WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度研究
|
摘要
本文探讨WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度问题。根据DSU及其他WTO协定的规定,仲裁是一项重要的WTO争端解决法律手段,用以解决WTO成员方之间的某些国际贸易争端,但目前WTO仲裁尚未受到足够的重视和研究。迄今为止在WTO仲裁实践中已产生了许多法律问题,有待于进一步澄清和解决。在未来的DSU改革谈判中,应进一步完善WTO仲裁制度,增强它与WTO多边体系的兼容性,促进和提高WTO各成员方对WTO仲裁的有效运用,这些都要求首先对目前的WTO仲裁制度进行全面考察和深入研究。
本文共分六章。第一章为概述,首先界定了国际仲裁、WTO仲裁等基本概念；介绍了国际仲裁的发展以及仲裁在世界贸易多边体系演进中的嬗变；并对WTO争端解决机制及WTO仲裁体系作了重点介绍和分析。在此基础上,本文第二章、第三章、第四章、第五章分别对DSU第25条仲裁、确定“合理期限”仲裁、“报复”仲裁以及其他特殊事项上的WTO仲裁进行了介绍,通过研读条文规定、考察立法起源、分析相关WTO仲裁实践及典型案例等方式,对上述各项WTO仲裁中存在的主要法律问题进行分析和探讨。基于上述分析研究,本文第六章进一步将WTO仲裁与《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》中的仲裁、《联合国海洋法公约》中的仲裁、《能源宪章条约》中的仲裁等进行了比较研究,指出目前WTO仲裁的主要特点与缺陷；介绍和评价新一轮DSU改革谈判中WTO成员方有关WTO仲裁制度改进的建议和提案；并对未来WTO仲裁制度的改进及利用提出相应建议。最后,本文对中国今后利用WTO仲裁解决国际贸易争端的前景进行了展望。
WTO仲裁由GATT仲裁逐步发展而来,目前形成了一套颇具特色的国际仲裁制度体系。根据法律依据的不同,WTO仲裁可区分为“DSU体制内的仲裁”和“DSU体制外的仲裁”,前者主要包括DSU第25条仲裁、DSU第21.3(c)条规定之确定“合理期限”仲裁和DSU第22.6条规定之“报复”仲裁等；后者则指游离于DSU适用范围之外由其他WTO协定所规定的WTO仲裁。但是这一WTO仲裁体系并没有带动WTO各成员方利用仲裁解决国际贸易争端的热情,在目前的WTO争端解决中,专家组程序及上诉机构上诉审查程序俨然成为了WTO争端解决的唯一“主流”程序；相比之下,各项WTO仲裁程序都较少被运用,特别是DSU第25条仲裁。
针对这一现象,通过对专家组程序和上诉机构上诉审查程序的再考察以及对各项WTO仲裁条款及其实践的分析,本文认为：虽然DSU第25条规定了“WTO中的速效仲裁是争端解决的一个替代手段”,但由于DSU第25条规定简陋,仲裁模式存在局限,在目前,DSU第25条仲裁并不足以构成对专家组(或专家组和上诉机构)程序的有效“竞争”和“替代”；DSU第21.3(c)条、DSU第22.6条是DSU第25.2条所指的“例外”,DSU第21.3(c)条规定的确定“合理期限”仲裁以及DSU第22.6条规定的“报复”仲裁与DSU第25条仲裁构成“特殊WTO仲裁”和“一般WTO仲裁”的关系。同时,这两项WTO仲裁也是对DSU第25条仲裁模式的改革和实践,作为两项最主要的WTO强制仲裁,它们获得WTO成员方更多青睐和运用。当然,在这两项WTO仲裁的实践中也产生了诸多法律问题,亟待澄清和解决。另外,晚近“DSU体制外仲裁”的出现进一步丰富了WTO仲裁制度的内涵,也启迪着未来WTO仲裁的改革和应用。总之,WTO仲裁属于国际公法意义上的“国家间仲裁”,具有传统国际仲裁的基本特征。仲裁的“双边性”在WTO多边机制下被进一步弱化,但WTO却并没有相应地对各项WTO仲裁程序的具体规则进行统一规范和详细编纂。
在新一轮关于改进和澄清DSU规则及程序的谈判中,各成员方对目前的WTO争端解决机制包括各项WTO仲裁的改革与运用都提出了不少建议,值得关注和探讨。而今后随着中国经济和国际贸易的增长,中国运用各种WTO争端解决手段解决与其他成员方贸易争端的案件也会增多,其中不排除被诉诸WTO仲裁甚或主动运用仲裁解决某些贸易争端问题的可能,因此须加强对WTO争端解决机制中仲裁制度的理解和研究。
The dissertation focuses on arbitration within the WTO dispute settlement system. Provided by the DSU and other WTO agreements, arbitration is an important legal means of dispute settlement which can facilitate the solution of certain international trade disputes among WTO members. However, it has not been valued and studied well. The WTO arbitration practices have raised numerous legal questions that remain to be clarified and resolved. In future negotiations on improvements of the DSU rules, the WTO arbitration mechanism should be refined, the compatibility of arbitration within the WTO multilateral system should be improved and the use of arbitration by members should also be encouraged.To this end, a comprehensive examination of the current WTO arbitration mechanism is necessary.
The dissertation is of six chapters. Chapter I is a general introduction.Firstly, it defines some fundamental concepts such as international arbitration and the WTO arbitration. It also provides a brief description of the historical development of international arbitration including how it evolved during the proceedings of the WTO multilateral trade regime. In addition, it presents a comprehensive introduction of the WTO dispute settlement system and the WTO arbitration mechanism. Based on this introduction, Chapter II, Chapter III, Chapter IV and Chapter V delve into arbitration under Article25of the DSU, arbitration on "reasonable period of time" under Article21.3(c) of the DSU, arbitration on "retaliation" under Article22.6of the DSU and arbitration on some specific WTO issues under other provisions respectively. By interpreting the relevant provisions, examining the origins of rules and analyzing relevant arbitration practices and typical cases, the Chapters state some explorations and thoughts on main legal questions concerning each type of the WTO arbitration. Finally, Chapter VI offers a comparative analysis of the WTO arbitration and some other international arbitration mechanisms such as arbitration in The1949Revised Geneva Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, arbitration in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and arbitration in the Energy Chapter Treaty. In doing so, it points out the main features and shortcomings of the current WTO arbitration; it also provides an introduction to the proposals on the improvements of the WTO arbitration in the new Round negotiations and makes some recommendations to improve the current WTO arbitration mechanism and encourage its future utilization. Last but not the least, the dissesrtation also gives an outlook of the potential utility of arbitration for China to resolve international trade disputes in the future.
The WTO arbitration has developed from arbitration within GATT. At present, it is a unique international arbitration system. Prescribed by different provisions, the WTO arbitration can be divided into two categories-"arbitration within the DSU" and "arbitration outside the DSU"."Arbitration within the DSU" mainly includes arbitration under Article25of the DSU, arbitration on "reasonable period of time" under Article21.3(c) of the DSU and arbitration on "retaliation" under Article22.6of the DSU, while "arbitration outside the DSU" refers to the arbitration provided by other WTO agreements outside the scope of the agreements covered by the DSU. This new institutionalized WTO arbitration system, however, has not resulted in more frequent use of arbitration to resolve international trade disputes among the WTO members. At the moment, panel procedures and procedures for appellate review are the main-stream procedures within the WTO dispute settlement system, the WTO members rarely recourse to arbitration, in particular, to arbitration under Article25of the DSU.
In view of this phenomenon, examining of the WTO panel procedures, appellate review procedures and the provisions and practices of all types of the WTO arbitration, the dissertation holds that arbitration under Article25of the DSU has institutional defects-the provisions are too vague and the pattern of arbitration has its limitations, therefore it can not be an effective alternative means of panel (or panel and appellate review) procedures within the WTO, though Article25of the DSU provides expeditious arbitration within WTO as an alternative means of dispute settlement. Secondly, Article21.3(c) of the DSU and Article22.6of the DSU both constitute "exceptions" which is provided by Article25.2of the DSU. In other words, arbitration on "reasonable period of time" and arbitration on "retaliation" are exceptional arbitrations while arbitration under Article25of DSU is a general arbitration within the WTO. Furthermore, arbitration under Article21.3(c) of the DSU and arbitration under Article22.6of the DSU are both reformations of arbitration under Article25of the DSU. As the WTO mandatory arbitration, they have been more frequently used by WTO members. However, past arbitral practices have raised various legal questions that remain to be clarified and resolved. Moreover, the recent new "arbitration outside the DSU" enriches the connotation of the WTO arbitration mechanism and enlightens the future utilization of WTO arbitration. In sum, the WTO arbitration is a public international arbitration between states and has fundamental features of international arbitration. The bilateral nature of the arbitration seems be reduced by multilateral character of the WTO, however, the WTO has not set the unified standard arbitration procedures for the WTO arbitration according to its features.
In the new Round negotiations on improvements and clarifications of the DSU, many proposals have been submitted by members to improve the WTO dispute settlement system including the WTO arbitration. These proposals are worth further studying. With its growing economy and international trade, it is probable that China would face various trade disputes in the future. As a party or a third party, China could use WTO arbitration to settle certain trade disputes. Therefore, further research should be carried out into arbitration within the WTO dispute settlement system.
本文共分六章。第一章为概述,首先界定了国际仲裁、WTO仲裁等基本概念；介绍了国际仲裁的发展以及仲裁在世界贸易多边体系演进中的嬗变；并对WTO争端解决机制及WTO仲裁体系作了重点介绍和分析。在此基础上,本文第二章、第三章、第四章、第五章分别对DSU第25条仲裁、确定“合理期限”仲裁、“报复”仲裁以及其他特殊事项上的WTO仲裁进行了介绍,通过研读条文规定、考察立法起源、分析相关WTO仲裁实践及典型案例等方式,对上述各项WTO仲裁中存在的主要法律问题进行分析和探讨。基于上述分析研究,本文第六章进一步将WTO仲裁与《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》中的仲裁、《联合国海洋法公约》中的仲裁、《能源宪章条约》中的仲裁等进行了比较研究,指出目前WTO仲裁的主要特点与缺陷；介绍和评价新一轮DSU改革谈判中WTO成员方有关WTO仲裁制度改进的建议和提案；并对未来WTO仲裁制度的改进及利用提出相应建议。最后,本文对中国今后利用WTO仲裁解决国际贸易争端的前景进行了展望。
WTO仲裁由GATT仲裁逐步发展而来,目前形成了一套颇具特色的国际仲裁制度体系。根据法律依据的不同,WTO仲裁可区分为“DSU体制内的仲裁”和“DSU体制外的仲裁”,前者主要包括DSU第25条仲裁、DSU第21.3(c)条规定之确定“合理期限”仲裁和DSU第22.6条规定之“报复”仲裁等；后者则指游离于DSU适用范围之外由其他WTO协定所规定的WTO仲裁。但是这一WTO仲裁体系并没有带动WTO各成员方利用仲裁解决国际贸易争端的热情,在目前的WTO争端解决中,专家组程序及上诉机构上诉审查程序俨然成为了WTO争端解决的唯一“主流”程序；相比之下,各项WTO仲裁程序都较少被运用,特别是DSU第25条仲裁。
针对这一现象,通过对专家组程序和上诉机构上诉审查程序的再考察以及对各项WTO仲裁条款及其实践的分析,本文认为：虽然DSU第25条规定了“WTO中的速效仲裁是争端解决的一个替代手段”,但由于DSU第25条规定简陋,仲裁模式存在局限,在目前,DSU第25条仲裁并不足以构成对专家组(或专家组和上诉机构)程序的有效“竞争”和“替代”；DSU第21.3(c)条、DSU第22.6条是DSU第25.2条所指的“例外”,DSU第21.3(c)条规定的确定“合理期限”仲裁以及DSU第22.6条规定的“报复”仲裁与DSU第25条仲裁构成“特殊WTO仲裁”和“一般WTO仲裁”的关系。同时,这两项WTO仲裁也是对DSU第25条仲裁模式的改革和实践,作为两项最主要的WTO强制仲裁,它们获得WTO成员方更多青睐和运用。当然,在这两项WTO仲裁的实践中也产生了诸多法律问题,亟待澄清和解决。另外,晚近“DSU体制外仲裁”的出现进一步丰富了WTO仲裁制度的内涵,也启迪着未来WTO仲裁的改革和应用。总之,WTO仲裁属于国际公法意义上的“国家间仲裁”,具有传统国际仲裁的基本特征。仲裁的“双边性”在WTO多边机制下被进一步弱化,但WTO却并没有相应地对各项WTO仲裁程序的具体规则进行统一规范和详细编纂。
在新一轮关于改进和澄清DSU规则及程序的谈判中,各成员方对目前的WTO争端解决机制包括各项WTO仲裁的改革与运用都提出了不少建议,值得关注和探讨。而今后随着中国经济和国际贸易的增长,中国运用各种WTO争端解决手段解决与其他成员方贸易争端的案件也会增多,其中不排除被诉诸WTO仲裁甚或主动运用仲裁解决某些贸易争端问题的可能,因此须加强对WTO争端解决机制中仲裁制度的理解和研究。
The dissertation focuses on arbitration within the WTO dispute settlement system. Provided by the DSU and other WTO agreements, arbitration is an important legal means of dispute settlement which can facilitate the solution of certain international trade disputes among WTO members. However, it has not been valued and studied well. The WTO arbitration practices have raised numerous legal questions that remain to be clarified and resolved. In future negotiations on improvements of the DSU rules, the WTO arbitration mechanism should be refined, the compatibility of arbitration within the WTO multilateral system should be improved and the use of arbitration by members should also be encouraged.To this end, a comprehensive examination of the current WTO arbitration mechanism is necessary.
The dissertation is of six chapters. Chapter I is a general introduction.Firstly, it defines some fundamental concepts such as international arbitration and the WTO arbitration. It also provides a brief description of the historical development of international arbitration including how it evolved during the proceedings of the WTO multilateral trade regime. In addition, it presents a comprehensive introduction of the WTO dispute settlement system and the WTO arbitration mechanism. Based on this introduction, Chapter II, Chapter III, Chapter IV and Chapter V delve into arbitration under Article25of the DSU, arbitration on "reasonable period of time" under Article21.3(c) of the DSU, arbitration on "retaliation" under Article22.6of the DSU and arbitration on some specific WTO issues under other provisions respectively. By interpreting the relevant provisions, examining the origins of rules and analyzing relevant arbitration practices and typical cases, the Chapters state some explorations and thoughts on main legal questions concerning each type of the WTO arbitration. Finally, Chapter VI offers a comparative analysis of the WTO arbitration and some other international arbitration mechanisms such as arbitration in The1949Revised Geneva Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, arbitration in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and arbitration in the Energy Chapter Treaty. In doing so, it points out the main features and shortcomings of the current WTO arbitration; it also provides an introduction to the proposals on the improvements of the WTO arbitration in the new Round negotiations and makes some recommendations to improve the current WTO arbitration mechanism and encourage its future utilization. Last but not the least, the dissesrtation also gives an outlook of the potential utility of arbitration for China to resolve international trade disputes in the future.
The WTO arbitration has developed from arbitration within GATT. At present, it is a unique international arbitration system. Prescribed by different provisions, the WTO arbitration can be divided into two categories-"arbitration within the DSU" and "arbitration outside the DSU"."Arbitration within the DSU" mainly includes arbitration under Article25of the DSU, arbitration on "reasonable period of time" under Article21.3(c) of the DSU and arbitration on "retaliation" under Article22.6of the DSU, while "arbitration outside the DSU" refers to the arbitration provided by other WTO agreements outside the scope of the agreements covered by the DSU. This new institutionalized WTO arbitration system, however, has not resulted in more frequent use of arbitration to resolve international trade disputes among the WTO members. At the moment, panel procedures and procedures for appellate review are the main-stream procedures within the WTO dispute settlement system, the WTO members rarely recourse to arbitration, in particular, to arbitration under Article25of the DSU.
In view of this phenomenon, examining of the WTO panel procedures, appellate review procedures and the provisions and practices of all types of the WTO arbitration, the dissertation holds that arbitration under Article25of the DSU has institutional defects-the provisions are too vague and the pattern of arbitration has its limitations, therefore it can not be an effective alternative means of panel (or panel and appellate review) procedures within the WTO, though Article25of the DSU provides expeditious arbitration within WTO as an alternative means of dispute settlement. Secondly, Article21.3(c) of the DSU and Article22.6of the DSU both constitute "exceptions" which is provided by Article25.2of the DSU. In other words, arbitration on "reasonable period of time" and arbitration on "retaliation" are exceptional arbitrations while arbitration under Article25of DSU is a general arbitration within the WTO. Furthermore, arbitration under Article21.3(c) of the DSU and arbitration under Article22.6of the DSU are both reformations of arbitration under Article25of the DSU. As the WTO mandatory arbitration, they have been more frequently used by WTO members. However, past arbitral practices have raised various legal questions that remain to be clarified and resolved. Moreover, the recent new "arbitration outside the DSU" enriches the connotation of the WTO arbitration mechanism and enlightens the future utilization of WTO arbitration. In sum, the WTO arbitration is a public international arbitration between states and has fundamental features of international arbitration. The bilateral nature of the arbitration seems be reduced by multilateral character of the WTO, however, the WTO has not set the unified standard arbitration procedures for the WTO arbitration according to its features.
In the new Round negotiations on improvements and clarifications of the DSU, many proposals have been submitted by members to improve the WTO dispute settlement system including the WTO arbitration. These proposals are worth further studying. With its growing economy and international trade, it is probable that China would face various trade disputes in the future. As a party or a third party, China could use WTO arbitration to settle certain trade disputes. Therefore, further research should be carried out into arbitration within the WTO dispute settlement system.
引文
[I]Tomer Broude. International Governance in the WTO:Judicial Boundaries and Political Capitulation [M]. London:Cameron May,2004:17.
[2]N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004.
[3]Rudiger Wolfrum, Perter-Tobias Soil, Karen Kaiser (eds.).WTO-Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006.
[4]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/L/616,1 August,2005 (First Banana Tariff Arbitration) and Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement Ⅱ, WT/L/625,27 October,2005(Second Banana Tariff Arbitration).
[5]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,9 November 2001.
[6]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS285/ARB,21 December 2007.
[7]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/1,31 August 2009 and Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009.
[8]赵维田.WTO的司法机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004.
[9]付星国.WTO争端解决的执行机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2011.
[10]胡建国.WTO争端解决裁决执行机制研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2011.
[11]陈辉萍.WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度述评[A].见：曾华群.国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展[Ml.北京：法律出版社,2009：617-637.
[12]王波.论世贸组织的仲裁制度及我国仲裁制度的改革[J].湖北财经高等专科学校学报,2002(2)：12-14.
[13]田晓云.世界贸易组织中的仲裁[J].北京工人大学学报,2007(1)：13-28.
[14]李广辉,张晓明.国际商事仲裁与WTO仲裁之比较[J].汕头大学学报(人文社会科学版),2009(2)：60-76.
[15]张乃根.论WTO争端解决的合理执行期仲裁——兼论中美知识产权案的执行对策[J].政法论丛,2009(3)：3-8.
[16]陈立军,匡青松.论WTO“合理期限”仲裁制度[J].四川经济管理学院学报,2007(1)：30-32.
[17]任媛媛.论WTO仲裁机制中的授权报复仲裁[J].国际经济法学刊,2009,16(4)：305-324.
[18]陈剑.WTO仲裁制度研究-以解决WTO合法性危机为视角[D].杭州：浙江工商大学,2009.
[19]蔡强.WTO争端解决中仲裁制度研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.
[20]彭翔.论WTO中的仲裁机制[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2004.
[1]Mary Ellen O'Connel (ed.). International Dispute Resolution:Cases and Materials [M]. Durham:Carolina Academic Press.2006:3.
121 J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:91.
[3]J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:211.
[4]赵维田.WTO的司法机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004：208.
[5]具体信息请参见文中图表数据。
[1]J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.2005:91.
121 Surya P Subedi. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a New Technique for Settling Disputes in International Law [A]. In:Duncan French, Matthew Saul and Nigel D White (eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement:New Problems and Techniques [M]. Oxford and Portland, Oregon:Hart Publishing,2010:173.
[3]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第1款,其英文原文为‘'Expeditious arbitration within the WTO as an alternative means of dispute settlement can facilitate the solution of certain disputes that concern issues that are clearly defined by both parties."关于本文中WTO协定文本的中文翻译,除个别情况外,均将参照对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译：《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本》[中英文对照][M].北京：法律出版社,2000.特作说明。
[4]See Nigel Blackaby Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed.)[M]. London:Oxford University Press,2009:1.
[5]J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:91.
[6]德国马克斯普朗克(Max Planck)比较法和国际公法研究所在对WTO仲裁的有关研究中将《和平解决国际争端公约》(1907年海牙第1公约)第37条看作是对“国际仲裁”的标准化定义。See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:567.
[7]Article 37 of the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes,18 October 1907. "International arbitration has for its object the settlement of disputes between States by Judges of their own choice and on the basis of respect for law. Recourse to arbitration implies an engagement to submit in good faith to the Award. "
[8]See Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1953) [R]. Vol. II, para.16. p.202. Available at http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes(e)ILC 1953 v2 e.t df, visited on 1 February,2012.
[9]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:15.
[10]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:16.
[11]See the introduction of History of the Court (International Court of Justice), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1 & p2=1, visited on 1 February,2012.
[12]See the introduction of History of the Court (International Court of Justice), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1 & p2=1, visited on 1 February,2012.
[13]See Alexander Marie Stuyt (ed.). Survey of International Arbitration:1794-1989 (1st ed.)[M]. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1990:98-254.
[14]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:18.
[15]参见《联合国宪章》第33条。
[16]See cases of Permanent Court of Arbitration, available at http://www.pca-cpa.org/showp age.asp?pag_id=1029, visited on 1 February,2012.
[17]See Cases of International Court of Justice, Contentious cases available at http://www.i cj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3 & p2=3; Advisory proceedings available at http://www.icj-cij. org/docket/index.php?p1=3 & p2=4, visited on 1 February,2012.
[18]J.G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:127.
[19]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes[M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:121.
[20]See J.G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:123.
[21]由于本文在解决国家间争端的意义上使用“国际仲裁”,因此,本文并不特别涉及和探讨“国际混合仲裁”,此处也不将“解决投资争端国际中心”(ICSID)仲裁、美伊索赔仲裁庭(Iran-United States Claims Tribunal)仲裁等国际混合仲裁作为“国际仲裁”的新发展。
[22]See L. B. Sohn, International Arbitration in Historical Perspective:Past and Present [A]. In:A. H. A. Soons (ed.). International Arbitration in Historical Perspective:Past and Prospects [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1990:17-18.
[23]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第2条。
[24]See Surya P Subedi. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a New Technique for Settling Disputes in International Law [A]. In:Duncan French, Matthew Saul and Nigel D White (eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement:New Problems and Techniques [M]. Oxford and Portland, Oregon:Hart Publishing,2010:173.
[25]根据《关税与贸易总协定》的规定,当文本中出现大写字母CONTRACTING PARTIES时,是指“各缔约方采取联合行动,即‘缔约方全体’”；当全部小写(contracting parties) 时,指各个缔约方。
[26]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第1款。
[27]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第2款。
[281参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第3款、第4款。
[29]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第5款。
[30]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第6款。
[31]Communication from the Director-General, Request for Mediation by the Philippines, Thailand and the European Communities, WT/GC/66,16/10/2002.
[32]See William J. Davey. WTO Dispute Settlement:Segregating the Useful Political Aspects and Avoiding 'Over-Legalization'[A]. In:Marco Bronckers, Reinhard Quick (eds.). New Directions in International Economic Law:Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson [M]. New York:Kluwer Law International,2000:291 and footnote.3.
[33]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第3条第7款。
[34]在很多情况下,争端方之间已在WTO争端解决机制之外进行了非正式的磋商。
[35]See Korea, Republic of-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS75/R, WT/DS84/R,17 September 1998, para 10.23.
[36]See William J. Davey. WTO Dispute Settlement:Segregating the Useful Political Aspects and Avoiding 'Over-Legalization'[A]. In:Marco Bronckers, Reinhard Quick (eds.). New Directions in International Economic Law:Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson [M]. New York: Kluwer Law International,2000:291
[37]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第4款。
[38]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第3款。
[39]在紧急案件中,此期限为20天。参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第8款。
[40]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第7款。
[41]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第6款。
[42]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第11款。
See para.I1 (A), Concept, Forms and Effects of Arbitration, Note by the Secretariat, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/20,22 February 1988.
[44]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第3条第6款。
[45]WTO秘书处在WTO官方网站上依据争端目前的解决情况(Current status of disputes)将WTO争端归纳为“仍在磋商中”,“专家组(或上诉机构)报告已散发”,“已决或终止(撤销、‘双方同意的解决办法’(MAS))”的案件等,并进行了分类统计。其中,通过在磋商阶段达成“双方同意的解决办法”或“撤回申诉”解决或终止的的争端案件目前有88件,案件详细信息参见http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_current_status_e.htm,2012年2月15日最后访问。
[46]这种提法率先出现在乌拉圭回合关于完善GATT争端解决机制的谈判中美国代表团关于增设仲裁的提案(MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6)中,后为GATT秘书处记录：“仲裁的概念、形式和效力”(MTN.GNG/NG13/W/20)所援引,当时只指代"GATT专家组程序”(panel proceedings)。See Concept, Forms and Effects of Arbitration, Note by the Secretariat, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/20,22 February 1988, para.12 and para.17.
[47]例如,由司法部法规教育司、国家外国专家局科教文卫司编著的《WTO争端解决机制：规则、程序与实践》中,就将磋商、斡旋、调解和调停及仲裁作为WTO的“非司法性解决程序”,将专家组程序和上诉机构上诉程序归纳为“司法性解决程序”。见：司法部法规教育司、国家外国专家局科教文卫司.WTO争端解决机制：规则、程序与实践[M].北京：法律出版社,2002：244-353.
[48]J.G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.2005:127.
[49]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:121.
[50]See Surya P Subedi. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a New Technique for Settling Disputes in International Law [A]. In:Duncan French, Matthew Saul and Nigel D White (eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement:New Problems and Techniques [M]. Oxford and Portland, Oregon:Hart Publishing,2010:174.
[51]J.G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:219.
[52]第一个这样的专家组建立于1952年的GATT缔约方第七次会议上。See Joost Pauwelyn. The Transformation of World Trade [J]. Michigan Law Review,2005,104(1):19 and footnote 62. Also see Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting, GATT, Doc.SR7/7, pp.7-9.
[53]Robert E. Hudec. The Role of the GATT Secretariat in the Evolution of the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure [A]. In:Jagdish Bhagwati and Mathias Hirsch (eds.). The Uruguay Round and Beyond:Essay in Honour of Arthur Dunkel [M]. New York:Springer-Verlag Press,1998:107.
[54]See Georgios I. Zekos. An Examination of GATT/WTO Arbitration Procedures [A]. In: American Arbitration Association (ed.). AAA Handbook on International Arbitration and ADR (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Juris Publishing,2010:389.
[55]WT/DSB/RC/1,11 December 1996
[56]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第8条第1款,第4款。
[57]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第8条第2款,第3款。Also see Part III of Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
[58]尽管,在实践中这种情况十分少见。See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,2004:106.
[59]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第8条第7款。
[60]“集体仲裁”(collegiate arbitration)是指在现代国际仲裁的发展中现代条约的一种普遍实践,即选任奇数个(通常为3人或5人)仲裁人作为仲裁集体来裁决争端。这种仲裁形式最早出现在著名的“阿拉巴马仲裁案”(1872)当中。See J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:94.
[61]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第6条第2款。
[62]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第7条第3款。
[63]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第14条第1款。
[64]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》附录3,第2段。
[65]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第12条第2款。
[66]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第17条。
[67]Surya P Subedi. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a New Technique for Settling Disputes in International Law [A]. In:Duncan French, Matthew Saul and Nigel D White (eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement:New Problems and Techniques [M]. Oxford and Portland, Oregon:Hart Publishing,2010:174.
[68]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 211.
[69]See Debra P. Steger. The Appellate Body and its contribution to WTO dispute settlement [A]. In D.L.M. Kennedy and J.D. Southwick (eds.). Political Economy of International Trade Law: Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2002:482-495.
[70]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,2005：27.
[71]See Robert Z. Lawrence. The United States and the WTO dispute settlement system (CSR No.25, March 2007) [R]. New York, Council on Foreign Relations,2007:11-12.
[72]目前为止,“体制外的仲裁”实践集中在多哈豁免协定中“香蕉豁免”争议仲裁。See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/L/616,1 August 005(First Banana Tariff Arbitration) and Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement II, WT/L/625,27 October 2005(Second Banana Tariff Arbitration).
[73]See J.G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:124.
