DSB报告执行制度论：从建构走向变革
摘要
争端解决机制是WTO皇冠上的明珠,但这颗明珠是否真的璀璨夺目,则取决于DSB报告执行制度。时至今日,DSB已通过了上百个案件的报告,其中绝大部分案件的DSB报告都要进入执行程序。对DSB报告执行制度的研究意义主要在于,发现DSB报告执行制度实施中存在的实质性问题,反思该制度的实质性缺陷,提出该制度实质性变革的方案,寻找实现该制度实质性变革方案的有效路径。
本文对DSB报告执行制度的研究包括四部分内容:对该制度建构的研究包括其生成过程、具体内容和功能;对该制度实施的研究涉及DSB报告执行的及时性、相符性和强制性;对该制度变革目标的研究包括该制度的价值、基本原则和变革方案;对该制度变革目标实现的研究包括该制度变革的法律路径选择、参与主体和参与制度。
本文的主要创新之处包括:
第一,指出中止减让或其它义务是一种对不可替代的为一定行为的请求权的间接强制执行措施。论证了DSB报告执行制度具有促进在多边贸易体制内实现国际法治的功能。
第二,分析了到2007年1月5日止需要执行的87个案件的DSB报告执行的及时性、相符性和强制性。进而论证了DSB报告执行制度的以下实质性缺陷:执行时限约束疲软,瑕疵执行损失救济缺失,强制执行措施强制不力。
第三,论证了作为DSB报告执行制度变革指针的该制度的价值目标体系和基本原则体系。以此为基础,对DSB报告执行制度的实质性缺陷提出如下变革方案:取消延迟执行的合理期间,由DSB建议执行期间和延迟执行的合理期间;建立瑕疵执行损失救济措施,可选择的方案包括强制支付迟延履行金和赔偿损失;建立公力实施性间接执行措施,但并不废止中止减让或其它义务的私力实施性间接执行措施。
第四,揭示了实现DSB报告执行制度变革目标的不同法律路径中的不同方案对DSB报告执行制度的实质性变革的不同意义。为了实现DSB报告执行制度的实质性变革,主张全面审查DSU的谈判应设定时限,应允许与DSU外部的谈判议题进行交换,有关DSB报告执行条款的谈判可以与DSU内部的谈判议题进行交换;此外,还主张要有DSB报告对执行期间具体化、DSB建议追溯性赔偿和DSU修正决策制度采用多数表决制的配套。指出了DSB建议追溯性赔偿在法学、伦理学、经济学和契约理论上的根据。
Dispute settlement mechanism is the bright pearl on the crown of WTO. However, whether it is really lustrous and brilliant depends on the implementation institution of DSB report. Up to now, DSB has already adopted reports in more than a hundred cases, in which most of DSB reports have to enter the implementation procedure. The meaning of doing research on the implementation institution of DSB report mainly consists in finding out the substantial problems while applying the implementation institution of DSB report,reflecting upon its substantial deficiency and putting forward some projects about the substantial transformation of this institution, as well as looking for effective routes to realize these projects.
The four parts of researching to the implementation institution of DSB report are as follows. The research on the construction of this institution includes its generation process, concrete contents, and functions. The research on the enforcement of this institution includes the timely, consistent and compulsive characteristic of implementing DSB report. The research on the objective of the transformation to this institution includes the values, the basic principles and the projects of the transformation. The research on the realization of this objective includes the choice of the legal routes, the participation subjects and institutions to this institution transformation.
The innovation in this dissertation is as follows.
Firstly, the author points out that the suspending concessions and other obligations are indirect enforcement measures to obligation to do act that should not be replaced. The author demonstrates that the implementation institution of DSB report has the function of promoting to realize intrnational rule of law in multilateral trading system.
Secondly, the author analyzes the timely, consistent and compulsive characteristic to implement DSB report in need of implementation in 87 cases, as of 5 January 2007, from this demonstrates that there are substantial deficiencies in the implementation institution of DSB report: weak restriction on the implementation time limit; lack of remedies for the damage of flawed implementation; weak compulsive power of enforcement measures.
Thirdly, the author demonstrates the system of the value objective and basic principles directing the transformation of the implementation institution of the DSB report. Based on this demonstration, this dissertation provides the transformation projects to cope with the substantial deficiency of the implementation institution of DSB report: Canceling the reasonable period time for deferring implementation, the implementation period and the reasonable period of time for deferring implementation should be recommended by DSB; Establishing the remedies for the damage of flawed implementation, including compulsory payment for deferring implementation and compensation for deferring implementation; Establishing indirect enforcement measures enforced by public power, but not abolishing indirect implementation measures enforced by self, namely, the suspending concessions and other obligations.
Fourthly, this dissertation reveals that the various projects of different legal routes to realize the transformation of the implementation institution of DSB report have different significance on the substantial transformation of the institution. To realize the substantial transformation of the implementation institution of DSB report, the author advocates that we shall set a time limit for the negotiation on examining the DSU fully, and should allow to exchange the negotiation topics with those out of the DSU, and exchange the negotiation topics between the rules of DSB report implementation and the interior topics of the DSU. Besides, the author advocates that we shall require that DSB report should embody the time period of implementation, DSB should recommend the retrospective compensation, and WTO should adopt the majority vote mechanism for the decision-making system of revising the DSU. The author points out the bases of DSB recommending the retrospective compensation on the science of law, ethics, economics and contract theory.
本文对DSB报告执行制度的研究包括四部分内容:对该制度建构的研究包括其生成过程、具体内容和功能;对该制度实施的研究涉及DSB报告执行的及时性、相符性和强制性;对该制度变革目标的研究包括该制度的价值、基本原则和变革方案;对该制度变革目标实现的研究包括该制度变革的法律路径选择、参与主体和参与制度。
本文的主要创新之处包括:
第一,指出中止减让或其它义务是一种对不可替代的为一定行为的请求权的间接强制执行措施。论证了DSB报告执行制度具有促进在多边贸易体制内实现国际法治的功能。
第二,分析了到2007年1月5日止需要执行的87个案件的DSB报告执行的及时性、相符性和强制性。进而论证了DSB报告执行制度的以下实质性缺陷:执行时限约束疲软,瑕疵执行损失救济缺失,强制执行措施强制不力。
第三,论证了作为DSB报告执行制度变革指针的该制度的价值目标体系和基本原则体系。以此为基础,对DSB报告执行制度的实质性缺陷提出如下变革方案:取消延迟执行的合理期间,由DSB建议执行期间和延迟执行的合理期间;建立瑕疵执行损失救济措施,可选择的方案包括强制支付迟延履行金和赔偿损失;建立公力实施性间接执行措施,但并不废止中止减让或其它义务的私力实施性间接执行措施。
第四,揭示了实现DSB报告执行制度变革目标的不同法律路径中的不同方案对DSB报告执行制度的实质性变革的不同意义。为了实现DSB报告执行制度的实质性变革,主张全面审查DSU的谈判应设定时限,应允许与DSU外部的谈判议题进行交换,有关DSB报告执行条款的谈判可以与DSU内部的谈判议题进行交换;此外,还主张要有DSB报告对执行期间具体化、DSB建议追溯性赔偿和DSU修正决策制度采用多数表决制的配套。指出了DSB建议追溯性赔偿在法学、伦理学、经济学和契约理论上的根据。
Dispute settlement mechanism is the bright pearl on the crown of WTO. However, whether it is really lustrous and brilliant depends on the implementation institution of DSB report. Up to now, DSB has already adopted reports in more than a hundred cases, in which most of DSB reports have to enter the implementation procedure. The meaning of doing research on the implementation institution of DSB report mainly consists in finding out the substantial problems while applying the implementation institution of DSB report,reflecting upon its substantial deficiency and putting forward some projects about the substantial transformation of this institution, as well as looking for effective routes to realize these projects.
The four parts of researching to the implementation institution of DSB report are as follows. The research on the construction of this institution includes its generation process, concrete contents, and functions. The research on the enforcement of this institution includes the timely, consistent and compulsive characteristic of implementing DSB report. The research on the objective of the transformation to this institution includes the values, the basic principles and the projects of the transformation. The research on the realization of this objective includes the choice of the legal routes, the participation subjects and institutions to this institution transformation.
The innovation in this dissertation is as follows.
Firstly, the author points out that the suspending concessions and other obligations are indirect enforcement measures to obligation to do act that should not be replaced. The author demonstrates that the implementation institution of DSB report has the function of promoting to realize intrnational rule of law in multilateral trading system.
Secondly, the author analyzes the timely, consistent and compulsive characteristic to implement DSB report in need of implementation in 87 cases, as of 5 January 2007, from this demonstrates that there are substantial deficiencies in the implementation institution of DSB report: weak restriction on the implementation time limit; lack of remedies for the damage of flawed implementation; weak compulsive power of enforcement measures.
Thirdly, the author demonstrates the system of the value objective and basic principles directing the transformation of the implementation institution of the DSB report. Based on this demonstration, this dissertation provides the transformation projects to cope with the substantial deficiency of the implementation institution of DSB report: Canceling the reasonable period time for deferring implementation, the implementation period and the reasonable period of time for deferring implementation should be recommended by DSB; Establishing the remedies for the damage of flawed implementation, including compulsory payment for deferring implementation and compensation for deferring implementation; Establishing indirect enforcement measures enforced by public power, but not abolishing indirect implementation measures enforced by self, namely, the suspending concessions and other obligations.
Fourthly, this dissertation reveals that the various projects of different legal routes to realize the transformation of the implementation institution of DSB report have different significance on the substantial transformation of the institution. To realize the substantial transformation of the implementation institution of DSB report, the author advocates that we shall set a time limit for the negotiation on examining the DSU fully, and should allow to exchange the negotiation topics with those out of the DSU, and exchange the negotiation topics between the rules of DSB report implementation and the interior topics of the DSU. Besides, the author advocates that we shall require that DSB report should embody the time period of implementation, DSB should recommend the retrospective compensation, and WTO should adopt the majority vote mechanism for the decision-making system of revising the DSU. The author points out the bases of DSB recommending the retrospective compensation on the science of law, ethics, economics and contract theory.
引文
① 有的案件 DSB 建议了执行的时间期间,何时执行并不取决于 DSB 裁决。
② 赵维田. 世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度[M]. 长春:吉林人民出版社,2000. 443.
③ 同上,第 444 页。
④ PESCATORE, PIERRE. The GATT Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Its Present Situation and Its Prospects [J]. Journal of International Arbitration, 1993, 10(1): 36, 34; PESCATORE, PIERRE. The GATT Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Its Present Situation and Its Prospects [J]. Journal of World Trade, 1993, 27(1): 15, 12-13.
① 参阅本文第三章第三节第三目“建立公力实施性间接执行措施”。
② 至 2007 年 1 月 5 日,WTO 需要执行的 87 个案件都属于成立的违反之诉的执行。See Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/29, 9 January 2007, pp.192-238; WOLFRUM, RüDIGER, STOLL, PETER-TOBIAS and KAISER, KAREN, ed. WTO: Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006.577.
③ 在 GATT 的历史上,至少有 8 个案件援引了非违反之诉,其中有 3 个成立并通过了专家组报告,2 个成立未通过专家组报告,3 个不成立。在 WTO 成立后,有 4 个专家组审查过非违反之诉,只在日本—影响消费胶卷和相纸案(WT/DS44)中对非违反之诉做了裁决,没有一个被裁决构成非违反之诉的案件。See WOLFRUM, RüDIGER, STOLL, PETER-TOBIAS and KAISER, KAREN, ed. WTO: Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006.576-577.
④ 杨国华,李詠箑. WTO 争端解决程序详解[M]. 北京:中国方正出版社,2004. 137.
① Art. 26.2, DSU.
② “争端各方有权全面参与理事会对专家组报告的审议,它们的意见应完整记录在案。应继续采用经协商一致通过专家组报告的惯例,而不损害仍适用的《总协定》有关决策的规定。然而,应避免延误该争端解决进程。” G.3, Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Decision of 12 April 1989, L/6489, 13 April 1989.
③ PALMETER, DAVID & MAVROIDIS, PETROS C. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure [M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.165.
④ Id., p. 261.
⑤ 参阅本文第二章第二节第二目“执行的相符性分析”。
① 根据本文第二章第一节“表 1:立即执行 DSB 报告的案件”进行统计。 ②根据本文第二章第一节“表 2:合理期间内执行 DSB 报告的案件”进行统计。
③ 从 WTO 的第一个案件开始,上诉机构就明确指出,WTO 是处理全球事务的一般国际法纲要的一部分。See the Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium—Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi, World Trade Organization, 2004, para. 233.
① Report of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment—Adopted by the Preparatory Committee,22August I947, E/PC/T/186, 10 September 1947, p. 7-68.
② Report of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, E/PC/T/33, October 1946, pp. 52-67.
③ Id., pp. 27-41.
④ Report of the Drafting Committee of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment - 20 January to 25 February 1947, E/PC/T/34, 5 March 1947, p. 3-64.
⑤ JACKSON, JOHN H. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997. 32.
⑥ Id., p. 38.
① JACKSON, JOHN H., DAVEY, WILLIAM J. and SYKES, ALAN O. Legal Problems of International Eco- nomic Relations: Cases, Materials, and Text on the National and International Regulation of Transnational Eco- nomic Relations [M]. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2002. 213.
② 该条题目为 Interpretation and Settlement of Disputes。
③ Report of the Drafting Committee of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment—20 January to 25 February 1947, E/PC/T/34, 5 March 1947, p. 79.
④ 在《联合国贸易与就业会议筹备委员会第二次会议报告》(Report of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment)中的名称为“The Draft Charter”。
⑤ Article?93,?The Draft Charter.
① Art.?93.?2,?Havana Charter for an International Trade Organization.
② 间接执行措施的含义详见第一章第二节第二目“强制执行措施”。
③ Art. 92. 4, The Draft Charter.
④ difference 一词,有“争论,争执”、“争议,分歧”的意思,本文译为“争议”。参见宋雷,主编. 英汉法律用语大辞典[Z]. 北京:法律出版社, 2005. 285;薛波,主编. 元照英美法词典[Z]. 北京:法律出版社, 2005. 414.
① Art. 23. 2, GATT.
② 马思·诺特曼(Math Noortmann)认为,GATT 只是提供了争端解决的基本体制,这种简约主义的方法可以被解释为是基于对包含了详细的争端解决体制的ITO很快将取代GATT的误解。See Noortmann, Math. Enforcing International Law: From Self-Help to Self-Contained Regimes [M]. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005.161-162.
③ Report of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, E/PC/T/33, October 1946, pp. 48-52.
① WTO. Guide to GATT Law and Practice—Analytical Index [M]. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press, 1995. 641-642; WTO. The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: A Collection of the Relevant Legal Texts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 61-62.
② WTO. Guide to GATT Law and Practice—Analytical Index [M]. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press, 1995. 632- 635.
① Agreed Description of the Customary Practice of the GATT in the Field of Dispute Settlemen(tArticle ⅩⅩⅢ: 2, See WTO. Guide to GATT Law and Practice—Analytical Index [M]. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press, 1995. 634-636.
② 该案名为“荷兰根据 GATT 第 23 条第 2 款中止对美国的义务案”(Netherlands Action underⅩⅩⅢ:2 to Suspend Obligations to the United States)。美国对从荷兰和丹麦进口的奶制品规定了数量限制,荷兰和丹麦分别于 1951 年 9 月 1 9 日和 21 日向 GATT 申诉,申诉方认为,美国的措施违反了总协定第 11 条第 1款关于禁止数量限制的规定。1952 年 11 月 6 日的缔约方全体就本案的决议草案,再次确认了 1951 年 10月 26 日通过的决议中关于美国的措施造成了申诉方利益丧失或减损并且情形严重以致于可以诉诸 GATT第 23 条第 2 款的结论。1952 年 11 月 7 日的本案工作组向缔约方全体提交报告,提请缔约方全体做出决议,授权荷兰对从美国进口的面粉实施配额限制。缔约方全体分别于 1952 年 11 月 8 日、1953 年 10 月13 日和 1954 年 11 月 5 日做出决议,认为美国违反 GATT 的措施使荷兰遭受了严重损害,授权荷兰对美国实施进口限制。See United States Import Restrictions on Dairy Products—Draft Resolution, L/59, 6 November 1952,pp. 1-2; Working Party 8 on Netherlands Action under Article XXIII: 2 : Report to the Contracting Parties , L/61, 7 November 1952, pp. 2-3; Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting, 8 November 1952, SR.7/16, 11 November 1952, pp.4-7; United States Restrictions on Dairy Products—Resolution proposed for Adoption by the Contracting Parties(Draft), L/154, 2 October 1953; Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting, 13 October 1953, SR.8/14, 23 October 1953, p. 4; United States Import Restrictions on Dairy Products—Resolution of 5 November 1954, L/280, 11November 1954.
③ Ministerial Declaration on the Uruguay round, GATT/1396, 25 September 1986, p. 2.
④ The Uruguay round—Decisions of 28 January 1987, GATT/1405, 5 February 1987, p. 20.
⑤ Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Revision, MTN.TNC/W/35/REV.1, 3 December 1990.
① STEWART, TERENCE P., ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume III, Documents) [M]. Deventer, Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993. 353-369.
② Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/ W/FA, 20 December 1991.
③ Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/ W/FA, 20 December 1991, pp. s1-23; STEWART, TERENCE P. ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume III, Documents) [M]. Deventer, Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993. 752-774.
④ Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/ W/FA, 20 December 1991, pp. t1-6; STEWART, TERENCE P. ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume III, Documents) [M]. Deventer, Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993. 775-780.
⑤ Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Decision of 12 April 1989, L/6489, 13 April 1989. p. 8.
⑥ Autar Krishen Koul. Guide to the WTO and GATT: Economics, Law And Politics [M]. Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005.44.
① Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Decision of 12 April 1989, L/6489, 13 April 1989. p. 1.
② April 1989 Decision on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Extension of Application—Decision of 22 February 1994, L/7416, 28 February 1994.
③ 将 1990 年《谅解草案》中的 18 个月、21 个月分别缩短为 15 个月、18 个月。
④ 该要求是对 1990 年《谅解草案》规定的“在确定涉及一最不发达缔约方争端的起因和争端解决的所有程序时,应特别考虑最不发达国家的特殊情况”在执行制度上的具体化。
① Croome, John. Reshaping the World Trading System: A History of the Uruguay Round (2ed. and Revised Ed. )[M]. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999.281.
② STEWART, TERENCE P., ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume Ⅱ, Commentary) [M]. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993. 2805.
③ Art. 22.3, 22.5, DSU.
④ Art. 22.6, DSU.
① Art. 3.4, DSU.
② See note 13 of DSU.
③ Art. 21.3(c), DSU.
④ 该案为 EC—香蕉进口、销售和分销体制案(DS27),仲裁人裁决的执行合理期间为自报告通过之日起15 个月零 1 周,从 1997 年 9 月 25 日到 1999 年 1 月 1 日止。仲裁人报告于 1998 年 1 月 7 日散发至各成员。See European Communities—Regime for The Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas—Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (Award of the Arbitrator, Said El-Naggar), WT/DS27/15, 7 January 1998, para. 20.
⑤ Art. 21. 5, DSU.
⑥ WTO. WTO Analytical Index: Guide to WTO Law and Practice [M]. Geneva: WTO Publications, 2003. 1397-1398.
① 邹川宁. 民事强制执行基本问题研究[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社, 2004. 207.
① 李浩,主编. 强制执行法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005. 402.
② Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W. The Economics of the World Trading System [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002. 53.
③ Art. 21.6, DSU.
① Art. 22.8, DSU.
② WOLFRUM, RüDIGER, STOLL, PETER-TOBIAS and KAISER, KAREN, ed. WTO: Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006.519.
③ 在美国—1998 年综合拨款法第 211 节案(WT/DS176)中,至 2007 年 6 月 8 日,美国共提交了 55 个该案的执行情况报告。包括 2005 年 3 月 11 日提交的第 29 个执行情况报告在内及其以后的执行情况的近30 个报告,其中报告执行情况的部分基本相同,有的完全相同,一般都是两段,五行内容,都不超过 61个字(采用 Word2007 软件进行统计)。See United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998—Status Report by the United States—Addendum, from WT/DS176/11/Add.29 to WT/DS176/11/Add.55.
④ 《联合国宪章》第 94 条规定:“联合国每一会员国为任何案件当事国者,承诺遵行国际法院之判决。”“遇有一造不履行依法院判决应负之义务时,他造得向安全理事会申诉。安全理事会如认为必要时,得作成建议或决定应采办法,以执行判决。”
① BELLO, JUDITH HIPPLER. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less Is More [A]. The American Journal of International Law, 1996, 90: 416-417.
② Id. p. 417.
③ JACKSON, JOHN H. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation [J]. American Journal of International Law, 1997, 91: 62; JACKSON, JOHN H. The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO: Insights on Treaty Law and Economic Relations [M], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 165.
④ JACKSON, JOHN H. The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO: Insights on Treaty Law and Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 174-175; JACKSON, JOHN H. Dispute Settlement and the WTO: Emerging Problems [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 1998, 1: 335-336.
⑤ Art. 19.1, DSU.
① Art. 3.7, DSU; Art. 21.1, DSU; Art. 22.8, DSU.
② JACKSON, JOHN H. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation [J]. American Journal of International Law, 1997, 91: 62-63; JACKSON, JOHN H. The Juris-prudence of GATT and the WTO: Insights on Treaty Law and Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 166.
③ Art.26.1(b), DSU.
④ 戴维·帕尔米特(David Palmeter)和佩特罗斯·C·马弗鲁第斯(Petros C. Mavroidis)认为,DSU第 22 条第 6 款关于监督执行的规定,对败诉方执行通过的建议和裁决具有激励作用。PALMETER, DAVID & MAVROIDIS, PETROS C. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.247.
① Watts, Arthur Sir. The International Rule of Law [A]. Thesing, Josef & Jung, Winfried. The Rule of Law [C]. Beijing: Law Press, 2005. 305-326.
② 法的指引作用为许多理论法学者所强调,郭道晖教授认为,法律指引人们明白什么行为是允许的,什么行为是禁止的,如何行为才是正当的、有效的,有指引的功效。参见郭道晖. 法理学精义[M]. 长沙:湖南人民出版社,2005. 272.
③ 郑永流教授认为,无论哪一种价值倾向的法值观念,其内在规定性有以下三点是共同的和至关紧要的:全面预设规则,预设规则至上和独立机关专司规则。全面预设规则是指法律的规则必须是预设的、全面的和确定的。这种结论完全适用于国际法治的标准。参见郑永流. 法治四章——英德渊源、国际标准和中国问题[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002. 196.
④ 姚建宗. 法理学:一般法律科学[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006. 217.
① Kumm, Mattias. International Law in National Courts: The Intemational Rule of Law and the Limits of International Model [J]. Virginia Journal of International Law, 2003, 44(Fall): 22.
