【作者】 高墨；

【导师】 韦经建；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 争端解决机制是自由贸易区法律制度的一个重要组成部分。公正、有效的争端解决机制可以迅速、及时地解决贸易争端，提高可预见性和法律安全，保证自由贸易协议目标的实现。然而在CEPA中却没有争端解决方面的详实而具体的规定，这就为我们的理论研究留下了思索的空间。本文共分三个部分。第一部分是概述。首先介绍了CEPA的总体目标、达成、实施及今后修订的原则以及所涵盖的主要内容，从中界定出CEPA的法律性质。由于其目标是在中国内地与香港间逐步实现货物贸易和服务贸易的自由化，以及实现贸易投资便利化，所以其实质上是自由贸易协议；又由于内地与香港属于同一主权国家内的两个单独关税区，因此它们之间缔结的条约不能算做严格意义上的国际条约，而应定位为“准国际条约”或“区际贸易协议”；由其所设定的制度，就是自由贸易区制度。同时从效力上来讲，这个协议具有国际法上的拘束力。接着分析了CEPA的意义。它标志着内地与香港的经济关系有了一个实质性的飞跃，更是两岸四地区域经济一体化的起点。最后论证了争端解决制度在CEPA中的作用，即有效维持两地经贸秩序，保证贸易自由化目标的实现。第二部分介绍和评析了国际社会中几个有代表性的区域经济一体化组织的争端解决模式，以资借鉴。欧盟的法律、政治和行政三种争端解决方法，相互联系，相互补充，构成欧盟内部完整的争端解决制度体系。尤其是欧洲法院的设立，为欧共体内部秩序稳定提供了切实保障。但由于欧洲法院是建立在成员间政治、经济高度一体化的基础上，这种机制对尚处在起步阶段的CEPA而言并不适用。其政治方法体现为定期举行会议，通过政治协商，解决彼此间的争端。这种方式很值得我们借鉴。<WP=45>行政方法是欧盟争端解决中最普遍使用的方法，由欧盟委员会通过行政手段促使争端解决。以上三种方法构成构成解决争端的几个阶段，究竟采取哪一种方法，主要取决于争端的性质及争端发展的程度。NAFTA设立了自由贸易委员会和秘书处作为行政管理机构，其争端解决模式中，外交与法律方式并用，程序与实体结合，为北美自由贸易区的顺利发展提供了有效的法制及法治和机构保障。它的专家小组组成及裁决执行程序对CEPA争端解决模式选择很有启发。APEC的争端解决机制建立在完全自愿基础上，以协商对话的方式解决贸易和投资自由化的分歧，反对单方面的制裁和威胁，是一种非强制性的仲裁、调解和协商机制。ASEAN模式以软法机制为主，以协商不干涉内政为原则。这类原则在重大国际政治问题上的运用有时是必要的，而对于经济一体化中一个个现实的经济利益的兑现则显得无能为力和不恰当。第三部分论述了CEPA争端解决模式的构建。首先分析了两地争端产生的原因、性质，提出解决原则。争端产生的原因包括政治风险，如国有化风险、社会动乱、政府行政行为失当；商务风险，主要有立项风险、合作风险、市场风险和税收、汇兑风险以及其他法律风险。明确争端的性质是一国性、区际性和处理上的准国际性。在“一国两制”原则下，即使内地与香港同属WTO内的平等成员，它们之间的经贸关系仍然是一个主权国家内两个单独关税区间的关系，两地经贸争端是一国国内的争端。由于历史原因两地分属不同法域，所以可以把争端性质界定为区际性；但在处理上可以比照国际经贸争端，即它同时具有准国际性。两地争端有其特殊性，处理上要坚持成员地位平等原则和友好协商原则。内地政府不应以中央政府的身份参与争端解决，香港也不应因其特别行政区的地位而要求特殊待遇。双方在友好的气氛中平等协商，以解决争端。接着提出建立CEPA争端解决机制的几种选择，分别评析利弊。WTO建立了一套高度规范化的争端解决的规则和程序，保证纠纷解决迅速、有效且公正、权威。双方同属WTO 成员，“入世”时没有援引排除适用<WP=46>条款，WTO争端解决机制可以适用。但由于两地争端有其复杂性，范围远比WTO所能涵盖的要多；又有其特殊性，一国的内部事务不应拿到国际场合去讨论。要避免专家小组程序为两地政策定调，要摆脱受制于人的被动局面，应该在两地争端解决机制中排除WTO的管辖权。国际商事仲裁虽有其自身独特的优点，但考虑两地的具体情况，不适宜引入这一机制。通过以上分析，提出了建立CEPA争端解决模式的具体设想，包括预防机制、协商机制和专家裁判庭程序。预防机制作用在于通过法规政策研究，发现问题并提出建议，以完善相关法律制度，为两地经贸交流创造良好的法治环境；同时提供法律服务，最低限度减少争端发生。应当把协商作为CEPA争端解决的首要的和基本的方法，并将其设置为必经程序。可以建立一个从属于联合指导委员会的专门机构，来促成和指导协商并提供场所；也可以直接由联合指导委员会完成这一职能。如果一项争端经过规定时间的协商不能达成令人满意的方案，可以诉诸专家裁判庭。对专家裁判庭的报告还不满意的话，可以将争议提交联合指导委员会讨论，以协商一致的方式作出决定。通过以上程序，保证争端及时有效解决。文章最后揭示了CEPA争端解决模式研究对将来两岸四地自由贸易区争端解决机制设立的启发意义，希望能对“大中华自由贸易区”法律制度的建立有?更多还原

【Abstract】 As it contributes enormously to the prompt settlement of disputes, the enhancement of predictability and legal security, the limitation of power abuse and the fulfillment of the free trade agreement’s objectives, an impartial and effective dispute settlement mechanism plays an important role in the legal system of the free trade area. Owing to CEPA does not include dispute settlement system, research and discussion on this topic seems worthy and necessary.This article contains three parts.Part one is the general introduction. Through the analysis of its objectives, principles and contents we come to the conclusion that CEPA is in essence an inter-regional free-trade agreement and the legal system it stipulate is just a free trade area. The objectives, which is to progressively reduce or eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers on substantially all the trade in goods between the two sides, to progressively achieve liberalization of