1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. 商學院
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

題名 論WTO爭端解決程序中審查基準之爭議：以反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條為中心
ISSUES ON STANDARDS OF REVIEW UNDER WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION: FOCUS ON ARTICLE 17.6(ii) OF ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT
作者 陳言博
Chen, Yen-Po
貢獻者 楊光華
Yang,Connie Guang-Hwa
陳言博
Chen, Yen-Po
關鍵詞 世界貿易組織
反傾銷
爭端解決
審查基準
World Trade Organization (WTO)
Anti-Dumping
Dispute Settlement
Standards of Review
日期 2004
上傳時間 18-九月-2009 14:16:35 (UTC+8)
摘要 隨著WTO爭端解決機構近年來的實踐，許多制度性問題紛紛浮現，特別是WTO爭端解決小組或上訴機構在反傾銷爭端中審查基準實踐上所引發之爭議。批評者主要認為上訴機構於反傾銷規範之法律解釋上不當適用解釋規則，並未遵循反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條之規範。另外，上訴機構實質上近乎重新審理被訴會員之法律見解，似乎違反第17.6(ii)條之規範意旨。本文嘗試整理相關經由WTO上訴機構裁決之反傾銷爭端，觀察及彙整第17.6(ii)條於現行運作中之實踐情形，並檢視上述兩項爭議之正反意見。經分析後發現，上述兩項爭議皆涉及不同之政策考量與WTO組織間的互動。易言之，除爭端解決機構對於協定條文之法律解釋外，偏重與選擇不同之政策考量做為正當性基礎，將決定著審查基準之面貌。在進一步分析並檢討在反傾銷制度下可能影響審查基準之政策價值後，本文認為WTO爭端解決機制為維繫其準司法機關之正當性與確保經由多邊架構所帶來之合作利益，有統一法律解釋與重新審理被控訴會員之法律解釋之必要。另外，反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條審查基準之解釋上，不宜採取其立法來源—美國法Chevron doctrine—之規範內涵。同時，為避免反傾銷制度遭濫用成為貿易保護政策之工具，應賦予WTO爭端解決機構於審理反傾銷爭端時較為自主之法律解釋權力。然而，基於適度尊重WTO會員主權之考量與司法自制之要求，本文建議，WTO爭端解決機構在審理反傾銷案件時，除須正確地援引並靈活運用國際法上習慣解釋規則外，更需適度參照第17.6(ii)條之立法目的，藉由嚴格適用WTO協定，以充實其所採取審查基準之正當性基礎。
With practices of WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the institutional issues on Standards of Review have emerged, especially on WTO Anti-dumping disputes. Contestations are focus on whether Appellate Body has mal-applied rules of interpretations on Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) as to go beyond Article 17.6(ii). Moreover, Critics query whether Appellate Body De Novo reviewed member’s legal interpretations as to disregard purpose of Article 17.6(ii). By examining relevant anti-dumping penal and appellate body reports, current modes of practices on ADA Article 17.6(ii) are concluded, and probed to its different critiques. Further, issues of such are result from policy considerations of Standards of Review under Anti-Dumping System. In other words, apart from penal and appellate body’s interpretations on ADA, different policy ends will influence current practices of Standards of Review. Consequently, the article checks on and assays on relevant policy justifications of deferential standards of review under anti-dumping system. Concluded, for retaining its institution justifications and ensuring the cooperation gains under multilateral approach, WTO dispute settlement institutes have the necessities in de novo review and leveling legal interpretations. Moreover, due to the different characters, the Chevron mode interpretations on standards of review is without analogy to ADA article 17.6(ii); meanwhile, for preventing distorting antidumping measures as trade protection tools, WTO dispute settlement institutes should have much room on discretion of reviewing members’ ADA legal interpretations. However, in respecting WTO Member’s sovereignty and the requiring of judicial restraint, when taking the standards of review on examining anti-dumping disputes, WTO dispute settlement institutes would strictly and nimbly retain customary rules of interpretation of public international law with considering purposes of ADA article 17.6(ii).