② 参阅本文第三章第二节第一目“执行当事方平等原则”。
① 公丕祥, 主编. 法理学[M]. 上海:复旦大学出版社,2002. 374.
② 雷达,詹宏毅等. 如何从经济学角度分析世界贸易体制(代译者序)[A]. [美] 科依勒?贝格威尔,罗伯特?W?思泰格尔. 世界贸易体系经济学[M]. 雷达,詹宏毅等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005. 16.
① 如果因将来出现了强有力的强制执行措施致使造成其它成员利益丧失或减损的措施不再发生,那么,DSU 是闲置有用而非闲置无用。
② Art. 23.1, DSU.
③ JACKSON, JOHN H. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997.124.
④ Art. 3 2, DSU.
① [德] 柯武刚,史漫飞. 制度经济学——社会秩序与公共政策[M]. 韩朝华译,北京:商务印书馆,2000. 123.
② Art. 16.4, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
③ 李松玉. 制度权威研究——制度规范与社会秩序[M]. 北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005. 105.
① 参见舒国滢,主编. 法理学导论[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2006. 194.
② [美]埃德加?博登海默. 法理学——法律哲学与法律方法[M]. 邓正来译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999. 255.
③ 除另有说明外,本节的资料与数据来源于 WTO 官方网站上公布的文号为 WT/DS/OV/29 的文件,该文件反映的 WTO 争端解决情况至 2007 年 1 月 5 日。See Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/ OV/29, 9 January 2007.
① 纪文华,姜丽勇. WTO 争端解决规则与中国的实践[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 37.
② 这种意义上的先予执行不同于民事诉讼法上的概念。中国民事诉讼法上的先予执行是在本案终局判决以前,法院以裁定命令被告先履行给付义务。在国外也有关于类似先予执行的制度,在大陆法系国家称之为假执行。参见常怡,主编. 比较民事诉讼法[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002. 469-470.
① United States—Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India—Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS33/AB/R, 25 April 1997, p. 1.
② United States—Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India—Report of the Panel, WT/DS33/R, 6 January 1997, para. 8.1; United States—Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India—Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS33/AB/R, 25 April 1997, p. 20.
③ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 23 May 1997), WT/DSB/M/33, 25 June 1997, p. 11.
① Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey—Status Report by Egypt— Addendum, WT/DS211/7/Add.3, 19 August 2003.
② Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 29 August 2003), WT/DSB/M/155, 7 November 2003, P. 5.
③ 2002 年 7 月 29 日双方达成协议,合理期间到 2002 年 9 月 1 日为止,协议规定如届时不能取消争议的保障措施,美国将给韩国以补偿,但无论如何,美国将于 2003 年 3 月 1 日终止对韩国圆焊碳质条形管的保障措施。See United States—Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea—Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS202/18, 31 July 2002, p. 2.
④ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 18 March 2003), WT/DSB/M/145, 7 May 2003, pp. 12-13.
⑤ 2001 年 9 月 27 日,美国通知 DSB 它决定将通过于 2001 年 11 月 15 日终止保障措施的方式执行 DSB建议。2001 年 9 月 28 日,澳大利亚和新西兰的常驻使团致函 DSB 主席,对美国的上述通知表示欢迎,并表示同意本案执行 DSB 建议和裁决的合理期间到 2001 年 11 月 15 日止。See United States—Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia—Communication from Australia and New Zealand, WT/DS177/13, WT/DS178/14, 2 October 2001.
⑥ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 21 November 2001), WT/DSB/M/113, 17 December 2001, p. 9.
① Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 24 July 2001), WT/DSB/M/107, 11 September 2001, pp. 15- 16.
② Dispute Settlement Body—Annual Report (2001), WT/DSB/26, 12 October 2001, p. 3.
① Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 28 April 1999), WT/DSB/M/60, 21 June 1999, P. 3.
② Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 21 October 1998), WT/DSB/M/49, 19 November 1998, pp. 2- 4.
③ 在 1996 年 12 月 3 日 DSB 会议上,委内瑞拉代表宣布委内瑞拉与美国就执行本案的 DSB 建议达成的合理期间为自 DSB 通过专家组和上诉机构报告的 1996 年 5 月 20 日起 15 个月,美国代表对此予以确认。See Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 3 December 1996), WT/DSB/M/27, 15 January 1997, p. 2.
④ United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline—Status Report by the United States —Addendum, WT/DS2/10/Add.7, 26 August 1997.
① Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/29, 9 January 2007, pp. 210-212.
② United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan—Status Report by the United States—Addendum, WT/DS184/15/Add.51, 9 February 2007.
① 陈桂明. 程序理念与程序规则[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,1999. 4.
② 季卫东. 程序比较论[J]. 比较法研究, 1993, (1): 9.
③ 同本页注①,第 5 页。
① 除另有注释外,均为合理期间届满日期。
② 在 2006 年 7 月 19 日 DSB 会议上,DSB“同意按照 DSU 第 21 条第 5 款,将安提瓜和多巴哥在 WT/DS285/ 18 文件中提出的事项,在可能的情况下,提交原审专家组。专家组享有标准职权范围。”
③ Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/30, 25 April 2007, p. 62.
④ United States—Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada—Report of the Panel, WT/DS277/RW, 15 November 2005, p.94; United States—Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada—Recourse to Article 21.5 of The DSU by Canada—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2006-01), WT/DS277/AB/RW, 13 April 2006, pp. 67-68.
① Australia—Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather—Status Report by Australia, WT/DS126/7, 20 September 1999.
② 1999 年 10 月 8 日散发的专家组报告的建议中明确“指定外销公司补贴的撤销至迟于 2000 年 10 月 1日起生效”,上诉机构的裁决和结论部分对此并未进行修改或撤销。See United States—Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"—Report of the Panel, WT/DS108/R, 8 October 1999, p. 311; United States—Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-9), WT/DS108/AB/R, 24 February 2000, pp. 59-61.
③ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 24 and 26 November 2004) , WT/DSB/M/178, 17 January 2005, p. 8.
④ 1999 年 12 月 23 日,加拿大常驻 WTO 使团通知 DSB 主席,加拿大与美国、新西兰就本案执行的合理期间达成谅解,“协议授予加拿大执行 DSB 建议和裁决的执行过程的‘合理期间’为四个独立时间期间”,“四个独立的合理期间的设立代表执行过程的四个阶段”,协议规定完成执行过程的最后截止日期为 2000年 12 月 31 日。See Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS103/10, WT/DS113/10, 7 January 2000, pp. 1-3.
⑤ Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/RW, WT/DS113/RW, 11 July 2001, pp. 66-67.
⑥ Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Appellate Body(AB-2001-6)—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/AB/RW, WT/DS113/AB/RW, 3 December 2001, p. 35.
⑦ Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Panel—Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/RW2, WT /DS113/RW2, 26 July 2002, p. 92.
⑧ Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2002-6)—Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/AB/RW2, WT/DS113/AB/RW2, 20 December 2002, p. 43.
① United States—Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (Drams) of One Megabit or above from Korea—Recourse by Korea to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WT/DS99/12, 25 October 2000.
② United States—Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (Drams) of One Megabit or above from Korea—Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Korea, WT/DS99/RW, 7 November 2000, pp. 3-4.
③ 1999 年 8 月 20 日,上诉机构报告和专家组报告通过。1999 年 4 月 14 日,专家组报告散发,专家组建议加拿大立即(without delay)撤销报告结论中认定的补贴,专家组确定它所要求的立即撤销的具体时间限制是 90 天以内。1999 年 8 月 2 日,上诉机构报告散发,支持了专家组所认定的出口补贴,建议 DSB要求加拿大使其被认定的违规补贴与其在《SCM 协定》下的义务相一致,并特别“忆及”(recall)专家组的上述建议。See Canada—Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft—Report of the Panel, WT/DS70/R, 14 April 1999, pp. 232-233; Canada—Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-2), WT/DS70/AB/R, 2 August 1999, p. 63.
④ Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/29, 9 January 2007, pp. 188-189.
⑤ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 4 August 2000), WT/DSB/M/87, 20 September 2000, p. 6.
⑥ United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—Status Report by the United States (Addendum), WT/DS58/15/Add.4, 17 January 2000, p. 1.
⑦ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 27 January 2000), WT/DSB/M/74, 22 February 2000, p. 4.
⑧ United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 by Malaysia, WT/DS58/RW, 15 June 2001, p. 102.
① 1999 年 8 月 20 日,上诉机构报告和专家组报告通过。1999 年 4 月 14 日,专家组报告散发,专家组“裁决 PROEX 利率平衡计划是与《SCM 协定》第 3 条不一致的出口补贴。”同时,“建议巴西立即(without delay)撤销上述认定的补贴。”专家组确定它所要求的立即撤销的具体时间限制是 90 天以内。1999 年 8月 2 日,上诉机构报告散发,上诉机构的裁决包括:“维持专家小组的总体结论,即巴西没有遵守《SCM协定》第 27 条第 4 款的规定,结果是第 3 条第 1 款第 1 项的出口补贴禁止适用于巴西”;“维持专家关于巴西必须在 90 天内撤销 PROEX 下的区域航空器出口补贴的建议”。在该上诉机构报告中,“上诉机构建议 DSB 要求巴西,使本报告以及本报告修改的专家组报告中裁决的与其在《SCM 协定》下的义务不符的措施,与该协定的规定相符。”同时报告表示,“在此方面,我们忆及我们维持专家小组建议的巴西必须在 90 天内撤销 PROEX 下的区域航空器出口补贴。”See Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft: Report of the Panel, WT/DS46/R, 14 April 1999, p. 106; Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft: Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-1), WT/DS46/AB/R, 2 August 1999, p. 60.
② Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft—Second Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU Report of the Panel, WT/DS46/RW/2, 26 July 2001, p. 65.
③ Australia—Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon—Recourse to Article 21.5 by Canada—Report of the Panel, WT/DS18/RW, 18 February 2000, p. 138.
① 中止减让的可能性被转化为现实,在整个 GATT 的历史上只有一次。See Noortmann, Math. Enforcing International Law: From Self-Help to Self-Contained Regimes [M]. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005.169.
② 约翰·马格纳斯(John Magnus)认为,“识别促使一个败诉方遵守报告的因素是足够容易的,主要涉及‘三个 R’:声誉(reputation)(希望不被视为藐视法律者)、报复(retaliation)(经 DSB 授权)和可能的角色转换(role reversal)(即,在将来的案件中作为一个胜诉的原告有资格要求执行)”See JOHN MAGNUS. Compliance with WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions: Is There a Crisis? [A]. RUFUS YERXA & BRUCE WILSON. Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 244-245.
① Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 7 November 2003), WT/DSB/M/157, 18 December 2003, paras. 28.
② 有关博弈论的含义,参阅本文第四章第二节第一目中的有关注释。
③ 雷达,詹宏毅等. 如何从经济学角度分析世界贸易体制(代译者序)[A]. [美] 科依勒?贝格威尔, 罗伯特?W?思泰格尔. 世界贸易体系经济学[M]. 雷达,詹宏毅等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005. 16-17.
① 赵维田. 世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度[M]. 长春:吉林人民出版社,2000. 472-473.
① 谢鹏程. 基本法律价值[M]. 济南:山东人民出版社,2000. 22.
①[美] P·诺内特,P·塞尔兹尼克. 转变中的法律与社会——迈向回应型法[M]. 张志铭译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004. 16, 5.
② 同上,第 91, 5 页。
③ 姚建宗. 法理学:一般法律科学[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006. 234.
④ 同本页注①,第 1 页。
① 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,编. 现代汉语词典(第五版)[M]. 北京:商务印书馆,2006. 1130.
② [英]戴维·M·沃克. 牛津法律大辞典[M]. 李双元等译,北京:法律出版社,2003. 90.
③ 孙笑侠. 论法律的外在权威与内在权威[J]. 学习与探索, 1996, (4), 85-90;李龙,徐亚文. 正当程序与宪法权威[J]. 武汉大学学报(人文社科版), 2000, (5): 634.
④ 汪习根,主编. 法律理念[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社,2006. 133-134;李龙,徐亚文. 正当程序与宪法权威[J]. 武汉大学学报(人文社科版), 2000, (5): 634.
① [美]哈罗德·J·伯尔曼. 法律与宗教[M]. 梁治平译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003. 38,3.
② 法学教材编辑部《西方法律思想史》编写组,编. 西方法律思想史资料选编[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,1983. 25.
① 薛波,主编. 元照英美法词典[Z]. 潘汉典总审订,北京:法律出版社,2003. 664.
② 曾华群. 论“特殊与差别待遇”条款的发展及其法理基础[J]. 厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2003, (6): 7.
① B. A. Ackerman. The Economic Foundation of Property Law [M]. New York,1975.11-14. 转引自张文显. 二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2006. 176.
① 张文显. 二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2006. 199.
② 肖建国. 民事诉讼程序价值讼[M]. 北京:中国人民人学出版社, 2000. 177,183-184,186-189.
① 周永坤. 论自由的法律[M]. 济南:山东人民出版社,2006. 259.
② Thomas Hobbes, De Cive,ed.S.P.Lampercht (New York,1949), Pt.Ⅱ.ⅷ.2. 转引自[美]埃德加·博登海默. 法理学——法律哲学与法律方法[M]. 邓正来译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999. 293.
③ 陈桂明,李仕春. 程序安定论[J]. 政法论坛, 1999, (5): 78.
④ 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,编. 现代汉语词典(第五版)[M]. 北京:商务印书馆,2006.7.
① 陈桂明. 程序理念与程序规则[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,1999. 2-3.
① 徐国栋. 民法基本原则解释[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004. 8.
② 有民事诉讼法学者认为,民事执行制度的原则之一是当事方不平等原则。本文认为,这种结论的前提是:平等只是形式的平等,而不包括实质的平等。
③ 本文在研究执行当事方平等原则时忽略单独关税区成员问题。
④ Lachs. The Development and General Trends of International Law in Our Time [J]. 169 Hague Recueil, 1980, 169(9): 77-84. from JANIS, MARK W. An Introduction to International Law (4th ed. )[M]. Beijing: CITIC Publishing House, 2003. 187.
① [英]詹宁斯,瓦茨修订. 奥本海国际法(第一卷,第一分册)[M].王铁崖等译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1995.275-276.
② STANLEY, BENN Ⅰ. Egalitarianism and the Equal Consideration of Interests [A]. PENNOC, J. R. & CHAPMAN, J. W. Equality (Noms Ⅸ) [C]. New York: Atherton Press, 1967. 61-78, from DAHL, ROBERT A. Democracy and Its Critics [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. 85.
③ 王海明. 平等原则之我见——兼评罗尔斯的平等观[J]. 人文杂志, 1997, (5), 15, 18-20;王海明. 平等新论[J]. 中国社会科学, 1998, (5): 53, 57-58;周仲秋. 平等观念的历程[M]. 海口:海南出版社,2002. 250-252,442,446.
④ 陈安,主编. 国际经济法专论(上编,总论)[M]. 北京:高等教育出版社,2002. 302.
⑤ 曾华群. 国际经济法导论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1997. 196-197.
⑥ [英]詹宁斯,瓦茨修订. 奥本海国际法(第一卷,第一分册)[M]. 王铁崖等译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1995. 275.
① 梁慧星. 民法总论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2001. 53.
② [意]彼得罗·彭梵得. 罗马法教科书[M]. 黄风译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1992. 79.
① Permanent Court of International Justice: Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (The Merits) (Germany vs. Poland), 13 September 1928, PCIJ, Ser. A., No. 17, 1928, p. 47.
② 王铁崖,主编. 国际法[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1995. 152.
③ 陈安,主编. 国际经济法总论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1991. 183-185;陈安,主编. 国际经济法[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2007. 106-107.
① 曾华群. 论“特殊与差别待遇”条款的发展及其法理基础[J]. 厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2003, (6): 7, 12, 5-13. 有关公平互利原则的详细论述见曾华群. 国际经济法导论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1997.192-209.
② 蔡从燕. 身份与契约——GATT/WTO 体制内“特殊与差别待遇”的契约法研究 [A]. 国际经济法学刊(12-2)[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 151,143,141-162.
③ 外部性理论是现代经济学中的一个重要理论,它最早由马歇尔于 1890 年在其巨著《经济学原理》中提出。外部性是指企业或个人的经济行为对参加经济交易以外的第三者的影响。这种影响可能是有益的,可能是有害的,一般称为正外部性和负外部性,也称为外部经济和外部不经济。正外部性通常是利己利人;负外部性则是利己损人,其义务是对其他经济主体的损害的消除和补偿。国际交往中,发达国家在自利的动机驱使下,利用自己的经济、技术优势对发展中国家政治、文化、经济等方面进行控制或渗透,其走向发达所产生的负外部性表现在很多方面,如发达国家文化的输出,会对发展中国家人民的世界观、人生观和价值观以及思维方式和生活方式产生负面影响;发达国家对原材料的掠夺,使一些发展中国家资源耗竭和经济畸形;发达国家的污染转移,使一些发展中国家污染加剧,使当地人民健康和生命成本大幅度提高。
① PETERSMANN, ERNST-ULRICH. Constitutional Functions and Constitutional Problems of International Economic Law—International and Domestic Foreign Trade Law and Foreign Trade Policy in the United States, the European Community and Switzerland [M]. Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press, 1991.415.
② 迈因哈德·希尔夫(Meinhard Hilf)认为,“尽管 WTO 法中没有明确提及比例原则,但它是作为多边贸易体制基础的更基本的原则之一。无论如何,恰当平衡竟争关系的权利这一比例原则的基本思想被多次体现在 WTO 的协议之中。”See HILF, MEINHARD. Power, Rules and Principles: Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2001, 4(1): 111-130,120. 厄恩斯特—乌尔里克?彼德斯曼也认为,“ 比例原则是 GATT 法律基本前提之一。”See PETERSMANN, ERNST-ULRICH. Constitutional Functions and Constitutional Problems of International Economic Law—International and Domestic Foreign Trade Law and Foreign Trade Policy in the United States, the European Community and Switzerland [M]. Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press, 1991.230;有学者认为,“作为体现公平与正义的比例原则应该成为 WTO 法的基本原则必须承认其在平衡不同的政策目标,削减关税和其他贸易壁垒,限制贸易报复水平及解释 WTO 法中不可或缺的作用;而且,比例原则作为一个工具性原则能起到其他原则起不到的作用。……不得不承认的是,由于美国的反对,明确地将比例原则引入 WTO 法,在比较近的未来是不太可能实现的;但这并不影响比例原则实际上在 WTO 法中的存在。” 参见韩秀丽. 寻找 WTO 法中的比例原则[J]. 现代法学, 2005, (4): 186, 179-188.
③ Art. 22.2, DSU.
④ 徐昕教授认为,实体法学者通常将权利保障机制分为私力救济和公力救济,而诉讼法学者对纠纷解决方式大多一分为三,包括私力救济、社会救济和公力救济。参见徐昕. 论私力救济[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005. 101. 徐昕教授所使用的社会救济的概念与本文的自力救济概念是一致的。
⑤ 刘作翔. 多向度的法理学研究[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2006. 203-210;[美]罗伯特·C·埃里克森. 无需法律的秩序——邻人如何解决纠纷[M]. 苏力译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.153-154.
① 严军兴,管晓峰,主编. 中外民事强制执行制度比较研究[M]. 北京:人民出版社,2006. 46,48-49;李浩,主编. 强制执行法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005. 4-5.
① 齐树洁,主编. 民事程序法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2006. 253;李浩,主编. 强制执行法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005. 45-46.
② 谭秋桂. 民事执行原理研究[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2001. 72,419.
③ 邵明. 民事诉讼法理研究[M]. 北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004. 421;齐树洁,主编. 民事程序法[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2006. 418-419.
④ 常怡,主编. 强制执行的理论与实务[M]. 重庆:重庆出版社,1992. 62.
⑤ Art. 3.3, DSU.
① 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,编. 现代汉语词典(第五版)[M]. 北京:商务印书馆,2006. 1554.
② 同上,第 635 页。
③ 同上。
① 杨国华, 李詠箑. WTO 争端解决程序详解[M]. 北京:中国方正出版社,2004. 120.
② 2003 年 6 月 23 日,美国和 EC 通知 DSB 主席,双方已经就美国—美国版权法 110(5)节案(WT/DS160)达成临时安排,美国将向 EC 的表演权团体设立的基金支付 3.3 亿美元,以向其成员提供全面补助的供给并促进作者的权利。这笔支付作为双方满意的自 2001 年 12 月 21 日起 3 年的争端解决临时安排。See Mutually Satisfactory Temporary Arrangement—United States—Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act (WT/DS160), in United States—Section 110(5) of The Us Copyright Act: Notification of a Mutually Satisfactory Temporary Arrangement, WT/DS160/23, 26 June 2003, pp. 1-2.
③ 详见本节第二目“救济措施的比例原则”。
④ Special Session of Dispute Settlement Body, Chairman's text, as of 28 May, Annex of Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Péter Balás, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9, 6 June 2003. This annex reproduces the text contained in Job (03)/91/Rev.1, issued on 28 May, and incorporates the technical rectifications included in the corrigendum Job (03)/91/Rev.1/Corr.1, issued on 6 June.
⑤ 天主教极负盛名的神学家孔汉思(Hans Küng)寻求的诸宗教的万国律令(ecumenical imperatives)之一是“宗教之间必须和平共存,互助合作,彼此竞争,促成大家在精神上的转变。大家都共同向往更深刻的
① 常怡,主编. 比较民事诉讼法[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002. 780.
② 《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉若干问题的意见》第 279 条规定,“民事诉讼法第二百二十条规定的执行通知,人民法院应在收到申请执行书后的十日内发出。执行通知中除应责令被执行人履行法律文书确定的义务外,并应通知其承担民事诉讼法第二百三十二条规定的迟延履行利息或者迟延履行金。”;《最高人民法院关于人民法院执行工作若干问题的规定(试行)》第 24 条规定,“人民法院决定受理执行案件后,应当在三日内向被执行人发出执行通知书,责令其在指定的期间内履行生效法律文书确定的义务,并承担民事诉讼法第二百三十二条规定的迟延履行期间的债务利息或迟延履行金。”
③ 黄松有,主编. 强制执行法起草与论证(第二册)[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2004. 280-281.
④ 同本页注①,第 781 页。
⑤ [德]库尔特?恩格斯. 不作为执行以及有关的实践问题——<德国民事诉讼法>第 887 条～第 895 条、中国民事强制执行法草案第 87 条及其之后几条、第 245 条～第 258 条[A]. 黄松有. 强制执行法起草与论证(第二册)[C]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2004. 174.
① 参阅本章第二节第二目“救济措施的比例原则”。
② 参阅第二章第二节第三目“DSB 报告执行瑕疵救济制度的缺陷”。
③ 常景龙. 世贸组织争端解决制度研究(硕士学位论文)[D]. 郑州:郑州大学,2001. 43-45.