[74]曹建明,贺小勇.世界贸易组织(第二版)[M].北京：法律出版社，2004：8.
[75]Article 93, Chapter VIII "Settlement of Differences", Final Act of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment:Havana Charter For An International Trade Organization, UN Doc. E/Conf.2/78,24 March,1948.
[76]GATT秘书处设有秘书和负责人,根据1965年3月23日的决定,GATT缔约方全体将GATT秘书处负责人的头衔由“执行秘书”(Executive Secretary)改为“总干事”(Director-Ge neral).
[77]See Bernard M. Hoekman. the Political Economy of the World Trading System:the WTO and Beyond[M]. New York:Oxford University Press,2001:38.
[78]See Article XXII and Article XXIII of the GATT 1947.
See the Understanding Regarding Notification, Consultation, Dispute Settlement and Surveillance, L/4907, Adopted on 28 November 1979.
[80]GATT乌拉圭回合中关于“争端解决”谈判工作组的文件标示为MTN.GNG/NG13/W/* (Multilateral Trade Negotiation-Group of Negotiating on Good-Negotiating Group on Dispute Settlement-Proposal/Communication).
[81]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.2.
[82]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/8,18 September 1987, para.3.
[83]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/10,18 September 1987, p.2.
[84]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, pp.2-3.
[85]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/13,24 September 1987, p.10.
[86]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/19,20 December 1987, p.3.
[87]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,01 March 1988, pp7-9.
[88]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/25,08 March 1988, pp.2-3.
[89]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/26,23 June 1988, Part III.
[90]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/30,10 October 1988, p.3.
[91]Paragraph E, Decision of 12 April 1989 on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures. L/6489.
1921 Paragraph B, Decision of 12 April 1989 on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures, L/6489.
[93]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33,19 July 1989, para.4.
[94]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33,19 July 1989, para.5.
[95]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33,19 July 1989, para.8.
[96]SeeMTN.GNG/NG13/W/33,19 July 1989, para.10.
[97]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33,19 July 1989, para.l 1.
[98]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/39,05 April 1990, p.2.
[99]SeeMTN.GNG/NG13/W/44,19 July 1990, para.7.
[100]SeeMTN.GNG/NG13/W/44.19 July 1990.para.7.
[101]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/40,6 April 1990, p.10.
[102]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/41.28 June 1990,.pp.6-7.
[103]Section 2, GATT Concessions under the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Revision), L/5470/Rev.1,30 June 1983.
[104]See GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/227,20 January 1989, p.27.
[105]See GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/228,16 March 1989, p.20.
[106]See GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/228,16 March 1989, pp.20-21.
[107]See GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/231,2 May 1989, p.11.
[108]See GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/231,2 May 1989, p.12.
[109]DS12/2,23 March 1990.
[110]DS12/3,8 August 1990.
[111]Canada/European Communities-Article XXVIII Rights, Award by the Arbitrator, DS12/ R-37S/80,26 October 1990.
[112]GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/246,23 November 1990, p.25.
[113]GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/259,27 October 1992, p.34.
[114]GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/259,27 October 1992, p.35.
[115]SR.48/2,5 January 1993, p.16.
[116]TBT/M/45,14 January 1994, para.63.
[117]根据DSU第1条第1款的规定,DSU的规则和程序适用于由DSU附录1所列“适用协定”(the covered agreements)的磋商和争端解决规定而提出的的争端。目前这些“适用协 定”包括：《建立世界贸易组织协定》、12个单独的货物贸易多边协定(包括《1994年关税与贸易总协定》、《保障措施协定》、《补贴与反补贴措施协定》、《农业协定》、《关于适用动植物卫生措施的协定》、《贸易技术壁垒协定》、《与贸易有关的投资措施协定》、《执行1994年关税与贸易总协定第6条协定》、《执行1994年关税与贸易总协定第7条协定》、《装船前检验协定》、《原产地规则协定》、《进口许可程序协定》)、《服务贸易总协定》(GATS)、《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》(TRIPS)、《关于争端解决规则与程序的凉解》(DSU)以及《民用航空器协定》、《政府采购协定》两个诸边协定。但《建立世界贸易组织协定》附件三《贸易政策审议机制》被排除在DSU“适用协定”清单之外。
[118]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第1款。
[119]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第3款(c)项。
[120]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第6款。
[121]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.).The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:26.
[122]参见陈辉萍.WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度述评[A].见：曾华群.国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展[M].法律出版社,2009：634.
[123]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:26.
[124]也有学者认为DSU第21.3条之仲裁须双方合意,参见赵维出.WTO的司法机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004：239.笔者不赞同这一观点,下文详解。
[125]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第26条第1款(c)项。
[126]参见《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第8条第5款。但根据该协定第31条,目前其第8条作为一项临时适用的条款已经失效。
[127]参见《服务与贸易总协定》第21条第3款(a)项。
[128]参见《服务与贸易总协定》第22条第3款。
[129]参见《服务与贸易总协定》第23条第3款。
[130]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第7条第1款。
[131]本图对WTO仲裁的梳理仅基于各项WTO仲裁法律依据的不同,因此区别于本文第六章“图6.1 WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁体系”对WTO仲裁体系内部关联的揭示,特此说明。详细原因分析请参见本文第六章。
[1]United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,9 November 2001这里须说明的是,“美国-版权法第110(5)节案”在诉诸DSU第25条仲裁之前,曾通过DSU第21.3(c)条规定之仲裁确定之前专家组报告的执行合理期限,即“‘美国-版权法第110(5)节案’之确定‘合理期限’仲裁案”(United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS160/12,15 January 2001).为区别起见,本文中,将统一以简称“‘美国-版权法第110(5)节’仲裁案”指代“‘美国-版权法第110(5)节案’之DSU第25条仲裁案”；该案援引DSU第21.3(c)条仲裁所产生的“合理期限”仲裁案则以全称“‘美国-版权法第110(5)节案’之确定‘合理期限’仲裁案”表示。
[2]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第1款,其英文原文为‘'Expeditious arbitration within the WTO as an alternative means of dispute settlement can facilitate the solution of certain disputes that concern issues that are clearly defined by both parties."在对外贸易经济 合作部国际经贸关系司译：《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本[中英文对照]》中,将‘'Expeditious arbitration within the WTO"译作"WTO中的迅速仲裁”。然而笔者通过对DSU第25条缔约谈判及立法历史的考察发现,曾有GATT缔约方分别使用‘'a rapid arbitration procedure"和‘'expeditious arbitration within GATT"来表达和描述“GATT中的仲裁”最终1989年《关于改善GATT争端解决规则及程序的决定》和DSU第25条采纳了"expeditious arbitration'’的表述,根据《简编牛津英语词典》(The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)对“expeditious"的解释——‘'done with speed and efficiency",笔者将"Expeditious arbitration within the WTO"译作“WTO中的速效仲裁”。“速效”：①名词,很快就取得的成效；②形容词,属性词,快速显示效力的。参见：中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编.《现代汉语词典》[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005：1302.关于本文中WTO协定文本的其他中文翻译,除个别特殊情况外,则均将参照对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译：《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本[中英文对照]》(北京：法律出版社,2000)翻译,特此说明。
[3]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条。
[4]See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:MartinusNijhoff Publishers,2006:567.
[5]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:126.
[6]See J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:91.
[7]"ad hoc"<拉)为此,指为了特定目的,具有特定的(地)、专门的(地)、临时的(地)涵义。
181 See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:126.
[9]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第2款。
[10]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:126.
[11]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第2款。
[12]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:126.
[13]See para.5, Concept, Forms and Effects of Arbitration, Note by the Secretariat, MTN. GNG/NG13/W/20,22 February 1988.
[14]See "Arbitration within GATT", Communication from Switzerland, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33, 19 July 1989, p.4, Annex.
[15]See Nigel Blackaby Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed.)[M]. London:Oxford University Press,2009:123.
[16]See Nigel Blackaby Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed.)[M]. London:Oxford University Press.2009:123-124.
[17]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:127.
[18]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:18.
[19]Improved Dispute Settlement:Elements for Consideration, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.2.
[20]Improved Dispute Settlement:Elements for Consideration, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.2.
[21]See Communication from the Nordic Countries, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/10,18 September 1987, p.l.
[22]Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, p.3.
[23]MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, p.2.
[24]Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/22,2 March 1988, para.3.
[25]MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, p.3.
[26]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/19,20 December 1987, p.3; MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,1 March 1988, n.8.
[27]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,01 March 1988, pp.7-8.
[28]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:127.
[29]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/16,12 December 1987, p.5
[30]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,01 March 1988, pp7-8.
[31]MTN.GNG/NG13/W/25.08 March 1988, p.3.
[32]陈安.国际投资争端仲裁-“解决投资争端国际中心”机制研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2001：123.
[33]这一术语在德语中被称为Kompetenz/Kompetenz,法语中被称为competence de la competence.
[34]See Nigel Blackaby Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed.)[M]. London:Oxford University Press,2009:346.
[35]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,9 November 2001, para.2.1.
[36]这类文件常以首字母大写的‘"Terms of Reference"表示。例如国际商会(International Chamber of Commerce, ICC)仲裁中,仲裁庭在对仲裁案件进行实体审理之前,必须与当事方共同签署“审理范围”文件(Terms of Reference).
[37]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第6条第2款。在对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译：《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本[中英文对照]》中,将"terms of reference"译成“职权范围”,本文中笔者选择将其译为“审理范围”,特此说明。
[38]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第7条第1款。
[3。]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第7条第2款。
[40]根据目前DSU第25条第4款的规定,WTO争端解决机制的执行制度在细节上作必要修改后应适用于DSU速效仲裁的仲裁裁决。因此这里不详细展开讨论承认和执行仲裁裁决说适用的法律,相关问题将在后续章节“DSU速效仲裁裁决的效力和执行”中一并阐述。
[41]《国际法院规约》第38条第1款。
[42]《和平解决国际争端修订总议定书(日内瓦)》,1949年4月28日,纽约：联合国,《条约汇编》,第71卷,第116页。Available at http://www.unrol.org/files/volume-71-I-912-Engli sh.pdf. visited on 1 February 2012.
[43]《仲裁程序示范规则》(联合国国际法委员会,1958年)第10条。Available at http://un treaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/10 1 1958.pdf, visited on 1 Februar y 2012.
[44]《仲裁程序示范规则》(联合国国际法委员会,1958年)第11条。Available at http://un treaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/10 1 1958.pdf. visited on 1 Februar y 2012.
[45]除了DSU“适用协定”以外的国际条约和国际协定是否构成WTO争端解决机制的适用实体法?关于这一问题,目前似乎没有统一的确定答案。实践中,一些为WTO协定所提及的协定及一些其它的多边协定,有时在专家组或上诉机构面临WTO协定的条约解释问题时得以援引。E.g. see WT/DS/114/R, DSR 2000:V,2295, para.7.70; See WT/DS58/AB/R, DSR 1998:VII,2755, para.127-134.
[46]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 51.
[47]Mitsuo Matsushita. Selected GATT/WTO Panel Reports:Summaries and Commentaries ix[R], Tokyo:the Fair Trade Center of Tokyo,1999.
[48]See WT/DS163/R, DSR 2000:VIII,3541, para.7.96.
[49]See WT/DS58/AB/R. DSR 1998:VII.2755. para.158.
[50]See DS23/R, BISD 39S/206,285,19 June 1992.
[51]目前WTO专家组和上诉机构在对“条约用语的通常含义”解释时常使用的字典主要有
Oxford Dictionaries (The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English), Webster's Third International Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary. See Jeffrey Waincymer. World Trade Organization (eds.). WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement [M], New York:Cameron May,2002: 410. and footnote 106.
[52]See WT/DS70/AB/R, DSR 1999, III,1377, para.153. Also see WT/DS135/AB/R, para.92.
[53]See Appellate Body Report, Korea-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS75/AB/R,18 Janruary 1999, para.114.
[54]See United States-Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea, WT/DS179/R,22 December 2000, para.6.99.
[55]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 83-84.
[56]《和平解决国际争端公约》(1907)第84条。
[57]《国际法院规约》第62条。
[58]《国际法院规约》第63条。
[59]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 109.
[60]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第11款：“只要进行磋商的成员以外的--成员认为按照GATT1994第22条第1款和GATS第22条第1款或其他适用协定的相应规定所进行的磋商涉及其实质贸易利益,则该成员即可在根据上述条款进行磋商的请求散发之日起10天内,将其参加磋商的愿望通知进行磋商的成员和DSB。该成员应被允许参加磋商,只要磋商请求所针对的成员同意实质利益的主张是有理由的。在这种情况下,它们应如此通知DSB。如参加磋商的请求未予接受,则申请成员有权根据GATT1994第22条第1款或第23条第1款、GATS第22条第1款或第23条第1款或其他适用协定的相应规定提出磋商请求。”
[61]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第10条：“1.争端各方的利益和争端中所争论的一适用协定项下的其他成员的利益应在专家组程序中得到充分考虑。2.任何对专家组审议的事项有实质利益且已将其利益通知DSB的成员(本谅解中称‘第三方’)应由专家组给予听取意见并向专家组提出书面陈述的机会。这些书面陈述应提交争端各方,并应反映在专家组报告中。3.第三方应收到争端各方提交专家组首次会议的陈述。4.如第三方认为由专家组程序进行裁决的措施造成其根据任何适用协定项下获得的利益丧失或减损,则该成员可援用本谅解项下的正常争端解决程序。只要可能,此种争端即应提交原专家组。”
[62]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第3款。
[63]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/8,18 September 1987, para.3.2; MTN.GNG/NG13/W/13,24 September 1987, p.10; Communication from Korea, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/19,20 December 1987, p.3 and MTN.GNG/NG13/W/25,08 March 1988, p.3.
[64]Communication from Korea, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/19,20 December 1987, p.3.
[65]Communication from Japan, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,01 March 1988, p.8.
[66]Paragraph B, Decision of 12 April 1989 on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures. L/6489.
[67]Paragraph E, Decision of 12 April 1989 on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures. L/6489.
[68]See "Arbitration within GATT", Communication from Switzerland, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33, 19 July 1989, para.8.
[69]这个问题将在下文关于DSU速效仲裁的仲裁裁决效力中进一步论述。
[70]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第2款。
[71]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第3款。
[72]United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/15,3 August 2001. Annex-paragraph 4.
[73]The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:58.
[74]The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:58.
[75]See Argentina-Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and other Items, WT/DS56/R,25 November 1997. para.6.39.
[76]朱榄叶,贺小勇.WTO争端解决机制研究[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2007：155.
[77]Appellate Body Report, United States-Shirts and Blouses, adopted 23 May 1997, WT/DS 33/AB/R, p.14.
[78]高出甜.WTO争端解决机制证明负担圭规则研究[Dl,上海：华东政法大学,2010：48.
[79]WT/DS50/AB/R, WT/DS90/AB/R, WT/DS75/AB/R.
[80]BISD11S/95;BISD 13S/35.
[81]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第3条第8款。
[821 EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/ DS48/AB/R,16 January 1998. para.104.
[83]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第26条第1款。
[84]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 148-151.
[851《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》附录3第4条。
[86]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第13条第1款。
[87]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第13条。
[88]Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R,6 November 1998, para.124.
[89]Appellate Body Report, Korea-Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R,12 January 2000, para.137.
[90]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 144.
[91]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》附录4“专家审议小组”
[92]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4第6款。
[93]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第2款。
[94]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第14条第1款、第17条第10款。
[95]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》附录3第3条。
[96]Canada-Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R,2 August 1999, para.9.54-9.55
[97]See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:570.
[98]See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:570.
[99]See Improved Dispute Settlement:Elements for Consideration, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.3; Communication from Austria, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/25,8 March 1988, p.2.
[100]See Communication from the Nordic Countries, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/10,18 September 1987, p.2; Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/22,2 March 1988, para.3; Communication from Mexico, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/26,23 June 1988, p.4.
[101]See Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, para.3 (b).
[102]例如,如前所述,根据日本的提案,第三方可以对仲裁裁决提出异议并要求GATT理事会作适当努力以寻求适当的解决办法。具体指基于相关请求作出决议,包括建立专家组或者工作组来审查该事项,根据该专家组或工作组的报告理事会可以认定仲裁裁决无效。See Communication from Japan, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,1 March 1988, p.8.
[103]关于这一问题,GATT缔约方也曾具有截然不同的观点,以欧共体为代表的认为GATT 中仲裁解决的争端类型应为事实性的、不涉及GATT协定解释及与GATT协定一致性问题的争端,这类仲裁裁决不应当构成司法先例。See Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, para.3 (b).而有的缔约方则主张仲裁裁决构成司法先例。See Communication from Peru, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/23,3 March 1988, para.18.
[104]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第4款。
[105]See Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:23-24.
[106]See Yuka Fukunaga. Securing Compliance through the WTO Dispute Settlement System Implementation of DSB Recommendations [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2006,9(2): 383.
[107]See WT/DS160/1,4 February 1999.
[108]See WT/DS 160/5,16 April 1999.
[109]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS160/12,15 January 2001, para.47
[110]See United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/15,3 August 2001.
[111]See United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, Constitution of the Arbitrator, WT/DS 160/16,13 August 2001.
[112]美国于当天提交了评论,欧共体当天未提交其评论而是在随后对美国提供的一些证据的可接受性提出异议。有关程序问题,将在下文详述。
[113]See United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/15,3 August 2001.
[114]Appellate Body Report, United States-Shirts and Blouses, adopted 23 May 1997, WT/D S33/AB/R, p.14.
[115]See United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/15,3 August 2001. Annex, para 2.
[116]See Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para. 4.4 and para.4.5.
[117]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第13条。
[118]笔者认为,仲裁庭的这一表述印证了DSU第25条之仲裁的仲裁裁决潜在的“法律先例”价值。
[119]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.1.10.
[120]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001. para.1.11.
[121]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001. para.1.12.
[122]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001. para.1.13
[123]European Communities-Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS 141/AB/R,12 March 2001, para.6.34.
[124]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.1.18.
[125]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.1.19.
[126]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.1.20.
[127]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.1.21.
[128]例如美国第一次及第二次书面陈述中的证据US ARB-5,7,8,9,10,12.
[129]特别是,参见上诉机构报告：加拿大-影响民用航空器出口案(WT/DS70/AB/R,20 August1999),第141-147段。(仲裁裁决书原注19)
[130]这种作法曾在之前的第22.6条仲裁实践中出现过并似乎没有遭到DSB的反对。See the Decision of the Arbitrators on Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.2.14.(仲裁裁决书原注20)
[131]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.5.1.
[132]See e.g. Status Report by the United States, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS 160/24/Add.85,10 January 2012.
[133]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.2.3.
[134]See Concept, Forms and Effects of Arbitration, Note by the Secretariat, MTN.GNG/N G13/W/20,22 February 1988. para.12.
[135]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.2 and MTN.GNG/NG13/W/19,20 December 1987, p.3.
[136]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第2款。具体规定如下：“如有关成员未能使被认定与一适用协定不一致的措施符合该协定,或未能在按照第21条第3款确定的合理期限内符合建议和裁决,则该成员如收到请求应在不迟于合理期限期满前,与援引争端解决程序的任何一方进行谈判,以期形成双方均可接受的补偿。”
[137]See United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/15,3 August 2001, p.1.
[138]See Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Ac-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.2.3 and para.2.4.
[139]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.4.26.
[140]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.4.27.
[141]之前德国马克斯普朗克(MaxPlanck)比较法和国际公法研究所对此案的研究观点认为本案中的仲裁程序实际上是对DSU第22.6条程序的替代See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:570.
[142]我国厦门大学陈辉萍教授曾认为,“欧共体与美国关于《美国版权法》仲裁案中,双方约定仲裁员应由原专家组成员担任(如果他们可以请到的话),否则,由WTO总干事任命替代仲裁员。仲裁庭采用的仲裁程序本质上与DSU第22.6条规定的仲裁程序相同。”参见：陈辉萍.WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度述评[A].见：曾华群.国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展[M].北京：法律出版社,2009：623.
[1]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:23-24.
[2]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条。
[3]See Robert Hudec. Broadening the Scope of Remedies in WTO Dispute Settlment [A]. In: Friedl Weiss, Jochem Wiers (eds.). Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures:Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals [M], London:Cameron May Publishers.2000:394.
[4]Article 9, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization,15 April 1994.
[5]See United States-Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations", WT/DS108/11,2 October 2000; United States-Anti-dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/13, WT/DS162/16,18 July 2001.
[6]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; Report of the Arbitrator, United States-Final Dumpling Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS264/13; 13 December 2004; Report of the Arbitrator, Dominican Republic-Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS302/17,29 August 2005; Report of the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS322/21, 11 May 2007.
[7]See United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline-Status Report by the United States, WT/DS2/10,10 January 1997; Canada-Certain Measures concerning Periodicals-Status Report by Canada, WT/DS31/9,13 March 1998.
[8]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.26
[9]Korea-Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/11,24 March 2000.
[10]United States-Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/12,12 April 2001.
[11]付星国.WTO争端解决的执行机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2011：194.
[12]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 236.
[13]See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:503.
[14]“如在将此事项提交仲裁后10天内,各方不能就仲裁人达成一致,则仲裁人应由总干事经与各方磋商后在10天内任命。”(DSU注脚12)
[15]“仲裁人”一词应理解为一个人或一小组。(DSU注脚13)
[16]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第3款(c)项。
Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21(3) (c)of the DSU,WT/DS8/15,WT/DS10/15, WT/DS11/13,14 February 1997.
[18]如表3.1所示,到目前为止,有四个确定“合理期限”的仲裁案中,争端方在仲裁进行过程中就“合理期限”达成协议并通知仲裁人,因此,迄今为止真正通过DSU第21.3(c)条之仲裁确定了执行“合理期限”的案件有25件。
[19]这些建议和提案包括：L/273,9 November 1954; L/275,8 November 1954; L/276,8 November 1954; Ministerial Declaration, L/5424, adopted on 29 November 1982; Trade Policies for a Better Future:The "Leutwiler Report",1987.
[20]Decision of 12 April 1989 on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures. L/6489. Paragranh I.
[21]Communication from Canada, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/41,28 June 1990, p.5.
[22]“括号()”为原通讯所加。
[23]Communication from Canada, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/41,28 June 1990, p.6.
[24]Statement by the Spokesman of the European Community, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/44,19 July, 1990, para.7.
[25]“如在将此事项提交仲裁后10天内,各方不能就仲裁人达成一致,则仲裁人应由总干事经与各方磋商后在10天内任命。”(草案第309页,注脚2)
[26]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, para.19(c).
[27]这基于《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第3款的表述,“在专家组或上诉机构报告通过后30天内召开的DSB会议上,……”但《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第4款也规定“本谅解第21条和第22条在细节上作必要修改后应适用于仲裁裁决。”因此,笔者认为,理论上讲,WTO确定“合理期限”仲裁也可能并可以发生在DSU第25条之仲裁程序之后,“在细节上作必要修改后”也适用于DSU第25条仲裁的仲裁裁决。
[28]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:26.
[29]See Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.2.3 and footnote 28.
[30]See J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:232有学者从第21.3(c)条脚注中关于双方协议选择仲裁员的措辞上推定认为提起DSU第21.3(c)条之仲裁也应有双方合意。见：赵维田.WTO的司法机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004：239.笔者不赞同此观点,因为,双方协议选择仲裁人并不等同于双方须协议共同提起仲裁,基于对确定“合理期限”三种方式的整体理解,DSU第21.3(c)条的规定及对仲裁实践的考察,笔者认为提起并启动DSU第21.3(c)条之仲裁不需要双方合意。
[31]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第2款。
[32]另外,关于WTO“非违约之诉”,DSU第26条第1款(c)项还规定：“尽管有第21条的规定,但是应双方中任何一方的请求,第21条第3款所规定的仲裁可包括对利益丧失或减损程度的确定,也可建议达成令双方满意的调整的方法；此类建议不得对争端各方具有约束力。”但目前为止并没有本条款项下的仲裁实践,本文亦不作深入讨论。
[33]J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:232.
[34]另一个例外为DSU第22条第6款的仲裁规定,本文将在第四章展开论述。
[35]李居迁.WTO争端解决机制的主要程序[A].见：司法部法规教育司,国家外国专家局科教文卫司编.WTO争端解决机制-规则、程序与实践[M].北京：法律出版社,2003：278.
Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21(3) (c) of the DSU, WT/DS8/15, WT/DS10/15, WT/DS11/13,14 Febuary1997.
[37]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第23条第2款(b)项。
[38]例如,在“‘欧共体-影响肉及肉制品的措施案(荷尔蒙案)’之确定合理期限仲裁案”(1998)(WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13)中,仲裁请求由原争端被申诉方(执行方)欧共体提出。
[39]在“智利-酒精饮料税案’之确定‘合理期限’仲裁案”(2000)(WT/DS87/15, WT/DS110/14)中,原争端被申诉方(执行方)智利与申诉方欧共体共同提出仲裁请求。
Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rulings, WT/DS11/9, G/L137,13 January 1997.
[41]See Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Surveillance of Implementation of Recommen dations and Rulings:Communication from European Communities, WT/DS8/12, WT/DS10/1 2, WT/DS11/10,21 January 1997 and Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rulings:Communication from Canada, WT/DS 8/14, WT/DS10/14, WT/DS11/12,27 January 1997.
[42]Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages -Appointment of Arbitrator by the Director-General, WT/DS8/13,WT/DS10/13, WT/DS11/11,21 January 1997.
[43]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》脚注13。
[44]在“欧共体-影响肉及肉制品的措施案(荷尔蒙案)”之确立“合理期限”仲裁案(1998)中,WTO总干事曾任命了两名仲裁人,一名为上诉机构成员,另一名为DSB前任主席,但后者没有接受总干事的提名,最终,该仲裁仍只具有一个仲裁人。See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15,WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998,para.3.
[45]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》脚注12。
[461 Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS114/13,18 August 2000, para.41本段论述中粗体字表强调,为原仲裁裁决书所添加强调。但不同的是,原仲裁裁决书中强调的部分以英文斜体字表示,特作说明。本文下文对各仲裁裁决书的原文援引中,粗体字强调部分与此处相同,均为原仲裁裁决书添加的强调,特此说明。
[47]不一致的措施还可能具有其他形式,比如,某项实际执行的管理或行政行为,尽管未经法案或法规的特别授权或规定,或者由某一行政机关作出的“准司法”裁定。(裁决书原注14)
Award of the Arbitrator, Argentina-Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS155/10,31 August 2001, para.40 and para.41.
[49]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.32.
[50]相反,在根据GATT1994第23条第1款(b)项提起的非违约之诉案件中,DSU第26条第1款(b)项明确规定“无义务撤销该措施”。(原仲裁裁决书脚注39)
Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.38
[52]See Award of the Arbitrator, Australia- Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 18/9,23 February 1999, para.35.
[53]Award of the Arbitrator, Korea-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS75/16, WT/DS84/14,4 June 1999, para.45; Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 114/13,18 August 2000, para.41; Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS207/13,17 March 2003, para.32; Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.52; Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities -Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15,20 February 2006, para.49; Award of the Arbitrator, Japan -Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.26; Award of the Arbitrator, Brazil-Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS332/16,29 August 2008, para.47; Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS344/15,31 October 2008, para.41; Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia -Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.41.
[54]Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities -Export Subsidies on Sugar -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS265/33, WT/DS266/33, WT/DS283/14,28 October 2005, para.69; Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities-Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15, 20 February 2006, para.56; Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.27.
[55]See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.41.
[56]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第5款。
[57]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS114/13,18 August 2000, para.42.
[59]Jeff Waincymer. WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement [M]. London:Cameron May,2002:658.
[59]Award of the Arbitrator, Japan -Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.26 and para.27.
[60]Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages -urveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rules-Communication from the EC, WT/DS8/12, WT/DS10/12, WT/DS11/10,21 January 1997.
[61]Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rules-Communication from Canada, WT/DS8/14, WT/DS10/14, WT/DS11/12,27 January 1997.
Award of the Arbitrator, Indonesia-Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS54/15, WT/DS55/14, WT/DS59/13, WT/DS64/12,7 December 1998, para.5.
[63]WTO确定“合理期限”仲裁裁决书的统一格式肇始于“智利-农产品案,,之确定“合理期限,,仲裁。See Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS207/13,17 March 2003.
[64]Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:508.
[65]See Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages -Arbitration under Article 21(3) (c) of the DSU, WT/DS8/15, WT/DS 10/15, WT/DS11/13,14 February,1997, para.27 and Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS27/15,7 January 1998, para.19.
[66]See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.25 and para.26.
[67]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.27.
[68]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 114/13,18 August 2000, para.47.
[69]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Anti-dumping Act of 1916-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS136/11, WT/DS162/14,28 February 2001, para.33.
[70]Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.28.
[71]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3 (c) of theDSU, WT/DS114/13,18 August 2000, para.51.
[72]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) oftheDSU, WT/DS 114/13,18 August 2000, para.55.
[73]See e.g. Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS814/13,19 February 2002.
