论文部分内容阅读
“美国远程博彩案”与“中国出版物和视听产品案”专家组在对“公共道德”解释时依循了《维也纳条约法公约》第31条和第32条的传统路径,但在争议措施的“公共道德”政策目标归属上呈现了民族主义或国际主义的不确定立场,该种立场直接导致证明上宣称标准和合理标准的混乱。作为新兴经济体国家,中国应因势利导,证明国内“公共道德”政策目标属于WTO“公共道德”的范畴,从而实现政策目标归属的成功转化。
“American Remote Gaming ” and “China Publications and Audiovisual Products ” The panel followed the traditional path of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in interpreting “public morality” , The uncertain position of nationalism or internationalism over the attribution of the “public morality” policy of controversial measures has led directly to the confusion proving the above stated standards and reasonable standards. As a newly emerging economy country, China should make the best use of its advantages to prove that the goal of its domestic “public morality” policy belongs to the category of WTO “public morality ” so as to realize the successful transformation of the ownership of the policy.