【作者】 周晓松；

【导师】 莫世健；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 国际法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 337条款是美国1930年《关税法》337节的通俗称谓。该条款是美国进口贸易管理体制的一项具体制度，针对进口贸易中的不正当行为、采取补救措施保护国内产业免受产业损害或损害的威胁。1994年修订以来、337条款在美国的外贸实践中被多次运用，而且运用的趋势日益频繁，这种现象引发了我国学界的关注。特别对于337条款是否可能发展为新的贸易救济手段成为人们最大的困惑，需要得到合理解答。论文的第一章从337条款的概念切入，解析了337条款的概念生成、分析了条款的基本构成。认为在GATT／WTO的背景下337条款仍然属于贸易措施，不过存在发展为贸易救济措施的可能。另外、337条款中部分构成要素的定义模糊，为337条款向国际竞争措施发展留下了空间。337条款在实践中被广泛运用的原因是该条款调整的对象广泛，调查、裁定程序特殊、具有及时、迅速解决争端的特点。论文的第二章着重分析337条款的实质要件。这些要件包括，不正当贸易行为、产业的存在、产业损害。在分析这些要素时，坚持尊重成文法的规定并合理运用判例，力图精确的理解337条款的实质构成。337条款的不正当贸易行为主要指侵犯美国知识产权的行为，论文从337条款调查的特殊性入手，分析知识产权侵权行为在337条款中的具体适用情况和制度内涵。对于产业、损害的分析则坚持337条款适用中判例的考察，试图总结出判断的标准。论文的第三章对337条款的程序要件进行了分析。集中分析了337条款的管辖、调查、裁定、审查、实施等基本程序问题。337条款的补救措施包括排除令、禁止令以及其他辅助性措施。排除令包括一般排除令和有限排除令。前者杜绝任何违反不正当贸易行为的产品进入美国，后者只针对被申诉方的不正当产品，不能适用于没有被列入337条款调查的产品。禁止令调整进入美国并且违反不正当贸易的产品，禁止这些产品在美国进行交易。论文的第四章对补救措施的适用条件、适用方法进行了基本分析。337条款实质、程序要件的规定和补救措施的适用，在国际贸易事务中引发了合法性的争议。加拿大和欧盟分别于1981年1988年向GATT提交申请，审查337条款的合法性。在1988年的争议中，专家组最终裁定337条款违反了GATT第3款国民待遇的规定。美国在1994年通过《乌拉圭回合协定法》修订了337条款。修订后的337条款是现在生效的条款，对于这些条款的合法性问题GATT／WTO没有做出裁定，因此争议颇多。论文的第五章首先回顾了337条款合法性争议的轨迹，其次着重分析GATT第3条，20条(d)款，以及《TRIPs协议》和337条款的关系。认为337条款构成中的一些要素违背了GATT／WTO的对应条款，同时条款概念的模糊为确定条款的非法性设置了障碍。更多还原

【Abstract】 Section 337 of the United States Tariff Law of 1930 is one of the mechanisms regulating import trade. Section 337 restricts the unfair practices in import trade and provides remedy measures to protect domestic industry in order to terminate the threat or negative effect of injury on the industry. Since 1994, Section 337 has been applied frequently in foreign trade practices and has attracted attention of Chinese legal academics. There is some concern on whether Section 337 could be developed into a new remedy measures.The first chapter of this paper reviews the formation and development of Section 337 and its basic structure. Based on the analysis, the chapter concludes that Section 337 is still believed to be a trade measure under the mechanism of GATT/WTO, however there is the possibility for Section 337 to become a trade remedy measure. In addition, the ambiguity on the concept of Section 337 opens up a possibility for the Section to become a measure conrolling foreign competition at international level. Section 337 is featured by its comprehensive jurisdiction, speedy investigation and determination procedures, and efficient remedy measures. Therefore, claimants prefer to apply this Section for the protection of their rights rather than litigating at court.Chapter 2 focuses on analyzing substantial factors of Section 337. These factors include unfair practices in import trade, the existence of domestic industry and jnjury to the industry. In practices, the unfair practices in import trade mostly are the acts infringing intellectual property. The chapter analyses the specific meanings of acts infringing intellectual property in the context of Section 337; furthermore, the chapter studies several cases of Section 337 and tries to summarize briefly the standards for determining the existence of industry and injury.Chapter 3 discusses the procedural issues of Section 337, such as the rules concerning its jurisdiction, investigation, determination, review and enforcement. The remedies under Section 337 consist of exclusion order, cease and desist order, penalty etc. The exclusion order is divided into general exclusion order and limited exclusion order. The former is applied to all imported products violating Section 337, no matter whether they have been investigated. The latter applied to the products which have been subject to specific investigsted under Section 337. The cease and desist order prohibits any further dealing of the product in the Uited States which has been found to have violated Section 337.Chapter 4 studies the basic principles underlying the protective measures of Section 337. The legality of Section 337 has been challenged by a number of countries. Canada and EC submitted the request of reviewing the legality of this Section in 1981 and 1988 respectively. The panel concluded that Section 337 violated the national treatment requirement of Art 3 of GATT and could not meet the requirements of Art 20(d) of GATT, which sets out exception for Art 3 of GATT. Section 337 was amended through Uruguay Round Agreement Act of the United States. However, presently the legality of Section 337 under WTO rules is still under dabate.Chapter 5 reviews the development concerning the debate on the legality of Section 337. It also analysizes the relationships between Arts 3 and 20(d) of GATT, as well as between TRIPs Agreement and Section 337. The conclusion is that certain measures and principles of Section 337 are inconsistent with the relevant princuiples of the WTO agreements. In addition, the ambiguity of the Section has also made the debate on its legality a difficult task.更多还原