[74]See e.g. Award of the Arbitrator, Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS18/9,23 February 1999, para.3. "Notwithstanding this extension of the time-period for the arbitration process, the parties stated that my award would be deemed to be an award made under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU."
[75]N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004:240.
[76]如表3.1所示,迄今为止上有四个确定“合理期限”仲裁案中,争端各方在仲裁程序的进行期间达成“合理期限”协议并通知了仲裁人,这种情况下,仲裁人仍会继续作出“仲裁人报告”而非“仲裁人裁决”。据此,目前通过DSU第21.3(c)条之仲裁确定了“合理期限”的仲裁案件为25件,对应仲裁裁决为25份。
[77]See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.25.
[78]D. Thomson (ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, ninth ed. (Clarendon Press, 1995), p.1096(原裁决书注脚25)
[79]See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.26.
[80]Award of the Arbitrator, Argentina-Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS155/10,31 August 2001,para.41.
[81]N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004:244.
[82]Award of the Arbitrator. Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3 (c) oftheDSU, WT/DS114/13,18 August 2000, para.43.
[83]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 114/13,18 August 2000, para.49.
[84]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS285/13, 19 August 2005, para.35.
[85]Award of the Arbitrator, Korea-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS75/16, WT/DS84/14,4 June 1999, para.42.
[86]See Award of the Arbitrator, United States -Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS344/15,31 October 2008, para. 42; Award of the Arbitrator, Award of the Arbitrator, Brazil-Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS332/16,29 August 2008, para.48; Award of the Arbitrator, Japan - Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.25; Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities - Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15,20 February 2006, para.49; Award of the Arbitrator, Korea-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS75/16, WT/DS84/14,4 June 1999, para.42;Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS207/13,17 March 2003, para.51; Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.74.
[87]See Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS344/15,31 October 2008, para. 42; Award of the Arbitrator, Brazil-Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres - Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS332/16,29 August 2008, para.48; Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.25; Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities - Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15,20 February 2006, para.49; Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS207/13,17 March 2003, para.39; Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities-Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS246/14,20 September 2004, para.36; Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.64.
[88]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS27/15,7 January 1998, para.19.
[89]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS114/13,18 August 2000, para.50.
[90]J“参见仲裁人裁决,加拿大-药品专利案,第50段。我也赞同该案中仲裁人所举的‘复杂性’例子,即执行需要通过制定大量的新法规并影响许多职能部门。”(原仲裁裁决书脚注67)
[91]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000- Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.60.
[92]See e.g. Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.61; Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS207/13,17 March 2003, para.47.
[93]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS285/13, 19 August 2005, para.46.
[94]实际上并不存在对“发达国家”、“发展中国家”的WTO界定,WTO成员可声称自身为“发达国家”或“发展中国家”,对此,其他WTO成员方可就其利用有关WTO发展中国家条款提出质疑。关于“最不发达国家”的确定则可参照联合国贸易与发展会议的有关界定。See "Who are the developing countries in the WTO", http://www.wto.org/english/tratop e/d evel_e/dl who_e.htm. Visited on 1 February 2012.
[95]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第2款。
1961 Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS87/15, WT/DS110/14,23 May 2000, para.45.
[97]Award of the Arbitrator, Indonesia-Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS54/15, WT/DS55/14, WT/DS59/13, WT/DS64/12,7 December 1998, para.24.
[98]Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS87/15, WT/DS110/14,23 May 2000, para.44; Award of the Arbitrator, Argentina-Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 155/10,31 August 2001, para.51.
[99]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS246/14,20 September 2004, para.59.
[100]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS246/14,20 September 2004, para.59.
[101]“我注意到‘日本-酒精饮料税案’(WT/DS8/15,WT/DS10/15,WT/DS11/13)的仲裁裁决中也否认了对所涉产品生产者(及消费者)的负面影响构成根据DSU第21条第3款(c)项确定合理期限的‘具体情况’。”(原仲裁裁决脚注19)
[102]Award of the Arbitrator, Indonesia-Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS54/15, WT/DS55/14, WT/DS59/13, WT/DS64/12,7 December 1998, para.23.
[103]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.80.
[104]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 114/13,18 August 2000, para.60.
[105]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Term of Patent Protection-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 170/10,28 February 2001, para.58; Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.61; Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS246/14,20 September 2004, para.56.
[106]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第6款。
[107]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第1款。
[108]Panel Report, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry, WT/DS366/R and Corr.1,20 May 2009, para.8.1 and para.8.2.
[109]Panel Report, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry, WT/DS366/R and Corr.l,20 May 2009, para.8.5.
[110]Panel Report, Colombia - Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry, WT/DS366/R and Corr.l,20 May 2009, para.8.9 and para.8.10. [111] WT/DSB/M/270,29 June 2009, para.51.
[112]WT/DS366/10,9 July 2009.
[113]WT/DS366/12,28 August 2009.
[114]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.62.
[115]Award of the Arbitrator, Japan - Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.26
[116]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.63 and para. 64.
[117]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS285/13, 19 August 2005, para.41
[118]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.109.
[119]Colombia's submission, para.69.
[120]Panama's submission, para.27.
[121]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.67.
[122]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.58.
[123]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.59.
[124]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.90.
[125]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.98.
[126]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.99.
[127]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.85.
[128]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.97.
[129]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.102.
[130]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.83.
[131]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.84.
[132]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3 (c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.86.
[133]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.104.
[134]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.106.
[135]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia - Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.107.
[1]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第1款。
[2]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第2款。
[3]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第6款。
[4]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第4条第11款、第7条第10款。
[5][英]詹宁斯瓦茨修订.奥本海国际法[M].第一卷第一分册.王铁崖等译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社.1995：401.
[6]贺其治.国家责任法及案例浅析[M].北京：法律出版社,2003：305.
[7]李爽.论国家责任法上反措施的条件与限制[D].北京：中国政法大学,2011：2.
[8]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第3条第7款。
[9]Joost Pauwelyn. Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO:Rules are Rules-toward a More Collective Approach [J]. the American Journal of International Law,2001,94(2):337.
[10]N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2004:265.
[9]即在WTO中“报复”和“反措施”可作为同义语使用。See Joost Pauwelyn. Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO:Rules are Rules-toward a More Collective Approach [J]. the American Journal of International Law,2001,94(2):337 and footnote 14.
[12]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第23条第2款(c)项。
[13]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第2款。
[14]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第6款。
[15]Sherzod Shadikhodjaev. Retaliation in the WTO Dispute Settlement System [M]. The Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2009:63.
[16]“仲裁人,,一词应解释为一个人或一小组。(DSU注脚15)
[17]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第6款。
[18]“仲裁人,,一词应解释为一个人或一小组,或当原专家组成员担任仲裁人时,应解释为指原专家组成员(DSU注脚16)。
[19]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第7款。
[20]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第4条第11款。
[21]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第7条第10款。
[22]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999.
[23]《关税与贸易总协定》(1994)第23条第2款。
1241 See Netherlands Measures of Suspension of Obligations to the United States (Determination of Nov.8,1995), BISD IS/32,33(1953).
[25]Communication from United States, MTN.GNG/NG 13/W/40,6 April 1990, p.10.
[26]Communication from Canada, MTN.GNG/NG 13/W/41,28 June 1990, p.7.
[27]Statement by the Spokesman of the European Community, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/44,19 July, 1990, para.7.
[28]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, para.20.3.
[29]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, para.20.4.
[30]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, para.20.5.
[31]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, pp.T.5-T6.
[32]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, p.T.6本处强调部分为原文件所加,但原文中以下划线文字强调,特此说明。
[33]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, p.T.6.
[34]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:26.
[35]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第6条第2款规定：“设立专家组的请求应以书面形式提出。请求应指出是否已进行磋商、确认争论中的措施并提供一份足以明确陈述问题的起诉的法律根据概要。在申请方请求设立的专家组不具有标准职权范围的情况下,书面请求中应包括特殊职权范围的拟议案文。”
[36]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB/ECU,24 March 2000, para.20.
[37]在“‘美国-1916年反倾销法案’之‘报复’仲裁案”(2004)中由两位原专家组成员担任仲裁人；在“‘美国-高地棉花补贴案’之DSU第22.6条仲裁案(2009)中最终只有一名原专家组成员担任了仲裁人。
[38]胡建国.WTO争端解决裁决执行机制研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2011：314.
[39]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第7款。
[40]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.18 and para.19.本段论述中的粗体字表强调,为原仲裁裁决书所添加强调处。不同的是,原仲裁裁决书中的强调部分以英文斜体字表示。特作说明。本文以下对各仲裁裁决书的原文援引中,粗体字强调部分与此处相同,均为原仲裁裁决书添加的强调,特此说明。
[41]Decision by the Arbitrators, United States-Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Original Complaint by the European Communities - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS136/ARB,24 February 2004, para.7.4.
[42]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS285/ARB,21 December 2007, para.5.10.
[43]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas - Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB/ECU,24 March 2000, para.152.
[44]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.20.
[45]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.20.
[46]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第3款要求请求中止授权方在考虑中止哪些减让或其他义务时应适用7项具体的原则和程序。其中(a)项规定：“总的原则是,申请方应首先寻求对与专家组或上诉机构认定有违反义务或其他造成利益丧失或减损情形的部门相同的部门中止减让或其他义务”；(b)项规定：“如该方认为对相同部门中止减让或其他义务不可行或无效,则可寻求中上对同一协定项下其他部门的减让或其他义务”；(c)项规定：“如该方认为对同一协定下的其他部门中止减让或其他义务不可行或无效,且情况足够严重,则可寻求中止另一适用协定下的减让或其他义务”。
[47]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.3.5
[48]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.3.7
[49]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第5款。
[50]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第1条第2款。
[51]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCMAgreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.3.57.
[52]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.3.11.
[53]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.5.12-5.32.
[54]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.9.
[55]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.2.8.
[56]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.11.
[57]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 272.
[58]See e.g. Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.2.1.
[59]作为政府间的争端解决程序,WTO争端解决机制在表面上并不涉及私当事方,然而非政府利害方通常在相关程序具有明显的利益,他们提供的信息也常常是争端记录的基础。See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004:274.
[60]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.2.11.
[61]Decision by the Arbitrator, Canada - Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft Recourse to Arbitration by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS222/ARB,17 February 2003, para.2.8.
[62]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.l 1.
[63]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS108/ARB,30 August 2002, para.2.11.
[64]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Mea Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, footnote 9.
[65]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.2.8.
[66]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB, WT/DS48/ARB,12 July 1999, para.7.
[67]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS285/ARB,21 December 2007, para.2.31.
[68]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.2.6 and footnote 11.
[69]Sherzod Shadikhodjaev. Retaliation in the WTO Dispute Settlement System [M]. The Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2009:79.
[70]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第5款。
[71]根据DSU第22条第6款的规定,WTO“报复”仲裁的仲裁庭应在合理期限届满60天内完成仲裁,而DSU第21条第5款项下的相符性审查程序仅其中的专家组程序就可长达90天,若存在上诉程序则更长,因此造成一系列“时限”难题。
[72]US-Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, WT/DS 165/R,17 June 2000, para.6.122.
[73]US-Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, WT/DS165 /AB/R,11 December 2000, para.128.
[74]Report of the Appellate Body, United States-Sunset Review of Anti-dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina-Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina, WT/DS268/AB/RW,12 April 2007.
[75]Edwini Kessie, Dispute Settlement, WTO:3.4 Implementation and Enforcement, the Course on Dispute Settlement in International Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations, New York and Geneva,2003, p.34. Available at http://www.unctad.org/Templates/WebFlyer.asp?intItemID=4403&lang=1 visited on 1 February,2012.
[76]The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historic Principles (1993), page 843(原裁决书脚注8)
[77]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.4.1.
[78]Report of the Working Party on Netherlands Action under Article ⅩⅩⅢ:2 to Suspend Obligations to the United States, adopted on 8 November 1952, BISD IS/62.
[79]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.6.5.
[80]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.6.3.
[81]See Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.39 and WT/DS48/ARB, para.40.Also see Decision by the Arbitrator, United States - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations "-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS 108/ARB,30 August 2002, para.5.57; Decision by the Arbitrator, Canada-Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS222/ARB,17 February 2003, para.3.121.
[82]Joost Pauwelyn. Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO:Rules are Rules-toward a More Collective Approach [J]. the American Journal of International Law,2001,94(2):344.
[83]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB, WT/DS48/ARB,12 July 1999, para.38.
[84]Thomas Sebastian. World Trade Organization Remedies and the Assessment of Proportionality: Equivalence and Appropriateness [J]. Harvard International Law Journal,2007,48(2):344.
[85]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.7.1.
[86]Thomas Sebastian. World Trade Organization Remedies and the Assessment of Proportionality: Equivalence and Appropriateness [J]. Harvard International Law Journal,2007,48(2):351.
[87]付星国.WTO争端裁决的执行机制[M].上海：人民出版社,2011：402-403.
[88]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第4条第11款。
[89]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.3.44.
[90]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.3.57.
[91]Thomas Sebastian. World Trade Organization Remedies and the Assessment of Proportionality: Equivalence and Appropriateness [J]. Harvard International Law Journal,2007,48(2):357.
[92]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.3.60.
[93]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS108/ARB,30 August 2002, para.5.62.
[94]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS108/ARB,30 August 2002, para.5.12.
[95]Decision by the Arbitrator, Canada - Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft- Recourse to Arbitration by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS222/ARB,17 February 2003, para.3.121 and para.3.122
[96]See WT/DSB/M/145.18 March 2003.
1971 Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.4.37.
[98]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.4.39.
[99]Norio Komuro. the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism-Coverage and Procedures of the WTO Understanding [J]. Journal of World Trade,1995,29:60.
[100]Allison L. Whiteman. Cross Retaliation Under the TRIPS Agreement:An Analysis of Policy Option for Brazil [J]. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation,2010,36(1):187-231.
[101]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.1.2-1.3.
[102]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.1.20.
[103]See US Department of Agriculture,'USDA Announces Changes to Export Credit G uarantee Programs to Comply with WTO Findings,'30 June 2005, http://www.fas.usda.g ov/scriptsw/PressRelease/pressrel_dout.asp?PrNum=0092-05, visited on 1 February 2012.
[104]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.1.23.
[105]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/1,31 August 2009, para.5.129.
[106]WT/DS267/ARB/1, para.5.231 and WT/DS267/ARB/2, para.5.231,31 August 2009
[107]USTR Statement on Awards in Brazil Cotton Dispute, United States Trade Representative, 31 August 2009.
[108]International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, "US, Brazil Agree to Negotiate End to Cotton Dispute", http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/74051/, visited on 1 February 2012.
[109]David J. Townsend, Steve Charnovitz. Preventing Opportunistic Uncompliance by WTO Members [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2011,14(2):441.
[110]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/1,31 August 2009, para.3.9.
[111]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/1,31 August 2009, para.3.61.
[112]David J. Townsend, Steve Charnovitz. Preventing Opportunistic Uncompliance by WTO Members [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2011,14(2):449.
[113]Chad P. Bown. The WTO Secretariat and the role of economics in Panels and arbitrations [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [A]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:430-431.
[114]Chad P. Bown. The WTO Secretariat and the role of economics in Panels and arbitrations [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [A]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:391-393.
[115]Gene M. Grossman, Alan O Sykes. "Optimal" Retaliation in the WTO:a Commentary on the Upland Cotton Arbitration [J], World Trade Review,2011,10(1):149.
[116]Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn. Trade Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement:a multi-disciplinary Analysis [A], In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:1.
[117]Thomas Sebastian. World Trade Organization Remedies and the Assessment of Proportionality:Equivalence and Appropriateness [J]. Harvard International Law Journal,2007, 48(2):380.
[118]Robert E. Hudec. Broadening the Scope of Remedies in WTO Dispute Settlement [A]. In: Friedl Weiss, Jochem Wiers (eds.). Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures:Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals [M]. London:Cameron May International Law& Policy,2000:390.
[1]《1994年关税与贸易总协定》(GATT1994)第23条第1款。
[2]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第26条第1款(c)项。
[3]MTN.GNG/NG13/W/39,05 April 1990, p.2
[4]《服务与贸易总协定》第21条第2款。
[5]《服务与贸易总协定》第21条第3款。
[6]《服务与贸易总协定》第21条第4款。
[7]对于在WTO协定生效之日已存在的避免双重征税协定,此类事项只有在经该协定各参加方同意后方可提交服务贸易理事会。(GAT协定原脚注11)
[8]《服务与贸易总协定》第22条第3款。
[9]《服务与贸易总协定》第23条第3款。
[10]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第8条第1款、第2款。
[11]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第8条第3款。
[12]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第8条第4款。
[13]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第8条第5款。
[14]Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Procedures for Arbitration under Article 8.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, G/SCM/19,10 June 1998.
[15]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第31条。
[16]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第1款。
[17]在本规定中,“当事方”("Party" and "Parties")一词不包括第六节所规定的“第三方”("Third Party" and "Third Parties").(原文注脚1)
[18]如一关税同盟或共同市场作为仲裁当事方或第三方,则本规定适用于该关税同盟或共同市场的所有成员的国民。(原文注脚2)
[19]此审理范围可同等适用于第二次或后续仲裁。(原文注脚3)
[20]Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, "Procedures", Procedures for Arbitration under Article 8.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, G/SCM/19,10 June 1998.
[21]Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, "Introduction", Procedures for Arbitration under Article 8.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, G/SCM/19,10 June 1998.
[22]在WTO成立之前,欧共体的有关香蕉进口、销售及分销体制已先后两次被其他GATT缔约方指控违反GATT协定从而诉之过GATT专家组程序解决,即“欧共体香蕉案Ⅰ”和“欧共体香蕉案Ⅱ”。因此,WTO成立后的此项欧共体香蕉进口体制争端也被称为“欧共体香蕉案Ⅲ”。
[23]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Arbitration under Article 21.3 (c) of the DSU, WT/DS27/15,7 January 1998, para.20.
[24]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.8.1.
[25]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-ecourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB/ECU,24 March 2000, para.170.
[26]1994年12月,GATT缔约方全体豁免了欧共体在《洛美协定》到期日2000年2月29日之前GATT1947第1条第1款(最惠国待遇)的义务,允许欧共体为非加太国家进口的产品(包括香蕉)提供优惠的关税待遇。
1271 Notification of Mutually Agreement Solution, EC-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/58,2 July 2001.
[28]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[29]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/L/616,1 August/2005.
[30]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement II, WT/L/625,27 October 2005.
[31]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, p.2.
[32]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[33]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[34]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[35]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[36]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[37]G/SECRET/22/Add.l.
[38]WT/L/602,17 February 2005.
[39]WT/L/607/Add.l-9, Respectively
1401 Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/625,27 October 2005, para.11.
[41]根据《多哈豁免决定》的规定,“欧共体-香蕉关税”仲裁案(Ⅱ)仲裁庭组成与“欧共体-香蕉关税”仲裁案(Ⅰ)仲裁庭组成相同。See Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14November 2001, Annex.
[42]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/625,27 October 2005, para.13-19.
[43]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/616,1 August 2005, para.7.
[44]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[45]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/616,1 August 2005, para.24.
[46]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/616,1 August 2005, para.37.
[47]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/616,1 August 2005, para.94.
[48]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/625,27 October 2005, para.23.
[49]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/625,27 October 2005, para.23.
[50]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/625,27 October 2005, para.127.
[51]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/616,1 August 2005, para.9-10.
[52]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第3条第7款。
[53]Hunter Nottage, Jan Bohanes. Arbitration as an Alternative to Litigation in the WTO: Observations in the light of the 2005 Banana Tariff Arbitrations [A]. In:Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanovich and Jan Bohanes (eds.). The WTO in the Twenty-first Century:Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2007:220.
[54]Hunter Nottage, Jan Bohanes. Arbitration as an Alternative to Litigation in the WTO: Observations in the light of the 2005 Banana Tariff Arbitrations [A]. In:Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanovich and Jan Bohanes (eds.). The WTO in the Twenty-first Century:Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2007:221.
[55]Hunter Nottage, Jan Bohanes. Arbitration as an Alternative to Litigation in the WTO: Observations in the light of the 2005 Banana Tariff Arbitrations [A]. In:Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanovich and Jan Bohanes (eds.). The WTO in the Twenty-first Century:Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2007:240.
[1]按照产生争论、分歧或冲突的问题所属的不同领域,当代的国际争端又被进一步划分为国际领土争端、国际海洋争端、国际环境争端、国际能源争端、国际贸易争端、国际投资争端、国际金融争端等。
Rainer Gildeggen, The Impact of Arbitral Awards on the Development of International Law: The Development of the International Law Concerning the Taking of Foreign-Owned Property, University of Georgia School of law, LLM Theses and Essays,1988, Paper 119. Available at http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu llm/119, visited on 1 February 2012.
[2]国际实践中,载有仲裁条款的可以是双边条约,也可以是多边条约；可以是区域性条约,也可以是普遍性国际公约。基于WTO协定多边性、普遍性的国际条约类型及性质,为更好地探讨WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度,本文侧重选择以其他主要国际组织或国际会议所制定的普遍性国际公约中的仲裁机制为比较研究对象,并不展开讨论各类国际条约中的仲裁条款及机制,特此说明。
[4]马骏.国际法知识辞典fGl.西安：陕西人民出版社,1993：365.
[5]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第21条。
[6]《海牙和平解决国际争端公约》(1907)第38条规定,“凡属于法律性质的问题,特别是有关解释或适用国际公约的问题,各缔约国承认仲裁是解决通过外交途径所未能解决的争端的最有效也最公正的方法。因此,在关于上述问题的争端,各缔约国在情势允许的情况下诉诸仲裁是可取的。”
[7]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第17条。
[8]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第18条。
[9]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第18条、第26条。
[10]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第21条。
[11]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第36条。
[12]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第37条。
[131《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)第287条。
[14]吴慧.法律方法解决国际海洋争端的实践分析[J].厦门大学法律评论.第5辑,厦门：厦 门大学出版社,2003：262.
[15]《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)附件七“仲裁”第2条、第3条。
[16]M. Bruce Volbeda. The MOX Plant Case:the Question of "Supplemental Jurisdiction" for International Environmental Claims under UNCLOS [J]. Texas International Law Journal,2006, 42:212-239.
[17]《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)附件七“仲裁”第5条。
[18]《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)附件八“特别仲裁”第1条。
[19]《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)附件八“特别仲裁”第2条、第3条。
[20]《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)附件八“特别仲裁”第5条。
[21]白中红.《能源宪章公约》的争端解决机制研究[J].外交评论,2011,(3)：88.
[22]白中红.《能源宪章公约》的争端解决机制研究[J].外交评论,2011,(3)：90.
[23]《能源宪章条约》(1998)第6条第5款、第7条第7款、附件D、第19条第2款。
[24]白中红.《能源宪章公约》的争端解决机制研究fJl.外交评论,2011,(3)：91.
[25]Nils Eliasson,10 Years of Energy Charter Treaty Arbitration,6 June 2011, p.9. Available at http://www.iosemigueliudice-arbitration.com/xms/files/02 TEXTOS ARBITRAGEM/03 Conve ncoes Arbitrais Internacionais/Report Ten Years of ECT Arbitration 30 June 2011.pdf, visited on 1 February 2012.
[25]白中红.《能源宪章公约》的争端解决机制研究[J].外交评论,2011,(3)：92.
[27]随着二战后多样化、专业化的各式国际条约、国际组织的发展和设立,曾经由“一般国际法”规范的国际法体系开始分化为更为具体的各式体系,如“贸易法”、“人权法”、“环境法”、“海洋法”等,但另一方面,不同体系和规范之间的冲突和矛盾也日益加剧,造成“国际法的碎片化”(fragmentation of international law).这种多样性和缺乏统一性为国际法和国际关系增加了困难和不稳定因素。See Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law:Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, A/CN.4/L.682,13 April 2006.
[28]国际投资争端,具体又包括东道国与投资者母国之间的国家间争端,也包括东道国与外国投资者之间的争端以及广义上私人投资者之间的争议,其中又以东道国与外国投资者之间的争端最为凸出和典型。
[29]关于国际投资仲裁性质及其发展的更多讨论可参见蔡从燕.国际投资仲裁的商事化与“去商事化”[J].现代法学,2011,33(1):152-162. Also see Andrea K.Bjorklund. The Emerging Civilization of Investment Arbitration [J]. Penn State Law Review,2008,113:1269-1300.
[30]当然,《关于解决国家和其他国家国民投资争端公约》(1965)第64条也规定,“缔约国之间发生的不能通过谈判解决得有关本公约的解释或适用的任何争端,经争端任何一方的申请,得提交国际法院,除非有关国家采取另一种解决办法。”
[31]International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules, ICSID Additional Facility Rules, April 2006. Available at http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=ShowHome&p ageName=Rules Home, visited on 1 February 2012.
[32]刘京莲.国际投资仲裁体制的困境与出路[J].福建论坛(人文社会科学版),2011,(5)：36-37.
[33]Gary Born. A New Generation of International Adjudication [J], Duke Law Journal,2012,61: 791.
[34]《关于争端解决规则与程序的凉解》第25条第1款。
[35]参见陈辉萍.WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度述评[A].见：曾华群.国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展[M].北京：法律出版社,2009:617. Also see Georgios I. Zekos. An Examination of GATT/WTO Arbitration Procedures [A]. In American Arbitration Association. AAA Handbook on International Arbitration and ADR (2nd ed.) [M]. Huntington, New York:Juris Publishing,2010:395-396.
[36]See Decision on the Application and Review of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,15 April 1994.
[37]WT/DSB/M/52,3 February 1999.
1381 Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1,20 November 2001, para.30.
1391 Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1,20 November 2001, para.47.
[40]陈雨松.中国参与多哈发展议程谈判综述[A].见：曾华群,杨国华.WTO与中国：法治的发展与互动—中国加入WTO十周年纪念文集[M].北京：中国商务出版社,2011：370.
[41]此项谈判由DSB以特别会议(special session)的方式进行,各成员的建议提案以谈判工作文件(编号为TN/DS/W/*)的形式提出并于特别会议上加以讨论,会后形成相应的会议记录(编号为TN/DS/M/*), DSB主席则会定期向总理事会提交相关主席报告(编号为TN/DS/*).
[42]关于多哈回合中各成员方关于改进和澄清争端解决规则和程序的所有提案立场概况,可参见中华经济研究院(台湾WTO中心),“各国正式立场文件整理(2008)”,http://www.wtocenter.org.tw/SmartKMS/do/www/listDocsByCategory?isMenu=true & categoryId=3218,2012年2月1日最后访问。
[43]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》脚注12。
[44]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》脚注13。
[45]在新一轮DSU谈判中,欧 共体曾多次提出设立常设专家及其名单。See TN/DS/W/1,13 March 2002, p.2; TN/DS?W/38,23 January 2003, para.14.
[46]See TN/DS/W/38,23 January 2003, para.23.
[47]根据韩国代表团的统计,仲裁人根据DSU第21.3(c)条作出“合理期限”仲裁裁决平均耗时为自DSB裁决或建议通过之日起137天,自2000年以来,则甚至平均约157天。SeeTN/DS/W/11.11 Julv 2002. p.2.
[48]See TN/DS/W/35,22 January 2003, p.2.
[49]See TN/DS/W/38,23 January 2003, para.23.
[50]See TN/DS/W/38,23 January 2003, para.23.
[51]See TN/DS/W/43,28 January 2003, para.26.
[52]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.pp.9-10.
[53]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-13.
[54]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-13.
[55]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第2款。
[56]在“‘美国-1916年反倾销法案’之‘报复’仲裁案”(2004)中由两位原专家组成员担任仲裁人；在“‘美国-高地棉花补贴案’之DSU第22.6条仲裁案(2009)中最终只有一名原专家组成员担任了仲裁人。
[57]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.p.15, footnote 27.
[58]另外,日本代表团也曾提出更短的指定仲裁人期限,即“总干事应在该事项提交仲裁后5天内指定替代仲裁人”。但这一意见目前未被采纳。See TN/DS/22,28 October 2002,para.7.
1591 Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.p.15; Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A:Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-15.
[60]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.p.15.
[61]See TN/DS/22,28 October 2002, Attachment:para.7.
[62]See TN/DS/22,28 October 2002, p.1;TN/DS/34,22 January 2003, p.4; TN/DS/38,23 January 2003,pp.7-8; TN/DS/43,28 January 2003, pp.5-6; TN/DS/49, pp.3-4; Join Concept Paper, Remedying the Dispute Settlement Understanding's Articles 21.5/22 "Sequencing Issue" Job(02)/45, dated 27 May 2002.
[63]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.pp.13-14.
[64]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-15.
[651朱榄叶.DSU第21.5条与第22条程序冲突及其解决[A].见：曾华群,杨国华.WTO与中国：法治的发展与互动-中国加入WTO十周年纪念文集[Ml.北京：中国商务出版社,2011：264.
[66]See TN/DS/49,17 February 2003, p.3.
