欧盟的反胁迫文书:非法单边贸易反措施的变相回归?

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
Kornel Olsthoorn
{"title":"欧盟的反胁迫文书:非法单边贸易反措施的变相回归?","authors":"Kornel Olsthoorn","doi":"10.54648/leie2024003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) adopted an Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) to counter economic coercion and weaponization of economic dependencies. This article analyses the potential application and interaction of the EU’s ACI with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) legal framework. In particular, the article examines the EU’s claim that the ACI is solely governed by general customary law, justifying countermeasures in response to unlawful economic coercion. A closer look reveals the legal complexities and challenges associated with implementing the ACI within the broader context of the WTO. Actions taken under the ACI that seek redress for WTO law violations could potentially be in violation of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). Additionally, justifying a violation of WTO law based on the enforcement of general customary law on countermeasures is unlikely to be accepted. While it is difficult to evaluate the ACI’s application in theory, the article also questions the validity of public morals and national security as justifications for response measures under the ACI. The outcome of potential WTO litigation pertaining to the ACI is difficult to address in the abstract, yet future cases hold the potential to provide further clarity on the interplay between the WTO regime and general international law.\nAnti-Coercion Instrument, Open Strategic Autonomy, Economic Coercion, Countermeasures, WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The EU’s Anti-coercion Instrument: A Return of Unlawful Unilateral Trade Countermeasures in Disguise?\",\"authors\":\"Kornel Olsthoorn\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/leie2024003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The European Union (EU) adopted an Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) to counter economic coercion and weaponization of economic dependencies. This article analyses the potential application and interaction of the EU’s ACI with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) legal framework. In particular, the article examines the EU’s claim that the ACI is solely governed by general customary law, justifying countermeasures in response to unlawful economic coercion. A closer look reveals the legal complexities and challenges associated with implementing the ACI within the broader context of the WTO. Actions taken under the ACI that seek redress for WTO law violations could potentially be in violation of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). Additionally, justifying a violation of WTO law based on the enforcement of general customary law on countermeasures is unlikely to be accepted. While it is difficult to evaluate the ACI’s application in theory, the article also questions the validity of public morals and national security as justifications for response measures under the ACI. The outcome of potential WTO litigation pertaining to the ACI is difficult to address in the abstract, yet future cases hold the potential to provide further clarity on the interplay between the WTO regime and general international law.\\nAnti-Coercion Instrument, Open Strategic Autonomy, Economic Coercion, Countermeasures, WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism\",\"PeriodicalId\":42718,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal Issues of Economic Integration\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal Issues of Economic Integration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2024003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2024003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲联盟(欧盟)通过了《反胁迫文书》(ACI),以打击经济胁迫和经济依赖武器化。本文分析了欧盟《反胁迫文书》与世界贸易组织 (WTO) 法律框架之间的潜在应用和互动关系。本文特别探讨了欧盟的主张,即《反倾销协定》只受一般习惯法的管辖,因此有理由对非法经济胁迫采取反措施。仔细研究后会发现,在更广泛的世贸组织背景下实施《反倾销协定》在法律上的复杂性和挑战。根据《反倾销倡议》采取的行动,如果是为了纠正违反世贸组织法律的行为,就有可能违反世贸组织的《争端解决谅解书》(DSU)。此外,以执行有关反措施的一般习惯法为由来证明违反世贸组织法律是合理的,这种做法不太可能被接受。虽然在理论上很难评价《反倾销协定》的适用性,但文章也对公共道德和国家安全作为《反倾销协定》下应对措施的正当性提出了质疑。与反胁迫文书有关的潜在世贸组织诉讼的结果很难抽象地加以论述,但未来的案例有可能进一步澄清世贸组织制度与一般国际法之间的相互作用。 反胁迫文书、开放战略自主权、经济胁迫、反措施、世贸组织争端解决机制
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The EU’s Anti-coercion Instrument: A Return of Unlawful Unilateral Trade Countermeasures in Disguise?
The European Union (EU) adopted an Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) to counter economic coercion and weaponization of economic dependencies. This article analyses the potential application and interaction of the EU’s ACI with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) legal framework. In particular, the article examines the EU’s claim that the ACI is solely governed by general customary law, justifying countermeasures in response to unlawful economic coercion. A closer look reveals the legal complexities and challenges associated with implementing the ACI within the broader context of the WTO. Actions taken under the ACI that seek redress for WTO law violations could potentially be in violation of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). Additionally, justifying a violation of WTO law based on the enforcement of general customary law on countermeasures is unlikely to be accepted. While it is difficult to evaluate the ACI’s application in theory, the article also questions the validity of public morals and national security as justifications for response measures under the ACI. The outcome of potential WTO litigation pertaining to the ACI is difficult to address in the abstract, yet future cases hold the potential to provide further clarity on the interplay between the WTO regime and general international law. Anti-Coercion Instrument, Open Strategic Autonomy, Economic Coercion, Countermeasures, WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
×
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