參考文獻 中文書目：
1. Arthur Kaufmann 著，吳從周 譯，《類推與「事務本質」–兼論類型理論》，台北：學林，1999年1月。
2. 羅昌發，《國際貿易法》，台北，原照，1999年7月。
3. ______，《美國貿易救濟制度：國際經貿法研究（一）》，台北，月旦，1994年3月
英文書目：
1. Aust, Anthony, MODERN TREATY LAW AND PRACTICE, Cambridge University Press, (2000).
2. Brownlie, Ian, Principles of International Law, 5th ed. (1998)
3. Cottier, Thomas and Mavroidis, Patros C.(eds.), THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION: EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FOR THE WTO, World Trade Forum Vol.4, The University of Michigan Press (2003).
4. Craig, Paul ＆de Búrca, Gráinne, EU LAW—TEXT, CASES AND MATERIALS 132-37 3d. ed., Oxford University Press (2003).
5. Dale, Richard, ANTI-DUMPING LAW IN A LIBERAL TRADE ORDER (1980).
6. Evans, Gali E., LAWMAKING UNDER THE TRADE CONSTITUTION (2002).
7. Harris, D.J., CASES AND MATERIALS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, 5th ed Sweet＆Maxwell (1998).
8. Hoekman, Bernard M. and Kostecki, Michel M., THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE WORLD TRADING SYSTEM, 2d. ed. (2001).
9. Kennedy, Daniel L. ＆ Southwick, James D. (eds.), THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERT E. HUDEC, Cambridge University Press (2002).
10. Jackson, John H., THE WORLD TRADING SYSTEM－LAW AND POLICY OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS, 2d. ed., MIT Press (1997).
11. Jackson, John H., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: CONSTITUTION AND JURISPRUDENCE, Chatham House Papers (1998).
12. Jennings, Robert and Watts, Arthur, OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW, 9th ed., Harlow: Longman Group (1996).
13. Matsushita, M, Schoenbaum, T., and Macroidis, P., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: LAW, PRACTICE, AND POLICY, Oxford university Press (2003).
14. Oesch, Matthias, STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION (2003).
15. Treiblicock, Michael J. and Howse, Robert, THE REGULATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, 2d. ed., (1999).
16. Viner, Jacob, DUMPING: A PROBLEM IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE (1966).
17. Weiler, J.H.H., THE EU, THE WTO, AND THE NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of International Trade?, Oxford University Press (2000).
英文期刊論文：
1. Akakwam, Philip A., The Standard of Review in the 1994 Antidumping Code: Circumscribing the Role of GATT Panels in Reviewing National Antidumping Determinations, 5 Minnesota Journal of Global Trade (1996).
2. Croley, Steven P. and Jackson, John H., WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments, 90(193) American Journal of International Law (1996).
3. Davey, William J., Has the WTO Dispute Settlement System Exceed its Authority? A Consideration of Deference Shown by the System to Member Government Decisions and its Use of Issue-Avoidance Techniques, 4 Journal of International Economic Law (2001).
4. Durling, James P. Deference but Only When Due: WTO Review of Anti-dumping Measures, 6(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2003).
5. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter, Tensions between the Dispute Settlement Process and the Diplomatic and Treaty–making Activities of the WTO, 1(3) World Trade Review (2002).
6. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter, Reflections on the Appellate Body of the WTO, American Society of International Law Proceedings (2003).
7. Howse, Robert ＆ Nicilaidis, Kalypso, Legitimacy through “Higher Law”? Why Constitutionalizing the WTO is a step TOO Far, in THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION: EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FOR THE WTO, World Trade Forum Vol.4, The University of Michigan Press (2003).
8. Howse, Robert, The Most Dangerous Branch? WTO Appellate Body Jurisprudence in the Nature and Limits of the Judicial Power, in THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION：EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FOR THE WTO, World Trade Forum Vol.4, The University of Michigan Press (2003).
9. Howse, Robert, Adjudicative Legitimacy and Treaty Interpretation in International Trade Law: The Early Years of WTO Jurisprudence, in THE EU, THE WTO, AND THE NAFTA: TOWARDS A COMMON LAW OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE?, Oxford University Press (2000).
10. Jackson, John H., The GATT 1994 Sovereignty Debate: United States Acceptance and Implementation of the Uruguay Round Results, 36 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1997).
11. Jackson, John H., Sovereignty, Subsidiary, and Separation of Power : The High-Wire Balancing Act of Globalisation, in THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERT E. HUDEC, Cambridge University Press (2002).