[67]Minutes of Meeting, Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, TN/DS/M/4,10 September 2002.
[68]See TN/DS/37,22 January 2003, p.3 and TN/DS/42,24 January 2003, pp.3-4.
[69]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-16.
[70]See TN/DS/49,17 February 2003, p.6 and TN/DS/91,16 July 2007, p.3 and footnote 6.
[71]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-19.
[72]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, pp.A-16-A-17.
[73]胡建国.WTO争端解决裁决执行机制研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2011：325.
[74]澳大利亚的此项主张源于其参与“美国-版权法第110(05)节案”(WT/DS160)的实践。在该案中,澳大利亚曾对美国和欧共体之间的达成的补偿协议提出过强烈质疑,认为欧美补偿协议违反了非歧视原则,对其他WTO成员方会持续造成损害。参见付星国.WTO争端解决的执行机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2011：305.
[75]See TN/DS/W/8,8 July 2002, p.3 and TN/DS/W/34,22 January 2003, p.3.
[76]欧共体、日本代表团提出,增设DSU第22.1条之二,为便利补偿及报复引入首先确定利益丧失或减损水平的机制,具体程序为仲裁。See TN/DS/32,22 January 2003, Attachment: para.5.
[77]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.p.13.
[78]See TN/DS/W/15,25 September 2002, p.6.
[79]See TN/DS/42,24 January 2003, p.l.
[80]See TN/DS/42,24 January 2003, p.l.
[81]See TN/DS/42,24 January 2003, p.3.
[82]United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,9 November 2001.
[83]See TN/DS/W/34,22 January 2003, p.3; TN/DS/42,24 January 2003, p.l.
1841 See TN/DS/W/33.23 January 2003. p.2.
[85]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. Strengthening the GATT Dispute Settlement System:on the Use of Arbitration in GATT [A]. In:Meinhard Hilf and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (eds.). The New GATT round of multilateral trade negotiations:legal and economic problems [M]. New York:Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.1991:337.
[86]TN/DS/W/86,21 April 2006.
[87]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, pp.A-16-A-17.
[88]See Improved Dispute Settlement:Elements for Consideration, MTN.GNG/NG 13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.2; Communication from the Nordic Countries, MTN.GNG/NG 13/W/10,18 September 1987, p.1 and Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG 13/W/12,24 September 1987, p.3.
[89]See Joost Pauwelyn. The Limits of Litigation:"Americanization" and Negotiation in the Settlement of WTO disputes [J]. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution,2003,19(1):138.
[90]Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, "Procedures", Procedures for Arbitration under Article 8.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, G/SCM/19.10 June 1998.
[91]See TN/DS/W/1,13 March 2002, p.2; TN/DS/W/38,23 January 2003, para.14.
[92]TN/DS/W/2.20 March 2002:TN/DS/W/32.22 lannary 2003 nll
[93]TN/DS/W/12/Rev.1.06 March 2003.
[94]See TN/DS/W/37,22 January 2003, pp.2-3.
[95]关于WTO秘书处的研究及其改革可进一步参见：冯元元.WTO秘书处研究[D].厦门：厦门大学,2008.
[96]See TN/DS/W/22,28 October 2002, p.4.
[97]Ernst-UIrich Petersmann. WTO Negotiators Meet Academics:the Negotiations on Improvements of the WTO Dispute Settlement System [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2003,6(1):247.
[98]有些学者指出,DSU第25条规定之仲裁极少被运用的原因在于适宜仲裁解决的争端具有双边性,而WTO体制内的争端多具有多边性特征。基于当事方合意运行的仲裁缺乏多边性监督和控制See Valerie Hughes. Arbitration within WTO [A]. In:Federico Ortino & Ernst-UIrich Petersmann (eds.). the WTO Dispute Settlement System:1995-2003, New York: Kluwer Law International,2004:85. Also see Rudiger Wolfrum, Perter-Tobias Soll, Karen Kaiser (Eds.). WTO-Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006: 571.
[99]China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/14,21 January 2010.
[100]China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/15,9 March 2010.
[101]China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/16,13 March 2010.
[102]See TN/DS/W/29,22 January 2003, pp.1-2.
[103]See TN/DS/W/5 1/Rev.1,13 March 2003, pp.2-3.
[1]于丹翎.WTO争端解决机构中善意原则的适用及其意义[J].外交评论,2009(1)：135-144.
[2]马丁·内特斯海姆[德].WTO的合法化：以仲裁程序为目标改造争端解决程序[J].中德法学论坛,2003：301-311.
[3]王波.论世贸组织的仲裁制度及我国仲裁制度的改革[J].湖北财经高等专科学校学报,2002(2)：12-14.
[4]毛骁骁.论WTO框架下的授权报复程度问题[J].河北法学,2008(6)：154-170.
[5]毛燕琼.论中国应对WTO争端解决机制改革的策略[J].江淮论坛,2008(6)：53-60.
[6]邓烈.中世纪的国际仲裁及其历史遗产[J].武汉科技大学学报(社会科学版),2003(5)：44-48.
[7]左海聪.WTO争端解决实践综合分析[J].南开学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(6)：105-111.
[8]田晓云.世界贸易组织中的仲裁[J].北京工业大学学报,2007(1)：13-28.
[9]白中红.《能源宪章公约》的争端解决机制研究[J].外交评论,2011(3)：88-99.
[10]吕晓杰.对WTO争端解决机制中司法经济原则功能的再思考[J].环球法律评论,2008(6)：81-89.
[11]朱榄叶.WTO争端解决程序中的证据问题[J].当代法学,2007(1)：121-127.
[12]朱翠微.WTO争端解决机制执行程序中的“合理期限”问题探讨[J].长白学刊,2002(1)：30-32.
[13]向雅萍.WTO报复制度的缺陷与完善研究[J].全球视野理论月刊,2008(4)：143-146.
[14]刘京莲.国际投资仲裁体制的困境与出路[J].福建论坛(人文社会科学版),2011(5)：34-37.
[15]刘曦炜.WTO争端解决机制中“交叉报复”制度相关问题研究[J].决策与信息(下旬刊),2009(1)：19-20.
[16]孙立文.美国WTO争端解决政策与实践评析[J].对外经贸实务,2009(3)：35-37.
[17]牟文富.WTO争端解决机制中的反措施的相称性问题[J].国际商务研究,2008(1)：44-50.
[18]纪文华.WTO争端解决执行中的“顺序”问题法律解读[J].世界贸易组织动态与研究,2005(12)：20-25.
[19]李小军.论WTO仲裁的法律适用[J].福建政法管理干部学院学报,2002(4)：23-26.
[20]李广辉,张晓明.国际商事仲裁与WTO仲裁之比较[J].汕头大学学报(人文社会科学 版),2009(2)：60-76.
[21]杨仕辉.WTO争端解决策略选择的分析[J].统计研究,2008(5)：71-78.
[22]李晓玲.执行DSB建议和裁决的“合理期限”有多长?[J].WTO经济导刊,2005(11)：74-76.
[23]李雁玲,刘晓惠.WTO棉花争议案中交叉报复的研究[J].商业研究,2006(18)：180-182.
[24]肖威.WTO争端胜诉方“申请授权报复”的程序问题研究——“世贸组织争端解决规则与程序的谅解”第21.5条和第22.6条之间的顺序问题[J].河北法学,2008(1)：148-152.
[25]吴道富.WTO争端解决机制及附设仲裁程序之探析[J].现代企业文化,2008(23)：5.
[26]吴慧.法律方法解决国际海洋争端的实践分析[J].厦门大学法律评论.厦门：厦门大学出版社,2003(5)：247-269.
[27]余敏友.中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述[J].世界贸易组织动态与研究,2009(5)：18-27.
[28]沈大勇,张蔚蔚.世贸组织争端解决机制：规则导向抑或权力导向[J].国际商务研究,2008(1)：31-40.
[29]张乃根.论WTO争端解决的合理执行期仲裁——兼论中美知识产权案的执行对策[J]I政法论丛,2009(3)：3-8.
[30]张乃根.论WTO争端解决的条约解释[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2006(1)：122-128.
[31]张乃根.试析WTO争端解决的H际法拘束力[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2003(6)：59-70.
[32]张军旗.WTO争端解决机制中可诉性问题释微-基于成案的视角[J].现代法学,2008(6)：140-146.
[33]陈立军,匡青松.WTO“合理期限”仲裁运行与实践[J].重庆工商大学学报(社会科学版),2007(3)：76-80.
[34]陈立军,匡青松.WTO“合理期限”仲裁举证问题探析[J].湖南商学院学报,2007(1)：108-111.
[35]陈立军,匡青松.论WTO“合弹期限”仲裁制度[J].四川经济管理学院学报,2007(1)：30-32.
[36]陈晓芳.WTO争端解决程序中的法律适用[J].理论月刊,2005(9)：156-158.
[37]苟大凯.论GATS具体承诺修改程序与WTO争端解决程序之间的关系[J].法学杂志,2008(2)：131-133.
[38]郑小敏.论WTO的贸易报复制度[J].浙江社会科学,2004(6)：84-89.
[39]赵秀文.WTO协议项下的争端解决方法及其选择[J].法治论丛-上海政法学院学报,2005(5)：101-106.
[40]赵茹.中国双边投资保护协定中当地救济与国际仲裁[J].北方经济,2007(S2)：13-14.
[41]赵海峰.中国与国际司法机构关系的演进[J].法学评论,2008(6)：3-12.
[42]钟立国.WTO争端解决机制非违反之诉的适用分析[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006(3)：230-234.
[43]秦建荣,周长青.论中国-东盟自由贸易区报复制度的缺陷及其完善-兼论CAFTA对WTO报复制度的借鉴[J].学术论坛,2007(3)：83-86.
[44]高田甜.不败的“第三方"-WTO争端解决第三方制度评析[J].WTO经济导刊,2008(3)：92-94.
[45]常景龙.WTO争端解决机构报告执行制度的实施现状与实质缺陷[J].厦门大学法律评论,2008(1)：157-200.
[46]韩立余.WTO争端解及规则的完善能走多远[J].上海财经大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(5)：33-40.
[47]韩立余.WTO争端解决中的案例法方法[J].现代法学,2008(3)：123-133.
[48]曾炜.论“法庭之友”在WTO争端解决中的发展[J].华南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2006(3)：110-116.
[49]蔡从燕.国际投资仲裁的商事化与“去商事化”[J].现代法学, 第33卷,2011(1)：152-162.
[1]王鹏.论国际混合仲裁的性质——与国际商事仲裁和国家间仲裁的比较研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2007.
[2]王新奎,刘光溪.WTO争端解决机制概论[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2001.
[3]艾伦·雷德芬,马丁·亨特[英].国际商事仲裁法律与实践[M].林一飞、宋连斌译.北京：北京大学出版社,2005.
[4]石静霞.WTO服务贸易法专论[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[5]叶兴平.国际争端解决机制的最新发展：北美自由贸易区的法律与实践[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[6]叶兴平.国际争端解决重要法律文献[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[7]叶兴平.和平解决国际争端[M].北京：法律出版社,2008.
[8]付星国.WTO争端解决的执行机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2011.
[9]朱榄叶.WTO争端解决机制研究[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2007.
[10]朱榄叶.WTO争端解决案件概要：1995-2007[M].北京：法律出版社,2009.
[11]朱榄叶.世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析[M].北京：法律出版社,2000.
[12]朱榄叶.世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析1995-2002[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[13]朱榄叶.世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析2003-2006[M].北京：法律出版社,2008.
[14]纪文华.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]李小年.WTO法律规则与争端解决机制[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2000.
[16]杨什辉.贸易争端解决的博弈分析与策略[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2006.
[17]杨国华,李咏箑.WTO争端解决程序详解[M].北京：中国方正出版社,2004.
[18]李耀芳.WTO争端解决机制[M].北京：中国对外经济贸易出版社,2003.
[19]余敏友.WTO争端解决机制概论[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2001.
[20]张乃根.WTO争端解决机制论：以TRIPS协定为例[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2008.
[21]张乃根.国际法原理[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[22]张桂红.与贸易有关的知识产权成案研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[23]陈安.国际投资争端仲裁——“解决投资争端国际中心”机制研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2001.
[24]陈欣.WTO争端解决中的法律解释：司法克制主义vs.司法能动主义[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[25]邵津.国际法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2008.
[26]林彩瑜.WTO贸易救济与争端解决之法律问题[M].台北：元照出版社,2006.
[27]周忠海.国际法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008.
[28]赵维田主编.WTO的司法机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004.
[29]胡建国.WTO争端解决裁决执行机制研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2011.
[30]贺小勇.国际贸易争端解决与中国对策研究：以WTO为视角[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[31]贺其治.国家责任法及案例浅析[M].北京：法律出版社.2003.
[32]曹建明,贺小勇编.世界贸易组织(第二版)[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[33]龚柏华主编.WTO争端解决与中国(第一卷)[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2009.
[34]龚柏华主编.WTO争端解决与中国(第二卷)[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2010.
[35]龚柏华.WTO案例集.2006年卷：[中英文本][M].上海：上海人民出版社,2006.
[36]龚柏华.WTO案例集.2007年卷：[中英文本][M].上海：上海人民出版社,2007.
[37]龚柏华.WTO案例集.2008年卷：[中英文本][M].上海：上海人民出版社,2008.
[38]彭淑.论世界贸易组织争端解决中的司法造法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
[39]韩立余.WTO案例及评析1948-1995[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[40]韩立余.WTO案例及评析1995-1999[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[4]]韩立余.WTO案例及评析2000[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[42]韩立余.WTO案例及评析2001[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[43]韩立余.世界贸易组织(WTO)案例分析[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[44]韩立余.既往不咎——WTO争端解决机制研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
[45]詹宁斯瓦茨[英]修订.奥本海国际法[M].第一卷第一分册.王铁崖等译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1995.
[46]戴维·帕米尔特[美],佩特罗斯·C·马弗鲁第斯[希腊].WTO中的争端解决：实践与程序[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005.
[1]曾华群,杨国华.WTO与中国：法治的发展与互动—中国加入WTO十周年纪念文集[C].北京：中国商务出版社,2011.
[1]李居迁.WTO争端解决机制的主要程序[A].司法部法规教育司,国家外国专家局科教文卫司编.WTO争端解决机制-规则、程序与实践[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[2]陈辉萍.WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度述评[A].曾华群.国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展[M].北京：法律出版社,2009.
[1]中华经济研究院(台湾WTO中心)网站,网址：http://taiwan.wtocenter.org.tw/
[2]中国国际经济法学会网站：网址：http://www.csiel.org/
[3]上海WTO事务咨询中心网站,网址：http://www.sccwto.net:7001/wto/china.jsp
[4]WTO经济导刊网站,网址：http://www.wtoguide.net/
[1]王慧雅.WTO争端解决程序中的证明责任研究[D].苏州：苏州大学,2009.
[2]王鑫磊.论WTO争端解决机制的完善[D].西安：西北大学,2009.
[3]毛燕琼.WTO争端解决机制问题与改革[D].上海：华东政法大学,2008.
[4]尹雪萍.WTO争端解决机制中的法律适用问题研究[D].上海：华东政法大学,2007.
[5]卢建祥.WTO裁决的强制执行机制[D].上海：华东政法大学,2008.
[6]冯元元.WTO秘书处研究[D].厦门：厦门大学,2008
[7]吕岩峰.WTO争端解决机制“先例效力”问题研究[D].吉林：吉林大学,2007.
[8]吕微平.WTO争端解决机制的正当程序研究-以专家组证据规则和评审标准为视角[D].厦门大学,2007.
[9]朱鹏飞.国际环境争端解决机制研究-国际公法的视角[D].上海：华东政法大学,2009
[10]刘衡.WTO争端解决机制中的证据问题研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2008.
[1l]李爽.论国家责任法上反措施的条件与限制[D].北京：中国政法大学,2011
[12]李蕊.WTO争端解决中的报复机制研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2006.
[13]余小晓.WTO争端解决过程中私方参与问题研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2009.
[14]张东平.WTO争端解决中的条约解释研究[D].厦门：厦门大学,2003.
[15]张晓明.WTO仲裁机制与中国政府参与研究[D].汕头：汕头大学,2010
[16]林维荟GATT/WTO争端解决机制中的不违反之诉研究[D].北京：外交学院,2008.
[17]高田甜.WTO争端解决机制证明负担规则研究[D].上海：华东政法大学,2010
[18]彭翔.论WTO中的仲裁机制[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2004.
[19]彭溆.论世界贸易组织争端解决中的司法造法[D].上海：华东政法学院,2007.
[20]窦仲晖.对和平解决国际争端的政治与法律方式的比较研究[D].广州：暨南大学,2009
[21]蔡强.WTO争端解决中仲裁制度研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.
[22]裴煜.论WTO争端解决中的法律解释[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.
[1]对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译.世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本[中英文对照][M]. 北京：法律出版社,2000.
[1]Albena P.Petrova. The US-Section 110(5) of the Copyright Act Dispute Analysis and Forecasts for Compliance [J]. Currents:International Trade Law Journal,2006,15:43-
[2]Andrea K. Bjorklund. The Emerging Civilization of Investment Arbitration [J]. Penn State Law Review,2009,113(4):1269-1299.
[3]Bashar H. Malkawi. Arbitration and the World Trade Organization:The Forgotten Provisions of Article 25 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding [J]. Journal of International Arbitration, 2007,24(2):173-188.
[4]Benjamin L. Brimeyer. Bananas, Beef, and Compliance in the World Trade Organization:The Inability of the WTO Dispute Settlement Process to Achieve Compliance from Superpower Nations [J]. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade,2001,10:133-168.
[5]Brendan P. McGivern. Seeking Compliance with WTO Rulings:Theory, Practice and Alternatives [J]. The Interntional Lawyer,2002,36:141-157.
[6]Christopher A. Whytock. Litigation, Arbitration, and the Transnational Shadow of the Law [J]. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law,2008,18:449-475.
[7]Clint Bodien. Cross-retaliation in the WTO:Antigua and Barbuda's Proposed Remedy Against the United States in An Online Gambing Dispute [J]. Law and Business Review of the Americas, 2008,14:847-856.
[8]David J. Townsend, Steve Charnovitz. Preventing Opportunistic Uncompliance by WTO Members [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2011,14(2):437-468.
[9]David J. Townsend. Stretching the Dispute Settlement Understanding:U.S.-Cotton's Relaxed Interpretation of Cross-Retaliation in the World Trade Organizaion [J]. Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business,2010,9(2):135.
[10]David Jacyk. The Integration of Article 25 Arbitration in WTO Dispute Settlment:The Past, Present and Future [J]. Australian International Law Journal,2008,15:235-266.
[11]Eoin Gubbins. Precedent In the WTO:Advantages of De Jure Stare Decesis [J]. Trinity College Law Review,2006,9:70-90.
[12]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. Why Rational Choice Theory Requires a Mutilevel Constitutional Approach to International Economic Law:A Response to the Case against Reforming the WTO Enforcement Mechanism [J]. University of Illinois Law Review,2008:360-382.
[13]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. WTO Negotiators Meet Academics:the Negotiations on Improvements of the WTO Dispute Settlement System [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2003,6(1):237-250.
[14]Gabriel L. Slater. The Suspension of Intellectual Property Obligations Under TRIPS:A Proposal for Retaliating against Technology-Exporting Countries in the World Trade Organization [J].The Geogetown Law Journal,2009,97:1365-1408.
[15]Gary Born. A New Generation of International Adjudication [J]. Duke Law Journal,2012, 61:775-879.
[16]Geert A. Zonnekeyn. The Bananas Dispute in the WTO:the DSU Conundrum [J]. International Trade Law & Regulation,1999,5(4):83-88.
[17]Gene M. Grossman, Alan O Sykes. "Optimal" Retaliation in the WTO:a Commentary on the Upland Cotton Arbitration [J]. World Trade Review,2011,10(1):133-164.
[18]Georgia Hamann. Replacing Slingshots with Swords:Implications of the Antigua-Gambling Panel Report for Developing Countries and the World Trading System [J]. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law,2009,42:993-1028.
[19]Georgios I. Zekos. An Examination of GATT/WTO Arbitration Procedures [J]. Dispute Resolution Journal,1999,54:72-76.
[20]Holger Spamann. the Myth of Rebalancing"Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement Practice [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2006,9(1):31-79.
[21]J. Pfumorodze. WTO Remedies and Developing Countries [J]. Journal of International Trade Law & Policy,2011,10(1):83-98.
[22]Jan Paulsson. International Arbitration Is Not Arbitration [J]. Stockholm International Arbitration Review,2008,2:1-20.
[23]Jide Nzelibe. The Case Agaist Reforming the WTO Enforcement Mechanism [J]. University of Illinois Law Review,2008:319-358.
[24]Joost Pauwelyn. Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO:Rules are Rules-toward a More Collective Approach [J]. the American Journal of International Law,2000,94(2):621-633.
[25]Joost Pauwelyn.'Evidence, Proof and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement:Who Bears the Burden?'[J]. Journal of International Economic Law,1998,1:227-258.
[26]Joost Pauwelyn. the Limits of Litigation:"Americanization" and Negotiation in the Settlement of WTO Disputes [J]. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution,2003,19:121-138.
[27]Joost Pauwelyn. The Transformation of World Trade [J]. Michigan Law Review,2005,104(1): 1-70.
[28]Judith L. Goldstein, Douglas Rivers, Michel Tomz. Institutions in International Relations: Undersanding the Effects of the GATT and the WTO on World Trade [J]. International Organization,2007,61(1):37-67.
[29]M. Bruce Volbeda. The MOX Plant Case:the Question of "Supplemental Jurisdiction" for International Environmental Claims under UNCLOS [J]. Texas International Law Journal,2006, 42:211-240.
[30]Marcelo D. Varella. The Effectiveness of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation [J]. Journal of International Trade Law & Policy,2009,8(2):100-113.
[31]Mauricio Salas, John H. Jackson. Procedural Overview of the WTO EC-Banana Dispute [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2000,3(1):145-166.
[32]Meinhard Hilf. Power, Rules and Principles-Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2001,4:111-130.
[33]Naigen Zhang. Implementation of WTO Dispute Settlement [J]. Manchester Journal of International Economic Law,2008,5(2):111-125.
[34]Norio Komuro. the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism-Coverage and Procedures of the WTO Understanding [J]. Journal of World Trade,1995,29:5-95.
[35]Phoenix X.F. Cai. Making WTO Remedies Work for Developing Nations:The Need for Class Actions [J]. Emory International Law Review,2011,25:151-196.
[36]Shin-yi Peng. How Much Time is Reasonable?-The Arbitral Decisions under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU [J]. Berkeley Journal of International Law,2008,26(1):324-351.
[37]Steve Charnovitz. The Enforcement of WTO Judgments [J]. The Yale Journal of International Law,2009,34:558-566.
[38]Suzannah Linton, Dr. Firew Kebede Tiba. The International Judge in an Age of Multiple International Courts and Tribunals [J]. Chicago Journal of International Law,2009,9:407.
[39]Sylvia A. Rhodes. The Article 21.5/22 Problem:Clarification Through Bilateral Agreements? [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2000,3:553-558.
[40]Thomas M. Franck. On Proportionality of Countermeasures in International Law [J]. The American Journal of International Law,2008,102(4):715-767.
[41]Thomas Sebastian. World Trade Organization Remedies and the Assessment of Proportionality:Equivalence and Appropriateness [J]. Harvard International Law Journal,2007, 48(2):337-382.
[42]Tjaco T. Van den Hout. Resolution of international disputes:the Role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration-Reflections on the Centenary of the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes [J]. Leiden Journal of International Law,2008,21(3):643-661.
[43]Torsen Lorcher. WTO Dispute Settlement and arbitration [J]. International arbitration law review,2003,6(6):203-215.
[44]Tsai-yu Lin. How Far Can Arbitration Practice as An Alternative Dispute Resolution within The WTO Go?A Perspective on Intellectual Property Disputes [J]. Contemporary Asian Arbitration Journal,2009,2(1):25-48.
[45]William J. Davey. Compliance Problems in WTO Dispute Settlement [J]. Cornell International Law Journal,2009,42:119-128.
[46]William J. Davey. the WTO:Looking Forwards [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2006,9(1):3-29.
[47]Yasuhei Taniguchi. WTO Dispute Resolution as Arbitration [J]. Contemporary Asian Arbitration Journal,2010,3(1):1-6.
[48]Young Duk Park, Georg C. Umbricht. WTO Dispute Settlement 1995-2000:a Statistical Analysis [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2001,4(1):213-230.
[49]Yuka Fukunaga. Securing Compliance through the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Implementation of DSB Recommendations [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2006,9(2): 383-426.
[1]Alexander Marie Stuyt (ed.). Survey of International Arbitration:1794-1989 (1st ed.) [M]. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1990.
[2]American Arbitration Association. Handbook on International Arbitration an ADR [M]. Huntington, N.Y.:JurisNet,2010.
[3]Andreas F. Lowenfeld. International Economic Law [M]. New York:Oxford University Press, 2002.
[4]Andrew D. Mitchell. Legal Principles in WTO Disputes [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[5]Andrew D.Mitchell. Legal Principles in WTO Disputes [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[6]Asif H. Qureshi. International Economic Law [M]. London:Sweet & MaxweII,1999.
[7]Bernard M. Hoekman. the Political Economy of the World Trading System:the WTO and Beyond [M].New York:Oxford University Press,2001.
[8]Carlos A. Primo Braga, Olivier Cattaneo (eds.). The WTO and Accession Countries [M]. Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar,2009.
[9]Chad P. Bown. Self-enforing Trade:Developing Countries and WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution Press,2009.
[10]Chantal Thomas, Joel P. Trachtman (eds.). Developing Countries in the WTO Legal System [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2009.
[11]Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe. Jurisdiction of Specific International Tribunals [M]. Leiden, Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2009.
[12]Daniel L. M. Kennedy, James D. Southwick (eds.). The Political Economy of International Trade Law:Essays in Honour of Robert E. Hudec [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[13]David Palmeter. The WTO as a Legal System:Essays on International Trade Law and Policy [M]. London:Cameron May,2003.
[14]Donatella Alessandrini. Developing Countries and the Multilateral Trade Regime:the Future and Promise of the WTO'S Development Mission [M]. Oxford:Hart,2010.
[15]Eberhard Bohne. The World Trade Organization:Institutional Development and Reform [M]. Houndmills, Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillian,2010.
[16]Emer de Vattel. The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury [M]. Indianapolis:Liberty Fund,2008.
[17]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Mark A. Pollack (eds.). Transatlantic Economic Disputes:the EU, the US, and the WTO [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2003.
[18]Francisco Orrego Vicuna. International Dispute Settlement in an Evolving Global Society: Constitutionalization, Accessibility, Privatization [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[19]Friedl Weiss (ed.). Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures:Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals [M]. London:Cameron May,2000.
[20]Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Yee Wong, Ketki Sheth. US-China Trade Disputes:Rising Tide, Rising Stakes [M]. Washington, D.C.:Institue for International Economics,2006.
[21]George A. Bermann, Petros C. Mavroidis(eds.). WTO Law and Developing Countries [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2007.
[22]Isabella Van Damme. Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2009.
[23]Jackson H. Ralston. International Arbitration from Athens to Locarno [M]. Clark, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange,2004.
[24]James Brown Scott. Sovereign States and Suits before Arbitral Tribunals and Courts of Justice [M]. Clark, N.J.:Lawbook Exchange,2004.
[25]Jeffrey Waincymer, World Trade Organization (eds.). WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement [M].London:Cameron May,2002.
[26]John Graham Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.) [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[27]John H. Jackon. Sovereignty, the WTO and Changing Fundamentals of International Law [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2006.
[28]Joost Pauwelyn. Conflict of Norms in Public International Law:How WTO Law Related to other Rules of International Law [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[29]Jose E. Alvarez. International Organizations as Law-makers [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2005.
[30]Joseph A. Conti. Between Law and Diplomacy:the Social Contexts of Disputing at the World Trade Organization [M]. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press,2010.
[31]Marco C.E.J. Bronckers, Gary N. Horlick(eds.). WTO Jurisprudence and Policy:Practitioners' Perspectives [M]. London:Cameron May,2004.
[32]Michelle T. Grando. Evidentce, Proof, and Fact-finding in WTO Dispte Settlement [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2009.
[33]Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah, Jiangyu Wang (eds.). China, India, and the International Econimic Order [M]. Cambridge, New York:Cambridge University Press,2010.
[34]N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004.
[35]Nichilas Perdikis, Robert Read (eds.). The WTO and the Regulation of International Trade: Recent Trade Disputes between the European Union and United States [M].Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA:Edward Elgar,2005.
[36]Nigel Blackaby, Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed.) [M]. London:Oxford University Press,2009.
[37]Peter Van den Bossche. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization:Text, Cases and Materials (2nd ed.) [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[38]Petros C. Mavroidis, George A. Bermann, Mark Wu. The Law of the World Trade Organization (WTO):Documents. Cases & Analysis [M]. St. Paul:West,2010.
