摘要
1995年WTO争端解决机制的建立,标志着国家之间处理贸易争端从“权力导向”向“规则导向”的发展。争端解决机制是一种集合了政治和法律解决方法的制度。专家组和上诉机构两极裁判机制的创立,是国际法上独一无二的成果。上诉机构的设立,可以控制专家组在事实和法律上的裁判,缓解专家组报告自动通过带来的影响。
专家组和上诉机构程序是争端解决机制的核心程序。作为一个准司法机构,专家组的程序体现了正当程序在争端解决机制的发展。正当程序是司法程序的核心,其基本原则为司法公正和公开听证。正当程序是国内宪法的一项基本制度,通过实体性保障和程序性保障来保证程序的正义。
专家组程序发展的证据规则和评审标准是正当程序的程序性保障在争端解决机制的体现。这两项程序制度在WTO协定和DSU中均没有明确作出规定,因此规则主要是通过专家组和上诉机构发挥司法能动主义确立。
本文除导论及结语外,一共四章。
第一章,回顾了专家组从GATT到WTO的历史发展。阐述了专家组程序的基本特点,并且分析了专家组与上诉机构之间的关系。
第二章,阐述了专家组发展的证据规则和实践。依据司法证明的一般过程,从取证、举证、质证到认证,依次阐述各项具体的证据规则。特别是专家组对证明过程的控制——听证,是保证正当程序最低限度公正的表现。
第三章,论述了专家组适用评审标准的实践和发展的规则。根据对于事实和法律的区分,将专家组审查成员国内的事实调查和法律解释分别适用的评审标准,一一进行阐述。评审标准是专家组对成员的国家行为,包括立法和行政行为,进行审查所适用的标准。评审标准是专家组程序的核心,反映了争端解决机制与成员之间决策权力的分配。总体来说专家组适用适当的评审标准,根据各案情况的不同,是介乎于完全遵循和重新评审之间的。
第四章,对WTO专家组程序的证据规则和评审标准未来的发展趋势作了评述。比较了专家组发展的证据规则与评审标准之间的关系;分析了目前进行的DSU改革对专家组证据规则和评审标准发展的影响;探讨了中国与WTO争端解决机制之间的关系,并分析了中国应对WTO争端解决机制的正当程序应采取的国家政策。
本文的结语部分比较分析了正当程序的实体性保障与程序性保障在WTO争端解决机制的发展,发现正当程序的实体性保障在争端解决机制的进展,不太令人满意。WTO组织结构性的缺陷,主权问题的敏感,导致了各成员对推动实体性保障制度的发展犹豫不决。
WTO争端解决机制迄今已经走过了12年的历程,表现令人满意。该机制比较公正地处理了成员之间的贸易争端,赢得了大部分成员的信任。然而,对于争端解决机制的改革,目前却遇到了阻碍。造成这一局面的原因在于现今国际政治经济关系的现状,各国,特别是大国,作为国际经济法律制度建立或修改的重要“推手”,缺乏推进争端解决机制改革的政治意愿。中国作为一个发展中的大国,支持专家组和上诉机构在符合DSU规定的条件下发展程序性保障规则,适度推进实体保障规则的进展。
历史证明多边贸易体制的发展并非总是一帆风顺的,WTO正当程序的实体正义和形式正义的推进,必然要面临许多困难。然而,WTO争端解决机制的准司法程序已经建立,它标志着国家之间处理贸易争端已经朝着程序正当、公平的方向发展。
The Dispute Settlement System of World Trade Organization was founded in 1995. It marked the development from‘right-oriented’to‘rule-oriented’in dealing with disputes between members. The Dispute Settlement System mixes the political method and legal method. Panels and Appellate Body first established two level jurisdiction systems in international law. This is a specially success in international jurisdiction mechanism. Appellate Body control Panels’report on facts and law so that it can relief the bad effect for automatically passing Panels’report.
Panels and Appellate Body is the core of the Dispute Settlement System of WTO. As a quasi-judicial authority,the procedures of Panels show the development of Due Process in the Dispute Settlement of WTO. Due Process is the heart of judicial procedure. Fair judicial regulation and public hearing are two principals in Due Process. Due Process is a fundamental regulation in domestic Constitution in most country, including procedural due process and substantive due process. Rule of Evidence and Standards of Review in Panels’procedure are procedural due process in the Dispute Settlement of WTO. The two rules are not definite provided in Agreements of WTO or DSU,so Panels and Appellate Body take advantage of judicial activism to establish relevant rules.
This dissertation is divided into three parts including preface, text and epilogue. The text includes four chapters:
The Chapter one looks back the historical development of Panels from GATT to WTO. The author discusses the characteristic of Panels’procedure, and analyses the relation between Panels and Appellate Body. In Chapter two, the author discusses the rule and practice of evidence in Panels’procedure. The author analyses every kinds of rule under the whole prove process, from obtaining evidence, burdening proof, and questioning evidence to attesting evidence. Especially the hearing which Panels control the whole prove process, guarantees the low fair in Due Process. In Chapter three, the author studies the rule and practice of Standards of Review between facts and law in Panels’procedure. Standards of Review embody the standards applied in examining the behavior of members by Panels, including legislation and administration. Standards of Review is the core of Panels’procedure, it reflects the power distribution between WTO Dispute Settlement System and members. The appropriate Standards of Review try to balance the power between members and the WTO Dispute Settlement System. In general, according to different cases, the appropriate Standards of Review is applied from‘Total Deference’standards to‘De Novo Review’standards. The Chapter four discusses the future of Rule of Evidence and Standards of Review in Panels’procedure. The author compares the Rule of Evidence with Standards of Review, analyses the effects of amending DSU, and discusses the relation between China and WTO Dispute Settlement System, studies Chinese policy applied to due process in the Dispute Settlement System of WTO. As the conclusion of this dissertation, the epilogue compares procedural due process with substantive due process in the Dispute Settlement System of WTO, finds that the progress of substantive due process is not satisfied. The defect of structure in WTO and sensitive sovereignty lead members hesitate to push forward the development of substantive due process in the Dispute Settlement System of WTO.
The Dispute Settlement System of WTO has walked twelve years up to now. The System’s expression is perfect. It fairly dealt with trade disputes between members, and won most members’trust. However, the reform of the Dispute Settlement System of WTO is prevented now. This situation is primarily caused by the political and economic relation nowadays. Every country, particular strong country, as an important motive force in constructing and modifying international economic law, lack the political will to improve the Dispute Settlement System of WTO. China, as a big developing country, honors its commitment under Agreements of WTO, supports Panels and Appellate Body to push the progress of procedural due process under DSU. At the same time, China approves of properly making progress of substantive due process in the Dispute Settlement System of WTO.
History has proved that the development of multilateral trade system is not smooth, so the progress of substantive due process and procedural due process must face twists and turns in WTO. However, as a quasi-judicial authority, the Dispute Settlement System of WTO has founded. It marks a tendency towards Due Process in dealing with disputes between members.
引文
① 参见章剑生. 从自然正义到正当法律程序——兼论我国行政程序立法中的“法律思想移植”[J]. 法学论坛, 2006, (5): 96.
② 参见丹宁勋爵. 法律的正当程序[M]. 李可强、杨百揆、刘庸安译, 北京: 法律出版社,1999.1.
① 参见李道揆. 美国政府与美国政治(下册)[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆,1999.775-779.
② 参见王锡锌. 正当法律程序与“最低限度的公正”——基于行政程序角度之考察[J].法学评论,2002,(2):23.
③ 见 Bryan A. Garner. Black’s Law Dictionary (8) [Z].US: Thomson West Pubilshing Co., 2004. 528-539.
① 参见王锡锌.正当法律程序与“最低限度的公正”——基于行政程序角度之考察[J].法学评论,2002,(2):23.
