[本篇论文由上帝论文网为您收集整理，上帝论文网http://paper.5var.com将为您整理更多优秀的免费论文，谢谢您的支持]
ChapterV
　　GuidelinesforInterpretation
　　oftheWTOCoveredAgreements
　　
　　OUTLINE
　　
　　IIntroduction
　　IIApplicationofArts.31,32oftheViennaConvention
　　IIIWTORulesonConflicts:EffectiveInterpretation
　　IVTheStatusofLegitimateExpectationsinInterpretation
　　
　　
　　IIntroduction
　　AccordingtoArt.11oftheDSU,thepanel’sroleisto“makeanobjectiveassessmentofthematterbeforeit,includinganobjectiveassessmentofthefactsofthecaseandtheapplicabilityandconformitywiththerelevantcoveredagreements”.Inthepreviouschapter,wehaveexaminedthegeneralstandardofreviewlabeledas“anobjectiveassessment”regarding“thefactsofthecase”;clearly,forpanelstofulfilappropriatelytheirfunctionsasdesignatedinArt.11oftheDSU,itisalsoindiscerptibletomakesuchanobjectiveassessmentof“theapplicabilityandconformitywiththerelevantcoveredagreements”.Therefore,theinterpretationissueofthecoveredagreementsarises.Inthissection,theauthorwillscrutinizeguidelinesforinterpretationappliedundertheWTOjurisprudence.
　　Toresolveaparticulardispute,beforeaddressingtheparties’argumentsindetail,itisclearlynecessaryandappropriatetoclarifythegeneralissuesconcerningtheinterpretationoftherelevantprovisionsandtheirapplicationtotheparties’claims.However,thecomplexnatureofthecoveredagreementshasgivenrisetodifficultiesininterpretation.
　　Asnotedpreviously,GATT/WTOjurisprudenceshouldnotbeviewedinisolationfromgeneralprinciplesdevelopedininternationallawormostjurisdictions;andaccordingtoArt.3.2oftheDSU,panelsareboundbythe“customaryrulesofinterpretationofpublicinternationallaw”intheirexaminationofthecoveredagreements.Anumberofrecentadoptedreportshaverepeatedlyreferred,asinterpretativeguidelines,to“customaryrulesofinterpretationofpublicinternationallaw”asembodiedinthetextofthe1969ViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties(‘ViennaConvention’),especiallyinitsArts.31,32.ItisinaccordancewiththeserulesoftreatyinterpretationthatpanelsortheAppellateBodyhavefrequentlyexaminedtheWTOprovisionsatissue,onthebasisoftheordinarymeaningofthetermsofthoseprovisionsintheircontext,inthelightoftheobjectandpurposeofthecoveredagreementsandtheWTOAgreement.TheseViennaConventionarticlesprovideasfollows:
　　
　　“Art.31:GeneralRuleofInterpretation
　　1.Atreatyshallbeinterpretedingoodfaithinaccordancewiththeordinarymeaningtobegiventothetermsofthetreatyintheircontextandinthelightofitsobjectandpurpose.
　　2.Thecontextforthepurposeoftheinterpretationofatreatyshallcomprise,inadditiontothetext,includingitspreambleandannexes:
　　(a)anyagreementrelatingtothetreatywhichwasmadebetweenallthepartiesinconnexionwiththeconclusionofthetreaty;
　　(b)anyinstrumentwhichwasmadebyoneormorepartiesinconnexionwiththeconclusionofthetreatyandacceptedbytheotherpartiesasaninstrumentrelatedtothetreaty.
　　3.Thereshallbetakenintoaccounttogetherwiththecontext:
　　(a)anysubsequentagreementbetweenthepartiesregardingtheinterpretationofthetreatyortheapplicationofitsprovisions;
　　(b)anysubsequentpracticeintheapplicationofthetreatywhichestablishestheagreementofthepartiesregardingitsinterpretation;
　　(c)anyrelevantrulesofinternationallawapplicableintherelationsbetweentheparties.
　　4.Aspecialmeaningshallbegiventoatermifitisestablishedthatthepartiessointended.
　　
　　Art.32SupplementaryMeansofInterpretation
　　Recoursemaybehadtosupplementarymeansofinterpretation,includingthepreparatoryworkofthetreatyandthecircumstancesofitsconclusion,inordertoconfirmthemeaningresultingfromtheapplicationofarticle31,ortodeterminethemeaningwhentheinterpretationaccordingtoarticle31:
　　(a)leavesthemeaningambiguousorobscure;or
　　(b)leadstoaresultwhichismanifestlyabsurdorunreasonable.”
　　
　　IIApplicationofArts.31,32oftheViennaConvention
　　PursuanttoArt.31.1oftheViennaConvention,thedutyofatreatyinterpreteristodeterminethemeaningofaterminaccordancewiththeordinarymeaningtobegiventotheterminitscontextandinlightoftheobjectandpurposeofthetreaty.AsnotedbytheAppellateBodyinitsReportonJapan-AlcoholicBeverages(DS8/DS10/DS11),“Article31ofprovidesthatthewordsofthetreatyformthefoundationfortheinterpretiveprocess:‘interpretationmustbebasedabovealluponthetextofthetreaty’.Theprovisionsofthetreatyaretobegiventheirordinarymeaningintheircontext.Theobjectandpurposeofthetreatyarealsotobetakenintoaccountindeterminingthemeaningofitsprovisions”.AndinUS–Shrimps(DS58),theAppellateBodyaccordinglystates:“Atreatyinterpretermustbeginwith,andfocusupon,thetextoftheparticularprovisiontobeinterpreted.Itisinthewordsconstitutingthatprovision,readintheircontext,thattheobjectandpurposeofthestatespartiestothetreatymustfirstbesought.Wherethemeaningimpartedbythetextitselfisequivocalorinconclusive,orwhereconfirmationofthecorrectnessofthereadingofthetextitselfisdesired,lightfromtheobjectandpurposeofthetreatyasawholemayusefullybesought.”
　　Morespecifically,thePanelinUS-Sections301-310(DS152)rulesthat:“Text,contextandobject-and-purposecorrespondtowellestablishedtextual,systemicandteleologicalmethodologiesoftreatyinterpretation,allofwhichtypicallycomeintoplaywheninterpretingcomplexprovisionsinmultilateraltreaties.Forpragmaticreasonsthenormalusage,andwewillfollowthisusage,istostarttheinterpretationfromtheordinarymeaningofthe‘raw’textoftherelevanttreatyprovisionsandthenseektoconstrueitinitscontextandinthelightofthetreaty’sobjectandpurpose.However,theelementsreferredtoinArticle31-text,contextandobject-and-purposeaswellasgoodfaith-aretobeviewedasoneholisticruleofinterpretationratherthanasequenceofseparateteststobeappliedinahierarchicalorder.Contextandobject-and-purposemayoftenappearsimplytoconfirmaninterpretationseeminglyderivedfromthe‘raw’text.Inrealityitisalwayssomecontext,evenifunstated,thatdetermineswhichmeaningistobetakenas‘ordinary’andfrequentlyitisimpossibletogivemeaning,even‘ordinarymeaning’,withoutlookingalsoatobject-and-purpose.AsnotedbytheAppellateBody:‘Article31oftheViennaConventionprovidesthatthewordsofthetreatyformthefoundationfortheinterpretiveprocess:’interpretationmustbebasedabovealluponthetextofthetreaty’’.Itadds,however,that‘[t]heprovisio

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]  下一页