12. Jackson, John H., The WTO “Constitution” and Proposed Reforms: Seven “Mantras” Revised, 4(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2001).
13. Jackson, John H.,Sovereignty-Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept, Vol. 97 American Journal of International Law (2003).
14. Maki, Peter C., Interpreting GATT Using the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty: A Method to Increase the Legitimacy of the Dispute Settlement System, 9 Minnesota Journal of Global Trade (2000)
15. McRae, Donald, The WTO in International Law: Tradition Continued or New Frontier? 3(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2002).
16. Lennard, Michael, Navigating by the Stars: Interpreting the WTO Agreements, 5(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2002).
17. Rosenthal, Paul C. ＆ Vermylen, Robert T.C., The WTO Antidumping and Subsidies Agreement: Did the U.S. Achieve Its Objectives during the Uruguay Round? 31(3) Law ＆ Policy in International Business.
18. Steinberg, Richard H., Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints, 98 American Journal of International Law (2004).
19. Tarullo, Daniel K., The Hidden Cost of International Dispute Settlement: WTO Review of Domestic Anti-dumping Decisions, 34 Law ＆ Policy in International Business.
20. Tarullo, Daniel K., Paved with good intentions: The Dynamic Effects of WTO Review of Anti-dumping Action, 2(3) World Trade Review (2003).
21. Weiss, Wolfgang, Security and Predictability under WTO Law, 2(2) World Trade Review (2003).
22. Yocis, David A., Guatemala Cement and WTO Review of National Anti-dumping Determinations, 76 New York University Law Review (2001).
23. Zleptnig, Stefan, The Standard Review in WTO Law: An Analysis of Law, Legitimacy and the Distribution of Legal and Political Authority, 6(2) European Integration online Papers (EIoP) (2002)
WTO文件：
1. WTO Legal Text, Declaration on Dispute Settlement Pursuant to The Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 Or Part V of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
2. WTO Legal Text, Decision on Review of Article 17.6 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article Ⅵ of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1994, in The Legal Text- the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations.
3. 美國—石油案（US－Reformulated Gasoline）, WT/DS2/R
4. 歐體—荷爾蒙案（EC—Hormones）, WT/DS48/11, WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R
5. 日本—酒精飲料案（Japan－Alcoholic Beverages）, WT/DS11/AB/R
6. 美國—內衣案（United States—Underwear）, WT/DS24/R and WT/DS24/AB/R,
7. 瓜地馬拉—波特蘭水泥案(Guatemala-Portland Cement from Mexico), WT/DS60/AB/R, WT/DS60/R
8. 泰國—結構鋼案(Thailand-Structural Steel from Poland), WT/DS122/AB/R, WT/DS122/R;
9. 墨西哥—HFSC案(Mexico-HFSC from U.S.), WT/DS132/AB/RW, WT/DS132/R;
10. 美國—1916 反傾銷法案(US-1916 Act from EC and Japan), WT/DS141/AB/R, WT/DS141/R
11. 歐體—寢具案(EC- Bed Linen from India), WT/DS141/AB/R, WT/DS141/R
12. 美國—熱軋鋼案(US-Hot-Rolled Steel from Japan), WT/DS184/AB/R, WT/DS184/R
13. 歐體—鑄鐵圓管及配件案(EC-Cast Iron Tubes＆Fittings from Brazil), WT/DS219/AB/R, WT/ DS219/R
14. 美國—柏德修正案(US-Byrd Amendment from Australia, Brazil et al), WT/DS234/AB/R, WT/DS234/R
15. 美國-鋼鐵產品落日審查案(US-Steel Sunset Review from Japan), WT/ DS244/AB/R, WT/DS244/R;
16. 美國-軟木傾銷案(US-Soft Lumber from Canada), WT/ DS264/AB/R, WT/DS264/R.
國際協定：
1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty, 23 May 1969, 1155 United Nations Treaty Series 331 (1980); 8 International Legal Materials 679.
2. Final Act Embodying The Results of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Marrakesh Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization), 15 April 1994, The Legal Texts: The Results of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, published by the WTO, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
外國裁判：
1.Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837(1984)
網站資料：
www.wto.org
www.ustr.gov
其他：
1. Ending the Uruguay Round: An Interview with GATT Chief Sutherland, Inside U.S. Trade, 24 Dec. 1993.
2. Official says U.S. Rulings could complicate WTO Zeroing Case, Inside U.S. Trade, 9 April 2004.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Judy Pearsall ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford (1998).
