论WTO法律框架下的跨TRIPS协定交叉报复被引量：1

On the Cross-Retaliation under TRIPS Agreement within the Framework of WTO Law

下载PDF

导出

摘要贸易报复是WTO争端解决机制赋予当事方的最后救济手段。如今,跨TRIPS协定交叉报复逐渐成为受到弱小经济实体欢迎的新方式。实践也证明这种报复形式的确有其优越之处,既能对发达工业化国家败诉方产生有效的威慑作用,刺激其及时执行DSB裁决,还可改善报复实施国家的社会福利水平。不过和所有新兴事物一样,跨TRIPS协定交叉报复也存在风险,报复实施方需要精心谋划对策,才能确保此种报复方式之优越性得以充分发挥。 Trade retaliation is the Last resort given to Prevailing party under WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Nowadays, cross-retaliation under TRIPS Agreement gradually becomes a new kind of retaliation welcomed by small economic entities. Practicing also proves that this retaliation does have its advantages, not only producing an effective deterrent on losing party as a most industrialized country, stimulating the latter to implement DSB ruling in time, but also improving social welfares of the retaliating party. However, just like all the new things, cross-retaliation under TRIPS Agreement also has its risks, retaliating party need to design some careful countermeasures so as to ensure those positive effects of this retaliation fully realized.

作者徐成伦

机构地区广东商学院法学院

出处《成都理工大学学报（社会科学版）》 2013年第3期26-32,共7页 Journal of Chengdu University of Technology:Social Sciences

关键词 WTO TRIPS协定交叉报复争端解决 WTO TRIPS Agreement cross-retaliation dispute settlement

分类号 D996.1 [政治法律—经济法学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献10

1Andrew L. Stoler. The WTO dispute settlement process: did the negotiators get what they wanted.* [J]. World Trade Review, 2004, (3) : 99 -- 118.
2Cahriel L. Slater. The Suspension of Intellectual Property Obligations Under TRIPS:A Proposal for Retaliating A- gainst Technology--Exporting Countries in the World Trade Organization[J]. The Georgetown Law Journal, 2009, (97) : 1365 -- 1408.
3Henning Grosse Ruse--Khan. Suspending IP Obligations under TRIPS.. A Viable Alternative to Enforce Prevailing WTO Rulings? [J/OL], (2005-05-08) [2012-05-13] ht-tp ://www. ciel. org/Publications/TRIPS _ IP _ 7May08. pdf.
4Henning Grosse Ruse--Khan. A Pirate of the Caribbean? The Attraetions of Suspending TRIPS Obligations[J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2008,11 (2) : 313 --364.
5Mustafa Moinuddin, Vilakone Sengsavang. WTO Dispute Settlement and the Problems of Compliance: Does Cross --retaliation under TRIPS Provide a Remedy? [J]. Yo- kohama Journal of Social Sciences, 2011,15 (4) : 79 -- 90.
6薛狄,那力.在知识产权领域进行跨协定报复:发展中国家可用的武器[J].河北法学,2010,28(5):80-85. 被引量：3
7A. Subramanian,J. Watal. Can trips serve as an enforce-ment device for developing countries in the WTO? [J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2000,3 (3) : 403 -- 416.
8Joost Pauwelyn. Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of Interna- tional Law[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
9Graeme B. Dinwoodie. Some Remarks on the Limits of Harmonization[J]. The John Marshall Law School Re- view of Intellectual Property Law, 2006, (5) : 596-- 604.
10刘瑛.从“美国赌博和博彩服务案”看WTO框架下的知识产权跨协定报复授权[J].法学,2009(11):69-78. 被引量：5

二级参考文献54

1United States- Measures Affeeting the Cross- Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, DS285.
2http://www.wto.org/english/tratop-e/dispu-e/cases-e/ds285-e.htm,2009年7月27日访问.
3对外经济贸易合作部国际经贸关系司译.《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本》,法律出版社2000年版,第372页.
4Decision by the Arbitrator, United States - Measures Affecting the Cross - Boarder Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (hereinafter 22.6 Panel Report), WT/DS285/ARB, pp. 3.172 - 3. 187.
522.6 Panel Report, pp. 4.39-4.119.
6European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas(EC - