【作者】 曾炜；

【导师】 左海聪；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 国际法学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 在世界贸易组织法律体制下,为了实现国际贸易自由化,要求各成员方取消或限制各种贸易壁垒,对其国家主权进行相应的限制。同时,各国也有权根据其本国的实际情形采取措施对本国的事务进行自主管理,各成员方为实现本国公共政策目标而采取的措施又在一定程度上会限制贸易自由化。这样就产生了促进贸易自由化与实现公共政策目标之间的价值冲突。因此,如何保持贸易自由化与国家管制权之间的平衡具有重要的理论意义与现实价值,这是本文要研究的出发点。WTO许多协定中都包括必要性检验条款,但什么是必要性检验,其构成要素是什么?必要性检验有何作用和价值,其理论基础是什么?这是本文第一章“必要性检验基本理论”所要回答的问题。必要性检验是WTO相关协定中的重要概念之一。对于成员追求国内政策目标与多边贸易规则交错的情形日益增加的冲突,WTO以必要性检验作为平衡成员的管制权与自由贸易的重要工具。WTO协定中必要性检验的基本含义是要求：如果成员方的法律或措施对贸易产生了限制效果,则该等法律或措施限制贸易的程度不应当超过为了实现其政策目标所“必要的”的程度。其基本价值在于平衡WTO成员方所面临的两种潜在冲突的价值：一方面承认成员可以采取一定措施以实现政策目标,另一方面防止成员采取过度限制贸易的措施。在WTO法中,必要性检验作用的发挥是以比例原则和善意原则为理论基础的。必要性检验的实体问题是什么,它们在WTO相关协定中有什么不同,乃至在不同时期有什么不同?这是本文要解决的核心问题。本文用大部分篇幅来分析必要性检验的三个要素：措施(即必要性检验的适用对象)、合法目标和判断标准。因此本文对必要性检验实体问题的讨论分别为“必要性检验的适用对象”(第二章)、“必要性检验中的合法目标”(第三章)和“必要性判断标准(一)”(第四章)以及“必要性判断标准(二)”(第五章)。由于判断标准是必要性检验中最为复杂的问题,本文在分析必要性检验中的措施和合法目标之后,对这一问题进行详细探讨。其中第四章在专家组或上诉机构对GATT第20条中必要性检验判断标准实践的基础上,阐述必要性检验判断标准的发展变化及其含义。在GATT时期,必要性检验被解释为,被诉方在援引第20条的例外规定时,必须证明为实现其目的,“没有其他符合WTO协定的措施”或该措施是“最低贸易限制”的方法。因此,在GATT时期,第20条中的必要性检验,是指争议措施必须是为实现其保护目的或政策,在合理的前提下,所采取的违反GATT规定程度最低的措施,换言之,如果有其他不违反GATT规定,或违反程度较低且合理可用的替代措施存在时,就不符合必要性的要件,这也就是所谓的最低贸易限制标准。但是,进入WTO时期后,通过案例的发展,出现了与GATT时期不同的必要性审查标准。在韩国牛肉案中,上诉机构在判断必要性要件时,另外增加了利益权衡的概念,即就贸易利益与政策目标加以权衡。权衡中需要考虑以下几个因素,包括争议措施对国内法规所追求的目的是否有所贡献、该国内法规所保护的价值与公共利益的重要性及该国内法规所伴随而来对进出口的冲击等。当国内法规所保护的价值或公共利益越重要,争议措施就越容易符合必要性的要件；如果争议措施越能实现国内法规所追求的目的,争议措施就越容易被认为具有必要性；如果争议措施对于进口产品的影响相对较小,就越容易被认定为具有必要性。因此,在GATT时期,对于必要性检验的含义仅限于所谓的最小损害手段原则,即比例原则中的第二项原则,但到了WTO时代,尤其在韩国牛肉案之后,增加了合法保护价值与贸易限制成本问题之间的衡量,就这一权衡概念而言,可以说已经加入了比例原则中的第三个原则,即狭义比例原则的概念,使得GATT第20条必要性的判断扩大为比例原则的判断。因此,就必要性要件而言,已经从最低贸易限制标准,通过狭义比例原则的解释,而放宽为较低贸易限制标准。第五章主要探讨GATT之外的其他WTO相关协定中必要性检验的判断标准。虽然WTO其他协定中的必要性检验条款与第20条不尽一样,但是GATT第20条中的必要性检验实践对SPS和TBT中的必要性检验产生了重要的影响,SPS和TBT协定中的必要性检验也纳入了权衡的因素。由于GATS第14条和GATT第20条一样,都是一般例外条款,两者的措词也大同小异,这两个条款都允许成员方为实现合法公共政策目标而违背GATS或GATT协定下的其他实体义务。由于这两个条款的相似性,过去专家组或上诉机构对GATT第20条的分析对于解释GATS第14条无疑具有重要的启示意义。因此,在美国博彩案中,上诉机构对GATS第14条中的必要性检验进行分析时,遵循了对GATT第20条必要性检验分析的路径。另外,必要性检验作为国内规章谈判的一个重要议题,在服务贸易工作小组中已经引起广泛的讨论,一旦依据第6条第4款的授权制定出适用于所有服务部门的必要性检验规则,那么该规则对于WTO其他协定中的必要性检验的解释无疑会有重要的指导意义,从而保证WTO协定中必要性检验适用的稳定性和可预见性。就TRIPS而言,目前虽然还没有出现关于适用必要性检验的案例,但可以预见,在未来有关TRIPS的案件中适用必要性检验时,可能会吸收权衡的因素。总之,专家组和上诉机构在实践中,在必要性检验的适用上,逐渐发展出具有一定雷同性的解释,如此使WTO协定中的必要性检验的含义趋向于一致,从而在某种程度上可以避免在必要性检验的判断上发生冲突。必要性检验中除了上述实体问题之外,还有一个重要的程序问题,即举证责任。第六章“必要性检验的举证责任规则”对这一问题进行详细的探讨。根据法律性质的不同,WTO相关协定中的必要性检验条款可以分为积极主张条款和积极抗辩条款。举证责任的基本原则是不区分申诉方或被诉方,由提出积极主张或抗辩者负担举证责任。特定当事方(原则上为申诉方)主张其他成员(原则上为被诉方)违反特定WTO协定条款时,必须提出其主张,并证明该主张。因此,判断举证责任的分配标准,在于争议条款的法律性质,究竟属于主张条款还是抗辩条款,这同样适用于必要性检验条款。第七章以第二章至第六章为基础,分析不同WTO协定下必要性检验存在的异同,探讨关于必要性检验的解释在WTO协定间有无相互参照、对照及援引套用的可能,以及必要性检验条款间有重复和竞合的情形时,应以什么原则进行解释和适用,并指出事实上的遵循先例是WTO相关协定中必要性检验趋同的主要方法。最后,对本文的内容作了简单的总结。更多还原

【Abstract】 The WTO legal system requires all the parties to cancel or restrict various trade barriers, in the mean time, place some restriction on the state sovereignty of the parties involved in order to realize the freedom of international trades. But on the other hand, the parties are entitled to take measures to administrate their domestic affairs according to the related circumstances, so the measures which were taken in the aims of public policy would, to some degree, limit the freedom of international trades, while these give rise to the value conflict of the freedom of international trades between the aims of public policies Thus, the balance of the above-mentioned two, which weighs heavily at both theoretical and practical level, is the very starting point of this dissertation.Among the agreements of WTO, there are clauses of necessity test. What are necessity test and its elements? How does it work and why is it significant? These are the questions that First Chapter"Basic theory of necessity test" tries to answer. Necessity test is the vital conception of WTO agreements in that necessity test, as under the circumstances of the mounting conflicts between member states pursuing public policies and regulations of multinational trades, is a tool