② 参见[意]莫诺·卡佩莱. 比较法视野中的司法程序[M]. 徐晰、王亦译, 北京:清华大学出版社,2005.306.
③ 同本页注①,第 27 页。
① 参见高秦伟. 政策形成与司法审查——美国谢弗林案之启示[J]. 浙江学刊,2006,(6):142. 转引自 Henry P. Monaghan. Constitutional Fact Review[J]. Columbia Law Review,1985,85(2).
② 同上,转引自 Bernard Schwartz. Administrative Law, 3rd edition[M]. US: Little Brown and Company, 1991.632.
③ 参见[英]哈洛, [英]罗林斯. 法律与行政 (上下卷)——公法名著译丛 [M]. 杨伟东等译, 北京: 商务印书馆, 2004. 574.
④ 参见[意]莫诺·卡佩莱. 比较法视野中的司法程序[M]. 徐晰、王亦译, 北京:清华大学出版社,2005.542.
① 参见贺小勇. 国际贸易争端解决与中国对策研究——以 WTO 为视角 [M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2006.3.
① 见 United States-Restriction on Exports to Czechoslovakia, Contracting Party Decision, 8 Jun. 1949. BISDII/28.
② 见 Belgium-Family Allowences (Allocation familiales), GATT Panel Report, 7 Nov. 1952. BISD 1S/59.
③ See John H. Jackson. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, (2) [M].US: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1997.109.
④ 数据来自 http://www.wto.org/index.htm,2006-09-10 网站。
① 转引自贺小勇.国际贸易争端解决与中国对策研究——以 WTO 为视角 [M]. 北京: 法律出版社,2006.6. R. Hudec, Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System, [M].New York: Butterworth.1993.66.
① 见 Canada-Administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act (FIRA), 7 Feb. 1984. BISD 30S/140.
① 见 (US-Stainless Steel Plate)United States- Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Plates from Sweden, 24 February 1994 (not accepted), Gatt doc. ADP/117.
① 见 Uruguayan Recourse to Article XXIII,16 Nov. 1962. BISD 11S/95.
① 见 United States-Initiation of a Countervailing Duty Investigation into Softwood Lumber Products from Canada(I), 3 Jun. 1987. BISD 34S/194.
① 转引自 David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (Section Edition) [M].US: Cambridge University Press, 2004.107. J H. H. Weiler. The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats: Reflection on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement[J]. Journal of World Trade, 2001,(35), 2: 191.
① 见 Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut, WT/DS22/11/ Rev.2,1996 案。
① 参见赵维田.《WTO 的司法机制》[M]. 上海:上海人民出版社, 2004. 2.
① 参见贺小勇《.国际贸易争端解决与中国对策研究——以 WTO 为视角》[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2006. 151.
② 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DSB/M/141,2002 案。
③ 见 India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector, WT/DS146/AB/R, WT/DS175/AB/R,2002 案。
④ 见 European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/AB/R,2002 案。
① 见 European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/AB/R,2002 案。
② 见 Argentina -Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear,Textiles, Apparel and other Items,WT/DS56/AB/R,1998
③ 见 Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS207/AB/R, 2002 案。
① 转引自 David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (Section Edition) [M].UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.211.Richard B. Bilder.The Fact/Law Distiction in international Adjudication [A]. Richard B. Lillich. Fact-Finding before Internation Tribunals[C]. Transnational, 1991.95- 98.
① 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
② 同上。
③ 见 United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" , WT/DS108/AB/R,2000 案。
① 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R,1999 案。
② 见 United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" , WT/DS108/AB/R,2000 案。
③ 见 European Communities – Measures Affecting the Importation of Certain Poultry Products, WT/DS69/AB/R,1998 案。
① 见 European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos–Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, 2000 案。
② 参见本文第 43-46 页。
① 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
② 见 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/AB/R,2001 案。
① See David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (Section Edition) [M].UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.227.
② 见 United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R,1997 案。
③ 同本页注①。
④ 见 Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R,1998 案。
① 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DSB/M/141,2002 案。
② 见 Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products,WT/DS98/AB/R,2000 案。
③ 见 United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline,WT/DS2/AB/R,1996 案。
① 见 Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, WT/DS31/AB/R,1997 案。
② 参见本文第 204~205 页。
① See Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Six Years on the Bench of the “World Trade Court”-Some Personal Experiences as Member of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization [A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2004.499-500.
① 参见[美] E·博登海默. 法理学——法律哲学与法律方法 [M]. 邓正来译, 北京: 中国政法大学出版, 2004.561-562.
① 见 Bryan A. Garner. Black’s Law Dictionary (8) [Z]. US: Thomson West Pubilshing Co., 2004.595.
② 参见何家弘、刘品新. 证据法学 [M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2005.193. 转引自 Paul B. Weston. Criminal Evidence for Police (3rd Edition) [M]. US: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1986:2.
① 参见何家弘.《外国证据法》[M].北京: 法律出版社,2003.46.
① 参见[美] E·博登海默.法理学——法律哲学与法律方法 [M]. 邓正来译, 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 2004.562.
① 见 Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and other Items, WT/DS56/AB/R,1998 案。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) ,WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
③ 见 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,WT/DS58/AB/R,1998 案。
④ 见 India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/AB/R,1998 案。
⑤ 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/R,1999 案。
① 见 United States – Section 110 (5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, WT/DS160/AB/R 2000 案。
② See George C. Umbricht. An ‘Amicus Curiae Brief’ on Amicus Curiae Briefs at the WTO [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2001, (4):773.
③ 见 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,WT/DS58/AB/R,1998 案。
① 见 United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot–Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the UK,WT/DS138/AB/R,1999 案。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) ,WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
③ 见 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,WT/DS58/R,1998 案。
④ 同上。
① 见 Thailand – Anti–Dumping Duties on Angels, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non–Alloy Steel and H–beams from Poland,WT/DS122/AB/R,2001 案。
② 见 United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton, WT/DS267/R,2004 案。
① 参见余敏友, 席晶. 论 WTO 争端解决机制中的证据规则(下) [J]. 法学评论, 2003,(6):94.
② 见 European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos–Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R,2000 案。
① 参见本文第 201~202 页。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) Recourse to Article 22 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,WT/DS48/ARB,1999 案。
③ 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/R,1999 案。
① 见 Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry, WT/DS54/R,WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R,1998 案。
② 见 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/R,2001 案。
③ 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R,1999 案。
① 见 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/R,2001 案。
② 参见第 71~81 页。
① 参见何家弘、刘品新. 证据法学 [M].北京: 法律出版社, 2005.251.
② 见 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,WT/DS58/AB/R,1998 案。
① 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS162/R,2000 案。
② 见 India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products, WT/DS90/R,1999 案。
③ 见 United States – Section 129(C)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,WT/DS221/7,2003 案。
④ 见 United States – Sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974,WT/DS152/R,2000 案。
⑤ 见 Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WT/DSB/M/87,2001 案。
① 见 United States – Section 110 (5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, WT/DS160/AB/R 2000 案。
② 见 India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/R,1998 案。
③ Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia,1926, http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icjhome.htm,2006-09-10.
④ ICJ Electronica SiculaI S.P.A.,1989 (ELSI), Brazilian Loans Case, http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icjhome.htm, 2006-09-10.
⑤ 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/R,2000 案。
⑥ 见 United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Products from the European Communities, WT/DS212/R, 2003 案。
① 见 United States – Sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974,WT/DS152/R,2000 案。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) ,WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
③ 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Measures on Certain Hot–Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/R,2001 案。
④ 见 United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/AB/R,2001 案。
⑤ 见 Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R,2000 案。
① 见 Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement, WT/DS163/R,2000 案。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
③ 见 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,WT/DS58/R,1998 案。
④ 见 European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos–Containing Products, WT/DS135/R,2001 案。
① 见 Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper, WT/DS44/R,1998 案。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos–Containing Products, WT/DS135/R,2001 案。
③ 见 Guatemala – Definitive Anti–Dumping Measures on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico,WT/DS156/R,2000.
