본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

WTO 분쟁해결절차의 심사기준에 관한 고찰 - 쉐브론 원칙과 반덤핑협정 제17.6조를 중심으로 -

An Analysis of the Standard of Review in the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism - With a Focus on Chevron Doctrine and Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement -

김보연
무역구제학회 (Korean Society of Trade Remedies)|2024.08|무역구제연구 (Journal of Trade Remedy)|제71호|pp. 27-54|DOI 10.23278/kstr.2024..71.002

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

심사기준WTO 반덤핑협정쉐브론 원칙Chevron doctrineWTO 분쟁해결절차허용 가능한 해석permissible interpretationsstandard of reviewWTO Dispute Settlement MechanismWTO Anti-dumping Agreement

초록

본 연구에서는 미국법상 쉐브론 원칙을 반영한 WTO 반덤핑협정 제17.6조의 심사기준이 조사당국의 해석권한을 존중하는 방향으로 운용되지 못한 원인을 규명하고, 향후 이 심사기준이 어떻게 적용될 것인지 분석하려고한다. 이를 위해 먼저, 심사기준은 무엇이며 WTO 분쟁해결절차에서 심사기준은 어떠한 역할을 하는지 살펴본다. WTO 분쟁해결양해 제3.2조와 제11조와 관련된 논의를 살펴본다. 다음으로, 반덤핑협정 제17.6조의 심사기준을 검토하고, 실제 WTO 패널과 항소기구가 이 심사기준을 어떻게 해석 및 적용하였는지 분석한다. 반덤핑협정 제17.6조의 심사기준이 조사당국의 해석권한을 존중하는 방식으로 운용되지 않았다는 점을 지적하고, 그 원인으로서 ‘허용 가능한 해석’에 관한 항소기구의 입장을 검토한다. 마지막으로 반덤핑협정 제17.6조의 적용에 관한 비판을 고찰하고, 향후 이 심사기준은 어떠한 방식으로 적용될 것인지 전망해 보고자 한다.

Abstract

This paper examines the standard of review of Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, with a view to clarifying why it failed to respect interpretations provided by the investigating authorities. Known as an analogy to the Chevron Doctrine, Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement has not been applied by panels and the Appellate Body in a way to find the authorities’ measure to be in conformity with the Agreement, in that it rests upon one of permissible interpretations. This paper suggests how this deferential standard in the Anti-Dumping Agreement shall be applied in the future. First, this paper explores the meaning of the standard of review in domestic legal system and the relevant discussion in the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Relevant provisions such as Article 3.2 and Article 11 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding are examined. Secondly, this paper discusses the special standard of review of Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Then, it analyzes how panels and the Appellate Body have interpreted ‘permissible interpretations’ in Article 17.6(ⅱ) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Considering the criticism of interpretations by the Appellate Body, this paper would suggest possible ways to apply Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

참고문헌 (33)

