法律图书馆>>法律论文资料库>>全文
WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism(2)/刘成伟(57)
A 1961 report, citing the foregoing paragraph, stated:
‘In this connexion it was noted that the expression 'reasonable expectation' was qualified by the words 'failing evidence to the contrary'. By this the Panel understands that the presumption is that unless such pertinent facts were available at the time the tariff concession was negotiated, it was then reasonably to be expected that the concession would not be nullified or impaired by the introduction or increase of a domestic subsidy.’
The 1990 Panel Report on EEC - Oilseeds approached a non-violation complaint as follows:
‘The Panel examined whether it was reasonable for the United States to expect that the Community would not introduce subsidy schemes systematically counteracting the price effect of the tariff concessions.
. . .
The Panel does not share the view of the Community that the recognition of the legitimacy of such expectations would amount to a re-writing of the rules of the General Agreement. The contracting parties have decided that a finding of impairment does not authorize them to request the impairing contracting party to remove a measure not inconsistent with the General Agreement; such a finding merely allows the contracting party frustrated in its expectation to request, in accordance with Article XXIII:2, an authorization to suspend the application of concessions or other obligations under the General Agreement. The recognition of the legitimacy of an expectation thus essentially means the recognition of the legitimacy of such a request. The recognition of the legitimacy of an expectation relating to the use of production subsidies therefore in no way prevents a contracting party from using production subsidies consistently with the General Agreement; it merely delineates the scope of the protection of a negotiated balance of concessions. For these reasons the Panel found that the United States may be assumed not to have anticipated the introduction of subsidies which protect Community producers of oilseeds completely from the movement of prices for imports and thereby prevent tariff concessions from having any impact on the competitive relationship between domestic and imported oilseeds, and which have as one consequence that all domestically-produced oilseeds are disposed of in the internal market notwithstanding the availability of imports’.


总共85页     [1]   [2]   [3]   [4]   [5]   [6]   [7]   [8]   [9]   [10]   [11]   [12]   [13]   [14]   [15]   [16]   [17]   [18]   [19]   [20]   [21]   [22]   [23]   [24]   [25]   [26]   [27]   [28]   [29]   [30]   [31]   [32]   [33]   [34]   [35]   [36]   [37]   [38]   [39]   [40]   [41]   [42]   [43]   [44]   [45]   [46]   [47]   [48]   [49]   [50]   [51]   [52]   [53]   [54]   [55]   [56]   57   [58]   [59]   [60]   [61]   [62]   [63]   [64]   [65]   [66]   [67]   [68]   [69]   [70]   [71]   [72]   [73]   [74]   [75]   [76]   [77]   [78]   [79]   [80]   [81]   [82]   [83]   [84]   [85]  
上一页     下一页    

声明:本论文由《法律图书馆》网站收藏,
仅供学术研究参考使用,
版权为原作者所有,未经作者同意,不得转载。
法律图书馆>>法律论文资料库