WTO 분쟁해결절차상의 보복조치의 수준에 관한 연구
A Study on the Level of Retaliation within the WTO's Trade Dispute Settlement System
2
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
보복조치, 즉, ‘양허 또는 다른 의무의 정지’는 WTO 회원국이 DSB의 판정 결과를 이행하지 않았을 경우에 직면할 수 있는 무역제재이다. 중재 과정을 통하여 내려지게 되는 보복조치 승인 결정은 관련 당사국들에 대해 확정적 구속력을 갖기 때문에, 어떠한 기준에 의해 이러한 결정이 내려지는 가는 분쟁의 당사국들에게 중요한 의미를 지닌다. 현재까지의 결정들은 DSU 제22.6조와 SCM협정 제4.11조만을 각각 원용하여 적용한 경우이어서 비교적 쉽게 분류가 가능한데, 전자의 경우에 있어서는 무역효과를, 그리고 후자의 경우에 있어서는 보조금의 가액을 기준으로 보복조치의 수준을 결정하고 있다는 사실을 확인할 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 이러한 기준을 세 가지 관점, 즉, 보복조치의 목적, 일반국제법 및 보복조치 수준의 계산상 문제의 관점에서 평가하여 보았다. 결론적으로, 보복조치의 수준에 관한 논의는 설득력 있는 적정선의 수준을 어느 범위로 설정할 것인가로 귀결될 수 있다. 기존의 DSU와 SCM협정이 요구하는 보복조치의 수준을 초과하지 않는 범위 내에서 궁극적으로 분쟁의 해결에 이를 수 있는 보복조치의 수준을 결정해야 하는 중재관의 역할이 더욱 중요해진다.
Abstract
The 'suspension of concessions or other obligations', known widely as 'retaliation' in short, is a trade restriction a WTO member will be faced with when the recommendations and rulings of the DSB are not implemented within a reasonable period of time. Since the parties have to accept the arbitrators' decision as final, the process and the standard of basis the arbitrators follow hold significant meaning. Since the retaliation cases requested before the DSB have only been associated with two articles, classification of these decisions are quite simple. A specific standard is employed for each article: Article 22.4 of the DSU is based on trade effects and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement on total amount of subsidy. This being so, these standards have been evaluated from three different viewpoints, that is, according to the purposes of retaliation, general international law, and the problems that can arise in the process of calculating the level of retaliation. The debate concerning the level of retaliation, as a result, naturally boils down to determining the proper level of persuasiveness. The importance of the arbitrators' role to advance a level of retaliation, acting within the limit conferred upon them by the DSU and the SCM Agreement, that will bring about mutual understanding between the parties concerned has increased ever more.
참고문헌 (32)
- 김대순, "국제법론 제10판" (2005), 삼영사
- 박노형, "WTO체제의 분쟁해결제도 연구" (1996), 박영사
- Bernstein J, "Calculating Trade Damages in the Context of the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Process", 25(2) (2003)
- Breuss F, "WTO Dispute Settlement: An Economic Analysis of Four EU－US Mini Trade Wars－A Survey", 4(4) (2004), Competition and Trade
- Cannizzaro E, "The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures", 12(5) (2001)
- Charnovitz S, "The WTO's Problematic ＂Last Resort＂ Against Noncompliance" (2002)
- Crawford J, "The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction" (2002), Cambridge University Press
- Davies A, "Reviewing Dispute Settlement at the World Trade Organization: A Time to Reconsider the Role", s of Compliance?, 2006, pp.5(1), ~
- Desmedt A, "Proportionality in WTO Law", 4(3) (2001)
- Gran P, "Remedies under WTO Law", 4(4) (2001)
- Hudec R, "Broadening the Scope of Remedies in WTO Dispute Settlement" (2000), Cameron May Publishers
- Jrgensen T, "Crime and Punishment: Retaliation under the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement System", 39(2) (2005)
- Lawrence R. Z, "Crimes & Punishments? Retaliation Under the WTO" (2003), Institute for International Economics
- Matsushita M, "The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy" (2003), Oxford University Press
- Mavroidis P. C, "Remedies in the WTO Legal System: Between a Rock and a Hard Place", 11(4) (2000)
- McGivern B, "Seeking Compliance with WTO Rulings: Theory, Practice and Alternatives", 36 (2002)
- Murray D, "Foie Gras?: Making Economic Sense of the 1999 U.S. Tariffs on Gourmet European Goods", 5 (1999)
- O'Connor B, "Remedies in the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement System － The Bananas and Hormones Cases", 38(2) (2004)
- Pauwelyn J, "Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO: Rules are Rules - Toward a More Collective Approach", 94(2) (2000)
- Renouf Y, "A Brief Introduction to Countermeasures in the WTO Dispute Settlement System" (2005), Cambridge University Press
- Spamann H, "The Myth of 'Rebalancing' Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement Practice", 9(1) (2006)
- WTO, "A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System" (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Decision by the Arbitrators, "Brazil－Export Financing Programme for Aircraft－Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil Under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement" (2000)
- Decision by the Arbitrators, "Canada－Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft－Recourse to Arbitration by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement" (2003)
- Decision by the Arbitrators, "European Communities－Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)(Original Complaint by the United States, Canada)－Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU" (1999)
- Decision by the Arbitrators, "European Communities－Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas－Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities Under Article 22.6 of the DSU" (1999)
- Decision by the Arbitrators, "European Communities－Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas－Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities Under Article 22.6 of the DSU" (2000)
- Decision by the Arbitrators, "United States－Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Original Complaint by the European Communities)－Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU" (2004)
- Decision by the Arbitrators, "United States－Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000－Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU" (2004)
- Decision by the Arbitrators, "United States－Tax Treatment for ＂Foreign Sales Corporations＂－Recourse to Arbitration by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement" (2002)
- "WTO 분쟁해결절차상의 보복조치의 수준에 관한 연구"
- "WTO 분쟁해결절차상의 보복조치의 수준에 관한 연구"