본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

National Treatment under GATT Article III:2 and its Applicability in the Context of Korea’s FTAs

세르죠드 사딕호드자에브
대외경제정책연구원 (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP))|2008.06|East Asian Economic Review|제12권 제1호|pp. 65-109|DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.11644/KIEP.JEAI.2008.12.1.180

2

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

FTA내국민대우National TreatmentNon-discrimination내국세동종상품Internal TaxationLike ProductDirectly Competitive or Substitutable Product비차별적 대우직접적으로 경쟁적이거나 대체가능한 상품
주제분류경제학

초록

GATT Article III:2 on national treatment on internal taxation is an integral part of Korea’s FTAs. Therefore, GATT/WTO case law provides useful guidance on proper application of this provision in the FTA context. Article III:2 involves a multi-tiered test of several issues including likeness, discriminatory threshold, and protective application of a tax measure. When the FTA parties enter into a dispute over national treatment, the problem of applicable law may arise. First, FTA panels are not obliged to rely on GATT/WTO jurisprudence. Nevertheless, given the incorporation of GATT Article III into the FTA, it is suggested that FTA panels follow WTO case law to secure consistent and predictable application of the national treatment rule. Second, it is questionable whether WTO panels can examine claims under the GATT-plus provisions on national treatment contained in the FTA. In order to avoid possible jurisprudential difficulties, disputing parties may choose to refer the matter to an FTA panel, instead of launching a WTO dispute settlement procedure. Alternatively, the parties may agree, pursuant to DSU Article 7.3, on non-standard terms of reference of the panel where a GATT-plus provision is explicitly listed. In both scenarios, the GATT-plus provisions, as a lex posterior, should prevail over the corresponding GATT provisions.

Abstract

GATT Article III:2 on national treatment on internal taxation is an integral part of Korea’s FTAs. Therefore, GATT/WTO case law provides useful guidance on proper application of this provision in the FTA context. Article III:2 involves a multi-tiered test of several issues including likeness, discriminatory threshold, and protective application of a tax measure. When the FTA parties enter into a dispute over national treatment, the problem of applicable law may arise. First, FTA panels are not obliged to rely on GATT/WTO jurisprudence. Nevertheless, given the incorporation of GATT Article III into the FTA, it is suggested that FTA panels follow WTO case law to secure consistent and predictable application of the national treatment rule. Second, it is questionable whether WTO panels can examine claims under the GATT-plus provisions on national treatment contained in the FTA. In order to avoid possible jurisprudential difficulties, disputing parties may choose to refer the matter to an FTA panel, instead of launching a WTO dispute settlement procedure. Alternatively, the parties may agree, pursuant to DSU Article 7.3, on non-standard terms of reference of the panel where a GATT-plus provision is explicitly listed. In both scenarios, the GATT-plus provisions, as a lex posterior, should prevail over the corresponding GATT provisions.

참고문헌 (52)

