|
|
|
| On the Relationship between “Legal” Specifics and “Factual” Specifics in Subsidy and Counter-subsidy Measures |
| REN Qiang |
| Law School of Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872 |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Received: 19 December 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
[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 