④ 见 India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector,WT/DS146/R,WT/DS175/R,2002 案。
① 见 Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and other Items, WT/DS56/R,1998 案。
② 见 European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment, WT/DS62/R,WT/DS67/R,WT/DS68/R,1998 案。
③ 见 Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages,WT/DS87/R, WT/DS110/R,2000 案; Thailand – Anti–Dumping Duties on Angels, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non–Alloy Steel and H–beams from Poland, WT/DS122/R, 2001 案; United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany, WT/DS213/R, 2002 案; Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather, WT/DS155/R, 2001 案。
④ 参见何家弘、刘品新. 证据法学 [M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2005.136.
① David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (Section Edition) [M].UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.135.
② 参见第 201~202 页。
③ 参见第 71~81 页。
④ 见 Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear,Textiles, Apparel and other Items,WT/DS56/R,1998 案。
① 见 Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R,1998 案。
② 见 Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages,WT/DS75/R,WT/DS84/R,1999 案。
③ 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70//R,1999 案。
④ 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products, WT/DS103/R, WT/DS113/R,1999 案。
⑤ 见 United States – Section 129(C)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,WT/DS221/R,2003 案。
① 见 Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS207/R WT/DS207/AB/R,2002 案。
② See David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (Section Edition) [M].UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.136.
① 见 Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry,WT/DS54/R WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R,1998 案。
② 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70//R,1999 案。
③ 见 Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather,WT/DS126/R,1999 案。
④ 见 Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels,WT/DS273/R,2005 案。
① 见 Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WT/DSB/M/77, 2000 案。
② 1999 年巴西诉加拿大飞机补贴案的专家组,拒绝接受“密室特权”作为抵制提供信息的理由。所谓“密室特权”也叫“政府智囊团特权”,也即成员不能以所需的信息是政府的“密室”持有为由,拒绝提供。
③ See David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (Section Edition) [M].UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.142.
① See David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (Section Edition) [M].UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.165.
② Id.
① See David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (Section Edition) [M].UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.165.
② 见 European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas Recourse to Article 22 of the DSU,WT/DS27/ARB/ECU,2000 案。
③ 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R,1999 案。
④ 见 Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages,WT/DS75/R,WT/DS84/R,1999 案。
⑤ 见 Thailand – Anti–Dumping Duties on Angels, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non–Alloy Steel and H–beams from Poland,WT/DS122/AB/R,2001 案。
① 见 Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WT/DSB/M/R, 2000 案。
② 见 Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels, WT/DS273/R,2005 案。
① 见 European Communities – Anti–Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton–Type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS141/R,2001 案。
② 见 Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear,Textiles, Apparel and other Items,WT/DS56/R,1998 案。
③ 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea,WT/DS179/R,2002 案。
④ 见 European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas Recourse to Article 22 of the DSU,WT/DS27/ARB/ECU, 2000 案。
① 见 Thailand – Anti–Dumping Duties on Angels, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non–Alloy Steel and H–beams from Poland,WT/DS122/AB/R,2001 案。
② 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DSB/M/141,2001 案。
③ 见 United States –Section 110 (5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, 2000 案。
① See James P. Durling. Rights of Access to WTO Dispute Settlement [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger. Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. London: Cameron May Publishers, 2001.154.
① 见 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, WT/DS252/R, WT/DS252/AB/R,2002 案; China-Value-added Tax on Integrated Circuits, WT/DS309/DSB/M,2004 案; China-Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts, WT/DS339/DSB/M, WT/DS340/DSB/M, WT/DS341/DSB/M, 2006 案; China-Certain Measures Granting Refunds, Reductions or Exemptions from Taxes and Other Payments, WT/DS358/DSB/M, WT/DS369/DSB/M,2007 案; China-Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectural Property Rights,WT/DS362/DSB/M,WT/DS363/DSB/M,2007 案。
① 转引自 David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (Section Edition) [M].UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.143.Richard H. Gaskin. Burden of Proof in Modern Discurse 4 [M]. US: Yale, 1992.
② 见 Bryan A. Garner. Black’s Law Dictionary (8) [Z]. US: Thomson West Pubilshing Co., 2004.209.
① 参见叶自强. 举证责任及其分配标准 [M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2005.8.
② 同上,第 9 页。
① 参见叶自强. 举证责任及其分配标准 [M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2005.46.
① 见 United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R, 1997 案。
② 参见叶自强.举证责任及其分配标准 [M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2005.35.
③ 参见赵千喜. 试析 WTO 争端解决中的举证责任规则 [J].世界贸易组织动态与研究, 2006,(6):39.
④ 见 Bryan A. Garner. Black’s Law Dictionary (8) [Z]. US: Thomson West Pubilshing Co., 2004.1228.
① 见 Bryan A. Garner. Black’s Law Dictionary (8) [Z]. US: Thomson West Pubilshing Co., 2004.1228.
② 见 Uruguayan recourse to Article XXIII,16 Nov. 1962. BISD 11S/95.
① 见 Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry,WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R,1998 案。
② 见 Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products,WT/DS98/AB/R,2000 案。
③ 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70//R,1999 案。
④ 见 India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/R,1998 案。
① 见 Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products,WT/DS98/AB/R,2000 案。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos–Containing Products, WT/DS135/R, 2001 案。
③ 见 India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector,WT/DS146/R,WT/DS175/R,2002 案。
④ 见 Argentina – Definitive Measures on Imports of Ceramic Floor Tiles from Italy, WT/DS189/R,2001 案。
⑤ 见 Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products,WT/DS76/AB/R,1999 案。
⑥ 见 Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather, WT/DS155/R, 2001 案。
① 见 United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing"), WT/DS294/AB/R,2004 案。
② 见 United States – Sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974,WT/DS152/R,2000 案。
① 参见赵维田. 举证责任——WTO 司法机制的证据规则[J]. 国际贸易,2003 (7): 39.
② 见 Canada-Administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act (FIRA), 7 Feb. 1984. BISD 30S/140.
③ 见 Norway – Procurement of Toll Collection Equipment for the City of Trondheim, BISD 40S/319, 1992.
④ 见 United States--Measurements Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages, BISD 39S/206, 1992.
⑤ 见 United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline,WT/DS2/AB/R,1996 案。
① 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
② 见 European Communities –Selected Customs Matters, WT/DS315/R,2006 案。
③ 参见赵维田. 举证责任——WTO 司法机制的证据规则[J]. 国际贸易,2003 (7): 40.
① 原文为 Any Member which claims that any quantity exported in excess of a reduction commitment level is not subsidized must establish that no export subsidy, whether listed in Article 9 or not, has been granted in respect of the quantity of exports in question, http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag.doc,2006-09-10.
② 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DSB/M/141,2001 案。
① 见 United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations",WT/DS108/AB/R,2000 案。
② 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DSB/ABM,2001 案。
③ 见 United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton, WT/DS267/R,2005 案。
① 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
② 见 United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline,WT/DS2/AB/R,1996 案。
① 见 Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper, WT/DS44/R,1998 案。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Recourse to Article 22 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB, WT/DS48/ARB,1999 案。
③ 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Act of 1916 Recourse to Article 22 of the DSU, WT/DS136/ARB,2004 案。
① See Annet Blank. Equal Access to Justice in the WTO for Developing Countries [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger, Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. London: Cameron May Publishers, 2001.193.
① See Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Six Years on the Bench of the “World Trade Court”-Some Personal Experiences as Member of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization [A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2004.515.
