摘要
从实践来看,世界贸易组织争端解决机构在解释《关税与贸易总协定》第20条中必要性检验时,对管制目标和替代性措施重要性的认识明显不足。管制目标的识别是决定争议措施是否属于例外范围的前提,对必要性检验至关重要,因为目标的界定能影响当事成员证明其措施依据第20条是必要的能力。而且,管制目标越窄,争端解决机构就越难以发现可行的替代措施。而替代措施的确认是必要性检验中的关键因素,若某些措施对于争议措施来说是互补的而不是合理可行的替代措施,那么更容易认定争议措施的合法性。因此,对管制目标和替代性措施的确认标准需要在争端解决实践中进一步予以明确。
From a practical point of view,when interpreting the necessity test of Article XX of the General A- greement on Tariffs and Trade ,WTO dispute settlement body didnl recognize the importance of defining regulatory goal and alternative measures. Identifying a regulatory goal in determining whether a measure falls within the scope of an exception is crucial for the necessity test, because characterization of the goal can influence the ability of a member to justify a measure as necessary under Article XX. More specifically, the narrower the characterization of a regulatory goal, the less likely it is that a panel will find reasonably available alternatives to the measure to exist. Al- ternative measures identified as a key factor in the necessity test, if certain measures are complementary rather than alternative ; then it＇ s easier to identify dispute the legality of the disputed measures. Therefore, the standards of regu- latory goal and alternative measures need to be clarified further in practice.
出处
《南昌大学学报（人文社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2014年第1期84-90,共7页
Journal of Nanchang University(Humanities and Social Sciences)
基金
国家社科基金青年项目"世界贸易组织与区域贸易协定间争端解决机制管辖权冲突与调和研究"(13CFX116)
