国际公法视域下的WTO法

【作者】 顾婷；

【导师】 朱榄叶；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 国际法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 WTO法(WTO Law)堪称当今世界调整国际间贸易关系的最重要的法律规则,它是一个由乌拉圭回合谈判所签署的一揽子协定以及根据这些协定所规定的若干原则、规则所组成的独立的、新型的法律体系。这样一个以国际条约为主体的规则体系当属于国际公法的范畴,但是,受GATT时期否定关贸总协定法律性质倾向的影响,WTO法的国际公法性质长期以来也一直受到质疑。一部分学者提出WTO规则并不具有法律拘束力,不是传统意义上的国际法规范。另有一些学者认为,WTO规则属于国际贸易法或国际公法的性质,但是国际贸易法或国际经济法与国际公法是建立在不同基础之上的不同制度体系,所以,WTO法也不是国际公法。还有部分学者认为WTO法是一个自给自足、自我封闭的法律体系,与国际公法等其他法律体系不发生直接的关系。针对上述观点,本文力图澄清WTO法的国际公法性质,并对WTO法与国际公法的关系进行全面系统地探讨,文章的主旨在于点明正确界定WTO法的法律性质及其与国际公法的关系对WTO法和国际公法的发展及其学术研究所具有的重要的意义。在结构上,文章共分两大部分,六个章节。第一部分是从宏观角度论述WTO法的国际公法性质。这部分共有三个章节。论文的第一章有四部分内容。第一部分简要介绍了WTO组织的诞生历程,阐明了“WTO法”的概念。第二部分分析了WTO法被认为是国际公法之外的法律体系的原因,介绍并批驳了种种否定WTO法国际公法性质的理论观点。第三部分则从正面系统论证了WTO法的国际公法性质。作者认为,将WTO法定性为国际公法存在如下几个具有说服力的理由:1、WTO法符合国际公法的定义。2、WTO一揽子协议从本质上讲是国际条约。3、WTO法是一个“公”的体制或一个“公”的秩序。4、WTO法的互惠原则反映了国际公法在产生和适用上的“相对应性”。5、WTO法不但新创规则,而且它也确认和采纳既有的国际法规范。作者同时指出,WTO法的国际公法性质得到了越来越多的学者和WTO机构内部人士的认可,而运用国际公法原理来研究WTO法中的法律规则和法律问题已成为WTO理论研究的一个新视角。在第一章最后一部分,作者分析了WTO法与国际公法的关系,并阐述了廓清两者之间关系所具有的法律意义。对两者之间的关系,作者认为,首先,国际公法作为WTO产生的背景和土壤,它对WTO法的具体适用和理论研究必然具有至关重要的影响。从法律适用的角度讲,WTO法既然具有国际公法性质、是国际公法的特殊组成部分,那么,国际公法其他规则,尤其是一般国际法对WTO法的适用将发生作用。首先,WTO法的适用要受到公认的国际法基本原则和国际法的强行法规则制约,WTO法规则只有在与上述国际法规范不相抵触的范围内才能适用。其次,一般国际法原理作为WTO法的规范性背景,对WTO法具有补充作用。也即对WTO法中的法律空白,一般国际法可以自动补充适用,除非作为特别体制的WTO法明确排除这种适用或者特定的一般国际法规则与WTO法的规则相抵触。从法律研究的角度讲,国际公法的原理和规则是分析研究WTO法所不可或缺的工具。有别于之前的仅仅拘泥于对WTO规则进行具体考察的微观视角的研究方式,运用国际公法原理对WTO法进行研究能够从宏观上把握WTO法的全貌,从而能够深入WTO法的实质,并有助于对WTO法律体制发展方向的整体把握。其次,作为国际公法中的特别法和特殊体制,WTO法对国际公法也发生了反向影响力。WTO法在条约法、国家责任、争端解决等诸多方面偏离和发展了一般国际法规则,突破了传统的国际法模式,为国际法的发展提示了新的方向。而WTO强制高效的争端解决体制也使其一改国际法软弱的面貌,体现出了某些“强法”的特征,这一点无疑为非经济领域的国际公法的发展提供了宝贵的经验,成为国际法不断强化的范例。从这一意义上讲,WTO法是国际公法发展的前沿阵地,它对国际公法的反向影响将会把国际公法推向更成熟的发展阶段。论文第二章以国际公法的法律渊源为参照,分析和论述了WTO法的法律渊源。作者认为,首先,WTO法是国际公法的一部分,因此,《国际法院规约》第38条中规定的国际法的法律渊源对确定WTO法的法律渊源有重要参考价值。但是,WTO法的法律渊源又不能简单地与国际法的法律渊源进行类比,更不能完全等同于国际法的渊源。因为这将会导致WTO法与其他国际法规则的混淆,淹没WTO法的特性。其次,笔者认为,WTO争端解决机构适用法律的范围与WTO法法律渊源是什么是两个不同的问题。因为WTO争端解决机构如何适用法律首先取决于WTO协定如何规定,实际上,WTO协定对此规定并不是十分明确的,学者对此也有争论。而确定WTO法法律渊源是要解决WTO范围内产生的法律的表现形式问题,这两者不一定是一致的。基于上述认知,笔者将WTO法的法律渊源界定为——WTO范围内产生且专门适用于WTO的法律。这种法律主要由条约组成。作者接着具体探讨了WTO协定、WTO先前的专家组报告和上诉机构报告、习惯、WTO机构颁布的规则在WTO法法律渊源中的地位。第三章主要论述了WTO法与国际法基本原则之间的关系。作者认为WTO法与国际公法的基本原则是相一致的,WTO法符合并反映国际法的基本原则,其中主要的有国家主权、国家平等、国际合作、善意履行国际义务以及和平解决国际争端等国际法基本原则。作者从这一角度再次印证了WTO法的国际公法性质。文章的第二部分是第四、五、六章,这三章是从微观角度,即国际法中与WTO法最密切相关的三个部门法的角度来考察WTO法,并探讨了WTO法与这三个部门法的一般原理之间的关系:WTO法依赖和运用这些部门法原理,又对其中的一些规则进行了提炼和改写。第四章主要论证了WTO法与国际条约法原理之间的关系。该部分从条约的类型、条约的谈判、条约的解释三个方面进行论述。从条约的类型上讲,WTO法是一类特殊形式的条约——混合协定,这是由于欧共体及其成员国同属WTO正式成员造成的。但是,这类特殊协定在国际公法当中并非WTO协定所独有,因为1982年的海洋法公约也属于这类混合协定。作者还同时提出了WTO法作为混合协定所带来的欧共体与其成员国在WTO体制下法律责任划分不明确的问题。从条约的谈判方式看,与之前国际经济条约的“分项式”谈判方式不同,WTO在经贸领域首开一揽子谈判的先例。文章分析了WTO采用一揽子谈判方式的原因、一揽子谈判方式的优势及其弱点。从条约解释的角度看,DSU3.2条要求WTO争端解决机构按照国际公法解释条约的习惯规则解释WTO条约,文章从分析国际公法关于条约解释的不同理论以及《维也纳条约法公约》(VCLT)的条约解释通则出发,具体考察了WTO争端解决机构的条约解释实践,从而得出结论:专家组和上诉机构在解释WTO法时基本上都是援引和适用VCLT所规定的解释规则,并将VCLT所规定的主要解释方法“文本解释”作为其解释活动的指南,而且几乎所有的解释结论均被声称是根据VCLT的解释规则进行解释得来的。可以说,这是一种具有可预见性的、相对安全的解释方式,这种建立在客观基础上的解释方式有助于形成一致的、有条理的解释结果,从而有助于多边贸易体制的发展。作者还将WTO争端解决机构的条约实践与国际法院、欧洲法院的条约解释方法进行了对比,并指出了WTO专家组和上诉机构坚持VCLT条约解释通则的深层原因。在第五章中,作者运用比较研究的方法,分别从国际责任的构成、国际责任的形式、国际责任的免除等三个方面,将一般国际法上的责任制度和WTO法之下的责任制度进行对照研究。通过对比,作者得出如下结论:第一,WTO制度下的责任构成、责任形式、免责事由虽然有其特殊性,但这种特殊性并没有从根本上背离一般国际责任制度,WTO之下的法律责任制度与一般国际责任制度的原理非常类似(其中违反WTO条约义务引起的法律责任与一般国际法上的国际不法行为引起的国家责任相类似,而非违反WTO法引起的法律责任则与一般国际法上的损害责任相类似),实质上根源于一般制度,因此,从根本上讲,WTO法律责任制度并没有超越一般国际责任制度这一操作系统。第二,自足制度不等于就是一个完全封闭的制度,作为“强”的特别制度的自足制度也应当根源于一般制度,并且离不开一般制度所提供的规范性背景。因此,WTO责任制度没有理由完全排斥一般国际责任制度的适用,特别是WTO责任制度的不完整性,使得一般责任制度的适用不仅是一种可能,而且成为一种必需,只要WTO责任制度没有明确排除一般责任制度的有关规定,或一般责任制度的规定与WTO责任制度的有关规定不相悖。第六章从WTO争端解决机制角度,论述了该机制与国际法,特别是国际争端法之间的密切联系。首先,作者通过分析WTO争端解决制度与国际法上的和平解决争端原则之间的关系,指出WTO争端解决制度是国际法和平解决国际争端体制的一个组成部分。其次,通过对WTO争端解决法律适用问题的理论辨析和实践考察,得出WTO法不是国际法意义之外的所谓“自足”体系的结论。最后,作者通过论述WTO专家组和上诉机构的司法性质试图说明:WTO的裁决机构,已构成国际司法体制的一部分。作者还特别探讨了WTO的争端解决机构与其他的国际性司法机构,特别是其中的国际法院及联合国海洋法法庭之间的关系。论文的最后,作者对全文内容进行了精要的总结。更多还原