[39]Richard Newfarmer (ed.). Trade, Doha, and Development:A Window into the Issues [M]. Washington, D.C.:World Bank,2006.
[40]Robert C. Feenstra, Shang-jin Wei (eds.). China's Growing Role in World Trade [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,2010.
[41]Robert C. Morris. International Arbitration and Procedure [M]. Union, N.J.:Lawbook Exchange,2000.
[42]Robert E. Hudec. Enforcing International Trade Law:The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System [M]. Salem, N.H.:Butterworth Legal Publishers,1993.
[43]Robert E. Hudec. The GATT Legal System and World Trade Dipolmacy [M]. Salem, N.H.: Butterworth Legal Publishers,1990.
[44]Roman Grynberg (ed.). WTO at the Margins:Small States and the Multilateral Trading System [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2006.
[45]Riidiger Wolfrum, Perter-Tobias Soil, Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO-Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006.
[46]Ruth Mackenzie, Cesare P. R. Romano, Yuval Shany, Phillippe Sands. Manual on International Courts and Tribunals [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2010.
[47]Sherzod Shadikhodjaev. Retaliation in the WTO Dispute Settlement System [M]. The Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2009.
[48]Simon A.B. Schropp. Trade Policy Flexibility and Enforcement in the World Trade Organization:A Law and Economics Analysis [M].Cambridge, New York:Cambridge University Press,2009.
[49]Steve Charnovitz, Debra P. Stefer, Peter Van Den Bossche (eds.). Law in the Service of Human Dignity:Essays in Honour of Florentino Feliciano [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[50]Terence P. Stewart (ed.). The GATT Uruguay Round:A Negotiating History,1986-1992 [M]. Deventer, Boston:Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers,1993.
[51]The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law ed., Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes, New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981.
[52]Timothy Hillier. Principles of Public International Law (2nd ed.) [M]. London:Cavendish, 1999.
[53]Tomer Broude. International Governance in the WTO:Judicial Boundaries and Political Capitulation [M]. London:Cameron May,2004.
[54]William A. Kerr, James D. Gaisford. Handbook on International Trade Policy [M]. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA:Edward Elgar,2007.
[55]William A. Lovett, Alfred E. Eckes, Jr. and Richard L. Brinkman. U.S. Trade Policy:History, Theory, and the WTO [M]. Armonk, NY:M.E. Sharpe,2004.
[56]World Trade Organization. GATT:Basic Instruments and Selected Documents [M]. Geneva: World Trade Organization; Lanham, MD:Bernan,2002.
[57]Zdenek Drabek (ed.). Is the World Trade Organization Attractive Enough for Emerging Economies? Critical Essays on the Multilateral Trading System [M]. Houndmills, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillian,2010.
[1]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (ed.). the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System:International Law, International Organization, and Dispute Settlement, Hague:Kluwer Law International,1997.
[2]Federico Ortino & Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (ed.). the WTO Dispute Settlement System: 1995-2003, Hague:Kluwer Law International,2004.
[3]Mitsuo Matsushita. In Selected GATT WTO Panel Reports:Summaries and Commentaries ix, Tokyo:the Fair Trade Center of Tokyo,1999.
[4]Petras C. Mavroidis, Alan O. Sykes (ed.). The WTO and International Trade Law/Dispute Settlement, Cheltenham:Edward Elgar,2005.
[5]Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanvonich, Jan Bohane (ed.). The WTO in the Twenty-first Century: Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia, New York:Cambridge University Press,2007.
[6]Yerxa, Rufus H., Wilson, Bruce (ed.). Key Issues in WTO dispute settlement:The First Ten Years, New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[1]Chad P. Bown. The WTO Secretariat and the role of economics in Panels and arbitrations[A]. In Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010.
[2]David Evans, Celso de Tarso Pereira. DSU Review:A View from the Inside [A].In Yerxa, Rufus H., Wilson, Bruce (eds.)-Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement:The First Ten Years [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[3]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. Strengthening the GATT Dispute Settlement System:on the Use of Arbitration in GATT [A]. In Meinhard Hilf, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (eds.). The New GATT Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations:Legal and Economic Problems [M]. Deventer, Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers,1991.
[4]Georgios I. Zekos. An Examination of GATT/WTO Arbitration Procedures [A]. In American Arbitration Association. AAA Handbook on International Arbitration and ADR (2nd ed.) [M]. New York:Juris Publishing,2010.
[5]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010.
[6]Hunter Nottage, Jan Bohanes. Arbitration as an Alternative to Litigation in the WTO: Observations in the Light of the 2005 Banana Tariff Arbitrations [A]. In Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanvonich, Jan Bohane (eds.). The WTO in the Twenty-first Century:Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2007.
[7]L. B. Sohn. International Arbitration in Historical Perspective:Past and Present [A]. In A. H. A. Soons (ed.). International Arbitration in Historical Perspective:Past and Prospects [M]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1990.
[8]Robert E. Hudec. The Role of the GATT Secretariat in the Evolution of the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure [A]. In Jagdish Bhagwati and Mathias Hirsch (eds.). The Uruguay Round and Beyond:Essay in Honour of Arthur Dunkel [M].Berlin:Springer-Verlag Press,1998.
[9]Robert Hudec. Broadening the Scope of Remedies in WTO Dispute Settlment [A]. In Friedl Weiss, Jochem Wiers (eds.). Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures:Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals [M]. London:Cameron May Publishers,2000.
[10]Surya P Subedi. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a New Techniques for Settling Disputes in International Law [A], In Duncan French, Matthew Saul, Nigel D White (eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement:New Problems and Techniques [M]. Oxford and Portland, Oregon:Hart Publishing,2010.
[11]Valerie Hughes. Arbitration within WTO [A]. In Federico Ortino, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (eds.). The WTO Dispute Settlement System:1995-2003 [M]. Hague:Kluwer Law International, 2004.
[12]William J. Davey. WTO Dispute Settlement:Segregating the Useful Political Aspects and Avoiding'Over-Legalization'[A]. In Marco Bronckers, Reinhard Quick (eds.). New Directions in International Economic Law:Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson [M]. New York:Kluwer Law International,2000.
[1]The website of WTO:Http://www.wto.org
[2]The website of UN:http://www.un.org/
[3]The website of International Court of Justice:http://www.ici-cij.org/
[4]The website of UNCITRAL:http://www.uncitral.org/
[5]The website of ICSID:http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/Index.jsp
[6]The website of ICTSD:http://ictsd.org/
[7]The website of Permanent Court of Arbitration:http://www.pca-cpa.org/
[8]Electronic Information System for International Law & International Dispute Settlement: http://www.eisil.org/index.php?sid=995444682&cat=0
[9]The website of Association for International Arbitration:http://www.arbitration-adr.org/news/
[10]The website of Kluwer Arbitration:http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/
[11]The website of Chartered Institute of Arbitrators:http://www.ciarb.org/
[12]http://librarv.law.yale.edu/
[13]http://www.library.yale.edu/
[14]http://www.worldtradelaw.net/
[15]http://www.acwl.ch/e/index.html
[16]http://www.westlaw.com
[17]http://www.lexisnexis.com.cn
[18]http://home.heinonline.org/
[1]David William Jacyk. Arbitration in WTO Disputes:the Forgotten Alternative [D]. The University of British Columbia,2007.
[2]Rainer Gildeggen. The Impact of Arbitral Awards on the Development of International Law: The Development of the International Law Concerning the Taking of Foreign-Owned Property [D].University of Georgia School of law, LLM Theses and Essays,1988, Paper 119.
[1]Jeanne J. Grimmett. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO):An Overview [R]. CRS Report for Congress,8 April 2010.
[2]Nils Eliasson.10 Years of Energy Charter Treaty Arbitration [R]. Mannheimer Swartling,6 June 2011.
[3]Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law:Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, A/CN.4/L.682,13 April 2006.
[4]Robert Z. Lawrence, The United States and the WTO dispute settlement system (CSR No.25, March 2007) [R], New York, Council on Foreign Relations,2007.
[5]World Trade Organization. WTO Appellate Boday Repertory of Reports and Awards, 1995-2006, Cambridge, New York:Cambridge University Press,2007.
[2]N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004.
[3]Rudiger Wolfrum, Perter-Tobias Soil, Karen Kaiser (eds.).WTO-Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006.
[4]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/L/616,1 August,2005 (First Banana Tariff Arbitration) and Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement Ⅱ, WT/L/625,27 October,2005(Second Banana Tariff Arbitration).
[5]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,9 November 2001.
[6]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS285/ARB,21 December 2007.
[7]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/1,31 August 2009 and Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009.
[8]赵维田.WTO的司法机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004.
[9]付星国.WTO争端解决的执行机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2011.
[10]胡建国.WTO争端解决裁决执行机制研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2011.
[11]陈辉萍.WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度述评[A].见：曾华群.国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展[Ml.北京：法律出版社,2009：617-637.
[12]王波.论世贸组织的仲裁制度及我国仲裁制度的改革[J].湖北财经高等专科学校学报,2002(2)：12-14.
[13]田晓云.世界贸易组织中的仲裁[J].北京工人大学学报,2007(1)：13-28.
[14]李广辉,张晓明.国际商事仲裁与WTO仲裁之比较[J].汕头大学学报(人文社会科学版),2009(2)：60-76.
[15]张乃根.论WTO争端解决的合理执行期仲裁——兼论中美知识产权案的执行对策[J].政法论丛,2009(3)：3-8.
[16]陈立军,匡青松.论WTO“合理期限”仲裁制度[J].四川经济管理学院学报,2007(1)：30-32.
[17]任媛媛.论WTO仲裁机制中的授权报复仲裁[J].国际经济法学刊,2009,16(4)：305-324.
[18]陈剑.WTO仲裁制度研究-以解决WTO合法性危机为视角[D].杭州：浙江工商大学,2009.
[19]蔡强.WTO争端解决中仲裁制度研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.
[20]彭翔.论WTO中的仲裁机制[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2004.
[1]Mary Ellen O'Connel (ed.). International Dispute Resolution:Cases and Materials [M]. Durham:Carolina Academic Press.2006:3.
121 J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:91.
[3]J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:211.
[4]赵维田.WTO的司法机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004：208.
[5]具体信息请参见文中图表数据。
[1]J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.2005:91.
121 Surya P Subedi. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a New Technique for Settling Disputes in International Law [A]. In:Duncan French, Matthew Saul and Nigel D White (eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement:New Problems and Techniques [M]. Oxford and Portland, Oregon:Hart Publishing,2010:173.
[3]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第1款,其英文原文为‘'Expeditious arbitration within the WTO as an alternative means of dispute settlement can facilitate the solution of certain disputes that concern issues that are clearly defined by both parties."关于本文中WTO协定文本的中文翻译,除个别情况外,均将参照对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译：《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本》[中英文对照][M].北京：法律出版社,2000.特作说明。
[4]See Nigel Blackaby Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed.)[M]. London:Oxford University Press,2009:1.
[5]J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:91.
[6]德国马克斯普朗克(Max Planck)比较法和国际公法研究所在对WTO仲裁的有关研究中将《和平解决国际争端公约》(1907年海牙第1公约)第37条看作是对“国际仲裁”的标准化定义。See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:567.
[7]Article 37 of the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes,18 October 1907. "International arbitration has for its object the settlement of disputes between States by Judges of their own choice and on the basis of respect for law. Recourse to arbitration implies an engagement to submit in good faith to the Award. "
[8]See Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1953) [R]. Vol. II, para.16. p.202. Available at http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes(e)ILC 1953 v2 e.t df, visited on 1 February,2012.
[9]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:15.
[10]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:16.
[11]See the introduction of History of the Court (International Court of Justice), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1 & p2=1, visited on 1 February,2012.
[12]See the introduction of History of the Court (International Court of Justice), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1 & p2=1, visited on 1 February,2012.
[13]See Alexander Marie Stuyt (ed.). Survey of International Arbitration:1794-1989 (1st ed.)[M]. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1990:98-254.
[14]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:18.
[15]参见《联合国宪章》第33条。
[16]See cases of Permanent Court of Arbitration, available at http://www.pca-cpa.org/showp age.asp?pag_id=1029, visited on 1 February,2012.
[17]See Cases of International Court of Justice, Contentious cases available at http://www.i cj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3 & p2=3; Advisory proceedings available at http://www.icj-cij. org/docket/index.php?p1=3 & p2=4, visited on 1 February,2012.
[18]J.G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:127.
[19]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes[M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:121.
[20]See J.G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:123.
[21]由于本文在解决国家间争端的意义上使用“国际仲裁”,因此,本文并不特别涉及和探讨“国际混合仲裁”,此处也不将“解决投资争端国际中心”(ICSID)仲裁、美伊索赔仲裁庭(Iran-United States Claims Tribunal)仲裁等国际混合仲裁作为“国际仲裁”的新发展。
[22]See L. B. Sohn, International Arbitration in Historical Perspective:Past and Present [A]. In:A. H. A. Soons (ed.). International Arbitration in Historical Perspective:Past and Prospects [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1990:17-18.
[23]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第2条。
[24]See Surya P Subedi. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a New Technique for Settling Disputes in International Law [A]. In:Duncan French, Matthew Saul and Nigel D White (eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement:New Problems and Techniques [M]. Oxford and Portland, Oregon:Hart Publishing,2010:173.
[25]根据《关税与贸易总协定》的规定,当文本中出现大写字母CONTRACTING PARTIES时,是指“各缔约方采取联合行动,即‘缔约方全体’”；当全部小写(contracting parties) 时,指各个缔约方。
[26]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第1款。
[27]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第2款。
[281参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第3款、第4款。
[29]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第5款。
[30]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第6款。
[31]Communication from the Director-General, Request for Mediation by the Philippines, Thailand and the European Communities, WT/GC/66,16/10/2002.
[32]See William J. Davey. WTO Dispute Settlement:Segregating the Useful Political Aspects and Avoiding 'Over-Legalization'[A]. In:Marco Bronckers, Reinhard Quick (eds.). New Directions in International Economic Law:Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson [M]. New York:Kluwer Law International,2000:291 and footnote.3.
[33]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第3条第7款。
[34]在很多情况下,争端方之间已在WTO争端解决机制之外进行了非正式的磋商。
[35]See Korea, Republic of-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS75/R, WT/DS84/R,17 September 1998, para 10.23.
[36]See William J. Davey. WTO Dispute Settlement:Segregating the Useful Political Aspects and Avoiding 'Over-Legalization'[A]. In:Marco Bronckers, Reinhard Quick (eds.). New Directions in International Economic Law:Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson [M]. New York: Kluwer Law International,2000:291
[37]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第4款。
[38]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第3款。
[39]在紧急案件中,此期限为20天。参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第8款。
[40]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第7款。
[41]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第6款。
[42]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第11款。
See para.I1 (A), Concept, Forms and Effects of Arbitration, Note by the Secretariat, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/20,22 February 1988.
[44]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第3条第6款。
[45]WTO秘书处在WTO官方网站上依据争端目前的解决情况(Current status of disputes)将WTO争端归纳为“仍在磋商中”,“专家组(或上诉机构)报告已散发”,“已决或终止(撤销、‘双方同意的解决办法’(MAS))”的案件等,并进行了分类统计。其中,通过在磋商阶段达成“双方同意的解决办法”或“撤回申诉”解决或终止的的争端案件目前有88件,案件详细信息参见http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_current_status_e.htm,2012年2月15日最后访问。
[46]这种提法率先出现在乌拉圭回合关于完善GATT争端解决机制的谈判中美国代表团关于增设仲裁的提案(MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6)中,后为GATT秘书处记录：“仲裁的概念、形式和效力”(MTN.GNG/NG13/W/20)所援引,当时只指代"GATT专家组程序”(panel proceedings)。See Concept, Forms and Effects of Arbitration, Note by the Secretariat, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/20,22 February 1988, para.12 and para.17.
[47]例如,由司法部法规教育司、国家外国专家局科教文卫司编著的《WTO争端解决机制：规则、程序与实践》中,就将磋商、斡旋、调解和调停及仲裁作为WTO的“非司法性解决程序”,将专家组程序和上诉机构上诉程序归纳为“司法性解决程序”。见：司法部法规教育司、国家外国专家局科教文卫司.WTO争端解决机制：规则、程序与实践[M].北京：法律出版社,2002：244-353.
[48]J.G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.2005:127.
[49]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:121.
[50]See Surya P Subedi. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a New Technique for Settling Disputes in International Law [A]. In:Duncan French, Matthew Saul and Nigel D White (eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement:New Problems and Techniques [M]. Oxford and Portland, Oregon:Hart Publishing,2010:174.
[51]J.G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:219.
[52]第一个这样的专家组建立于1952年的GATT缔约方第七次会议上。See Joost Pauwelyn. The Transformation of World Trade [J]. Michigan Law Review,2005,104(1):19 and footnote 62. Also see Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting, GATT, Doc.SR7/7, pp.7-9.
[53]Robert E. Hudec. The Role of the GATT Secretariat in the Evolution of the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure [A]. In:Jagdish Bhagwati and Mathias Hirsch (eds.). The Uruguay Round and Beyond:Essay in Honour of Arthur Dunkel [M]. New York:Springer-Verlag Press,1998:107.
[54]See Georgios I. Zekos. An Examination of GATT/WTO Arbitration Procedures [A]. In: American Arbitration Association (ed.). AAA Handbook on International Arbitration and ADR (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Juris Publishing,2010:389.
[55]WT/DSB/RC/1,11 December 1996
[56]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第8条第1款,第4款。
[57]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第8条第2款,第3款。Also see Part III of Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
[58]尽管,在实践中这种情况十分少见。See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,2004:106.
[59]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第8条第7款。
[60]“集体仲裁”(collegiate arbitration)是指在现代国际仲裁的发展中现代条约的一种普遍实践,即选任奇数个(通常为3人或5人)仲裁人作为仲裁集体来裁决争端。这种仲裁形式最早出现在著名的“阿拉巴马仲裁案”(1872)当中。See J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:94.
[61]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第6条第2款。
[62]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第7条第3款。
[63]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第14条第1款。
[64]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》附录3,第2段。
[65]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第12条第2款。
[66]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第17条。
[67]Surya P Subedi. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a New Technique for Settling Disputes in International Law [A]. In:Duncan French, Matthew Saul and Nigel D White (eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement:New Problems and Techniques [M]. Oxford and Portland, Oregon:Hart Publishing,2010:174.
[68]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 211.
[69]See Debra P. Steger. The Appellate Body and its contribution to WTO dispute settlement [A]. In D.L.M. Kennedy and J.D. Southwick (eds.). Political Economy of International Trade Law: Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2002:482-495.
[70]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,2005：27.
[71]See Robert Z. Lawrence. The United States and the WTO dispute settlement system (CSR No.25, March 2007) [R]. New York, Council on Foreign Relations,2007:11-12.
[72]目前为止,“体制外的仲裁”实践集中在多哈豁免协定中“香蕉豁免”争议仲裁。See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/L/616,1 August 005(First Banana Tariff Arbitration) and Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement II, WT/L/625,27 October 2005(Second Banana Tariff Arbitration).
[73]See J.G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:124.
[74]曹建明,贺小勇.世界贸易组织(第二版)[M].北京：法律出版社，2004：8.
[75]Article 93, Chapter VIII "Settlement of Differences", Final Act of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment:Havana Charter For An International Trade Organization, UN Doc. E/Conf.2/78,24 March,1948.
[76]GATT秘书处设有秘书和负责人,根据1965年3月23日的决定,GATT缔约方全体将GATT秘书处负责人的头衔由“执行秘书”(Executive Secretary)改为“总干事”(Director-Ge neral).
[77]See Bernard M. Hoekman. the Political Economy of the World Trading System:the WTO and Beyond[M]. New York:Oxford University Press,2001:38.
[78]See Article XXII and Article XXIII of the GATT 1947.
See the Understanding Regarding Notification, Consultation, Dispute Settlement and Surveillance, L/4907, Adopted on 28 November 1979.
[80]GATT乌拉圭回合中关于“争端解决”谈判工作组的文件标示为MTN.GNG/NG13/W/* (Multilateral Trade Negotiation-Group of Negotiating on Good-Negotiating Group on Dispute Settlement-Proposal/Communication).
[81]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.2.
[82]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/8,18 September 1987, para.3.
[83]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/10,18 September 1987, p.2.
[84]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, pp.2-3.
[85]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/13,24 September 1987, p.10.
[86]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/19,20 December 1987, p.3.
[87]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,01 March 1988, pp7-9.
[88]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/25,08 March 1988, pp.2-3.
[89]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/26,23 June 1988, Part III.
[90]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/30,10 October 1988, p.3.
[91]Paragraph E, Decision of 12 April 1989 on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures. L/6489.
1921 Paragraph B, Decision of 12 April 1989 on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures, L/6489.
[93]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33,19 July 1989, para.4.
[94]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33,19 July 1989, para.5.
[95]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33,19 July 1989, para.8.
[96]SeeMTN.GNG/NG13/W/33,19 July 1989, para.10.
[97]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33,19 July 1989, para.l 1.
[98]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/39,05 April 1990, p.2.
[99]SeeMTN.GNG/NG13/W/44,19 July 1990, para.7.
[100]SeeMTN.GNG/NG13/W/44.19 July 1990.para.7.
[101]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/40,6 April 1990, p.10.
[102]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/41.28 June 1990,.pp.6-7.
[103]Section 2, GATT Concessions under the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Revision), L/5470/Rev.1,30 June 1983.
[104]See GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/227,20 January 1989, p.27.
[105]See GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/228,16 March 1989, p.20.
[106]See GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/228,16 March 1989, pp.20-21.
[107]See GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/231,2 May 1989, p.11.
[108]See GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/231,2 May 1989, p.12.
[109]DS12/2,23 March 1990.
[110]DS12/3,8 August 1990.
[111]Canada/European Communities-Article XXVIII Rights, Award by the Arbitrator, DS12/ R-37S/80,26 October 1990.
[112]GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/246,23 November 1990, p.25.
[113]GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/259,27 October 1992, p.34.
[114]GATT Council, Minutes of Meeting, C/M/259,27 October 1992, p.35.
[115]SR.48/2,5 January 1993, p.16.
[116]TBT/M/45,14 January 1994, para.63.
[117]根据DSU第1条第1款的规定,DSU的规则和程序适用于由DSU附录1所列“适用协定”(the covered agreements)的磋商和争端解决规定而提出的的争端。目前这些“适用协 定”包括：《建立世界贸易组织协定》、12个单独的货物贸易多边协定(包括《1994年关税与贸易总协定》、《保障措施协定》、《补贴与反补贴措施协定》、《农业协定》、《关于适用动植物卫生措施的协定》、《贸易技术壁垒协定》、《与贸易有关的投资措施协定》、《执行1994年关税与贸易总协定第6条协定》、《执行1994年关税与贸易总协定第7条协定》、《装船前检验协定》、《原产地规则协定》、《进口许可程序协定》)、《服务贸易总协定》(GATS)、《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》(TRIPS)、《关于争端解决规则与程序的凉解》(DSU)以及《民用航空器协定》、《政府采购协定》两个诸边协定。但《建立世界贸易组织协定》附件三《贸易政策审议机制》被排除在DSU“适用协定”清单之外。
[118]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第1款。
[119]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第3款(c)项。
[120]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第6款。
[121]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.).The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:26.
[122]参见陈辉萍.WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度述评[A].见：曾华群.国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展[M].法律出版社,2009：634.
[123]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:26.
[124]也有学者认为DSU第21.3条之仲裁须双方合意,参见赵维出.WTO的司法机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004：239.笔者不赞同这一观点,下文详解。
[125]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第26条第1款(c)项。
[126]参见《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第8条第5款。但根据该协定第31条,目前其第8条作为一项临时适用的条款已经失效。
[127]参见《服务与贸易总协定》第21条第3款(a)项。
[128]参见《服务与贸易总协定》第22条第3款。
[129]参见《服务与贸易总协定》第23条第3款。
[130]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第7条第1款。
[131]本图对WTO仲裁的梳理仅基于各项WTO仲裁法律依据的不同,因此区别于本文第六章“图6.1 WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁体系”对WTO仲裁体系内部关联的揭示,特此说明。详细原因分析请参见本文第六章。
[1]United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,9 November 2001这里须说明的是,“美国-版权法第110(5)节案”在诉诸DSU第25条仲裁之前,曾通过DSU第21.3(c)条规定之仲裁确定之前专家组报告的执行合理期限,即“‘美国-版权法第110(5)节案’之确定‘合理期限’仲裁案”(United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS160/12,15 January 2001).为区别起见,本文中,将统一以简称“‘美国-版权法第110(5)节’仲裁案”指代“‘美国-版权法第110(5)节案’之DSU第25条仲裁案”；该案援引DSU第21.3(c)条仲裁所产生的“合理期限”仲裁案则以全称“‘美国-版权法第110(5)节案’之确定‘合理期限’仲裁案”表示。
[2]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第1款,其英文原文为‘'Expeditious arbitration within the WTO as an alternative means of dispute settlement can facilitate the solution of certain disputes that concern issues that are clearly defined by both parties."在对外贸易经济 合作部国际经贸关系司译：《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本[中英文对照]》中,将‘'Expeditious arbitration within the WTO"译作"WTO中的迅速仲裁”。然而笔者通过对DSU第25条缔约谈判及立法历史的考察发现,曾有GATT缔约方分别使用‘'a rapid arbitration procedure"和‘'expeditious arbitration within GATT"来表达和描述“GATT中的仲裁”最终1989年《关于改善GATT争端解决规则及程序的决定》和DSU第25条采纳了"expeditious arbitration'’的表述,根据《简编牛津英语词典》(The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)对“expeditious"的解释——‘'done with speed and efficiency",笔者将"Expeditious arbitration within the WTO"译作“WTO中的速效仲裁”。“速效”：①名词,很快就取得的成效；②形容词,属性词,快速显示效力的。参见：中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编.《现代汉语词典》[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005：1302.关于本文中WTO协定文本的其他中文翻译,除个别特殊情况外,则均将参照对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译：《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本[中英文对照]》(北京：法律出版社,2000)翻译,特此说明。
[3]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条。
[4]See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:MartinusNijhoff Publishers,2006:567.
[5]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:126.
[6]See J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:91.
[7]"ad hoc"<拉)为此,指为了特定目的,具有特定的(地)、专门的(地)、临时的(地)涵义。
181 See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:126.
[9]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第2款。
[10]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:126.
[11]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第2款。
[12]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:126.
[13]See para.5, Concept, Forms and Effects of Arbitration, Note by the Secretariat, MTN. GNG/NG13/W/20,22 February 1988.
[14]See "Arbitration within GATT", Communication from Switzerland, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33, 19 July 1989, p.4, Annex.
[15]See Nigel Blackaby Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed.)[M]. London:Oxford University Press,2009:123.
[16]See Nigel Blackaby Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed.)[M]. London:Oxford University Press.2009:123-124.
[17]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:127.
[18]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:18.
[19]Improved Dispute Settlement:Elements for Consideration, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.2.
[20]Improved Dispute Settlement:Elements for Consideration, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.2.
[21]See Communication from the Nordic Countries, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/10,18 September 1987, p.l.
[22]Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, p.3.
[23]MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, p.2.
[24]Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/22,2 March 1988, para.3.
[25]MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, p.3.
[26]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/19,20 December 1987, p.3; MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,1 March 1988, n.8.
[27]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,01 March 1988, pp.7-8.
[28]See The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:127.
[29]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/16,12 December 1987, p.5
[30]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,01 March 1988, pp7-8.
[31]MTN.GNG/NG13/W/25.08 March 1988, p.3.
[32]陈安.国际投资争端仲裁-“解决投资争端国际中心”机制研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2001：123.
[33]这一术语在德语中被称为Kompetenz/Kompetenz,法语中被称为competence de la competence.
[34]See Nigel Blackaby Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed.)[M]. London:Oxford University Press,2009:346.
[35]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,9 November 2001, para.2.1.
[36]这类文件常以首字母大写的‘"Terms of Reference"表示。例如国际商会(International Chamber of Commerce, ICC)仲裁中,仲裁庭在对仲裁案件进行实体审理之前,必须与当事方共同签署“审理范围”文件(Terms of Reference).
[37]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第6条第2款。在对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译：《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本[中英文对照]》中,将"terms of reference"译成“职权范围”,本文中笔者选择将其译为“审理范围”,特此说明。
[38]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第7条第1款。
[3。]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第7条第2款。
[40]根据目前DSU第25条第4款的规定,WTO争端解决机制的执行制度在细节上作必要修改后应适用于DSU速效仲裁的仲裁裁决。因此这里不详细展开讨论承认和执行仲裁裁决说适用的法律,相关问题将在后续章节“DSU速效仲裁裁决的效力和执行”中一并阐述。
[41]《国际法院规约》第38条第1款。
[42]《和平解决国际争端修订总议定书(日内瓦)》,1949年4月28日,纽约：联合国,《条约汇编》,第71卷,第116页。Available at http://www.unrol.org/files/volume-71-I-912-Engli sh.pdf. visited on 1 February 2012.
