北美自由贸易区贸易救济法律制度研究

【作者】 史晓丽；

【导师】 王传丽；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 国际法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 半个世纪以来，区域贸易协定和区域安排以一种多边贸易体制(Multilateral Trading System，缩写“MTS”)奠基者无法预见的速度迅速发展。根据缔约方向GATT或WTO的通报，几乎所有WTO成员至少参加了一个区域贸易协定。区域贸易协定不仅在数量上迅速增长，其涵盖范围也逐步从关税优惠扩大到非关税优惠。1994年1月1日诞生的《北美自由贸易协定》(North America Free Trade Agreement，以下简称“NAFTA”)是众多区域贸易协定中最具代表性的协定之一。它不仅是世界上第一个由发达国家与发展中国家签署的区域贸易协定，同时也是世界上最为成功的区域自由贸易协定(Free Trade Agreement，缩写“FTA”)。NAFTA不仅规范了传统贸易(即货物贸易)，还规范了投资、服务贸易和知识产权问题；NAFTA不仅确立了缔约方在区域内逐步消除货物贸易关税壁垒和非关税壁垒的目标，同时还改善了服务贸易的市场准入条件，建立了投资规则，强化了知识产权保护，创设了独具特色的争端解决机制，特别规范了劳工问题和环境保护问题。可以说，NAFTA是现代自由贸易协定的典型代表。到2006年，加拿大已经成为美国货物出口的最大市场，墨西哥成为美国货物出口的第二大市场。贸易救济法律制度在NAFTA占有非常重要的地位。笔者根据NAFTA的官方数据进行了统计，从1994年1月1日NAFTA生效到2007年3月底，NAFTA所有争端解决机构(六套)共受理了123起案件，平均每年受理10起。其中，贸易救济措施案件121个，占全部案件的98％。另外两个案件涉及投资和关税问题。在上述贸易救济措施案件中，美国对加拿大软木产品(softwood lumber)反倾销和反补贴案是世界上最具影响的案件之一。美加两国之间的软木贸易争端长达24年(1982年—2006年)之久，跨越了《加拿大与美国自由贸易协定》(Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America，以下简称“CUSFTA”)时期和NAFTA时期，开创了世界之最。在美国和加拿大于2006年9月签署为期七年的《软木协定》(Softwood Lumber Agreement，缩写“SLA”)后，两国间的软木贸易争端暂时平息。不仅如此，美加软木贸易争端的复杂性在世界上也是首屈一指的，该争端不仅多次提交CUSFTA和NAFTA第19章争端解决机制，同时也多次提交GATT1947争端解决机制和WTO争端解决机制。其中，在CUSFTA和NAFTA第19章框架下产生的软木贸易案件多达12个，提交GATT1947的案件有2个，提交WTO的案件有6个。美加软木贸易争端案引发了许多前沿性法律问题，这些问题既包括程序法问题，也包括实体法问题。例如，NAFTA争端解决机制与WTO争端解决机制的关系、NAFTA贸易救济制度在GATT1994下的合法性、反倾销和反补贴措施的并用、反倾销损害与反补贴损害的交叉累积(cross-cumulating)、反倾销幅度归零做法(zeroing practice)等等。这些问题引起了笔者浓厚的研究兴趣，并在博士学习期间致力于这些问题的研究。但是，由于博士论文篇幅有限，笔者只选取了其中的部分问题进行集中讨论。论文由导言、五章和结论构成。导言：笔者在导言部分主要说明了论文的选题目的、研究内容、国内外研究状况以及论文的研究方法等。第一章：重点研究了NAFTA贸易救济法律制度采用的模式。主要问题包括：1．NAFTA贸易救济法律制度的产生。NAFTA由CUSFTA发展而来，因此，研究NAFTA贸易救济法律制度必须从研究CUSFTA的产生背景(包括贸易救济法律制度的谈判背景)入手。笔者在该问题上采用了历史研究方法，分析了CUSFTA和NAFTA产生的深刻政治和经济背景；采用比较研究方法，分析了CUSFTA贸易救济制度向NAFTA贸易救济制度的过渡；运用统计学方法，对CUSFTA贸易救济争端解决机构受理案件的情况进行了系统分析。通过上述分析，笔者得出以下结论：(1)NAFTA贸易救济制度是加拿大为防范美国滥用反倾销措施和司法保护以及美国为维护本国贸易救济法律而相互妥协的产物；(2)CUSFTA争端解决机制实现了迅速和有效解决争议的目标；(3)加拿大成功地利用了CUSFTA贸易救济争端解决机制，实现了其预期目的。2．NAFTA贸易救济法律制度的模式。笔者根据WTO官方资料进行了统计，从GATT947生效到2007年3月1日，缔约方向GATT和WTO通报的已生效区域贸易协定有139个。笔者采用比较研究方法，对大多数区域贸易协定中的贸易救济措施规定进行了对比分析，得出如下结论：以建立关税同盟(custom union，缩写“CU”)为宗旨的区域贸易协定普遍取消区域内的全部贸易救济措施。与此相反，以建立自由贸易区(Free Trade Area，缩写“FTA”)为宗旨的自由贸易协定大多则保留区域内的全部贸易救济措施，或者取消其中一种或者两种贸易救济措施。NAFTA作为自由贸易区协定，采用了大多数自由贸易协定的通行做法，即保留了区域内反倾销措施、反补贴措施度和保障措施。第二章：重点研究了NAFTA保障措施制度。具体研究问题包括：1．NAFTA保障措施制度的模式。如前所述，大多数自由贸易协定保留了区域内保障措施。但是，由于对区域内保障措施制度的具体规定有所不同，又形成了不同模式。笔者采用比较研究方法，对向WTO通报的大多数区域贸易协定进行了对比分析，得出的结论是：(1)NAFTA允许缔约方采取大多数自由贸易协定所规定的全球保障措施(global safeguard)；(2)NAFTA允许采取只适用于NAFTA缔约方的双边保障措施(bilateral actions)。2．NAFTA全球保障措施。在该部分，笔者详细分析了NAFTA全球保障措施的适用对象、对NAFTA缔约方和非缔约方适用全球保障措施的不同待遇、对NAFTA缔约方豁免全球保障措施的条件等。通过分析，笔者得出如下结论：NAFTA全球保障措施并没有完全执行WTO保障措施规则，而是在对WTO保障措施规则作出部分变通后予以执行，使NAFTA缔约方在某些条件下可以豁免全球保障措施。豁免NAFTA缔约方全球保障措施也引发了值得思考的问题，即豁免NAFTA缔约方全球保障措施是否违反了WTO《保障措施协定》中的非歧视原则。笔者对这一问题进行了深入的探讨。3．NAFTA双边保障措施。笔者分析了双边保障措施在NAFTA过渡期前和过渡期后的适用及其合理性、双边保障措施的实施条件和形式以及纺织品和服装双边保障措施的特别规定。笔者认为，NAFTA允许缔约方在过渡期前和过渡期后采取双边保障措施以及对纺织品双边保障措施作出特别规定具有一定的合理性，但也有某些不足。4．NAFTA保障措施争端的解决。NAFTA对反倾销、反补贴以及保障措施争端的解决规定了不同争端解决机制。其中，保障措施争端的解决适用NAFTA第20章规定的程序。笔者详细分析了NAFTA第20章争端解决机制的特点以及受理贸易救济措施案件的情况，认为适用于保障措施争端的第20章争端解决机制更加强调政治解决方法。第三章：NAFTA反倾销和反补贴法律制度。该章内容有：1．区域贸易协定反倾销和反补贴制度的模式。笔者对通报给WTO的大多数自由贸易协定进行了对比，从中总结出NAFTA反倾销和反补贴法律制度的模式。笔者发现，NAFTA采用了独一无二的反倾销和反补贴法律制度，即没有规定区域内统一的反倾销规则和反补贴规则，而是允许各缔约方在相互间采取反倾销或者反补贴措施时适用各自的国内法。2．NAFTA反倾销和反补贴法律制度。NAFTA第19章专门规定了反倾销和反补贴问题。笔者详细分析了NAFTA缔约方在采取反倾销措施和反补贴措施时适用的法律以及NAFTA第19章争端解决机制的特点和应用。笔者通过分析后得出如下结论：(1)NAFTA缔约方在相互采取反倾销和反补贴措施时适用各自的本国法，而不是适用WTO规则；(2)NAFTA设计了专门适用于反倾销和反补贴争议的独特争端解决机制，即双边专家组复审机制(binational panel review，缩写“BPR”)。NAFTA缔约方政府或者国民均可以请求设立第19章双边专家组，由双边专家组对另一缔约方反倾销或反补贴调查机构所作最终裁决进行复审。设置双边专家组复审机制的本意是为NAFTA一缔约方避免另一缔约方国内法院的司法复审提供一种选择。3．NAFTA第19章的运行和改革。在对该问题进行分析时，笔者运用了统计学方法和比较研究方法，对缔约方利用NAFTA第19章双边专家组机制解决案件的情况进行了研究，特别是分析了缔约各方的胜诉比率，从中探讨缔约方对NAFTA第19章采取不同态度的根本原因以及缔约方应对第19章的措施。笔者得出如下结论：(1)加拿大仍是NAFTA第19章争端解决机制的最大受益者；(2)NAFTA第19章争端解决机制的实际运行与CUSFTA第19章争端解决机制的实际运行相比没有实现高效和快捷的目标，超期审理成为普遍现象。因此，有必要改革NAFTA第19章争端解决机制；(3)美国采取各种措施，积极应对NAFTA第19章争端解决机制。第四章：NAFTA争端解决机制与WTO争端解决机制的关系。笔者对该问题的研究动机始于近年发生的几起涉及WTO与NAFTA争端解决机制管辖权之间关系的案件。该章主要研究如下问题：1．NAFTA争端解决场所与WTO争端解决场所的关系。笔者在该节探讨了WTO和区域贸易协定对选择争端解决场所的态度、NAFTA缔约方选择争端解决场所的法律基础。笔者运用比较研究方法和实证研究方法进行分析，得出如下结论：(1)部分区域贸易协定赋予争端方对争端解决场所的选择权，但WTO无此规定；(2)NAFTA缔约方选择在WTO解决其争端具有法理基础。2．先后提交WTO和NAFTA的案件与管辖权冲突问题。笔者采用实证研究方法，对典型案件进行分析，尤其是详细分析了将同一事件下的争端先后提交WTO和NAFTA进行管辖这一问题的性质以及WTO争端解决机构管辖权与NAFTA争端解决机构管辖权的协调问题。笔者的结论是：(1)从NAFTA生效到2007年3月底，NAFTA缔约方将同一事件下的案件先后提交NAFTA和WTO争端解决机制的做法并没有产生管辖权冲突问题；(2)WTO应该修改《争端解决规则与程序谅解》(DSU)，引入区域贸易协定中的“场所选择”条款(choice of forum)；(3)WTO以及区域争端解决场所应将“司法经济”原则(principle of judicial economy)适用于从案件管辖到案件审理的各个环节。第五章：中外区域贸易协定贸易救济法律制度对NAFTA的借鉴。该章是笔者研究NAFTA贸易救济法律制度的目的之所在。通过研究NAFTA贸易救济法律制度，笔者希望对完善NAFTA和WTO的相关机制提出建议，更重要的是为中国与外国签署区域贸易协定时选择适当的贸易救济法律制度模式提供参考。该章具体分析了如下问题：1．中外区域贸易协定救济法律制度的模式。笔者介绍了中国与WTO成员和非成员已经签署的自由贸易协定以及正在进行谈判的自由贸易协定，并对已签署区域贸易协定在贸易救济制度方面所采取的模式进行了分析。得出的结论是：中外签署的区域贸易协定均为自由贸易协定。除《内地与香港关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排》以及《内地与澳门关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排》(以下统称“CEPA”)外，所有中外自由贸易协定均允许在区域内采取所有贸易救济措施(包括反倾销措施、反补贴措施和保障措施)。2．中外区域贸易救济制度的特点。笔者分别探讨了内地与香港CEPA、内地与澳门CEPA、《中华人民共和国政府与东南亚国家联盟成员国政府全面经济合作框架协议争端解决机制协议》、《中国与智利自由贸易协定》、《中国与巴基斯坦自由贸易协定》中的保障措施制度、反倾销和反补贴制度，并与NAFTA的相关规定进行了比较研究。3．中外自由贸易协定贸易救济争端解决机制。笔者分析了现有中外自由贸易协定关于争端解决场所选择(choice of forum)的规定以及中外自由贸易协定争端解决的程序及其完善。笔者认为，《中国与智利自由贸易协定》以及《中国与巴基斯坦自由贸易协定》中关于争端解决的某些规定值得其他区域贸易协定借鉴。4．未来中外区域贸易协定贸易救济法律制度的选择。笔者通过前述各章的分析，对中国在未来与其他国家签署区域贸易协定时选择适当的区域内贸易救济法律制度提出了具体建议，以期通过完善的区域贸易救济制度，在保护本国国内产业的同时，尽快实现区域贸易自由化的目标，实现缔约方之间的共赢。需要特别指出的是，无论在中国还是外国，理论界和实务界对贸易救济措施的作用一直有很大争议，尤其是对反倾销措施的利弊更是各执一词。笔者无意对贸易救济措施进行经济分析，而是以反倾销和反补贴制度是为应对贸易中的不公平竞争做法所创设的法律工具这一通说为基础进行上述研究。笔者最终得出结论：包括NAFTA在内的区域贸易协定缔约方有权对区域内的不公平贸易做法以及进口激增所带来的损害采取应对措施，WTO成员在区域贸易中采取贸易救济措施符合WTO的根本宗旨；中国应该借鉴NAFTA以及其他区域贸易协定贸易救济法律制度，充分利用WTO规则，实现国家利益的最大化。更多还原

【Abstract】 For more than half a century, regional trade agreements and arrangements have been developing at a speed beyond MTS founders’ expectation. North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA hereafter), which was established on January 1, 1994, is one of the most representative. It is not only the first regional free trade agreement between developed countries and a developing country, but also the most successful one.The trade remedy system has a very important position in NAFTA. By the end of March, 2007, 121 cases concerning trade remedy measures have