,Human Right & International Trade, ed. by Francesco Francioni, Hart Publishing,2001, p.150.; A. O. Skyes, The Least Restrictive Means, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70,2003, p.405.
② Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.200.
③ Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, paras.201-205.
④ Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.204.
① Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, paras.196-199.
②黄瑶：《论<联合国宪章>的解释方法问题》,《中国法学》2003年第6期,第135页。
③ Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, paras.208-209.
① Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.211.
② Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, paras.191-193,213.
③在欧盟法律体系下,此时将会涉及“比例原则”问题。Joel P.Trachtman, Trade and...Problems,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiary, European Journal of International Law, Vol.9,1998, p.75-76.
① EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, paras.220-221.
② EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.222.
③ EC-Sardines. Appellate Body Report, para.225.
④ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, paras.226-227.
⑤ EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para. 7.69
① EC-Sardines, Panel Report, paras.4.102-4.103.
②在欧共体石棉案中,美国持这样的见解。See EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, para.4.71.
③ Axel Desmedt, Proportionality in WTO Law, Journal of International Economic Law,2001, Vol.4, No.3, p.459.
① EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.4.111.
② EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.4.112.
③ EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.4.113.
④ WTO, Application of the Necessity Test:Issues for Consideration, Job No.5929, Informal Note by the Secretariat (8 October 1999).
⑤ M.Montini, The Nature and Function of the Necessity and Proportionality Principles in the Trade and Environment Context, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Vol.6, No.3,1997, p.123.
① US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para.306.
② US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para. 307:
①石静霞、陈卫东：《WTO服务贸易成案研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第97页。
① WTO, WPDR, Domestic Regulation:Necessity and Transparency, Communication from the European Communities and their Member States, S/WPDR/W/14,1 May 2001,para.17.
② WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 20 March 2001.S/WPDR/M/11,7 June 2001, p.10.
① J.Neumann and E.Tiirk, Necessity Revisited:Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, Journal of World Trade 1, Vol.37,2003,p.233.
② WTO, WPDR, The Necessity Test, Communication from the Republic of Korea, S/WPDR/W/9,28 September 2000.
③ WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 2 October 2000, S/WPDR/M/8,17 November 2000, para.5.
④ WTO, WPDR, The Necessity Test, Communication from the Republic of Korea, S/WPDR/W/9,28 September 2000,p.2.
⑤ WTO, WPDR, The Necessity Test, Communication from the Republic of Korea, S/WPDR/W/9,28 September 2000,p.2.
⑥ David W. Leebron, Regulatory Discrimination in Domestic United States Law:A Model for the GATS? In: Domestic Regulation and Service Trade Liberalization, ed. by Aaditya Mattoo,Pierre Sauve, p.152,2003.
① David W. Leebron, Regulatory Discrimination in Domestic United States Law:A Model for the GATS? In: Domestic Regulation and Service Trade Liberalization, ed. by Aaditya Mattoo,Pierre Sauve, p.152,2003.
① M Krajewski, Article VI GATS, in:Max-Planck Commentaries on World Trade Law, ed. by R Wolfrum,P-T Stoll,and C Feinaugleeds, p.239,2008, Volume 6.
② WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 19 October 1999, S/WPDR/M/3,18 January 2000, para.5.
③ WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 29 November 2000, S/WPDR/M/9,12 March 2001, para.14.
④ WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 2 October 2000, S/WPDR/M/8,17 November 2000, para.17.
① WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 22 June 2005, S/WPDR/M/30,6 September 2005, para 170.
① WTO, WPDR, Professional Regulation in Australia,Communication from Australia, S/WPDR/W28,22 June 2004.
② Aaditya Mattoo, Service in a Development Round:Three Goals and Three Proposal, Journal of World Trade, Vol.39, No.6,2005, p.1231.
① C Gamberale and A Mattoo, Domestic Regulations and Liberalization of Trade in Service, ed. by B Hoekman, Mattoo, P English, in:Development, Trade in Services:An Overview and Blueprint for Negotiations, p.219, 1988.
① EC-Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Report of the Panel, para.7.246.
② Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, para.7.26.
③ Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, para.7.26.
① Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, paras.7.20-7.59.
② Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, para.7.69.
③ Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, para.7.82.
① EC-Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Report of the Panel,, paras.7.247-7:248.
① US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para.291.
①朱榄叶：《WTO争端解决程序中的证据问题》,《当代法学》2007年第21卷第1期,第127页。
②余敏友、席晶：《论WTO争端解决中的证据规则(下)》,《法学评论》2003年第5期,第88页。
③英国有学者将该国的举证责任内涵分为三种意义,分别为说服责任、证明责任和建立证据能力的责任。参见Sidney L. Phipson et al.,Phipson on evidence,13th ed., Sweet&Maxwell,1987, p.43.
④ J.D.Heydon, Case and Material on Evidence, Butterworth,1975, p.13.
⑤ Rupe Cross, Cross on Evidence, 4th ed. Butterworth,1974, p.93.
⑥潘星容、纪宗宜：《WTO争端解决机制中的举证责任研究》,《特区经济》2007年第11期,第258页。
① US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.13.
②姜作利、武轶尘：《WTO专家组和上诉机构举证责任分配标准的经济分析》,《东岳论丛》2009年第第30卷第9期,第39页。
③朱榄叶：《WTO争端解决中的证据问题》,《当代法学》2007年第21卷第1期,127页。
④ J.Pauwelyn, Evidence,Proff and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement. Who Bears the Burden?'Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.1, No.2,1998, p.235.
⑤ Germany-Sardines, GATT Panel Report, para.15.
① Canada-Foreign Investment Review Act, GATT Panel Report, para.5.20.
② US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.20.
③ US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.16.
④姜作利、武轶尘：《WTO专家组和上诉机构举证责任分配标准的经济分析》,《东岳论丛》2009年第第30卷第9期,第40页。
⑤ Jeffrey Waincymer, WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement,Cameron,2002, p.536.
① US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.14.
② US-Section 301-310, Panel Report, para.7.75.
① US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.14.
② US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, para.2.16.
③ David Palmeter and Petros C Mavroidis, Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization:practice and procedure,2nd ed, Cambridge University Press,2004, p.148.
① US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.16.
②即从条文文字规定上就可以看出属于例外规定的条款。
③即从法律效果上,具有其他义务条款的容许功能的条款。
④ Steve Charnovitz, Internet roundtable:The Appellate Body's GSP decision, World Trade Review, Vol.3, No.2, 2004,p.257.
① David Palmeter and Petros C Mavroidis, Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization:practice and procedure,2nd ed, Cambridge University Press,2004, p.150-151.
① US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.14.
② Turkey-Textile and Clothing Products, Panel Report, para.9.57.
③ EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report,para.98.
④ Japan-Apples, Appellate Body Report,para.157.
⑤ US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.16.
⑥关于必要性的判断标准,在前文中已述及。
① Aaditya Mattoo and Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade, Environment and the WTO:The Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to Article ⅩⅩ of GATT, ed. by Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, in:International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, p.337,1997.
②韩龙：GATS第一案——“美国赌博案”评析,甘肃政法学院学报,2005年第5期,第101页。
③ Aaditya Mattoo and Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade, Environment and the WTO:The Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to Article XX of GATT, ed. by Emst-Ulrich Petersmann, in:International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, p.337,1997.
① US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para.304-311.
② EC-Hormones, Panel Report, paras.8.54,8.89 and 8.90.
③ EC-Hormones, Panel Report, paras.8.86-8.87.
① EC-Hormones,Appellate Body Report, para.102.
② EC-Hormones,Appellate Body Report, para.104.
③ EC-Hormones,Appellate Body Report, para.109.
① M. Matsushita, T. J. Schoenbaum and P. Mavroidis, The World Trade Organization Law, Practice and Policy, Oxford,2003, p.512.
① EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.286.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report,para.176.
③ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report,para.168.
④ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.178.
⑤ US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.121.
⑥ Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.199.
① WTO Secretariat, GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Practice relating to GATT Article ⅩⅩ, Para, (b), (d) and (g), WT/CTE/W/203, paras.40-41,2002.
① Gabrielle Marceau and Joel P. Trachtman, The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Journal of World Trade,
Vol.36, No.5,2002, p.838.
② EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.165.
③ US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.124.
① US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.130-131.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.172.
③ EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.239. SP
①美国对欧共体的香蕉政策提出控诉,其中涉及的争议包括,美国是否具有足够的法律上利益提出诉讼,其次是《农业协定》、《服务贸易总协定》与GATT的关系。EC-Bananas Ⅲ, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS27/AB/R.
② EC-Bananas Ⅲ, Appellate Body Report, paras.221-222.
③ Indonesia-Autos, Panel Report, adopted 23 July 1998.
④ US-LinePipe, Appellate Body Report, adopted 8 March 2002.
⑤ Korea-Dairy, Appellate Body Report, adopted 12 January 2000
⑥当然,这里不包括非违反之诉的情形。
①黄瑶：《论(联合国宪章>的解释方法问题》,《中国法学》2003年第6期,第134页。
②余敏友、陈喜峰：《论解决WTO法内部冲突的司法解释原则(下)》,《法学评论》2002年第6期,第111页。
③ Korea-Dairy, Appellate Body Report, paras.74.
④ Canada-Term of Patent Protection, Panel Report, para.6.49.
① EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, paras.101-102.
② EC-Hormones, Panel Report, para.8.45. Australia-Salmon, Panel Report, para.8.39.
① M. Matsushita, T. J. Schoenbaum and P. Mavroidis, The World Trade Organization Law, Practice and Policy, Oxford,2003, pp.488-489.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.80.
③ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, paras.77-78.
④GATT及TBT协定有其基本结构上的差异,除不歧视原则外,还有一点,即相较于GATT的规定,TBT协定中的许多义务是“正当程序”(due process)规定,以确保管制程序的透明与完整。以国民待遇的规范为例,GATT关于这一规范,是GATT第3条,且其主要是规范措施的实体内容所应遵守的义务；然而在TBT协定第2条第1款中的国民待遇规定,主要是适用于“关于技术规章的事项”,其涵盖范围包括技术规章的制订与适用的一切过程。倘若认为TBT协定中的国民待遇规范,仅是对技术规章的实体内容的要求,则该规定似乎显得有些不必要,因为这些要求已经包含于GATT第3条第4款中。因此,TBT协定第2条第1款的主要规范目的是在确保管制过程的各阶段所应遵守的规范,即技术规章的“草拟过程、通过及适用”都必须符合国民待遇要求。Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G. de Burca and J. Scott, p.309,2001.
① Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G. de Burca and J. Scott, p.312, 2001.