[43]《仲裁程序示范规则》(联合国国际法委员会,1958年)第10条。Available at http://un treaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/10 1 1958.pdf, visited on 1 Februar y 2012.
[44]《仲裁程序示范规则》(联合国国际法委员会,1958年)第11条。Available at http://un treaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/10 1 1958.pdf. visited on 1 Februar y 2012.
[45]除了DSU“适用协定”以外的国际条约和国际协定是否构成WTO争端解决机制的适用实体法?关于这一问题,目前似乎没有统一的确定答案。实践中,一些为WTO协定所提及的协定及一些其它的多边协定,有时在专家组或上诉机构面临WTO协定的条约解释问题时得以援引。E.g. see WT/DS/114/R, DSR 2000:V,2295, para.7.70; See WT/DS58/AB/R, DSR 1998:VII,2755, para.127-134.
[46]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 51.
[47]Mitsuo Matsushita. Selected GATT/WTO Panel Reports:Summaries and Commentaries ix[R], Tokyo:the Fair Trade Center of Tokyo,1999.
[48]See WT/DS163/R, DSR 2000:VIII,3541, para.7.96.
[49]See WT/DS58/AB/R. DSR 1998:VII.2755. para.158.
[50]See DS23/R, BISD 39S/206,285,19 June 1992.
[51]目前WTO专家组和上诉机构在对“条约用语的通常含义”解释时常使用的字典主要有
Oxford Dictionaries (The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English), Webster's Third International Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary. See Jeffrey Waincymer. World Trade Organization (eds.). WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement [M], New York:Cameron May,2002: 410. and footnote 106.
[52]See WT/DS70/AB/R, DSR 1999, III,1377, para.153. Also see WT/DS135/AB/R, para.92.
[53]See Appellate Body Report, Korea-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS75/AB/R,18 Janruary 1999, para.114.
[54]See United States-Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea, WT/DS179/R,22 December 2000, para.6.99.
[55]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 83-84.
[56]《和平解决国际争端公约》(1907)第84条。
[57]《国际法院规约》第62条。
[58]《国际法院规约》第63条。
[59]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 109.
[60]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4条第11款：“只要进行磋商的成员以外的--成员认为按照GATT1994第22条第1款和GATS第22条第1款或其他适用协定的相应规定所进行的磋商涉及其实质贸易利益,则该成员即可在根据上述条款进行磋商的请求散发之日起10天内,将其参加磋商的愿望通知进行磋商的成员和DSB。该成员应被允许参加磋商,只要磋商请求所针对的成员同意实质利益的主张是有理由的。在这种情况下,它们应如此通知DSB。如参加磋商的请求未予接受,则申请成员有权根据GATT1994第22条第1款或第23条第1款、GATS第22条第1款或第23条第1款或其他适用协定的相应规定提出磋商请求。”
[61]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第10条：“1.争端各方的利益和争端中所争论的一适用协定项下的其他成员的利益应在专家组程序中得到充分考虑。2.任何对专家组审议的事项有实质利益且已将其利益通知DSB的成员(本谅解中称‘第三方’)应由专家组给予听取意见并向专家组提出书面陈述的机会。这些书面陈述应提交争端各方,并应反映在专家组报告中。3.第三方应收到争端各方提交专家组首次会议的陈述。4.如第三方认为由专家组程序进行裁决的措施造成其根据任何适用协定项下获得的利益丧失或减损,则该成员可援用本谅解项下的正常争端解决程序。只要可能,此种争端即应提交原专家组。”
[62]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第3款。
[63]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/8,18 September 1987, para.3.2; MTN.GNG/NG13/W/13,24 September 1987, p.10; Communication from Korea, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/19,20 December 1987, p.3 and MTN.GNG/NG13/W/25,08 March 1988, p.3.
[64]Communication from Korea, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/19,20 December 1987, p.3.
[65]Communication from Japan, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,01 March 1988, p.8.
[66]Paragraph B, Decision of 12 April 1989 on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures. L/6489.
[67]Paragraph E, Decision of 12 April 1989 on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures. L/6489.
[68]See "Arbitration within GATT", Communication from Switzerland, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33, 19 July 1989, para.8.
[69]这个问题将在下文关于DSU速效仲裁的仲裁裁决效力中进一步论述。
[70]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第2款。
[71]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第3款。
[72]United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/15,3 August 2001. Annex-paragraph 4.
[73]The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:58.
[74]The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981:58.
[75]See Argentina-Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and other Items, WT/DS56/R,25 November 1997. para.6.39.
[76]朱榄叶,贺小勇.WTO争端解决机制研究[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2007：155.
[77]Appellate Body Report, United States-Shirts and Blouses, adopted 23 May 1997, WT/DS 33/AB/R, p.14.
[78]高出甜.WTO争端解决机制证明负担圭规则研究[Dl,上海：华东政法大学,2010：48.
[79]WT/DS50/AB/R, WT/DS90/AB/R, WT/DS75/AB/R.
[80]BISD11S/95;BISD 13S/35.
[81]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第3条第8款。
[821 EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/ DS48/AB/R,16 January 1998. para.104.
[83]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第26条第1款。
[84]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 148-151.
[851《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》附录3第4条。
[86]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第13条第1款。
[87]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第13条。
[88]Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R,6 November 1998, para.124.
[89]Appellate Body Report, Korea-Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R,12 January 2000, para.137.
[90]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 144.
[91]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》附录4“专家审议小组”
[92]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第4第6款。
[93]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第5条第2款。
[94]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第14条第1款、第17条第10款。
[95]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》附录3第3条。
[96]Canada-Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R,2 August 1999, para.9.54-9.55
[97]See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:570.
[98]See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:570.
[99]See Improved Dispute Settlement:Elements for Consideration, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.3; Communication from Austria, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/25,8 March 1988, p.2.
[100]See Communication from the Nordic Countries, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/10,18 September 1987, p.2; Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/22,2 March 1988, para.3; Communication from Mexico, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/26,23 June 1988, p.4.
[101]See Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, para.3 (b).
[102]例如,如前所述,根据日本的提案,第三方可以对仲裁裁决提出异议并要求GATT理事会作适当努力以寻求适当的解决办法。具体指基于相关请求作出决议,包括建立专家组或者工作组来审查该事项,根据该专家组或工作组的报告理事会可以认定仲裁裁决无效。See Communication from Japan, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/21,1 March 1988, p.8.
[103]关于这一问题,GATT缔约方也曾具有截然不同的观点,以欧共体为代表的认为GATT 中仲裁解决的争端类型应为事实性的、不涉及GATT协定解释及与GATT协定一致性问题的争端,这类仲裁裁决不应当构成司法先例。See Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/12,24 September 1987, para.3 (b).而有的缔约方则主张仲裁裁决构成司法先例。See Communication from Peru, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/23,3 March 1988, para.18.
[104]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第4款。
[105]See Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:23-24.
[106]See Yuka Fukunaga. Securing Compliance through the WTO Dispute Settlement System Implementation of DSB Recommendations [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2006,9(2): 383.
[107]See WT/DS160/1,4 February 1999.
[108]See WT/DS 160/5,16 April 1999.
[109]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS160/12,15 January 2001, para.47
[110]See United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/15,3 August 2001.
[111]See United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, Constitution of the Arbitrator, WT/DS 160/16,13 August 2001.
[112]美国于当天提交了评论,欧共体当天未提交其评论而是在随后对美国提供的一些证据的可接受性提出异议。有关程序问题,将在下文详述。
[113]See United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/15,3 August 2001.
[114]Appellate Body Report, United States-Shirts and Blouses, adopted 23 May 1997, WT/D S33/AB/R, p.14.
[115]See United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/15,3 August 2001. Annex, para 2.
[116]See Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para. 4.4 and para.4.5.
[117]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第13条。
[118]笔者认为,仲裁庭的这一表述印证了DSU第25条之仲裁的仲裁裁决潜在的“法律先例”价值。
[119]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.1.10.
[120]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001. para.1.11.
[121]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001. para.1.12.
[122]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001. para.1.13
[123]European Communities-Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS 141/AB/R,12 March 2001, para.6.34.
[124]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.1.18.
[125]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.1.19.
[126]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.1.20.
[127]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.1.21.
[128]例如美国第一次及第二次书面陈述中的证据US ARB-5,7,8,9,10,12.
[129]特别是,参见上诉机构报告：加拿大-影响民用航空器出口案(WT/DS70/AB/R,20 August1999),第141-147段。(仲裁裁决书原注19)
[130]这种作法曾在之前的第22.6条仲裁实践中出现过并似乎没有遭到DSB的反对。See the Decision of the Arbitrators on Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.2.14.(仲裁裁决书原注20)
[131]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.5.1.
[132]See e.g. Status Report by the United States, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS 160/24/Add.85,10 January 2012.
[133]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.2.3.
[134]See Concept, Forms and Effects of Arbitration, Note by the Secretariat, MTN.GNG/N G13/W/20,22 February 1988. para.12.
[135]See MTN.GNG/NG13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.2 and MTN.GNG/NG13/W/19,20 December 1987, p.3.
[136]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第2款。具体规定如下：“如有关成员未能使被认定与一适用协定不一致的措施符合该协定,或未能在按照第21条第3款确定的合理期限内符合建议和裁决,则该成员如收到请求应在不迟于合理期限期满前,与援引争端解决程序的任何一方进行谈判,以期形成双方均可接受的补偿。”
[137]See United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/15,3 August 2001, p.1.
[138]See Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Ac-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.2.3 and para.2.4.
[139]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.4.26.
[140]Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS 160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.4.27.
[141]之前德国马克斯普朗克(MaxPlanck)比较法和国际公法研究所对此案的研究观点认为本案中的仲裁程序实际上是对DSU第22.6条程序的替代See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:570.
[142]我国厦门大学陈辉萍教授曾认为,“欧共体与美国关于《美国版权法》仲裁案中,双方约定仲裁员应由原专家组成员担任(如果他们可以请到的话),否则,由WTO总干事任命替代仲裁员。仲裁庭采用的仲裁程序本质上与DSU第22.6条规定的仲裁程序相同。”参见：陈辉萍.WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度述评[A].见：曾华群.国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展[M].北京：法律出版社,2009：623.
[1]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:23-24.
[2]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条。
[3]See Robert Hudec. Broadening the Scope of Remedies in WTO Dispute Settlment [A]. In: Friedl Weiss, Jochem Wiers (eds.). Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures:Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals [M], London:Cameron May Publishers.2000:394.
[4]Article 9, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization,15 April 1994.
[5]See United States-Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations", WT/DS108/11,2 October 2000; United States-Anti-dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/13, WT/DS162/16,18 July 2001.
[6]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; Report of the Arbitrator, United States-Final Dumpling Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS264/13; 13 December 2004; Report of the Arbitrator, Dominican Republic-Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS302/17,29 August 2005; Report of the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS322/21, 11 May 2007.
[7]See United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline-Status Report by the United States, WT/DS2/10,10 January 1997; Canada-Certain Measures concerning Periodicals-Status Report by Canada, WT/DS31/9,13 March 1998.
[8]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.26
[9]Korea-Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/11,24 March 2000.
[10]United States-Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/12,12 April 2001.
[11]付星国.WTO争端解决的执行机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2011：194.
[12]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 236.
[13]See Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:503.
[14]“如在将此事项提交仲裁后10天内,各方不能就仲裁人达成一致,则仲裁人应由总干事经与各方磋商后在10天内任命。”(DSU注脚12)
[15]“仲裁人”一词应理解为一个人或一小组。(DSU注脚13)
[16]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第3款(c)项。
Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21(3) (c)of the DSU,WT/DS8/15,WT/DS10/15, WT/DS11/13,14 February 1997.
[18]如表3.1所示,到目前为止,有四个确定“合理期限”的仲裁案中,争端方在仲裁进行过程中就“合理期限”达成协议并通知仲裁人,因此,迄今为止真正通过DSU第21.3(c)条之仲裁确定了执行“合理期限”的案件有25件。
[19]这些建议和提案包括：L/273,9 November 1954; L/275,8 November 1954; L/276,8 November 1954; Ministerial Declaration, L/5424, adopted on 29 November 1982; Trade Policies for a Better Future:The "Leutwiler Report",1987.
[20]Decision of 12 April 1989 on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures. L/6489. Paragranh I.
[21]Communication from Canada, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/41,28 June 1990, p.5.
[22]“括号()”为原通讯所加。
[23]Communication from Canada, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/41,28 June 1990, p.6.
[24]Statement by the Spokesman of the European Community, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/44,19 July, 1990, para.7.
[25]“如在将此事项提交仲裁后10天内,各方不能就仲裁人达成一致,则仲裁人应由总干事经与各方磋商后在10天内任命。”(草案第309页,注脚2)
[26]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, para.19(c).
[27]这基于《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第3款的表述,“在专家组或上诉机构报告通过后30天内召开的DSB会议上,……”但《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第4款也规定“本谅解第21条和第22条在细节上作必要修改后应适用于仲裁裁决。”因此,笔者认为,理论上讲,WTO确定“合理期限”仲裁也可能并可以发生在DSU第25条之仲裁程序之后,“在细节上作必要修改后”也适用于DSU第25条仲裁的仲裁裁决。
[28]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:26.
[29]See Award of the Arbitrators, United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,09/11/2001, para.2.3 and footnote 28.
[30]See J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:232有学者从第21.3(c)条脚注中关于双方协议选择仲裁员的措辞上推定认为提起DSU第21.3(c)条之仲裁也应有双方合意。见：赵维田.WTO的司法机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004：239.笔者不赞同此观点,因为,双方协议选择仲裁人并不等同于双方须协议共同提起仲裁,基于对确定“合理期限”三种方式的整体理解,DSU第21.3(c)条的规定及对仲裁实践的考察,笔者认为提起并启动DSU第21.3(c)条之仲裁不需要双方合意。
[31]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第2款。
[32]另外,关于WTO“非违约之诉”,DSU第26条第1款(c)项还规定：“尽管有第21条的规定,但是应双方中任何一方的请求,第21条第3款所规定的仲裁可包括对利益丧失或减损程度的确定,也可建议达成令双方满意的调整的方法；此类建议不得对争端各方具有约束力。”但目前为止并没有本条款项下的仲裁实践,本文亦不作深入讨论。
[33]J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005:232.
[34]另一个例外为DSU第22条第6款的仲裁规定,本文将在第四章展开论述。
[35]李居迁.WTO争端解决机制的主要程序[A].见：司法部法规教育司,国家外国专家局科教文卫司编.WTO争端解决机制-规则、程序与实践[M].北京：法律出版社,2003：278.
Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21(3) (c) of the DSU, WT/DS8/15, WT/DS10/15, WT/DS11/13,14 Febuary1997.
[37]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第23条第2款(b)项。
[38]例如,在“‘欧共体-影响肉及肉制品的措施案(荷尔蒙案)’之确定合理期限仲裁案”(1998)(WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13)中,仲裁请求由原争端被申诉方(执行方)欧共体提出。
[39]在“智利-酒精饮料税案’之确定‘合理期限’仲裁案”(2000)(WT/DS87/15, WT/DS110/14)中,原争端被申诉方(执行方)智利与申诉方欧共体共同提出仲裁请求。
Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rulings, WT/DS11/9, G/L137,13 January 1997.
[41]See Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Surveillance of Implementation of Recommen dations and Rulings:Communication from European Communities, WT/DS8/12, WT/DS10/1 2, WT/DS11/10,21 January 1997 and Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rulings:Communication from Canada, WT/DS 8/14, WT/DS10/14, WT/DS11/12,27 January 1997.
[42]Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages -Appointment of Arbitrator by the Director-General, WT/DS8/13,WT/DS10/13, WT/DS11/11,21 January 1997.
[43]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》脚注13。
[44]在“欧共体-影响肉及肉制品的措施案(荷尔蒙案)”之确立“合理期限”仲裁案(1998)中,WTO总干事曾任命了两名仲裁人,一名为上诉机构成员,另一名为DSB前任主席,但后者没有接受总干事的提名,最终,该仲裁仍只具有一个仲裁人。See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15,WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998,para.3.
[45]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》脚注12。
[461 Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS114/13,18 August 2000, para.41本段论述中粗体字表强调,为原仲裁裁决书所添加强调。但不同的是,原仲裁裁决书中强调的部分以英文斜体字表示,特作说明。本文下文对各仲裁裁决书的原文援引中,粗体字强调部分与此处相同,均为原仲裁裁决书添加的强调,特此说明。
[47]不一致的措施还可能具有其他形式,比如,某项实际执行的管理或行政行为,尽管未经法案或法规的特别授权或规定,或者由某一行政机关作出的“准司法”裁定。(裁决书原注14)
Award of the Arbitrator, Argentina-Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS155/10,31 August 2001, para.40 and para.41.
[49]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.32.
[50]相反,在根据GATT1994第23条第1款(b)项提起的非违约之诉案件中,DSU第26条第1款(b)项明确规定“无义务撤销该措施”。(原仲裁裁决书脚注39)
Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.38
[52]See Award of the Arbitrator, Australia- Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 18/9,23 February 1999, para.35.
[53]Award of the Arbitrator, Korea-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS75/16, WT/DS84/14,4 June 1999, para.45; Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 114/13,18 August 2000, para.41; Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS207/13,17 March 2003, para.32; Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.52; Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities -Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15,20 February 2006, para.49; Award of the Arbitrator, Japan -Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.26; Award of the Arbitrator, Brazil-Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS332/16,29 August 2008, para.47; Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS344/15,31 October 2008, para.41; Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia -Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.41.
[54]Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities -Export Subsidies on Sugar -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS265/33, WT/DS266/33, WT/DS283/14,28 October 2005, para.69; Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities-Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15, 20 February 2006, para.56; Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.27.
[55]See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.41.
[56]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第5款。
[57]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS114/13,18 August 2000, para.42.
[59]Jeff Waincymer. WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement [M]. London:Cameron May,2002:658.
[59]Award of the Arbitrator, Japan -Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.26 and para.27.
[60]Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages -urveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rules-Communication from the EC, WT/DS8/12, WT/DS10/12, WT/DS11/10,21 January 1997.
[61]Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rules-Communication from Canada, WT/DS8/14, WT/DS10/14, WT/DS11/12,27 January 1997.
Award of the Arbitrator, Indonesia-Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS54/15, WT/DS55/14, WT/DS59/13, WT/DS64/12,7 December 1998, para.5.
[63]WTO确定“合理期限”仲裁裁决书的统一格式肇始于“智利-农产品案,,之确定“合理期限,,仲裁。See Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS207/13,17 March 2003.
[64]Rudiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, and Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO:Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006:508.
[65]See Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages -Arbitration under Article 21(3) (c) of the DSU, WT/DS8/15, WT/DS 10/15, WT/DS11/13,14 February,1997, para.27 and Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS27/15,7 January 1998, para.19.
[66]See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.25 and para.26.
[67]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.27.
[68]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 114/13,18 August 2000, para.47.
[69]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Anti-dumping Act of 1916-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS136/11, WT/DS162/14,28 February 2001, para.33.
[70]Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.28.
[71]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3 (c) of theDSU, WT/DS114/13,18 August 2000, para.51.
[72]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) oftheDSU, WT/DS 114/13,18 August 2000, para.55.
[73]See e.g. Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS814/13,19 February 2002.
[74]See e.g. Award of the Arbitrator, Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS18/9,23 February 1999, para.3. "Notwithstanding this extension of the time-period for the arbitration process, the parties stated that my award would be deemed to be an award made under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU."
[75]N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004:240.
[76]如表3.1所示,迄今为止上有四个确定“合理期限”仲裁案中,争端各方在仲裁程序的进行期间达成“合理期限”协议并通知了仲裁人,这种情况下,仲裁人仍会继续作出“仲裁人报告”而非“仲裁人裁决”。据此,目前通过DSU第21.3(c)条之仲裁确定了“合理期限”的仲裁案件为25件,对应仲裁裁决为25份。
[77]See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.25.
[78]D. Thomson (ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, ninth ed. (Clarendon Press, 1995), p.1096(原裁决书注脚25)
[79]See Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat products (Hormones)-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13,29 May 1998, para.26.
[80]Award of the Arbitrator, Argentina-Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS155/10,31 August 2001,para.41.
[81]N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004:244.
[82]Award of the Arbitrator. Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3 (c) oftheDSU, WT/DS114/13,18 August 2000, para.43.
[83]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 114/13,18 August 2000, para.49.
[84]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS285/13, 19 August 2005, para.35.
[85]Award of the Arbitrator, Korea-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS75/16, WT/DS84/14,4 June 1999, para.42.
[86]See Award of the Arbitrator, United States -Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS344/15,31 October 2008, para. 42; Award of the Arbitrator, Award of the Arbitrator, Brazil-Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS332/16,29 August 2008, para.48; Award of the Arbitrator, Japan - Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.25; Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities - Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15,20 February 2006, para.49; Award of the Arbitrator, Korea-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS75/16, WT/DS84/14,4 June 1999, para.42;Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS207/13,17 March 2003, para.51; Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.74.
[87]See Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS344/15,31 October 2008, para. 42; Award of the Arbitrator, Brazil-Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres - Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS332/16,29 August 2008, para.48; Award of the Arbitrator, Japan-Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.25; Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities - Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15,20 February 2006, para.49; Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS207/13,17 March 2003, para.39; Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities-Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS246/14,20 September 2004, para.36; Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.64.
[88]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas -Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS27/15,7 January 1998, para.19.
[89]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS114/13,18 August 2000, para.50.
[90]J“参见仲裁人裁决,加拿大-药品专利案,第50段。我也赞同该案中仲裁人所举的‘复杂性’例子,即执行需要通过制定大量的新法规并影响许多职能部门。”(原仲裁裁决书脚注67)
[91]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000- Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.60.
[92]See e.g. Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.61; Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS207/13,17 March 2003, para.47.
[93]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS285/13, 19 August 2005, para.46.
[94]实际上并不存在对“发达国家”、“发展中国家”的WTO界定,WTO成员可声称自身为“发达国家”或“发展中国家”,对此,其他WTO成员方可就其利用有关WTO发展中国家条款提出质疑。关于“最不发达国家”的确定则可参照联合国贸易与发展会议的有关界定。See "Who are the developing countries in the WTO", http://www.wto.org/english/tratop e/d evel_e/dl who_e.htm. Visited on 1 February 2012.
[95]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第2款。
1961 Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS87/15, WT/DS110/14,23 May 2000, para.45.
[97]Award of the Arbitrator, Indonesia-Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS54/15, WT/DS55/14, WT/DS59/13, WT/DS64/12,7 December 1998, para.24.
[98]Award of the Arbitrator, Chile-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS87/15, WT/DS110/14,23 May 2000, para.44; Award of the Arbitrator, Argentina-Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 155/10,31 August 2001, para.51.
[99]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS246/14,20 September 2004, para.59.
[100]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS246/14,20 September 2004, para.59.
[101]“我注意到‘日本-酒精饮料税案’(WT/DS8/15,WT/DS10/15,WT/DS11/13)的仲裁裁决中也否认了对所涉产品生产者(及消费者)的负面影响构成根据DSU第21条第3款(c)项确定合理期限的‘具体情况’。”(原仲裁裁决脚注19)
[102]Award of the Arbitrator, Indonesia-Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS54/15, WT/DS55/14, WT/DS59/13, WT/DS64/12,7 December 1998, para.23.
[103]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.80.
[104]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 114/13,18 August 2000, para.60.
[105]Award of the Arbitrator, Canada-Term of Patent Protection-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS 170/10,28 February 2001, para.58; Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22,13 June 2003, para.61; Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS246/14,20 September 2004, para.56.
[106]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第6款。
[107]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第1款。
[108]Panel Report, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry, WT/DS366/R and Corr.1,20 May 2009, para.8.1 and para.8.2.
[109]Panel Report, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry, WT/DS366/R and Corr.l,20 May 2009, para.8.5.
[110]Panel Report, Colombia - Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry, WT/DS366/R and Corr.l,20 May 2009, para.8.9 and para.8.10. [111] WT/DSB/M/270,29 June 2009, para.51.
[112]WT/DS366/10,9 July 2009.
[113]WT/DS366/12,28 August 2009.
[114]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.62.
[115]Award of the Arbitrator, Japan - Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS336/16,5 May 2008, para.26
[116]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.63 and para. 64.
[117]Award of the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS285/13, 19 August 2005, para.41
[118]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.109.
[119]Colombia's submission, para.69.
[120]Panama's submission, para.27.
[121]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry-Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.67.
[122]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.58.
[123]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.59.
[124]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.90.
[125]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.98.
[126]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.99.
[127]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.85.
[128]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.97.
[129]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.102.
[130]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.83.
[131]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.84.
[132]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3 (c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.86.
[133]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.104.
[134]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia-Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.106.
[135]Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia - Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS366/13,2 October 2009, para.107.
[1]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第1款。
[2]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第2款。
[3]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第6款。
[4]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第4条第11款、第7条第10款。
[5][英]詹宁斯瓦茨修订.奥本海国际法[M].第一卷第一分册.王铁崖等译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社.1995：401.
[6]贺其治.国家责任法及案例浅析[M].北京：法律出版社,2003：305.
[7]李爽.论国家责任法上反措施的条件与限制[D].北京：中国政法大学,2011：2.
[8]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第3条第7款。
[9]Joost Pauwelyn. Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO:Rules are Rules-toward a More Collective Approach [J]. the American Journal of International Law,2001,94(2):337.
[10]N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2004:265.
[9]即在WTO中“报复”和“反措施”可作为同义语使用。See Joost Pauwelyn. Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO:Rules are Rules-toward a More Collective Approach [J]. the American Journal of International Law,2001,94(2):337 and footnote 14.
[12]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第23条第2款(c)项。
[13]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第2款。
[14]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第6款。
[15]Sherzod Shadikhodjaev. Retaliation in the WTO Dispute Settlement System [M]. The Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2009:63.
[16]“仲裁人,,一词应解释为一个人或一小组。(DSU注脚15)
[17]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第6款。
[18]“仲裁人,,一词应解释为一个人或一小组,或当原专家组成员担任仲裁人时,应解释为指原专家组成员(DSU注脚16)。
[19]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第7款。
[20]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第4条第11款。
[21]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第7条第10款。
[22]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999.
[23]《关税与贸易总协定》(1994)第23条第2款。
1241 See Netherlands Measures of Suspension of Obligations to the United States (Determination of Nov.8,1995), BISD IS/32,33(1953).
[25]Communication from United States, MTN.GNG/NG 13/W/40,6 April 1990, p.10.
[26]Communication from Canada, MTN.GNG/NG 13/W/41,28 June 1990, p.7.
[27]Statement by the Spokesman of the European Community, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/44,19 July, 1990, para.7.
[28]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, para.20.3.
[29]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, para.20.4.
[30]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, para.20.5.
[31]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, pp.T.5-T6.
[32]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, p.T.6本处强调部分为原文件所加,但原文中以下划线文字强调,特此说明。
[33]Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA,20 December 1991, p.T.6.
[34]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:26.
[35]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第6条第2款规定：“设立专家组的请求应以书面形式提出。请求应指出是否已进行磋商、确认争论中的措施并提供一份足以明确陈述问题的起诉的法律根据概要。在申请方请求设立的专家组不具有标准职权范围的情况下,书面请求中应包括特殊职权范围的拟议案文。”
[36]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB/ECU,24 March 2000, para.20.
[37]在“‘美国-1916年反倾销法案’之‘报复’仲裁案”(2004)中由两位原专家组成员担任仲裁人；在“‘美国-高地棉花补贴案’之DSU第22.6条仲裁案(2009)中最终只有一名原专家组成员担任了仲裁人。
[38]胡建国.WTO争端解决裁决执行机制研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2011：314.
[39]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第7款。
[40]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.18 and para.19.本段论述中的粗体字表强调,为原仲裁裁决书所添加强调处。不同的是,原仲裁裁决书中的强调部分以英文斜体字表示。特作说明。本文以下对各仲裁裁决书的原文援引中,粗体字强调部分与此处相同,均为原仲裁裁决书添加的强调,特此说明。
[41]Decision by the Arbitrators, United States-Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Original Complaint by the European Communities - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS136/ARB,24 February 2004, para.7.4.
[42]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS285/ARB,21 December 2007, para.5.10.
[43]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas - Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB/ECU,24 March 2000, para.152.
[44]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.20.
[45]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.20.
[46]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第3款要求请求中止授权方在考虑中止哪些减让或其他义务时应适用7项具体的原则和程序。其中(a)项规定：“总的原则是,申请方应首先寻求对与专家组或上诉机构认定有违反义务或其他造成利益丧失或减损情形的部门相同的部门中止减让或其他义务”；(b)项规定：“如该方认为对相同部门中止减让或其他义务不可行或无效,则可寻求中上对同一协定项下其他部门的减让或其他义务”；(c)项规定：“如该方认为对同一协定下的其他部门中止减让或其他义务不可行或无效,且情况足够严重,则可寻求中止另一适用协定下的减让或其他义务”。
[47]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.3.5
[48]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.3.7
[49]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第22条第5款。
[50]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第1条第2款。
[51]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCMAgreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.3.57.
