發(fā)布時間：2018-04-24 07:10

  本文選題：雙反 + 特征��； 參考：《南京財經(jīng)大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：2007年美國對中國銅版紙發(fā)起的第一起反傾銷和反補(bǔ)貼雙重調(diào)查，開創(chuàng)了美國對華“雙反”的進(jìn)程。此后的幾年間，美國對華“雙反”實踐從未停止，特別是2008年全球性金融危機(jī)之后，更是愈演愈烈，但這更多的是美國貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義本質(zhì)的體現(xiàn)。美國對華“雙反”頻發(fā)既有外部因素的影響，也有我國自身存在的問題。美國商務(wù)部對原產(chǎn)于中國的產(chǎn)品并用“雙反”措施，國內(nèi)法和國際法依據(jù)都不明晰，特別是“中美雙反措施爭端案”后美國失利，更是使美國并用“雙反”缺乏支持依據(jù)，但該案中上訴機(jī)構(gòu)的一些論斷對中國并非有利，同時美國不會輕易放棄“雙反”使用，如何有效應(yīng)對美國“雙反”成為我國政界、學(xué)界亟待研究的問題，本文就是在該背景下對美國對華并用“雙反”問題進(jìn)行探討，，希望通過對美國對華并用“雙反”相關(guān)問題的分析找出應(yīng)對“雙反”調(diào)查的法律對策。 本文主要從五個方面就美國對華并用“雙反”調(diào)查進(jìn)行論述。 第一部分梳理了美國對華“雙反”的實踐進(jìn)程，通過對美國頻繁發(fā)起“雙反”的案件考察得出美國對華“雙反”的特征，特別是國際金融危機(jī)爆發(fā)后呈現(xiàn)出來的新特點，分析出美國對華“雙反”本質(zhì)上是一種貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義的行為。 第二部分分析了我國頻遭美國“雙反”調(diào)查的外部因素和內(nèi)部原因，近年來美中貿(mào)易逆差居高不下，使得美國國內(nèi)貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義抬頭，同時由于反傾銷反補(bǔ)貼同時發(fā)起不但增加了我國的應(yīng)訴難度也會對我國未來的外貿(mào)政策發(fā)生影響，這些種種方面都是重要的外部誘因，但同時我國自身存在的問題也是不可忽視的，需要引起重視。 第三部分討論了美國對華“雙反”實踐在美國國內(nèi)法和國際法上的依據(jù)。一方面，通過對美國國內(nèi)相關(guān)成文法和判例法的分析，得出美國對華“雙反”其國內(nèi)法依據(jù)不足；另一方面，通過對2011年3月的WTO判決，考察美國對華“雙反”是否具有國際法支撐，通過對案件爭議焦點的分析，得出其也沒有有力的國際法依據(jù)。 第四部分是對第三部分所提案例的進(jìn)一步分析，雖然中國在該案判決中獲勝，但勝訴中存在的法律隱憂不容忽視，世貿(mào)組織上訴機(jī)構(gòu)的報告并沒有完全支持中國主張，甚至在一些問題上的論斷會對中國的外貿(mào)發(fā)展產(chǎn)生不利影響。 第五部分是在對前面幾部分分析的基礎(chǔ)上，提出筆者對我國應(yīng)戰(zhàn)美國“雙反”的一些意見和建議。從國際和國內(nèi)兩個層面進(jìn)行討論，國際方面我們要適用WTO爭端解決機(jī)制來保護(hù)我國利益，同時也不能忽視利用美國國內(nèi)的救濟(jì)；國內(nèi)層面則從應(yīng)訴、完善法律、提升企業(yè)實力幾方面進(jìn)行探討。
[Abstract]:In 2007, the United States launched the first double anti-dumping and countervailing investigation against China's coated Paper, which initiated the process of "double antidumping". In the following years, the practice of "double opposition" to China has never stopped, especially after the global financial crisis in 2008, but it is more the embodiment of the essence of American trade protectionism. The frequent occurrence of American double-reaction to China is influenced by external factors as well as its own problems. The United States Department of Commerce has not clearly defined the basis of domestic and international law for the use of "double reaction" measures on products originating in China. In particular, the failure of the United States after the "dispute case between China and the United States on dual countermeasures" has made the United States lack the support basis for the use of "double counter measures". However, some of the arguments of the appellate bodies in this case are not beneficial to China, and the United States will not give up the use of "double reactions" easily. How to effectively deal with the "double reactions" of the United States has become a problem that needs to be urgently studied by the academic community in China's political circles. Under this background, this paper probes into the problem of "double reactives" used by the United States against China, and hopes to find out the legal countermeasures for the investigation of "double reactions" through the analysis of the related problems of the United States' use of "double reactions" to China. This article mainly discusses the American double-opposition investigation on China from five aspects. The first part combs the practice process of the US "double opposition" to China, and through the investigation of the frequent "double opposition" cases initiated by the United States, it concludes the characteristics of the "double opposition" of the United States to China, especially the new features presented after the outbreak of the international financial crisis. The analysis shows that the "double opposition" of the United States to China is essentially a protectionist act. The second part analyzes the external factors and internal reasons that our country is frequently investigated by the United States. In recent years, the trade deficit between the United States and China has remained high, which has led to the rise of domestic trade protectionism in the United States. At the same time, since anti-dumping and countervailing has not only increased the difficulty of responding to lawsuits in China, but will also have an impact on China's future foreign trade policy. These aspects are important external incentives. But at the same time, our own problems can not be ignored, need to be paid attention to. The third part discusses the basis of American "double opposition" to China in American domestic law and international law. On the one hand, through the analysis of the relevant statute law and case law in the United States, the author draws a conclusion that the domestic law of "double opposition" of the United States against China is insufficient; on the other hand, through the WTO judgment in March 2011, Through the analysis of the dispute focus of the case, it is concluded that there is no strong basis for international law. The fourth part is a further analysis of the case mentioned in the third part. Although China won the judgment in this case, the legal hidden worries in the victory cannot be ignored. The report of the WTO Appellate body does not fully support China's claim. Even on some issues the argument will have a negative impact on the development of China's foreign trade. In the fifth part, based on the analysis of the previous parts, the author puts forward some opinions and suggestions on our country's "double opposition" to the United States. From the international and domestic levels, we should apply the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to protect the interests of our country. At the same time, we should not ignore the use of domestic remedies in the United States. At the domestic level, we should respond to the suit and improve the law. Enhance the strength of enterprises to explore several aspects.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京財經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