【Abstract】 WTO law is the most important legel system for international trade relations. It is composed of the package of all of the agreements that have been signed in the Uruguay Round and the principles and rules embedded in those agreements. WTO law mainly consists of international treaties so that it should belong to the scope of pubilic international law. But the nature of WTO law has not been correctly recoganized. Some scholars say that WTO rules are not legally binding so it will not fall into the category of pubilic international law. Other scholars believe that WTO law is of the nature of international trade law or international economic law. But they also think that international trade law or international economic law is different from international public law because of the different legal basis. According to their logic, WTO law can not be looked as a part of pubic international law. There are still some scholars who take the view that WTO law is a“self-contained”or“self-isolation”legal system and it has nothing to do with other other legal sustems including pubic international law. In response to these views, the paper sought to clarify the nature of WTO law and the relation of WTO law to pubic international law in a comprehensive and systematic way. The object of this thesis is to testify WTO law’s nature of intrnational law and analyze the legal relationship between WTO law and pubic international law.In structure, this thesis is divided into two parts and six chapters. The first part mainly demonstrates the nature of WTO law from a macro—perspective . This part consists of three sections. The first section briefly introduces the process of the foundation of WTO organization and elaborated the concept of“WTO law”. The second section of the charpter analyses the reasons why WTO law is being excluded from the corpus of international law .In this section the author intrduces various theories negating WTO law’s international law nature and rebuts all those views.in the third section of this charpter, the author gives several resons for testifying her point that WTO law is one branch of the bigger tree of pubic international law. These reasons are: 1, WTO law is in line with international law’s definition. 2, The agreements in WTO legal system are essentially international treaties. 3, WTO law is a“public”system or a "public" order. 4, The principle of reciprocity in WTO law reflects the“mutual”feature in the creation and application of international law. 5, WTO law not only creates new rules but also recognizes the established and accepted norms in international law. The author also points out that WTO law’s nature of international law is gaining more and more recoganition by scholars and officials in WTO organization, and in the reaserch area, reserching WTO law from the new perspective of the rules of international law become more and more popular. In the last part of the first chapter, the author points out the siganifigance of making clear of the nature of WTO law and its relation to international law.Chapter II of this thesis analyzes and discusses the question of sources of WTO law while refering to sources of international law. The author believes