【作者】 柳玉兵；

【导师】 聂资鲁；

【作者基本信息】 湖南大学 ， 国际法学， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 保障措施与反倾销,反补贴并称为WTO三大贸易救济措施,通常又有自由贸易的“安全阀”之称。在“新贸易保护主义“的思潮下,其正日渐为各国所重视并频频加以运用。保障措施针对的是正常情况下的公平贸易行为,这一性质就决定了保障措施的实施条件要特别的多。这些条件主要体现在WTO《保障措施协议》的第2条第1款和GATT1994第19条第1款的规定上,但后者使用了“不可预见发展”,而前者却没有这样的措辞。“不可预见发展”几经历史变迁,从无到有、从淡出到复活,在其是否应该是保障措施实施的前置要件这一问题的背后,是《保障措施协议》与GATT1994第19条的关系定位问题。尽管“不可预见发展”由于缺乏作为法律要件的客观、明确性的要求而广为人诟病。但是,在韩国奶制品案、阿根廷鞋袜案到美国羊肉案、巴西桃脯案以及最近美国的钢铁保障措施案中,DSB专家组和上诉机构通过一系列的解释规则和实践,明确认定了“不可预见发展”是作为实施保障措施必不可少的重要条件,《保障措施协议》和GATT1994第19条都应当予以遵守。无疑,专家组和上诉机构的报告业已形成事实上的先例,有些国家和地区在保障措施立法和实践上也对此给予了认定,这在一定程度上将会遏制保障措施的滥用。事实已经证明,目前中国是世界上遭受保障措施最多的国家之一,同时伴随着中国市场的进一步开放,将来我国对外实施保障措施的可能性也必然会随之增加。因此,“不可预见发展”不仅是一件维护自身权益的有力武器,至少在其他成员采取保障措施时,也为我国判断该成员的行为是否符合保障措施的实施条件增加了一个认定标准。而且在我国实施保障措施时应对其给予必要的注意,这不仅是遵守WTO相关规定的表现,更为了避免将来在争端中陷入被动境地。那么,在立法上应对我国的保障措施法进行必要的修改和完善,吸纳“不可预见发展”这一条款才是当下最好的解决方案。在司法实践中,我们的保障措施调查报告也应该按照DSB专家组和上诉机构的要求,要对“不可预见发展”进行详细说明和充分论证。更多还原

【Abstract】 The safeguard measures(usually called free trade“safety valve”),anti-dumping and anti-subsidy are called three kinds of WTO trade remedies, In the thought of“new trade protect ionism”,the safeguard measures are used increasingly and frequently by States. It is generally against the fair trade practices under normal circumstances, so the conditions of safeguard measures are more special. These conditions are mainly embodied in the article 2 paragraphs 1 of the WTO "safeguards agreement" and in the GATT1994 article 19, paragraph 1. However, the latter uses the "unforeseen development", while the former does not such words."Unforeseen development" has come through several historic changes, from scratch, and from the exit to the resurrection. Whether it should be the front element in the implementation of safeguard measures, behind this issue there is a relation Orientation between "safeguard agreement" and GATT1994 article 19. Although "unforeseen development" as a legal requirement lacking objective and clear is widely criticized, in the dairy case of South Korea, the footwear case of Argentina,the lamb case of America,the peach preserve case of Brazil and the steel safeguard measures case of the United States recently, through a series of rules of interpretation and practice, the Group of Experts and Appellate Body of the DSB clearly identified that "unforeseen development" is an important and indispensable condition of safeguard measures, both the "safeguards agreement" and GATT1994 article 19 should be observed. Undoubtedly, the reports of Group of Experts and Appellate Body have formed a defacto precedent, and in this regard the legislation and practice of some countries and regions have cognizance.To a certain extent, which will curb the abuse of safeguard measures.Facts have proved that China is sufferring the most safeguard measures in the world now, along with the further opening of China’s market, the possibility that China implements safeguard measures will certainly increase. Then,"Unforeseen development" is not only a powerful weapon safeguarding our rights and interests, in the other hand, it also increases a standard to determine whether the conducts of members are equal to the provisions of safeguard measures.And the implementation of safeguard measures in our country should be given necessary attention, not only to comply with the performance of the relevant provisions of WTO, but also to avoid falling into a passive position in future disputes. Therefore, in the legislation, China’s safeguard measures are necessary revised and refined, and absorbing the "unforeseen development" is the best solution currently. In judicial practice, we should conduct a detailed description and fully demonstration to "unforeseen development" in the safeguard measures investigation in accordance with the reports of DSB.更多还原