【作者】 林惠玲；

【导师】 丁伟；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 国际法， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 自2004年4月加拿大对中国产室外烧烤架发起反倾销反补贴调查以来,美国、南非、澳大利亚等各国纷纷效仿。据中国商务部统计,2004～2010年5月,我国共遭遇50起反补贴调查,居WTO各成员之首,成为全球反补贴调查的最大受害者。2009年,中国遭遇13起反补贴调查,创历年之最。其中,美国启动10起,高居榜首,占比高达76.9%;澳大利亚、加拿大和印度各启动1起。反补贴调查成为中国贸易摩擦的新领域、新热点之一,不再仅仅是一个理论探讨问题,更是中国政府和出口企业面临的一个实际问题。反补贴调查直接挑战中国宏观经济政策,严重影响中国经济政策的稳定性和相关产业的国际竞争力。中国面临的反补贴应对形势严峻。在对中国采取反补贴措施的WTO成员方中,美国是发起案件数量最多,频率最高的国家。在金融危机的影响下,美国国内的贸易保护主义抬头,寻求对本国产业更多保护的压力日益加剧。美国钢铁工人联合会等工会组织频频向中国产品发难,预计美国对中国产品发起的反补贴案件数量在短期内仍将快速上升。美国作为中国的第二大贸易伙伴,其反补贴调查将成为中国反补贴调查应对工作的重中之重。但是,目前国内对美国反补贴法仍然缺乏较为系统和详细的论述。因此,本文以美国的反补贴法为研究对象,通过多个案例,研究其实体规则和在案件(包括对华案件)中的具体实施问题,以期为有关各界研究和处理相关问题提供一定的支持和参考。本文共分为六章。第一章为补贴和反补贴的经济政治分析。本章首先梳理了各种关于补贴和反补贴的理论流派,并根据分析立足点不同,对各流派大致分为全球、补贴方、受补贴影响方以及补贴方与受补贴影响方相互关系等四个角度加以总结。随后,基于微观经济学的分析工具,详细说明补贴和反补贴措施的基本影响路径及效应。最后,在经济分析基础上加入政治分析手段,描述了美国反补贴规则形成背后的贸易政治背景,即由于贸易保护措施诉求集团与为其支付代价群体之间的政治失衡。那些受到进口产品(包括接受出口补贴的进口产品)冲击的所谓“进口竞争集团”由于利益集中,便能采取强有力的游说行动,向国会和政府施加压力,必然导致反补贴规则的产生并成为美国保护贸易主义的重要组成部分。第二章为美国反补贴规则的演变及与多边规则的相互作用。本章回顾了美国反补贴法的历史演变,结合GATT/WTO补贴和反补贴规则的形成和发展过程,探讨美国反补贴法和多边规则的相互影响关系。美国是世界上最早制定反补贴法的国家,也是世界上使用反补贴措施最多的国家,无论在理论体系的完整性还是在反补贴实践的技术操作和运用方面,都是WTO其它成员方所无法比拟的。而且,从GATT/WTO反补贴规则的历史来看,美国的反补贴制度对于前者的形成和发展起到了非常重要的作用。许多重要的制度,例如:补贴分类、补贴认定中的专向性标准(specificity test)、实质性损害(material injury)认定标准、累积评估(cumulate analysis)等均来源于美国国内实践。在多哈回合谈判中,美国试图将前几轮谈判中没有解决的自然资源和能源定价(Natural Resource and Energy Pricing)等问题重回多边体制的框架,以满足美国限制其他成员方补贴政策的需要。第三章为美国反补贴规则中的补贴认定问题。本章讨论美国反补贴规则中的核心问题,即“补贴”。主要讨论补贴的定义和三要素的具体认定,并就美国反补贴规则在实践中发展出来的专向性标准、上游补贴(upstream subsidy)和私有化过程中的利益传递(pass of benefit)问题进行专门探讨。通过本章研究发现,美国反补贴法在这一核心问题上采用了原则规定的办法,赋予调查机关极大的自由裁量权进行解释和认定,被申请方抗辩的难度较大。在补贴认定上,美国调查机关也存在扩大范围的倾向,具体体现在,由于作为可抵消补贴(countervailable subsidy)判断标准之一的专向性标准的一些关键性词语没有具体规定,使得调查机关很容易得出补贴具有专向性进而构成可抵消补贴的认定。对于政府通过私人机构提供补贴的情况,美国调查机关也倾向于扩大化解释,以避免这类间接补贴成为规避美国反补贴法的突破口。第四章为美国反补贴规则中的损害和因果关系认定问题。讨论反补贴调查案件三要素中的损害和因果关系(causal link)判断问题。对于损害,选择同类产品(like product)和国内产业(domestic industry)以及美国反补贴法首创的累积评估问题进行论述;对于因果关系,主要讨论其历史演变、具体案件中的认定方法和不归因问题。由于美国对损害判定实行累计评估和宽松的因果关系标准,导致了损害和因果关系的成立相对容易,保证了反补贴调查的进行和最终措施的采取。第五章为美国对华产品反补贴调查中的法律问题。概述美国反补贴法对中国产品的适用历程和原因,并梳理2006年以来美国对华产品的反补贴案例和存在的主要问题。本章研究表明,在具体案件中,美国调查机关在中国国有企业性质认定和计算利益使用的外部基准(benchmark)等方面都存在一定程度的偏差,对中国企业有失公平,这些做法与美国以往的反补贴实践和WTO争端解决的规则和判例存在不符之处。第六章为中国应对策略分析,在梳理美国对华反补贴案件涉案补贴和国内类似补贴的基础之上,提出我国的应对策略和未来研究空间。笔者发现,我国国内还存在大量类似于美国反补贴案件涉案措施的专向性补贴,包括地理、行业专向性补贴、出口补贴和进口替代补贴,这些在未来的美国对华反补贴案件中都将可能成为调查的对象。为此中国政府应对现有补贴政策进行梳理,及早构建国内补贴政策信息库,向不可诉补贴方向调整已有补贴政策,适时采取对外产品反补贴调查等反制措施,并积极利用国内和国际救济途径,在多边规则中争取更多话语权,力争从规则层面根本解决问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since Canada initiated anti-dumping and countervailing investigation against Chinese outdoor grills on April 2004, the United States, South Africa, Australia and other countries followed. According to Chinese Ministry of Commerce, from 2004 to 2008, China suffered 24 countervailing investigation cases, accounts for 51.1% of the total number of cases within the world (47 cases), which made China the WTO member suffered most from countervailing investigations, and the WTO member most severely suffered in 3 subsequent years (2006, 2007 and 2008). In 2009, China suffered 13 (the highest annual amount) countervailing investigations, including 10 initiated by United States (accounts for 76.9% of the 13 cases), 1 by Australia, Canada and India each. Countervailing investigations has become one of the new areas and hotspots of Chinese trade frictions, which is no only a theoretical topic, but also a practical problem faced by Chinese government and export enterprises. Countervailing investigations directly challenge Chinese macro-economic policy, which seriously affect