② Gabrielle Marceau and Joel P. Trachtman, The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Journal of World Trade, Vol.36, No.5,2002, p.875.
①蔡高强：《从月饼海外受阻谈进出口食品安全法律制度的完善》,《太平洋学报》2009年第11期,第19页。
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.162.
② US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, para.5.27.
① US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, paras.59-60.
② Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Pane Report1, para.7.26.
③ Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Pane Report1, para.7.20.
④ Canada-Periodicals, Pane Report1, para.5.17.
⑤ EC-Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Pane Report1, para.7.244.
① Doaa Abdel Motaal, The 'Multilateral Scientific Consensus' and the World Trade Organization, Journal of World Trade, Vol.38, No.5,2004, p.856.
② Doaa Abdel Motaal, The 'Multilateral Scientific Consensus' and the World Trade Organization, Journal of World Trade, Vol.38, No.5,2004, p.857.
①K.茨维格特、H.克茨：《比较法总论》,潘汉典等译,法律出版社2003年版,第361页。
②迈克尔.D.贝勒斯著：《法律的原则——一个规范的分析》,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版,第74页。
③刘颖、邓瑞平：《国际经济法》,中信出版社2003年版,第29页。
④K.茨威格特、H.克茨著：《比较法总论》,潘汉典等译,法律出版社2003年版,第459页。
① Case of Rcadaptiation of the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions, Jurisdiction,1927 P.C.I.J.(Ser. A), No.11, p.18.
② Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations,1925 P.C.I.J.(Ser. B), No.10, p.21.
③ Tom Ginsburg, Bounded Discretion in International Judicial Lawmaking, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol.45,2005, pp.638-639.
④ Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Precednt in the World Court, Cambridge University Press,1996, p.232.
⑤张乃根：《论WTO争端解决的条约解释》,《复旦大学学报(社会科学版)》2006年第1期,第123页。
⑥丁伟、朱榄叶：《当代国际法学理论与实践研究文集(国际经济法卷)》,中国法制出版社2002年版,第45页。
①陈立虎：《应对新一轮贸易保护主义的法律思考》,《江西社会科学》2010年第1期,第33页。
②赵维田等著：《WTO的司法机制》,上海人民出版社2004年版,第77页。
③左海聪：《国际经济法的理论与实践》,武汉大学出版社2003年版,第141页。
①姜涛：《WTO争端解决报告的先例效力》,《人民司法》2008年第21期,第102页。
②韩立余：《WTO(1995-1999)案例及评析(上)》中国人民大学出版社2001年版,第222页。
①赵维田：《世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度》,吉林人民出版社2000年版,第166页。
①彭岳：《贸易与道德：中美文化产品争端的法律分析》,《中国社会科学》2009年第2期,第145页。
2. 陈卫东著：《WTO例外条款解读》,对外经济贸易大学出版社2002年版。
3.房东：《wTO服务贸易总协定法律约束力研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
4.韩龙：《wTO金融服务贸易的法律问题研究》,湖南人民出版社2004年版。
5.韩立余著：《美国外贸法》,法律出版社1999年版。
6.韩立余编著：《GATT／WTO案例及评析(1995-1999)》,(上、下卷),中国人民大学出版社2001年版。
7.韩立余编著：《GATT／WTO案例及评析(1948-1995)》,(上、下卷),,中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
8.韩立余编著：《GATT／WTO案例及评析(2000)》,中国人民大学出版社2001年版。
9.韩立余编著：《GATT／WTO案例及评析(2001)》,中国人民大学出版社2004年版。
10.韩立余著：《既往不咎——WTO争端解决机制研究》,北京大学出版社2009年版。
11.韩龙：《金融服务贸易规制与监管研究——基于入世过渡期后银行业局势的探讨》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
12.贺小勇著：《国际贸易争端解决与中国对策研究——以WTO为视角》,法律出版社2006年版。
13.黄胜强著：《国际服务贸易多边规则利弊分析》,中国社会科学出版社2000年版。
14.回沪明、赵松岭主编：《世界贸易组织(WTO)及其争端解决经验》,中国方正出版社2002年版。
15.李国安主编：《WTO服务贸易多边规则》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
16.李仁真：《国际金融法学》,复旦大学出版社2004年版。
17.屈广清、蒋新苗主编：《世贸组织规则研究的理论与案例》,人民法院出版社2004年版。
18.石静霞：《WTO服务贸易法专论》,法律出版社2006年版。
19.石静霞、陈卫东：《WTO国际服务贸易成案研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
20.孙振宇主编：《wTO多哈回合谈判中期回顾》,人民出版社2005年版。
21.陶凯元著：《国际服务贸易法律的多边化与中国对外服务贸易法制》,法律出版社2000年版。
22.王传丽主编：《国际贸易法》,中国政法大学出版社2003年修订版。
23.王贵国著：《世界贸易组织法》,法律出版社2003年版。
24.王新奎等著：《世界贸易组织与发展中国家》,上海远东出版社1998年版。
25.汪尧田、李力主编：《国际服务贸易总论》,上海交通大学出版社1997年版。
26.温迪·多布森、皮埃尔·雅凯：《wTO中的金融服务自由化》,彭龙译,北京出版社2000年版。
27.温树英：《金融服务贸易的国际法律规制》,人民法院出版社2005年版。
28.肖冰：《WTO<实施卫生与植物卫生措施协定)研究》,法律出版社2004年版。
29.徐泉著：《国家经济主权论》,人民出版社2006年版。
30.曾令良著：《世界贸易组织法》,武汉大学出版社1996年版。
31.曾筱清：《金融全球化与金融监管立法研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
32.张汉林等著：《经贸竞争新领域——服务贸易总协定与国际服务贸易》,中国经济出版社1997年版。
33.张汉林、张军生,刘洪敏等著：《复兴之路：WTO与中国经济未来服务业卷：服务业承诺与开放和崛起》(上、下册),人民日报出版社,2002年版。
34.张新平著：《世界贸易组织下之服务贸易》,月旦出版社1996年版。
35.张玉卿主编：《WTO新回合法律问题研究》,中国商务出版社2004年版。
36.赵维田著：《世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度》,吉林人民出版社2000年版。
37.朱揽叶编著：《世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析》,法律出版社2003年版。
38.左海聪：《国际经济法的理论与实践》,武汉大学出版社2003年版。
39.左海聪：《国际贸易法》,法律出版社2004年版。
40.左海聪：《1994年关贸总协定逐条释义》,湖南科学技术出版社2006年版。
41.世界贸易组织秘书处编；《乌拉圭回合协议导读》,索必成、胡盈之译,法律出版社2000年版。
42.对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司、关贸总协定上海研究中心编：《乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果最后文件》,法律出版社1995年版。
1. 蔡霜： 《从美国汽油标准案看GATT/WTO第20条环保例外规定——兼论我国对环境保护例外措施的应对》,《玉林师范学院学报》(社会科学版)2009年第l期。
2. 陈儒丹：《“非WTO协议”在WTO争端解决中的适用》,《法学》2009年第2期。
3. 陈卫东：《美国禁止通过互联网提供赌博服务的贸易争端评述》,《国际商务——对外经济贸易大学学报》2006年第1期。
4. 陈卫东：《从国际法角度论多边贸易自由化与国内公共健康政策的冲突和协调》,《当代法学》2006年第20卷第2期。
5. 崔广平： 《论世界贸易组织规则中的环境保护条款》,,《河北法学》2004年第12期
6. 封延会、贾晓燕:《论我国市场准入制度的构建》,《山东社会科学》2006年第12期。
7. 龚伯华：《“中美出版物市场准入WTO案”援引GATT第20条“公共道德例外”的法律分析》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第10期。
8. 韩龙：《GATS第一案——“美国赌博案”评析》,《甘肃政法学院学报》2005年第7期。
9. 韩龙、张良：《论国民待遇在世贸组织法律体系中的科学定位》,《江海学刊》2006年第1期。
10.胡雪梅：《服务贸易总协定中的市场准入与国民持遇问题——兼论中国的服务业开放问题》,《政法论坛》2001年第2期。
11.黄瑶:《论<联合国宪章>的解释方法问题》,《中国法学》2003年第6期。
12.黄志雄：《WTO自由贸易与公共道德第一案——安提瓜诉美国网络赌博服务争端评析》,《法学评论》2006年第2期。
13.黄征：《WTO公共健康例外条款与我国的对策分析》,《法制与经济》2007年第7期。
14.江保国:《wTO转基因农产品贸易争端第一案述评》,《法商研究》2007年第5期。
15.姜作利、武轶尘：《WTO专家组和上诉机构举证责任分配标准的经济分析》,《东岳论丛》2009年第第30卷第9期。
16.李景义：《WTO体制下环境贸易纠纷法律问题浅析》,《当代法学》2003年第9期。
17.李玲：《GATS中权利和义务平衡问题当议》,《湖南税务高等专科学校学报》2002年第5期。
18.李仁真、温树真：《国际金融服务贸易的多边法律框架——WTO与金融服务贸易有关的协议评析》,《政法论坛》2001年第6期。
19.李仁真：《区域经济一体化对GATT／WTO体制的冲击和影响》,《法学论坛》2006年第2期。
20.李仁真：《国际金融服务贸易的多边法律框架—WTO与金融服务贸易有关的协议评析》,《政法论坛》2001年第6期。
21.李伟芳： 《贸易与环境关系的理论及实证分析》, 《当代法学》2005年第4期。
22.李先波、徐莉：《GATT"公共道德例外条款”探析》,《湖南师范大学学报》(社会科学版)2010年第1期。
23.梁丹妮：《自由贸易与环境保护：欧盟与巴西的一场攻防战——WTO首例发达国家诉发展中国家环境贸易措施案研究》,《学术研究》2009年第8期。
24.廖益新：《经济全球化与国际经济法学》,《厦门大学学报》(哲社版)2000年第3期。
25.刘超：《解析<服务贸易总协定>中的最惠国待遇》,《甘肃社会科学》2001年第6期。
26.刘汉鹏、赵航：《GATT1994第20条中的引言及(b)(g)款的解释》,《国际关系学院学报》2004年第5期。
27.刘金花：《金融服务贸易壁垒的法律问题探讨》,《山西青年管理干部学院学’报》2006年第4期。
28.刘晴：《论在GATS下对以电子手段跨境提供服务的适当监管——对“美国赌博案”的再思考》,《肃社会科学》2006年第5期。
29.刘笋、李国赓：《关于“与贸易有关的问题”及WTO调整范围的若干思考》,《法商研究》2003年第5期。
30.刘志云：《论全球化时代国际经济法的公平价值取向——兼论发展中国家及我国的角色定位与战略选择》,《法律科学》2007年第5期。
31.莫世健：《技术性贸易壁垒中贸易和环保的平衡》,《政法论坛》2007年第25卷第2期。
32.慕亚平、冼一帆：《对WTO体制下经济一体化的法律分析》,《学术研究》2003年第6期。
33.慕亚平、冼一帆：《WTO协议在我国国内适用的问题》,《暨南学报》(哲学社会科学)2003年第25卷第1期。
34.彭景、宋娜： 《“为保证国内法执行而采取的限制措施”例外条款研究》,《金卡工程》2009年第5期。
35.漆彤：《《实施卫生与动植物检疫措施协议》及相关争端解决案例评析》,《法学评论》2003年第1期。
36.任际：《国际服务贸易的特殊性及<服务贸易总协定>宗旨分析》,《辽宁大学学报》(哲社版)2002年第3期。
37. 申进忠：《从石棉案看WTO协调环境与贸易关系的未来走势》,《中国海洋大学学报》(社会科学版),2005年第4期。
38.沈桥林：《wTO的宪法解读》,《政治与法律》2007年第6期。
39.石静霞、胡荣国：《试从GATS第6条与第16条的关系角度评“美国博彩案”》,《法学》2005年第8期。
40.石静霞：《新一轮服务贸易谈判若干问题》,《法学研究》2006年第3期。
41.宋相林：《GATS第6条与第16条关系探析——对“美国赌博案”重新审视》, 《法制与社会》2008年第28期。
42.孙晓云：《卫生服务贸易的国际规制探析——以GATS为中心》,《金融与经济》2007年第11期。
43.汤涛：《“审慎例外”条款的限制性应用与发展趋势探析》,《法制与经济》2008年第8期。
44.陶立峰、陈明聪：《论WTO透明度原则及我国的法律对策》,《国际商务研究》2007年第2期。
45.王传丽：《析世界贸易组织争端解决机制——兼评贸易报复》,《政法论坛》1996年第4期。
46.汪倩：《论<服务贸易总协定>中的国民待遇,《国际经贸探索》2002年第5期。
47.韦经建、何志鹏：《论国际经济法的公平原则》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》2002年第3期。
48.温树英：《WTO体制下金融服务贸易目标与监管目标的冲突与协调》,《法学家》2006年第5期。
49. 肖冰：《技术性贸易壁垒国内法规制的涵义、共性态势与难点》,《法学》2006年第8期。
50. 肖伟：《论欧共体反倾销法中反吸收的法律问题及启示》,《国际贸易问题》2005年第9期。
51.徐崇利：《WTO贸易议题与社会政策连接的内在途径——以农业“多功能性”为例的分析》,《法律科学》2008年第3期。
52.徐崇利：《经济全球化与国际经济条约谈判方式的创新》,《比较法研究》,2001年第3期。
53.徐泉：《试论世界贸易组织的基本原则》,《甘肃社会科学》2005年第1期。
54.徐泉：《国家经济主权原则析论》,《甘肃政法学院学报》2006年总第88期。
55.杨文云：《金融监管法律国际协调实践评介》,《外国经济与管理》2006年第6期。
56.余劲松：《构建互利共赢的国际经济合作法制》,《法学家》2007年第1期。
57.余敏友、陈喜峰：《论解决WTO法内部冲突的司法解释原则(下)》,《法学 评论》2002年第6期。