② See George C. Umbricht. An ‘Amicus Curiae Brief’ on Amicus Curiae Briefs at the WTO[J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2001, (4):773.
① See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.13.
② 参见赵维田.《WTO 的司法机制》[M]. 上海:上海人民出版社, 2004. 111-112.
③ 同本页注①,第 3 页。
④ 笔者在第一章中已经论述了二者之间的关系,参见第 46~49 页。
① See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.4.
② See David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure [M].London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International. 1999.50.
① 见 United States-Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Sweden, 20 August 1990(not accepted), Gatt doc. ADP/47.
① See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.63.
② 见 Us—Fur Felt Hats, Report, 22 Oct.1951. GATT/CP/106.
① 见 United States-Anti-dumping Duties on Imports of Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon, 27 Apr.1994. BISD41S/229.
② 见 New Zealand-Imports of Electrical Transforms from Finland, 18 Jul. 1985. BISD 32S/55.
③ 见 United States-Initiation of a Countervailing Duty Investigation into Softwood Lumber Products from Canada(I), 3 Jun. 1987. BISD 34S/194.
① See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.67.
② United states-Measures Affecting the Importation,Internal Sale and Use of Tobacco,4 Oct.1994.BISD41S/131.
③ 见 United States-Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 7 Nov.1989. BISD 36S/345.
① 见 United states-Measures Affecting the Importation,Internal Sale and Use of Tobacco,4 Oct.1994. BISD41S/131.
② 见 United States-Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages, 19Jun.1992. BISD 39S/206.
③ 见 United States-Initiation of a Countervailing Duty Investigation into Softwood Lumber Products from Canada(I), 3 Jun. 1987. BISD34S/194.
④ 见 Japan-Trade in semi-conductors, 4 May. 1988. BISD/35S/116.
① See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.71.
② 见 Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R,1995 案。
① 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
① 见 Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear,Textiles, Apparel and other Items, WT/DS56/AB/R, 1998 案。
① See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.17.
② Id.
③ 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
① See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.18.
① 见 ICJ in Fisheries Jurisdiction(United Kingdom v. Iceland) case, ICJ Reports(1974);Nicaragua v. United States of America case, ICJ Reports (1986),http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icjhome.htm,2006-09-10.
② See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.20.
① See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.16.
① John H. Jackson. World Trade and the Law of GATT: A Legal Analysis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [M]. Charlottesville: Michie Company Law Publishers, 1969.134.
① 见 United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline,WT/DS2/AB/R,1996 案。
② John H. Jackson. Sovereignty, Subsidiarity, and Separation of Power: The Hight-Wire Balancing Act of Gablization [A]. Daniel L. M. Kennedy, James D. Southwick. The Political Economy of Trade Law, Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.13-31.
① 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 页。
② See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.29.
① 见 Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R,1996 案。
② Croley and John H. Jackson.WTO Dispute Settlement Panel Deference to National Government Decision: The Misplaced Analogy to the U.S. Chevron Standard of Review Doctrice [A]. Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System[C].London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1997. 208.
① Petros C. Mavroids. Judicial Supremacy, Judicial Restraits, and the Issue of Consistency of Preferential Trade Agreement with the WTO: The Apple in the Picture [A]. Daniel L. M. Kennedy and James D. Southwick, The Political Economy of International Trade Law, Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.597.
② See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution[M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.40.
③ Id.
① Petros C. Mavroids. Judicial Supremacy, Judicial Restraits, and the Issue of Consistency of Preferential Trade Agreement with the WTO: The Apple in the Picture [A]. Daniel L. M. Kennedy and James D. Southwick, The Political Economy of International Trade Law, Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.597.
② See Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Six Years on the Bench of the “World Trade Court”-Some Personal Experiences as Member of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization [A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2004.523.
① 见 United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man–Made Fibre Underwear, WT/DS24/R,1997 案。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
① 见 United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia, WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R,2001 案。
② 见 United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/AB/R, 2001 案。
① 见 United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man–Made Fibre Underwear, WT/DS24/R,1997 案。
② 见 United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan,WT/DS192/R,2001.
① 见 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,WT/DS58/AB/R,1998 案。
② 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/R,1999 案。
③ Cottier Thamas. Risk Management Experience in WTO Dispute Settlement [A]. David Robertson and Aynsley Kellow.Globalization and the Environment: Risk Assessment and the WTO [C]. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., 2001.51.
① 见 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,WT/DS58/R,1998 案。
② 见 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,WT/DS58/AB/R,1998 案。
③ 见 Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R,1999 案。
④ 同上。
① 见 United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man–Made Fibre Underwear, WT/DS24/R,1997 案。
② 见 United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/AB/R, 2001 案。
① 见 Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R,2000 案。
② 见 United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/AB/R, 2001 案。
③ 见 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/AB/R,2001 案。
① 见 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/AB/R,2001 案。
② 参见第 145~146 页。
① 截止 2007 年 5 月 7 日,有这些争端涉及 SPS 协定,见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/R, WT/DS48/R, 1998 案; Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/R,1998 案; Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, WT/DS76/R, 1999 案; Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, WT/DS245/R,2003 案。
① 见 United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/R,1997 案。
② 见 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/R,2001 案。
③ 见 US—Hot Rolled Stell from Japan,WT/DS184/AB/R,2001 案;US—Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea, WT/DS202/AB/R, 2002 案。
④ 见 Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear,Textiles, Apparel and other Items,WT/DS56/R,1998 案。
① 见 United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/R, WT/DS192/AB/R. 2001 案。
② 同上。
③ See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.129.
④ 见 United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/R, 2001 案。
① 见 Guatemala – Definitive Anti–Dumping Measures on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico, WT/DS156/R,2000 案。
② 见 United States-Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plates from India, WT/DS206/R,2002 案。
③ 见 Thailand – Anti–Dumping Duties on Angels, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non–Alloy Steel and H–beams from Poland,WT/DS122/AB/R,2001 案。
④ 同上。
① 见 Thailand – Anti–Dumping Duties on Angels, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non–Alloy Steel and H–beams from Poland,WT/DS122/AB/R,2001 案。
② 同上。
③ 参见第 161~164 页。
① 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Measures on Certain Hot–Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/R, WT/DS184/AB/R,, 2001 案。
② 同上。
③ 见 Egypt – Definitive Anti–Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey, WT/DS211/R,2002 案。
④ See James P. Durling. Rights of Access to WTO Dispute Settlement [A]. Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger. Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. London: Cameron May Publishers, 2001.154.
① 见 Thailand – Anti–Dumping Duties on Angels, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non–Alloy Steel and H–beams from Poland,WT/DS122/AB/R,2001 案。
② See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.133.
① 见 United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man–Made Fibre Underwear, WT/DS24/R,1997 案。
② 见 United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia, WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R,2001 案。
③ 见 Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and other Items, WT/DS56/AB/R,1998 案。
④ 见 United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/R, WT/DS192/AB/R,2001 案。
① 见 United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia, WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R,2001 案。
② 见 United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia, WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R,2001 案。
① Cliff Stevenson. Evidentiary Issues in WTO Litigation: Ecnomic Arguments [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger.Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. London: Cameron May Publishers, 2001.160.
② 见 Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R,2000 案。
③ 同本页注①。
① 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos–Containing Products, WT/DS135/R, 2001 案。
① 见 European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos–Containing Products, WT/DS135/R, 2001 案。
② Cliff Stevenson. Evidentiary Issues in WTO Litigation: Ecnomic Arguments [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger.Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. London: Cameron May Publishers, 2001.160.
