Abstract：Under Agreement on Subsidy and Counter-subsidy Measures (SCM), the specifics of subsidies are classified into two kinds: one is “legal” specifics, the other is “factual” specifics. The determination of these two is mainly dealt with in the three articles of 2.1（a）、2.1（b）、2.1（c）in SCM. It is generally recognized that the first two articles are “legal” specifics while the last is “factual” specific. It is controversial as to how an investigation organization should apply article 2.1 in the agreement. From the perspective of treaty interpretation and against the background of DS437, this paper elaborates that only when the appellate body determine the “specific” of the subsidy in the logical order from “legal” to “factual” can a reasonable expectation of the result from all the parties in the lawsuit and the stability of WTO rules system be maintained.
任强. 补贴与反补贴守则中“法律”专项性与“事实”专项性关系解读[J]. 《深圳大学学报》（人文社科版）, 2017, 34(2): 123-128.
REN Qiang. On the Relationship between “Legal” Specifics and “Factual” Specifics in Subsidy and Counter-subsidy Measures. , 2017, 34(2): 123-128.
[1] 贺小勇等.WTO法专题研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.170-172. [2] 李浩培.条约法概论[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.334. [3] 陈欣.WTO争端解决中的法律解释——司法克制主义VS司法能动主义[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.1-5. [4] Report of the Appellate Body. UNITED STATES - COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA[P].2014.43. [5] 王衡.中国WTO争端应对法律问题研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2015.116. [6] 朱榄叶.世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析（2013-2015） [M].北京：法律出版社,2016.271-272.
2017, Vol. 34 
粤公网安备44030502007936号