been brought forward, occupying 98% of all the cases that NAFTA has heard. Among them, the American antidumping and countervailing case against softwood lumber from Canada brings about many frontier questions, such as the relationship between the WTO dispute settlement system and that of NAFTA, the legality of NAFTA’s trade remedy system under GATT 1994, the issue of taking antidumping and countervailing measures at the same time, the issue of cross-cumulating of injury caused by dumping and subsidy and the issue of zeroing practice of dumping margin. These questions contain both procedural and substantial issues and have interested me during all my doctoral study period. I have therefore chosen some of the questions as the study objects of my doctoral dissertation.My dissertation consists of an introduction, five chapters and a conclusion, each part organized with its own logic.The introduction mainly covers the purposes and objects of the study, the current domestic and international situations of the research and the methodology I have adopted in this dissertation.Chapter one focuses on the mode that NAFTA adopts with respect to trade remedy legal systems. NAFTA comes from CUSFTA. Consequently, it is necessary to study the background information concerning CUSFTA’s coming into being and the negotiations concerning its trade remedy legal system. Historical research method is adopted when analyzing the profound political and economical backgrounds that led to the appearance of CUSFTA and NAFTA; comparative research method is used when analyzing the transition of the trade remedy system from CUSFTA to NAFTA. At the same time, cases heard by the CUSFTA trade remedy dispute settlement body are studied in detail with statistical method. Through the analysis, we can draw the following conclusions: (i) the NAFTA trade remedy system is the result of the political and economic competition between the United States and Canada; (ii) it is also the result of Canada’s effort to keep the United States from abusing antidumping measures and the result of the USA’s effort to maintain its own trade remedy legal system; (iii) Canada has succeeded in taking advantage of the CUSFTA’s dispute settlement mechanism related to trade remedies and has realized its anticipative objects. With the mode of NAFTA’s trade remedy system, according to the WTO statistics, there are 139 effective regional trade agreements notified to the GATT and WTO from GATT1947 to March 1, 2007. Most trade remedy measures of the above regional trade agreements are studied in a comparative way and the following conclusion is drawn: most regional trade agreements aiming at establishing custom unions (CU) have abolished all their trade remedy measures within the region while agreements aiming at establishing free trade areas (FTA) have either preserved all the trade remedy measures in the areas, or have abolished one or two trade remedy measures. As a free trade area agreement, NAFTA adopted the method used by most free trade agreements, i.e. preserving the antidumping, countervailing and safeguard measures.Chapter two focuses on the safeguard measure system of NAFTA. As mentioned