① 梁西,主编. 国际法[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社, 2000. 472,180.
① Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich. How to Promote the International Rule of Law?—Contributions by World Trade Organization Appellate Review Sestem[J]. Journal of Internitional Ecnomic Law, 1998, (1): 40.
② Art. 25, DSU.
③ 参阅本章第三节“DSB 报告执行制度变革的制度参与”。
④ 李浩培. 条约法概论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2003. 366;万鄂湘,石磊,杨成铭,邓洪武等. 国际条约法[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社,1998. 270.
① Minutes of Meeting (Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, 28 May 2004) , TN/DS/M/19, 17 June 2004, para. 3.
② Doha Work Programme—Draft General Council Decision of 31 July 2004 ( General Council, 27 and 31 July 2004),WT/GC/W/535, 31 July 2004, p. 3
③ 零和谈判意味着一方所得越多,另一方所得就越少。国家间领土争端谈判是典型的零和谈判,争论的议题只有一个,谈判如达成结果,一方所失领土就是另一方所得。参见[美]布里吉特?斯塔奇,马克?波义耳,乔纳森?维尔肯菲尔德. 外交谈判导论[M]. 陈志敏,陈玉聃,董晓同等译,北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005. 47;Raiffa, Howard. The Art and Science of Negotiation [M]. Cambridge, Mass. : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982. 131.
④ 《TRIPS 协定》第 23 条第 4 款规定,“为便利葡萄酒地理标志的保护,应在 TRIPS 理事会内谈判建立关于葡萄酒地理标志通知和注册的多边制度,使之能在参加该多边制度的成员中获得保护。”根据该条授权进行的谈判 TRIPS 理事会在 1997 年已经启动。
⑤ 多哈《部长宣言》第 18 段规定, “为完成理事会已经开始的第 23 条第 4 款项下的工作,我们同意在第五次部长会议前完成谈判建立一个葡萄酒和烈性酒的多边通知和登记体制。 ”
① WTO members kick off negotiations with decisions on organization, http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news02_e/tnc_01feb02_e.htm#principles, 2007-05-18.
② JACKSON, JOHN H. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997.113.
③ EC—Citrus, European Community Tariff Treatment on Imports of Citrus Products from Certain Countries in the Mediterranean Region, Panl Report, 7 February 1985, Unadopted, L/5776.
④ Hudec, Robert E.. Enforcing International Trade Law: the Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System [M]. Salem, N.H. : Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1993.160, 505.
⑤ 1990 年以前,GATT 受理了 229 起申诉,其中美国提起 73 起,占 32/%;EC 及其成员提起 73 起,占32/%;加拿大提起 18 起,占 8/%;澳大利亚提起 13 起,占 6/%。See Hudec, Robert E.. Enforcing International Trade Law: the Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System [M]. Salem, N.H. : Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1993.296.
⑥ Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/29, 9 January 2007, P. Ⅲ.
① amicus curiae 是 friend of the court 的拉丁语,是指向法庭请求或经法庭邀请就一个案件向法庭提出陈述的人,原因在于其对争议的主题有强列的兴趣,其并非一起诉讼的当事人。See GARNER, BYRAN A. Black Law's Dictionary (8th ed. ) [Z]. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 2004. 93.
② 左海聪,刘薇. 论 DSU 的改革及我国的对策[A]. 曹建明,万鄂湘,主编. 法治与国际和谐社会——第22 届世界法律大会论文集[C]. 北京:人民法院出版社,2006. 927.
③ Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, 13 March 2002, pp. 3-4; The European Communities' Replies to India's Questions—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/7, 30 May 2002, pp. 1-5; Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement and Clarification of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/38, 23 January 2003, para. 14.
④ Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, 13 March 2002, p. 7, 11-12; The European Communities' Replies to India's Questions—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/7, 30 May 2002, pp. 6-7.
⑤ 余敏友,陈喜峰. WTO 争端解决机制的改革谈判和我国的因应策略[A]. 国际经济法学刊(10)[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 122;曾令良,余敏友,主编全球化时代的国际法——基础、结构与挑战[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社, 2005. 406-407.
① Art. 9.2, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
② Art. 10. 8, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
① MAGNUS, JOHN. Compliance with WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions: Is There a Crisis? [A]. YERXA, RUFUS & WILSON, BRUCE. Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 250.
② HUDEC, ROBERT E. The Adequacy of WTO Dispute Settlement Remedies: A Developing Country Perspective [A]. HOEKMAN, BERNARD, MATTOO, AADITYA and ENGLISH, PHILIP. Development, trade, and the WTO: A Handbook [C]. World Bank, 2002.84.
③ 首席代表仍然是哈瓦那会议前两次筹备会议的首席代表金问泗,其在 Final Act of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment 上的签名为 WUNSZ KING。
④ 刘相平. 中国关贸总协定创始缔约国地位之考论[J]. 史学月刊, 2002, (1): 69.
⑤ Examination of Proposals for further Amedmentsto the General Agreement: Note Prepared by the Secretariat, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/W.4, 3 March 1965, p.10-11; Proposals for Amendments to the General Agreement: Note by the Secretariat, Ad Hoc Group on Legal Amendments to the GATT, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/F/W.1, 27 April 1965, p.14-15; Proposal Submitted by the Brazilian and Uruguayan Delegations: Draft Decision on Article XXIII, Ad Hoc Group on Legal Amendments to the GATT, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/F/W/4, 11 October 1965, p. 3.
① [美]玛格丽特·E·凯克, 凯瑟琳·辛金克. 超越国界的活动家——国际政治中的倡议网络[M]. 韩召颖,孙英丽译,北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 10.
② 同上,第 18 页。
③ [美]布里吉特·斯塔奇,马克·波义耳,乔纳森·维尔肯菲尔德. 外交谈判导论[M]. 陈志敏,陈玉聃,董晓同等译,北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005. 69.
④ TWN 成立于 1984 年,由发展中国家的几个非政府组织所组成,是研究发展、第三世界和南北关系等问题的国际性智囊团与研究中心,主要研究其中的与全球经济及环境相关的问题。它密切注视及分析不同地点举行的全球性会议与谈判,涉及 WTO,联合国贸易及发展会议(UNCTAD),可持续发展委员会,生物多样性会议,气候变化会议。其主要活动包括:出版杂志、图书与其它文献,举办研讨会,观注 WTO 与联合国的各项谈判,参与全球性会议。作为一个国际性的非政府组织,TWN 的声望地位已获 UNCTAD 与经济及社会理事会的认可。TWN 的国际秘书处设在马来西亚,其在非洲的加纳与拉丁美洲的乌拉圭设有区域秘书处,还在日内瓦设有办事处。http://www.twnchinese.org.my/;http://www.twnside.org.sg/twnintro.htm,2007-07-02。
⑤ 峇吉拉·劳·达斯,是印度驻 GATT 论坛的前任大使和常任代表,曾起草联合国贸易与发展会议 (UNCTAD)的国际贸易纲要,现担任许多政府间组织和非政府组织的顾问。http://www.twnchinese.org.my/wto/wto2.html,2007-05-11。
⑥ 峇吉拉·劳·达斯. WTO 与多边贸易体系之过去、现在与未来[M]. 槟榔屿 (马来西亚):TWN,2004. 47.
⑦ 峇吉拉·劳·达斯认为,弱国不愿激怒大国,后者可通过几种方式显示其不满。同时,诸如报复这样的贸易限制措施成本会很高,因为这将限制供应源的选择,从而对产品购买价格和质量带来一定影响。参见峇吉拉·劳·达斯. WTO 与多边贸易体系之过去、现在与未来[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):TWN,2004. 47.
① 峇吉拉·劳·达斯认为,“强国与弱国之间报复方面能力的差异也会影响被申诉国及时、充分执行建议的意愿。”“正是弱国而非强国需要有效的争端解决程序的保护。……具有讽刺意味的是,当前体系中报复是执行权利和义务的最终手段,其结构向弱国相反的方向倾斜。”参见峇吉拉·劳·达斯. WTO与多边贸易体系之过去、现在与未来[M]. 槟榔屿 (马来西亚):TWN,2004. 47.
② 峇吉拉·劳·达斯认为,即使败诉方按照要求及时地执行了 DSB 报告,仍然对经济上处于弱势地位的申诉国是不利的,原因主要有三个方面:一是从申诉方遭受利益丧失或减损到决定申诉和提出申诉,出于申诉的高昂成本,会造成时间推迟;二是从申诉到败诉方执行 DSB 报告,申诉方要继续承受被诉方造成的损害;三是由于发展中国家对外贸易联系微弱,可能给其缺乏适应能力的公司造成无法挽回的损失。参见峇吉拉·劳·达斯. WTO 与多边贸易体系之过去、现在与未来[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):TWN,2004. 48.
③ 许国平现任 TWN 主任,是剑桥大学毕业的经济学家,曾担任马来西亚理科大学的经济学讲师,在贸易、发展和环保问题方面有丰富的论著,是南方中心和全球化国际论坛的理事,也是负责发展权利的联合国人权委员会专家组的前副主席,担任联合国数个研究项目的顾问。 http://www.twnchinese.org.my/wto/wto1.html,2007-05-12。
④ 许国平先生关于以中止义务来制裁败诉方对单个弱国不具有现实性的理由可以归纳为以下三点,首先,弱国难以承受相应的政治和经济成本,尤其是在对强国中止义务最有效的领域;其次,弱国对强国中止义务,因强国之强,往往难以发挥预期效果;再次,弱国的消费者也难以承受相应的经济成本;最后,因弱国之弱使中止义务具有滞后性和缺乏足够的力度。参见许国平,主编. 多边贸易体系——发展前景[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):第三世界网络, 2002. 12,51-52.
⑤ 许国平,主编. 多边贸易体系——发展前景[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):第三世界网络, 2002. 52.
⑥ 同上,第 12,104 页。
⑦ 玛格丽特·E· 凯克和凯瑟琳·辛金克认为,“初步研究表明,国际和国内非政府组织在所有的倡议网络中都发挥着关键作用,通常由它们发起行动并对更强大的行为体施加压力,迫使其表明立场。非政府组织引入新的思想,提供信息,并为改变政策进行游说。” [美] 玛格丽特·E·凯克,凯瑟琳·辛金克. 超越国界的活动家——国际政治中的倡议网络[M]. 韩召颖,孙英丽译,北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 18.
① 王杰, 张海滨, 张志洲,主编. 全球治理中的国际非政府组织[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社, 2004. 316-317.
② 该非政府组织在国际上有影响的高层领导人的著作、发言经常具有鲜明的发展中国家立场。
① Decision on the Application and Review of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, para. 3.
② Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 18 November 1997), WT/DSB/M/39,7 January 1998, p. 15.
③ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 8 December 1998), WT/DSB/M/52, 3 February 1999, pp. 1-2.
④ 该提案的共同提出者除日本外还包括:加拿大、哥斯达黎加、捷克、厄瓜多尔、EC 及其成员国、匈牙利、韩国、新西兰、挪威、秘鲁、斯洛文尼亚、瑞士、泰国和委内瑞拉,内容详见:Proposed Amendment of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (Ministerial Conference, Third Session, Seattle, 30 November-3 December 1999), WT/MIN(99)/8, 22 November 1999.
⑤ 该提案的共同提出者除日本外还包括:玻利维亚、加拿大、智利、哥伦比亚、哥斯达黎加、厄瓜多尔、韩国、新西兰、挪威、秘鲁、瑞士、乌拉圭和委内瑞拉,内容详见:Proposal to Amend Certain Provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) Pursuant to Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, WT/GC/W/410/Rev.1, 26 October 2001.
⑥ 纪文华,姜丽勇. WTO 争端解决规则与中国的实践[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 101.
① Ministerial Declaration—Adopted on 14 November 2001 (Ministerial Conference, Fourth Session, Doha, 9 - 14 November 2001), WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20 November 2001, para. 30.
② Id., para. 49-51.
③ Statement by the Chairman of the General Council (Trade Negotiations Committee, 1 February 2002), TN/C/1, 4 February 2002, p. 3.
④ Minutes of Meeting (Trade Negotiations Committee, 28 January and 1 February 2002), TN/C/M/1, 14 February 2002, p. 1.
⑤ First Formal Meeting of the Special Session of The DSB—Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations Committee (Dispute Settlement Body Special Session), TN/DS/1, 23 April 2002.
① [美]L·L·富勒,小威廉·R·帕杜. 合同损害赔偿中的信赖利益[M]. 韩世远译,北京:中国法制出版社,2004. 5-6.
① 朱建民. 国际组织新论[M]. 台北:正中书局,1986. 291.
② 全体一致表决制。最初表现为全体同意,它符合主权豁免原则,局限性是会造成一票否决,后被计票方法限制。现代国际组织的计票方法,一般都是按“出席并投票”的原则,即不出席不计数,弃权不计数。所得票数,或为赞成,或为反对。缺席和弃权甚至也不构成对于全体一致通过的障碍。参见江国青. 国际组织的决策程序[A]. 江国青. 演变中的国际法问题[C]. 北京:法律出版社,2002. 165.
③ 少数表决制。指少于 1/2 的赞同票通过决议,世贸组织争端解决机制中的消极协商一致即属此类。消极协商一致似可认为是充分协商后的一成员赞成制,因也不存在投票,故不存在所谓一票赞成制的协商一致。
④ 李浩培. 条约法的一个突破:多边外交中的协商基本一致决定程序[A]. 李浩培. 李浩培文选[C]. 北京:法律出版社,2000. 590.
⑤ Art. 10.8, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
① 如在作出决定时,出席会议的成员均未正式反对拟议的决定,则有关机构应被视为经协商一致对提交其审议的事项作出了决定。See note 1, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
② 韩立余. 世界贸易组织制度中集体性与个体性的冲突与协调[A]. 孙琬钟. “海峡两岸 WTO 法律论坛”论文集[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2007. 184.
① 拉尔夫·达伦多夫. 论全球化[A]. 张世鹏译,乌·贝克,哈贝马斯等. 全球化与政治[C]. 王学东,柴方国等译,北京:中央编译出版社,2000. 212.
② 李光灿,吕世伦,主编. 马克思、恩格斯法律思想史[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2001. 258.
③ 交易费用主要包括:搜寻信息费用、谈判费用、创制协议文本费用和违约救济费用等。罗纳德·哈里·科斯教授在 1937 年发表的《公司的性质》一文中发现并阐明了交易费用和产权在经济组织和制度结构中的重要性及其在经济活动中的作用,并因此于 1991 年诺贝尔经济学奖。他认为,企业存在的主要原因在于它能在一定程度上取代市场交易从而减少交易费用,从而使企业主实现效益最大化。See COASE, RONALD H. The Nature of the Firme [A]. KATZ, AVERY WIENER. Foundations of the Economic Approach to Law [C]. Beijing: Law Press, 2005. 65-67.
⑥ POSNER, RICHARD A. Economic Analysis of Law (6th ed. )[M]. Beijing: CITIC Publishing House, 2003.13.
① 黄万盛. 正在逝去的和尚未到来的——〈破碎的民主〉中文本序[A]. [法]皮埃尔·卡蓝默. 破碎的民主:试论治理的革命[M]. 高凌瀚译,北京:三联书店,2005. 4.
② [美]霍华德·威亚尔达,主编. 民主与民主化比较研究[M]. 榕远译,北京:北京大学出版社,2004. 171.
③ [美]詹姆斯·M·布坎南,戈登·塔洛克. 同意的计算——立宪民主的逻辑基础[M]. 陈光金译,北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2000. 101.
① REISMAN, DAVID. The Political Economy of James Buchanan [M]. Houndmills: The Macmillan Press Ltd. , 1990. 32.
② 盛洪. 经济学透视下的民主——谈谈有关公共选择的经济理论[A]. 盛洪. 现代制度经济学 (下卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2003. 142-143.
③ 在多数表决制中,表决权集中程度与保护少数派的程度成正比。参见赵成根. 民主与公共决策研究[M]. 哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2000. 292-298.
④ DSU 采用的消极协商一致表决制,就实质而言,应属表决权集中程度最低的表决制,是一种“少数表决制”,效率最高。
⑤ 李浩培. 条约法概论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2003. 377,376.
⑥ 万鄂湘,石磊,杨成铭,邓洪武. 国际条约法[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社,1998. 275-276.
⑦ Secretary-General of Commission of the European Communities, Memorandum to the Members of the Commission: Summary of the Treaty of Nice, Brussels, January 18, 2001, SEC (2001) 99, p. 9. http://ec.europa.eu/comm/nice_treaty/summary_en.pdf, 2007-04-06.
⑧ WTO Secretariat. Regionalism and the World Trading System [M]. Geneva: WTO, 1995.63-65.
① 刘光溪. 互补性竞争论——区域集团与多边贸易体制(第二版)[M]. 北京:经济日报出版社,2006. 304-305.
② KRUEGER, ANNE O. An Agenda for the WTO [A]. KRUEGER, ANNE O. The WTO as an International Organization [C]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.405.
③ The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium—Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi, World Trade Organization, 2004, para. 280-290.
④ STANLEY, BENNⅠ. Egalitarianism and the Equal Consideration of Interests [A]. PENNOC, J. R. & CHAPMAN, J. W. Equality (Noms Ⅸ) [C]. New York: Atherton Press, 1967.61-78, from DAHL, ROBERT A. Democracy and Its Critics [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. 85.
⑤ 《WTO 协议》对其第 9 条、第 10 条、GATT1994 第 1 条和第 2 条、GATS 第 2 条第 1 款和《TRIPS协定》第 4 条的修正要求全体成员接受才生效,似乎和 DSU 的修正一样的严格或表面上看比 DSU 的修正更严格。但是,对于这些条款,“如在确定期限内,在部长级会议的一次会议上未能协商一致,则部长级会议应以成员的三分之二多数决定是否将拟议的修正提交各成员供接受。”这就意味着三分之二多数就可决定是否将拟议的修正提交各成员供接受,可想而知,在这样的决定由部长级会议作出后,至少有三分之二的成员会很快选择接受,然后其它成员也会不管情愿与否去选择接受。
② 余敏友,左海聪,黄志雄. WTO 争端解决机制概论[M]. 上海:上海人民出版社,2001. 357.
[1] 常怡,主编. 比较民事诉讼法[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[2] 常怡,主编. 强制执行的理论与实务[M]. 重庆:重庆出版社,1992.
[3] 曹建明,万鄂湘,主编. 法治与国际和谐社会——第 22 届世界法律大会论文集[M]. 北京:人民法院出版社,2006.
[4] 陈安,主编. 国际经济法[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2007.
[5] 陈安,主编. 国际经济法专论(上编,总论)[M]. 北京:高等教育出版社,2002.
[6] 陈安,主编. 国际经济法总论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1991.
[7] 程大为. 商务外交[M]. 北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[8] 陈桂明. 程序理念与程序规则[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,1999.
[9] 法学教材编辑部《西方法律思想史》编写组,编. 西方法律思想史资料选编[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,1983.
[10] 公丕祥, 主编. 法理学[M]. 上海:复旦大学出版社,2002.
[11] 郭道晖. 法理学精义[M]. 长沙:湖南人民出版社,2005.
[12] 贺其治. 国家责任法及案例浅析[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2003.
[13] 黄松有. 强制执行法起草与论证(第二册)[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2004.
[14] 纪文华,姜丽勇. WTO 争端解决规则与中国的实践[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[15] 江国青. 演变中的国际法问题[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2002.
[16] 峇吉拉?劳?达斯(Bhagirath Lal Das). WTO 与多边贸易体系之过去、现在与未来[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):TWN,2004.
[17] 李光灿,吕世伦,主编. 马克思、恩格斯法律思想史[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2001.
[18] 李浩,主编. 强制执行法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005.
[19] 李浩培. 李浩培文选[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2000.
[20] 李浩培. 条约法概论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2003.
[21] 李松玉. 制度权威研究——制度规范与社会秩序[M]. 北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[22] 梁慧星. 民法总论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2001.
[23] 梁西,主编. 国际法[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社, 2000.
[24] 林灿铃. 国际法上的跨界损害之国家责任[M]. 北京:华文出版社,2000.
[25] 刘光溪. 互补性竞争论——区域集团与多边贸易体制(第二版)[M]. 北京:经济日报出版社,2006.
[26] 刘述先. 全球伦理与宗教对话[M]. 石家庄:河北人民出版社,2006.
[27] 刘作翔. 多向度的法理学研究[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[28] 卢现祥,朱巧玲,主编. 新制度经济学[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2007.
[29] 莫纪宏. 现代宪法的逻辑基础[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2001.
[30] 齐树洁,主编. 民事程序法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2006.
[31] 邵明. 民事诉讼法理研究[M]. 北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[32] 盛洪. 现代制度经济学 (下卷)[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
[33] 孙振宇,主编. WTO 多哈回合谈判中期回顾[M]. 北京:人民出版社,2005.
[34] 舒国滢,主编. 法理学导论[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[35] 孙琬钟. “海峡两岸 WTO 法律论坛”论文集[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2007.
[36] 谭秋桂. 民事执行原理研究[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2001.
[37] 万鄂湘,石磊,杨成铭,邓洪武. 国际条约法[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社,1998.
[38] 汪习根,主编. 法律理念[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社,2006.
[39] 王杰, 张海滨, 张志洲,主编. 全球治理中的国际非政府组织[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社, 2004.
[40] 王磊. 关贸总协定规则与中国缔约国地位[M]. 北京:中国经济出版社,1995.
[41] 王铁崖,主编. 国际法[M]. 北京:法律出版社, 1995.
[42] 王铁崖等,编著. 国际法[M]. 王人杰校订,台北:五南图书出版股份有限公司,1992.
[43] 肖建国. 民事诉讼程序价值讼[M]. 北京:中国人民人学出版社, 2000.
[44] 谢鹏程. 基本法律价值[M]. 济南:山东人民出版社,2000.
[45] 徐国栋. 民法基本原则解释[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[46] 徐昕. 论私力救济[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[47] 许国平,主编. 多边贸易体系——发展前景[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):第三世界网络, 2002.
[48] 严军兴,管晓峰,主编. 中外民事强制执行制度比较研究[M]. 北京:人民出版社,2006.
[49] 李浩,主编. 强制执行法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005.
[50] 杨国华,李詠箑. WTO 争端解决程序详解[M]. 北京:中国方正出版社,2004.
[51] 杨荣馨,主编. 强制执行立法的探索与构建——<中国强制执行法(试拟稿)>条文与释义[M]. 北京:中国人民公安大学出版社, 2005.
[52] 姚建宗. 法理学:一般法律科学[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006.
[53] 余敏友,左海聪,黄志雄. WTO 争端解决机制概论[M]. 上海:上海人民出版社,2001.
[54] 曾华群. 国际经济法导论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1997.
