论文部分内容阅读
当前世贸组织(“WTO”)多边体制下,区域贸易安排(“RTAs”)和优惠贸易安排(“PTAs”)持续激增的态势,已成为国际贸易格局中越来越鲜明的特征。与此同时,RTAs与WTO在争议解决机制管辖权问题上的冲突在实践中也日益显现。2004年美国诉至WTO的“墨西哥软饮案(WT/DS308)”引发了对“是否存在可以阻却WTO对诉至其处的案件行使管辖权的合法事由”的探讨,由此得出的“WTO具有强制性管辖权”的关键性结论促使人们去寻求诸如对《争议解决谅解》(“DSU”)第24条进行扩大解释、借助国际法原则等解决两者冲突的合理路径。中国现有的自贸协定(“FTAs”)中相关条款未能突破窠臼,其仍将面临类似于北美自贸协定(“NAFTA”)所经历过的困境,为此,本文力图站在前人的肩膀上紧扣中国FTAs的实践,为其提供分析预测及可行性建议。
Under the current multilateral system of the WTO (“WTO”), the continuous surge of regional trade arrangements (“RTAs”) and preferential trade arrangements (“PTAs”) has become increasingly clear in the pattern of international trade feature. At the same time, the conflicts between RTAs and WTO over the jurisdiction of the dispute resolution mechanism have also become increasingly apparent in practice. The “Mexican Soft Drinks Case (WT / DS308)” by the U.S. Petition to the WTO in 2004 “explored the question of whether there is a legitimate cause that could hinder the exercise of jurisdiction by the WTO in cases brought to where it is located.” The key conclusion reached by the WTO that “compulsory jurisdiction of the WTO” urges people to seek solutions such as expanding the interpretation of Article 24 of the “Dispute Settlement Understanding” (“DSU”) and resolving conflicts between them through the principle of international law A reasonable path. The relevant provisions in the existing free trade agreement (“FTAs”) in China have failed to break the stereotype that they will still face difficulties similar to those experienced by the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”). Therefore, Standing on the shoulders of predecessors closely linked to the practice of China FTAs, to provide analysis and forecasting and feasibility recommendations.