检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:许敏[1]
出 处:《云南大学学报(法学版)》2007年第3期157-162,共6页Jorunal of Yunan University Law Edition
摘 要:中国和东盟十国都是发展中国家,各国的经济发展水平、社会经济、政治、文化、法律制度存在着巨大的差异,因此在各国的相互合作过程中,争端解决机制就显得尤为重要,《中国——东盟全面经济合作框架协议的争端解决机制协定》(CAFTA争端解决机制协定)为中国和东盟全面的经济贸易合作奠定了法律基础和提供了法律保障;WTO的争端解决程序是从GATT1947争端解决程序发展而来,历经半个世纪,不论从制度设计和解决问题的效果来看,都日趋成熟并运行稳健,已日益成为通行的国际贸易争端解决机制。本文通过对中国——东盟自由贸易区争端解决机制与世界贸易组织的争端解决机制进行制度的介绍并将二者进行比较研究,使前者吸取后者的成功经验并在后者的基础上进一步完善自身。China and ASEAN are developing countries with large differences in economical development level, social economy, politics, culture and legal system, so Dispute Settlement Agreement on Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between The People's Republic of China and The Association of South East Asian Nations( CAFTA Dispute Settlement Agreement)establishes legal foundation and safeguard for comprehensive econom- ic cooperation between China and ASEAN;WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism which derived from that of GATT 1947 are mature and steadily practiced from many aspects like mechanism designing and effects of solving problems and become popular international trade dispute settlement mechanism. This article discuss and compare CAFTA and WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in order that the former extracts the latter's successful experience and perfect itself.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.28