[55] 曾令良,主编. 21 世纪初的国际法与中国[M]. 武汉:武汉大学出版社,2005.
[56] 曾令良,余敏友,主编全球化时代的国际法——基础、结构与挑战[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社, 2005.
[57] 张光杰,主编. 法理学导论[M]. 复旦大学出版社,2006.
[58] 张维迎. 博弈论与信息经济学[M]. 上海:上海:三联书店、上海人民出版社,1996.
[59] 张文显. 二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2006.
[60] 张玉卿,主编. WTO 新回合法律问题研究[M]. 北京:中国商务出版社,2004.
[61] 赵成根. 民主与公共决策研究[M]. 哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2000.
[62] 赵维田. 世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度[M]. 长春:吉林人民出版社,2000.
[63] 赵维田等. WTO 的司法机制[M]. 上海:上海人民出版社,2004.
[64] 郑永流. 法治四章——英德渊源、国际标准和中国问题[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[65] 周永坤. 论自由的法律[M]. 济南:山东人民出版社,2006.
[66] 周仲秋. 平等观念的历程[M]. 海口:海南出版社,2002.
[67] 朱建民. 国际组织新论[M]. 台北:正中书局,1986.
[68] 邹川宁. 民事强制执行基本问题研究[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社, 2004.
[1] [美]埃德加·博登海默. 法理学——法律哲学与法律方法[M]. 邓正来译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[2] [意]彼得罗·彭梵得. 罗马法教科书[M]. 黄风译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1992.
[3] [美]布里吉特·斯塔奇,马克·波义耳,乔纳森·维尔肯菲尔德. 外交谈判导论[M]. 陈志敏,陈玉聃,董晓同等译,北京:北京大学出版社, 2005.
[4] [美]道格拉斯·C·诺斯. 经济史中的结构与变迁[M]. 陈郁,罗华平等译,上海:上海三联书店,1991.
[5] [美]哈罗德·J·伯尔曼. 法律与革命——西方法律传统的形成[M]. 贺卫方等译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993.
[6] [美] 哈罗德·J·伯尔曼. 法律与宗教[M]. 梁治平译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[7] [美]霍华德·威亚尔达,主编. 民主与民主化比较研究[M]. 榕远译,北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[8] [德] 柯武刚,史漫飞. 制度经济学——社会秩序与公共政策[M]. 韩朝华译,北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[9] [美] 科依勒·贝格威尔,罗伯特·W·思泰格尔. 世界贸易体系经济学[M]. 雷达,詹宏毅等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[10] [美]罗伯特·C·埃里克森. 无需法律的秩序——邻人如何解决纠纷[M]. 苏力译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[11] [美]L· L·富勒,小威廉·R·帕杜. 合同损害赔偿中的信赖利益[M]. 韩世远译,北京:中国法制出版社,2004.
[12] [美]曼瑟尔·奥尔森. 集体行动的逻辑[M]. 陈郁,郭宇峰,李崇新译,上海:三联书店上海分店, 1995.
[13] [美] 玛格丽特·E·凯克, 凯瑟琳·辛金克. 超越国界的活动家——国际政治中的倡议网络[M]. 韩召颖,孙英丽译,北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[14] [法]皮埃尔·卡蓝默. 破碎的民主:试论治理的革命[M]. 高凌瀚译,北京:三联书店,2005.
[15] [美]P·诺内特,P·塞尔兹尼克. 转变中的法律与社会——迈向回应型法[M]. 张志铭译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[16] [德]乌·贝克,哈贝马斯等. 全球化与政治[M]. 王学东、柴方国等译,北京:中央编译出版社,2000.
[17] [英]詹宁斯,瓦茨修订. 奥本海国际法(第一卷,第一分册)[M]. 王铁崖等译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1995.
[18] [美]詹姆斯·M·布坎南,戈登·塔洛克. 同意的计算——立宪民主的逻辑基础[M]. 陈光金译,北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2000.
[1] Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W. The Economics of the World Trading System [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002.
[2] LARSON, CHARLES U. Persuasion: Reception and Responsibility (tenth ed. ) [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.
[3] Croome, John. Reshaping the World Trading System: A History of the Uruguay Round(2ed. and Revised Ed. )[M].The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999.
[4] DAHL, ROBERT A. Democracy and Its Critics [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
[5] HOEKMAN, BERNARD, MATTOO, AADITYA and ENGLISH, PHILIP, ed. Development, Trade, and the WTO: A Handbook [M]. World Bank, 2002.
[6] Hudec, Robert E.. Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System [M]. Salem, N.H. : Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1993.
[7] JACKSON, JOHN H. The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO: Insights on Treaty Law and Economic Relations [M], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[8] JACKSON, JOHN H. The World Trading System: Law And Policy of International Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997.
[9] JACKSON, JOHN H. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997.
[10] JACKSON, JOHN H., DAVEY, WILLIAM J. and SYKES, ALAN O. Legal Problems of International Eco- nomic Relations: Cases, Materials, and Text on the National and International Regulation of Transnational Economic Relations [M]. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2002.
[11] JANIS, MARK W. An Introduction to International Law (4th ed.)[M]. Beijing: CITIC Publishing House, 2003.
[12] KATZ, AVERY WIENER. Foundations of the Economic Approach to Law [M]. Beijing: Law Press, 2005.
[13] KOUL, AUTAR KRISHEN. Guide to the WTO and GATT: Economics, Law And Politics [M]. Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005.
[14] KRUEGER, ANNE O., ed. The WTO as an International Organization [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
[15] Noortmann, Math. Enforcing International Law: From Self-Help to Self-Contained Regimes [M]. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005.
[16] PALMETER, DAVID & MAVROIDIS, PETROS C. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure [M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[17] PENNOC, J. R. & CHAPMAN, J. W. Equality (Noms Ⅸ) [M]. New York: Atherton Press, 1967.
[18] PETERSMANN, ERNST-ULRICH. Constitutional Functions and Constitutional Problems of International Economic Law—International and Domestic Foreign Trade Law and Foreign Trade Policy in the United States, the European Community and Switzerland [M]. Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press, 1991.
[19] POSNER, RICHARD A. Economic Analysis of Law (6th ed.)[M]. Beijing: CITIC Publishing House, 2003.
[20] Raiffa, Howard. The Art and Science of Negotiation [M]. Cambridge, Mass. : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982.
[21] REISMAN, DAVID. The Political Economy of James Buchanan [M]. Houndmills: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1990.
[22] SACERDOTI, GIORGIO, YANOVICH, ALAN, AND BOHANES, JAN. The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[23] STEWART, TERENCE P., ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume Ⅱ, Commentary) [M]. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993.
[24] STEWART, TERENCE P., ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume III, Documents) [M]. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993.
[25] The Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi. The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium—Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi, World Trade Organization, 2004.
[26] Thesing, Josef & Jung, Winfried. The Rule of Law [M]. Beijing: Law Press, 2005.
[27] WOLFRUM, RüDIGER, STOLL, PETER-TOBIAS and KAISER, KAREN, ed. WTO: Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006.
[28] WTO. WTO Analytical Index: Guide to WTO Law and Practice [M]. Geneva: WTO Publications, 2003.
[29] WTO. Guide to GATT Law and Practice—Analytical Index [M]. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press, 1995.
[30] WTO. The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: A Collection of the Relevant Legal Texts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[31] WTO Secretariat. Regionalism and the World Trading System [M]. Geneva: WTO, 1995.
[32] YERXA, RUFUS & WILSON, BRUCE, ed. Key issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[1] 蔡从燕. 身份与契约——GATT/WTO 体制内“特殊与差别待遇”的契约法研究 [A]. 国际经济法学刊(12-2)[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[2] 常景龙. 世贸组织争端解决制度研究(硕士学位论文)[D]. 郑州:郑州大学,2001.
[3] 陈桂明,李仕春. 程序安定论[J]. 政法论坛, 1999, (5).
[4] 冯禹. “天道”考释[J]. 管子学刊, 1990, (4).
[5] 韩立余. 世界贸易组织制度中集体性与个体性的冲突与协调[A]. 孙琬钟. “海峡两岸WTO 法律论坛”论文集[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2007.
[6] 韩秀丽. 寻找 WTO 法中的比例原则[J]. 现代法学, 2005, (4).
[7] 黄万盛. 正在逝去的和尚未到来的——〈破碎的民主〉中文本序[A]. [法]皮埃尔·卡蓝默.破碎的民主:试论治理的革命[M]. 高凌瀚译,北京:三联书店,2005.
[8] 纪文华. WTO 争端解决机制新回合谈判述评[A]. 杨国华,李詠箑. WTO 争端解决程序详解[M]. 北京:中国方正出版社,2004.
[9] 季卫东. 程序比较论[J]. 比较法研究, 1993, (1).
[10] 江国青. 国际组织的决策程序[A]. 江国青. 演变中的国际法问题[C]. 北京:法律出版社,2002.
[11] 雷达,詹宏毅等. 如何从经济学角度分析世界贸易体制(代译者序)[A]. [美] 科依勒·贝格威尔,罗伯特·W·思泰格尔. 世界贸易体系经济学[M]. 雷达,詹宏毅等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[12] 李浩培. 条约法的一个突破:多边外交中的协商基本一致决定程序[A]. 李浩培. 李浩培文选[C]. 北京:法律出版社,2000.
[13] 李龙,徐亚文. 正当程序与宪法权威[J]. 武汉大学学报(人文社科版), 2000, (5).
[14] 刘相平.中国关贸总协定创始缔约国地位之考论[J]. 史学月刊, 2002, (1).
[15] 盛洪. 经济学透视下的民主——谈谈有关公共选择的经济理论[A]. 盛洪. 现代制度经济学(下卷)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
[16] 孙笑侠. 论法律的外在权威与内在权威[J]. 学习与探索, 1996, (5).
[17] 王海明. 平等原则之我见——兼评罗尔斯的平等观[J]. 人文杂志, 1997, (5).
[18] 王海明. 平等新论[J]. 中国社会科学, 1998, (5).
[19] 杨国华著. WTO 争端解决机制新回合谈判述评[A]. 国际经济法学刊(10)[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[20] 余敏友,陈喜峰. WTO 争端解决机制的改革谈判和我国的因应策略[A]. 国际经济法学刊(10)[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[21] 曾华群. 论“ 特殊与差别待遇 ”条款的发展及其法理基础[J]. 厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2003, (6).
[22] 左海聪,刘薇. 论 DSU 的改革及我国的对策[A]. 曹建明,万鄂湘,主编. 法治与国际和谐社会——第 22 届世界法律大会论文集[C]. 北京:人民法院出版社,2006.
[23] 拉尔夫·达伦多夫. 论全球化[A]. 张世鹏译. 乌·贝克,哈贝马斯等. 全球化与政治[C]. 王学东,柴方国等译,北京:中央编译出版社,2000.
[24] [德]库尔特·恩格斯. 不作为执行以及有关的实践问题——<德国民事诉讼法>第 887条～第 895 条、中国民事强制执行法草案第 87 条及其之后几条、第 245 条～第 258 条[A]. 黄松有. 强制执行法起草与论证(第二册)[C]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2004.
[1] BELLO, JUDITH HIPPLER. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less Is More [A]. The American Journal of International Law, 1996, 90.
[2] Bermann, Suzanne. Ec-Hormones and the Case for an Express WTO Postretaliation Procedure [J]. The Columbia Law Review, 2007,107(January).
[3] Getlan,Myles. TRIPs and the Future of Section 301: A Comparative Study in Trade Dispute Resolution [J]. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 1995, 34.
[4] HUDEC, ROBERT E. The Adequacy of WTO Dispute Settlement Remedies: A Developing Country Perspective [A]. HOEKMAN, BERNARD, MATTOO, AADITYA and ENGLISH, PHILIP. Development, trade, and the WTO: A Handbook [C]. World Bank, 2002.
[5] HUGHES, VALERIE. The WTO Dispute Settlement System from Initiating Proceedings to Ensuring Implementation: What Needs Improvement? [A]. SACERDOTI, GIORGIO, YANOVICH, ALAN, AND BOHANES, JAN. The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[6] JACKSON, JOHN H. Designing and Implementing Effective Dispute Settlement Procedures: WTO Dispute Settlement: Appraisal and Prospects [A]. KRUEGER, ANNE O. The WTO as an International Organization [C]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
[7] JACKSON, JOHN H. Dispute Settlement and the WTO: Emerging Problems [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 1998, 1.
[8] JACKSON, JOHN H. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation [J]. American Journal of International Law, 1997, 91.
[9] ANDERSON, KYM. Peculiarities of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [J]. World Trade Review, 2002, 1(2).
[10] KRUEGER, ANNE O. An Agenda for the WTO[A]. KRUEGER, ANNE O. ed. The WTO as an International Organization [C]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
[11] Kumm, Mattias. International Law in National Courts: The Intemational Rule of Law and the Limits of International Model [J]. Virginia Journal of International Law, 2003, 44(Fall).
[12] LOWENFELD, ANDREAS F. Remedies along with Rights: Institutional Reform in the New GATT [J]. American Journal of International Law, July, 1994.
[13] MAGNUS, JOHN. Compliance with WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions: Is There a Crisis? [A]. YERXA, RUFUS & WILSON, BRUCE. Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[14] MEINHARD HILF. Power, Rules and Principles: Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2001, 4(1).
[15] PESCATORE, PIERRE. The GATT Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Its Present Situation and Its Prospects [J]. Journal of International Arbitration, 1993, 10(1).
[16] PESCATORE, PIERRE. The GATT Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Its Present Situation and Its Prospects [J]. Journal of World Trade, 1993, 27(1).
[17] Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich. How to Promote the International Rule of Law?—Contributions by World Trade Organization Appellate Review Sestem [J]. Journal of Internitional Ecnomic Law, 1998, (1).
[18] STANLEY, BENN Ⅰ. Egalitarianism and the Equal Consideration of Interests [A]. PENNOC, J. R. & CHAPMAN, J. W. Equality (Noms Ⅸ) [C]. New York: Atherton Press, 1967. from DAHL, ROBERT A. Democracy and Its Critics [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
[19] Watts, Arthur Sir. The International Rule of Law [A]. Thesing, Josef & Jung, Winfried. The Rule of Law [C]. Beijing: Law Press, 2005.
[20] WILSON, BRUCE. The WTO Dispute Settlement System and Its Operation: A Brief Overview of the First Ten Years [A]. YERXA, RUFUS & WILSON, BRUCE. Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 20.
[1] 宋雷,主编. 英汉法律用语大辞典[Z]. 北京:法律出版社, 2005.
[2] 薛波,主编. 元照英美法词典[Z]. 潘汉典总审订,北京:法律出版社,2003.
[3] 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,编. 现代汉语词典(第五版)[Z]. 北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[4] [英]戴维·M·沃克. 牛津法律大辞典[Z]. 李双元等译,北京:法律出版社,2003.
[5] GARNER, BYRAN A. Black Law’s Dictionary (8th ed.) [Z]. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 2004.
[6] TRUMBLE, WILLIAM R. & STEVENSON, ANGUS, ed. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (5th ed.) [z]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
[1] April 1989 Decision on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Extension of Application—Decision of 22 February 1994, L/7416, 28 February 1994.
[2] Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes—Award of the Arbitrator, Said El-Naggar, WT/DS27/15, 7 January 1998.
[3] Australia—Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon—Recourse to Article 21.5 by Canada—Report of the Panel, WT/DS18/RW, 18 February 2000.
[4] Australia—Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather—Report of the Panel, WT/DS126/R, 25 May 1999.
[5] Australia—Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather—Status Report by Australia, WT/DS126/7, 20 September 1999.
[6] Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-1), WT/DS46/AB/R, 2 August 1999.
[7] Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft—Report of the Panel, WT/DS46/R, 14 April 1999.
[8] Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft—Second Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU Report of the Panel, WT/DS46/RW/2, 26 July 2001.
[9] Canada—Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-2), T/DS70/AB/R, 2 August 1999.
[10] Canada—Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft—Report of the Panel, WT/DS70/R, 14 April 1999.
[11] Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS103/10, WT/DS113/10, 7 January 2000.
[12] Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/RW, WT/DS113/RW, 11 July 2001.
[13] Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2001-6)—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/AB/RW, WT/DS113/AB/RW, 3 December 2001.
[14] Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Panel—Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/RW2, WT /DS113/RW2, 26 July 2002.
[15] Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2002-6)—Second Recourse to Article 21. 5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/AB/RW2, WT/DS113/AB/RW2, 20 December 2002.
[16] Chairman's text, as of 28 May, Annex of Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Péter Balás, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9, 6 June 2003.
[17] Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement and Clarification of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/38, 23 January 2003.
[18] Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, 13 March 2002.
[19] Decision on the Application and Review of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
[20] Dispute Settlement Body—Annual Report (2001), WT/DSB/26, 12 October 2001.
[21] Doha Work Programme—Draft General Council Decision of 31 July 2004 (General Council, 27 and 31 July 2004), WT/GC/W/535, 31 July 2004.
[22] Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA, 20 December 1991.
[23] Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Revision, MTN.TNC/W/35/REV.1, 3 December 1990.
[24] Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey—Status Report by Egypt—Addendum, WT/DS211/7/Add.3, 19 August 2003.
[25] Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar From Turkey—Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS211/6, 20 November 2002.
[26] Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar From Turkey—Status Report by Egypt, WT/DS211/7, 8 May 2003.
[27] Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey—Status Report by Egypt—Addendum, WT/DS211/7/Add.1,13 June 2003.
[28] Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey—Status Report by Egypt—Addendum, WT/DS211/7/Add.2, 8 July 2003.
[29] European Communities—Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India—Report of the Appellate Bod(yAB-2003-1), WT/DS141/AB/RW, 8 April 2003.
[30] European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas—Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (Award of the Arbitrator, Said El-Naggar), WT/DS27/15, 7 January 1998.
[31] Examination of Proposals for further Amedments to the General Agreement: Note Prepared by the Secretariat, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/W.4, 3 March 1965.
[32] First Formal Meeting of the Special Session of The DSB—Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations Committee (Dispute Settlement Body Special Session), TN/DS/1, 23 April 2002.
[33] Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Decision of 12 April 1989, L/6489, 13 April 1989.
[34] Japan—Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States—Report of the Panel, WT/DS245/RW, 23 June 2005.
[35] Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
[36] Mexico—Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages—Status Report by Mexico, WT/DS308/16, 12 January 2007.
[37] Mexico—Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States (AB-2001-5)—Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS132/AB/RW, 22 October 2001.
[38] Ministerial Declaration—Adopted on 14 November 2001 (Ministerial Conference, Fourth Session, Doha, 9 - 14 November 2001), WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20 November 2001.
[39] Ministerial Declaration on the Uruguay round, GATT/1396, 25 September 1986.
[40] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body), 1 December 2003, WT/DSB/M/159, 15 January 2004.
[41] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body), 7 November 2003, WT/DSB/M/157, 18 December 2003.
[42] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 11 December 2006), WT/DSB/M/223, 15 January 2007.
[43] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 14 March 2006), WT/DSB/M/206, 4 April 2006.
[44] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 17 February 1999) , WT/DSB/M/55, 29 April 1999.
[45] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 18 March 2003), WT/DSB/M/145, 7 May 2003.
[46] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 18 November 1997), WT/DSB/M/39, 7 January 1998.
[47] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 19 December 2006), WT/DSB/M/224, 9 February 2007.
[48] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 19 May 2003), WT/DSB/M/150, 2 July 2003.
[49] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 21 and 23 July 2003) , WT/DSB/M/153, 24 September 2003.
[50] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 21 November 2001), WT/DSB/M/113, 17 December 2001.
[51] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 21 October 1998), WT/DSB/M/49, 19 November 1998.
[52] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 24 and 26 November 2004) , WT/DSB/M/178, 17 January 2005.
[53] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 24 July 2001), WT/DSB/M/107, 11 September 2001.
[54] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 24 June 2003) , WT/DSB/M/151, 12 August 2003.
[55] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 27 January 2000), WT/DSB/M/74, 22 February 2000.
[56] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 28 April 1999) , WT/DSB/M/60, 21 June 1999.
[57] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 29 August 2003), WT/DSB/M/155, 7 November 2003.
[58] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 3 August 2003), WT/DSB/M/195, 6 September 2005.
[59] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 3 December 1996), WT/DSB/M/27, 15 January 1997.
[60] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 4 August 2000), WT/DSB/M/87, 20 September 2000.
[60] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 7 November 2003) , WT/DSB/M/157, 18 December 2003.
[61] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 8 December 1998), WT/DSB/M/52, 3 February 1999.
[62] Minutes of Meeting (General Council, 24-25 July 2003) , WT/GC/M/81, 28 August 2003.
[63] Minutes of Meeting (Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, 28 May 2004) , TN/DS/M/19, 17 June 2004.
[64] Minutes of Meeting (Trade Negotiations Committee, 28 January and 1 February 2002), TN/C/M/1, 14 February 2002.
[65] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 23 May 1997), WT/DSB/M/33, 25 June 1997.
[66] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 23 October 2002), WT/DSB/M/134, 29 January 2003.
[67] Minutes of the Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 12 March 2001), WT/DSB/M/101, 8 May 2001.
[68] Mutually Satisfactory Temporary Arrangement—United States—Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act (WT/DS160), in United States—Section 110(5) of the Us Copyright Act—Notification of a Mutually Satisfactory Temporary Arrangement, WT/DS160/23, 26 June 2003.
[69] Negotiations on the Dispute Settlement Understanding—Proposal by the LDC Group, TN/DS/W/17, 9 October 2002
[70] Overview of the State of Play of WTO Disputes,in Dispute Settlement Body—Annual Report (2006)—Addendum, WTO, WT/DSB/42/Add.1, 4 December 2006.
[71] Permanent Court of International Justice: Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (The Merits) (Germany vs. Poland), 13 September 1928, PCIJ, Ser. A., No. 17, 1928.
[72] Proposal Submitted by the Brazilian and Uruguayan Delegations: Draft Decision on Article XXIII, Ad Hoc Group on Legal Amendments to the GATT, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/F/W/4, 11 October 1965.
[73] Proposal to Amend Certain Provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) Pursuant to Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, WT/GC/W/410/Rev.1, 26 October 2001.
[74] Proposals for Amendments to the General Agreement: Note by the Secretariat, Ad Hoc Group on Legal Amendments to the GATT, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/F/W.1, 27 April 1965.
[75] Proposed Amendment of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (Ministerial Conference, Third Session, Seattle, 30 November - 3 December 1999), WT/MIN(99)/8, 22 November 1999.
[76] Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Péter Balás, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9, 6 June 2003, pp. 16-17.
[77] Report of the Drafting Committee of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment—20 January to 25 February 1947, E/PC/T/34, 5 March 1947.
[78] Report of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, E/PC/T/33, October 1946.
[79] Report of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment—Adopted by the Preparatory Committee,22August I947, E/PC/T/186, 10 September 1947.
[80] Statement by the Chairman of the General Council (Trade Negotiations Committee, 1 February 2002), TN/C/1, 4 February 2002.
[81] Status Report by the United States—Addendum, WT/DS184/15/Add.51, 9 February 2007.
[82] Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting, 13 October 1953, SR.8/14, 23 October 1953.
[83] Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting, 8 November 1952, SR.7/16, 11 November 1952.
[84] The European Communities' Replies to India's Questions—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/7, 30 May 2002.
[85] The Uruguay round—Decisions of 28 January 1987, GATT/1405, 5 February 1987.
[86] Understanding between India and the United States Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, WT/DS206/9, 19 February 2003.
[87] Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
[88] United States—Anti-Dumping Act of 1916—Proposed Modification of the Reasonable Period of Time under Article 21.3 of the DSU, T/DS136/13, WT/DS162/16, 18 July 2001;
[89] United States—Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-9), WT/DS108/AB/R, 24 February 2000.
[90] United States—Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000—Communication from Japan, WT/DS217/50, 24 August 2006.
[91] United States Import Restrictions on Dairy Products—Draft Resolution, L/59, 6 November 1952.
[92] United States Import Restrictions on Dairy Products—Resolution of 5 November 1954, L/280, 11 November 1954.
[93] United States Restrictions on Dairy Products—Resolution Proposed for Adoption by the Contracting Parties (Draft), L/154, 2 October 1953.
[94] United States—Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia—Communication from Australia and New Zealand, WT/DS 177 /13, WT/DS178/14, 2 October 2001.
[95] United States—Anti Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate from India—Understanding between India and the United States Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, WT/DS206/9, 19 February 2003.
[96] United States—Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (Drams) of One Megabit or above from Korea—Recourse by Korea to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WT/DS99/12, 25 October 2000.
[97] United States—Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (Drams) of One Megabit or above from Korea—Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Korea, WT/DS99/RW, 7 November 2000.
[98] United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan—Status Report by the United States—Addendum, WT/DS184/15/Add.51, 9 February 2007.
[99] United States—Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000—Communication from the European Communities, WT/DS217/47, 4 May 2005.
[100] United States—Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000—Communication from Canada, WT/DS234/33, 4 May 2005.
[101] United States—Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000—Communication from the European Communities, WT/DS217/49, 2 May 2006.
[102] United States—Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000—Communication from Japan, WT/DS217/48, 19 August 2005.
[103] United States—Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities—Final Report of the Panel, WT/DS212/RW, 17 August 2005.
[104] United States—Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea—Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS202/18, 31 July 2002.
[105] United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—Status Report by the United States (Addendum), WT/DS58/15/Add.4, 17 January 2000.
[106] United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 by Malaysia, WT/DS58/RW, 15 June 2001.
[107] United States—Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada—Report of the Panel, WT/DS277/RW, 15 November 2005.
[108] United States—Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2006-01), WT/DS277/AB/RW, 13 April 2006.
[109] United States—Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India—Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS33/AB/R, 25 April 1997.
[110] United States—Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India —Report of the Panel, WT/DS33/R, 6 January 1997.
[111] United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998—Status Report by the United States—Addendum, from WT/DS176/11/Add.29 to WT/DS176/11/Add.55.
[112] United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline—Status Report by the United States—Addendum, WT/DS2/10/Add.7, 26 August 1997.
[113] United States—Subsidies on Upland Cotton—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2004-5), WT/DS267/AB/R, 3 March 2005.
[114] United States—Subsidies on Upland Cotton—Report of the Panel, WT/DS267/R, 8 September 2004.
[115] United States—Subsidies on Upland Cotton—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil—Request for the Establishment of a Panel, WT/DS267/30, 21 August 2006.
[116] United States—Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina—Report of the Panel, WT/DS268/RW, 30 November 2006.
[117] United States—Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"—Report of the Panel, WT/DS108/ R, 8 October 1999.
[118] Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/30, 25 April 2007.
[119] Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/29, 9 January 2007.
[120] Working Party 8 on Netherlands Action under Article XXIII: 2: Report to the Contracting Parties, L/61, 7 November 1952.
[1] 第三世界网络:http: //www.twnchinese.org.my.
[2] Commission: Summary of the Treaty of Nice, Brussels, January 18, 2001, SEC (2001) 99 [EB/OL]. http: //ec.europa.eu/comm/nice_treaty/summary_en.pdf.
[3] Documents Online of WTO: http://docsonline.wto.org/gen_home.asp?language=1&_=1.
[4] GATT Documents: http: //www.wto.org/english/docs_e/gattdocs_e.htm.
[5] GATT Digital Library: http: //gatt.stanford.edu/bin/search/advanced.
[6] Permanent Court of International Justice: http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/index.php?p1=9.
[7] Third World Newtork: http: //www.twnside.org.sg/.
[8] WTO members kick off negotiations with decisions on organization [EB/OL]. http: //www.wto.org/english/news_e/news02_e/tnc_01feb02_e.htm#principles.
② 赵维田. 世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度[M]. 长春:吉林人民出版社,2000. 443.
③ 同上,第 444 页。
④ PESCATORE, PIERRE. The GATT Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Its Present Situation and Its Prospects [J]. Journal of International Arbitration, 1993, 10(1): 36, 34; PESCATORE, PIERRE. The GATT Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Its Present Situation and Its Prospects [J]. Journal of World Trade, 1993, 27(1): 15, 12-13.
① 参阅本文第三章第三节第三目“建立公力实施性间接执行措施”。
② 至 2007 年 1 月 5 日,WTO 需要执行的 87 个案件都属于成立的违反之诉的执行。See Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/29, 9 January 2007, pp.192-238; WOLFRUM, RüDIGER, STOLL, PETER-TOBIAS and KAISER, KAREN, ed. WTO: Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006.577.
③ 在 GATT 的历史上,至少有 8 个案件援引了非违反之诉,其中有 3 个成立并通过了专家组报告,2 个成立未通过专家组报告,3 个不成立。在 WTO 成立后,有 4 个专家组审查过非违反之诉,只在日本—影响消费胶卷和相纸案(WT/DS44)中对非违反之诉做了裁决,没有一个被裁决构成非违反之诉的案件。See WOLFRUM, RüDIGER, STOLL, PETER-TOBIAS and KAISER, KAREN, ed. WTO: Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006.576-577.
④ 杨国华,李詠箑. WTO 争端解决程序详解[M]. 北京:中国方正出版社,2004. 137.
① Art. 26.2, DSU.
② “争端各方有权全面参与理事会对专家组报告的审议,它们的意见应完整记录在案。应继续采用经协商一致通过专家组报告的惯例,而不损害仍适用的《总协定》有关决策的规定。然而,应避免延误该争端解决进程。” G.3, Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Decision of 12 April 1989, L/6489, 13 April 1989.
③ PALMETER, DAVID & MAVROIDIS, PETROS C. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure [M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.165.
④ Id., p. 261.
⑤ 参阅本文第二章第二节第二目“执行的相符性分析”。
① 根据本文第二章第一节“表 1:立即执行 DSB 报告的案件”进行统计。 ②根据本文第二章第一节“表 2:合理期间内执行 DSB 报告的案件”进行统计。
③ 从 WTO 的第一个案件开始,上诉机构就明确指出,WTO 是处理全球事务的一般国际法纲要的一部分。See the Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium—Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi, World Trade Organization, 2004, para. 233.
① Report of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment—Adopted by the Preparatory Committee,22August I947, E/PC/T/186, 10 September 1947, p. 7-68.
② Report of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, E/PC/T/33, October 1946, pp. 52-67.
③ Id., pp. 27-41.
④ Report of the Drafting Committee of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment - 20 January to 25 February 1947, E/PC/T/34, 5 March 1947, p. 3-64.
⑤ JACKSON, JOHN H. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997. 32.
⑥ Id., p. 38.
① JACKSON, JOHN H., DAVEY, WILLIAM J. and SYKES, ALAN O. Legal Problems of International Eco- nomic Relations: Cases, Materials, and Text on the National and International Regulation of Transnational Eco- nomic Relations [M]. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2002. 213.
② 该条题目为 Interpretation and Settlement of Disputes。
③ Report of the Drafting Committee of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment—20 January to 25 February 1947, E/PC/T/34, 5 March 1947, p. 79.
④ 在《联合国贸易与就业会议筹备委员会第二次会议报告》(Report of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment)中的名称为“The Draft Charter”。
⑤ Article?93,?The Draft Charter.
① Art.?93.?2,?Havana Charter for an International Trade Organization.
② 间接执行措施的含义详见第一章第二节第二目“强制执行措施”。
③ Art. 92. 4, The Draft Charter.
④ difference 一词,有“争论,争执”、“争议,分歧”的意思,本文译为“争议”。参见宋雷,主编. 英汉法律用语大辞典[Z]. 北京:法律出版社, 2005. 285;薛波,主编. 元照英美法词典[Z]. 北京:法律出版社, 2005. 414.
① Art. 23. 2, GATT.
② 马思·诺特曼(Math Noortmann)认为,GATT 只是提供了争端解决的基本体制,这种简约主义的方法可以被解释为是基于对包含了详细的争端解决体制的ITO很快将取代GATT的误解。See Noortmann, Math. Enforcing International Law: From Self-Help to Self-Contained Regimes [M]. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005.161-162.
③ Report of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, E/PC/T/33, October 1946, pp. 48-52.
① WTO. Guide to GATT Law and Practice—Analytical Index [M]. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press, 1995. 641-642; WTO. The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: A Collection of the Relevant Legal Texts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 61-62.
② WTO. Guide to GATT Law and Practice—Analytical Index [M]. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press, 1995. 632- 635.
① Agreed Description of the Customary Practice of the GATT in the Field of Dispute Settlemen(tArticle ⅩⅩⅢ: 2, See WTO. Guide to GATT Law and Practice—Analytical Index [M]. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press, 1995. 634-636.
② 该案名为“荷兰根据 GATT 第 23 条第 2 款中止对美国的义务案”(Netherlands Action underⅩⅩⅢ:2 to Suspend Obligations to the United States)。美国对从荷兰和丹麦进口的奶制品规定了数量限制,荷兰和丹麦分别于 1951 年 9 月 1 9 日和 21 日向 GATT 申诉,申诉方认为,美国的措施违反了总协定第 11 条第 1款关于禁止数量限制的规定。1952 年 11 月 6 日的缔约方全体就本案的决议草案,再次确认了 1951 年 10月 26 日通过的决议中关于美国的措施造成了申诉方利益丧失或减损并且情形严重以致于可以诉诸 GATT第 23 条第 2 款的结论。1952 年 11 月 7 日的本案工作组向缔约方全体提交报告,提请缔约方全体做出决议,授权荷兰对从美国进口的面粉实施配额限制。缔约方全体分别于 1952 年 11 月 8 日、1953 年 10 月13 日和 1954 年 11 月 5 日做出决议,认为美国违反 GATT 的措施使荷兰遭受了严重损害,授权荷兰对美国实施进口限制。See United States Import Restrictions on Dairy Products—Draft Resolution, L/59, 6 November 1952,pp. 1-2; Working Party 8 on Netherlands Action under Article XXIII: 2 : Report to the Contracting Parties , L/61, 7 November 1952, pp. 2-3; Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting, 8 November 1952, SR.7/16, 11 November 1952, pp.4-7; United States Restrictions on Dairy Products—Resolution proposed for Adoption by the Contracting Parties(Draft), L/154, 2 October 1953; Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting, 13 October 1953, SR.8/14, 23 October 1953, p. 4; United States Import Restrictions on Dairy Products—Resolution of 5 November 1954, L/280, 11November 1954.
③ Ministerial Declaration on the Uruguay round, GATT/1396, 25 September 1986, p. 2.
④ The Uruguay round—Decisions of 28 January 1987, GATT/1405, 5 February 1987, p. 20.
⑤ Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Revision, MTN.TNC/W/35/REV.1, 3 December 1990.
① STEWART, TERENCE P., ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume III, Documents) [M]. Deventer, Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993. 353-369.
② Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/ W/FA, 20 December 1991.
③ Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/ W/FA, 20 December 1991, pp. s1-23; STEWART, TERENCE P. ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume III, Documents) [M]. Deventer, Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993. 752-774.
④ Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/ W/FA, 20 December 1991, pp. t1-6; STEWART, TERENCE P. ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume III, Documents) [M]. Deventer, Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993. 775-780.
⑤ Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Decision of 12 April 1989, L/6489, 13 April 1989. p. 8.
⑥ Autar Krishen Koul. Guide to the WTO and GATT: Economics, Law And Politics [M]. Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005.44.
① Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Decision of 12 April 1989, L/6489, 13 April 1989. p. 1.
② April 1989 Decision on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Extension of Application—Decision of 22 February 1994, L/7416, 28 February 1994.
③ 将 1990 年《谅解草案》中的 18 个月、21 个月分别缩短为 15 个月、18 个月。
④ 该要求是对 1990 年《谅解草案》规定的“在确定涉及一最不发达缔约方争端的起因和争端解决的所有程序时,应特别考虑最不发达国家的特殊情况”在执行制度上的具体化。
① Croome, John. Reshaping the World Trading System: A History of the Uruguay Round (2ed. and Revised Ed. )[M]. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999.281.
② STEWART, TERENCE P., ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume Ⅱ, Commentary) [M]. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993. 2805.
③ Art. 22.3, 22.5, DSU.
④ Art. 22.6, DSU.
① Art. 3.4, DSU.
② See note 13 of DSU.
③ Art. 21.3(c), DSU.
④ 该案为 EC—香蕉进口、销售和分销体制案(DS27),仲裁人裁决的执行合理期间为自报告通过之日起15 个月零 1 周,从 1997 年 9 月 25 日到 1999 年 1 月 1 日止。仲裁人报告于 1998 年 1 月 7 日散发至各成员。See European Communities—Regime for The Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas—Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (Award of the Arbitrator, Said El-Naggar), WT/DS27/15, 7 January 1998, para. 20.
⑤ Art. 21. 5, DSU.
⑥ WTO. WTO Analytical Index: Guide to WTO Law and Practice [M]. Geneva: WTO Publications, 2003. 1397-1398.
① 邹川宁. 民事强制执行基本问题研究[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社, 2004. 207.
① 李浩,主编. 强制执行法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005. 402.
② Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W. The Economics of the World Trading System [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002. 53.
③ Art. 21.6, DSU.
① Art. 22.8, DSU.
② WOLFRUM, RüDIGER, STOLL, PETER-TOBIAS and KAISER, KAREN, ed. WTO: Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006.519.
③ 在美国—1998 年综合拨款法第 211 节案(WT/DS176)中,至 2007 年 6 月 8 日,美国共提交了 55 个该案的执行情况报告。包括 2005 年 3 月 11 日提交的第 29 个执行情况报告在内及其以后的执行情况的近30 个报告,其中报告执行情况的部分基本相同,有的完全相同,一般都是两段,五行内容,都不超过 61个字(采用 Word2007 软件进行统计)。See United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998—Status Report by the United States—Addendum, from WT/DS176/11/Add.29 to WT/DS176/11/Add.55.
④ 《联合国宪章》第 94 条规定:“联合国每一会员国为任何案件当事国者,承诺遵行国际法院之判决。”“遇有一造不履行依法院判决应负之义务时,他造得向安全理事会申诉。安全理事会如认为必要时,得作成建议或决定应采办法,以执行判决。”
① BELLO, JUDITH HIPPLER. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less Is More [A]. The American Journal of International Law, 1996, 90: 416-417.
② Id. p. 417.
③ JACKSON, JOHN H. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation [J]. American Journal of International Law, 1997, 91: 62; JACKSON, JOHN H. The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO: Insights on Treaty Law and Economic Relations [M], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 165.
④ JACKSON, JOHN H. The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO: Insights on Treaty Law and Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 174-175; JACKSON, JOHN H. Dispute Settlement and the WTO: Emerging Problems [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 1998, 1: 335-336.
⑤ Art. 19.1, DSU.
① Art. 3.7, DSU; Art. 21.1, DSU; Art. 22.8, DSU.
② JACKSON, JOHN H. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation [J]. American Journal of International Law, 1997, 91: 62-63; JACKSON, JOHN H. The Juris-prudence of GATT and the WTO: Insights on Treaty Law and Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 166.
③ Art.26.1(b), DSU.
④ 戴维·帕尔米特(David Palmeter)和佩特罗斯·C·马弗鲁第斯(Petros C. Mavroidis)认为,DSU第 22 条第 6 款关于监督执行的规定,对败诉方执行通过的建议和裁决具有激励作用。PALMETER, DAVID & MAVROIDIS, PETROS C. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.247.
① Watts, Arthur Sir. The International Rule of Law [A]. Thesing, Josef & Jung, Winfried. The Rule of Law [C]. Beijing: Law Press, 2005. 305-326.
② 法的指引作用为许多理论法学者所强调,郭道晖教授认为,法律指引人们明白什么行为是允许的,什么行为是禁止的,如何行为才是正当的、有效的,有指引的功效。参见郭道晖. 法理学精义[M]. 长沙:湖南人民出版社,2005. 272.
③ 郑永流教授认为,无论哪一种价值倾向的法值观念,其内在规定性有以下三点是共同的和至关紧要的:全面预设规则,预设规则至上和独立机关专司规则。全面预设规则是指法律的规则必须是预设的、全面的和确定的。这种结论完全适用于国际法治的标准。参见郑永流. 法治四章——英德渊源、国际标准和中国问题[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002. 196.
④ 姚建宗. 法理学:一般法律科学[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006. 217.
① Kumm, Mattias. International Law in National Courts: The Intemational Rule of Law and the Limits of International Model [J]. Virginia Journal of International Law, 2003, 44(Fall): 22.
② 参阅本文第三章第二节第一目“执行当事方平等原则”。
① 公丕祥, 主编. 法理学[M]. 上海:复旦大学出版社,2002. 374.
② 雷达,詹宏毅等. 如何从经济学角度分析世界贸易体制(代译者序)[A]. [美] 科依勒?贝格威尔,罗伯特?W?思泰格尔. 世界贸易体系经济学[M]. 雷达,詹宏毅等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005. 16.
① 如果因将来出现了强有力的强制执行措施致使造成其它成员利益丧失或减损的措施不再发生,那么,DSU 是闲置有用而非闲置无用。
② Art. 23.1, DSU.
③ JACKSON, JOHN H. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997.124.
④ Art. 3 2, DSU.
① [德] 柯武刚,史漫飞. 制度经济学——社会秩序与公共政策[M]. 韩朝华译,北京:商务印书馆,2000. 123.
② Art. 16.4, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
③ 李松玉. 制度权威研究——制度规范与社会秩序[M]. 北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005. 105.
① 参见舒国滢,主编. 法理学导论[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2006. 194.
② [美]埃德加?博登海默. 法理学——法律哲学与法律方法[M]. 邓正来译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999. 255.
③ 除另有说明外,本节的资料与数据来源于 WTO 官方网站上公布的文号为 WT/DS/OV/29 的文件,该文件反映的 WTO 争端解决情况至 2007 年 1 月 5 日。See Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/ OV/29, 9 January 2007.
① 纪文华,姜丽勇. WTO 争端解决规则与中国的实践[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 37.
② 这种意义上的先予执行不同于民事诉讼法上的概念。中国民事诉讼法上的先予执行是在本案终局判决以前,法院以裁定命令被告先履行给付义务。在国外也有关于类似先予执行的制度,在大陆法系国家称之为假执行。参见常怡,主编. 比较民事诉讼法[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002. 469-470.
① United States—Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India—Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS33/AB/R, 25 April 1997, p. 1.
② United States—Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India—Report of the Panel, WT/DS33/R, 6 January 1997, para. 8.1; United States—Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India—Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS33/AB/R, 25 April 1997, p. 20.
③ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 23 May 1997), WT/DSB/M/33, 25 June 1997, p. 11.
① Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey—Status Report by Egypt— Addendum, WT/DS211/7/Add.3, 19 August 2003.
② Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 29 August 2003), WT/DSB/M/155, 7 November 2003, P. 5.
③ 2002 年 7 月 29 日双方达成协议,合理期间到 2002 年 9 月 1 日为止,协议规定如届时不能取消争议的保障措施,美国将给韩国以补偿,但无论如何,美国将于 2003 年 3 月 1 日终止对韩国圆焊碳质条形管的保障措施。See United States—Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea—Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS202/18, 31 July 2002, p. 2.
④ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 18 March 2003), WT/DSB/M/145, 7 May 2003, pp. 12-13.
⑤ 2001 年 9 月 27 日,美国通知 DSB 它决定将通过于 2001 年 11 月 15 日终止保障措施的方式执行 DSB建议。2001 年 9 月 28 日,澳大利亚和新西兰的常驻使团致函 DSB 主席,对美国的上述通知表示欢迎,并表示同意本案执行 DSB 建议和裁决的合理期间到 2001 年 11 月 15 日止。See United States—Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia—Communication from Australia and New Zealand, WT/DS177/13, WT/DS178/14, 2 October 2001.
⑥ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 21 November 2001), WT/DSB/M/113, 17 December 2001, p. 9.
① Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 24 July 2001), WT/DSB/M/107, 11 September 2001, pp. 15- 16.
② Dispute Settlement Body—Annual Report (2001), WT/DSB/26, 12 October 2001, p. 3.
① Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 28 April 1999), WT/DSB/M/60, 21 June 1999, P. 3.
② Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 21 October 1998), WT/DSB/M/49, 19 November 1998, pp. 2- 4.
③ 在 1996 年 12 月 3 日 DSB 会议上,委内瑞拉代表宣布委内瑞拉与美国就执行本案的 DSB 建议达成的合理期间为自 DSB 通过专家组和上诉机构报告的 1996 年 5 月 20 日起 15 个月,美国代表对此予以确认。See Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 3 December 1996), WT/DSB/M/27, 15 January 1997, p. 2.
④ United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline—Status Report by the United States —Addendum, WT/DS2/10/Add.7, 26 August 1997.
① Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/29, 9 January 2007, pp. 210-212.
② United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan—Status Report by the United States—Addendum, WT/DS184/15/Add.51, 9 February 2007.
① 陈桂明. 程序理念与程序规则[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,1999. 4.
② 季卫东. 程序比较论[J]. 比较法研究, 1993, (1): 9.
③ 同本页注①,第 5 页。
① 除另有注释外,均为合理期间届满日期。
② 在 2006 年 7 月 19 日 DSB 会议上,DSB“同意按照 DSU 第 21 条第 5 款,将安提瓜和多巴哥在 WT/DS285/ 18 文件中提出的事项,在可能的情况下,提交原审专家组。专家组享有标准职权范围。”
③ Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/30, 25 April 2007, p. 62.
④ United States—Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada—Report of the Panel, WT/DS277/RW, 15 November 2005, p.94; United States—Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada—Recourse to Article 21.5 of The DSU by Canada—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2006-01), WT/DS277/AB/RW, 13 April 2006, pp. 67-68.