trade in services through reduction or elimination of substantially all discriminatory measures and to promote trade and investment facilitation, give the evidence that CEPA meets the requirements of free-trade agreement. On the other hand, CEPA is more an inter-regional free-trade agreement than an international treaty in that it is signed by the governments that control the different independence customs territories in a sovereign state. At the same time this arrangement has its own binding force in international law. Then is the historic significance of the creation of CEPA. It is not only the symbol of the substantial leap of the economic relations between the mainland and Hong Kong, but also the starting point for regional economic integration among the mainland, Hong Kong, Macao and Taipei. Last is the function of dispute settlement mechanism in the legal system of free-trade agreement. It maintains the normal economic and trade order between the two sides so as to guarantee the smooth progress of the economic cooperation. <WP=48>Part two gives an overall view of several types of dispute settlement body in the free trade areas. EU legal system of the economic disputes settlement consists of judicial methods, political methods and administrative methods. European Court performs an important function in keeping the sequence of the European Communities. While it does not apply properly to the real life situations of China because it is based on advanced integration of politics and economy among its members. The political methods is to hold meetings at regular intervals and consult with each other to settle the disputes. Administrative methods is the most common used one which is executed by the EU Committee. The aforesaid three methods compose the stages of dispute settlement procedure. To adopt which one depends on the characteristics and the development of the disputes. NAFTA sets up a Free Trade Commission and a Secretariat as its administrative management organ. Its dispute settlement body combines political methods with judicial one and integrates procedure with substantiality. The system of APEC is an arbitration , conciliation and consultative one which advocates a voluntary way to eliminate the divergences and oppose the unilateral sanction and threat. The principle of ASEAN is consultation and non-intervention in domestic affairs which under some circumstances seems quite weak and inappropriate.The third part explores the build of disputes settlement mechanism under CEPA. Firstly is the analysis of the causes, nature and settling principles of the disputes. Factors that leads to disputes includes political venture, such as nationalization, social upheaval, misbehavior of the government; commercial venture and other kinds of legal venture. Such kind of disputes in nature belong to domestic affairs. According to the “one country, two systems” principle, the economic relations between the two sides should be defined as the one that is between different independence customs territories in a sovereign state. For historical reasons the two parts developed different legal syste更多还原