  1. 김보연, "국가안보 예외조항의 ‘자기판단’ 범위-국제법상 의미와 WTO 협정에의 적용-", 국제경제법연구, 17(2) (2019), 한국국제경제법학회
  2. Bamberger, N. D., "After Chevron: What the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Decision Changed, And What It Didn’t", Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (2024)
  3. Becroft, R., "The Standard of Review in WTO Dispute Settlement: Critique and Development" (2012), Edward Elgar
  4. Bohanes, J., "The Oxford Handbook of International Trade Law" (2009), Oxford University Press
  5. Cho, S., "A WTO Panel Openly Rejects the Appellate Body’s “Zeroing” Case Law", ASIL Insights, 12(3) (2008)
  6. Cottier, T, "Recalibrating the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Towards New Standards of Appellate Review", Journal of International Economic Law, 24 (2021)
  7. Croley, S. P., "WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments", American Journal of International Law, 90(2) (1996)
  8. Ehlermann C., "Standard of Review in WTO Law", Journal of International Economic Law, 7(3) (2004)
  9. Guzman, A., "Determining the Appropriate Standard of Review in WTO Dispute", Cornell International Law Journal, 42 (2009)
  10. Ioannidis, M., "Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation" (2014), Oxford University Press
  11. Lovric, D., "Deference to the Legislature in WTO Challenges to Legislation" (2010), Wolters Kluwer
  12. McRae, D., "The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention" (2011), Oxford University Press
  13. Merrill, T. W., "The Chevron Doctrine: Its Rise and Fall, and the Future of the Administrative State" (2022), Harvard University Press
  14. Oesch, M., "Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution" (2003), Oxford University Press
  15. Prusa, T. J., "United States- Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology: the End of Zeroing?", World Trade Review, 10(1) (2009)
  16. Ragni, C., "Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation" (2014), Oxford University Press
  17. Rovnov, Y., "Article 17.6(ⅱ) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement: Waiting for Chekhov’s Gun to Go Off", Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 15(1) (2024)
  18. "Chevron, U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837", ~ (1984)
  19. "James L. Kisor v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 588 U.S. 837", ~ (2019)
  20. "Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 837", ~ (2024)
  21. Office of the United States Trade Representative, "United States Prevails on “Zeroing” Again: WTO Panel Rejects Flawed Appellate Body Findings", Press Releases, April 9, 2019, ~ (2019)
  22. "Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) , WT", DS26, R; WT, pp.DS48, AB[DOI]
  23. "Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India, WT", DS141, R, adopted March 12, 2001[DOI]
  24. "Appellate Body Report, Thailand-Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H Beams from Poland, WT", DS122, R, adopted April 5, 2001[DOI]
  25. "Appellate Body Report, United States-Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT", DS184, R, adopted August 23, 2001[DOI]
  26. "Appellate Body Report, Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, WT", DS207, R, adopted October 23, 2002[DOI]
  27. "Appellate Body Report, United States-Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology, WT", DS350, R,adopted February 19, 2009[DOI]
  28. "Appellate Body Report, Russia-Anti-Dumping Duties on Light Commercial Vehicles from Germany and Italy, WT", DS479, R, adopted April 9, 2018[DOI]
  29. "Awards of Arbitrators, Colombia-Anti-Dumping Duties on Frozen Fries from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, WT", DS591, pp.2022, ~
  30. "Panel Report, Guatemala-Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Portland Cement from Mexico, WT", DS60, pp.1998, ~
  31. "Panel Report, Guatemala-Definitive Anti-Dumping Measure on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico, WT", DS156, pp.2000, ~
  32. "Panel Report, United States-Anti-Dumping measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip form Korea, WT", DS179, pp.2001, ~
  33. "Panel Report, European Communities-Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India, WT", DS141, pp.2001, ~

관련 논문AI추천

무역구제조치의 사법 심사기준에 관한 소고 - WTO, 미국, 한국의 비교를 중심으로 -김지은무역구제학회 · 무역구제연구2024 · 제71호WTO 반덤핑협정 중 행정재심사관련내용의 개선방안에 관한 연구마광, 유향란법무부 · 국제법무연구2006 · 제69호반덤핑사건에서 WTO 패널의 심리기준장신법학연구원 · 성균관법학2007 · 제19권 제2호WTO 분쟁해결절차상의 보복조치의 수준에 관한 연구배연재법무부 · 국제법무연구2006 · 제70호WTO 분쟁해결과 상소기구: 미국의 불만에 대한 실체 분석권영민한국국제통상학회 · 국제통상연구2022 · 제27권 제3호Interpretation and Application of Sunset Reviews under the WTO주주, 이은섭법무부 · 국제법무연구2009 · 제86호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (3건)

무역구제조치의 사법 심사기준에 관한 소고 - WTO, 미국, 한국의 비교를 중심으로 -김지은pp. 1-26외국자본의 국내투자와 국가 핵심기술의 법적 보호방안김종호pp. 55-114공급망 재편 정책의 안보화에 따른 국제통상규범 정비의 과제 - 미국 232조 조치와 WTO 분쟁사례 분석을 중심으로 -유지영pp. 115-144
원문 보기