58.余敏友、席晶：《论WTO争端解决中的证据规则(下)》,《法学评论》2003年第5期。
59.臧立：《论国际服务贸易中的国民待遇问题》,《法商研究》1998年第5期。
60. 曾令良：《贸易自由化与环境保护的法理思考》,《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2003年第56卷第4期。
61. 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》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期。
62.张乃根：《论WTO争端解决的条约解释》,《复旦大学学报(社会科学版)》2006年第1期。
63.张湘兰：《WTO与中国海运服务贸易法律制度》,《武汉大学学报》(社会科学版)2003年第1期。
64.钟立国：《WTO争端解决机制非违反之诉的适用分析》,《武汉大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2007年第2期。
65.钟筱红：《WTO环保例外条款解读》,《南昌大学学报》(人社版)2003年第5期。
66.朱榄叶：《WTO争端解决程序中的证据问题》,《当代法学》2007年第21卷第1期。
67.左海聪：《GATT环境保护例外条款判例法的发展》,《法学》2008年第3期。
68.左海聪：《对我国WTO争端解决实践的反思》,《法学》2007年第4期。
69.左海聪：《WTO专家组和上诉机构可适用的法律》,《东岳论丛》2006年第3期。
70.左海聪：《论GATT/WTO争端解决机制的性质》,《法商研究》2004年第5期。
1. Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, 2002.
2. Anthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
3. Bernard M. Hoekman, The World Trade Organization:Law, Economics, and Politics, Routledge,2007.
4. Christopher Arup,The New World Trade organization Agrrements:Globalizing Law through Services and Intellectual Property, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
5. David Palmeter and Petros C Mavroidis, Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization:practice and procedure,2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
6. Drusilla K. Brown and Robert Mitchell Stern, The WTO and Labour and Employment, Edward Elgar,2007.
7. Gabriel Moens and Roger Jones, International Trade and Business Law Review,Routledge-Cavendish,2007.
8. George A. Bermann and Petros C. Mavroidis, WTO Law and Developing Countries, Cambridge University Press,2007.
9. Jan Wouters and Bait De Meester, The World Trade Organization:A Legal and Institutional Analysis,Intersentia,2007.
10. J.D.Heydon, Case and Material on Evidence, Butterworth,1975.
11. Jeffrey Waincymer, WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement, Cameron,2002.
12. J.H.H. Weiler,The EU, the WTO, and the NAFTA:Towards a Common Law of International Trade? Oxford University Press,2000.
13. John H. Jackson, The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO, Cambridge University Press,2000.
14. John H.Jackson, The World Tradeing System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations,2nd ed, The MIT Press,1997.
15. John.H.Jackson, The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO:Insights on Treaty Law and Economic Relations,Higher Education Press,2002.
16. Kern Alexander and Mads Andenas,The World Trade Organization and trade in services, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2008.
17. Kevin Kennedy, Competition Law and the World Trade Organization:Limits of Multilateralism, Sweet & Maxwell,2001.
18. Koen Byttebier and Kim van der Borght, WTO Obligations and Opportunities: Challenges of Implementation,Cameron May,2007.
19. K.R. Gupta, World Trade Organisation, Atlantic Publishers,2006.
20. Larry Crump and Javed Maswood, Developing Countries and Global Trade Negotiations,Routledge,2007.
21. Luis Abugattas and Simonetta Zarrilli, Challenging Conventional Wisdom: Development Implications of Trade in Services Liberalization. UNCTAD. Division on International Trade in Goods and Services, and Commodities, Trade Analysis Branch,2007.
22. Marion Panizzo, Nicole Pohl, Pierre Sauve, ed., GATS and the regulation of international trade in services, Cambridge University Press,2008.
23. M. Matsushita, T. J. Schoenbaum and P. Mavroidis, The World Trade Organization Law, Practice and Policy, Oxford,2003.
24. Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Precednt in the World Court, Cambridge University Press,1996.
25. M.Trebilcock and R.Howse, The Regulation of International Trade,3nd ed., Routledge,2005.
26. Nicholas Emiliou, The Principle of Porportionality in European Law, Kluwer Law International,1996.
27. Panagiotis Delimatsis,International Trade in Service and Domestic Regulations,Oxford University Press,2007.
28. Peter Gallagher, A Handbook on Reading WTO Schedules,Cambridge University Press,2007.
29. Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade in Goods:The GATT and the Other Agreements Regulating Trade in Goods, Oxford University Press,2007.
30. Pierre Sauve and Robert M. Stem ed., GATS 2000:New DireCtions in Services Trade Liberalization, Brookings Institution Press,2000.
31.Rainer Hofmann and Gabriele Tondl, The European Union and the WTO Doha Round, Baden-Baden, Nomos,2007.
32. Robert Howse, The WTO System:Law, Politics & Legitimacy,Cameron May Ltd,
2007.
33. Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G. de Burca and J. Scott,2001.
34. Rudiger Wolfrunm ed., WTO:Technical Barriers and SPS Measures, Martinus Nijhoff Publsihers,2007.
35. Rupe Cross, Cross on Evidence, 4th ed. Butterworth,1974.
36. Scott Sinclair and Jim Grieshaber-Otto, Facing the Facts:A Guide to the GATS Debate, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives,2002.
37. Sharif Bhuiyan, National Law in WTO Law:Effectiveness and Good Governance in the World Trading System, Cambridge University Press,2007.
38. Sidney L. Phipson et al.,Phipson on evidence,13th ed., Sweet&Maxwell,1987.
39. Thomas Cottier, The Challenge of WTO Law:Collected Essay, Cameron May, 2007.
1. Aaditya Mattoo, Service in a Development Round:Three Goals and Three Proposal, Journal of World Trade, Vol.39, No.6,2005.
2.Aaditya Mattoo and Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade, Environment and the WTO:The Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to Article ⅩⅩ of GATT, ed. by Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, in:International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System,1997.
3. Aaditya Mattoo and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, Pre-Empting Protectionism in Services:The GATS and Outsourcing(2004)7 Journal of International Economic Law 765.
4. A.Desmedt, Proportionality in WTO Law, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.4, 2001.
5. A Guzman and BA Simmons, To Settle or Empanel?An Empirical Analysis of Litigation and Settlement at the World Trade Organization, Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.31,2002.
6. A.Mattoo and A.Subramanian, Regulatory Autonomy and Multilateral Disciplines:the dilemma and a possible resolution, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.13, No.1,1998.
7. Andrew Lang, The GATS and Regulatory Autonomy:A Case Study of Social Regulation of the Water Industry, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.7, 2004.
8. A.O. Skyes, The Least Restrictive Means, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70,2003.
9. Arthur E. Appleton, Shrimp/Turtle:Untangling the Nets, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.3,1999.
10. Arthur E. Appleton, GATT Article ⅩⅩ's Chapeau:A Disguised 'Necessary'Test?: The WTO Appellate Body's Ruling in United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, Vol.6, No.2,1997.
11. Axel Desmedt, Proportionality in WTO Law, Journal of International Economic Law,2001, Vol.4,No.3.
12. B Kingsbury,N Krisch,and RB Stewart, The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.68,2005 15.
13. B Wilson, Compliance by WTO Members with Advers WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings:The Record to Date, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2, 2007.