that, first of all, WTO law is part of international law so that sources of international law speculated in Article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice are of important reference value in determining sources of WTO law. However, sources of WTO law are not fully equivalent to sources of international law. Because it will lead to confusing WTO law with international law therefore making WTO law lose its specialty. The author brings out that the question of what are the sources of WTO law is the same question of what are the forms of rules having been made in the scope of WTO.In this charpter the author discusses whether the WTO agreement, the previous reports of the panel and the appellate body of WTO, international customary law, the decisions made by organs in WTO constitute sources of WTO law.In the third chapter, the author discusses the relationship between WTO law and the fundamental principles in international law. The author holds that WTO law conforms to those principles. The rules of WTO law reflect the principle of state sovereign, principle of equity, principle of coherence, principle of good faith and pinciple of resolving disputes peacefully.In the forth chapter, the author mainly probes the relationship between WTO law and the rules of international treaty law. The author discusses this question from three aspects: the type of the treaty, the form of tyeaty negociation and treaty interpretation. The author concludes that firstly, the treaty of WTO is a special type called mixed agreement. Secondly, the form of negociation of WTO treaty is also special because it is a packed deal. Thirdly, in the process of treaty interpretation, the panel and the appellate body have been sticking to the coustomary rules of treaty interpretation in public international law. It is a relatively foreseeable and safety way of treaty interpretation. Through this way, the treaty interpretation of WTO agreements by WTO dispute settlement body can be more acceptable. In dealing with this issue, the author compares the way of treaty interpretation by WTO DSB with that of the ICJ and the court of Europe.The fifth chapter compares the system of legal responsibility under WTO law with the system of legal responsibility under general international law. Through the comparision, the author finds that the system of legal responsibility under WTO law is analogous to that under international law. The author then holds the view that the system of responsibility under WTO law actually stems from the system of responsibility under international law. In this sense the the system of responsibility under WTO law can not be seen as the“self—contained regime”and the general rules of legal responsibility under international law could fill in the gaps in the WTO law under some conditions.The last chapter of this essay deals with three questions in the process of WTO dispute settlement that the author thinks most relevent to the tenet of international law in this respect. By analying these three questions in detail,the author makes these findings:first,WTO dispute settlement system is a part of peaceful dispute settlement system of international society.Second, according to the investigation of the practice of the DSU,the WTO law is not a“self—contained”regime, because its openness to other rules in international law.Third, the WTO dispute settlement body is part of international justice system. The author then compares the WTO dispute settlement body with the ICJ and ITLOS.In the end, the author makes a concise conclsion of the whole thesis.更多还原