[52]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.3.11.
[53]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.5.12-5.32.
[54]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.9.
[55]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.2.8.
[56]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.11.
[57]See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization:Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004: 272.
[58]See e.g. Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.2.1.
[59]作为政府间的争端解决程序,WTO争端解决机制在表面上并不涉及私当事方,然而非政府利害方通常在相关程序具有明显的利益,他们提供的信息也常常是争端记录的基础。See N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004:274.
[60]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.2.11.
[61]Decision by the Arbitrator, Canada - Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft Recourse to Arbitration by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS222/ARB,17 February 2003, para.2.8.
[62]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.l 1.
[63]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS108/ARB,30 August 2002, para.2.11.
[64]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Mea Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, footnote 9.
[65]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.2.8.
[66]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB, WT/DS48/ARB,12 July 1999, para.7.
[67]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS285/ARB,21 December 2007, para.2.31.
[68]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.2.6 and footnote 11.
[69]Sherzod Shadikhodjaev. Retaliation in the WTO Dispute Settlement System [M]. The Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2009:79.
[70]参见《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第5款。
[71]根据DSU第22条第6款的规定,WTO“报复”仲裁的仲裁庭应在合理期限届满60天内完成仲裁,而DSU第21条第5款项下的相符性审查程序仅其中的专家组程序就可长达90天,若存在上诉程序则更长,因此造成一系列“时限”难题。
[72]US-Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, WT/DS 165/R,17 June 2000, para.6.122.
[73]US-Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, WT/DS165 /AB/R,11 December 2000, para.128.
[74]Report of the Appellate Body, United States-Sunset Review of Anti-dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina-Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina, WT/DS268/AB/RW,12 April 2007.
[75]Edwini Kessie, Dispute Settlement, WTO:3.4 Implementation and Enforcement, the Course on Dispute Settlement in International Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations, New York and Geneva,2003, p.34. Available at http://www.unctad.org/Templates/WebFlyer.asp?intItemID=4403&lang=1 visited on 1 February,2012.
[76]The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historic Principles (1993), page 843(原裁决书脚注8)
[77]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.4.1.
[78]Report of the Working Party on Netherlands Action under Article ⅩⅩⅢ:2 to Suspend Obligations to the United States, adopted on 8 November 1952, BISD IS/62.
[79]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.6.5.
[80]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.6.3.
[81]See Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB,12 July 1999, para.39 and WT/DS48/ARB, para.40.Also see Decision by the Arbitrator, United States - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations "-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS 108/ARB,30 August 2002, para.5.57; Decision by the Arbitrator, Canada-Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS222/ARB,17 February 2003, para.3.121.
[82]Joost Pauwelyn. Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO:Rules are Rules-toward a More Collective Approach [J]. the American Journal of International Law,2001,94(2):344.
[83]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB, WT/DS48/ARB,12 July 1999, para.38.
[84]Thomas Sebastian. World Trade Organization Remedies and the Assessment of Proportionality: Equivalence and Appropriateness [J]. Harvard International Law Journal,2007,48(2):344.
[85]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.7.1.
[86]Thomas Sebastian. World Trade Organization Remedies and the Assessment of Proportionality: Equivalence and Appropriateness [J]. Harvard International Law Journal,2007,48(2):351.
[87]付星国.WTO争端裁决的执行机制[M].上海：人民出版社,2011：402-403.
[88]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第4条第11款。
[89]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.3.44.
[90]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.3.57.
[91]Thomas Sebastian. World Trade Organization Remedies and the Assessment of Proportionality: Equivalence and Appropriateness [J]. Harvard International Law Journal,2007,48(2):357.
[92]Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS46/ARB,28 August 2000, para.3.60.
[93]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS108/ARB,30 August 2002, para.5.62.
[94]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS108/ARB,30 August 2002, para.5.12.
[95]Decision by the Arbitrator, Canada - Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft- Recourse to Arbitration by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS222/ARB,17 February 2003, para.3.121 and para.3.122
[96]See WT/DSB/M/145.18 March 2003.
1971 Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.4.37.
[98]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.4.39.
[99]Norio Komuro. the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism-Coverage and Procedures of the WTO Understanding [J]. Journal of World Trade,1995,29:60.
[100]Allison L. Whiteman. Cross Retaliation Under the TRIPS Agreement:An Analysis of Policy Option for Brazil [J]. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation,2010,36(1):187-231.
[101]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.1.2-1.3.
[102]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.1.20.
[103]See US Department of Agriculture,'USDA Announces Changes to Export Credit G uarantee Programs to Comply with WTO Findings,'30 June 2005, http://www.fas.usda.g ov/scriptsw/PressRelease/pressrel_dout.asp?PrNum=0092-05, visited on 1 February 2012.
[104]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/2,31 August 2009, para.1.23.
[105]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/1,31 August 2009, para.5.129.
[106]WT/DS267/ARB/1, para.5.231 and WT/DS267/ARB/2, para.5.231,31 August 2009
[107]USTR Statement on Awards in Brazil Cotton Dispute, United States Trade Representative, 31 August 2009.
[108]International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, "US, Brazil Agree to Negotiate End to Cotton Dispute", http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/74051/, visited on 1 February 2012.
[109]David J. Townsend, Steve Charnovitz. Preventing Opportunistic Uncompliance by WTO Members [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2011,14(2):441.
[110]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/1,31 August 2009, para.3.9.
[111]Decision by the Arbitrator, United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WT/DS267/ARB/1,31 August 2009, para.3.61.
[112]David J. Townsend, Steve Charnovitz. Preventing Opportunistic Uncompliance by WTO Members [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2011,14(2):449.
[113]Chad P. Bown. The WTO Secretariat and the role of economics in Panels and arbitrations [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [A]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:430-431.
[114]Chad P. Bown. The WTO Secretariat and the role of economics in Panels and arbitrations [A]. In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [A]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:391-393.
[115]Gene M. Grossman, Alan O Sykes. "Optimal" Retaliation in the WTO:a Commentary on the Upland Cotton Arbitration [J], World Trade Review,2011,10(1):149.
[116]Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn. Trade Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement:a multi-disciplinary Analysis [A], In:Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010:1.
[117]Thomas Sebastian. World Trade Organization Remedies and the Assessment of Proportionality:Equivalence and Appropriateness [J]. Harvard International Law Journal,2007, 48(2):380.
[118]Robert E. Hudec. Broadening the Scope of Remedies in WTO Dispute Settlement [A]. In: Friedl Weiss, Jochem Wiers (eds.). Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures:Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals [M]. London:Cameron May International Law& Policy,2000:390.
[1]《1994年关税与贸易总协定》(GATT1994)第23条第1款。
[2]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第26条第1款(c)项。
[3]MTN.GNG/NG13/W/39,05 April 1990, p.2
[4]《服务与贸易总协定》第21条第2款。
[5]《服务与贸易总协定》第21条第3款。
[6]《服务与贸易总协定》第21条第4款。
[7]对于在WTO协定生效之日已存在的避免双重征税协定,此类事项只有在经该协定各参加方同意后方可提交服务贸易理事会。(GAT协定原脚注11)
[8]《服务与贸易总协定》第22条第3款。
[9]《服务与贸易总协定》第23条第3款。
[10]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第8条第1款、第2款。
[11]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第8条第3款。
[12]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第8条第4款。
[13]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第8条第5款。
[14]Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Procedures for Arbitration under Article 8.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, G/SCM/19,10 June 1998.
[15]《补贴与反补贴措施协定》第31条。
[16]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条第1款。
[17]在本规定中,“当事方”("Party" and "Parties")一词不包括第六节所规定的“第三方”("Third Party" and "Third Parties").(原文注脚1)
[18]如一关税同盟或共同市场作为仲裁当事方或第三方,则本规定适用于该关税同盟或共同市场的所有成员的国民。(原文注脚2)
[19]此审理范围可同等适用于第二次或后续仲裁。(原文注脚3)
[20]Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, "Procedures", Procedures for Arbitration under Article 8.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, G/SCM/19,10 June 1998.
[21]Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, "Introduction", Procedures for Arbitration under Article 8.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, G/SCM/19,10 June 1998.
[22]在WTO成立之前,欧共体的有关香蕉进口、销售及分销体制已先后两次被其他GATT缔约方指控违反GATT协定从而诉之过GATT专家组程序解决,即“欧共体香蕉案Ⅰ”和“欧共体香蕉案Ⅱ”。因此,WTO成立后的此项欧共体香蕉进口体制争端也被称为“欧共体香蕉案Ⅲ”。
[23]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Arbitration under Article 21.3 (c) of the DSU, WT/DS27/15,7 January 1998, para.20.
[24]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB,9 April 1999, para.8.1.
[25]Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas-ecourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB/ECU,24 March 2000, para.170.
[26]1994年12月,GATT缔约方全体豁免了欧共体在《洛美协定》到期日2000年2月29日之前GATT1947第1条第1款(最惠国待遇)的义务,允许欧共体为非加太国家进口的产品(包括香蕉)提供优惠的关税待遇。
1271 Notification of Mutually Agreement Solution, EC-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/58,2 July 2001.
[28]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[29]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/L/616,1 August/2005.
[30]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement II, WT/L/625,27 October 2005.
[31]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, p.2.
[32]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[33]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[34]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[35]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[36]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[37]G/SECRET/22/Add.l.
[38]WT/L/602,17 February 2005.
[39]WT/L/607/Add.l-9, Respectively
1401 Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/625,27 October 2005, para.11.
[41]根据《多哈豁免决定》的规定,“欧共体-香蕉关税”仲裁案(Ⅱ)仲裁庭组成与“欧共体-香蕉关税”仲裁案(Ⅰ)仲裁庭组成相同。See Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14November 2001, Annex.
[42]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/625,27 October 2005, para.13-19.
[43]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/616,1 August 2005, para.7.
[44]Ministerial Conference Decision, European Communities-The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, WT/MIN(01)/15,14 November 2001, Annex.
[45]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/616,1 August 2005, para.24.
[46]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/616,1 August 2005, para.37.
[47]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/616,1 August 2005, para.94.
[48]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/625,27 October 2005, para.23.
[49]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/625,27 October 2005, para.23.
[50]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/625,27 October 2005, para.127.
[51]Award of the Arbitrator, EC-the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement-Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/616,1 August 2005, para.9-10.
[52]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第3条第7款。
[53]Hunter Nottage, Jan Bohanes. Arbitration as an Alternative to Litigation in the WTO: Observations in the light of the 2005 Banana Tariff Arbitrations [A]. In:Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanovich and Jan Bohanes (eds.). The WTO in the Twenty-first Century:Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2007:220.
[54]Hunter Nottage, Jan Bohanes. Arbitration as an Alternative to Litigation in the WTO: Observations in the light of the 2005 Banana Tariff Arbitrations [A]. In:Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanovich and Jan Bohanes (eds.). The WTO in the Twenty-first Century:Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2007:221.
[55]Hunter Nottage, Jan Bohanes. Arbitration as an Alternative to Litigation in the WTO: Observations in the light of the 2005 Banana Tariff Arbitrations [A]. In:Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanovich and Jan Bohanes (eds.). The WTO in the Twenty-first Century:Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2007:240.
[1]按照产生争论、分歧或冲突的问题所属的不同领域,当代的国际争端又被进一步划分为国际领土争端、国际海洋争端、国际环境争端、国际能源争端、国际贸易争端、国际投资争端、国际金融争端等。
Rainer Gildeggen, The Impact of Arbitral Awards on the Development of International Law: The Development of the International Law Concerning the Taking of Foreign-Owned Property, University of Georgia School of law, LLM Theses and Essays,1988, Paper 119. Available at http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu llm/119, visited on 1 February 2012.
[2]国际实践中,载有仲裁条款的可以是双边条约,也可以是多边条约；可以是区域性条约,也可以是普遍性国际公约。基于WTO协定多边性、普遍性的国际条约类型及性质,为更好地探讨WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度,本文侧重选择以其他主要国际组织或国际会议所制定的普遍性国际公约中的仲裁机制为比较研究对象,并不展开讨论各类国际条约中的仲裁条款及机制,特此说明。
[4]马骏.国际法知识辞典fGl.西安：陕西人民出版社,1993：365.
[5]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第21条。
[6]《海牙和平解决国际争端公约》(1907)第38条规定,“凡属于法律性质的问题,特别是有关解释或适用国际公约的问题,各缔约国承认仲裁是解决通过外交途径所未能解决的争端的最有效也最公正的方法。因此,在关于上述问题的争端,各缔约国在情势允许的情况下诉诸仲裁是可取的。”
[7]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第17条。
[8]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第18条。
[9]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第18条、第26条。
[10]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第21条。
[11]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第36条。
[12]《(日内瓦)和平解决国际争端总议定书》(1949)第37条。
[131《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)第287条。
[14]吴慧.法律方法解决国际海洋争端的实践分析[J].厦门大学法律评论.第5辑,厦门：厦 门大学出版社,2003：262.
[15]《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)附件七“仲裁”第2条、第3条。
[16]M. Bruce Volbeda. The MOX Plant Case:the Question of "Supplemental Jurisdiction" for International Environmental Claims under UNCLOS [J]. Texas International Law Journal,2006, 42:212-239.
[17]《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)附件七“仲裁”第5条。
[18]《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)附件八“特别仲裁”第1条。
[19]《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)附件八“特别仲裁”第2条、第3条。
[20]《联合国海洋法公约》(1982)附件八“特别仲裁”第5条。
[21]白中红.《能源宪章公约》的争端解决机制研究[J].外交评论,2011,(3)：88.
[22]白中红.《能源宪章公约》的争端解决机制研究[J].外交评论,2011,(3)：90.
[23]《能源宪章条约》(1998)第6条第5款、第7条第7款、附件D、第19条第2款。
[24]白中红.《能源宪章公约》的争端解决机制研究fJl.外交评论,2011,(3)：91.
[25]Nils Eliasson,10 Years of Energy Charter Treaty Arbitration,6 June 2011, p.9. Available at http://www.iosemigueliudice-arbitration.com/xms/files/02 TEXTOS ARBITRAGEM/03 Conve ncoes Arbitrais Internacionais/Report Ten Years of ECT Arbitration 30 June 2011.pdf, visited on 1 February 2012.
[25]白中红.《能源宪章公约》的争端解决机制研究[J].外交评论,2011,(3)：92.
[27]随着二战后多样化、专业化的各式国际条约、国际组织的发展和设立,曾经由“一般国际法”规范的国际法体系开始分化为更为具体的各式体系,如“贸易法”、“人权法”、“环境法”、“海洋法”等,但另一方面,不同体系和规范之间的冲突和矛盾也日益加剧,造成“国际法的碎片化”(fragmentation of international law).这种多样性和缺乏统一性为国际法和国际关系增加了困难和不稳定因素。See Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law:Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, A/CN.4/L.682,13 April 2006.
[28]国际投资争端,具体又包括东道国与投资者母国之间的国家间争端,也包括东道国与外国投资者之间的争端以及广义上私人投资者之间的争议,其中又以东道国与外国投资者之间的争端最为凸出和典型。
[29]关于国际投资仲裁性质及其发展的更多讨论可参见蔡从燕.国际投资仲裁的商事化与“去商事化”[J].现代法学,2011,33(1):152-162. Also see Andrea K.Bjorklund. The Emerging Civilization of Investment Arbitration [J]. Penn State Law Review,2008,113:1269-1300.
[30]当然,《关于解决国家和其他国家国民投资争端公约》(1965)第64条也规定,“缔约国之间发生的不能通过谈判解决得有关本公约的解释或适用的任何争端,经争端任何一方的申请,得提交国际法院,除非有关国家采取另一种解决办法。”
[31]International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules, ICSID Additional Facility Rules, April 2006. Available at http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=ShowHome&p ageName=Rules Home, visited on 1 February 2012.
[32]刘京莲.国际投资仲裁体制的困境与出路[J].福建论坛(人文社会科学版),2011,(5)：36-37.
[33]Gary Born. A New Generation of International Adjudication [J], Duke Law Journal,2012,61: 791.
[34]《关于争端解决规则与程序的凉解》第25条第1款。
[35]参见陈辉萍.WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度述评[A].见：曾华群.国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展[M].北京：法律出版社,2009:617. Also see Georgios I. Zekos. An Examination of GATT/WTO Arbitration Procedures [A]. In American Arbitration Association. AAA Handbook on International Arbitration and ADR (2nd ed.) [M]. Huntington, New York:Juris Publishing,2010:395-396.
[36]See Decision on the Application and Review of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,15 April 1994.
[37]WT/DSB/M/52,3 February 1999.
1381 Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1,20 November 2001, para.30.
1391 Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1,20 November 2001, para.47.
[40]陈雨松.中国参与多哈发展议程谈判综述[A].见：曾华群,杨国华.WTO与中国：法治的发展与互动—中国加入WTO十周年纪念文集[M].北京：中国商务出版社,2011：370.
[41]此项谈判由DSB以特别会议(special session)的方式进行,各成员的建议提案以谈判工作文件(编号为TN/DS/W/*)的形式提出并于特别会议上加以讨论,会后形成相应的会议记录(编号为TN/DS/M/*), DSB主席则会定期向总理事会提交相关主席报告(编号为TN/DS/*).
[42]关于多哈回合中各成员方关于改进和澄清争端解决规则和程序的所有提案立场概况,可参见中华经济研究院(台湾WTO中心),“各国正式立场文件整理(2008)”,http://www.wtocenter.org.tw/SmartKMS/do/www/listDocsByCategory?isMenu=true & categoryId=3218,2012年2月1日最后访问。
[43]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》脚注12。
[44]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》脚注13。
[45]在新一轮DSU谈判中,欧 共体曾多次提出设立常设专家及其名单。See TN/DS/W/1,13 March 2002, p.2; TN/DS?W/38,23 January 2003, para.14.
[46]See TN/DS/W/38,23 January 2003, para.23.
[47]根据韩国代表团的统计,仲裁人根据DSU第21.3(c)条作出“合理期限”仲裁裁决平均耗时为自DSB裁决或建议通过之日起137天,自2000年以来,则甚至平均约157天。SeeTN/DS/W/11.11 Julv 2002. p.2.
[48]See TN/DS/W/35,22 January 2003, p.2.
[49]See TN/DS/W/38,23 January 2003, para.23.
[50]See TN/DS/W/38,23 January 2003, para.23.
[51]See TN/DS/W/43,28 January 2003, para.26.
[52]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.pp.9-10.
[53]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-13.
[54]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-13.
[55]《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第21条第2款。
[56]在“‘美国-1916年反倾销法案’之‘报复’仲裁案”(2004)中由两位原专家组成员担任仲裁人；在“‘美国-高地棉花补贴案’之DSU第22.6条仲裁案(2009)中最终只有一名原专家组成员担任了仲裁人。
[57]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.p.15, footnote 27.
[58]另外,日本代表团也曾提出更短的指定仲裁人期限,即“总干事应在该事项提交仲裁后5天内指定替代仲裁人”。但这一意见目前未被采纳。See TN/DS/22,28 October 2002,para.7.
1591 Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.p.15; Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A:Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-15.
[60]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.p.15.
[61]See TN/DS/22,28 October 2002, Attachment:para.7.
[62]See TN/DS/22,28 October 2002, p.1;TN/DS/34,22 January 2003, p.4; TN/DS/38,23 January 2003,pp.7-8; TN/DS/43,28 January 2003, pp.5-6; TN/DS/49, pp.3-4; Join Concept Paper, Remedying the Dispute Settlement Understanding's Articles 21.5/22 "Sequencing Issue" Job(02)/45, dated 27 May 2002.
[63]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.pp.13-14.
[64]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-15.
[651朱榄叶.DSU第21.5条与第22条程序冲突及其解决[A].见：曾华群,杨国华.WTO与中国：法治的发展与互动-中国加入WTO十周年纪念文集[Ml.北京：中国商务出版社,2011：264.
[66]See TN/DS/49,17 February 2003, p.3.
[67]Minutes of Meeting, Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, TN/DS/M/4,10 September 2002.
[68]See TN/DS/37,22 January 2003, p.3 and TN/DS/42,24 January 2003, pp.3-4.
[69]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-16.
[70]See TN/DS/49,17 February 2003, p.6 and TN/DS/91,16 July 2007, p.3 and footnote 6.
[71]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, p.A-19.
[72]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, pp.A-16-A-17.
[73]胡建国.WTO争端解决裁决执行机制研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2011：325.
[74]澳大利亚的此项主张源于其参与“美国-版权法第110(05)节案”(WT/DS160)的实践。在该案中,澳大利亚曾对美国和欧共体之间的达成的补偿协议提出过强烈质疑,认为欧美补偿协议违反了非歧视原则,对其他WTO成员方会持续造成损害。参见付星国.WTO争端解决的执行机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2011：305.
[75]See TN/DS/W/8,8 July 2002, p.3 and TN/DS/W/34,22 January 2003, p.3.
[76]欧共体、日本代表团提出,增设DSU第22.1条之二,为便利补偿及报复引入首先确定利益丧失或减损水平的机制,具体程序为仲裁。See TN/DS/32,22 January 2003, Attachment: para.5.
[77]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/9,6 June 2003.p.13.
[78]See TN/DS/W/15,25 September 2002, p.6.
[79]See TN/DS/42,24 January 2003, p.l.
[80]See TN/DS/42,24 January 2003, p.l.
[81]See TN/DS/42,24 January 2003, p.3.
[82]United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act-Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1,9 November 2001.
[83]See TN/DS/W/34,22 January 2003, p.3; TN/DS/42,24 January 2003, p.l.
1841 See TN/DS/W/33.23 January 2003. p.2.
[85]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. Strengthening the GATT Dispute Settlement System:on the Use of Arbitration in GATT [A]. In:Meinhard Hilf and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (eds.). The New GATT round of multilateral trade negotiations:legal and economic problems [M]. New York:Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.1991:337.
[86]TN/DS/W/86,21 April 2006.
[87]Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio Soto, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, TN/DS/25,21 April 2011, Annex A: Document JOB(08)/81, dated 18 July 2008, pp.A-16-A-17.
[88]See Improved Dispute Settlement:Elements for Consideration, MTN.GNG/NG 13/W/6,25 June 1987, para.2; Communication from the Nordic Countries, MTN.GNG/NG 13/W/10,18 September 1987, p.1 and Communication from the EEC, MTN.GNG/NG 13/W/12,24 September 1987, p.3.
[89]See Joost Pauwelyn. The Limits of Litigation:"Americanization" and Negotiation in the Settlement of WTO disputes [J]. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution,2003,19(1):138.
[90]Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, "Procedures", Procedures for Arbitration under Article 8.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, G/SCM/19.10 June 1998.
[91]See TN/DS/W/1,13 March 2002, p.2; TN/DS/W/38,23 January 2003, para.14.
[92]TN/DS/W/2.20 March 2002:TN/DS/W/32.22 lannary 2003 nll
[93]TN/DS/W/12/Rev.1.06 March 2003.
[94]See TN/DS/W/37,22 January 2003, pp.2-3.
[95]关于WTO秘书处的研究及其改革可进一步参见：冯元元.WTO秘书处研究[D].厦门：厦门大学,2008.
[96]See TN/DS/W/22,28 October 2002, p.4.
[97]Ernst-UIrich Petersmann. WTO Negotiators Meet Academics:the Negotiations on Improvements of the WTO Dispute Settlement System [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2003,6(1):247.
[98]有些学者指出,DSU第25条规定之仲裁极少被运用的原因在于适宜仲裁解决的争端具有双边性,而WTO体制内的争端多具有多边性特征。基于当事方合意运行的仲裁缺乏多边性监督和控制See Valerie Hughes. Arbitration within WTO [A]. In:Federico Ortino & Ernst-UIrich Petersmann (eds.). the WTO Dispute Settlement System:1995-2003, New York: Kluwer Law International,2004:85. Also see Rudiger Wolfrum, Perter-Tobias Soll, Karen Kaiser (Eds.). WTO-Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006: 571.
[99]China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/14,21 January 2010.
[100]China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/15,9 March 2010.
[101]China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/16,13 March 2010.
[102]See TN/DS/W/29,22 January 2003, pp.1-2.
[103]See TN/DS/W/5 1/Rev.1,13 March 2003, pp.2-3.
[1]于丹翎.WTO争端解决机构中善意原则的适用及其意义[J].外交评论,2009(1)：135-144.
[2]马丁·内特斯海姆[德].WTO的合法化：以仲裁程序为目标改造争端解决程序[J].中德法学论坛,2003：301-311.
[3]王波.论世贸组织的仲裁制度及我国仲裁制度的改革[J].湖北财经高等专科学校学报,2002(2)：12-14.
[4]毛骁骁.论WTO框架下的授权报复程度问题[J].河北法学,2008(6)：154-170.
[5]毛燕琼.论中国应对WTO争端解决机制改革的策略[J].江淮论坛,2008(6)：53-60.
[6]邓烈.中世纪的国际仲裁及其历史遗产[J].武汉科技大学学报(社会科学版),2003(5)：44-48.
[7]左海聪.WTO争端解决实践综合分析[J].南开学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(6)：105-111.
[8]田晓云.世界贸易组织中的仲裁[J].北京工业大学学报,2007(1)：13-28.
[9]白中红.《能源宪章公约》的争端解决机制研究[J].外交评论,2011(3)：88-99.
[10]吕晓杰.对WTO争端解决机制中司法经济原则功能的再思考[J].环球法律评论,2008(6)：81-89.
[11]朱榄叶.WTO争端解决程序中的证据问题[J].当代法学,2007(1)：121-127.
[12]朱翠微.WTO争端解决机制执行程序中的“合理期限”问题探讨[J].长白学刊,2002(1)：30-32.
[13]向雅萍.WTO报复制度的缺陷与完善研究[J].全球视野理论月刊,2008(4)：143-146.
[14]刘京莲.国际投资仲裁体制的困境与出路[J].福建论坛(人文社会科学版),2011(5)：34-37.
[15]刘曦炜.WTO争端解决机制中“交叉报复”制度相关问题研究[J].决策与信息(下旬刊),2009(1)：19-20.
[16]孙立文.美国WTO争端解决政策与实践评析[J].对外经贸实务,2009(3)：35-37.
[17]牟文富.WTO争端解决机制中的反措施的相称性问题[J].国际商务研究,2008(1)：44-50.
[18]纪文华.WTO争端解决执行中的“顺序”问题法律解读[J].世界贸易组织动态与研究,2005(12)：20-25.
[19]李小军.论WTO仲裁的法律适用[J].福建政法管理干部学院学报,2002(4)：23-26.
[20]李广辉,张晓明.国际商事仲裁与WTO仲裁之比较[J].汕头大学学报(人文社会科学 版),2009(2)：60-76.
[21]杨仕辉.WTO争端解决策略选择的分析[J].统计研究,2008(5)：71-78.
[22]李晓玲.执行DSB建议和裁决的“合理期限”有多长?[J].WTO经济导刊,2005(11)：74-76.
[23]李雁玲,刘晓惠.WTO棉花争议案中交叉报复的研究[J].商业研究,2006(18)：180-182.
[24]肖威.WTO争端胜诉方“申请授权报复”的程序问题研究——“世贸组织争端解决规则与程序的谅解”第21.5条和第22.6条之间的顺序问题[J].河北法学,2008(1)：148-152.
[25]吴道富.WTO争端解决机制及附设仲裁程序之探析[J].现代企业文化,2008(23)：5.
[26]吴慧.法律方法解决国际海洋争端的实践分析[J].厦门大学法律评论.厦门：厦门大学出版社,2003(5)：247-269.
[27]余敏友.中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述[J].世界贸易组织动态与研究,2009(5)：18-27.
[28]沈大勇,张蔚蔚.世贸组织争端解决机制：规则导向抑或权力导向[J].国际商务研究,2008(1)：31-40.
[29]张乃根.论WTO争端解决的合理执行期仲裁——兼论中美知识产权案的执行对策[J]I政法论丛,2009(3)：3-8.
[30]张乃根.论WTO争端解决的条约解释[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2006(1)：122-128.
[31]张乃根.试析WTO争端解决的H际法拘束力[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2003(6)：59-70.
[32]张军旗.WTO争端解决机制中可诉性问题释微-基于成案的视角[J].现代法学,2008(6)：140-146.
[33]陈立军,匡青松.WTO“合理期限”仲裁运行与实践[J].重庆工商大学学报(社会科学版),2007(3)：76-80.
[34]陈立军,匡青松.WTO“合理期限”仲裁举证问题探析[J].湖南商学院学报,2007(1)：108-111.
[35]陈立军,匡青松.论WTO“合弹期限”仲裁制度[J].四川经济管理学院学报,2007(1)：30-32.