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營與貿易研究所
91351042
93
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0913510421
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 楊光華zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Yang,Connie Guang-Hwaen_US
dc.contributor.author (作者) 陳言博zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Chen, Yen-Poen_US
dc.creator (作者) 陳言博zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen, Yen-Poen_US
dc.date (日期) 2004en_US
dc.date.accessioned 18-九月-2009 14:16:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 18-九月-2009 14:16:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 18-九月-2009 14:16:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0913510421en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35147-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國際經營與貿易研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 91351042zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 93zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著WTO爭端解決機構近年來的實踐，許多制度性問題紛紛浮現，特別是WTO爭端解決小組或上訴機構在反傾銷爭端中審查基準實踐上所引發之爭議。批評者主要認為上訴機構於反傾銷規範之法律解釋上不當適用解釋規則，並未遵循反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條之規範。另外，上訴機構實質上近乎重新審理被訴會員之法律見解，似乎違反第17.6(ii)條之規範意旨。本文嘗試整理相關經由WTO上訴機構裁決之反傾銷爭端，觀察及彙整第17.6(ii)條於現行運作中之實踐情形，並檢視上述兩項爭議之正反意見。經分析後發現，上述兩項爭議皆涉及不同之政策考量與WTO組織間的互動。易言之，除爭端解決機構對於協定條文之法律解釋外，偏重與選擇不同之政策考量做為正當性基礎，將決定著審查基準之面貌。在進一步分析並檢討在反傾銷制度下可能影響審查基準之政策價值後，本文認為WTO爭端解決機制為維繫其準司法機關之正當性與確保經由多邊架構所帶來之合作利益，有統一法律解釋與重新審理被控訴會員之法律解釋之必要。另外，反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條審查基準之解釋上，不宜採取其立法來源—美國法Chevron doctrine—之規範內涵。同時，為避免反傾銷制度遭濫用成為貿易保護政策之工具，應賦予WTO爭端解決機構於審理反傾銷爭端時較為自主之法律解釋權力。然而，基於適度尊重WTO會員主權之考量與司法自制之要求，本文建議，WTO爭端解決機構在審理反傾銷案件時，除須正確地援引並靈活運用國際法上習慣解釋規則外，更需適度參照第17.6(ii)條之立法目的，藉由嚴格適用WTO協定，以充實其所採取審查基準之正當性基礎。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) With practices of WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the institutional issues on Standards of Review have emerged, especially on WTO Anti-dumping disputes. Contestations are focus on whether Appellate Body has mal-applied rules of interpretations on Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) as to go beyond Article 17.6(ii). Moreover, Critics query whether Appellate Body De Novo reviewed member’s legal interpretations as to disregard purpose of Article 17.6(ii). By examining relevant anti-dumping penal and appellate body reports, current modes of practices on ADA Article 17.6(ii) are concluded, and probed to its different critiques. Further, issues of such are result from policy considerations of Standards of Review under Anti-Dumping System. In other words, apart from penal and appellate body’s interpretations on ADA, different policy ends will influence current practices of Standards of Review. Consequently, the article checks on and assays on relevant policy justifications of deferential standards of review under anti-dumping system. Concluded, for retaining its institution justifications and ensuring the cooperation gains under multilateral approach, WTO dispute settlement institutes have the necessities in de novo review and leveling legal interpretations. Moreover, due to the different characters, the Chevron mode interpretations on standards of review is without analogy to ADA article 17.6(ii); meanwhile, for preventing distorting antidumping measures as trade protection tools, WTO dispute settlement institutes should have much room on discretion of reviewing members’ ADA legal interpretations. However, in respecting WTO Member’s sovereignty and the requiring of judicial restraint, when taking the standards of review on examining anti-dumping disputes, WTO dispute settlement institutes would strictly and nimbly retain customary rules of interpretation of public international law with considering purposes of ADA article 17.6(ii).en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 前言 1
第一節 研究動機與背景 1
第二節 研究方法與架構 1
第二章 審查基準之基礎理論與反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條之規範基礎 3
第一節 審查基準之概念與功能 3
一、 審查基準之概念 3
二、 審查基準於法律審理與事實審理之區分 4
三、 審查基準於學理上之分類 6
四、 審查基準之功能 6
（一） 垂直的權力分配—爭端解決小組與WTO會員之關係 7
（二） 水平的權力分配—爭端解決小組其他機構之關係 9
五、 小結 12
第二節 WTO規範下之審查基準 13
一、 DSU第3.2條之規範內容 13
二、 DSU第11條之規範內容 14
三、 小結 15
第三節 反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條之要件分析 16
一、 規範沿革與政策考量 16
二、 條文內容 17
三、 反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條與其他上述DSU規範間之關係 18
四、 小結 18
第三章 反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條規範於實踐所生之爭議 20
第一節 WTO中反傾銷爭端對於本條文之實踐 20
一、 爭端解決機構對文義解釋與體系解釋之偏好 21
二、 未曾以被控訴會員之「可容許解釋」做為裁判基礎 21
三、 小結 22
第二節 關於上訴機構是否不當適用「解釋規則」之爭論 22
一、 維也納條約法公約與文義性解釋 23
（一） 基本解釋原則與從屬解釋原則 23
（二） 偏重文義性質解釋違反維也納條約法公約第31條？ 24
二、 不同解釋法則之適用與單一解釋之「必然」結果 28
（一） 適用維也納條約法公約之「必然」解果？ 28
（二） 其他國際法上之習慣解釋規則 30
三、 小結 31
第三節 關於上訴機構得否採取「重新審理」的審查基準之爭論 32
一、 關於「可容許解釋」之爭議 32