14. C Gamberale and A Mattoo, Domestic Regulations and Liberalization of Trade in Service, ed. by B Hoekman, Mattoo, P English, in:Development, Trade in Services:An Overview and Blueprint for Negotiations,1988.
15. C Harlow, Global Administrative Law:The Quest for Principles and Values, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.17,2006.
16. DA Motaal,The 'Multilateral Scientific Consensus'and the World Trade Organization, Journal of World Trade Law, Vol.38,2005.
17. Daniel Farber and Robert Hudec, GATT Legal Constraints on Domestic Environmental Regulations, in:Fair Trade and Harmonization:Prerequisites for Free Trade? ed. by Jagdish Bhagwati and Robert Hudec,1996, vol.2.
18. David W. Leebron, Regulatory Discrimination in Domestic United States Law: A Model for the GATS? In:Domestic Regulation and Service Trade Liberalization, ed. by Aaditya Mattoo,Pierre Sauve,2003.
19. D. A.Osiro,GATT/WTO Necessity Analysis:Evolutionary Interpretation and its Impact on the Autonomy of Domestic Regulation, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.2,2002.
20. DC Esty, Good Governance at the Supranational Scale:Globalizing Administrative Law, Yale Law Journal, Vol.115,2006.
21. Doaa Abdel Motaal, The 'Multilateral Scientific Consensus'and the World Trade Organization, Journal of World Trade, Vol.38, No.5,2004.
22. Donald H.Regan, The Meaning of 'Necessary'in GATT Article ⅩⅩ and GATS Article ⅩⅣ:the Myth of Cost-benefit Balancing, World Trade Review,2007, Vol.6, No.3.
23. DZ Cass, The "Constitutionalization" of the International Trade Law:Judicial Norm-Gerneration as the Engine of Constitutional Development in International Trade, European Journal of International Law, Vol.12,2001.
24. E Colombatto, An Explanation of the Dynamics of Protectionism, Open Economies Review, Vol.11,2000.
25. Friedl Weiss, Transparency as an Element of Good Governance in the Practice of the EU and the WTO:Overview and Comparison, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.30,2007.
26. Gabriel Gari, Legal instruments for the liberalization of trade in services at the sub-regional level:the MERCOSUR case, Penn State International Law Review, Vol.25,2007.
27. Gabrielle Marceau and Joel P. Trachtman, The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement and General Agreement on Tariffs.and Trade, Journal of World Trade, Vol.36, No.5,2002.
28. George C. Nnona, Multidisciplinary Practice Under the World Trade Organization's Services Regime, Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.16,2005.
29. Hans-Joachim Priess and Christian Pitschas, Protection of Public Health and the Role of the Precautionary Principle under WTO Law:a Trojan Horse Before Geneva's Walls? Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.24,2000.
30. Hilf, Meihard, Power, Rules and Principles:Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.4, No.1,2001.
31. Hilf, Meihard and Puth, Sebastian, The Principle of Proportionality on its Way into WTO/GATT Law, in:European Integration and International Coordination:Studies in Transnational Economic Law in Honour of Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, ed. by Armin von Bogdandy,Petros C. Mavroidis,Yves Meny, Kluwer Law International,2002.
32. Irem Dogan, Taking a Gamble on Public Morals:Invoking the Article ⅩⅣ Exception to GATS, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Vol.32,2007.
33. I Van Damme, The Interpretation of Schedules of Commitments, Journal of World Trade, Vol.41, No.6,2007.
34. Jan H. Jans. Proportionality Revisited, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.27, No.3,2000.
35. J Bacchus, The Bicycle Club:Affirming the American Interest in the Future of the WTO, Journal of World Trade, Vol.37,2003.
36. Jeffrey. L. Dunoff, Reconciling International Trade with Preservation of the Global Commons:Can we Prosper and Protect?, Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol.49,1992.
37. Jeffrey Waincymer, Reformulated gasoline under reformulated WTO Dispute Settlement procedures:pulling Pandora out of the Chapeau? Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol.18, No.1,1996.
38. JHH Weiler,The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats:Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement, Journal of World Trade, Vol.35,2001.
39. J.Neumann and E.Turk, Necessity Revisited:Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea-Beef,EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, Journal of World Trade 1, Vol.37,2003.
40. Joel P. Trachtman, The 'NecessityTest'in Domestic Services Regulation:How to Move Forward in the GATS, APEC Group in Services Workshop Ⅱ:Towards Improving Regulation in the Service Sector,2002.
41. Joel P. Trachtman, Trade in financial services under GATS, NAFTA and the EC: A Regulatory Jurisdiction Analysis, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol.34,1995.
42. Joel P.Trachtman, Trade and... Problems, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiary, European Journal of International Law, Vol.9,1998.
43. Joel P. Trachtman, Regulatory Jurisdiction and the WTO, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.10,2007.
44. John H.Jackson, World Trade Rules and Environmental Policies:Congruence or Conflict? Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol.49,1992.
45. Joost Pauwelyn, The WTO Agreement on SPS Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.4,1999.
46. Joost Pauwelyn, Evidence,Proff and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement. Who Bears the Burden? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.1, No.2,1998.
47. Joost Pauwelyn, Does the WTO Stand for 'Deference to' or 'Interference with' National Health Authorities When Applying the SPS Agreement?, ed. by T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis, in:The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation Experience and Lessons for the WTO,2003.
48. J Snell, True Proportionality and Free Movement of Goods and Services, European Business Law Review, Vol.11,No.1,2000.
49. Kishani Kalupahana, Choosing Between Liberalization and Regulatory Autonomy under GATS:Implications of U.S.-Gambling for Trade in Cross Border E-Services, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol.40,2007.
50. Lorand Bartels, Article ⅩⅩ of GATT and the rules of public international law on extraterritorial jurisdiction:the case of trade measures for the protection of human rights, Journal of World Trade vol.36,2002.
51. Mads Andenas and Stefan Zleptnig, Proportionality:WTO Law:in Compara.tive Perspective, Texas International Law Journal, Vol.42,2007.
52. Mahmood Bagheri and Chizu Nakajima, Optimal Level of Financial Regulation under the GATS:A Regulatory Competition and Cooperation Framework for Capital Adequacy and Disclosure of Information, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.5,2002.
53:Margareta Djordjevic, Domestic Regulation and Free Tradein Services-A Balancing Act, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.3,2002.
54. Michael Park, Market Access And Exceptions Under The GATS And Online Gambling Services, Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas, Vol.12,2006.
55. Miguel A. Gonzalez, Trade and Morality:Preserving Public Morals without Sacrificing the Global E-conomy, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol.39,2006.
56. Mitsuo Matsushita, Some Issues of the SPS Agreement? in:The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation Experience and Lessons for the WTO, ed. by T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis,2003.
57. M Krajewski, Public Services and Trade Liberalization-Mapping the Legal Framework, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2,2003.
58. M Krajewski, Article VI GATS, in:Max-Planck Commentaries on World Trade Law, ed. by R Wolfrum,P-T Stoll,and C Feinaugleeds,2008, Volume 6.
59. M Lennard, Navigating by the Stars:Interpreting the WTO Agreements, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.5,2002.
60. M. Montini, The Nature and Function of the Necessity and Proportionality Principles in the Trade and Environment Context, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Vol.6, No.2,1997.
61. M.Montini, The Necessity Principle as an Instrument to Balance Trade and the Environment, in:Environment,Human Right & International Trade, ed. by Francesco Francioni, Hart Publishing,2001.
62. Nicholas Emiliou, The Principle of Porportionality in European Law, Kluwer Law International,1996.
63. Panagiotis Delimatsis, Sovereignty-Modern:A New Approch to an Outdated Concept,American Journal of International Law, Vol.97,2003.
64. Panagiotis Delimatsis and D Geradi, Regulatory Co-opetition, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2,2000.
65. Panagiotis Delimatsis, Determining the Necessity of Domestic Regulations in Services - The Best is Yet to Come, European Journal of International Law, Vol.19, No.2,2008.
66. Panagiotis Delimatsis and I Wooton, Market Structure, Trade Liberalization,and the GATS, European Journal of Political Economy, Vol.17,2001.
67. Panagiotis Delimatsis and M Roy, Turining Hill into Mountains?Current Commitments under the GATS and Prospects for Change, Journal of World Trade, Vol.39,2005.
68. Panagiotis Delimatsis, PC Mavroidis, and R W Staiger, It's a Question of Market Access, American Journal of International Law, Vol.96,2002.
69. P Chang,G Karsenty,A Mattoo,and J Richtering,GATS, the Modes of Supply and Statistics on Trade in Services, American Economic Review, Vol.88,1999.
70. PC Mavroidis, Highway ⅩⅥ Re-Visited-The Road from Non-discrimination to Market Access in GATS, World Trade Review, Vol.6,2007.
71. P Delimatsis, Don t Gamble with GATS - The Interaction between Articles Ⅵ,ⅩⅥ,ⅩⅦ and ⅩⅧ GATS in the Light of the US - Gambling Case, Journal of World Trade, Vol.40,2006.
72. Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade and Environment after the Shrimps-Turtles Litigation, Journal of World Trade, Vol.34, No.1,2000.
73. Rafael Leal-Arcas, The Resumption of the Doha Round and the Future of Services Trade, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law' Review, Vol.29,2007.
74. R Adlung, Services Negotiations in the Doha Round:Lost in Flexibility? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.4,2006.
75. Reinhard Quick and Andreas Bluhner, Has the Appellate Body Erred? An appraisal and criticism of the ruling in the WTO Hormones case, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2, No.4,1999.
76. Reinhard Quick, The Community's Regulationon Leghold Traps, in:New Directions in International Economic Law, ed. by M.Bronckers and R.Quick, 2000.
77. R Howse, From Poltics to Technocracy - and Back Again:The Fate of the Multilateral Tading Regime, American Journal of International Law, Vol.96, 2002.
78. RJ Zedalis, When Do the Activities of Private Parties Trigger WTO Rules? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2,2007.
79. Robert Howse, The Appellate Body Rulings in the Shrimp/Turtle Case:A New Legal Baseline for the Trade and Environment Debate, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol.27,2002.
80. Robert Howse and Petros G.Mavroidis, Europe's Evolving Regulatory Strategy for GMOs-the Issue of Consistency with WTO Law:of Kine and Brine, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.24,2000.
81. Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G de Burca and J. Scott,2001.
82. Rudolf Adlung, Services Negotiations in the Doha Round:Lost in Flexibility? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.9,2006.
83. Rudolf Adlung, Public Services and the GATS, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.9,2006.
84. RW Hahn and RE Litan, Counting Regulatory Benefits and Costs:Lessons for the US and Europe, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.8,2005.