中國期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前10條

1 彭育園;;美國反補(bǔ)貼法的修改與我國的應(yīng)對方略[J];對外經(jīng)貿(mào)實務(wù);2006年10期

2 單一;;反補(bǔ)貼措施的司法審查[J];法律適用;2007年06期

3 李仲平;李煉;;“美國對華銅版紙案”述評——基于反補(bǔ)貼申訴的考察[J];法商研究;2008年01期

4 徐泉;;美國反補(bǔ)貼法適用探析——以對“非市場經(jīng)濟(jì)國家”的適用為考察對象[J];法商研究;2008年01期

5 臧立;;WTO法律體系下實施“雙反”措施的合法性研究——由“美國對華銅版紙案”引發(fā)的思考[J];法商研究;2008年01期

6 胡曉紅;;國外對華產(chǎn)品實施反補(bǔ)貼的法律反思[J];法學(xué)家;2007年04期

7 茍大凱;;美國對華實施“雙反”之違法性分析[J];法學(xué);2010年03期

8 王勝偉;許開華;金棟;;《中國入世議定書》第十五條研究[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì);2006年04期

9 鄧德雄;;反傾銷和反補(bǔ)貼重復(fù)救濟(jì)問題及其司法審查研究——兼析美國國際貿(mào)易法院非公路用輪胎雙反案判決[J];國際貿(mào)易;2009年11期

10 龔柏華;陳云曉;;美國對源自中國的銅版紙適用反補(bǔ)貼稅案評析[J];國際商務(wù)研究;2007年03期

中國碩士學(xué)位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前3條

1 畢聰;中美貿(mào)易摩擦新問題探析[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

2 吳雅萍;美國對華同時適用反傾銷和反補(bǔ)貼措施問題研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2009年

3 陳云秀;美國對華并用“兩反調(diào)查”法律問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

本文編號：1795655