（一） 上訴機構對於「可容許解釋」之看法 32
（二） 未曾出現二個以上之「可容許解釋」 35
二、 相關規範之潛在衝突與重新審理之制度考量 36
（一） 上訴機構於裁判時之考量 37
（二） 反傾銷規範之解讀與解讀者見之緊張關係 39
三、 小結 40
第四節 小結 41
第四章 相關政策考量之檢討 42
第一節 本條文之立法例 42
一、 美國法中之Chevron原則 42
（一） 專業性考量 42
（二） 民主性考量 43
（三） 效率性考量 43
二、 Chevron 之政策考量於WTO中之適用 43
（一） 專業性考量 43
（二） 民主性考量 44
（三） 效率性考量 44
三、 小結 44
第二節 司法自制原則之反思 44
一、 WTO中之司法自制 45
二、 司法自制原則於WTO反傾銷制度中之適用 45
三、 小結 46
第三節 國際法下主權概念之再商榷 46
一、 傳統國際法下主權概念 46
二、 傳統主權概念在反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條之解釋 47
三、 反傾銷事務中主權概念之再商榷 47
四、 小結 50
第四節 反傾銷制度、公平貿易與自由貿易之衝突與調和 51
一、 傾銷與反傾銷制度 51
二、 反傾銷制度與不公平貿易 52
三、 自由貿易主義下反傾銷制度之新定位 52
四、 小結 53
第五節 小結 53
第五章 結論 54
附錄： 56
表一：小組裁決所用之解釋方式 56
表二：相關反傾銷案件整理 57		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 42449 bytes-
dc.format.extent 74691 bytes-
dc.format.extent 19712 bytes-
dc.format.extent 83137 bytes-
dc.format.extent 94692 bytes-
dc.format.extent 280697 bytes-
dc.format.extent 304314 bytes-
dc.format.extent 249259 bytes-
dc.format.extent 112018 bytes-
dc.format.extent 190610 bytes-
dc.format.extent 92092 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0913510421en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 世界貿易組織zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 反傾銷zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 爭端解決zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 審查基準zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) World Trade Organization (WTO)en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Anti-Dumpingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Dispute Settlementen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Standards of Reviewen_US
dc.title (題名) 論WTO爭端解決程序中審查基準之爭議：以反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條為中心zh_TW
dc.title (題名) ISSUES ON STANDARDS OF REVIEW UNDER WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION: FOCUS ON ARTICLE 17.6(ii) OF ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENTen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文書目：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Arthur Kaufmann 著，吳從周 譯，《類推與「事務本質」–兼論類型理論》，台北：學林，1999年1月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. 羅昌發，《國際貿易法》，台北，原照，1999年7月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. ______，《美國貿易救濟制度：國際經貿法研究（一）》，台北，月旦，1994年3月zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 英文書目：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Aust, Anthony, MODERN TREATY LAW AND PRACTICE, Cambridge University Press, (2000).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. Brownlie, Ian, Principles of International Law, 5th ed. (1998)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. Cottier, Thomas and Mavroidis, Patros C.(eds.), THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION: EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FOR THE WTO, World Trade Forum Vol.4, The University of Michigan Press (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. Craig, Paul ＆de Búrca, Gráinne, EU LAW—TEXT, CASES AND MATERIALS 132-37 3d. ed., Oxford University Press (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 5. Dale, Richard, ANTI-DUMPING LAW IN A LIBERAL TRADE ORDER (1980).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 6. Evans, Gali E., LAWMAKING UNDER THE TRADE CONSTITUTION (2002).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 7. Harris, D.J., CASES AND MATERIALS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, 5th ed Sweet＆Maxwell (1998).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 8. Hoekman, Bernard M. and Kostecki, Michel M., THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE WORLD TRADING SYSTEM, 2d. ed. (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 9. Kennedy, Daniel L. ＆ Southwick, James D. (eds.), THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERT E. HUDEC, Cambridge University Press (2002).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 10. Jackson, John H., THE WORLD TRADING SYSTEM－LAW AND POLICY OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS, 2d. ed., MIT Press (1997).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 11. Jackson, John H., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: CONSTITUTION AND JURISPRUDENCE, Chatham House Papers (1998).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 12. Jennings, Robert and Watts, Arthur, OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW, 9th ed., Harlow: Longman Group (1996).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 13. Matsushita, M, Schoenbaum, T., and Macroidis, P., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: LAW, PRACTICE, AND POLICY, Oxford university Press (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 14. Oesch, Matthias, STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 15. Treiblicock, Michael J. and Howse, Robert, THE REGULATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, 2d. ed., (1999).