① 见 Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R,1998 案。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos–Containing Products, WT/DS135/R, 2001 案。
③ 但是在 2000 年美国和澳大利亚诉韩国对新鲜、杂碎和冷冻牛肉进口限制案中,上诉机构指出成员的目标是零风险并不容易令人信服,如果成员选择的政策工具看来似乎不能达到该目标。
① AD 协议有 3 个条款规定国内机构事实调查的客观性和适当性。最重要的是第 3 条第 1 款,要求损害裁决必须在确定证据以及本条列出的相关因素的客观审查的基础上作出。第 5 条第 3 款要求国内机构审查适用的证据的准确性和充分性以裁决是否进行调查。第 17 条第 5 款规定反倾销程序应该建立在进口方国内机构的适当国内程序所提供的事实基础上。这一条款将专家组的事实调查限制在国内程序记录的事实。
② See John H. Jackson. The Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate: United States Acceptance and Implementation of the Uruguary Round Results [J]. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 1997, (36):182.
③ Akakwam Philip A. The Standard of Review in the 1994 Anti-Dumping Code: Circumscribing the Role of GATT Panels in Reviewing National Anti-Dumping Determinations [J]. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade, 1996, (5): 277-310.
④ 在美国高院 US V. GYPSUM CO., 333 US 364,395 (1948)案,法官判决:“调查是明显错误的,虽然有证据支持;法官对整个证据的评审必须建立在确信存在错误的前提下。”See https://www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth, 2006-09-10.
⑤ 见 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea, WT/DS202/R,2001 案。
① 见 Thailand – Anti–Dumping Duties on Angels, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non–Alloy Steel and H–beams from Poland,WT/DS122/AB/R,2001 案。
② 见 Guatemala – Definitive Anti–Dumping Measures on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico, WT/DS156/R,2000 案。
① 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Measures on Certain Hot–Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/R, WT/DS184/AB/R,2001 案。
② 同上。
① 参见第 161~164 页。
② See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.147.
① 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
② 同上。
③ 见 Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R,1998 案。
① See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.173.
① 见 Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and other Items, WT/DS56/AB/R,1998 案。
② 见 United States – Sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974, 27.01.00,WT/DS152/R,2000 案。
③ 参见前述第 121~124 页。
① 见 India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products, WT/DS90/R,1999 案。
② 见 Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, ,WT/DS161/R, WT/DS169/R,2000 案。
③ 见 Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, WT/DS34/R,1999 案。
④ See Petros C. Mavroids. Judicial Supremacy, Judicial Restraits, and the Issue of Consistency of Preferential Trade Agreement with the WTO: The Apple in the Picture [A]. Daniel L. M. Kennedy and James D. Southwick, The Political Economy of International Trade Law, Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.597.
① 见 United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R,1997 案。
① 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semi–Conductors (DRAMS) of one Megabit or above from Korea, WT/DS99/R,1999 案。
② See Paul C. Rosenthal. Scope for National Regulation: Comments [J]. International Lawyer, 1998 (32):679-683. Robert T. C. Vermylen. The WTO Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements: Did the United States Achive its Objectives During the Uruguary Round? [J]. Law & Policy in International Business, 2000 (31): 871-895.
③ 见 Thailand – Anti–Dumping Duties on Angels, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non–Alloy Steel and H–beams from Poland,WT/DS122/AB/R,2001 案。
① 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Measures on Certain Hot–Rolled Steel Products from Japan, 23.08.01, WT/DS184/R, WT/DS184/AB/R,2001 案。
② 同上。
③ 同上。
① See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.181.
① Paul C. Rosenthal. Scope for National Regulation: Comments [J]. International Lawyer, 1998 (32):679-683. Robert T. C. Vermylen. The WTO Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements: Did the United States Achive its Objectives During the Uruguary Round? [J]. Law & Policy in International Business, 2000 (31): 871-895.
② 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
③ 见 United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot–Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the UK, WT/DS138/R,2000 案。
① 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Measures on Certain Hot–Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/R, WT/DS184/AB/R,2001 案。
① 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Measures on Certain Hot–Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/R, WT/DS184/AB/R,2001 案。
② 同上。
③ 参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订, 奥本海国际法(第一卷 第二分册) [M]. 王铁崖、李适时、汤宗舜、周仁译, 北京: 中国大百科全书出版社, 1998.666.
① Havana Club Holding,S.A.V.Galleon S.A.—the Havana Club Holding Decisions. https://www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth, 2006-09-10.
② 见 United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, WT/DS176/AB/R,2002 案。
③ 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/R,2000 案。
④ 见 India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/R,1998 案。
① 见 India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/R,1998 案。
② 同上。
③ 同上。
④ 同上。
⑤ 同上。
① 见 United States – Sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974, WT/DS152/R,2000 案。
② 同上。
③ 同上。
① 见 United States – Sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974, WT/DS152/R,2000 案。
② 同上。
③ 见 Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R,2000 案。
① 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/R,2000 案。
② 同上。
① 见 United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, WT/DS176/AB/R,2002 案。
① Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia 1926, http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icjhome.htm, 2006-09-10.
② See Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.201.
① 见 United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany, WT/DS213/AB/R,2002 案。
① 见 United States – Sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974, WT/DS152/R,2000 案。
② 见 United States – Anti–Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/R,2000 案。
③ 同本页注①。
① 见 United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline,WT/DS2/AB/R,1996 案。
① 见 United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, WT/DS176/AB/R,2002 案。
② 见 United States—Section 110 (5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, WT/DS160/AB/R 2000 案。
① 见 United States—Section 110 (5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, WT/DS160/AB/R 2000 案。
② 同上。
③ 见 United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, WT/DS176/AB/R,2002 案。
④ 同本页注①。
① 见 India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/R,1998 案。
① 见 European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R,1997 案。
② 同上。
③ 见 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R,1998 案。
① 见 Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement, WT/DS163/R,2000 案。
② 见 European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R,1998 案。
① 见 European Communities – Measures Affecting the Importation of Certain Poultry Products, WT/DS69/R,1998 案。
② 同上。
③ 同上。
④ 同上。
① 见 European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment, WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R, WT/DS68/AB/R,1998 案。
① [意] 莫诺·卡佩莱.比较法视野中的司法程序 [M].徐晰、王亦译,北京: 清华大学出版社,2005.469.
① See Michael M Weinstein. Economic Scene: Should Clinton Embrace the China Trade Deal? Some Say Yes [J]. The New York Times, 1999, 09(9): (C) 2.
① Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi. Future of the WTO- Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/10anniv_e/future_wto_e.htm, 2006-09-10.
① See Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Reflections on the Process of Clarification and Improvement of the DSU[A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2004.106.
② See James P. Durling. Rights of Access to WTO Dispute Settlement [A]. Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger. Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. London: Cameron May Publishers, 2001.154.
③ Id.
① See James P. Durling. Rights of Access to WTO Dispute Settlement[A]. Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger. Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement[C]. London: Cameron May Publishers, 2001.150-152.
① See Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Policy Conclusions(2002) [A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2004.111.
① See David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: practice and procedure (Section Edition) [M].UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.115.
① See Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Six Years on the Bench of the “World Trade Court”-Some Personal Experiences as Member of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization [A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2004.527.
① See Debra P. Steger. Improvements and Reforms of the WTO Appellate Body[A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2004.40-49.
① 徐崇利.中国的国家定位与应对 WTO 的基本战略——国际关系理论与国际法学科交叉之分析[J]. 现代法学, 2006, (6): 4-5.
① See Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Reflections on the Process of Clarification and Improvement of the DSU[A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2004.106.
② See Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. The Doha Development Round Clarifications of the WTO Dispute Settlemnt Understanding 2001-2003: An Overview [A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003 [C]. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2004.3-9.
③ Id.
① See Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Policy Conclusions(2002) [A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2004.102.
① See Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Policy Conclusions(2002) [A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C].London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2004.102.
① 资料来自 http://www.wto.org/index.htm,2006-09-10 网站。
② 资料来自 http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/,2006-09-10 网站。
③ 资料来自 http://tfs.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/gywm/200203/20020300003991.html,2006-09-10 网站。
① 参见贺小勇.国际贸易争端解决与中国对策研究——以 WTO 为视角 [M].北京: 法律出版社, 2006.252-254.
① 张玉卿. WTO 新回合法律问题研究[M]. 北京:中国对外经济贸易大学出版社, 2004:369-372.
② 徐崇利, 中国的国家定位与应对 WTO 的基本战略——国际关系理论与国际法学科交叉之分析[J]. 现代法学, 2006, (6): 4-5.
① 徐崇利, 中国的国家定位与应对 WTO 的基本战略——国际关系理论与国际法学科交叉之分析[J]. 现代法学, 2006, (6): 4-5.
② See Annet Blank. Equal Access to Justice in the WTO for Developing Countries [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger. Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. London: Cameron May Publishers, 2001.193.
① See James P. Durling. Rights of Access to WTO Dispute Settlement [A]. Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger. Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. London: Cameron May Publishers, 2001.147-150.
② See Philippe Ruttley. WTO Dispute Settlement and Private Sector Interests: A Slow, But Gradual Improvement? [A]. Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger. Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. London: Cameron May Publishers, 2001.174-180.
① See James P. Durling. Rights of Access to WTO Dispute Settlement[A]. Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger. Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. London: Cameron May Publishers, 2001.150-153.
② Id.,pp.148-149.
① 参见[英]哈洛, [英]罗林斯. 法律与行政 (上下卷)——公法名著译丛 [M]. 杨伟东等译,北京: 商务印书馆, 2004. 80-89.
② 参见陈秋云、彭澎. WTO 与中国行政诉讼制度的发展——以完善我国司法审查制度为视角[J]. 湖南科技大学学报, 2006, (5):60.
[1] 安妮·O·克格鲁.作为国际组织的 WTO [M].黄理平、彭利平、刘军等译,上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[2] 本杰明·卡多佐.司法过程的性质 [M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[3] 伯纳德·霍克曼、迈克尔·考斯泰基.世界贸易体制的政治经济学——从关贸总协定到世界贸易组织 [M].刘平、洪晓东、许明德等译,北京:法律出版社,2000.
[4] 布瑞恩·麦克唐纳.世界贸易体制——从乌拉圭回合谈起 [M].叶兴国译,上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[5] 程宝库.WTO 与中国的法治建设 [M].天津:天津大学出版社,2003.
[6] 德沃金.法律帝国 [M].李常青译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1996.
[7] 邓正来.国家与社会——中国市民社会研究 [M].成都:四川人民出版社,1998.
[8] E·博登海默.法理学——法律哲学与法律方法 [M].邓正来译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[9] E·-U·彼得斯曼.国际经济法的宪法功能与宪法问题 [M].何志鹏、孙璐、王彦志译,北京:高等教育出版社,2004.
[10] 冯军主编.WTO 案例集(2001 年)上、下卷 [M].上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[11] 龚柏华主编.WTO 案例集(2005 年) [M].上海:上海人民出版社,2006.
[12] 龚柏华主编.WTO 案例集(2004 年) [M].上海:上海人民出版社,2005.
[13] 龚柏华主编.WTO 案例集(2003 年) [M].上海:上海人民出版社,2004.
[14] 龚柏华主编.WTO 案例集(2002 年) [M].上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[15] 哈特.法律的概念 [M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,2003.
[16] 哈洛、罗林斯.法律与行政(上下卷)——公法名著译丛 [M].杨伟东等译,北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[17] 韩立余.WTO(2000)案例及评析 [M].北京:中国人民出版社,2002.
[18] 韩立余.GATT/WTO(1948——1995)案例及评析(上卷) [M].北京:中国人民出版社,2002.
[19] 何家弘、刘品新.证据法学 [M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[20] 何家弘.外国证据法 [M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[21] 贺小勇.国际贸易争端解决与中国对策研究——以 WTO 为视角 [M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[22] I·戴斯勒.美国贸易政治.[M].王恩冕、于少蔚译,北京:中国市场出版社,2006.
[23] 凯尔森.法与国家的一般理论 [M].沈宗灵译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1996.
[24] 科格勒·贝格威尔、罗伯特·W·思泰格尔.世界贸易体系经济学 [M].雷达、詹宏毅译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[25] 克里斯托弗·阿勒普.世界贸易组织的新协定——服务贸易和知识产权协定在法律全球化中的作用.广东外语外贸大学法学院译,上海:上海人民出版社,2004.
[26] 李道揆.美国政府与美国政治(上、下册)[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999.
[27] 刘剑文.WTO 与中国法律改革 [M].北京:西苑出版社,2001.
[28] 罗伯特·吉尔平.全球政治经济学——解读国际经济秩序 [M].杨宇光、杨炯译,上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[29] 罗豪才.行政法学 [M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[30] 莫诺·卡佩莱.比较法视野中的司法程序 [M].徐晰、王亦译,北京:清华大学出版社,2005.
[31] 帕尔米特、马弗鲁第斯.WTO 中的争端解决:实践与程序(第 2 版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[32] 齐树洁.英国证据法[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2003.
[33] 邵沙平主编.国际法院新近案例研究(1990——2003)[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[34] 沈宗灵.现代西方法理学 [M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[35] 世界贸易组织秘书处编.贸易走向未来 [M].张江波、索必成译,北京:法律出版社,1995.
[36] 施米洛夫.国际贸易法文选 [M].赵秀文译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1996.
[37] 萧公权.宪政与民主 [M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006.
[38] 雅各布·瓦伊纳.倾销:国际贸易中的一个问题 [M].沈瑶译,北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[39] 杨国华.中国入世第一案——美国钢铁保障措施案 [M].北京:中信出版社,2004.
[40] 叶自强.举证责任及其分配标准 [M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[41] 余敏友、左海聪、黄志雄.WTO 争端解决机制概论 [M].上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[42] 约翰·H·杰克逊.GATT/WTO 法理与实践 [M].张玉卿、李成钢、杨国华等译,北京:新华出版社译,2002.
[43] 约翰·H·杰克逊.世界贸易体制——国际经济关系的法律与政策 [M].张乃根译,上海:复旦大学出版社,2001.
[44] 约翰·罗尔斯.作为公平的正义——正义新论 [M].姚大志译,上海:上海三联书店,2002.
[45] 詹宁斯、瓦茨修订.奥本海国际法 [M].王铁崖等译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1995.
[46] 赵维田.WTO 的司法机制 [M].上海:上海人民出版社,2004.
[47] 张玉卿.WTO 新回合法律问题研究 [M].北京:中国对外经济贸易大学出版社,2004.
[1] John Collier and Vaughan Lowe.The Settlement of Dispute in International Law [M].Oxford University Press,2000.
[2] Peter Gallagher. Guide to Dispute Settlement [M]. Kluwer Law International,2002.
[3] John H. Jackson. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations [M].Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press,1997.
[4] John H. Jackson. Sovereignty, the WTO and Changing Fundamentals of International Law [M]. Cambridge University Press,2006.
[5] John H. Jackson. The jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO: insights on treaty law and economic relations [M]. Cambridge University Press,2000.
[6] John H. Jackson. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, (2) [M].US: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1997.
[7] John. H. Jackson. World Trade and the Law of GATT: A Legal Analysis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [M]. Charlottesville: Michie Company Law Publishers, 1969.
[8] R. Hudec. Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System, [M].New York: Butterworth.1993.
[9] Mitsuo Matsushita, Thomas J. Schoenbaum and Petros C. Mavroidis. The World Trade Organization: law, practice, and policy [M]. Oxford University Press,2006.
[10] Bryan Mercurio,Yang Guohua and Li Yongjie. WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: a detailed interpretation [M]. Kluwer Law International,2005.
[11] Matthias Oesch. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution [M].Oxford University Press,2003.
