中国在WTO的非市场经济待遇诉讼:初步评估

Weihuan Zhou
{"title":"中国在WTO的非市场经济待遇诉讼:初步评估","authors":"Weihuan Zhou","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3069691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As promised, China brought a WTO dispute against the US and the EU respectively regarding their antidumping laws, which continue to authorise the application of the so-called non-market economy (NME) methodology. This case was initiated one day after the expiry of paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China’s WTO Accession Protocol on 11 December 2016. Through a preliminary analysis of China’s claims in the request for consultation with the EU, this paper argues that the expiration of paragraph 15(a)(ii) has terminated the right of WTO Members to use surrogate prices or costs for price comparison in antidumping actions against China solely based on their national market economy criteria. The use of surrogate prices or costs must now comply with the relevant WTO rules applicable to all WTO Members. On this basis, the challenged EU measure is likely to be found WTO-inconsistent. Towards this end, WTO Members may continue to label China as an NME for political or other reasons under their national laws. However, whatever this label may entail, it no longer justifies the application of the NME methodology.","PeriodicalId":137430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Law eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"China's Litigation on Non-Market Economy Treatment at the WTO: A Preliminary Assessment\",\"authors\":\"Weihuan Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3069691\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As promised, China brought a WTO dispute against the US and the EU respectively regarding their antidumping laws, which continue to authorise the application of the so-called non-market economy (NME) methodology. This case was initiated one day after the expiry of paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China’s WTO Accession Protocol on 11 December 2016. Through a preliminary analysis of China’s claims in the request for consultation with the EU, this paper argues that the expiration of paragraph 15(a)(ii) has terminated the right of WTO Members to use surrogate prices or costs for price comparison in antidumping actions against China solely based on their national market economy criteria. The use of surrogate prices or costs must now comply with the relevant WTO rules applicable to all WTO Members. On this basis, the challenged EU measure is likely to be found WTO-inconsistent. Towards this end, WTO Members may continue to label China as an NME for political or other reasons under their national laws. However, whatever this label may entail, it no longer justifies the application of the NME methodology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":137430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Law eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3069691\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3069691","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

正如承诺的那样,中国分别就美国和欧盟的反倾销法向世贸组织提起诉讼,这些法律继续授权应用所谓的非市场经济(NME)方法。本案是在中国《加入世贸组织议定书》第15(a)(ii)段于2016年12月11日届满后一天提起的。通过对中国在与欧盟磋商请求中的主张进行初步分析,本文认为,第15(a)(ii)段的到期终止了WTO成员仅根据其国内市场经济标准在针对中国的反倾销行动中使用替代价格或成本进行价格比较的权利。替代价格或成本的使用现在必须符合适用于所有WTO成员的WTO相关规则。在此基础上,受到质疑的欧盟措施很可能被认定与wto不一致。为此,世贸组织成员可根据其国内法律,出于政治或其他原因,继续将中国列为新兴经济国家。然而,无论这个标签可能意味着什么,它都不再证明NME方法的应用是正当的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
China's Litigation on Non-Market Economy Treatment at the WTO: A Preliminary Assessment
As promised, China brought a WTO dispute against the US and the EU respectively regarding their antidumping laws, which continue to authorise the application of the so-called non-market economy (NME) methodology. This case was initiated one day after the expiry of paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China’s WTO Accession Protocol on 11 December 2016. Through a preliminary analysis of China’s claims in the request for consultation with the EU, this paper argues that the expiration of paragraph 15(a)(ii) has terminated the right of WTO Members to use surrogate prices or costs for price comparison in antidumping actions against China solely based on their national market economy criteria. The use of surrogate prices or costs must now comply with the relevant WTO rules applicable to all WTO Members. On this basis, the challenged EU measure is likely to be found WTO-inconsistent. Towards this end, WTO Members may continue to label China as an NME for political or other reasons under their national laws. However, whatever this label may entail, it no longer justifies the application of the NME methodology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信