above, most free trade agreements have preserved the safeguard measure systems within the areas, yet different modes are formed based on different concrete regulations. After comparative study of most regional trade agreements notified to the WTO, I came to the following conclusion: (i) global safeguard measures adopted by most free trade agreements are allowed by NAFTA; (ii) NAFTA does not give up regional safeguard measures, that is, bilateral actions. Section one is about the global safeguard measures adopted by NAFTA. Detailed analysis is made as to the applicable objects of the global safeguard measures allowed by NAFTA, different treatment to NAFTA’s contracting and non-contracting parties and conditions for exempting a contracting party from safeguard measures, etc. After the analysis, I came to the conclusion: though applicable, WTO safeguard measures are modified in NAFTA, exempting the contracting parties under certain circumstances from safeguard measures. However, this conclusion leads to another question: do the global safeguard measures adopted by NAFTA violate the non-discrimination principle of the WTO safeguard measures? Section two discusses bilateral safeguard measures adopted by NAFTA. The application and rationality of bilateral safeguard measures are analyzed around the transition period. The conditions for applying and the forms of bilateral safeguard measures, and the bilateral safeguard measures concerning textiles in NAFTA are also analyzed. The conclusion is that bilateral safeguard measures taken before and after the transition period are rational. Section three is about the dispute settlement concerning NAFTA’s safeguard measures. Antidumping measures, countervailing measures and safeguard measures have different dispute settlement system in NAFTA. Chapter 20 of NAFTA applies to disputes arising from safeguard measures. The characteristics of the dispute resolution mechanism in Chapter 20 are analyzed in detail and cases that have been brought forward are studied. The conclusion is that the dispute resolution mechanism concerning NAFTA’s safeguard measures put more emphasis on political resolution.Chapter three focuses on anti-dumping and countervailing system adopted by NAFTA. A comparative study of most free trade agreements notified to the WTO is made to find the mode of antidumping and countervailing system adopted by NAFTA. Then it reveals the uniqueness of the anti-dumping and countervailing system adopted by NAFTA, i.e. NAFTA has no unified anti-dumping and countervailing rules, but applies anti-dumping and countervailing laws respectively. Section one and two discuss anti-dumping and countervailing system adopted by NAFTA. The anti-dumping and countervailing issues have been comprehensively provided in Chapter 19 of NAFTA. According to the analysis of legal application of NAFTA’s anti-dumping and countervailing system and the dispute settlement mechanism in Chapter 19 of NAFTA, the following conclusion is drawn: (i) there is no unified substantive and procedural anti-dumping rules and countervailing rules in NAFTA; (ii) NAFTA provides unique dispute settlement mechanism specially applied