【作者】 王娟；

【导师】 徐淑萍；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 国际法学， 2012， 硕士

【摘要】 随着科学技术的迅速发展和全球经济一体化趋势的加强,世界各国间的文化交流也变得日益频繁,文化产业发展迅速。作为核心文化产品的视听产品贸易量的逐年上升使得国际上对视听产品贸易的重视程度也在不断提高,尤其是美国的视听产品早已成为其除航天工业、军火和农产品外的出口大户。改革开放以来,我国视听产业已经有了很大的发展,但是我国视听产品实力仍然比较弱小,在与欧美等发达国家的竞争中处于不利地位。并且视听产业对于我国而言是较新的产业,有关视听产品贸易的法律法规也并不健全。在这种情况下,对我国视听产品进出口贸易法律问题进行研究具有重要的理论意义与现实意义。国际上围绕视听产品最具争议的两个问题是其性质之争及其贸易自由化与限制之争。随着科技的发展,视听产品究竟是货物还是服务的属性愈加模糊,而视听产品性质的不明确引发了在乌拉圭回合谈判和多哈回合谈判中关于视听产品的贸易自由化及限制之争。对于视听产品的属性问题,有关国际条约也未作出明确界定。规制视听产品贸易的国际条约,主要有WTO有关视听产品贸易的规定和文化多样性公约对视听产品贸易的有关规定。其中WTO有关视听产品贸易的规定主要是《关税及贸易总协定》(以下简称GATT)和《服务贸易总协定》(以下简称GATS)对视听产品贸易的规制。由于对于视听产品属性问题具有不同观点,欧美对视听产品贸易的规制问题上也不尽相同,欧盟对于视听产品贸易所采取的政策措施更倾向于对本地区视听产业的保护,而美国则更倾向于给本国视听产业更大的自由发展空间。而WTO对于视听产品的规定有限,且其立场与美国基本相同,都更倾向于促进视听产品的贸易自由化。在此情况下,文化多样性公约应运而生,正如公约名称一般,文化多样性公约中的规定都有利于促进各成员方的视听产业的保护。由此,WTO有关视听产品贸易的规定与文化多样性公约中对视听产品贸易的有关规定必然会产生冲突,这些冲突主要有公约中一些规定与WTO中国民待遇、最惠国待遇原则等基本原则之间的冲突及与WTO的相关贸易规则的冲突。我国关于视听产业的法律法规较少,且多数都是一些部门规章及相关部门的政策。这些部门规章及政策大多数是在我国加入世贸组织后结合我国入世承诺书制定的,对我国视听产品的进出口管理、外商投资等方面进行了规定。07年中美音像出版物及视听产品争端案的发生使得我国有关视听产业的法律法规需完善的意识增强。我国规范视听产业的法律法规效力等级低且不成体系,规范的内容无法跟上现实发展脚步。因而应对我国现有视听产品贸易方面的法律法规的内容进行完善,对相关法律法规进行整理使其形成一定的体系,并对我国视听产业发展政策措施进行完善,以促进我国视听产业的发展。更多还原

【Abstract】 As the enhancement of the fast developing technology and economic globalization, cultural communication among different countries became more frequent and cultural business is flourish. The growth of international audio businesses which was a core product of cultural business attracts more and more attention then before, especially in America Audio business has already covers a big share of export business except for aircraft,arm and agriculture business.Since the reform and opening revolution, domestic audio business is keep moving forward but cannot have an edge when compete with western developed countries. It is a new business in our country and relative laws and rules are not mature. In this situation, it is theoretically and realistically meaningful to have research for audio product import&export trading laws.The most contentious two problems for this business is the essence and free trade and restrictions. It is more vague to identify whether this product is real goods or services. This all triggers dispute in Uruguay and Doha negotiation. There is no international rules regulate the belonging category.International rules regulating audio trade, including WTO relative rules and "Protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions Convention"(In short "cultural diversity convention"). WTO relative rules have GATT and GATS. Because of different point of view for the property and different restrict, EU tends to protect local audio business more and America tends to encourage free development. WTO have limited restricts and more incline to America’s way. In this case, the convention was made which help to protect each partner to protect audio business. Therefore WTO rules and convention rules have some conflict, mainly between most-favoured-nation clause and WTO rules and so on.China have few such laws, in which most of them are just policies aims to fulfill promise when we joined WTO. All these policies regulate import and export management, foreign investment. The07audio lawsuit enhances the importance of improving related laws. Current laws and regulations cannot meet the developing requirement which need to be get more mature, and we should making suitable policies to develop audio business.更多还原