论文部分内容阅读
《中国加入工作组报告书》第242条是针对中国纺织品设立的特保条款,具有歧视性质,但构成中国入世的法律承诺之一。“市场扰乱”是启动第242条特保措施的主要要件之一。但第242条对此未作明确解释。该概念的解释对于保护中国在此条款下的合法权益和防止、减少其他WTO成员对此滥用有重要意义。“市场扰乱”概念必须依据国际法解释原则解释,而该概念在国际纺织品贸易领域内的演变构成该概念解释的主要依据之一。中国在WTO法律概念解释和适用领域必须坚持自己的话语权,否则就永远不能摆脱欧美发达国家所主导设立的游戏规则框架下所处的被动地位。中国必须合理有效地采取和发展对自己最有利的“市场扰乱”概念解释。因此,笔者相信即使在和欧美就纺织品问题达成协议后,仅就欧美法规中对第242条的不合理解释部分在WTO专家组程序提出质疑也是中国所应当考虑的合理、有效选择之一。
Article 242 of the “China’s Accession to the Working Group’s Report” is one of the legal commitments that China established as a special safeguard clause for textiles, which is discriminatory but forms part of China’s accession to the WTO. “Market disruption ” is one of the main requirements for activating special safeguard measures under Article 242. However, Article 242 does not give a clear explanation. The interpretation of this concept is of great significance for protecting the legitimate rights and interests of China under this Article and preventing and reducing the abuse of other WTO members. The concept of “market disruption” must be interpreted in accordance with the principle of interpretation of international law. The evolution of this concept in the field of international textile trade constitutes one of the main bases for the concept interpretation. China must adhere to its own right of discourse in the interpretation and application of the concept of WTO law, otherwise it will never be able to get rid of its passive status under the framework of the rules of the game established by the developed countries in Europe and the United States. China must adopt and develop the concept of “market disruption” that is most beneficial to itself in a rational and effective manner. Therefore, I believe that even after reaching an agreement with the United States and Europe on the issue of textiles, it is one of the reasonable and effective choices China should consider only to question the unreasonable interpretation of Article 242 of the European and American laws and regulations.