to anti-dumping and countervailing system, that is, the Binational Panel Review (BPR) mechanism. The government or citizens of a contracting party can require the establishment of a Binational Panel to review the final decision made by anti-dumping and countervailing investigation body of the other contracting party. The initial purpose of such review is to replace the domestic judicial review of contracting parties in some circumstances. Section three is about the implementation and reform of Chapter 19 of NAFTA. Statistical method and comparative research method is used when analyzing the working circumstance of the Binational Panel provided in Chapter 19 of NAFTA. At the same time, the attitude and response of the United States and Canada to the dispute settlement mechanism provided in Chapter 19 of NAFTA is analyzed in detail. The following conclusion is drawn: (i) Canada is the biggest beneficiary of the dispute settlement mechanism provided in Chapter 19 of NAFTA; (ii) the dispute settlement mechanism provided in Chapter 19 of NAFTA does not as sufficient and convenient as that in CUSFTA period, reform is imminent; (iii) The United States respond to dispute settlement mechanism provided in Chapter 19 of NAFTA actively.Chapter four focuses on the relationship between NAFTA’s dispute settlement mechanism and that of the WTO. The motive to study this issue was arising from the jurisdiction overlap problems occurred in recent years between the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO and that of NAFTA. This chapter contains two sections. Section one discusses the attitude of WTO and regional trade agreements toward the choice of dispute settlement forum, the legal basis of the dispute settlement forum choice of NAFTA contracting parties, and the circumstance of such choice. The following conclusion is drawn by comparative research and empirical research method: (i) regional trade agreements give the conflicting parties right to choose the dispute settlement forum, but WTO does not have such provision; (ii) the choice to settle dispute in WTO of NAFTA’s contracting parties has legal basis; (iii) the contracting parties and their citizens submit some anti-dumping and countervailing disputes to WTO and NAFTA simultaneously. Section one and two are about the cases submitted to WTO and NAFTA successively and their jurisdiction. With respect to the issue about successively submission of disputes arising from the same incident to WTO and NAFTA, its nature, problems and the harmonization of jurisdiction between NAFTA dispute settlement body and that of the WTO is fully analyzed mainly by empirical analysis of the typical cases. According to the analysis, the following conclusion is drawn: (i) the action of NAFTA’s contracting parties to submit cases arising from the same incident successively dose not cause jurisdiction confliction; (ii) WTO should amend the DSU and bring into the "choice of forum" clause provided in regional trade agreements; (iii) the WTO and regional dispute settlement forum should apply the principle of judicial economy in each period of trial, including jurisdiction. Chapter five focuses on the use of