...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of International Economic Law >Autonomy in Setting Appropriate Level of Protection under the WTO Law: Rhetoric or Reality?
【24h】

Autonomy in Setting Appropriate Level of Protection under the WTO Law: Rhetoric or Reality?

机译:根据世贸组织法律设定适当保护水平的自主权:修辞还是现实?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

In the World Trade Organization (WTO) jurisprudence, the Appellate Body (AB) has repeatedly affirmed that WTO Members have the prerogative right in setting any level of protection that they deem appropriate (ALOP). At the same time, WTO Agreements provide for disciplines that a WTO Member must respect when it selects regulatory measures to fulfill its ALOP. Thus, a WTO Member’s autonomy in setting its ALOP, on the one hand, and the full force of other disciplines, on the other hand, are in a constant state of tension. Then, exactly how does a panel balance a Member’s right of setting its ALOP with a myriad of other trade obligations? To what extent is this right respected in the WTO dispute settlement processes? This article argues that the case law has confirmed that a Member’s obligations under the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) must be read in light of the Member’s chosen ALOP, and that the AB has also demonstrated sensitivity and deference to a Member’s ALOP under the SPS Agreement. The same conclusion, however, cannot be easily applied to Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994). Indeed, the case law under Article XX has demonstrated inconsistencies as to when WTO Members’ right to set their ALOP will be respected. I argue that such inconsistencies may be explained by a value-based, pragmatic approach adopted by the AB.
机译:在世界贸易组织(WTO)的判例中,上诉机构(AB)反复申明WTO成员在设定其认为适当的任何保护水平(ALOP)方面具有特权。同时,《 WTO协定》规定了WTO成员在选择监管措施以实现其ALOP时必须遵守的纪律。因此,WTO成员一方面具有制定ALOP的自主权,另一方面又具有其他学科的全部力量,始终处于紧张状态。然后,专家小组究竟如何在会员设定ALOP的权利与无数其他贸易义务之间取得平衡?世贸组织争端解决程序在多大程度上尊重这项权利?本文认为,判例法已确认,必须根据会员选择的ALOP来阅读WTO的《卫生与植物检疫措施应用协议》(SPS协议)规定的会员义务,并且AB还表明了敏感性和尊重根据SPS协议加入会员的ALOP。然而,同样的结论不能轻易适用于《 1994年关税与贸易总协定》(GATT 1994)第二十条。确实,第二十条中的判例法显示出何时将尊重WTO成员制定ALOP的权利的矛盾之处。我认为,这种不一致可能是由AB采用基于价值的,务实的方法来解释的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号