the stability of Chinese economic policy and international competitiveness of related industries. The situation China faces is grim.Among all WTO members who applied countervailing measures against Chinese products, the United States initiated the most countervailing investigations with the highest frequency. With the influence of the financial crisis, trade protectionism in US rises, and the pressure seeking more protection over domestic industries is increasing. Trade unions such as the United Steelworker Unions challenge against Chinese products frequently. It is expected that countervailing cases against Chinese products will increase rapidly in the near future. The United States is the second largest trade partner of China, its countervailing investigations will be one of the top priorities in China’s response to countervailing investigations. However, there is still lack of systematic and detailed research of US countervailing laws in China. This thesis, taking US countervailing laws as its object, through a large number of practical cases, to study its substantive rules & provisions and its application in cases (including cases against China), with the intention to provide some support and reference for relevant sectors to research and resolve related issues.This thesis is composed of six chapters.ChapterⅠconsists of economic and political analysis of subsidies and countervailing duty measures. Various academic genres are set out in the beginning of the chapter, which was briefly summarized from four different angels: global, subsidy providing party, affected party, and relations between the providing party and the affected party. Subsequently, based on analytical tools of micro-economy, this chapter expresses the basic route and effectiveness of subsidy and countervailing duty measures. Finally in this chapter, with the political and economic analysis, describes the political background behind the formation of US’rules on countervailing duty measure, which is the imbalance between trade protectionism seeking camp and the group who bear expense for the previous camp. So called“Import Competition Group”, who is directly affected by imported products (including imported products accepting export subsidy), could canvass the Congress and government with great pressure. And such actions will necessarily lead to the occurrence of countervailing duty measures as one of the important parts of US’trade protectionism. ChapterⅡrefers to the historical evolution of US countervailing rules and its interactions with multi-lateral rules. This chapter reviews the historical evolution of the US countervailing laws, combined with formation and development of subsidy and countervailing rule in GATT / WTO rules, discuss the interaction between the U.S. countervailing law and multilateral rules. United States is the first country who established countervailing laws and the country applied the most countervailing measures in the world, no other WTO member could compete with the US, whether in perspective of the integrity of theoretical system or the practical operation and application of countervailing practice. Furthermore, the US countervailing system played a very important role in the formation and development of the history of GATT/WTO countervailing rules. Many important rules, including subsidies classification, specificity test in subsidy identification, material injury, cumulate analysis, came from the US domestic practice. In the negotiation of Doha Round, the US tried to bring issues remain unresolved in last rounds, such as Nature Resource and Energy Pricing, back to the multi-lateral framework, to limit other