稀土案的法律思考(DS431,DS432,DS433)  

The Legal Thinking on Rare Earth Case (DS431, DS432, DS433)

作　　者：李英 董亚婧 

机构地区：[1]华北电力大学北京能源发展研究基地,北京 [2]华北电力大学人文与社会科学学院,北京

出　　处：《法学（汉斯）》2015年第2期35-42,共8页Open Journal of Legal Science

基　　金：2015年北京市支持中央在京高校共建项目的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：2012年3月13日,美国、日本和欧盟就中国稀土、钨矿及钼矿的出口限制措施向世界贸易组织争端解决机构起诉,随后7月23日WTO争端解决机构决定成立专家组审查此案,2014年3月26日,专家组报告公布,随后4月17日、25日中国分别针对美国、欧盟及日本提出上诉,同年8月7日,WTO公布上诉机构报告,宣告中方败诉。本文通过对稀土案所涉及的法律问题进行研究,着重分析中国承担的WTO义务、GATT1994第20条“一般例外”条款的解释与援引、国家经济主权与WTO规则的博弈等,剖析中国在该案件中暴露出的国内法规政策与WTO规则的冲突、对WTO规则及其适用的理解不充分、在争端解决的诉讼程序中举证能力不足等方面的问题,探讨国家在WTO框架下如何运用WTO规则维护国家经济主权。On March 13, 2012, the United States, Japan and the European Union prosecuted China in export restrictions of rare earth, tungsten and molybdenum mine to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. On July 23, WTO Dispute Settlement Body decided to set up expert group to review the case. On March 26, 2014, the panel report was released;hereafter on April 17th China appealed United States to Appellate Body, and on 25th China appealed Japan and European Union to Appellate Body. On August 7, 2014, WTO Appellate Body report was released, declaring Chinese lost. This article will analyze the legal issues involved in the case of rare earth research, the obligations of China to WTO, interpretation and quote of Article 20 of the GATT 1994, the game of national economic sovereignty and WTO Rules. Through analyzing the conflict exposed from China’s domestic laws and policies in this case with the WTO rules, the insufficient understanding of WTO rules, the lack of capacity in the proceedings the burden of proof in dispute settlement, this article will discuss how to use WTO rules to safeguard the country’s economic sovereignty under the WTO frame- work.

关 键 词：稀土 出口限制措施 WTO规则 国家经济主权 GATT1994第20条 

分 类 号：D9[政治法律—法学]