【作者】 刘静；

【导师】 都亳；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 国际法学， 2022， 硕士

【摘要】 WTO上诉机构作为WTO争端解决机制的重要组成部分,在处理国际经贸纠纷、维护世界贸易自由和公平领域起着举足轻重的作用。多年以来,上诉机制的设立一直被认为是乌拉圭回合谈判中“最显著的成果”,上诉机构也赢得了“世界贸易最高法院”的美誉。但自从美国因涉美贸易纠纷的相关裁决与国际经贸规则不符而于2016年一票否决张胜和的再次当选以来,美国一再阻碍上诉机构启动成员甄选程序,对WTO上诉机构的有效运转产生了严重的不利影响。由于现任成员的任期接连到达,越来越多的空位无人填补,法官人数严重不足,上诉机构最终无可避免地彻底停摆。美国在上诉机构危机中扮演了至关重要的角色,曾多次公开发表对上诉机构的不满和指责,并细数WTO上诉机构僵局涉及的法律问题。这些指责和问题最终汇总于USTR发布的《WTO上诉机构报告》之中。报告涵盖了超期审案和超期任职两大违反WTO规则的程序性问题,审查范围、咨询意见、遵循先例、措施失效、越权、嗣后协定六大被称为“司法造法”的体制性问题,以及最具争议的实体性问题——“越权裁判”。美国采用文本解释和案例佐证双重论证方法强化报告的可信度。然而,面对上诉机构僵局,绝不能只听美国一面之词。美国提出的法律问题的真伪有待辨别。从问题是否属实、问题是否严重、问题是否有解三个方面对美国提出的理由进行分析,可以发现,美国提出的程序性问题较易解决、体制性问题逻辑混乱、实体性问题缺乏依据。上诉机构积极履行了世贸组织赋予它的职能,使贸易争端得到实质性的解决。美国对上诉机构的关切,一方面是为了将上诉机构存在的法律问题与成员选任挂钩,阻止上诉机构继续运行,瓦解WTO争端解决两审终审机制;另一方面是为了回应国内选民,强烈反对上诉机构不利于美国的裁决。因此,美国对上诉机构的关切暗藏了政治意图,各成员不能为了解决上诉机构危机、尽快恢复上诉程序而一味地迎合美国,根据美国的指责无条件地修改上诉机制。任何难题的产生都不会只有一个原因,上诉机构停摆僵局也不例外。美国推出经济全球化“再平衡”战略以应对世界经济力量格局的重要转变,其中就包括利用上诉机构改革推动WTO进行更大的实质性改革。争端解决中司法能动主义的过度适用也给上诉机构带来了负面影响,成员方权利与义务平衡体系的动摇,使成员方对上诉机构的信心深受打击。除此之外,国家经济主权意识的崛起为上诉机构带来了更大挑战,上诉机构面临解决争端职能与维护国家主权之间的平衡难题。最后,上诉机构在其运行过程中也逐渐暴露了自身的问题和缺陷,间接导致了上诉机构僵局的形成。目前,为了应对上诉机构危机,WTO成员方纷纷提出解决方案,特别是上诉机构临时替代性措施的落地似乎为成员方带来了希望。然而,尽管MPIA在理论上适用性很强,在具体实践中却体现了其局限性所在。WTO上诉机构改革仍具有现实意义上的必要性和可行性。WTO各成员方现阶段提出的改革主张因多侧重于局部性修改建议,无法从根本上破解僵局。上诉机构的改革要坚定不移地践行改革理念,维护权力导向与规则导向的平衡、立法权与司法权的平衡以及司法权与国家主权的平衡。与此同时,改革应转换到宏观视角,聚焦于激活WTO立法职能,谨慎启动投票机制;明确上诉机构的导向与职能,重视专家组的作用;加强对上诉机构的监督,完善《上诉审议工作程序》;平等对待发达国家和发展中国家,寻找改革谈判的“协议区”;关注WTO整体性改革,观察美国下一步动态。更多还原