  1. 이재형, "차별적 국내법규에 대한 GATT", WTO의 규제, 2002, pp.43(1), 11~23
  2. 이재형, "상품교역에서의 비차별적 내국세 부과의무", 통상법률, 통권 : 34, pp.7~36 (2008)
  3. WTO Jurisprudence, "‘Like Products’ in International Trade Law: Towards a Consistent GATT", pp.2003, Choi, Won-Mog
  4. Daly, Michael, "“The WTO and Direct Taxation.” WTO Discussion Paper no. 9. (June)", ~ (2005)
  5. Ehring, Lothar, "De Facto Discrimination in WTO Law: National and Most-Favored-Nation Treatment ? or Equal Treatment" (2001), Jean Monnet Working Paper
  6. GATT, "Analytical Index: Guide to GATT Law and Practice, 6th ed., vol. 1. Geneva", ~ (1995)
  7. Howse, Robert, "The Product", Process Distinction ? An Illusory Basis for Disciplining ‘Unilateralism’ in Trade Policy, 2000, pp.11(2), 249~289
  8. Hudec, Robert E., "The GATT Legal System and World Trade Diplomacy" (1990), Butterworth Legal Publishers
  9. Hudec, Robert E., "GATT", WTO Constraints on National Regulation: Requiem for an ‘Aim and Effects’ Test, 1998, pp.32(3), 619~649
  10. Hudec,Robert E., "‘Like Product’: The Differences in Meaning in GATT Articles I and III", pp.101~123 (2000), University of Michigan Press
  11. Jackson, John H., "World Trade and the Law of GATT (A Legal Analysis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade)" (1969), Bobbs-Merill Co
  12. Jackson, John H., "National Treatment Obligations and Non-Tariff Barriers", Michigan Journal of International Law, 10(1), pp.207~224 (1989)
  13. Kwon, Hyouk Woo, "Relationship between Dispute Settlement Procedures under Regional Trade Agreements and under the World Trade Organization", 통상법률, 통권 : 79, pp.60~90 (2008)
  14. Matsushita, Mitsuo, "The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy" (2006), Oxford University Press
  15. Pauwelyn, Joost, "Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law" (2003), Cambridge University Press
  16. Regan, Donald H., "Regulatory Purpose and ‘Like Products’ in Article III:4 of the GATT (With Additional Remarks on Article III:2", Journal of World Trade, 36(3), pp.443~478 (2002)
  17. Regan, Donald H., "Further Thoughts on the Role of Regulatory Purpose under Article III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: A Tribute to Bob Hudec", Journal of World Trade, 37(4), pp.737~760 (2003)
  18. Roessler, Frieder, "Beyond the Ostensible: A Tribute to Professor Robert Hudec’s Insights on the Determination of the Likeness of Products under the National Treatment Provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade", Journal of World Trade, 37(4), pp.771~781 (2003)
  19. Srinivasan, T. N., "Nondiscrimination in GATT", WTO: was there anything to begin with and is there anything left?, 2005, pp.4(1), 69~95
  20. Trebilcock, Michael, "The National Treatment Principle in International Trade Law" (2004), American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings
  21. Verhoosel, Ga?an, "National Treatment and WTO Dispute Settlement: Adjudicating the Boundaries of Regulatory Autonomy" (2002), Hart Publishing
  22. WTO, "WTO Analytical Index: Guide to WTO Law and Practice, 2nd ed., vol. 1. Geneva", ~ (2007)
  23. Zedalis, Rex J., "A Theory of the GATT ‘Like’ Product Common Language Cases", Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 27, pp.33~134 (1994)
  24. Zhou, Weihuan, "“Non-Discrimination and the Accordion of ‘Like Product.’” at SSRN: http:", abstract=1000173 (July 15), 2007[DOI]
  25. GATT, "Report of the Working Party on Border Tax Adjustments. L", 3464, adopted 2 December, 1970
  26. GATT, "Review Working Party II on Tariffs. Schedules and Customs Administration: Report to the Contracting Parties. L", 329. 24 February, 1955
  27. GATT Panel Report, "Canada ? Measures Affecting the Sale of Gold Coins. L", 5863. 17?September?1985. unadopted
  28. GATT Panel Report, "European Economic Community ? Payments and Subsidies Paid to Processors and Producers of Oilseeds and Related Animal-Feed Proteins. L", 6627, adopted 25?January?1990. BISD?37S, ~
  29. GATT Panel Report, "Japan ? Customs Duties, Taxes and Labelling Practices on Imported Wines and Alcoholic Beverages. L", 6216, adopted 10 November?1987. BISD?34S, ~
  30. GATT Panel Report, "United States ? Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages. DS23", R, adopted 19?June?1992. BISD?39S, ~
  31. GATT Panel Report, "United States ? Taxes on Automobiles. DS31", R. 11 October?1994, unadopted
  32. GATT Panel Report, "United States ? Taxes on Petroleum and Certain Imported Substances. L", 6175, adopted 17?June?1987. BISD?34S, ~
  33. GATT Working Party Report, "Brazilian Internal Taxes. GATT", CP.3, 181; GATT, pp.CP.5, 37 (Second Report), adopted 13잻ecember 1950. BISD II[DOI]
  34. WTO Appellate Body Report, "Canada ? Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals. WT", DS31, R. adopted 30?July 1997[DOI]
  35. WTO Appellate Body Report, "Chile ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT", DS87, R, WT, pp.DS110, AB[DOI]
  36. WTO Appellate Body Report, "EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones). WT", DS26, R, WT, pp.DS48, AB[DOI]
  37. WTO Appellate Body Report, "European Communities ? Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products. WT", DS135, R, adopted 5?April 2001[DOI]
  38. WTO Appellate Body Report, "India ? Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products. WT", DS50, R, adopted 16?January 1998[DOI]
  39. WTO Appellate Body Report, "Japan ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages. WT", DS8, R, WT, pp.DS10, AB[DOI]
  40. WTO Appellate Body Report, "Korea ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT", DS75, R, WT, pp.DS84, AB[DOI]
  41. WTO Appellate Body Report, "United States ? Final Anti-dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico. WT", DS344, R, adopted 20 May 2008[DOI]
  42. WTO Panel Report, "Argentina ? Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and Import of Finished Leather. WT", DS155, ~
  43. WTO Panel Report, "Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals. WT", DS31, ~
  44. WTO Panel Report, "Chile ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages. WT", DS87, DS110, pp.R, adopted 12?January 2000
  45. WTO Panel Report, "European Communities ? Measures Affecting the Importation of Certain Poultry Products. WT", DS69, ~
  46. WTO Panel Report, "European Communities ? Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas. WT", DS27, ~
  47. WTO Panel Report, "Indonesia ? Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry. WT", DS54, DS55, pp.R, WT, DS59[DOI]
  48. WTO Panel Report, "Japan ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages. WT", DS8, DS10, pp.R, WT, DS11[DOI]
  49. WTO Panel Report, "Korea ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages. WT", DS75, DS84, pp.R, adopted 17?February 1999
  50. WTO Panel Report, "United States ? Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” ? Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities. WT", DS108, ~
  51. "NAFTA Panel Report under Chapter 20. Cross Border Trucking Services, USA-MEX-98-2008-01. 6 February 2001", ~
  52. "NAFTA Panel Report under Chapter 20. US Safeguard Action Taken on Broom Corn Brooms from Mexico. USA-97-2008-01. 30 January 1998", ~