85. Sabino Cassese, Global standards for national administrative procedure, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.68,2005.
86. S Cassese, Global Standards for National Administrative Procedure, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.68,2005.
87. SP Croley, Theories of Regulation:Incorporating the Administrative Process, Columbial Review, Vol.98,1998.
88. Steve Charnovitz, Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX, Journal of World Trade, Vol.25, No.5, 1991.
89. Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol.38,1998.
90. Steve Charnovitz, Internet roundtable:The Appellate Body's GSP decision, World Trade Review, Vol.3, No.2,2004.
91. Tania Voon, A New Approach to Audiovisual Products in the WTO: Rebalancing GATT and GATS, UCLA Entertainment Law Review, Vol.14, 2007.
92. Thomas Cottier, From Progressive Liberalization to Progressive Regulation in WTO Law, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.9,2006.
93. Tom Ginsburg, Bounded Discretion in International Judicial Lawmaking,Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol.45,2005.
94. T.Tridimas, Proportionality in Community Law:Searching for the Appropriate Standard of Scrutiny, in:The principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, ed. By E. Ellis,1999; T. Tridimas, The General Principles of EC law, Oxford, 1999.
95. Wilfred Jenks, Conflict of law-making treaties, British Year Book of International Law, Vol.30,1953.
96. William J.Davey, Hasthe WTO Dispute Settlement System Exceeded Its Authority? A Consideration of Deference Shown byt he Systemto Member Government Decisions and Its Uses of Issue-Avoidance Techniques, in:The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation Experience and Lessons for the WTO, ed. by T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis,2003.
97. Y Shany, Toward a Gerneral Margin of Appreciation Doctrinr in International Law? European Journal of International Law, Vol.16,2005.
1. http://www.worldbank.org
2. http://www.oecd.org
3. http://www.unctad.org
4. http://www.wto.org
5. http://www.southcentre.org
①曾令良：《贸易自由化与环境保护的法理思考》,《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2003年第56卷第4期,第415页。
② M.Montini, The Nature and Function of the Necessity and Proportionality Principles in the Trade and Environment Context, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Vol.6, No.3,1997, p.129.
③ M.Montini, The Necessity Principle as an Instrument to Balance Trade and the Environment, in: Environment,Human Right & International Trade, ed. by Francesco Francioni, Hart Publishing,2001, p.135.
④ D.A.Osiro,GATT/WTO Necessity Analysis:Evolutionary Interpretation and its Impact on the Autonomy of Domestic Regulation, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.2,2002, p.124.
⑤ Mads Andenas and Stefan Zleptnig, Proportionality:WTO Law:in Compara.tive Perspective, Texas International Law Journal, Vol.42,2007, p.372.
⑥ Hilf,Meihard and Puth,Sebastian, The Principle of Proportionality on its Way into WTO/GATT Law, in:European Integration and International Coordination:Studies in Transnational Economic Law in Honour of Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, ed. by Armin von Bogdandy,Petros C. Mavroidis,Yves Meny, Kluwer Law International, pp.199-218,2002; Hilf,Meihard, Power,Rules and Principles:Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.4, No.1,2001, p.117.
① Joel P. Trachtman, The'NecessityTest'in Domestic Services Regulation:How to Move Forward in the GATS, APEC Group in Services Workshop Ⅱ:Towards Improving Regulation in the Service Sector,2002.
② Panagiotis Delimatsis, International Trade in Services and Domestic Regulations:Necessity, Transparency, and Regulatory Diversity,OXFORD University Press,2007, p.362.
③ Donald H.Regan, The Meaning of 'Necessary' in GATTArticle XX and GATS Article ⅩⅣ:the Myth of Cost-benefit Balancing, World Trade Review,2007, Vol.6, No.3, p.347.
④ Axel Desmedt, Proportionality in WTO Law, Journal of International Economic Law,2001, Vol.4, No.3, p.441.
⑤韩秀丽：《论WTO法中的比例原则》,厦门大学出版社2007年4月。
⑥周芬芬：《GATT环保例外条款中的“必需性”审查标准研究》,清华大学法学硕士学位论文,2007年。
⑦朱俊：《GATS第6条第4款中的必要性测试研究》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,2007年。
①关于“necessity test"的中文名称,国内翻译的有“必需性测试”、“必要性标准”、“必需性测试”和“必要性测试”等。笔者认为“必要性检验”不仅可以反映有关成员方的措施须符合该标准和尺度这一静态结果,还可以体现对争议措施进行审查的动态过程,故本文采取“必要性检验”这一名称。
② Joel P. Trachtman, Trade in financial services under GATS, NAFTA and the EC:A Regulatory Jurisdiction Analysis, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol.34, pp.37-55.
③ "Necessity Tests" in the WTO, S/WPDR/W/27,2 December 2003, p.4.
④ John H. Jackson, The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO, Cambridge University Press,2000, p.126.
①肖冰：《WTO<实施卫生与植物卫生措施协定>研究》,法律出版社2004年版,第187页。
①肖冰：《技术性贸易壁垒国内法规制的涵义、共性态势与难点》,《法学》2006年第8期,第83页。
①石静霞、陈卫东：《WTO服务贸易成案研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第96页。
①徐泉：《试论世界贸易组织的基本原则》,《甘肃社会科学》2005年第1期,第94页。
②赵维田：《世界贸易组织(WTO)的法律制度》,吉林人民出版社2000年版,第51页。
③王贵国：《世界贸易组织法》,法律出版社2003年版,第39页。
①赵维田：《世界贸易组织(WTO)的法律制度》,吉林人民出版社2000年版,第139页。
② GATT第3条第4款规定：“任何缔约方领土的产品进口至任何其他缔约方领土时,在有关影响其国内销售、标价出售、购买、运输、分销或使用的所有法律、法规和规定方面,所享受的待遇不得低于同类国产品所享受的待遇。本款的规定不得阻止国内差别运输费的实施,此类运输费仅根据运输工具的经济营运,而不根据产品的国别。”
①徐泉：《国家经济主权原则析论》,《甘肃政法学院学报》2006年总第88期,第73页。
②梁西：《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2000年版,第100页。
①詹宁斯·瓦茨修订：《奥本海国际法》,王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第295页。
②刘志云：《论全球化时代国际经济法的公平价值取向——兼论发展中国家及我国的角色定位与战略选择》,《法律科学》2007年第5期,第87页。
③刘笋、李国赓：《关于“与贸易有关的问题”及WTO调整范围的若干思考》,《法商研究》2003年第5期,第47页。
④沈桥林：《WTO的宪法解读》,《政治与法律》2007年第6期,第40页。
①徐崇利：《WTO贸易议题与社会政策连接的内在途径——以农业“多功能性”为例的分析》,《法律科学》2008年第3期,第107页。
② John H.Jackson, The World Tradeing System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations,2nd ed, The MIT Press,1997, p.214.
① Nicholas Emiliou, The Principle of Porportionality in European Law, Kluwer Law International,1996, p.23.
① Jan H. Jans. Proportionality Revisited, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.27, No.3,2000, p.241.
②韩秀丽：《论WTO法中的比例原则》,厦门大学出版社2007年版,第76页。
① Cicero, De Officiis, Book1, Harvard University Press,1990, pp.23-25.
②徐国栋：《诚实信用原则二题》,《法学研究》2002年第4期,第74页。
③韩立余：《既往不咎——WTO争端解决机制研究》,北京大学出版社2009年版,第246页。
①韩立余：《善意原则在WTO争端解决中的适用》,《法学家》2005年第6期,第158页。
②M·维拉利：《国际法上的善意原则》,刘听生译,《国外法学》1984年第4期,第54页。
③李浩培：《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年版,第272页。
①韩立余：《善意原则在WTO争端解决中的适用》,《法学家》2005年第6期,第151-152页。
① US-Gasoline, Appellate Body Report, p.16.
② Joel P.Trachtman, Trade and...Problems,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiary, European Journal of International Law, Vol.9,1998, p.74.
① US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, para.5.27.
② US-Gasoline, Appellate Body Report, p.13.
①吴喜梅：《对WTO<实施卫生与植物卫生措施协定>主要条款的分析》,《河南财政税务高等专科学校学报》2003年4月第17卷第2期,第26页。
②王海峰：《WTO框架下卫生检疫措施的合理性认识》,《社会科学》2007年第11期,第110页。
③江保国：《wTO转基因农产品贸易争端第一案述评》,《法商研究》2007年第5期,第150页。
④ Joost Pauwelyn, The WTO Agreement on SPS Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.4,1999, pp.643-644.
① Gabrielle Marceau and Joel P. Trachtman, The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Journal of World Trade, Vol.36, No.5,2002, p.862.
①1947年诞生的国际标准化组织(International standard Organization,简称为ISO)和1906年国际电工委员会(IEC),二者是主要的国际标准组织。这两个非政府机构承担制定全球一致的国际标准的任务, ISO和IEC每年制定和修订1000多个标准,涉及广泛。其制定的标准都是自愿性的。
②张云、陶丽琴：《WTO机制下的技术法规基本理论问题研究》,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2004年第4期,第79页。
③陈立虎、李晓琼：《从
① EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, para.8.36.
① EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, paras.8.38-8.39.
② EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, paras.8.41-8.43.
③ EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, para.8.44.
④ EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, paras.8.54-8.56.
① EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, paras.8.65-8.70.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.62.
③ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.64.
① EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, paras.67-68.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, paras.69-74.
① EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.75.
① EC-Sardines,Panel Report,paras.7.37.7.42.
② EC-Sardines,Panel Report,paras.7.43.7.47.
③ EC-Sardines,Appellate Body Report,paras.173-174.
① EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.176.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.70.
③ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.180.
④ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, paras.182-183.
⑤ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, paras.185-186.
⑥ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.67.
⑦ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.190上诉机构并特别提出,欧共体于上诉中虽然要求上诉机构审查该命名要求(欧共体规则中的第2条)是否为技术规章,但上诉机构认为要对争议措施作适当的定性,一定必须对该措施进行整体的审查,因而并不适当仅观察命名要求而作决定。
① EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, paras.194.
① WTO.WPDR, Report on the Meeting Held on 29 November 2001, S/WPDR/M/14,29 January 2002, para.8.
① WTO, WPDR, Report of the Chairman of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation to the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Service, JOB(05)/280,15 November 2005, p.4.
② WTO, WPDR, Proposed Elements for Disciplines on Qualification Requirements and Procedures, Communication from Bolivia, Chile, India, Mexico, Pakistan and Thailand, JOB(05)/50,30 March 2005, p.13.