【Abstract】 As an important part of WTO dispute settlement mechanism,WTO Appellate Body plays a pivotal role in handling international trade and economic disputes and maintaining the freedom and fairness of world trade.For many years,the establishment of the appellate mechanism has been regarded as the “most significant achievement” in the Uruguay Round negotiations,and the Appellate Body has earned the reputation of “the highest court of world trade”.However,since the U.S.rejected the re-election of Seung Wha Chang in 2016 due to the inconsistency of the ruling on U.S.-related trade disputes with international trade and economic rules,the U.S.has repeatedly prevented the Appellate Body from starting the membership selection process,which has seriously affected the effective operation of WTO Appellate Body.As the terms of the incumbent members arrived one after another,more and more vacant seats were left unfilled,and the number of judges was seriously insufficient,the Appellate Body finally and inevitably came to a complete halt.The United States played a crucial role in the Appellate Body crisis,having made numerous public statements of dissatisfaction and accusations against the appellate body,as well as detailing the legal issues involved in the WTO Appellate Body impasse.These accusations and issues were eventually summarized in the WTO Appellate Body Report issued by USTR.The report covers two procedural issues that violate WTO rules,namely overdue review and overstay,six institutional issues known as “judicial lawmaking”,namely scope of review,advisory opinions,precedent,invalidation of measures,ultra vires,and subsequent agreements,as well as the most controversial substantive issues,namely “ultra vires adjudication”.The U.S.adopted a dual approach of textual interpretation and case support to strengthen the credibility of the report.However,in the face of the Appellate Body impasse,it is important not to take the United States’ word for it.The authenticity of the legal issues raised by the U.S.has yet to be determined.An analysis of the reasons put forward by the United States from three aspects: whether the issues are true,whether the issues are serious,and whether the issues have solutions,reveals that the procedural issues raised by the United States are easier to resolve,the institutional issues are logically confusing,and the substantive issues lack foundation.The Appellate Body has actively performed the functions assigned to it by the WTO to bring about substantive resolution of trade disputes.The U.S.concerns about the Appellate Body are,on the one hand,to link the legal problems of the Appellate Body to the election of members,to prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate,and to dismantle the WTO dispute settlement system of two-tier appellate;on the other hand,to respond to the domestic constituents who strongly oppose the Appellate Body’s ruling against the United States.Therefore,the U.S.concerns about the Appellate Body conceal political intentions,and members cannot just cater to the U.S.and unconditionally revise the appeal mechanism according to the U.S.accusations in order to solve the crisis of the Appellate Body and resume the appeal process as soon as possible.There is no single cause for any problem,and the suspension deadlock of the Appellate Body is no exception.The U.S.has launched a “rebalancing” strategy for economic globalization in response to an important shift in the world’s economic power structure,including the use of Appellate Body reform to push for greater substantive reform of the WTO.The excessive application of judicial activism in dispute settlement has also brought a negative impact on the Appellate Body,and the balance system of members’ rights and obligations has been shaken,which has severely damaged the members’ confidence in the Appellate Body.In addition,the rise of national economic sovereignty consciousness has posed a greater challenge to the Appellate Body,which faces the challenge of balancing its dispute resolution function with the preservation of national sovereignty.Finally,the Appellate Body has gradually revealed its own problems and shortcomings in its operation,which has indirectly led to the formation of the Appellate Body deadlock.At present,in order to cope with the crisis of the Appellate Body,WTO members have proposed solutions,especially the landing of provisional alternative measures for the Appellate Body seems to bring hope to the members.However,although MPIA is highly applicable in theory,its limitations are reflected in concrete practice.The reform of the WTO Appellate Body is still necessary and feasible in practice.The reform proposals put forward by WTO members at this stage are mostly focused on partial amendments,which cannot fundamentally break the deadlock.The reform of the Appellate Body should firmly practice the reform concept and maintain the balance of power-oriented and rule-oriented,the balance of legislative power and judicial power,and the balance of judicial power and national sovereignty.At the same time,the reform should shift to a macro perspective,focus on activating the legislative function of WTO,starting the voting mechanism cautiously,clarifying the orientation and function of the Appellate Body,paying attention to the role of the panel,strengthening the supervision of the Appellate Body,and improving Working Procedures for Appellate Review.The Appellate Body also should treat both developed and developing countries equally,find the “zone of possible agreement”for reform negotiations,pay attention to the overall reform of WTO,and observe the next development of the United States.更多还原