관련 논문AI추천

통상규범과 국내세법의 조율방안- WTO 규범과 FTA를 중심으로 -오윤, 구자은, 임동원한국국제조세협회 · 조세학술논집2013 · 제29권 제2호'GATT 1994' 第3條의 內國民待遇原則이 適用되는 同種商品의 判斷基準에 대한 再檢討심영규법무부 · 국제법무연구2004 · 제55호A Study on the Major Principles of the GATS and Its Implications for South Korea배성호한국무역보험학회 · 무역금융보험연구2015 · 제16권 제3호Relationship between Dispute Settlement Procedures under Regional Trade agreements and Under the World Trade Organization권혁우법무부 · 국제법무연구2008 · 제79호Service Sector Dispute Settlement in Free Trade Agreement: The Case of NAFTA Cross-Border Trucking Services박지연법무부 · 국제법무연구2012 · 제107호Preventing Disputes under Free Trade Agreements with Advance Ruling System이지수한국중재학회 · 중재연구2019 · 제29권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

Determinants and Consequences of Non-Interest Income Diversification of Commercial Banks in OECD Countries함준호pp. 3-31Competitive Structure of U.S. Grain Exporters in the World Market: A Dynamic Panel Approach진현정, 드래건 밀리코비치pp. 33-62Global Trends of Productivity Growth: Evidence from the Malmquist Index이정연pp. 111-137Measuring Trade Creating Effects of RTAs: A Fixed Effect Estimation Approach이종화pp. 139-155우리나라 물가안정목표제와 환율운용박원암pp. 157-188
원문 보기