NAFTA’s beneficial experience as a reference for trade remedy system in regional trade agreements between China and WTO members and non-WTO members. This chapter reveals the research purpose of this dissertation. The purpose of a in-depth study on NAFTA’s trade remedy system is to improve the WTO system and regional trade agreements on one hand, and on the other hand to provide reference for China’s choice on trade remedy system mode in regional trade agreements. Section one introduces the free trade agreements that China has already signed and those in ongoing negotiations, and analyzes the modes of trade remedy system adopted in the signed regional trade agreements. The conclusion is that the regional trade agreements between China and other contracting parties are free trade agreements. In addition to CEPA, all free trade agreements between China and other contracting parties have allowed to adopt all the regional trade remedy measures. Section one also focuses on the beneficial experience of NAFTA as a reference for trade remedy system in regional agreements between China and other contracting parties. The safeguard measures, anti-dumping and countervailing system in regional agreements between China and other contracting parties are analyzed in detail, and compared with relevant provisions of NAFTA. Section two discusses dispute settlement mechanism concerning trade relief measures in free trade agreements between China and other contracting parties. It analyzes the provisions on choice of forum in existing free trade agreements between China and other contracting parties, and the dispute settlement procedure of each free trade agreement between China and other contracting parties and improvement of such procedure. The conclusion is that some dispute settlement provisions in China-Chile free trade agreement and Pakistan-China free trade agreement are worthy of reference by other regional trade agreements. The last section is about the future choice of trade remedy system in regional trade agreements between China and other contracting parties. According to the preceding analysis, it directs China toward the regional trade remedy system which is beneficial to each contracting party in the future, and expects to realize the purpose of regional free trade as soon as possible and gain a win-win situation between the contracting parties by appropriate trade remedy system.The conclusion of this dissertation focuses on an important question, that is, in theory and practice, there are different views on trade remedy system, especially on anti-dumping system, the pros and cons is uncompromising. With no intention to make economic analysis of trade remedy system, all the research is based on general theories, that is, the anti-dumping and countervailing system is legal tools created to counteract unfair competitive practices. The final conclusion is that the contracting parties of regional trade agreements have the right to take Countermeasures for injury caused by unfair trade practices and a surge in imports within the region. The adoption of trade remedy measures in regional trade complies with the fundamental purpose of WTO.更多还原