摘要
《SCM协定》中的专向性标准可以说是美国法中的专向性标准的编纂和修改,但又有相当的丰富和发展。虽然美国1994年《乌拉圭回合协定法》对《SCM协定》作出了一定的回应,但就专向性标准而言,二者还是有不一致的地方。审视美国对华反补贴调查中的专向性标准,有值得商榷的地方,也有明显违背《SCM协定》的做法,中国政府可以根据个案的具体情况针对性地进行抗辩。在宏观层面,中国政府在经济立法和政策制定上应该未雨绸缪;在专向性国际规则的形成和发展过程中应发挥积极作用,促进更加公平合理的专向性标准的确立。
The standards of specificity in Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures（hereaf ter called SCM agreement） are in some way the codification of that in the American law,but developed consid erably.Although America’s Uruguay Round Agreements Act 1994 made some responses to the SCM agree ment,there still remain differences between them as far as specificity is concerned.Some of the specificity stan dards applied in America’s countervailing investigations against China are questionable,some are obviously in contradiction with the rules of SCM agreement,and the Chinese government can raise effective defenses accord ing to each case involved.On the macro level,the Chinese government must plan beforehand in law and deci sion making,at the same time,should play an active role in the shaping and developing of the WTO rules,so as to bring forth fairer and more reasonable specificity standards for the SCM agreement.
出处
《韩山师范学院学报》
2012年第5期45-49,共5页
Journal of Hanshan Normal University
基金
湖北省教育厅人文社会科学研究项目(项目编号:2011jyty081)
关键词
法律专向性
事实专向性
肯定性证据
不利推定
de jure specificity
de facto specificity
affirmative evidence
adverse inference
