【作者】 吕微平；

【导师】 徐崇利；

【作者基本信息】 厦门大学 ， 国际法学， 2007， 博士

【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。更多还原

【Abstract】 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.更多还原