[12] David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis.Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: practice and procedure (Section Edition) [M].Cambridge University Press,2004.
[13] David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis.Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: practice and procedure [M]. Kluwer Law International,1999.
[14] Giorgio Sacerdoti. The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system [M]. Cambridge University Press,2006.
[15] Marco Bronckers and Reinhard Quick edited, New Directions in International Economic Law-Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson [C]. Kluwer Law International, 2000.
[16] M. Mastsushita and D. Ahn edited, New Perspectives on The World Trading System: WTO and East Asia [C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2004.
[17] Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann edited, The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. Kluwer Law International, 2004.
[18] Asif H. Qureshi edited, Perspectives in International Economic Law [C]. Kluwer Law International, 2002.
[19] Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay and Mara Weisberger edited, Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2001.
[20] Friedl Weiss and Jochem Wiers edited, Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure [C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2000.
[21] Bryan A. Garner. Black’s Law Dictionary (8) [Z]. Thomson West Publishing Co., 2004.
[1] 常景龙.WTO 争端解决机制程序公正的最低标准 [J].山西高等学校社会科学学报,2002,(12).
[2] 陈梅.有理未必走遍天下——WTO 争端解决机制的举证责任之分配 [J].WTO 经济导刊,2005,(9).
[3] 陈秋云、澎湃.WTO 与中国行政诉讼制度的发展——以完善我国司法审查制度为视角 [J].湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版),2006,(5).
[4] 程红星.WTO 贸易救济争端解决中的司法能动性研究——评 WTO 涉美贸易救济争端解决引发的争议兼及中国对策[J].江苏商论,2004,(8).
[5] 高秦伟.政策形成与司法审查——美国谢弗林案之启示 [J].浙江学刊,2006,(6).
[6] 高树超,世界贸易组织争端解决机制中“法庭之友”书状的使用:理论与实践 [J].国际经济法学刊,2004,(11).
[7] 贺小勇.自制与开拓:WTO 上诉机构管辖权的法律边界 [J].法学,2006,(1).
[8] 贺小勇.论 DSB 对《反倾销协定》解释的边界——《反倾销协定》第 17.6(ii)条评析 [J].法学,2005,(9).
[9] 纪文华、姜丽勇.谈判无限期——WTO 多哈议程争端解决机制修改谈判中的核心问题 [J].国际贸易,2004,(8).
[10] 吉亚桑托·加纳尼、李仁真、刘轶.超越国家:行政程序法的欧洲化和全球化 [J].国家行政学院学报,2005,(2).
[11] 李洪雷、赵岩.中国应对 WTO 争端解决机制策略研究 [J].商业研究,2005,(4).
[12] 李双元、李娟.从世贸组织争端解决机制谈国际法效力的强化 [J].时代法学,2005,(6).
[13] 李先波、钟月辉.WTO 争端解决机制权力的扩张——几类 WTO 争端解决机构管辖的特殊事项 [J].当代法学,2005,(6).
[14] 刘红英、郝宏伟.正当程序与美国行政法 [J].湖北广播电视大学学报,2004,(5).
[15] 刘勇.WTO 体制内国内法的可诉性问题 [J].西南政法大学学报,2006,(3).
[16] 陆燕.走向未来的多边贸易体制——WTO 成立十年的发展与挑战 [J].国际贸易,2005,(6).
[17] 芦艳.非政府组织对 WTO 争端解决机制的介入 [J].华东政法学院学报,2005,(2).
[18] 吕微平.WTO 商业秘密规则评述及其对中国贸易的影响 [J].商场现代化,2006,(36).
[19] 吕微平.WTO 争端解决机制中“法庭之友”的实践及影响初探 [J].福建论坛,2006,(2).
[20] 吕忠梅.WTO 的司法审查与经济审判机制重构 [J].理论月刊,2004,(5).
[21] 孙南申.WTO 体系下司法审查范围的理论与实践 [J].比较法研究,2006,(4).
[22] 屠新泉.WTO 争端解决机制:规则与权力并重 [J].世界经济与政治,2005,(4).
[23] 王锡锌.正当法律程序与“最低限度的公正”——基于行政程序角度之考察 [J].法学评论,2002,(2).
[24] 徐崇利,中国的国家定位与应对 WTO 的基本战略——国际关系理论与国际法学科交叉之分析 [J].现代法学,2006,(6).
[25] 徐崇利,从规则到判例:世贸组织法律体制的定位 [J].厦门大学学报(哲社版),2002,(2).
[26] 徐崇利,《世贸组织协定》的解释制度评析(一) [J].对外经济贸易大学学报,2002,(1).
[27] 徐崇利,《世贸组织协定》的解释制度评析(二) [J].对外经济贸易大学学报,2002, (2).
[28] 杨炳超.论美国宪法的正当程序原则——兼论我国对该原则的借鉴 [J].法学论坛,2004,(6).
[29] 杨国华.WTO 总干事拉米谈中国 [J].WTO 经济导刊,2005,(11).
[30] 杨国华、李咏箑、纪文华、于宁、蒋成华.WTO 争端解决机制中的专家组程序研究(下) [J].法学评论,2004,(4).
[31] 杨国华、李咏箑、纪文华、于宁、蒋成华.WTO 争端解决机制中的专家组程序研究(上) [J].法学评论,2004,(3).
[32] 余敏友、席晶.论 WTO 争端解决机制中的证据规则(下) [J].法学评论,2003,(6).
[32] 余敏友、席晶.论 WTO 争端解决机制中的证据规则(上) [J].法学评论,2003,(5).
[33] 章剑生.从自然正义到正当法律程序——兼论我国行政程序立法中的“法律思想移植”[J].法学论坛,2006,(5).
[34] 詹姆斯·巴克斯、穆忠和.让 WTO 的大门和窗户敞开——WTO 必须放开贸易争端诉讼程序 [J].WTO 经济导刊,2004,(12).
[35] 张小玲.WTO 争端解决机制的程序规则及评述 [J].湖北函授大学学报,2005,(9).
[36] 张玉卿.单边与多边的博弈——评欧共体商用船舶贸易案 [J].WTO 经济导刊,2005,(7).
[37] 张玉卿.如何理解 DSU 的磋商——FSC 案对“可获证据陈述”的争论与裁决 [J].WTO经济导刊,2005,(6).
[38] 张玉卿.多边贸易体制的柱石——WTO 争端解决机制 10 年之路及与中国的“亲密接触” [J].WTO 经济导刊,2005,(5).
[39] 赵千喜.试析 WTO 争端解决中的举证责任规则 [J].世界贸易组织动态与研究,2006,(6).
[40] 赵维田.举证责任——WTO 司法机制的证据规则 [J].国际贸易,2003,(7).
[1] Akakwam Philip A.The Standard of Review in the 1994 Anti-Dumping Code: Circumscribing the Role of GATT Panels in Reviewing National Anti-Dumping Determinations [J]. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade,1996, (5).
[2] James Bacchus.Grouping Toward Grotius: The WTO and the International Rule of Law [J]. Harvard International Law Journal,2003, (44).
[3] James Bacchus.Table Talk: Around the Table of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization [J]. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law,2002 (35).
[4] Annet Blank.Equal Access to Justice in The WTO for Developing Countries [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger.Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2001.
[5] Jan Bohanes.Risk Regulation in WTO Law: A Procedure-Based Approach to the Precautionary Principle [J]. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law,2002, (40).
[6] Fancis N. N. Botchway. Historical Perspectives of International Economic Law [A].Asif H. Qureshi.Perspectives in International Economic Law[C]. Kluwer Law International,2002.
[7] Chad P. Bown.WTO Dispute Settlement and the Missing Developing Country Cases: Engaging the private sector [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2005, (8).