① Directive (EC) 2006/123 on services in the internal market (2006) OJ L376/36, Chapter V; notably Art 4:7.
① WTO, Trade in Services, Disciplines on Domestic Regulation in the Accountancy Sector, S/L/64,17 December 1998, paras 9,24.
② WPDR, Disciplines on Domestic Regulation Pursuant to GATTArticle Ⅵ:4, Informal Note by the Chairman, Room Document,18 April 2007, paras,17-28.
① WTO, WPDR, Report on the Meeting Held on 22 June 2005, S/WPDR/M/30,6 September 2005, para.120.
② WTO, WPDR, Proposal for Disciplines on Technical Standards in Services, Communication from Switzerland and Mexico, S/WPDR/W/32/Rev.1,28 October 2005.
①孔祥俊：《WTO知识产权协定及其国内适用》,法律出版社2002年版,第75-76页。
① United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment,Nov.21,1947-Mar.24,1948,Final Act and Related Documents,U.N. Doc. E/Conf./2/78, Apr.1948.
①李先波、徐莉：《GATT"公共道德例外条款”探析》,《湖南师范大学学报(社会科学版)》,2010年第1期,第53页。
② Miguel A. Gonzalez, Trade and Morality:Preserving Public Morals without Sacrificing the Global E-conomy, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol.39,2006, p.939.
③ US-Malt Beverages, GATT Panel Report, paras.5.74-5.75.
④ US-Gambling, Panel Report, para.6.455-6.456.
⑤龚伯华：《“中美出版物市场准入WTO案”援引GATT第20条“公共道德例外”的法律分析》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第10期,第36页。
⑥ China-Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, Panel Report, para.7.759.
①彭岳：《贸易与道德：中美文化产品争端的法律分析》,《中国社会科学》2009年第2期,第141页。
②体系解释,又称为整体解释,它是以法律条文在法律体系中的地位；即依其编、章、节、条、款、项之前后关联位置,或相关法条的法意,阐明其规范意旨的解释方法。
③ Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol.38,1998, p.694. Lorand Bartels, Article ⅩⅩ of GATT and the rules of public international law on extraterritorial jurisdiction:the case of trade measures for the protection of human rights, Journal of World Trade vol.36,2002, p.356.
④ Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol.38,1998, pp.742-743.
①黄征：《WTO公共健康例外条款与我国的对策分析》,《法制与经济》2007年第7期,第24页。
① Thailand-Cigarettes, Panel Report, para.73.
③默示表示的为美国金枪鱼海豚案(Ⅰ)；明示表示的为美国金枪鱼海豚案(Ⅱ).See Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, paras.5.24-5.29 and Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para. 5.30.
④ EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, para.8.186.
⑤钟筱红：《WTO环保例外条款解读》,《南昌大学学报(人社版)》2003年第5期,第60页。
① EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, para.8.193.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.162.本案上诉机构提出,只有在专家组为审查事实而评估证据时,逾越其裁量权的范围时,上诉机构方会对专家组的证据审查进行干预；本案上诉机构认为并无迹象显示专家组逾越其法定自由裁量权的权限。
③ Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.160.
④ EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.194.
⑤ Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G. de Burca and J. Scott, p.322, 2001.
⑥高晓露：《从WTO争端解决实践看风险预防原则的适用》,《中州学刊》2009年第5期,第108页。
① Lorand Bartels, Article ⅩⅩ of GATT and the rules of public international law on extraterritorial jurisdiction:the case of trade measures for the protection of human rights, Journal of World Trade vol.36,2002, p.358.
②陈立虎:《论WTO规则与MEAS贸易条款的协调》,《法制现代化研究》第八卷,第406页。
③ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.25
① Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.26
② Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.27
③ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.31
④李景义：《WTO体制下环境贸易纠纷法律问题浅析》,《当代法学》2003年第9期,第95页。
⑤ Lorand Bartels, Article ⅩⅩ of GATT and the rules of public international law on extraterritorial jurisdiction:the case of trade measures for the protection of human rights, Journal of World Trade vol.36,2002, p.359.
⑥ Steve Charnovitz, Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX, Journal of World Trade, Vol.25, No.5,1991,pp.44-45.
① Jeffrey. L. Dunoff, Reconciling International Trade with Preservation of the Global Commons:Can we Prosper and Protect?, Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol.49,1992, p.14.
②李伟芳： 《贸易与环境关系的理论及实证分析》, 《当代法学》2005年第4期,第99页。
③ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.15.
④ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, paras.5.16.
⑤ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, paras.5.17.
⑥ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, paras.5.31-5.33.
① Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade and Environment after the Shrimps-Turtles Litigation, Journal of World Trade, Vol.34, No.1,2000, pp.75-76.
②该案争议法条为美国国内法(Public Law 101-162第609节),其规定为：(a)授权由美国国务卿开始同有关国家共同磋商关于海龟保护的国际条约,并定期就谈判情况向国会进行汇报；(b)授权由美国国务院负责制定具体实施措施,禁止所有未符合海龟脱逃器装备使用要求、达到相应美国海龟保护标准的国家或地区捕获的野生虾及虾类制品进入美国市场。
③ Robert Howse, The Appellate Body Rulings in the Shrimp/Turtle Case:A New Legal Baseline for the Trade and Environment Debate, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol.27,2002, p.504.
④ US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.133.
⑤ A. Qureshi, Extraterritorial Shrimps, NGOs and the WTO Appellate Body, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48,1999, p.204.
① Japan-Agricultural Products,GATT Panel Report, paras.229-230.
① Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.40.
② Tuna/Dolphin Ⅱ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.41.
③彭景、宋娜：《“为保证国内法执行而采取的限制措施”例外条款研究》,《金卡工程》2009年第5期,第5页。
① EEC-arts and Components, GATT Panel Report, paras.5.17-5.18.
② US-Gasoline, Panel Report, para.6.33.
① See 4th-8th Annual Review of the Implementation and Operation of the Agreement, G/TBT/7, G/TBT/8, G/TBT/10. G/TBT/11 and G/TBT/12.
② EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.7.11
① EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.7.120.
① Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Panel Report, para 7.69.
② EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.7.122.
③ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.286.
④ J.Neumann and E.Turk, Necessity Revisited:Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, Journal of World Trade 1, Vol.37,2003, p.218-219.有学者认为TBT协定第2条第2款明白指出评估“未实现合法目标所产生的风险”时特别须考量的一些因素,依据第2条第2款所进行的风险评估就是为了决定争议目标是否合法。See Margareta Djordjevic, Domestic Regulation and Free Tradein Services-A Balancing Act, Legallssues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.3,2002, p.312.
① US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para.296.
② US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, paras.296-298.
③ EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.194.
④ Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G de Burca and J. Scott, p.322,
① WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 20 March 2001, S/WPDR/M/10,10 May 2001. p.25.
② Application of the Necessity Test:Issues for Consideration, Job No.5929,8 October 1999, p.2.
③ WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 20 March 2001, S/WPDR/M/10,10 May 2001, p.21.
① US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, para.5.26.
① US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, paras.5.25-5.34.
① Thailand-Cigarette, GATT Panel Report, para.74.
② A. O. Skyes, The Least Restrictive Means, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70,2003, p.406. M. Montini, The Nature and Function of the Necessity and Proportionality Principles in the Trade and Environment Context, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Vol.6, No.2,1997, p.128.
① US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, para.5.26.
② US-Spring Assemblies, GATT Panel Report, para.58.
③ US-Spring Assemblies, para.60.
④ Tuna/Dolphin Ⅰ, unadopted GATT Panel Report, para.5.28
① Steve Charnovitz, Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article ⅩⅩ, Journal of World Trade, Vol.25, No.5,1991, p.49.
① Arthur E. Appleton, Shrimp/Turtle:Untangling the Nets, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.3,1999, p.483.
② Steve Charnovitz, Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX, Journal of World Trade, Vol.25, No.5,1991, p.49:
③陈卫东：《从国际法角度论多边贸易自由化与国内公共健康政策的冲突和协调》,《当代法学》2006年第20卷第2期,第32页。
④参见WTO协定前言第三段。
③ J.Neumann and E.Turk, Necessity Revisited:Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, Journal of World Trade 1, Vol.37,2003, p.207. A. Mattoo and A.Subramanian, Regulatory Autonomy and Multilateral Disciplines:the dilemma and a possible resolution, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.13, No.1,1998, pp.317-319文章中提出应在必要性检验中引入“效 率”(efficiency)的要素。
① M.Trebilcock and R.Howse, The Regulation of International Trade,3nd ed., Routledge,2005, p.164.
② John H.Jackson, World Trade Rules and Environmental Policies:Congruence or Conflict? Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol.49,1992, pp.124.9-1250.
① A. O. Skyes, The Least Restrictive Means, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70,2003, p.418.
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, paras.162-167.
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, paras 168-174.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.181.
③ Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, paras.181,185.
④ Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.192.
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.175.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.178.
③ Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.180.
④ Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.182.
① EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report, para.164.
② EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report, para.165.
③ EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report,para.166.
④ EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.186.
⑤ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.167.
① EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.168.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.169
③ Thailand-Cigarettes, GATT Panel Report, para.75.
① EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, paras.171-173.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.174.
③ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.175.
①申进忠：《从石棉案看WTO协调环境与贸易关系的未来走势》,《中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版)》,2005年第4期,第59页。
①Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Appellate Body Report, para.134-136
②European Communities' appellant's submission, para.167.
③European Communities' appellant's submission, para.164.
①Korea-Beef,Appellate Body Report,paras.163 and 164；EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report,para.172； US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.306.
② EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report,para.167.
③ Brazil-Restreaded Tyres,Appellete Body Report,,paras.148-149.
①US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.311.
②US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.308.
③US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.311.
④US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.308.
⑤US-Gambling,Appellate Body Report,para.311.
⑥Brazil-Restreaded Tyres,Appellete Body Report,para.157.
① Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.7.16
② Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Panel Report, para.7.172.
③ Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.167.
④ Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.172.
① Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report,para.173-175.
② Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.179.
③ Brazil-Restreaded Tyres, Appellete Body Report, para.181.
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.164; EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report,para.172; US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para.306; Dominican Republic-Cigarettes, Appellate Body Report,para.70.
② Brazil-Restreaded Tyres,p Appellete Body Report, para.182.
① T.Tridimas, Proportionality in Community Law:Searching for the Appropriate Standard of Scrutiny, in:The principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, ed. By E. Ellis, p.75,1999; T. Tridimas, The General Principles of EC law, Oxford,1999, p.169.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.180.
③ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.168.
④梁丹妮：《自由贸易与环境保护：欧盟与巴西的一场攻防战——WTO首例发达国家诉发展中国家环境贸易措施案研究》,《学术研究》2009年第8期,第69页。
① Axel Desmedt,Proportionality in WTO Law,Journal of International Economic Law,2001,Vo1.4,No.3,p.458.
② EC-Asbestos,Appellate Body Report,para.172.
③ EC-Asbestos,Panel Report,para.8.173.
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.178.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.178.
③ Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G. de Burca and J. Scott, p.322, 2001.
④ Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Panel Report, paras 7.166 an
⑤ Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Panel Report, para.7.175.
⑥ Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Panel Report, para.7.159.
① Daniel Farber and Robert Hudec, GATT Legal Constraints on Domestic Environmental Regulations, in:Fair Trade and Harmonization:Prerequisites for Free Trade? ed. by Jagdish Bhagwati and Robert Hudec, p.81,1996, vol.2:
① Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Appellate Body Report, para.172.
① Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Panel Report, para.7.169.
② Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Appellate Body Report,para.154.
③ Jeffrey Waincymer, Reformulated gasoline under reformulated WTO Dispute Settlement procedures:pulling Pandora out of the Chapeau? Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol.18, No.1,1996, p.158.
①陈儒丹：《“非WTO协议”在WTO争端解决中的适用》,《法学》2009年第2期,第123页。
② Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal,1673 UNTS 126; 28 ILM 657 (1989).
③ Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Panel Report, paras 7.81 and 7.187.
Wilfred Jenks, Conflict of law-making treaties, British Year Book of International Law, Vol.30,1953, p.427
① WTO; Secretariat, GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Practice relating to GATT Article ⅩⅩ, Para. (b), (d) and (g), WT/CTE/W/203, paras.40-41,2002.
② Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impaction Internal Regulations-A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, ed. By G. de Burca and J. Scott (s), in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, p.325, 2001.
③ J.Neumann and E.Turk, Necessity Revisited:Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, Journal of World Trade 1, Vol.37,2003, p.212.
④ WTO Secretariat, GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Practice relating to GATT Article ⅩⅩ, Para. (b), (d) and (g), WT/CTE/W/203, para.43,2002.
① Joel P. Trachtman, The 'Necessity Test' in Domestic Services Regulation:How to Move Forward in the GATS, APEC Group in Services Workshop Ⅱ:Towards Improving Regulation in the Service Sector,2002, p.9.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.167.
① A.O. Skyes, The Least Restrictive Means, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70,2003, pp.416-417.
② D.A.Osiro,GATT/WTO Necessity Analysis:Evolutionary Interpretation and its Impact on the Autonomy of Domestic Regulation, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.2,2002, p.129.
③ Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.162.
④ Joel P. Trachtmari, The'Necessity Test'in Domestic Services Regulation:How to Move Forward in the GATS, APEC Group in Services Workshop Ⅱ:Towards Improving Regulation in the Service Sector,2002, p,8.
① Joel P.Trachtman, Trade and...Problems,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiary, European Journal of International Law, Vol.9,1998, pp.74-76.
②WTO中各委员会所提供的建议是不具有法律上拘束力的建议或指导方针。
③如美国虾与海龟案中,上诉机构报告中所提及的联合国海洋法公约。See US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.130.
① Mitsuo Matsushita, Some Issues of the SPS Agreement? in:The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation Experience and Lessons for the WTO, ed. by T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis, p.210,2003.
② Thailand-Cigarettes, GATT Panel Report, para.74.
③ Hilf,Meihard, Power,Rules and Principles:Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.4,No.1,2001, p.111.
④崔广平：《论世界贸易组织规则中的环境保护条款》,《河北法学》2004年第12期,第85页。
①刘汉鹏、赵航：GATT1994第20条中的引言及(b)(g)款的解释》,《国际关系学院学报》2004年第5期,第26页。
② E/PC/T/C.Ⅱ/50, pp.7 and 9; E/PC/T/C.Ⅱ/54/Rev.l,28 November 1946, p.36:
③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》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期,第37页。
①肖冰：《WTO(实施卫生与植物卫生措施协定>研究》,法律出版社2004年版,第48页。
②参见屈广清、蒋新苗主编：《世贸组织规则研究的理论与案例》,人民法院出版社2004年1月,第132页。
③ US-Spring Assembly, GATT Panel Report, paras.54-57.
④ US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report,paras:5.22.
⑤ D.A.Osiro,GATT/WTO Necessity Analysis:Evolutionary Interpretation and its Impact on the Autonomy of Domestic Regulation,Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol.29, No.2,2002, p.129.
⑥ US-Gasoline, Appellate Body Report, p.22.
⑦ US-Shrimp, Panel Report, para.7.28.
① US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.119.
②程红星：《WTO司法哲学的能动主义之维》,北京大学出版社2006年版,第28页。
③蔡霜： 《从美国汽油标准案看GATT/WTO第20条环保例外规定——兼论我国对环境保护例外措施的应对》,《玉林师范学院学报(社会科学版)》2009年第1期,第86页。
① Reinhard Quick, The Community's Regulationon Leghold Traps, in:New Directions in International Economic Law, ed. by M.Bronckers and R.Quick, p.250,2000.
② Hilf,Meihard and Puth,Sebastian, The Principle of Proportionality on its Way into WTO/GATT Law, in:European Integration and International Coordination:Studies in Transnational Economic Law in Honour of Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, ed. by Armin von Bogdandy,Petros C. Mavroidis,Yves M6ny, Kluwer Law International, p.216, 2002.
③ US-Gasoline, Appellate Body Report, p.25.
①Petros C.Mavroidis,Trade and Environment after the Shrimps-Turtles Litigation,Journal of World Trade, Vo1.34,No.1,2000,p.80.
②US-Shrimp,Appellate Body Report,para.156.
③US-Shrimp,Appellate Body Report,paras.157-161.
① US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.163-166.
② US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.167.
③ US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.168-173.
① US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.174-176.
② US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.180-181.
③也有学者基于上诉机构提出第20条前言是权衡第20条例外规定权利及自由贸易,认为上诉机构不但已将必要性概念纳入前言,更将比例原则概念纳入前言。Arthur E. Appleton, Shrimp/Turtle:Untangling the Nets, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.3,1999, p.492.
① US-Shrimp (DSU 21.5),Appellate Body Report, paras.137.
② US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.167-171, US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.122.
③ William J.Davey, Hasthe WTO Dispute Settlement System Exceeded Its Authority? A Consideration of Deference Shown byt he Systemto Member Government Decisions and Its Uses of Issue-Avoidance Techniques, in:The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation Experience and Lessons for the WTO, ed. by T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis, p.51,2003.
① Reinhard Quick and Andreas Bluhner, Has the Appellate Body Erred? An appraisal and criticism of the ruling in the WTO Hormones case, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.2, No.4,1999, p.610.
② EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.171.
③ Joost Pauwelyn, The WTO Agreement on SPS Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes, Journal of Int'l Economic Law, Vol.2, No.4,1999, p.647.
① EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.176.
①澳大利亚鲑鱼案中,专家组将”必要性”概念分为三项要件的方法也为上诉机构支持,Australia-Salmon, Panel Report, para.8.167; Appellate Body Report, para.194.
② Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.194.
③ Australia-Salmon, Panel Report, para.8.171.
④ Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.195.
① M.Montini, The Necessity Principle as an Instrument to Balance Trade and the Environment, in: Environment,Human Right & International Trade, ed. by Francesco Francioni, Hart Publishing,2001, p.150.; A. O. Skyes, The Least Restrictive Means, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70,2003, p.405.
② Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.200.
③ Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, paras.201-205.
④ Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.204.
① Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, paras.196-199.
②黄瑶：《论<联合国宪章>的解释方法问题》,《中国法学》2003年第6期,第135页。
③ Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, paras.208-209.
① Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.211.
② Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, paras.191-193,213.
③在欧盟法律体系下,此时将会涉及“比例原则”问题。Joel P.Trachtman, Trade and...Problems,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiary, European Journal of International Law, Vol.9,1998, p.75-76.
① EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, paras.220-221.
② EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.222.
③ EC-Sardines. Appellate Body Report, para.225.
④ EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, paras.226-227.
⑤ EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para. 7.69
① EC-Sardines, Panel Report, paras.4.102-4.103.
②在欧共体石棉案中,美国持这样的见解。See EC-Asbestos, Panel Report, para.4.71.
③ Axel Desmedt, Proportionality in WTO Law, Journal of International Economic Law,2001, Vol.4, No.3, p.459.
① EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.4.111.
② EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.4.112.
③ EC-Sardines, Panel Report, para.4.113.
④ WTO, Application of the Necessity Test:Issues for Consideration, Job No.5929, Informal Note by the Secretariat (8 October 1999).
⑤ M.Montini, The Nature and Function of the Necessity and Proportionality Principles in the Trade and Environment Context, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Vol.6, No.3,1997, p.123.
① US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para.306.
② US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para. 307:
①石静霞、陈卫东：《WTO服务贸易成案研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第97页。
① WTO, WPDR, Domestic Regulation:Necessity and Transparency, Communication from the European Communities and their Member States, S/WPDR/W/14,1 May 2001,para.17.
② WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 20 March 2001.S/WPDR/M/11,7 June 2001, p.10.
① J.Neumann and E.Tiirk, Necessity Revisited:Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, Journal of World Trade 1, Vol.37,2003,p.233.
② WTO, WPDR, The Necessity Test, Communication from the Republic of Korea, S/WPDR/W/9,28 September 2000.
③ WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 2 October 2000, S/WPDR/M/8,17 November 2000, para.5.
④ WTO, WPDR, The Necessity Test, Communication from the Republic of Korea, S/WPDR/W/9,28 September 2000,p.2.
⑤ WTO, WPDR, The Necessity Test, Communication from the Republic of Korea, S/WPDR/W/9,28 September 2000,p.2.
⑥ David W. Leebron, Regulatory Discrimination in Domestic United States Law:A Model for the GATS? In: Domestic Regulation and Service Trade Liberalization, ed. by Aaditya Mattoo,Pierre Sauve, p.152,2003.
① David W. Leebron, Regulatory Discrimination in Domestic United States Law:A Model for the GATS? In: Domestic Regulation and Service Trade Liberalization, ed. by Aaditya Mattoo,Pierre Sauve, p.152,2003.
① M Krajewski, Article VI GATS, in:Max-Planck Commentaries on World Trade Law, ed. by R Wolfrum,P-T Stoll,and C Feinaugleeds, p.239,2008, Volume 6.
② WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 19 October 1999, S/WPDR/M/3,18 January 2000, para.5.
③ WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 29 November 2000, S/WPDR/M/9,12 March 2001, para.14.
④ WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 2 October 2000, S/WPDR/M/8,17 November 2000, para.17.
