[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]
ChapterⅡ
　　CausesofActionbeforetheDSB:
　　Art.XXIIIoftheGATT1994
　　
　　OUTLINE
　　
　　SectionOneRighttoPursueaProceedingundertheWTO
　　ITheConceptofNullificationorImpairment
　　IITheStandingIssuebeforetheDSB
　　IIILackofPossibleCompensation
　　IVSummaryandConclusions
　　SectionTwoCausesofActionbeforetheDSBinGeneral
　　IThePresumptioninViolationComplaints
　　（i）Introduction
　　（ii）PracticeundertheGATTJurisprudence
　　（iii）RulingsundertheWTOJurisprudence
　　（iv）ASummary
　　IIAnOverviewofNon-ViolationComplaints
　　（i）RelatedTexts
　　（ii）RelationshipbetweenArts.XXIII:1(a)andXXIII:1(b)
　　（iii）UnderlyingPurposeofArt.XXIII:1(b)
　　（iv）Non-violationClaimsintheContextofPrinciplesofCustomaryInternationalLaw
　　（v）AppropriateAttitudesastoNon-ViolationRemedy
　　IIIPresupposedSituationComplaints
　　SectionThreeEstablishmentofNon-violationComplaints
　　IIntroduction
　　IIApplicationofaMeasure:ScopeofMeasuresCoveredbyArt.XXIII:1(b)
　　（i）MeasuresshortofLegallyBindingObligations
　　（ii）MeasuresFallingunderOtherProvisionsoftheGATT1994
　　（iii）MeasuresConcerningtheProtectionofHumanHealth
　　（iv）MeasuresContinuinglyApplied
　　IIIExistenceofaBenefit:ProtectionofLegitimateExpectations
　　（i）ProtectionofLegitimateExpectations（PLE）
　　（ii）Non-foreseeabilityofMeasuresatIssue
　　（iii）BenefitsintheNegotiations
　　（iv）BenefitsunderSuccessiveRounds
　　IVNullificationorImpairmentofBenefit:Causality
　　VSummaryandConclusions
　　
　　SectionOne
　　RighttoPursueaProceedingundertheWTO
　　
　　ITheConceptofNullificationorImpairment
　　
　　NullificationorimpairmentisamostimportantconceptdevelopedinpreviousGATTdisputesettlementsystem.ItisincorporatedintotheGATT1994bytheso-calledincorporationclause(paragraph1oftheGATT1994)andgoesontooperateasanimportantfeatureoftheDSUundertheWTO.DisputesettlementmechanismundertheWTOcontinuestorevolvearoundtheconceptofnullificationorimpairment.Art.3.1oftheDSUrequiresMembersto“affirmtheiradherencetotheprinciplesforthemanagementofdisputesheretoforeappliedunderArticlesXXIIandXXIIIofGATT1947”.
　　AccordingtoArt.XXIII:1oftheGATT,aMembermayhaverecoursetodisputesettlementundertheWTOwhenitconsidersthat:
　　
　　“...anybenefitaccruingtoitdirectlyorindirectlyunderthisAgreementisbeingnullifiedorimpairedorthattheattainmentofanyobjectiveoftheAgreementisbeingimpededastheresultof
　　（a）thefailureofanothercontractingparty[MemberoftheWTO]tocarryoutitsobligationsunderthisAgreement,or
　　（b）theapplicationbyanothercontractingparty[MemberoftheWTO]ofanymeasure,whetherornotitconflictswiththeprovisionsofthisAgreement,or
　　（c）theexistenceofanyothersituation.”
　　
　　Asitimplies,unlikethatinmanyotherdisputesettlementproceduresgenerallydesignedtoresolvedifferencesontheinterpretationorapplicationoftheprovisionsundermostinternationaltreaties,internationalresponsibilityinWTOlawisnotassessedonlyintermsofcompliancewiththespecificprovisionsoftherelevantagreements.Rather,itistheideaofnullificationorimpairmentthatdetermineswhetherrightstocomplainariseunderthecoveredagreement.
　　Art.XXIII:1suggeststhatlegalconsiderationsneednotbethesolefocusofacomplaintundertheDSU,andthattheDSUprocedurescanbeinvokedforthesettlementofanytradedisputearisingfromanygovernmentalmeasure,whetherlegalorillegal,andthatarisingfromanysituation,whetherattributabletoagovernmentornot.Amemberdemonstratingthatameasureoranyothersituationnullifiedorimpairedtheirbenefitsaccruingtothecoveredagreementsisgivenredresseveniftherewasnofailuretocarryouttheobligations.What’smore,abenefitdoesn’tneedtoaccruedirectlytotheparty;anindirectbenefitisprotectedaswell.ItseemsthattheaimofArt.XXIII:1istoensurethatthenegotiatedbalanceofconcessionsismaintainedeveninsituationsthatcannotbeforeseenandthatcanconsequentlynotbedefined.
　　Inpractice,itisdemonstratedthatpanelsandtheAppellateBodyhavebroadlydefinednullificationorimpairmentofabenefit.Theequationof“nullificationorimpairment”with“upsettingthecompetitiverelationship”establishedbetweenmembershasbeenconsistentlyused.However,asaresultofthedivergencebetweenthetextoftheprovisionsandthepracticeunderit,theactualscopeandfunctionoftheconceptofnullificationorimpairmentisoftenmisunderstood.ItishelpfulfortheclarificationofthisconcepttogofurtherintothestandingissuebeforetheDSB.
　　
　　IITheStandingIssuebeforetheDSB
　　Theterm“standing”hasnotbeenexplicitlyembodiedinthetextoftheDSUorinanyothercoveredagreements.Itisusedhereforthepurposeofexaminingwhetherapartymustdemonstratetheexistenceofsomeinterestconcerned,asusuallyrequiredindomesticjudicialprocess,inlaunchingacomplaintbeforetheDSB.
　　InEC-Bananas(DS27)1,theAppellateBodydoesnotacceptthattheneedfora“legalinterest”isimpliedintheDSUorinanyotherprovisionoftheWTOAgreementwhentheECqueriestherightofUStobringclaimsundertheGATT1994.Duringtheappellatereview,theAppellateBodyagreewiththePanelthat,“neitherArt.3.3nor3.7oftheDSUnoranyotherprovisionoftheDSUcontainsanyexplicitrequirementthataMembermusthavea‘legalinterest’asaprerequisiteforrequestingapanel”.AsfoundbytheAppellateBody,itistruethatunderArt.4.11oftheDSU,aMemberwishingtojoininmultipleconsultationsmusthave“asubstantialtradeinterest”,andthatunderArt.10.2oftheDSU,athirdpartymusthave“asubstantialinterest”inthematterbeforeapanel.ButneitheroftheseprovisionsintheDSU,noranythingelseintheWTOAgreement,providesabasisforassertingthatpartiestothedisputehavetomeetanysimilarstandard.
　　TheparticipantsinthisappealalsorefertocertainjudgmentsoftheInternationalCourtofJusticeandthePermanentCourtofInternationalJusticerelatingtowhetherthereisarequirement,ininternationallaw,ofalegalinteresttobringacase.TheAppellateBodycannotreadanyofthesejudgmentsasestablishingageneralrulethatinallinternationallitigationacomplainingpartymusthavea“legalinterest”inordertobringacase.Nordotheythinkthatthesejudgmentsdenytheneedtoconsiderthequestionofstandingunderthedisputesettlementprovisionsofanymultilateraltreaty,byreferringtothetermsofthattreaty.ThisleadstheAppellateBodytoexamineArt.XXIIIoftheGATT1994,whichisthedisput

[1] [2]  下一页