① Australia—Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather—Status Report by Australia, WT/DS126/7, 20 September 1999.
② 1999 年 10 月 8 日散发的专家组报告的建议中明确“指定外销公司补贴的撤销至迟于 2000 年 10 月 1日起生效”,上诉机构的裁决和结论部分对此并未进行修改或撤销。See United States—Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"—Report of the Panel, WT/DS108/R, 8 October 1999, p. 311; United States—Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-9), WT/DS108/AB/R, 24 February 2000, pp. 59-61.
③ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 24 and 26 November 2004) , WT/DSB/M/178, 17 January 2005, p. 8.
④ 1999 年 12 月 23 日,加拿大常驻 WTO 使团通知 DSB 主席,加拿大与美国、新西兰就本案执行的合理期间达成谅解,“协议授予加拿大执行 DSB 建议和裁决的执行过程的‘合理期间’为四个独立时间期间”,“四个独立的合理期间的设立代表执行过程的四个阶段”,协议规定完成执行过程的最后截止日期为 2000年 12 月 31 日。See Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS103/10, WT/DS113/10, 7 January 2000, pp. 1-3.
⑤ Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/RW, WT/DS113/RW, 11 July 2001, pp. 66-67.
⑥ Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Appellate Body(AB-2001-6)—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/AB/RW, WT/DS113/AB/RW, 3 December 2001, p. 35.
⑦ Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Panel—Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/RW2, WT /DS113/RW2, 26 July 2002, p. 92.
⑧ Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2002-6)—Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/AB/RW2, WT/DS113/AB/RW2, 20 December 2002, p. 43.
① United States—Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (Drams) of One Megabit or above from Korea—Recourse by Korea to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WT/DS99/12, 25 October 2000.
② United States—Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (Drams) of One Megabit or above from Korea—Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Korea, WT/DS99/RW, 7 November 2000, pp. 3-4.
③ 1999 年 8 月 20 日,上诉机构报告和专家组报告通过。1999 年 4 月 14 日,专家组报告散发,专家组建议加拿大立即(without delay)撤销报告结论中认定的补贴,专家组确定它所要求的立即撤销的具体时间限制是 90 天以内。1999 年 8 月 2 日,上诉机构报告散发,支持了专家组所认定的出口补贴,建议 DSB要求加拿大使其被认定的违规补贴与其在《SCM 协定》下的义务相一致,并特别“忆及”(recall)专家组的上述建议。See Canada—Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft—Report of the Panel, WT/DS70/R, 14 April 1999, pp. 232-233; Canada—Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-2), WT/DS70/AB/R, 2 August 1999, p. 63.
④ Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/29, 9 January 2007, pp. 188-189.
⑤ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 4 August 2000), WT/DSB/M/87, 20 September 2000, p. 6.
⑥ United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—Status Report by the United States (Addendum), WT/DS58/15/Add.4, 17 January 2000, p. 1.
⑦ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 27 January 2000), WT/DSB/M/74, 22 February 2000, p. 4.
⑧ United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 by Malaysia, WT/DS58/RW, 15 June 2001, p. 102.
① 1999 年 8 月 20 日,上诉机构报告和专家组报告通过。1999 年 4 月 14 日,专家组报告散发,专家组“裁决 PROEX 利率平衡计划是与《SCM 协定》第 3 条不一致的出口补贴。”同时,“建议巴西立即(without delay)撤销上述认定的补贴。”专家组确定它所要求的立即撤销的具体时间限制是 90 天以内。1999 年 8月 2 日,上诉机构报告散发,上诉机构的裁决包括:“维持专家小组的总体结论,即巴西没有遵守《SCM协定》第 27 条第 4 款的规定,结果是第 3 条第 1 款第 1 项的出口补贴禁止适用于巴西”;“维持专家关于巴西必须在 90 天内撤销 PROEX 下的区域航空器出口补贴的建议”。在该上诉机构报告中,“上诉机构建议 DSB 要求巴西,使本报告以及本报告修改的专家组报告中裁决的与其在《SCM 协定》下的义务不符的措施,与该协定的规定相符。”同时报告表示,“在此方面,我们忆及我们维持专家小组建议的巴西必须在 90 天内撤销 PROEX 下的区域航空器出口补贴。”See Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft: Report of the Panel, WT/DS46/R, 14 April 1999, p. 106; Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft: Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-1), WT/DS46/AB/R, 2 August 1999, p. 60.
② Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft—Second Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU Report of the Panel, WT/DS46/RW/2, 26 July 2001, p. 65.
③ Australia—Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon—Recourse to Article 21.5 by Canada—Report of the Panel, WT/DS18/RW, 18 February 2000, p. 138.
① 中止减让的可能性被转化为现实,在整个 GATT 的历史上只有一次。See Noortmann, Math. Enforcing International Law: From Self-Help to Self-Contained Regimes [M]. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005.169.
② 约翰·马格纳斯(John Magnus)认为,“识别促使一个败诉方遵守报告的因素是足够容易的,主要涉及‘三个 R’:声誉(reputation)(希望不被视为藐视法律者)、报复(retaliation)(经 DSB 授权)和可能的角色转换(role reversal)(即,在将来的案件中作为一个胜诉的原告有资格要求执行)”See JOHN MAGNUS. Compliance with WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions: Is There a Crisis? [A]. RUFUS YERXA & BRUCE WILSON. Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 244-245.
① Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 7 November 2003), WT/DSB/M/157, 18 December 2003, paras. 28.
② 有关博弈论的含义,参阅本文第四章第二节第一目中的有关注释。
③ 雷达,詹宏毅等. 如何从经济学角度分析世界贸易体制(代译者序)[A]. [美] 科依勒?贝格威尔, 罗伯特?W?思泰格尔. 世界贸易体系经济学[M]. 雷达,詹宏毅等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005. 16-17.
① 赵维田. 世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度[M]. 长春:吉林人民出版社,2000. 472-473.
① 谢鹏程. 基本法律价值[M]. 济南:山东人民出版社,2000. 22.
①[美] P·诺内特,P·塞尔兹尼克. 转变中的法律与社会——迈向回应型法[M]. 张志铭译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004. 16, 5.
② 同上,第 91, 5 页。
③ 姚建宗. 法理学:一般法律科学[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006. 234.
④ 同本页注①,第 1 页。
① 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,编. 现代汉语词典(第五版)[M]. 北京:商务印书馆,2006. 1130.
② [英]戴维·M·沃克. 牛津法律大辞典[M]. 李双元等译,北京:法律出版社,2003. 90.
③ 孙笑侠. 论法律的外在权威与内在权威[J]. 学习与探索, 1996, (4), 85-90;李龙,徐亚文. 正当程序与宪法权威[J]. 武汉大学学报(人文社科版), 2000, (5): 634.
④ 汪习根,主编. 法律理念[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社,2006. 133-134;李龙,徐亚文. 正当程序与宪法权威[J]. 武汉大学学报(人文社科版), 2000, (5): 634.
① [美]哈罗德·J·伯尔曼. 法律与宗教[M]. 梁治平译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003. 38,3.
② 法学教材编辑部《西方法律思想史》编写组,编. 西方法律思想史资料选编[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,1983. 25.
① 薛波,主编. 元照英美法词典[Z]. 潘汉典总审订,北京:法律出版社,2003. 664.
② 曾华群. 论“特殊与差别待遇”条款的发展及其法理基础[J]. 厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2003, (6): 7.
① B. A. Ackerman. The Economic Foundation of Property Law [M]. New York,1975.11-14. 转引自张文显. 二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2006. 176.
① 张文显. 二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2006. 199.
② 肖建国. 民事诉讼程序价值讼[M]. 北京:中国人民人学出版社, 2000. 177,183-184,186-189.
① 周永坤. 论自由的法律[M]. 济南:山东人民出版社,2006. 259.
② Thomas Hobbes, De Cive,ed.S.P.Lampercht (New York,1949), Pt.Ⅱ.ⅷ.2. 转引自[美]埃德加·博登海默. 法理学——法律哲学与法律方法[M]. 邓正来译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999. 293.
③ 陈桂明,李仕春. 程序安定论[J]. 政法论坛, 1999, (5): 78.
④ 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,编. 现代汉语词典(第五版)[M]. 北京:商务印书馆,2006.7.
① 陈桂明. 程序理念与程序规则[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,1999. 2-3.
① 徐国栋. 民法基本原则解释[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004. 8.
② 有民事诉讼法学者认为,民事执行制度的原则之一是当事方不平等原则。本文认为,这种结论的前提是:平等只是形式的平等,而不包括实质的平等。
③ 本文在研究执行当事方平等原则时忽略单独关税区成员问题。
④ Lachs. The Development and General Trends of International Law in Our Time [J]. 169 Hague Recueil, 1980, 169(9): 77-84. from JANIS, MARK W. An Introduction to International Law (4th ed. )[M]. Beijing: CITIC Publishing House, 2003. 187.
① [英]詹宁斯,瓦茨修订. 奥本海国际法(第一卷,第一分册)[M].王铁崖等译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1995.275-276.
② STANLEY, BENN Ⅰ. Egalitarianism and the Equal Consideration of Interests [A]. PENNOC, J. R. & CHAPMAN, J. W. Equality (Noms Ⅸ) [C]. New York: Atherton Press, 1967. 61-78, from DAHL, ROBERT A. Democracy and Its Critics [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. 85.
③ 王海明. 平等原则之我见——兼评罗尔斯的平等观[J]. 人文杂志, 1997, (5), 15, 18-20;王海明. 平等新论[J]. 中国社会科学, 1998, (5): 53, 57-58;周仲秋. 平等观念的历程[M]. 海口:海南出版社,2002. 250-252,442,446.
④ 陈安,主编. 国际经济法专论(上编,总论)[M]. 北京:高等教育出版社,2002. 302.
⑤ 曾华群. 国际经济法导论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1997. 196-197.
⑥ [英]詹宁斯,瓦茨修订. 奥本海国际法(第一卷,第一分册)[M]. 王铁崖等译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1995. 275.
① 梁慧星. 民法总论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2001. 53.
② [意]彼得罗·彭梵得. 罗马法教科书[M]. 黄风译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1992. 79.
① Permanent Court of International Justice: Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (The Merits) (Germany vs. Poland), 13 September 1928, PCIJ, Ser. A., No. 17, 1928, p. 47.
② 王铁崖,主编. 国际法[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1995. 152.
③ 陈安,主编. 国际经济法总论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1991. 183-185;陈安,主编. 国际经济法[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2007. 106-107.
① 曾华群. 论“特殊与差别待遇”条款的发展及其法理基础[J]. 厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2003, (6): 7, 12, 5-13. 有关公平互利原则的详细论述见曾华群. 国际经济法导论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1997.192-209.
② 蔡从燕. 身份与契约——GATT/WTO 体制内“特殊与差别待遇”的契约法研究 [A]. 国际经济法学刊(12-2)[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 151,143,141-162.
③ 外部性理论是现代经济学中的一个重要理论,它最早由马歇尔于 1890 年在其巨著《经济学原理》中提出。外部性是指企业或个人的经济行为对参加经济交易以外的第三者的影响。这种影响可能是有益的,可能是有害的,一般称为正外部性和负外部性,也称为外部经济和外部不经济。正外部性通常是利己利人;负外部性则是利己损人,其义务是对其他经济主体的损害的消除和补偿。国际交往中,发达国家在自利的动机驱使下,利用自己的经济、技术优势对发展中国家政治、文化、经济等方面进行控制或渗透,其走向发达所产生的负外部性表现在很多方面,如发达国家文化的输出,会对发展中国家人民的世界观、人生观和价值观以及思维方式和生活方式产生负面影响;发达国家对原材料的掠夺,使一些发展中国家资源耗竭和经济畸形;发达国家的污染转移,使一些发展中国家污染加剧,使当地人民健康和生命成本大幅度提高。
① PETERSMANN, ERNST-ULRICH. Constitutional Functions and Constitutional Problems of International Economic Law—International and Domestic Foreign Trade Law and Foreign Trade Policy in the United States, the European Community and Switzerland [M]. Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press, 1991.415.
② 迈因哈德·希尔夫(Meinhard Hilf)认为,“尽管 WTO 法中没有明确提及比例原则,但它是作为多边贸易体制基础的更基本的原则之一。无论如何,恰当平衡竟争关系的权利这一比例原则的基本思想被多次体现在 WTO 的协议之中。”See HILF, MEINHARD. Power, Rules and Principles: Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2001, 4(1): 111-130,120. 厄恩斯特—乌尔里克?彼德斯曼也认为,“ 比例原则是 GATT 法律基本前提之一。”See PETERSMANN, ERNST-ULRICH. Constitutional Functions and Constitutional Problems of International Economic Law—International and Domestic Foreign Trade Law and Foreign Trade Policy in the United States, the European Community and Switzerland [M]. Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press, 1991.230;有学者认为,“作为体现公平与正义的比例原则应该成为 WTO 法的基本原则必须承认其在平衡不同的政策目标,削减关税和其他贸易壁垒,限制贸易报复水平及解释 WTO 法中不可或缺的作用;而且,比例原则作为一个工具性原则能起到其他原则起不到的作用。……不得不承认的是,由于美国的反对,明确地将比例原则引入 WTO 法,在比较近的未来是不太可能实现的;但这并不影响比例原则实际上在 WTO 法中的存在。” 参见韩秀丽. 寻找 WTO 法中的比例原则[J]. 现代法学, 2005, (4): 186, 179-188.
③ Art. 22.2, DSU.
④ 徐昕教授认为,实体法学者通常将权利保障机制分为私力救济和公力救济,而诉讼法学者对纠纷解决方式大多一分为三,包括私力救济、社会救济和公力救济。参见徐昕. 论私力救济[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005. 101. 徐昕教授所使用的社会救济的概念与本文的自力救济概念是一致的。
⑤ 刘作翔. 多向度的法理学研究[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2006. 203-210;[美]罗伯特·C·埃里克森. 无需法律的秩序——邻人如何解决纠纷[M]. 苏力译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.153-154.
① 严军兴,管晓峰,主编. 中外民事强制执行制度比较研究[M]. 北京:人民出版社,2006. 46,48-49;李浩,主编. 强制执行法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005. 4-5.
① 齐树洁,主编. 民事程序法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2006. 253;李浩,主编. 强制执行法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005. 45-46.
② 谭秋桂. 民事执行原理研究[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2001. 72,419.
③ 邵明. 民事诉讼法理研究[M]. 北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004. 421;齐树洁,主编. 民事程序法[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2006. 418-419.
④ 常怡,主编. 强制执行的理论与实务[M]. 重庆:重庆出版社,1992. 62.
⑤ Art. 3.3, DSU.
① 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,编. 现代汉语词典(第五版)[M]. 北京:商务印书馆,2006. 1554.
② 同上,第 635 页。
③ 同上。
① 杨国华, 李詠箑. WTO 争端解决程序详解[M]. 北京:中国方正出版社,2004. 120.
② 2003 年 6 月 23 日,美国和 EC 通知 DSB 主席,双方已经就美国—美国版权法 110(5)节案(WT/DS160)达成临时安排,美国将向 EC 的表演权团体设立的基金支付 3.3 亿美元,以向其成员提供全面补助的供给并促进作者的权利。这笔支付作为双方满意的自 2001 年 12 月 21 日起 3 年的争端解决临时安排。See Mutually Satisfactory Temporary Arrangement—United States—Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act (WT/DS160), in United States—Section 110(5) of The Us Copyright Act: Notification of a Mutually Satisfactory Temporary Arrangement, WT/DS160/23, 26 June 2003, pp. 1-2.
③ 详见本节第二目“救济措施的比例原则”。
④ Special Session of Dispute Settlement Body, Chairman's text, as of 28 May, Annex of Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Péter Balás, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9, 6 June 2003. This annex reproduces the text contained in Job (03)/91/Rev.1, issued on 28 May, and incorporates the technical rectifications included in the corrigendum Job (03)/91/Rev.1/Corr.1, issued on 6 June.
⑤ 天主教极负盛名的神学家孔汉思(Hans Küng)寻求的诸宗教的万国律令(ecumenical imperatives)之一是“宗教之间必须和平共存,互助合作,彼此竞争,促成大家在精神上的转变。大家都共同向往更深刻的
① 常怡,主编. 比较民事诉讼法[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002. 780.
② 《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉若干问题的意见》第 279 条规定,“民事诉讼法第二百二十条规定的执行通知,人民法院应在收到申请执行书后的十日内发出。执行通知中除应责令被执行人履行法律文书确定的义务外,并应通知其承担民事诉讼法第二百三十二条规定的迟延履行利息或者迟延履行金。”;《最高人民法院关于人民法院执行工作若干问题的规定(试行)》第 24 条规定,“人民法院决定受理执行案件后,应当在三日内向被执行人发出执行通知书,责令其在指定的期间内履行生效法律文书确定的义务,并承担民事诉讼法第二百三十二条规定的迟延履行期间的债务利息或迟延履行金。”
③ 黄松有,主编. 强制执行法起草与论证(第二册)[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2004. 280-281.
④ 同本页注①,第 781 页。
⑤ [德]库尔特?恩格斯. 不作为执行以及有关的实践问题——<德国民事诉讼法>第 887 条～第 895 条、中国民事强制执行法草案第 87 条及其之后几条、第 245 条～第 258 条[A]. 黄松有. 强制执行法起草与论证(第二册)[C]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2004. 174.
① 参阅本章第二节第二目“救济措施的比例原则”。
② 参阅第二章第二节第三目“DSB 报告执行瑕疵救济制度的缺陷”。
③ 常景龙. 世贸组织争端解决制度研究(硕士学位论文)[D]. 郑州:郑州大学,2001. 43-45.
① 梁西,主编. 国际法[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社, 2000. 472,180.
① Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich. How to Promote the International Rule of Law?—Contributions by World Trade Organization Appellate Review Sestem[J]. Journal of Internitional Ecnomic Law, 1998, (1): 40.
② Art. 25, DSU.
③ 参阅本章第三节“DSB 报告执行制度变革的制度参与”。
④ 李浩培. 条约法概论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2003. 366;万鄂湘,石磊,杨成铭,邓洪武等. 国际条约法[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社,1998. 270.
① Minutes of Meeting (Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, 28 May 2004) , TN/DS/M/19, 17 June 2004, para. 3.
② Doha Work Programme—Draft General Council Decision of 31 July 2004 ( General Council, 27 and 31 July 2004),WT/GC/W/535, 31 July 2004, p. 3
③ 零和谈判意味着一方所得越多,另一方所得就越少。国家间领土争端谈判是典型的零和谈判,争论的议题只有一个,谈判如达成结果,一方所失领土就是另一方所得。参见[美]布里吉特?斯塔奇,马克?波义耳,乔纳森?维尔肯菲尔德. 外交谈判导论[M]. 陈志敏,陈玉聃,董晓同等译,北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005. 47;Raiffa, Howard. The Art and Science of Negotiation [M]. Cambridge, Mass. : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982. 131.
④ 《TRIPS 协定》第 23 条第 4 款规定,“为便利葡萄酒地理标志的保护,应在 TRIPS 理事会内谈判建立关于葡萄酒地理标志通知和注册的多边制度,使之能在参加该多边制度的成员中获得保护。”根据该条授权进行的谈判 TRIPS 理事会在 1997 年已经启动。
⑤ 多哈《部长宣言》第 18 段规定, “为完成理事会已经开始的第 23 条第 4 款项下的工作,我们同意在第五次部长会议前完成谈判建立一个葡萄酒和烈性酒的多边通知和登记体制。 ”
① WTO members kick off negotiations with decisions on organization, http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news02_e/tnc_01feb02_e.htm#principles, 2007-05-18.
② JACKSON, JOHN H. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997.113.
③ EC—Citrus, European Community Tariff Treatment on Imports of Citrus Products from Certain Countries in the Mediterranean Region, Panl Report, 7 February 1985, Unadopted, L/5776.
④ Hudec, Robert E.. Enforcing International Trade Law: the Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System [M]. Salem, N.H. : Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1993.160, 505.
⑤ 1990 年以前,GATT 受理了 229 起申诉,其中美国提起 73 起,占 32/%;EC 及其成员提起 73 起,占32/%;加拿大提起 18 起,占 8/%;澳大利亚提起 13 起,占 6/%。See Hudec, Robert E.. Enforcing International Trade Law: the Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System [M]. Salem, N.H. : Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1993.296.
⑥ Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/29, 9 January 2007, P. Ⅲ.
① amicus curiae 是 friend of the court 的拉丁语,是指向法庭请求或经法庭邀请就一个案件向法庭提出陈述的人,原因在于其对争议的主题有强列的兴趣,其并非一起诉讼的当事人。See GARNER, BYRAN A. Black Law's Dictionary (8th ed. ) [Z]. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 2004. 93.
② 左海聪,刘薇. 论 DSU 的改革及我国的对策[A]. 曹建明,万鄂湘,主编. 法治与国际和谐社会——第22 届世界法律大会论文集[C]. 北京:人民法院出版社,2006. 927.
③ Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, 13 March 2002, pp. 3-4; The European Communities' Replies to India's Questions—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/7, 30 May 2002, pp. 1-5; Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement and Clarification of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/38, 23 January 2003, para. 14.
④ Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, 13 March 2002, p. 7, 11-12; The European Communities' Replies to India's Questions—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/7, 30 May 2002, pp. 6-7.
⑤ 余敏友,陈喜峰. WTO 争端解决机制的改革谈判和我国的因应策略[A]. 国际经济法学刊(10)[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 122;曾令良,余敏友,主编全球化时代的国际法——基础、结构与挑战[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社, 2005. 406-407.
① Art. 9.2, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
② Art. 10. 8, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
① MAGNUS, JOHN. Compliance with WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions: Is There a Crisis? [A]. YERXA, RUFUS & WILSON, BRUCE. Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 250.
② HUDEC, ROBERT E. The Adequacy of WTO Dispute Settlement Remedies: A Developing Country Perspective [A]. HOEKMAN, BERNARD, MATTOO, AADITYA and ENGLISH, PHILIP. Development, trade, and the WTO: A Handbook [C]. World Bank, 2002.84.
③ 首席代表仍然是哈瓦那会议前两次筹备会议的首席代表金问泗,其在 Final Act of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment 上的签名为 WUNSZ KING。
④ 刘相平. 中国关贸总协定创始缔约国地位之考论[J]. 史学月刊, 2002, (1): 69.
⑤ Examination of Proposals for further Amedmentsto the General Agreement: Note Prepared by the Secretariat, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/W.4, 3 March 1965, p.10-11; Proposals for Amendments to the General Agreement: Note by the Secretariat, Ad Hoc Group on Legal Amendments to the GATT, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/F/W.1, 27 April 1965, p.14-15; Proposal Submitted by the Brazilian and Uruguayan Delegations: Draft Decision on Article XXIII, Ad Hoc Group on Legal Amendments to the GATT, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/F/W/4, 11 October 1965, p. 3.