members’subsidy policies.ChapterⅢrefers to subsidies identification in the US countervailing rules. This chapter discusses the core issue of the US countervailing rules, subsidy. It mainly discuss the definition of subsidy, classification of the three elements, and specificity test, upstream subsidy, pass of benefit in privatize process. This chapter finds out that the US countervailing law states general provisions on this core issue, provides investigation authority with enormous discretionary power, and leave defendants with great difficulty. On the identification of subsidies, there exists a trend of scope enlargement in US investigation authority. For instance, being lack of detailed provisions on some key expressions over specificity test, which is one of the judgment standards of countervailable subsidy, the investigation authority could easily conclude a subsidy is a specific one, and therefore the subsidy is a countervailable subsidy. As for subsidies provided by government through private organizations, US officers also prefer to interpret with enlargement, in order to prevent US countervailing laws been avoided by such indirect subsidies.ChapterⅣrefers to the identification problem of injury and the identification of causal link in the US countervailing rules. For injury, the following questions are analyzed: like product, domestic industry and cumulate valuation which was invented by US countervailing laws. For the causal link, the following issues are mainly discussed: its historical evolvement, approaches of identification in practical cases, and the problem of non-attribution. Because cumulate valuation and loose standards on causal link is applies in US, the composition of injury and causal link is comparatively easy, which secured the carrying out of countervailing investigation and the final measures.ChapterⅤrefers to legal problems resulting from the US’countervailing investigations against Chinese products. The evolution and the reasons of application of US countervailing laws to Chinese products are summarized, and the cases of US against Chinese products and major problems are listed. As a conclusion of this chapter, in practical cases, there are deviation on a certain degree in US investigations on aspects such as identification of Chinese state-owned enterprise, specification of loans from commercial banks, benchmarks used in profit calculation. Such deviation are not fair to Chinese enterprises, and are inconsistent with US’former countervailing practice, nor rules and cases of WTO rules on dispute settlement.ChapterⅥrefers to the strategy of China’s response. Based on the analysis of subsidies in US countervailing cases against Chinese products, and similar domestic subsidies, the strategy of China’s response and the space of future research is stated. The author finds out there exists large quantities of subsidies with specificity in china, including geographic and industrial specific subsidies, export subsidies and import replacement subsidies. Above mentioned subsidies could be targets of investigation in the future US countervailing cases. It is suggested that: Chinese government shall sort out present subsidy policies, set up a database on domestic subsidy policy as soon as possible, adjust existing subsidy policies on subsidy providing parties which can not be sued, initiate countervailing investigations and other measures to strike back on appropriate time. Chinese government shall also actively make use of domestic and international remedy methods, take effort for more Chinese voices in multi-lateral rules, and try to achieve a thorough resolution on the layer of rules.更多还原