论文部分内容阅读
无论是在国际公法中,还是在WTO争端解决中,如何界定“规则冲突”的概念,都是一个悬而未决、难以确定的问题。在国际公法和WTO争端解决中,关于规则冲突的概念,都存在定义的广义与狭义之争。在国际公法中,比较流行的是狭义的冲突定义,不承认权利可能与义务或禁止相冲突;在WTO争端解决实践中,究竟是应该采用狭义的还是广义的规则冲突的定义,目前尚未有定论。然而,狭义的冲突定义在法律上是不恰当的,并且导致自相矛盾,因此,在WTO争端解决中,关于规则冲突的狭义定义是不可取的,必须首选一个广泛的定义,把允许与义务或禁止之间冲突的情况,即矛盾的冲突,也视为构成规则冲突。
Whether it is in public international law or in the WTO dispute settlement, how to define the concept of “conflict of rules” is an unresolved issue that is difficult to be determined. In the process of international public law and WTO dispute settlement, there is a dispute between broad and narrow sense of definition about the concept of rule conflict. In the field of public international law, the more common is the definition of a narrow conflict. It does not recognize that the right may conflict with the obligation or the prohibition. Whether the narrow or broad definition of the rule conflict should be adopted in the WTO dispute settlement practice is not yet conclusive . However, the narrowly defined definition of conflict is not legal in law and leads to self-contradiction. Therefore, the narrow definition of the rule conflict in the WTO dispute settlement is not desirable. Therefore, a broad definition must be preferred and the allowances and obligations Or prohibit the conflict between the situation, that is, conflict and conflict, but also constitute a conflict of rules.