① [美]玛格丽特·E·凯克, 凯瑟琳·辛金克. 超越国界的活动家——国际政治中的倡议网络[M]. 韩召颖,孙英丽译,北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 10.
② 同上,第 18 页。
③ [美]布里吉特·斯塔奇,马克·波义耳,乔纳森·维尔肯菲尔德. 外交谈判导论[M]. 陈志敏,陈玉聃,董晓同等译,北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005. 69.
④ TWN 成立于 1984 年,由发展中国家的几个非政府组织所组成,是研究发展、第三世界和南北关系等问题的国际性智囊团与研究中心,主要研究其中的与全球经济及环境相关的问题。它密切注视及分析不同地点举行的全球性会议与谈判,涉及 WTO,联合国贸易及发展会议(UNCTAD),可持续发展委员会,生物多样性会议,气候变化会议。其主要活动包括:出版杂志、图书与其它文献,举办研讨会,观注 WTO 与联合国的各项谈判,参与全球性会议。作为一个国际性的非政府组织,TWN 的声望地位已获 UNCTAD 与经济及社会理事会的认可。TWN 的国际秘书处设在马来西亚,其在非洲的加纳与拉丁美洲的乌拉圭设有区域秘书处,还在日内瓦设有办事处。http://www.twnchinese.org.my/;http://www.twnside.org.sg/twnintro.htm,2007-07-02。
⑤ 峇吉拉·劳·达斯,是印度驻 GATT 论坛的前任大使和常任代表,曾起草联合国贸易与发展会议 (UNCTAD)的国际贸易纲要,现担任许多政府间组织和非政府组织的顾问。http://www.twnchinese.org.my/wto/wto2.html,2007-05-11。
⑥ 峇吉拉·劳·达斯. WTO 与多边贸易体系之过去、现在与未来[M]. 槟榔屿 (马来西亚):TWN,2004. 47.
⑦ 峇吉拉·劳·达斯认为,弱国不愿激怒大国,后者可通过几种方式显示其不满。同时,诸如报复这样的贸易限制措施成本会很高,因为这将限制供应源的选择,从而对产品购买价格和质量带来一定影响。参见峇吉拉·劳·达斯. WTO 与多边贸易体系之过去、现在与未来[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):TWN,2004. 47.
① 峇吉拉·劳·达斯认为,“强国与弱国之间报复方面能力的差异也会影响被申诉国及时、充分执行建议的意愿。”“正是弱国而非强国需要有效的争端解决程序的保护。……具有讽刺意味的是,当前体系中报复是执行权利和义务的最终手段,其结构向弱国相反的方向倾斜。”参见峇吉拉·劳·达斯. WTO与多边贸易体系之过去、现在与未来[M]. 槟榔屿 (马来西亚):TWN,2004. 47.
② 峇吉拉·劳·达斯认为,即使败诉方按照要求及时地执行了 DSB 报告,仍然对经济上处于弱势地位的申诉国是不利的,原因主要有三个方面:一是从申诉方遭受利益丧失或减损到决定申诉和提出申诉,出于申诉的高昂成本,会造成时间推迟;二是从申诉到败诉方执行 DSB 报告,申诉方要继续承受被诉方造成的损害;三是由于发展中国家对外贸易联系微弱,可能给其缺乏适应能力的公司造成无法挽回的损失。参见峇吉拉·劳·达斯. WTO 与多边贸易体系之过去、现在与未来[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):TWN,2004. 48.
③ 许国平现任 TWN 主任,是剑桥大学毕业的经济学家,曾担任马来西亚理科大学的经济学讲师,在贸易、发展和环保问题方面有丰富的论著,是南方中心和全球化国际论坛的理事,也是负责发展权利的联合国人权委员会专家组的前副主席,担任联合国数个研究项目的顾问。 http://www.twnchinese.org.my/wto/wto1.html,2007-05-12。
④ 许国平先生关于以中止义务来制裁败诉方对单个弱国不具有现实性的理由可以归纳为以下三点,首先,弱国难以承受相应的政治和经济成本,尤其是在对强国中止义务最有效的领域;其次,弱国对强国中止义务,因强国之强,往往难以发挥预期效果;再次,弱国的消费者也难以承受相应的经济成本;最后,因弱国之弱使中止义务具有滞后性和缺乏足够的力度。参见许国平,主编. 多边贸易体系——发展前景[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):第三世界网络, 2002. 12,51-52.
⑤ 许国平,主编. 多边贸易体系——发展前景[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):第三世界网络, 2002. 52.
⑥ 同上,第 12,104 页。
⑦ 玛格丽特·E· 凯克和凯瑟琳·辛金克认为,“初步研究表明,国际和国内非政府组织在所有的倡议网络中都发挥着关键作用,通常由它们发起行动并对更强大的行为体施加压力,迫使其表明立场。非政府组织引入新的思想,提供信息,并为改变政策进行游说。” [美] 玛格丽特·E·凯克,凯瑟琳·辛金克. 超越国界的活动家——国际政治中的倡议网络[M]. 韩召颖,孙英丽译,北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 18.
① 王杰, 张海滨, 张志洲,主编. 全球治理中的国际非政府组织[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社, 2004. 316-317.
② 该非政府组织在国际上有影响的高层领导人的著作、发言经常具有鲜明的发展中国家立场。
① Decision on the Application and Review of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, para. 3.
② Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 18 November 1997), WT/DSB/M/39,7 January 1998, p. 15.
③ Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 8 December 1998), WT/DSB/M/52, 3 February 1999, pp. 1-2.
④ 该提案的共同提出者除日本外还包括:加拿大、哥斯达黎加、捷克、厄瓜多尔、EC 及其成员国、匈牙利、韩国、新西兰、挪威、秘鲁、斯洛文尼亚、瑞士、泰国和委内瑞拉,内容详见:Proposed Amendment of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (Ministerial Conference, Third Session, Seattle, 30 November-3 December 1999), WT/MIN(99)/8, 22 November 1999.
⑤ 该提案的共同提出者除日本外还包括:玻利维亚、加拿大、智利、哥伦比亚、哥斯达黎加、厄瓜多尔、韩国、新西兰、挪威、秘鲁、瑞士、乌拉圭和委内瑞拉,内容详见:Proposal to Amend Certain Provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) Pursuant to Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, WT/GC/W/410/Rev.1, 26 October 2001.
⑥ 纪文华,姜丽勇. WTO 争端解决规则与中国的实践[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 101.
① Ministerial Declaration—Adopted on 14 November 2001 (Ministerial Conference, Fourth Session, Doha, 9 - 14 November 2001), WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20 November 2001, para. 30.
② Id., para. 49-51.
③ Statement by the Chairman of the General Council (Trade Negotiations Committee, 1 February 2002), TN/C/1, 4 February 2002, p. 3.
④ Minutes of Meeting (Trade Negotiations Committee, 28 January and 1 February 2002), TN/C/M/1, 14 February 2002, p. 1.
⑤ First Formal Meeting of the Special Session of The DSB—Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations Committee (Dispute Settlement Body Special Session), TN/DS/1, 23 April 2002.
① [美]L·L·富勒,小威廉·R·帕杜. 合同损害赔偿中的信赖利益[M]. 韩世远译,北京:中国法制出版社,2004. 5-6.
① 朱建民. 国际组织新论[M]. 台北:正中书局,1986. 291.
② 全体一致表决制。最初表现为全体同意,它符合主权豁免原则,局限性是会造成一票否决,后被计票方法限制。现代国际组织的计票方法,一般都是按“出席并投票”的原则,即不出席不计数,弃权不计数。所得票数,或为赞成,或为反对。缺席和弃权甚至也不构成对于全体一致通过的障碍。参见江国青. 国际组织的决策程序[A]. 江国青. 演变中的国际法问题[C]. 北京:法律出版社,2002. 165.
③ 少数表决制。指少于 1/2 的赞同票通过决议,世贸组织争端解决机制中的消极协商一致即属此类。消极协商一致似可认为是充分协商后的一成员赞成制,因也不存在投票,故不存在所谓一票赞成制的协商一致。
④ 李浩培. 条约法的一个突破:多边外交中的协商基本一致决定程序[A]. 李浩培. 李浩培文选[C]. 北京:法律出版社,2000. 590.
⑤ Art. 10.8, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
① 如在作出决定时,出席会议的成员均未正式反对拟议的决定,则有关机构应被视为经协商一致对提交其审议的事项作出了决定。See note 1, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
② 韩立余. 世界贸易组织制度中集体性与个体性的冲突与协调[A]. 孙琬钟. “海峡两岸 WTO 法律论坛”论文集[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2007. 184.
① 拉尔夫·达伦多夫. 论全球化[A]. 张世鹏译,乌·贝克,哈贝马斯等. 全球化与政治[C]. 王学东,柴方国等译,北京:中央编译出版社,2000. 212.
② 李光灿,吕世伦,主编. 马克思、恩格斯法律思想史[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2001. 258.
③ 交易费用主要包括:搜寻信息费用、谈判费用、创制协议文本费用和违约救济费用等。罗纳德·哈里·科斯教授在 1937 年发表的《公司的性质》一文中发现并阐明了交易费用和产权在经济组织和制度结构中的重要性及其在经济活动中的作用,并因此于 1991 年诺贝尔经济学奖。他认为,企业存在的主要原因在于它能在一定程度上取代市场交易从而减少交易费用,从而使企业主实现效益最大化。See COASE, RONALD H. The Nature of the Firme [A]. KATZ, AVERY WIENER. Foundations of the Economic Approach to Law [C]. Beijing: Law Press, 2005. 65-67.
⑥ POSNER, RICHARD A. Economic Analysis of Law (6th ed. )[M]. Beijing: CITIC Publishing House, 2003.13.
① 黄万盛. 正在逝去的和尚未到来的——〈破碎的民主〉中文本序[A]. [法]皮埃尔·卡蓝默. 破碎的民主:试论治理的革命[M]. 高凌瀚译,北京:三联书店,2005. 4.
② [美]霍华德·威亚尔达,主编. 民主与民主化比较研究[M]. 榕远译,北京:北京大学出版社,2004. 171.
③ [美]詹姆斯·M·布坎南,戈登·塔洛克. 同意的计算——立宪民主的逻辑基础[M]. 陈光金译,北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2000. 101.
① REISMAN, DAVID. The Political Economy of James Buchanan [M]. Houndmills: The Macmillan Press Ltd. , 1990. 32.
② 盛洪. 经济学透视下的民主——谈谈有关公共选择的经济理论[A]. 盛洪. 现代制度经济学 (下卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2003. 142-143.
③ 在多数表决制中,表决权集中程度与保护少数派的程度成正比。参见赵成根. 民主与公共决策研究[M]. 哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2000. 292-298.
④ DSU 采用的消极协商一致表决制,就实质而言,应属表决权集中程度最低的表决制,是一种“少数表决制”,效率最高。
⑤ 李浩培. 条约法概论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2003. 377,376.
⑥ 万鄂湘,石磊,杨成铭,邓洪武. 国际条约法[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社,1998. 275-276.
⑦ Secretary-General of Commission of the European Communities, Memorandum to the Members of the Commission: Summary of the Treaty of Nice, Brussels, January 18, 2001, SEC (2001) 99, p. 9. http://ec.europa.eu/comm/nice_treaty/summary_en.pdf, 2007-04-06.
⑧ WTO Secretariat. Regionalism and the World Trading System [M]. Geneva: WTO, 1995.63-65.
① 刘光溪. 互补性竞争论——区域集团与多边贸易体制(第二版)[M]. 北京:经济日报出版社,2006. 304-305.
② KRUEGER, ANNE O. An Agenda for the WTO [A]. KRUEGER, ANNE O. The WTO as an International Organization [C]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.405.
③ The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium—Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi, World Trade Organization, 2004, para. 280-290.
④ STANLEY, BENNⅠ. Egalitarianism and the Equal Consideration of Interests [A]. PENNOC, J. R. & CHAPMAN, J. W. Equality (Noms Ⅸ) [C]. New York: Atherton Press, 1967.61-78, from DAHL, ROBERT A. Democracy and Its Critics [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. 85.
⑤ 《WTO 协议》对其第 9 条、第 10 条、GATT1994 第 1 条和第 2 条、GATS 第 2 条第 1 款和《TRIPS协定》第 4 条的修正要求全体成员接受才生效,似乎和 DSU 的修正一样的严格或表面上看比 DSU 的修正更严格。但是,对于这些条款,“如在确定期限内,在部长级会议的一次会议上未能协商一致,则部长级会议应以成员的三分之二多数决定是否将拟议的修正提交各成员供接受。”这就意味着三分之二多数就可决定是否将拟议的修正提交各成员供接受,可想而知,在这样的决定由部长级会议作出后,至少有三分之二的成员会很快选择接受,然后其它成员也会不管情愿与否去选择接受。
② 余敏友,左海聪,黄志雄. WTO 争端解决机制概论[M]. 上海:上海人民出版社,2001. 357.
[1] 常怡,主编. 比较民事诉讼法[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[2] 常怡,主编. 强制执行的理论与实务[M]. 重庆:重庆出版社,1992.
[3] 曹建明,万鄂湘,主编. 法治与国际和谐社会——第 22 届世界法律大会论文集[M]. 北京:人民法院出版社,2006.
[4] 陈安,主编. 国际经济法[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2007.
[5] 陈安,主编. 国际经济法专论(上编,总论)[M]. 北京:高等教育出版社,2002.
[6] 陈安,主编. 国际经济法总论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1991.
[7] 程大为. 商务外交[M]. 北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[8] 陈桂明. 程序理念与程序规则[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,1999.
[9] 法学教材编辑部《西方法律思想史》编写组,编. 西方法律思想史资料选编[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,1983.
[10] 公丕祥, 主编. 法理学[M]. 上海:复旦大学出版社,2002.
[11] 郭道晖. 法理学精义[M]. 长沙:湖南人民出版社,2005.
[12] 贺其治. 国家责任法及案例浅析[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2003.
[13] 黄松有. 强制执行法起草与论证(第二册)[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2004.
[14] 纪文华,姜丽勇. WTO 争端解决规则与中国的实践[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[15] 江国青. 演变中的国际法问题[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2002.
[16] 峇吉拉?劳?达斯(Bhagirath Lal Das). WTO 与多边贸易体系之过去、现在与未来[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):TWN,2004.
[17] 李光灿,吕世伦,主编. 马克思、恩格斯法律思想史[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2001.
[18] 李浩,主编. 强制执行法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005.
[19] 李浩培. 李浩培文选[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2000.
[20] 李浩培. 条约法概论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2003.
[21] 李松玉. 制度权威研究——制度规范与社会秩序[M]. 北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[22] 梁慧星. 民法总论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2001.
[23] 梁西,主编. 国际法[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社, 2000.
[24] 林灿铃. 国际法上的跨界损害之国家责任[M]. 北京:华文出版社,2000.
[25] 刘光溪. 互补性竞争论——区域集团与多边贸易体制(第二版)[M]. 北京:经济日报出版社,2006.
[26] 刘述先. 全球伦理与宗教对话[M]. 石家庄:河北人民出版社,2006.
[27] 刘作翔. 多向度的法理学研究[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[28] 卢现祥,朱巧玲,主编. 新制度经济学[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2007.
[29] 莫纪宏. 现代宪法的逻辑基础[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2001.
[30] 齐树洁,主编. 民事程序法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2006.
[31] 邵明. 民事诉讼法理研究[M]. 北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[32] 盛洪. 现代制度经济学 (下卷)[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
[33] 孙振宇,主编. WTO 多哈回合谈判中期回顾[M]. 北京:人民出版社,2005.
[34] 舒国滢,主编. 法理学导论[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[35] 孙琬钟. “海峡两岸 WTO 法律论坛”论文集[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2007.
[36] 谭秋桂. 民事执行原理研究[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2001.
[37] 万鄂湘,石磊,杨成铭,邓洪武. 国际条约法[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社,1998.
[38] 汪习根,主编. 法律理念[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社,2006.
[39] 王杰, 张海滨, 张志洲,主编. 全球治理中的国际非政府组织[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社, 2004.
[40] 王磊. 关贸总协定规则与中国缔约国地位[M]. 北京:中国经济出版社,1995.
[41] 王铁崖,主编. 国际法[M]. 北京:法律出版社, 1995.
[42] 王铁崖等,编著. 国际法[M]. 王人杰校订,台北:五南图书出版股份有限公司,1992.
[43] 肖建国. 民事诉讼程序价值讼[M]. 北京:中国人民人学出版社, 2000.
[44] 谢鹏程. 基本法律价值[M]. 济南:山东人民出版社,2000.
[45] 徐国栋. 民法基本原则解释[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[46] 徐昕. 论私力救济[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[47] 许国平,主编. 多边贸易体系——发展前景[M]. 槟榔屿(马来西亚):第三世界网络, 2002.
[48] 严军兴,管晓峰,主编. 中外民事强制执行制度比较研究[M]. 北京:人民出版社,2006.
[49] 李浩,主编. 强制执行法[M]. 厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005.
[50] 杨国华,李詠箑. WTO 争端解决程序详解[M]. 北京:中国方正出版社,2004.
[51] 杨荣馨,主编. 强制执行立法的探索与构建——<中国强制执行法(试拟稿)>条文与释义[M]. 北京:中国人民公安大学出版社, 2005.
[52] 姚建宗. 法理学:一般法律科学[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006.
[53] 余敏友,左海聪,黄志雄. WTO 争端解决机制概论[M]. 上海:上海人民出版社,2001.
[54] 曾华群. 国际经济法导论[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1997.
[55] 曾令良,主编. 21 世纪初的国际法与中国[M]. 武汉:武汉大学出版社,2005.
[56] 曾令良,余敏友,主编全球化时代的国际法——基础、结构与挑战[M]. 武昌:武汉大学出版社, 2005.
[57] 张光杰,主编. 法理学导论[M]. 复旦大学出版社,2006.
[58] 张维迎. 博弈论与信息经济学[M]. 上海:上海:三联书店、上海人民出版社,1996.
[59] 张文显. 二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M]. 北京:法律出版社,2006.
[60] 张玉卿,主编. WTO 新回合法律问题研究[M]. 北京:中国商务出版社,2004.
[61] 赵成根. 民主与公共决策研究[M]. 哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2000.
[62] 赵维田. 世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度[M]. 长春:吉林人民出版社,2000.
[63] 赵维田等. WTO 的司法机制[M]. 上海:上海人民出版社,2004.
[64] 郑永流. 法治四章——英德渊源、国际标准和中国问题[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[65] 周永坤. 论自由的法律[M]. 济南:山东人民出版社,2006.
[66] 周仲秋. 平等观念的历程[M]. 海口:海南出版社,2002.
[67] 朱建民. 国际组织新论[M]. 台北:正中书局,1986.
[68] 邹川宁. 民事强制执行基本问题研究[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社, 2004.
[1] [美]埃德加·博登海默. 法理学——法律哲学与法律方法[M]. 邓正来译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[2] [意]彼得罗·彭梵得. 罗马法教科书[M]. 黄风译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1992.
[3] [美]布里吉特·斯塔奇,马克·波义耳,乔纳森·维尔肯菲尔德. 外交谈判导论[M]. 陈志敏,陈玉聃,董晓同等译,北京:北京大学出版社, 2005.
[4] [美]道格拉斯·C·诺斯. 经济史中的结构与变迁[M]. 陈郁,罗华平等译,上海:上海三联书店,1991.
[5] [美]哈罗德·J·伯尔曼. 法律与革命——西方法律传统的形成[M]. 贺卫方等译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993.
[6] [美] 哈罗德·J·伯尔曼. 法律与宗教[M]. 梁治平译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[7] [美]霍华德·威亚尔达,主编. 民主与民主化比较研究[M]. 榕远译,北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[8] [德] 柯武刚,史漫飞. 制度经济学——社会秩序与公共政策[M]. 韩朝华译,北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[9] [美] 科依勒·贝格威尔,罗伯特·W·思泰格尔. 世界贸易体系经济学[M]. 雷达,詹宏毅等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[10] [美]罗伯特·C·埃里克森. 无需法律的秩序——邻人如何解决纠纷[M]. 苏力译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[11] [美]L· L·富勒,小威廉·R·帕杜. 合同损害赔偿中的信赖利益[M]. 韩世远译,北京:中国法制出版社,2004.
[12] [美]曼瑟尔·奥尔森. 集体行动的逻辑[M]. 陈郁,郭宇峰,李崇新译,上海:三联书店上海分店, 1995.
[13] [美] 玛格丽特·E·凯克, 凯瑟琳·辛金克. 超越国界的活动家——国际政治中的倡议网络[M]. 韩召颖,孙英丽译,北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[14] [法]皮埃尔·卡蓝默. 破碎的民主:试论治理的革命[M]. 高凌瀚译,北京:三联书店,2005.
[15] [美]P·诺内特,P·塞尔兹尼克. 转变中的法律与社会——迈向回应型法[M]. 张志铭译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[16] [德]乌·贝克,哈贝马斯等. 全球化与政治[M]. 王学东、柴方国等译,北京:中央编译出版社,2000.
[17] [英]詹宁斯,瓦茨修订. 奥本海国际法(第一卷,第一分册)[M]. 王铁崖等译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1995.
[18] [美]詹姆斯·M·布坎南,戈登·塔洛克. 同意的计算——立宪民主的逻辑基础[M]. 陈光金译,北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2000.
[1] Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W. The Economics of the World Trading System [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002.
[2] LARSON, CHARLES U. Persuasion: Reception and Responsibility (tenth ed. ) [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.
[3] Croome, John. Reshaping the World Trading System: A History of the Uruguay Round(2ed. and Revised Ed. )[M].The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999.
[4] DAHL, ROBERT A. Democracy and Its Critics [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
[5] HOEKMAN, BERNARD, MATTOO, AADITYA and ENGLISH, PHILIP, ed. Development, Trade, and the WTO: A Handbook [M]. World Bank, 2002.
[6] Hudec, Robert E.. Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System [M]. Salem, N.H. : Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1993.
[7] JACKSON, JOHN H. The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO: Insights on Treaty Law and Economic Relations [M], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[8] JACKSON, JOHN H. The World Trading System: Law And Policy of International Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997.
[9] JACKSON, JOHN H. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997.
[10] JACKSON, JOHN H., DAVEY, WILLIAM J. and SYKES, ALAN O. Legal Problems of International Eco- nomic Relations: Cases, Materials, and Text on the National and International Regulation of Transnational Economic Relations [M]. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2002.
[11] JANIS, MARK W. An Introduction to International Law (4th ed.)[M]. Beijing: CITIC Publishing House, 2003.
[12] KATZ, AVERY WIENER. Foundations of the Economic Approach to Law [M]. Beijing: Law Press, 2005.
