...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of world trade >Standard of Review for World Trade Organization Panels in Trade Remedy Cases: a Critical Analysis
【24h】

Standard of Review for World Trade Organization Panels in Trade Remedy Cases: a Critical Analysis

机译：世界贸易组织贸易救济案件小组的审查标准：批判性分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

It would be preposterous to advance any definitive opinion on what should be the "right" standard of review for trade remedy cases in a short article like the present one. And it is not the proper role of the commentator to take a final position on what the standard of review "is" under the present agreements properly understood. This task must rest with the AB. What this article could do, however, was to explain the way the AB has so far approached this task. It found that the AB had drawn on the substantive rules of the relevant agreements to deduce an intermediate standard of review in safeguard cases. This analysis also showed, however, that the AB's arguments on this point have so far been slightly too cursory, and in particular with respect to the most important criteria defining the intermediate standard of review for safeguard cases, the requirement that the national authorities' explanation be adequate. This criterion was in effect shown to be the key element in limiting the discretion of national authorities. Under the present standard of review not only for safeguard, but also for ADP and, it can be speculated, CVM cases, national authorities are rather tightly constrained by the applicable standard(s) of review, so much that in'the eyes of the national authorities, the drawbacks of the intermediate standard(s) of review (the possibility to fail because of procedural errors) might outweigh the advantages of the margin of discretion afforded by such intermediate standard(s) of review. Good arguments in the text of the agreements were found, however, that could sustain such tight control by Panels and the AB. In fact, it was argued that they might sustain and demand an even tighter standard of review-de now review-in all but ADP cases, and that there is presently no basis for applying anything else than de now review as a general procedural rule absent specific textual support in the specific agreement at issue. It is hoped that the AB will tackle these remaining gaps in its jurisprudence in the future. Given the frequency with which standard of review is raised by the parties in WTO disputes, it is almost safe to say that the AB will indeed do so soon. Less certain is the prospect of any change to the pertinent provisions of the WTO agreements, given the difficulties in negotiating Article 17.6 ADP and the divergent proposals for changing it. But the last word on standard of review for WTO Panels in trade remedy cases has certainly not yet been spoken.
机译：在像现在这样的短文中就贸易救济案件的“正确”审查标准提出任何明确的意见将是荒谬的。就目前正确理解的协议下的“审核标准”是什么，发表评论员的立场不恰当。该任务必须由AB承担。但是，本文可以做的是解释AB迄今为止完成该任务的方式。它发现，AB借鉴了相关协议的实质性规则，得出了保障案件的中间审查标准。但是，该分析还表明，AB关于这一点的论点到目前为止还有些过时，特别是在定义保障案件审查中间标准的最重要标准方面，即要求国家主管部门做出解释。足够。该标准实际上是限制国家主管部门酌处权的关键因素。根据现行的审查标准，不仅针对保障措施，而且还针对ADP，并且可以推测，在CVM案件中，国家主管部门受到适用审查标准的严格限制，以至于在国家主管部门，中级审核标准的弊端（由于程序错误而失败的可能性）可能会超过此类中级审核标准所提供的酌处权的优势。但是，在协议的案文中发现了很好的论据，这些论据可以维持小组和AB的严格控制。实际上，有人争辩说，除ADP案件外，他们可能会维持并要求更高的审查标准（即现在进行审查），除了没有作为一般程序规则的现在审查以外，目前没有任何其他依据特定协议中的特定文字支持。希望AB将来能解决其法理学中仍然存在的这些空白。考虑到当事各方在WTO争端中提高审查标准的频率，可以肯定地说，AB将很快这样做。鉴于在谈判第17.6条ADP方面的困难以及对其进行修改的分歧建议，世贸组织协定中有关条款可能发生任何变化的可能性尚不确定。但是，关于贸易救济案中世贸组织专家组审查标准的最后一句话肯定还没有说出来。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号