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 16. Viner, Jacob, DUMPING: A PROBLEM IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE (1966).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 17. Weiler, J.H.H., THE EU, THE WTO, AND THE NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of International Trade?, Oxford University Press (2000).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 英文期刊論文：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Akakwam, Philip A., The Standard of Review in the 1994 Antidumping Code: Circumscribing the Role of GATT Panels in Reviewing National Antidumping Determinations, 5 Minnesota Journal of Global Trade (1996).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. Croley, Steven P. and Jackson, John H., WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments, 90(193) American Journal of International Law (1996).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. Davey, William J., Has the WTO Dispute Settlement System Exceed its Authority? A Consideration of Deference Shown by the System to Member Government Decisions and its Use of Issue-Avoidance Techniques, 4 Journal of International Economic Law (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. Durling, James P. Deference but Only When Due: WTO Review of Anti-dumping Measures, 6(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 5. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter, Tensions between the Dispute Settlement Process and the Diplomatic and Treaty–making Activities of the WTO, 1(3) World Trade Review (2002).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 6. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter, Reflections on the Appellate Body of the WTO, American Society of International Law Proceedings (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 7. Howse, Robert ＆ Nicilaidis, Kalypso, Legitimacy through “Higher Law”? Why Constitutionalizing the WTO is a step TOO Far, in THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION: EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FOR THE WTO, World Trade Forum Vol.4, The University of Michigan Press (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 8. Howse, Robert, The Most Dangerous Branch? WTO Appellate Body Jurisprudence in the Nature and Limits of the Judicial Power, in THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION：EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FOR THE WTO, World Trade Forum Vol.4, The University of Michigan Press (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 9. Howse, Robert, Adjudicative Legitimacy and Treaty Interpretation in International Trade Law: The Early Years of WTO Jurisprudence, in THE EU, THE WTO, AND THE NAFTA: TOWARDS A COMMON LAW OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE?, Oxford University Press (2000).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 10. Jackson, John H., The GATT 1994 Sovereignty Debate: United States Acceptance and Implementation of the Uruguay Round Results, 36 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1997).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 11. Jackson, John H., Sovereignty, Subsidiary, and Separation of Power : The High-Wire Balancing Act of Globalisation, in THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERT E. HUDEC, Cambridge University Press (2002).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 12. Jackson, John H., The WTO “Constitution” and Proposed Reforms: Seven “Mantras” Revised, 4(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 13. Jackson, John H.,Sovereignty-Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept, Vol. 97 American Journal of International Law (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 14. Maki, Peter C., Interpreting GATT Using the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty: A Method to Increase the Legitimacy of the Dispute Settlement System, 9 Minnesota Journal of Global Trade (2000)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 15. McRae, Donald, The WTO in International Law: Tradition Continued or New Frontier? 3(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2002).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 16. Lennard, Michael, Navigating by the Stars: Interpreting the WTO Agreements, 5(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2002).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 17. Rosenthal, Paul C. ＆ Vermylen, Robert T.C., The WTO Antidumping and Subsidies Agreement: Did the U.S. Achieve Its Objectives during the Uruguay Round? 31(3) Law ＆ Policy in International Business.