[13] KOUL, AUTAR KRISHEN. Guide to the WTO and GATT: Economics, Law And Politics [M]. Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005.
[14] KRUEGER, ANNE O., ed. The WTO as an International Organization [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
[15] Noortmann, Math. Enforcing International Law: From Self-Help to Self-Contained Regimes [M]. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005.
[16] PALMETER, DAVID & MAVROIDIS, PETROS C. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure [M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[17] PENNOC, J. R. & CHAPMAN, J. W. Equality (Noms Ⅸ) [M]. New York: Atherton Press, 1967.
[18] PETERSMANN, ERNST-ULRICH. Constitutional Functions and Constitutional Problems of International Economic Law—International and Domestic Foreign Trade Law and Foreign Trade Policy in the United States, the European Community and Switzerland [M]. Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press, 1991.
[19] POSNER, RICHARD A. Economic Analysis of Law (6th ed.)[M]. Beijing: CITIC Publishing House, 2003.
[20] Raiffa, Howard. The Art and Science of Negotiation [M]. Cambridge, Mass. : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982.
[21] REISMAN, DAVID. The Political Economy of James Buchanan [M]. Houndmills: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1990.
[22] SACERDOTI, GIORGIO, YANOVICH, ALAN, AND BOHANES, JAN. The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[23] STEWART, TERENCE P., ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume Ⅱ, Commentary) [M]. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993.
[24] STEWART, TERENCE P., ed. The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992) (Volume III, Documents) [M]. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993.
[25] The Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi. The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium—Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi, World Trade Organization, 2004.
[26] Thesing, Josef & Jung, Winfried. The Rule of Law [M]. Beijing: Law Press, 2005.
[27] WOLFRUM, RüDIGER, STOLL, PETER-TOBIAS and KAISER, KAREN, ed. WTO: Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006.
[28] WTO. WTO Analytical Index: Guide to WTO Law and Practice [M]. Geneva: WTO Publications, 2003.
[29] WTO. Guide to GATT Law and Practice—Analytical Index [M]. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press, 1995.
[30] WTO. The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: A Collection of the Relevant Legal Texts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[31] WTO Secretariat. Regionalism and the World Trading System [M]. Geneva: WTO, 1995.
[32] YERXA, RUFUS & WILSON, BRUCE, ed. Key issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[1] 蔡从燕. 身份与契约——GATT/WTO 体制内“特殊与差别待遇”的契约法研究 [A]. 国际经济法学刊(12-2)[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[2] 常景龙. 世贸组织争端解决制度研究(硕士学位论文)[D]. 郑州:郑州大学,2001.
[3] 陈桂明,李仕春. 程序安定论[J]. 政法论坛, 1999, (5).
[4] 冯禹. “天道”考释[J]. 管子学刊, 1990, (4).
[5] 韩立余. 世界贸易组织制度中集体性与个体性的冲突与协调[A]. 孙琬钟. “海峡两岸WTO 法律论坛”论文集[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2007.
[6] 韩秀丽. 寻找 WTO 法中的比例原则[J]. 现代法学, 2005, (4).
[7] 黄万盛. 正在逝去的和尚未到来的——〈破碎的民主〉中文本序[A]. [法]皮埃尔·卡蓝默.破碎的民主:试论治理的革命[M]. 高凌瀚译,北京:三联书店,2005.
[8] 纪文华. WTO 争端解决机制新回合谈判述评[A]. 杨国华,李詠箑. WTO 争端解决程序详解[M]. 北京:中国方正出版社,2004.
[9] 季卫东. 程序比较论[J]. 比较法研究, 1993, (1).
[10] 江国青. 国际组织的决策程序[A]. 江国青. 演变中的国际法问题[C]. 北京:法律出版社,2002.
[11] 雷达,詹宏毅等. 如何从经济学角度分析世界贸易体制(代译者序)[A]. [美] 科依勒·贝格威尔,罗伯特·W·思泰格尔. 世界贸易体系经济学[M]. 雷达,詹宏毅等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[12] 李浩培. 条约法的一个突破:多边外交中的协商基本一致决定程序[A]. 李浩培. 李浩培文选[C]. 北京:法律出版社,2000.
[13] 李龙,徐亚文. 正当程序与宪法权威[J]. 武汉大学学报(人文社科版), 2000, (5).
[14] 刘相平.中国关贸总协定创始缔约国地位之考论[J]. 史学月刊, 2002, (1).
[15] 盛洪. 经济学透视下的民主——谈谈有关公共选择的经济理论[A]. 盛洪. 现代制度经济学(下卷)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
[16] 孙笑侠. 论法律的外在权威与内在权威[J]. 学习与探索, 1996, (5).
[17] 王海明. 平等原则之我见——兼评罗尔斯的平等观[J]. 人文杂志, 1997, (5).
[18] 王海明. 平等新论[J]. 中国社会科学, 1998, (5).
[19] 杨国华著. WTO 争端解决机制新回合谈判述评[A]. 国际经济法学刊(10)[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[20] 余敏友,陈喜峰. WTO 争端解决机制的改革谈判和我国的因应策略[A]. 国际经济法学刊(10)[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[21] 曾华群. 论“ 特殊与差别待遇 ”条款的发展及其法理基础[J]. 厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2003, (6).
[22] 左海聪,刘薇. 论 DSU 的改革及我国的对策[A]. 曹建明,万鄂湘,主编. 法治与国际和谐社会——第 22 届世界法律大会论文集[C]. 北京:人民法院出版社,2006.
[23] 拉尔夫·达伦多夫. 论全球化[A]. 张世鹏译. 乌·贝克,哈贝马斯等. 全球化与政治[C]. 王学东,柴方国等译,北京:中央编译出版社,2000.
[24] [德]库尔特·恩格斯. 不作为执行以及有关的实践问题——<德国民事诉讼法>第 887条～第 895 条、中国民事强制执行法草案第 87 条及其之后几条、第 245 条～第 258 条[A]. 黄松有. 强制执行法起草与论证(第二册)[C]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2004.
[1] BELLO, JUDITH HIPPLER. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less Is More [A]. The American Journal of International Law, 1996, 90.
[2] Bermann, Suzanne. Ec-Hormones and the Case for an Express WTO Postretaliation Procedure [J]. The Columbia Law Review, 2007,107(January).
[3] Getlan,Myles. TRIPs and the Future of Section 301: A Comparative Study in Trade Dispute Resolution [J]. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 1995, 34.
[4] HUDEC, ROBERT E. The Adequacy of WTO Dispute Settlement Remedies: A Developing Country Perspective [A]. HOEKMAN, BERNARD, MATTOO, AADITYA and ENGLISH, PHILIP. Development, trade, and the WTO: A Handbook [C]. World Bank, 2002.
[5] HUGHES, VALERIE. The WTO Dispute Settlement System from Initiating Proceedings to Ensuring Implementation: What Needs Improvement? [A]. SACERDOTI, GIORGIO, YANOVICH, ALAN, AND BOHANES, JAN. The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[6] JACKSON, JOHN H. Designing and Implementing Effective Dispute Settlement Procedures: WTO Dispute Settlement: Appraisal and Prospects [A]. KRUEGER, ANNE O. The WTO as an International Organization [C]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
[7] JACKSON, JOHN H. Dispute Settlement and the WTO: Emerging Problems [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 1998, 1.
[8] JACKSON, JOHN H. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation [J]. American Journal of International Law, 1997, 91.
[9] ANDERSON, KYM. Peculiarities of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [J]. World Trade Review, 2002, 1(2).
[10] KRUEGER, ANNE O. An Agenda for the WTO[A]. KRUEGER, ANNE O. ed. The WTO as an International Organization [C]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
[11] Kumm, Mattias. International Law in National Courts: The Intemational Rule of Law and the Limits of International Model [J]. Virginia Journal of International Law, 2003, 44(Fall).
[12] LOWENFELD, ANDREAS F. Remedies along with Rights: Institutional Reform in the New GATT [J]. American Journal of International Law, July, 1994.
[13] MAGNUS, JOHN. Compliance with WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions: Is There a Crisis? [A]. YERXA, RUFUS & WILSON, BRUCE. Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[14] MEINHARD HILF. Power, Rules and Principles: Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2001, 4(1).
[15] PESCATORE, PIERRE. The GATT Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Its Present Situation and Its Prospects [J]. Journal of International Arbitration, 1993, 10(1).
[16] PESCATORE, PIERRE. The GATT Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Its Present Situation and Its Prospects [J]. Journal of World Trade, 1993, 27(1).
[17] Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich. How to Promote the International Rule of Law?—Contributions by World Trade Organization Appellate Review Sestem [J]. Journal of Internitional Ecnomic Law, 1998, (1).
[18] STANLEY, BENN Ⅰ. Egalitarianism and the Equal Consideration of Interests [A]. PENNOC, J. R. & CHAPMAN, J. W. Equality (Noms Ⅸ) [C]. New York: Atherton Press, 1967. from DAHL, ROBERT A. Democracy and Its Critics [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
[19] Watts, Arthur Sir. The International Rule of Law [A]. Thesing, Josef & Jung, Winfried. The Rule of Law [C]. Beijing: Law Press, 2005.
[20] WILSON, BRUCE. The WTO Dispute Settlement System and Its Operation: A Brief Overview of the First Ten Years [A]. YERXA, RUFUS & WILSON, BRUCE. Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 20.
[1] 宋雷,主编. 英汉法律用语大辞典[Z]. 北京:法律出版社, 2005.
[2] 薛波,主编. 元照英美法词典[Z]. 潘汉典总审订,北京:法律出版社,2003.
[3] 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,编. 现代汉语词典(第五版)[Z]. 北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[4] [英]戴维·M·沃克. 牛津法律大辞典[Z]. 李双元等译,北京:法律出版社,2003.
[5] GARNER, BYRAN A. Black Law’s Dictionary (8th ed.) [Z]. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 2004.
[6] TRUMBLE, WILLIAM R. & STEVENSON, ANGUS, ed. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (5th ed.) [z]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
[1] April 1989 Decision on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Extension of Application—Decision of 22 February 1994, L/7416, 28 February 1994.
[2] Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes—Award of the Arbitrator, Said El-Naggar, WT/DS27/15, 7 January 1998.
[3] Australia—Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon—Recourse to Article 21.5 by Canada—Report of the Panel, WT/DS18/RW, 18 February 2000.
[4] Australia—Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather—Report of the Panel, WT/DS126/R, 25 May 1999.
[5] Australia—Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather—Status Report by Australia, WT/DS126/7, 20 September 1999.
[6] Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-1), WT/DS46/AB/R, 2 August 1999.
[7] Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft—Report of the Panel, WT/DS46/R, 14 April 1999.
[8] Brazil—Export Financing Programme for Aircraft—Second Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU Report of the Panel, WT/DS46/RW/2, 26 July 2001.
[9] Canada—Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-2), T/DS70/AB/R, 2 August 1999.
[10] Canada—Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft—Report of the Panel, WT/DS70/R, 14 April 1999.
[11] Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS103/10, WT/DS113/10, 7 January 2000.
[12] Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/RW, WT/DS113/RW, 11 July 2001.
[13] Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2001-6)—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/AB/RW, WT/DS113/AB/RW, 3 December 2001.
[14] Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Panel—Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/RW2, WT /DS113/RW2, 26 July 2002.
[15] Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2002-6)—Second Recourse to Article 21. 5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/AB/RW2, WT/DS113/AB/RW2, 20 December 2002.
[16] Chairman's text, as of 28 May, Annex of Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Péter Balás, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9, 6 June 2003.
[17] Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement and Clarification of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/38, 23 January 2003.
[18] Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, 13 March 2002.
[19] Decision on the Application and Review of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
[20] Dispute Settlement Body—Annual Report (2001), WT/DSB/26, 12 October 2001.
[21] Doha Work Programme—Draft General Council Decision of 31 July 2004 (General Council, 27 and 31 July 2004), WT/GC/W/535, 31 July 2004.
[22] Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA, 20 December 1991.
[23] Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Revision, MTN.TNC/W/35/REV.1, 3 December 1990.
[24] Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey—Status Report by Egypt—Addendum, WT/DS211/7/Add.3, 19 August 2003.
[25] Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar From Turkey—Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS211/6, 20 November 2002.
[26] Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar From Turkey—Status Report by Egypt, WT/DS211/7, 8 May 2003.
[27] Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey—Status Report by Egypt—Addendum, WT/DS211/7/Add.1,13 June 2003.
[28] Egypt—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey—Status Report by Egypt—Addendum, WT/DS211/7/Add.2, 8 July 2003.
[29] European Communities—Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India—Report of the Appellate Bod(yAB-2003-1), WT/DS141/AB/RW, 8 April 2003.
[30] European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas—Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (Award of the Arbitrator, Said El-Naggar), WT/DS27/15, 7 January 1998.
[31] Examination of Proposals for further Amedments to the General Agreement: Note Prepared by the Secretariat, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/W.4, 3 March 1965.
[32] First Formal Meeting of the Special Session of The DSB—Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations Committee (Dispute Settlement Body Special Session), TN/DS/1, 23 April 2002.
[33] Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures—Decision of 12 April 1989, L/6489, 13 April 1989.
[34] Japan—Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States—Report of the Panel, WT/DS245/RW, 23 June 2005.
[35] Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
[36] Mexico—Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages—Status Report by Mexico, WT/DS308/16, 12 January 2007.
[37] Mexico—Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States (AB-2001-5)—Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS132/AB/RW, 22 October 2001.
[38] Ministerial Declaration—Adopted on 14 November 2001 (Ministerial Conference, Fourth Session, Doha, 9 - 14 November 2001), WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20 November 2001.
[39] Ministerial Declaration on the Uruguay round, GATT/1396, 25 September 1986.
[40] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body), 1 December 2003, WT/DSB/M/159, 15 January 2004.
[41] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body), 7 November 2003, WT/DSB/M/157, 18 December 2003.
[42] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 11 December 2006), WT/DSB/M/223, 15 January 2007.
[43] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 14 March 2006), WT/DSB/M/206, 4 April 2006.
[44] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 17 February 1999) , WT/DSB/M/55, 29 April 1999.
[45] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 18 March 2003), WT/DSB/M/145, 7 May 2003.
[46] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 18 November 1997), WT/DSB/M/39, 7 January 1998.
[47] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 19 December 2006), WT/DSB/M/224, 9 February 2007.
[48] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 19 May 2003), WT/DSB/M/150, 2 July 2003.
[49] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 21 and 23 July 2003) , WT/DSB/M/153, 24 September 2003.
[50] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 21 November 2001), WT/DSB/M/113, 17 December 2001.
[51] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 21 October 1998), WT/DSB/M/49, 19 November 1998.
[52] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 24 and 26 November 2004) , WT/DSB/M/178, 17 January 2005.
[53] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 24 July 2001), WT/DSB/M/107, 11 September 2001.
[54] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 24 June 2003) , WT/DSB/M/151, 12 August 2003.
[55] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 27 January 2000), WT/DSB/M/74, 22 February 2000.
[56] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 28 April 1999) , WT/DSB/M/60, 21 June 1999.
[57] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 29 August 2003), WT/DSB/M/155, 7 November 2003.
[58] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 3 August 2003), WT/DSB/M/195, 6 September 2005.
[59] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 3 December 1996), WT/DSB/M/27, 15 January 1997.
[60] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 4 August 2000), WT/DSB/M/87, 20 September 2000.
[60] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 7 November 2003) , WT/DSB/M/157, 18 December 2003.
[61] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 8 December 1998), WT/DSB/M/52, 3 February 1999.
[62] Minutes of Meeting (General Council, 24-25 July 2003) , WT/GC/M/81, 28 August 2003.
[63] Minutes of Meeting (Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, 28 May 2004) , TN/DS/M/19, 17 June 2004.
[64] Minutes of Meeting (Trade Negotiations Committee, 28 January and 1 February 2002), TN/C/M/1, 14 February 2002.
[65] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 23 May 1997), WT/DSB/M/33, 25 June 1997.
[66] Minutes of Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 23 October 2002), WT/DSB/M/134, 29 January 2003.
[67] Minutes of the Meeting (Dispute Settlement Body, 12 March 2001), WT/DSB/M/101, 8 May 2001.
[68] Mutually Satisfactory Temporary Arrangement—United States—Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act (WT/DS160), in United States—Section 110(5) of the Us Copyright Act—Notification of a Mutually Satisfactory Temporary Arrangement, WT/DS160/23, 26 June 2003.
[69] Negotiations on the Dispute Settlement Understanding—Proposal by the LDC Group, TN/DS/W/17, 9 October 2002
[70] Overview of the State of Play of WTO Disputes,in Dispute Settlement Body—Annual Report (2006)—Addendum, WTO, WT/DSB/42/Add.1, 4 December 2006.
[71] Permanent Court of International Justice: Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (The Merits) (Germany vs. Poland), 13 September 1928, PCIJ, Ser. A., No. 17, 1928.
[72] Proposal Submitted by the Brazilian and Uruguayan Delegations: Draft Decision on Article XXIII, Ad Hoc Group on Legal Amendments to the GATT, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/F/W/4, 11 October 1965.
[73] Proposal to Amend Certain Provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) Pursuant to Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, WT/GC/W/410/Rev.1, 26 October 2001.
[74] Proposals for Amendments to the General Agreement: Note by the Secretariat, Ad Hoc Group on Legal Amendments to the GATT, Committee on Trade and Development, COM.TD/F/W.1, 27 April 1965.
[75] Proposed Amendment of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (Ministerial Conference, Third Session, Seattle, 30 November - 3 December 1999), WT/MIN(99)/8, 22 November 1999.
[76] Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Péter Balás, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9, 6 June 2003, pp. 16-17.
[77] Report of the Drafting Committee of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment—20 January to 25 February 1947, E/PC/T/34, 5 March 1947.
[78] Report of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, E/PC/T/33, October 1946.
[79] Report of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment—Adopted by the Preparatory Committee,22August I947, E/PC/T/186, 10 September 1947.
[80] Statement by the Chairman of the General Council (Trade Negotiations Committee, 1 February 2002), TN/C/1, 4 February 2002.
[81] Status Report by the United States—Addendum, WT/DS184/15/Add.51, 9 February 2007.
[82] Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting, 13 October 1953, SR.8/14, 23 October 1953.
[83] Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting, 8 November 1952, SR.7/16, 11 November 1952.
[84] The European Communities' Replies to India's Questions—Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/7, 30 May 2002.
[85] The Uruguay round—Decisions of 28 January 1987, GATT/1405, 5 February 1987.
[86] Understanding between India and the United States Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, WT/DS206/9, 19 February 2003.
[87] Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
[88] United States—Anti-Dumping Act of 1916—Proposed Modification of the Reasonable Period of Time under Article 21.3 of the DSU, T/DS136/13, WT/DS162/16, 18 July 2001;
[89] United States—Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" Report of the Appellate Body (AB-1999-9), WT/DS108/AB/R, 24 February 2000.
[90] United States—Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000—Communication from Japan, WT/DS217/50, 24 August 2006.
[91] United States Import Restrictions on Dairy Products—Draft Resolution, L/59, 6 November 1952.
[92] United States Import Restrictions on Dairy Products—Resolution of 5 November 1954, L/280, 11 November 1954.
[93] United States Restrictions on Dairy Products—Resolution Proposed for Adoption by the Contracting Parties (Draft), L/154, 2 October 1953.
[94] United States—Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia—Communication from Australia and New Zealand, WT/DS 177 /13, WT/DS178/14, 2 October 2001.
[95] United States—Anti Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate from India—Understanding between India and the United States Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, WT/DS206/9, 19 February 2003.
[96] United States—Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (Drams) of One Megabit or above from Korea—Recourse by Korea to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WT/DS99/12, 25 October 2000.
[97] United States—Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (Drams) of One Megabit or above from Korea—Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Korea, WT/DS99/RW, 7 November 2000.
[98] United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan—Status Report by the United States—Addendum, WT/DS184/15/Add.51, 9 February 2007.
[99] United States—Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000—Communication from the European Communities, WT/DS217/47, 4 May 2005.
[100] United States—Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000—Communication from Canada, WT/DS234/33, 4 May 2005.
[101] United States—Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000—Communication from the European Communities, WT/DS217/49, 2 May 2006.
[102] United States—Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000—Communication from Japan, WT/DS217/48, 19 August 2005.
[103] United States—Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities—Final Report of the Panel, WT/DS212/RW, 17 August 2005.
[104] United States—Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea—Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS202/18, 31 July 2002.
[105] United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—Status Report by the United States (Addendum), WT/DS58/15/Add.4, 17 January 2000.
[106] United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—Report of the Panel—Recourse to Article 21.5 by Malaysia, WT/DS58/RW, 15 June 2001.
[107] United States—Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada—Report of the Panel, WT/DS277/RW, 15 November 2005.
[108] United States—Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2006-01), WT/DS277/AB/RW, 13 April 2006.
[109] United States—Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India—Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS33/AB/R, 25 April 1997.
[110] United States—Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India —Report of the Panel, WT/DS33/R, 6 January 1997.
[111] United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998—Status Report by the United States—Addendum, from WT/DS176/11/Add.29 to WT/DS176/11/Add.55.
[112] United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline—Status Report by the United States—Addendum, WT/DS2/10/Add.7, 26 August 1997.
[113] United States—Subsidies on Upland Cotton—Report of the Appellate Body (AB-2004-5), WT/DS267/AB/R, 3 March 2005.
[114] United States—Subsidies on Upland Cotton—Report of the Panel, WT/DS267/R, 8 September 2004.
[115] United States—Subsidies on Upland Cotton—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil—Request for the Establishment of a Panel, WT/DS267/30, 21 August 2006.
[116] United States—Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina—Report of the Panel, WT/DS268/RW, 30 November 2006.
[117] United States—Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"—Report of the Panel, WT/DS108/ R, 8 October 1999.
[118] Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/30, 25 April 2007.
[119] Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/29, 9 January 2007.
[120] Working Party 8 on Netherlands Action under Article XXIII: 2: Report to the Contracting Parties, L/61, 7 November 1952.
[1] 第三世界网络:http: //www.twnchinese.org.my.
[2] Commission: Summary of the Treaty of Nice, Brussels, January 18, 2001, SEC (2001) 99 [EB/OL]. http: //ec.europa.eu/comm/nice_treaty/summary_en.pdf.
[3] Documents Online of WTO: http://docsonline.wto.org/gen_home.asp?language=1&_=1.
[4] GATT Documents: http: //www.wto.org/english/docs_e/gattdocs_e.htm.
[5] GATT Digital Library: http: //gatt.stanford.edu/bin/search/advanced.
[6] Permanent Court of International Justice: http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/index.php?p1=9.
[7] Third World Newtork: http: //www.twnside.org.sg/.
[8] WTO members kick off negotiations with decisions on organization [EB/OL]. http: //www.wto.org/english/news_e/news02_e/tnc_01feb02_e.htm#principles.