of balancing the administrative power of relevant parties with the freedom of international trades. The basic prerequisites of necessity test is that, if the measures or rules issued by the members create an effect of restriction on multinational trades, then the degree of the measures or rules should not surpass the necessary degree that the realization of the public policies require to achieve. The fundamental value of necessity test lies in the balancing of the potential conflicts that the members would face with, one is to acknowledge the right of taking measures to realize the policy ends, the other is to prevent the members take measures too excessively. In WTO law, the principle of proportionality and the principle of good faith are the theoretical basis to necessity test.What are the substantial problems of necessity test? And what are the differences when they are applied in the WTO agreements? In most parts of this dissertation, the author analyzes the three elements of the necessity test:measures (the applicable objects of necessity test), the legitimate goals and judging criteria. Therefore the substantive issues of the necessity test are discussed in three parts:"The applicable objects of necessity test" (ChapterⅡ), "Legitimate goals of necessity test" (ChapterⅢ) and the "Judging criteria of necessity test (Ⅰ) "(ChapterⅣ) and the" Judging criteria of necessity test (Ⅱ) "(chapterⅤ). As the judging criteria issues are the most complex ones in necessity test and therefore the dissertation probes into them in details, after analyzing the measures and legal objectives.Chapter IV sets forth the changes and development and implications of the judging criteria, based on the practice of judging criteria about Article 20 of the GATT of the panel or the Appellate Body. During the GATT, necessity test was explained as the following:when the exceptional stipulation of Article 20 is invoked by the prosecuted, it has to be proved that in the purpose of achieving its goal, there are no other measures satisfy the WTO agreements or the measures taken are within the lowest restriction of the freedom of international trades.Consequently, during GATT, the necessity test in the Article 20 refers that the discussed measures in the aims of realizing its protection or policy ends, is supposed to be the ones that violates the GATT rules to the minimal degree provides reasonable prerequisites. In other words, if there are any other replaceable and reasonable measures that would not violate the GATT rules or violate the GATT rules at a minimal degree, then the measures are considered not to live up to the necessity standard, that is, what is called the criterion of the lowest restriction of the freedom of international trades.But as is stepping into WTO times, a standard of necessity test that differs from GATT’s came into being with the development of cases. For instance, in the Korean Beef case, when the Appellate Body judges the factors of necessity, it introduces a concept of interest balance, which is the balancing between trade interests and policy ends. Several elements are taken into consideration, such as, if the discussed measures do any contribution to the pursuing policy ends of domestic rules, the significance of the value and public interests that the domestic rules protect, together with the impact that the domestic rules exert on the import and export activities, and so forth. Thus, the more important the value and interests protected are, the easier for the measures to meet the requirements of necessity, that is, the more that the measures can achieve the goals that domestic rules had set, the more necessary the measures are considered, meanwhile, the lesser impact that the measures exert on the imported products, the easier for the measures to be taken as necessity, and vise versa.Therefore, in the GATT period, the meaning of the necessity test is limited to the so-called principle of minimal harm, the second principle in the principle of proportionality, but in the WTO era, especially