[36]陈晓芳.WTO争端解决程序中的法律适用[J].理论月刊,2005(9)：156-158.
[37]苟大凯.论GATS具体承诺修改程序与WTO争端解决程序之间的关系[J].法学杂志,2008(2)：131-133.
[38]郑小敏.论WTO的贸易报复制度[J].浙江社会科学,2004(6)：84-89.
[39]赵秀文.WTO协议项下的争端解决方法及其选择[J].法治论丛-上海政法学院学报,2005(5)：101-106.
[40]赵茹.中国双边投资保护协定中当地救济与国际仲裁[J].北方经济,2007(S2)：13-14.
[41]赵海峰.中国与国际司法机构关系的演进[J].法学评论,2008(6)：3-12.
[42]钟立国.WTO争端解决机制非违反之诉的适用分析[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006(3)：230-234.
[43]秦建荣,周长青.论中国-东盟自由贸易区报复制度的缺陷及其完善-兼论CAFTA对WTO报复制度的借鉴[J].学术论坛,2007(3)：83-86.
[44]高田甜.不败的“第三方"-WTO争端解决第三方制度评析[J].WTO经济导刊,2008(3)：92-94.
[45]常景龙.WTO争端解决机构报告执行制度的实施现状与实质缺陷[J].厦门大学法律评论,2008(1)：157-200.
[46]韩立余.WTO争端解及规则的完善能走多远[J].上海财经大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(5)：33-40.
[47]韩立余.WTO争端解决中的案例法方法[J].现代法学,2008(3)：123-133.
[48]曾炜.论“法庭之友”在WTO争端解决中的发展[J].华南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2006(3)：110-116.
[49]蔡从燕.国际投资仲裁的商事化与“去商事化”[J].现代法学, 第33卷,2011(1)：152-162.
[1]王鹏.论国际混合仲裁的性质——与国际商事仲裁和国家间仲裁的比较研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2007.
[2]王新奎,刘光溪.WTO争端解决机制概论[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2001.
[3]艾伦·雷德芬,马丁·亨特[英].国际商事仲裁法律与实践[M].林一飞、宋连斌译.北京：北京大学出版社,2005.
[4]石静霞.WTO服务贸易法专论[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[5]叶兴平.国际争端解决机制的最新发展：北美自由贸易区的法律与实践[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[6]叶兴平.国际争端解决重要法律文献[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[7]叶兴平.和平解决国际争端[M].北京：法律出版社,2008.
[8]付星国.WTO争端解决的执行机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2011.
[9]朱榄叶.WTO争端解决机制研究[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2007.
[10]朱榄叶.WTO争端解决案件概要：1995-2007[M].北京：法律出版社,2009.
[11]朱榄叶.世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析[M].北京：法律出版社,2000.
[12]朱榄叶.世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析1995-2002[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[13]朱榄叶.世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析2003-2006[M].北京：法律出版社,2008.
[14]纪文华.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]李小年.WTO法律规则与争端解决机制[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2000.
[16]杨什辉.贸易争端解决的博弈分析与策略[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2006.
[17]杨国华,李咏箑.WTO争端解决程序详解[M].北京：中国方正出版社,2004.
[18]李耀芳.WTO争端解决机制[M].北京：中国对外经济贸易出版社,2003.
[19]余敏友.WTO争端解决机制概论[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2001.
[20]张乃根.WTO争端解决机制论：以TRIPS协定为例[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2008.
[21]张乃根.国际法原理[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[22]张桂红.与贸易有关的知识产权成案研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[23]陈安.国际投资争端仲裁——“解决投资争端国际中心”机制研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2001.
[24]陈欣.WTO争端解决中的法律解释：司法克制主义vs.司法能动主义[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[25]邵津.国际法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2008.
[26]林彩瑜.WTO贸易救济与争端解决之法律问题[M].台北：元照出版社,2006.
[27]周忠海.国际法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008.
[28]赵维田主编.WTO的司法机制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004.
[29]胡建国.WTO争端解决裁决执行机制研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2011.
[30]贺小勇.国际贸易争端解决与中国对策研究：以WTO为视角[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[31]贺其治.国家责任法及案例浅析[M].北京：法律出版社.2003.
[32]曹建明,贺小勇编.世界贸易组织(第二版)[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[33]龚柏华主编.WTO争端解决与中国(第一卷)[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2009.
[34]龚柏华主编.WTO争端解决与中国(第二卷)[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2010.
[35]龚柏华.WTO案例集.2006年卷：[中英文本][M].上海：上海人民出版社,2006.
[36]龚柏华.WTO案例集.2007年卷：[中英文本][M].上海：上海人民出版社,2007.
[37]龚柏华.WTO案例集.2008年卷：[中英文本][M].上海：上海人民出版社,2008.
[38]彭淑.论世界贸易组织争端解决中的司法造法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
[39]韩立余.WTO案例及评析1948-1995[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[40]韩立余.WTO案例及评析1995-1999[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[4]]韩立余.WTO案例及评析2000[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[42]韩立余.WTO案例及评析2001[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[43]韩立余.世界贸易组织(WTO)案例分析[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[44]韩立余.既往不咎——WTO争端解决机制研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
[45]詹宁斯瓦茨[英]修订.奥本海国际法[M].第一卷第一分册.王铁崖等译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1995.
[46]戴维·帕米尔特[美],佩特罗斯·C·马弗鲁第斯[希腊].WTO中的争端解决：实践与程序[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005.
[1]曾华群,杨国华.WTO与中国：法治的发展与互动—中国加入WTO十周年纪念文集[C].北京：中国商务出版社,2011.
[1]李居迁.WTO争端解决机制的主要程序[A].司法部法规教育司,国家外国专家局科教文卫司编.WTO争端解决机制-规则、程序与实践[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[2]陈辉萍.WTO争端解决机制中的仲裁制度述评[A].曾华群.国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展[M].北京：法律出版社,2009.
[1]中华经济研究院(台湾WTO中心)网站,网址：http://taiwan.wtocenter.org.tw/
[2]中国国际经济法学会网站：网址：http://www.csiel.org/
[3]上海WTO事务咨询中心网站,网址：http://www.sccwto.net:7001/wto/china.jsp
[4]WTO经济导刊网站,网址：http://www.wtoguide.net/
[1]王慧雅.WTO争端解决程序中的证明责任研究[D].苏州：苏州大学,2009.
[2]王鑫磊.论WTO争端解决机制的完善[D].西安：西北大学,2009.
[3]毛燕琼.WTO争端解决机制问题与改革[D].上海：华东政法大学,2008.
[4]尹雪萍.WTO争端解决机制中的法律适用问题研究[D].上海：华东政法大学,2007.
[5]卢建祥.WTO裁决的强制执行机制[D].上海：华东政法大学,2008.
[6]冯元元.WTO秘书处研究[D].厦门：厦门大学,2008
[7]吕岩峰.WTO争端解决机制“先例效力”问题研究[D].吉林：吉林大学,2007.
[8]吕微平.WTO争端解决机制的正当程序研究-以专家组证据规则和评审标准为视角[D].厦门大学,2007.
[9]朱鹏飞.国际环境争端解决机制研究-国际公法的视角[D].上海：华东政法大学,2009
[10]刘衡.WTO争端解决机制中的证据问题研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2008.
[1l]李爽.论国家责任法上反措施的条件与限制[D].北京：中国政法大学,2011
[12]李蕊.WTO争端解决中的报复机制研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2006.
[13]余小晓.WTO争端解决过程中私方参与问题研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2009.
[14]张东平.WTO争端解决中的条约解释研究[D].厦门：厦门大学,2003.
[15]张晓明.WTO仲裁机制与中国政府参与研究[D].汕头：汕头大学,2010
[16]林维荟GATT/WTO争端解决机制中的不违反之诉研究[D].北京：外交学院,2008.
[17]高田甜.WTO争端解决机制证明负担规则研究[D].上海：华东政法大学,2010
[18]彭翔.论WTO中的仲裁机制[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2004.
[19]彭溆.论世界贸易组织争端解决中的司法造法[D].上海：华东政法学院,2007.
[20]窦仲晖.对和平解决国际争端的政治与法律方式的比较研究[D].广州：暨南大学,2009
[21]蔡强.WTO争端解决中仲裁制度研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.
[22]裴煜.论WTO争端解决中的法律解释[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.
[1]对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译.世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本[中英文对照][M]. 北京：法律出版社,2000.
[1]Albena P.Petrova. The US-Section 110(5) of the Copyright Act Dispute Analysis and Forecasts for Compliance [J]. Currents:International Trade Law Journal,2006,15:43-
[2]Andrea K. Bjorklund. The Emerging Civilization of Investment Arbitration [J]. Penn State Law Review,2009,113(4):1269-1299.
[3]Bashar H. Malkawi. Arbitration and the World Trade Organization:The Forgotten Provisions of Article 25 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding [J]. Journal of International Arbitration, 2007,24(2):173-188.
[4]Benjamin L. Brimeyer. Bananas, Beef, and Compliance in the World Trade Organization:The Inability of the WTO Dispute Settlement Process to Achieve Compliance from Superpower Nations [J]. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade,2001,10:133-168.
[5]Brendan P. McGivern. Seeking Compliance with WTO Rulings:Theory, Practice and Alternatives [J]. The Interntional Lawyer,2002,36:141-157.
[6]Christopher A. Whytock. Litigation, Arbitration, and the Transnational Shadow of the Law [J]. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law,2008,18:449-475.
[7]Clint Bodien. Cross-retaliation in the WTO:Antigua and Barbuda's Proposed Remedy Against the United States in An Online Gambing Dispute [J]. Law and Business Review of the Americas, 2008,14:847-856.
[8]David J. Townsend, Steve Charnovitz. Preventing Opportunistic Uncompliance by WTO Members [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2011,14(2):437-468.
[9]David J. Townsend. Stretching the Dispute Settlement Understanding:U.S.-Cotton's Relaxed Interpretation of Cross-Retaliation in the World Trade Organizaion [J]. Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business,2010,9(2):135.
[10]David Jacyk. The Integration of Article 25 Arbitration in WTO Dispute Settlment:The Past, Present and Future [J]. Australian International Law Journal,2008,15:235-266.
[11]Eoin Gubbins. Precedent In the WTO:Advantages of De Jure Stare Decesis [J]. Trinity College Law Review,2006,9:70-90.
[12]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. Why Rational Choice Theory Requires a Mutilevel Constitutional Approach to International Economic Law:A Response to the Case against Reforming the WTO Enforcement Mechanism [J]. University of Illinois Law Review,2008:360-382.
[13]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. WTO Negotiators Meet Academics:the Negotiations on Improvements of the WTO Dispute Settlement System [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2003,6(1):237-250.
[14]Gabriel L. Slater. The Suspension of Intellectual Property Obligations Under TRIPS:A Proposal for Retaliating against Technology-Exporting Countries in the World Trade Organization [J].The Geogetown Law Journal,2009,97:1365-1408.
[15]Gary Born. A New Generation of International Adjudication [J]. Duke Law Journal,2012, 61:775-879.
[16]Geert A. Zonnekeyn. The Bananas Dispute in the WTO:the DSU Conundrum [J]. International Trade Law & Regulation,1999,5(4):83-88.
[17]Gene M. Grossman, Alan O Sykes. "Optimal" Retaliation in the WTO:a Commentary on the Upland Cotton Arbitration [J]. World Trade Review,2011,10(1):133-164.
[18]Georgia Hamann. Replacing Slingshots with Swords:Implications of the Antigua-Gambling Panel Report for Developing Countries and the World Trading System [J]. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law,2009,42:993-1028.
[19]Georgios I. Zekos. An Examination of GATT/WTO Arbitration Procedures [J]. Dispute Resolution Journal,1999,54:72-76.
[20]Holger Spamann. the Myth of Rebalancing"Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement Practice [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2006,9(1):31-79.
[21]J. Pfumorodze. WTO Remedies and Developing Countries [J]. Journal of International Trade Law & Policy,2011,10(1):83-98.
[22]Jan Paulsson. International Arbitration Is Not Arbitration [J]. Stockholm International Arbitration Review,2008,2:1-20.
[23]Jide Nzelibe. The Case Agaist Reforming the WTO Enforcement Mechanism [J]. University of Illinois Law Review,2008:319-358.
[24]Joost Pauwelyn. Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO:Rules are Rules-toward a More Collective Approach [J]. the American Journal of International Law,2000,94(2):621-633.
[25]Joost Pauwelyn.'Evidence, Proof and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement:Who Bears the Burden?'[J]. Journal of International Economic Law,1998,1:227-258.
[26]Joost Pauwelyn. the Limits of Litigation:"Americanization" and Negotiation in the Settlement of WTO Disputes [J]. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution,2003,19:121-138.
[27]Joost Pauwelyn. The Transformation of World Trade [J]. Michigan Law Review,2005,104(1): 1-70.
[28]Judith L. Goldstein, Douglas Rivers, Michel Tomz. Institutions in International Relations: Undersanding the Effects of the GATT and the WTO on World Trade [J]. International Organization,2007,61(1):37-67.
[29]M. Bruce Volbeda. The MOX Plant Case:the Question of "Supplemental Jurisdiction" for International Environmental Claims under UNCLOS [J]. Texas International Law Journal,2006, 42:211-240.
[30]Marcelo D. Varella. The Effectiveness of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation [J]. Journal of International Trade Law & Policy,2009,8(2):100-113.
[31]Mauricio Salas, John H. Jackson. Procedural Overview of the WTO EC-Banana Dispute [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2000,3(1):145-166.
[32]Meinhard Hilf. Power, Rules and Principles-Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2001,4:111-130.
[33]Naigen Zhang. Implementation of WTO Dispute Settlement [J]. Manchester Journal of International Economic Law,2008,5(2):111-125.
[34]Norio Komuro. the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism-Coverage and Procedures of the WTO Understanding [J]. Journal of World Trade,1995,29:5-95.
[35]Phoenix X.F. Cai. Making WTO Remedies Work for Developing Nations:The Need for Class Actions [J]. Emory International Law Review,2011,25:151-196.
[36]Shin-yi Peng. How Much Time is Reasonable?-The Arbitral Decisions under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU [J]. Berkeley Journal of International Law,2008,26(1):324-351.
[37]Steve Charnovitz. The Enforcement of WTO Judgments [J]. The Yale Journal of International Law,2009,34:558-566.
[38]Suzannah Linton, Dr. Firew Kebede Tiba. The International Judge in an Age of Multiple International Courts and Tribunals [J]. Chicago Journal of International Law,2009,9:407.
[39]Sylvia A. Rhodes. The Article 21.5/22 Problem:Clarification Through Bilateral Agreements? [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2000,3:553-558.
[40]Thomas M. Franck. On Proportionality of Countermeasures in International Law [J]. The American Journal of International Law,2008,102(4):715-767.
[41]Thomas Sebastian. World Trade Organization Remedies and the Assessment of Proportionality:Equivalence and Appropriateness [J]. Harvard International Law Journal,2007, 48(2):337-382.
[42]Tjaco T. Van den Hout. Resolution of international disputes:the Role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration-Reflections on the Centenary of the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes [J]. Leiden Journal of International Law,2008,21(3):643-661.
[43]Torsen Lorcher. WTO Dispute Settlement and arbitration [J]. International arbitration law review,2003,6(6):203-215.
[44]Tsai-yu Lin. How Far Can Arbitration Practice as An Alternative Dispute Resolution within The WTO Go?A Perspective on Intellectual Property Disputes [J]. Contemporary Asian Arbitration Journal,2009,2(1):25-48.
[45]William J. Davey. Compliance Problems in WTO Dispute Settlement [J]. Cornell International Law Journal,2009,42:119-128.
[46]William J. Davey. the WTO:Looking Forwards [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2006,9(1):3-29.
[47]Yasuhei Taniguchi. WTO Dispute Resolution as Arbitration [J]. Contemporary Asian Arbitration Journal,2010,3(1):1-6.
[48]Young Duk Park, Georg C. Umbricht. WTO Dispute Settlement 1995-2000:a Statistical Analysis [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2001,4(1):213-230.
[49]Yuka Fukunaga. Securing Compliance through the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Implementation of DSB Recommendations [J]. Journal of International Economic Law,2006,9(2): 383-426.
[1]Alexander Marie Stuyt (ed.). Survey of International Arbitration:1794-1989 (1st ed.) [M]. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1990.
[2]American Arbitration Association. Handbook on International Arbitration an ADR [M]. Huntington, N.Y.:JurisNet,2010.
[3]Andreas F. Lowenfeld. International Economic Law [M]. New York:Oxford University Press, 2002.
[4]Andrew D. Mitchell. Legal Principles in WTO Disputes [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[5]Andrew D.Mitchell. Legal Principles in WTO Disputes [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[6]Asif H. Qureshi. International Economic Law [M]. London:Sweet & MaxweII,1999.
[7]Bernard M. Hoekman. the Political Economy of the World Trading System:the WTO and Beyond [M].New York:Oxford University Press,2001.
[8]Carlos A. Primo Braga, Olivier Cattaneo (eds.). The WTO and Accession Countries [M]. Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar,2009.
[9]Chad P. Bown. Self-enforing Trade:Developing Countries and WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution Press,2009.
[10]Chantal Thomas, Joel P. Trachtman (eds.). Developing Countries in the WTO Legal System [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2009.
[11]Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe. Jurisdiction of Specific International Tribunals [M]. Leiden, Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2009.
[12]Daniel L. M. Kennedy, James D. Southwick (eds.). The Political Economy of International Trade Law:Essays in Honour of Robert E. Hudec [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[13]David Palmeter. The WTO as a Legal System:Essays on International Trade Law and Policy [M]. London:Cameron May,2003.
[14]Donatella Alessandrini. Developing Countries and the Multilateral Trade Regime:the Future and Promise of the WTO'S Development Mission [M]. Oxford:Hart,2010.
[15]Eberhard Bohne. The World Trade Organization:Institutional Development and Reform [M]. Houndmills, Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillian,2010.
[16]Emer de Vattel. The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury [M]. Indianapolis:Liberty Fund,2008.
[17]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Mark A. Pollack (eds.). Transatlantic Economic Disputes:the EU, the US, and the WTO [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2003.
[18]Francisco Orrego Vicuna. International Dispute Settlement in an Evolving Global Society: Constitutionalization, Accessibility, Privatization [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[19]Friedl Weiss (ed.). Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures:Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals [M]. London:Cameron May,2000.
[20]Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Yee Wong, Ketki Sheth. US-China Trade Disputes:Rising Tide, Rising Stakes [M]. Washington, D.C.:Institue for International Economics,2006.
[21]George A. Bermann, Petros C. Mavroidis(eds.). WTO Law and Developing Countries [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2007.
[22]Isabella Van Damme. Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2009.
[23]Jackson H. Ralston. International Arbitration from Athens to Locarno [M]. Clark, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange,2004.
[24]James Brown Scott. Sovereign States and Suits before Arbitral Tribunals and Courts of Justice [M]. Clark, N.J.:Lawbook Exchange,2004.
[25]Jeffrey Waincymer, World Trade Organization (eds.). WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement [M].London:Cameron May,2002.
[26]John Graham Merrills. International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.) [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[27]John H. Jackon. Sovereignty, the WTO and Changing Fundamentals of International Law [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2006.
[28]Joost Pauwelyn. Conflict of Norms in Public International Law:How WTO Law Related to other Rules of International Law [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[29]Jose E. Alvarez. International Organizations as Law-makers [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2005.
[30]Joseph A. Conti. Between Law and Diplomacy:the Social Contexts of Disputing at the World Trade Organization [M]. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press,2010.
[31]Marco C.E.J. Bronckers, Gary N. Horlick(eds.). WTO Jurisprudence and Policy:Practitioners' Perspectives [M]. London:Cameron May,2004.
[32]Michelle T. Grando. Evidentce, Proof, and Fact-finding in WTO Dispte Settlement [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2009.
[33]Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah, Jiangyu Wang (eds.). China, India, and the International Econimic Order [M]. Cambridge, New York:Cambridge University Press,2010.
[34]N. David Palmeter, Petros C. Mavroidis. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (2nd ed.)[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004.
[35]Nichilas Perdikis, Robert Read (eds.). The WTO and the Regulation of International Trade: Recent Trade Disputes between the European Union and United States [M].Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA:Edward Elgar,2005.
[36]Nigel Blackaby, Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed.) [M]. London:Oxford University Press,2009.
[37]Peter Van den Bossche. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization:Text, Cases and Materials (2nd ed.) [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[38]Petros C. Mavroidis, George A. Bermann, Mark Wu. The Law of the World Trade Organization (WTO):Documents. Cases & Analysis [M]. St. Paul:West,2010.
[39]Richard Newfarmer (ed.). Trade, Doha, and Development:A Window into the Issues [M]. Washington, D.C.:World Bank,2006.
[40]Robert C. Feenstra, Shang-jin Wei (eds.). China's Growing Role in World Trade [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,2010.
[41]Robert C. Morris. International Arbitration and Procedure [M]. Union, N.J.:Lawbook Exchange,2000.
[42]Robert E. Hudec. Enforcing International Trade Law:The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System [M]. Salem, N.H.:Butterworth Legal Publishers,1993.
[43]Robert E. Hudec. The GATT Legal System and World Trade Dipolmacy [M]. Salem, N.H.: Butterworth Legal Publishers,1990.
[44]Roman Grynberg (ed.). WTO at the Margins:Small States and the Multilateral Trading System [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2006.
[45]Riidiger Wolfrum, Perter-Tobias Soil, Karen Kaiser (eds.). WTO-Institutions and Dispute Settlement [M]. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006.
[46]Ruth Mackenzie, Cesare P. R. Romano, Yuval Shany, Phillippe Sands. Manual on International Courts and Tribunals [M]. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press,2010.
[47]Sherzod Shadikhodjaev. Retaliation in the WTO Dispute Settlement System [M]. The Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2009.
[48]Simon A.B. Schropp. Trade Policy Flexibility and Enforcement in the World Trade Organization:A Law and Economics Analysis [M].Cambridge, New York:Cambridge University Press,2009.
[49]Steve Charnovitz, Debra P. Stefer, Peter Van Den Bossche (eds.). Law in the Service of Human Dignity:Essays in Honour of Florentino Feliciano [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[50]Terence P. Stewart (ed.). The GATT Uruguay Round:A Negotiating History,1986-1992 [M]. Deventer, Boston:Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers,1993.
[51]The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law ed., Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol.1 Settlement of Disputes, New York: North-Holland Publishing Company,1981.
[52]Timothy Hillier. Principles of Public International Law (2nd ed.) [M]. London:Cavendish, 1999.
[53]Tomer Broude. International Governance in the WTO:Judicial Boundaries and Political Capitulation [M]. London:Cameron May,2004.
[54]William A. Kerr, James D. Gaisford. Handbook on International Trade Policy [M]. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA:Edward Elgar,2007.
[55]William A. Lovett, Alfred E. Eckes, Jr. and Richard L. Brinkman. U.S. Trade Policy:History, Theory, and the WTO [M]. Armonk, NY:M.E. Sharpe,2004.
[56]World Trade Organization. GATT:Basic Instruments and Selected Documents [M]. Geneva: World Trade Organization; Lanham, MD:Bernan,2002.
[57]Zdenek Drabek (ed.). Is the World Trade Organization Attractive Enough for Emerging Economies? Critical Essays on the Multilateral Trading System [M]. Houndmills, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillian,2010.
[1]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (ed.). the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System:International Law, International Organization, and Dispute Settlement, Hague:Kluwer Law International,1997.
[2]Federico Ortino & Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (ed.). the WTO Dispute Settlement System: 1995-2003, Hague:Kluwer Law International,2004.
[3]Mitsuo Matsushita. In Selected GATT WTO Panel Reports:Summaries and Commentaries ix, Tokyo:the Fair Trade Center of Tokyo,1999.
[4]Petras C. Mavroidis, Alan O. Sykes (ed.). The WTO and International Trade Law/Dispute Settlement, Cheltenham:Edward Elgar,2005.
[5]Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanvonich, Jan Bohane (ed.). The WTO in the Twenty-first Century: Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia, New York:Cambridge University Press,2007.
[6]Yerxa, Rufus H., Wilson, Bruce (ed.). Key Issues in WTO dispute settlement:The First Ten Years, New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[1]Chad P. Bown. The WTO Secretariat and the role of economics in Panels and arbitrations[A]. In Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010.
[2]David Evans, Celso de Tarso Pereira. DSU Review:A View from the Inside [A].In Yerxa, Rufus H., Wilson, Bruce (eds.)-Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement:The First Ten Years [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[3]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. Strengthening the GATT Dispute Settlement System:on the Use of Arbitration in GATT [A]. In Meinhard Hilf, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (eds.). The New GATT Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations:Legal and Economic Problems [M]. Deventer, Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers,1991.
[4]Georgios I. Zekos. An Examination of GATT/WTO Arbitration Procedures [A]. In American Arbitration Association. AAA Handbook on International Arbitration and ADR (2nd ed.) [M]. New York:Juris Publishing,2010.
[5]Giorgio Sacerdoti. The nature of WTO arbitration on retaliation [A]. In Chad P. Bown, Joost Pauwelyn (eds.). The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2010.
[6]Hunter Nottage, Jan Bohanes. Arbitration as an Alternative to Litigation in the WTO: Observations in the Light of the 2005 Banana Tariff Arbitrations [A]. In Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanvonich, Jan Bohane (eds.). The WTO in the Twenty-first Century:Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2007.
[7]L. B. Sohn. International Arbitration in Historical Perspective:Past and Present [A]. In A. H. A. Soons (ed.). International Arbitration in Historical Perspective:Past and Prospects [M]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1990.
[8]Robert E. Hudec. The Role of the GATT Secretariat in the Evolution of the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure [A]. In Jagdish Bhagwati and Mathias Hirsch (eds.). The Uruguay Round and Beyond:Essay in Honour of Arthur Dunkel [M].Berlin:Springer-Verlag Press,1998.
[9]Robert Hudec. Broadening the Scope of Remedies in WTO Dispute Settlment [A]. In Friedl Weiss, Jochem Wiers (eds.). Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures:Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals [M]. London:Cameron May Publishers,2000.
[10]Surya P Subedi. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a New Techniques for Settling Disputes in International Law [A], In Duncan French, Matthew Saul, Nigel D White (eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement:New Problems and Techniques [M]. Oxford and Portland, Oregon:Hart Publishing,2010.
[11]Valerie Hughes. Arbitration within WTO [A]. In Federico Ortino, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (eds.). The WTO Dispute Settlement System:1995-2003 [M]. Hague:Kluwer Law International, 2004.
[12]William J. Davey. WTO Dispute Settlement:Segregating the Useful Political Aspects and Avoiding'Over-Legalization'[A]. In Marco Bronckers, Reinhard Quick (eds.). New Directions in International Economic Law:Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson [M]. New York:Kluwer Law International,2000.
[1]The website of WTO:Http://www.wto.org
[2]The website of UN:http://www.un.org/
[3]The website of International Court of Justice:http://www.ici-cij.org/
[4]The website of UNCITRAL:http://www.uncitral.org/
[5]The website of ICSID:http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/Index.jsp
[6]The website of ICTSD:http://ictsd.org/
[7]The website of Permanent Court of Arbitration:http://www.pca-cpa.org/
[8]Electronic Information System for International Law & International Dispute Settlement: http://www.eisil.org/index.php?sid=995444682&cat=0
[9]The website of Association for International Arbitration:http://www.arbitration-adr.org/news/
[10]The website of Kluwer Arbitration:http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/
[11]The website of Chartered Institute of Arbitrators:http://www.ciarb.org/
[12]http://librarv.law.yale.edu/
[13]http://www.library.yale.edu/
[14]http://www.worldtradelaw.net/
[15]http://www.acwl.ch/e/index.html
[16]http://www.westlaw.com
[17]http://www.lexisnexis.com.cn
[18]http://home.heinonline.org/
[1]David William Jacyk. Arbitration in WTO Disputes:the Forgotten Alternative [D]. The University of British Columbia,2007.
[2]Rainer Gildeggen. The Impact of Arbitral Awards on the Development of International Law: The Development of the International Law Concerning the Taking of Foreign-Owned Property [D].University of Georgia School of law, LLM Theses and Essays,1988, Paper 119.
[1]Jeanne J. Grimmett. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO):An Overview [R]. CRS Report for Congress,8 April 2010.
[2]Nils Eliasson.10 Years of Energy Charter Treaty Arbitration [R]. Mannheimer Swartling,6 June 2011.
[3]Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law:Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, A/CN.4/L.682,13 April 2006.
[4]Robert Z. Lawrence, The United States and the WTO dispute settlement system (CSR No.25, March 2007) [R], New York, Council on Foreign Relations,2007.
[5]World Trade Organization. WTO Appellate Boday Repertory of Reports and Awards, 1995-2006, Cambridge, New York:Cambridge University Press,2007.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |