美国反补贴法中“因果关系”的确定及其对我国的启示  

The Determination of Causality in U.S. Countervailing Duty Law and Its Enlightenment to China

作　　者：欧福永[1] 杨陶[1] 

机构地区：[1]湖南师范大学法学院,湖南长沙410081

出　　处：《时代法学》2005年第4期107-111,共5页Presentday Law Science

基　　金：湖南省社会科学基金项目<国际补贴与反补贴立法与实践比较研究>(课题编号:03YB07)的阶段性成果之一。

摘　　要：在反补贴调查中,“因果关系”的审查和确定是决定反补贴措施是否公平合理的关键所在,各国对此做法不同、争论很大。在“因果关系”的确定上,WTO《补贴与反补贴措施协议》的规定存在不明确之处,各国对其保留有相当程度的解释空间。美国反补贴法在因果关系上的用语与《补贴与反补贴措施协议》不同,同时还存在两个重要的争议:因果关系是应存在于“进口”与“损害”之间,还是存在于“补贴”与“损害”之间;应同时决定还是分别决定损害与因果关系。在因果关系的具体分析方法上,我国可借鉴美国的“整体分析法”。The determination of causality in countervailing investigation is the key point to decide whether the countervailing measures is fair and rational or not, and there are different practice and views. The provision of Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of WTO is not clear, which gives rise to different explanation of different countries. There are difference in causality between U.S. Countervailing Duty Law and Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of WTO. In addition to, there are two disputes: whether causality should exists between importation and injury or between subsidies and injury; whether injury and causality should be determined separately or at the same time. On the concrete analytical method of causality, China can draw lessons from the unitary analysis of U.S..

关 键 词：美国反补贴法 因果关系 损害 SCM协议 

分 类 号：D996[政治法律—经济法学]