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 18. Steinberg, Richard H., Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints, 98 American Journal of International Law (2004).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 19. Tarullo, Daniel K., The Hidden Cost of International Dispute Settlement: WTO Review of Domestic Anti-dumping Decisions, 34 Law ＆ Policy in International Business.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 20. Tarullo, Daniel K., Paved with good intentions: The Dynamic Effects of WTO Review of Anti-dumping Action, 2(3) World Trade Review (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 21. Weiss, Wolfgang, Security and Predictability under WTO Law, 2(2) World Trade Review (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 22. Yocis, David A., Guatemala Cement and WTO Review of National Anti-dumping Determinations, 76 New York University Law Review (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 23. Zleptnig, Stefan, The Standard Review in WTO Law: An Analysis of Law, Legitimacy and the Distribution of Legal and Political Authority, 6(2) European Integration online Papers (EIoP) (2002)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) WTO文件：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. WTO Legal Text, Declaration on Dispute Settlement Pursuant to The Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 Or Part V of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. WTO Legal Text, Decision on Review of Article 17.6 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article Ⅵ of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1994, in The Legal Text- the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. 美國—石油案（US－Reformulated Gasoline）, WT/DS2/Rzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. 歐體—荷爾蒙案（EC—Hormones）, WT/DS48/11, WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/Rzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 5. 日本—酒精飲料案（Japan－Alcoholic Beverages）, WT/DS11/AB/Rzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 6. 美國—內衣案（United States—Underwear）, WT/DS24/R and WT/DS24/AB/R,zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 7. 瓜地馬拉—波特蘭水泥案(Guatemala-Portland Cement from Mexico), WT/DS60/AB/R, WT/DS60/Rzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 8. 泰國—結構鋼案(Thailand-Structural Steel from Poland), WT/DS122/AB/R, WT/DS122/R;zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 9. 墨西哥—HFSC案(Mexico-HFSC from U.S.), WT/DS132/AB/RW, WT/DS132/R;zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 10. 美國—1916 反傾銷法案(US-1916 Act from EC and Japan), WT/DS141/AB/R, WT/DS141/Rzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 11. 歐體—寢具案(EC- Bed Linen from India), WT/DS141/AB/R, WT/DS141/Rzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 12. 美國—熱軋鋼案(US-Hot-Rolled Steel from Japan), WT/DS184/AB/R, WT/DS184/Rzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 13. 歐體—鑄鐵圓管及配件案(EC-Cast Iron Tubes＆Fittings from Brazil), WT/DS219/AB/R, WT/ DS219/Rzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 14. 美國—柏德修正案(US-Byrd Amendment from Australia, Brazil et al), WT/DS234/AB/R, WT/DS234/Rzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 15. 美國-鋼鐵產品落日審查案(US-Steel Sunset Review from Japan), WT/ DS244/AB/R, WT/DS244/R;zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 16. 美國-軟木傾銷案(US-Soft Lumber from Canada), WT/ DS264/AB/R, WT/DS264/R.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 國際協定：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty, 23 May 1969, 1155 United Nations Treaty Series 331 (1980); 8 International Legal Materials 679.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. Final Act Embodying The Results of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Marrakesh Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization), 15 April 1994, The Legal Texts: The Results of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, published by the WTO, Cambridge University Press, 2003.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 外國裁判：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1.Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837(1984)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 網站資料：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) www.wto.orgzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) www.ustr.govzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 其他：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Ending the Uruguay Round: An Interview with GATT Chief Sutherland, Inside U.S. Trade, 24 Dec. 1993.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. Official says U.S. Rulings could complicate WTO Zeroing Case, Inside U.S. Trade, 9 April 2004.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Judy Pearsall ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford (1998).zh_TW