【作者】 吴倩；

【导师】 都亳；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律， 2014， 硕士

【摘要】 自从2001年我国加入世界贸易组织以来，我国的对外贸易取得巨大成果，但与此同时，与美国等西方发达经济国家的贸易摩擦也不断增加。近几年，随着国际多边贸易体制的不断发展，反补贴措施成为除了传统的反倾销措施、保障措施、技术性贸易措施和绿色壁垒以外的一种新兴的贸易保护手段，被其他国家频繁适用于作为“非市场经济体”的中国。美国作为我国的主要贸易伙伴国之一，也不断的在其国内相关反补贴法上进行完善以保护本国利益。2006年，美国开始对我国出口企业进行“反补贴措施”的尝试，这种针对我国的贸易保护手段出现的时间比反倾销措施晚了很多年，原因在于美国在过去很长一段时间里不承认中国的市场经济国家地位，所以一直没有打破不对“非市场经济国家”实施反补贴措施的一贯做法。然而，由于美中贸易逆差持续扩大、2008年全球经济危机的影响、美国国内经济的不断走低及美国国内失业率的不断上升，美国急需找到一种途径来转移国内矛盾来改变目前的现状，而对华频繁的发起反补贴调查措施，不失为一种“捷径”。长期以来，美国国会对反补贴法是否适用于“非市场经济国家”这个命题一直说法不一，这恰恰给美国商务部不断对我国产品适用反补贴程序提供了自由裁量的空间。从“乔治城钢铁案”确立下来的司法最高判例，即不对“非市场经济国家”适用反补贴法，到“中国电风扇案”中提出的有条件地对“市场导向行业”征收反补贴税，再到“铜版纸案”中首次对我国产品同时实施反倾销和反补贴措施，到最近发生的“非公路用轮胎案”，美国不断打破1985年“乔治城钢铁案”确定下来的最高司法判例，对我国出口产品适用反补贴程序，而美国联邦巡回上诉法院与国际贸易法院在这些案件的很多看法并不一致。2012年3月，美国国会迅速通过了《1930年关税法》修正案（即H.R.4105法案），法案授权美国商务部有权对“非市场经济国家”出口的产品征收反补贴税，并可追溯到2006年11月20日后发起的所有反补贴调查及措施案件。该法案使美国对我国的反补贴调查及措施合法化，扫清了美国对我国进行反补贴程序中的法律障碍，严重损害了中美之间的贸易发展。H.R.4105法案本身的内容存在很多问题，也不符合国际法有关方面的规定。在当今国际贸易竞争激烈的背景下，我国必须要加大人力，财力，加强对美国贸易保护措施的研究，从该法案本身、WTO争端解决机制，及我国政府及企业自身方面找到应对的途径，这不仅可以打压美国国内不断兴起的贸易保护主义的势力，而且还可以阻断美国频繁对我国发起反补贴调查所引起的连锁反映。本文立足一般国际法及WTO相关法理角度，结合“非公路用轮胎案”，分析H.R.4105法案的违法性、阐明该法案的实施对我国产生的影响，从而针对当前美国既有的反补贴法及在WTO框架范围内，找出我国政府及企业可以应对的有效策略，以便更好的保护我国的国际贸易自由。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since China joined the WTO in2001,our international trade has maderemarkable achievements, but at the same time, trade conflicts with the United Statesand other western developed coutries are also constantly increasing. In recent years,with the continuous development of the international multilateral trading system, inaddition to the traditional anti-dumping measures, safeguard measures, technicalbarriers and green barriers,countervailing measures became a new means of tradeprotection that frequently applies to China which is regarded as a "non-marketeconomy" by other countries.As one of China’s important trading partners,the UnitedStates has been constantly improving its domestic countervailing law to protect itsown interests. In2006, the United States began to apply countervailing measures toour export enterprises, this kind of trade protection against China appeared manyyears later than the anti-dumping measures,the reason is that the United States didnot admit China’s market economy status for a long time,and this is also why theUnited states had not broken the traditional way which the countervailing measures isnot applicable to the “non-market economies”.However,as the expansion of thedeficit between the United states and China,the influence of the global economiccrisis in2008, the constant falling domestic economy and rising unemployment in theUnited States, the United States needs to find a new way to transfer the domesticcontradiction to change the status quo,and it’s such a "shortcut" to start countervailingmeasures frequently to China.For a long time,the U.S. Congress had been hoding anamphibolous attitude on the issue whether it is suitable to apply countervailingmethod to "non-market economies",which supplys a free space to U.S. Department ofCommerce for applying countervailing method to our export products.From thehighest judicial precedent that the United States shall not apply countervailing law to"non-market economies" in "the case of Georgetown steel",to the proposition that theUnited States have the right to collect conditional countervailing duties from"market-oriented industry "in "the case of chinese electric fan”,to "the case of coatedpaper" in which for the first time the United States appled anti-dumping and countervailing measures to chinese products, to "the case of off-road tires ".TheUnited States continuously break the highest judicial precedents of "the case ofGeorgetown steel ",applying the countervailing measures to China, while the federalcircuit court of appeals and the court of international trade has quite diffrent viewsfrom each other in these cases.In March,2012,the United States Congress quickly passed the amendments to theAmerican tariff law of1930(H.R.4105), the bill authorized the U.S. CommerceDepartment shall have the right to collect the countervailing duties from the exportproducts of "non-market economy countries", and the effectiveness of the bill cantrace back to all the countervailing measures since November20,2006.The bill makesU.S. countervailing investigations and measures against China legal, clears the legalobstacles in the program of executing the countervailing measures,and it alsoseriously damages the trade development between China and the United States.It exsitlots of problems in H.R.4105itself, and it is also not in conformity with the relevantrules of international law. Under the background of fierce competition in theinternational trade, our country must increase the manpower and financial resourcesto strengthen the researching of trade protection measures from the aspects of the actitself,WTO dispute settlement mechanism、the problems in our government and theenterprises itself,and find the countermeasures which can not only suppress the risingtrade protectionism of United States,but also block the chain reaction in othercontries cased by the frequently countervailing investigations of the United States.This paper is based on the view of the general international law and the WTOlegal principle, to analysis the illegality of H.R.4105combineing the " the case ofoff-road tires ", clarify the adverse impact of the new bill on our country,and find outthe effective strategies in the view of the current countervailing law within the WTOframeworm,which can better protect the freedom of China’s international trade.更多还原