after the South Korea Beef case, the balancing between the value of trade protection and the cost of trade resistance is added. In terms of the concepts, it can be said to have acceded the third principle to the principle of proportionality, namely, the concept of a narrow proportionality principle, making the necessity judgment of Article 20 of the GATT expand as the judgment of the principle of proportionality. Thus, the standard of the necessity, has been extended from the lowest trade restrictions, through a narrow interpretation of the principle of proportionality, to the lower standard of trade restrictions.Chapter V mainly discusses the necessity test criteria in other WTO agreements out of GATT. Although the necessity test in other agreements of WTO is not the same as in Article 20, the practice of the necessity test in Article 20 of GATT had a significant impact on the necessity test in SPS and TBT, which also include balancing consideration. In the case of TRIPS, there is no any dispute about the application of necessity test so far, however, the necessity test in TRIPS will absorb the element of balance in the future.Article 14 of GATS and Article 20 of GATT, with certain similar words, are general exceptional provisions. These two articles allow members’departure from substantial obligations under the GATS or the GATT in order to achieve legitimate objectives of public policies. Since the similarity of these two articles, the interpretation of Article 20 of the GATT of the panel or the Appellate Body in the past is of important significance for interpretation of Article 14 of GATS. Thus, in the U.S. Gambling case, the analyzes of the necessity test of the Appellate Body on GATS Article 14 followed the course of interpreting necessity of Article 20 of the GATT. In addition, necessity test as an important topic in negotiations on domestic regulations, the Working Group in the service trade has been widely discussed, If, in accordance with the authority of Paragraph 4, Article 6, the necessity test rules are made for all the service sectors, They undoubtedly have instructive significance for the interpretation of necessity of other WTO agreements, and ensure the stability and predictability of necessity test of WTO agreements.In short, the Panel and Appellate Body made certain similar interpretations about the application of necessity test in practice, and thus help make consistent interpretation of the necessity test of WTO agreements in order to avoid conflicts in the judgment of necessity to some extent.In addition to these substantive issues about the necessity test, there is an important procedural issue, the burden of proof. ChapterⅤ, " the burden of proof in the necessity test" discusses this issue in details. According to the different legal nature, the various terms about necessity test in WTO agreements can be divided into positive claim terms arid vigorous defense terms. The basic principle is that the burden of proof does not distinguish between the complainant and the defend, therefore, those who make a positive claim or defense have the burden of proof. Particular party (in principle, as the Complainant) claims the other members (in principle, as the respondent party) violated certain provisions of WTO agreements, it must submit its claims and prove the claim. Therefore, the standards of allocating of the burden of proof is the legal nature of terms about the disputes, positive claim terms or vigorous defense terms, as is the same with the terms about the necessity test.ChapterⅦ, based on ChapterⅡtoⅥ, analyses the similarities and differences of the necessity test of various WTO agreements, and probes into the possibility of cross-references and citing about the necessity test, and the principles of interpretation and application in the situation of overlap and concurrence of the necessity test terms, and points that stari decisis in fact is the main method of the necessity test in WTO agreements to converge.Finally, this dissertation ends with a brief summary.更多还原