① WTO, WPDR, Report on the Metting Held on 22 June 2005, S/WPDR/M/30,6 September 2005, para 170.
① WTO, WPDR, Professional Regulation in Australia,Communication from Australia, S/WPDR/W28,22 June 2004.
② Aaditya Mattoo, Service in a Development Round:Three Goals and Three Proposal, Journal of World Trade, Vol.39, No.6,2005, p.1231.
① C Gamberale and A Mattoo, Domestic Regulations and Liberalization of Trade in Service, ed. by B Hoekman, Mattoo, P English, in:Development, Trade in Services:An Overview and Blueprint for Negotiations, p.219, 1988.
① EC-Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Report of the Panel, para.7.246.
② Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, para.7.26.
③ Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, para.7.26.
① Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, paras.7.20-7.59.
② Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, para.7.69.
③ Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, para.7.82.
① EC-Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Report of the Panel,, paras.7.247-7:248.
① US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para.291.
①朱榄叶：《WTO争端解决程序中的证据问题》,《当代法学》2007年第21卷第1期,第127页。
②余敏友、席晶：《论WTO争端解决中的证据规则(下)》,《法学评论》2003年第5期,第88页。
③英国有学者将该国的举证责任内涵分为三种意义,分别为说服责任、证明责任和建立证据能力的责任。参见Sidney L. Phipson et al.,Phipson on evidence,13th ed., Sweet&Maxwell,1987, p.43.
④ J.D.Heydon, Case and Material on Evidence, Butterworth,1975, p.13.
⑤ Rupe Cross, Cross on Evidence, 4th ed. Butterworth,1974, p.93.
⑥潘星容、纪宗宜：《WTO争端解决机制中的举证责任研究》,《特区经济》2007年第11期,第258页。
① US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.13.
②姜作利、武轶尘：《WTO专家组和上诉机构举证责任分配标准的经济分析》,《东岳论丛》2009年第第30卷第9期,第39页。
③朱榄叶：《WTO争端解决中的证据问题》,《当代法学》2007年第21卷第1期,127页。
④ J.Pauwelyn, Evidence,Proff and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement. Who Bears the Burden?'Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.1, No.2,1998, p.235.
⑤ Germany-Sardines, GATT Panel Report, para.15.
① Canada-Foreign Investment Review Act, GATT Panel Report, para.5.20.
② US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.20.
③ US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.16.
④姜作利、武轶尘：《WTO专家组和上诉机构举证责任分配标准的经济分析》,《东岳论丛》2009年第第30卷第9期,第40页。
⑤ Jeffrey Waincymer, WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement,Cameron,2002, p.536.
① US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.14.
② US-Section 301-310, Panel Report, para.7.75.
① US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.14.
② US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, para.2.16.
③ David Palmeter and Petros C Mavroidis, Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization:practice and procedure,2nd ed, Cambridge University Press,2004, p.148.
① US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.16.
②即从条文文字规定上就可以看出属于例外规定的条款。
③即从法律效果上,具有其他义务条款的容许功能的条款。
④ Steve Charnovitz, Internet roundtable:The Appellate Body's GSP decision, World Trade Review, Vol.3, No.2, 2004,p.257.
① David Palmeter and Petros C Mavroidis, Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization:practice and procedure,2nd ed, Cambridge University Press,2004, p.150-151.
① US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.14.
② Turkey-Textile and Clothing Products, Panel Report, para.9.57.
③ EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report,para.98.
④ Japan-Apples, Appellate Body Report,para.157.
⑤ US-Wool Shirts and Blouses, Appellate Body Report, p.16.
⑥关于必要性的判断标准,在前文中已述及。
① Aaditya Mattoo and Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade, Environment and the WTO:The Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to Article ⅩⅩ of GATT, ed. by Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, in:International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, p.337,1997.
②韩龙：GATS第一案——“美国赌博案”评析,甘肃政法学院学报,2005年第5期,第101页。
③ Aaditya Mattoo and Petros C. Mavroidis, Trade, Environment and the WTO:The Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to Article XX of GATT, ed. by Emst-Ulrich Petersmann, in:International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, p.337,1997.
① US-Gambling, Appellate Body Report, para.304-311.
② EC-Hormones, Panel Report, paras.8.54,8.89 and 8.90.
③ EC-Hormones, Panel Report, paras.8.86-8.87.
① EC-Hormones,Appellate Body Report, para.102.
② EC-Hormones,Appellate Body Report, para.104.
③ EC-Hormones,Appellate Body Report, para.109.
① M. Matsushita, T. J. Schoenbaum and P. Mavroidis, The World Trade Organization Law, Practice and Policy, Oxford,2003, p.512.
① EC-Sardines, Appellate Body Report, para.286.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report,para.176.
③ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report,para.168.
④ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.178.
⑤ US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.121.
⑥ Australia-Salmon, Appellate Body Report, para.199.
① WTO Secretariat, GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Practice relating to GATT Article ⅩⅩ, Para, (b), (d) and (g), WT/CTE/W/203, paras.40-41,2002.
① Gabrielle Marceau and Joel P. Trachtman, The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Journal of World Trade,
Vol.36, No.5,2002, p.838.
② EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.165.
③ US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, para.124.
① US-Shrimp, Appellate Body Report, paras.130-131.
② Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.172.
③ EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, para.239. SP
①美国对欧共体的香蕉政策提出控诉,其中涉及的争议包括,美国是否具有足够的法律上利益提出诉讼,其次是《农业协定》、《服务贸易总协定》与GATT的关系。EC-Bananas Ⅲ, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS27/AB/R.
② EC-Bananas Ⅲ, Appellate Body Report, paras.221-222.
③ Indonesia-Autos, Panel Report, adopted 23 July 1998.
④ US-LinePipe, Appellate Body Report, adopted 8 March 2002.
⑤ Korea-Dairy, Appellate Body Report, adopted 12 January 2000
⑥当然,这里不包括非违反之诉的情形。
①黄瑶：《论(联合国宪章>的解释方法问题》,《中国法学》2003年第6期,第134页。
②余敏友、陈喜峰：《论解决WTO法内部冲突的司法解释原则(下)》,《法学评论》2002年第6期,第111页。
③ Korea-Dairy, Appellate Body Report, paras.74.
④ Canada-Term of Patent Protection, Panel Report, para.6.49.
① EC-Hormones, Appellate Body Report, paras.101-102.
② EC-Hormones, Panel Report, para.8.45. Australia-Salmon, Panel Report, para.8.39.
① M. Matsushita, T. J. Schoenbaum and P. Mavroidis, The World Trade Organization Law, Practice and Policy, Oxford,2003, pp.488-489.
② EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, para.80.
③ EC-Asbestos, Appellate Body Report, paras.77-78.
④GATT及TBT协定有其基本结构上的差异,除不歧视原则外,还有一点,即相较于GATT的规定,TBT协定中的许多义务是“正当程序”(due process)规定,以确保管制程序的透明与完整。以国民待遇的规范为例,GATT关于这一规范,是GATT第3条,且其主要是规范措施的实体内容所应遵守的义务；然而在TBT协定第2条第1款中的国民待遇规定,主要是适用于“关于技术规章的事项”,其涵盖范围包括技术规章的制订与适用的一切过程。倘若认为TBT协定中的国民待遇规范,仅是对技术规章的实体内容的要求,则该规定似乎显得有些不必要,因为这些要求已经包含于GATT第3条第4款中。因此,TBT协定第2条第1款的主要规范目的是在确保管制过程的各阶段所应遵守的规范,即技术规章的“草拟过程、通过及适用”都必须符合国民待遇要求。Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G. de Burca and J. Scott, p.309,2001.
① Robert Howse and E.Turk, The WTO Impacton Internal Regulations:A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in:The EU and The WTO:Legal and Constitutional Aspects, ed. by G. de Burca and J. Scott, p.312, 2001.
② Gabrielle Marceau and Joel P. Trachtman, The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Journal of World Trade, Vol.36, No.5,2002, p.875.
①蔡高强：《从月饼海外受阻谈进出口食品安全法律制度的完善》,《太平洋学报》2009年第11期,第19页。
① Korea-Beef, Appellate Body Report, para.162.
② US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, para.5.27.
① US-Section 337, GATT Panel Report, paras.59-60.
② Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Pane Report1, para.7.26.
③ Canada-Pharmaceutical Products, Pane Report1, para.7.20.
④ Canada-Periodicals, Pane Report1, para.5.17.
⑤ EC-Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Pane Report1, para.7.244.
① Doaa Abdel Motaal, The 'Multilateral Scientific Consensus' and the World Trade Organization, Journal of World Trade, Vol.38, No.5,2004, p.856.
② Doaa Abdel Motaal, The 'Multilateral Scientific Consensus' and the World Trade Organization, Journal of World Trade, Vol.38, No.5,2004, p.857.
①K.茨维格特、H.克茨：《比较法总论》,潘汉典等译,法律出版社2003年版,第361页。
②迈克尔.D.贝勒斯著：《法律的原则——一个规范的分析》,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版,第74页。
③刘颖、邓瑞平：《国际经济法》,中信出版社2003年版,第29页。
④K.茨威格特、H.克茨著：《比较法总论》,潘汉典等译,法律出版社2003年版,第459页。
① Case of Rcadaptiation of the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions, Jurisdiction,1927 P.C.I.J.(Ser. A), No.11, p.18.
② Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations,1925 P.C.I.J.(Ser. B), No.10, p.21.
③ Tom Ginsburg, Bounded Discretion in International Judicial Lawmaking, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol.45,2005, pp.638-639.
④ Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Precednt in the World Court, Cambridge University Press,1996, p.232.
⑤张乃根：《论WTO争端解决的条约解释》,《复旦大学学报(社会科学版)》2006年第1期,第123页。
⑥丁伟、朱榄叶：《当代国际法学理论与实践研究文集(国际经济法卷)》,中国法制出版社2002年版,第45页。
①陈立虎：《应对新一轮贸易保护主义的法律思考》,《江西社会科学》2010年第1期,第33页。
②赵维田等著：《WTO的司法机制》,上海人民出版社2004年版,第77页。
③左海聪：《国际经济法的理论与实践》,武汉大学出版社2003年版,第141页。
①姜涛：《WTO争端解决报告的先例效力》,《人民司法》2008年第21期,第102页。
②韩立余：《WTO(1995-1999)案例及评析(上)》中国人民大学出版社2001年版,第222页。
①赵维田：《世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度》,吉林人民出版社2000年版,第166页。
①彭岳：《贸易与道德：中美文化产品争端的法律分析》,《中国社会科学》2009年第2期,第145页。