[8] James Cameron and Stephen Orava. Where Do We Go Now and How Do We Get There? Moving The Trade and Environment Debate Forward in The New Millennium [A]. Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger. Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement[C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2001.
[9] Emilion J. Cardenas. Mercosur’s Fragile Dispute Resolution System at Work: First Decision Ever Made by an “Arbitration Panel” in a Dispute Arising among Sovereign Parties [A].Asif H. Qureshi. Perspectives in International Economic Law [C]. Kluwer Law International,2002.
[10] Steven P. Croley and John H. Jackson.WTO Dispute Procedure, Standards of Review, and Deference to National Governments [J]. American Journal of International Law,1996, (90).
[11] Steven P. Croley and John H. Jackson.WTO Dispute Settlement Panel Deference to National Government Decision: The Misplaced Analogy to the U.S. Chevron Standard of Review Doctrice [A].Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute SettlementSystem [C]. Kluwer Law International,1997.
[12] Robert Cryer. Franckian Fairness and International Economic Law [A].Asif H. Qureshi. Perspectives in International Economic Law [C]. Kluwer Law International,2002.
[13] William J. Davey.WTO Dispute Settlement: Segregating the Useful Political Aspects and Avoiding “Over-Legalization” [A].Asif H. Qureshi.Perspectives in International Economic Law [C]. Kluwer Law International,2002.
[14] William J. Davey. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism [A]. Edwin M. Adams. Illinois Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers Series[C].2003.(Research paper NO.03-08).
[15] William J. Davey. Reforming WTO Dispute Settlement[A]. M. Matsushita & D. Ahn. New Perspectives on the World Trading System: WTO and East Asia [C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2004.
[16] James P. Durling. Rights of Access to WTO Dispute Settlement [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger. Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2001.
[17] Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Six Years on the Bench of the “World Trade Court”-Some Personal Experiences as Member of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization [A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. Kluwer Law International, 2004.
[18] Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Policy Conclusions(2002) [A].Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C].Kluwer Law International, 2004.
[19] Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Reflections on the Process of Clarification and Improvement of the DSU[A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003[C]. Kluwer Law International, 2004.
[20] Ambassador Rita D Hayes. The Future of The WTO [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger.Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2001.
[21] Robert E. Hudec.Broadening the Scope of Remedies in WTO Dispute Settlement [A].Friedl Weiss & Jochem Wires.Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure [C].Cameron May Publishers, 2000.
[22] John H. Jackson. International Law Status of WTO Dispute Settlement Reports: Obligation to comply or option to “buy out”? [J]. American Journal of International Law,2004, (98).
[23] John H. Jackson. Dispute Settlement and WTO: Emerging problem [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,1998, (329).
[24] John H. Jackson. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Misunderstanding on the nature of legal obligation [J]. American Journal of International Law,1997, (91).
[25] John H. Jackson. The Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate: United States Acceptance and Implementation of the Uruguary Round Results [J]. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law,1997, (36).
[26] John H. Jackson. Sovereignty, Subsidiarity, and Separation of Power: The Hight-Wire Balancing Act of Gablization [A]. Daniel L. M. Kennedy and James D. Southwick, The Political Economy of Trade Law, Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec[C].Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[27] Cameron James and Stephen J. Orava. GATT/WTO Panels between Recording and Finding Facts: Issues of Due Process, Evidence, Burden of proof, and Standard of Review in GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement [A].Friedl Weiss.Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure: Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals [C]. Cameron May, 2000.
[28] Peter Jan Kuyper. The Appellate Body and The Facts [A]. Asif H. Qureshi.Perspectives in International Economic Law[C]. Kluwer Law International,2002.
[29] Petros C. Mavroids. Judicial Supremacy, Judicial Restraits, and the Issue of Consistency of Preferential Trade Agreement with the WTO: The Apple in the Picture [A]. Daniel L. M. Kennedy and James D. Southwick. The Political Economy of International Trade Law, Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec [C]. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[30] Joseph A McMahon. Taking The Next Step in Agricultural Trade Reform: Getting Ready for Seattle? [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger.Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2001.
[31] Donald McRae. What Is The Future of WTO Dispute Settlement? [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2004, (7).
[32] Sheila Page.Developing Country Participation in Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Developing Country Perspectives and Negotiating Framework [A].Asif H. Qureshi.Perspectives in International Economic Law [C]. Kluwer Law International,2002.
[33] Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The Negotiations on Improvements of The WTO Dispute Settlement System [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2003, (44).
[34] Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. The Doha Development Round Clarifications of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding 2001-2003: An Overview [A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003 [C].Kluwer Law International,2004.
[35] Lawrence D. Roberts. Beyond Notions of Diplomacy And Legalism: Building a just mechanism for WTO Dispute Resolution [J]. American Business Law Journal,2003, (40).
[36] Frieder Roessler. The Institutional Balance between The Judicial and The Political Organs of The WTO [A].Asif H. Qureshi.Perspectives in International Economic Law[C]. Kluwer Law International,2002.
[37] Paul C. Rosenthal. Scope for National Regulation: Comments [J]. International Lawyer,1998, (32).
[38] Philippe Ruttley. WTO Dispute Settlement and Private Sector Interests: A Slow, But Gradual Improvement? [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger.Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2001.
[39] M. Sornarajah. A Developing Country Perspective of International Economic Law in the Context of Dispute Settlement [A]. Asif H. Qureshi. Perspectives in International Economic Law [C]. Kluwer Law International, 2002.
[40] Debra P Steger and Simon N Lester. WTO Dispute Settlement: Emerging Practice and Procedure in Decisions of The Appellate Body[A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger.Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2001.
[41] Debra P. Steger. Improvements and Reforms of the WTO Appellate Body[A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003 [C]. Kluwer Law International,2004.
[42] Cliff Stevenson. Evidentiary Issues in WTO Litigation: Economic Arguments [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger.Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement [C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2001.
[43] Cottier Thamas. Risk Management Experience in WTO Dispute Settlement [A]. David Robertson and Aynsley Kellow.Globalization and the Environment: Risk Assessment and the WTO [C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., 2001.
[44] CottierThomas. Proposals for Moving from Ad hoc Panels to Permanent WTO Panelists[A]. Federico Ortino and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann.The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995~2003 [C]. Kluwer Law International, 2004.
[45] Joel P. Trachtman and Philip M. Moremen.Costs and Benefits of Private Participation in WTO Dispute Settlement: Whose right is it anyway? [J]. Harvard International Law Journal, 2003, (44).
[46] George C. Umbricht. An ‘Amicus Curiae’ Brief on Amicus Curiae Briefs at the WTO [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2001, (4).
[47] Paul Vandoren. The Trips Agreement in The Context of The New Round [A].Philippe Ruttley, Iain MacVay & Maro Weisberger.Due Process in WTO Dispute Settlement[C]. Cameron May Publishers, 2001.
[48] Robert T. C. Vermylen. The WTO Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements: Did the United States Achive its Objectives During the Uruguary Round? [J]. Law & Policy in International Business, 2000 (31).
[49] Rorden Wilkinson. The Political Economy of International Economic Law: A Neo-gramscian Perspective [A].Asif H. Qureshi.Perspectives in International Economic Law[C]. Kluwer Law International,2002.
[1] WTO 秘书处编.WTO 争端解决程序(第二版)[Z].索必成译,北京:法律出版社,2003.
[2] 中国法学会世界贸易组织法研究会,厦门大学国际经济法研究所,“坎昆会议后 WTO 法制的走向和中国的对策”——专家研讨会论文集 [C].
[3] 中国国际经济法学会,厦门大学国际经济法研究所,中国国际经济法学会 2004——2006年年会暨学术研讨会论文集
[1] http://www.wto.org/index.htm
[2] http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/
[3] http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icjhome.htm
[4] http://www.worldtradelaw.net/dsc/main/htm
[5] https://www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth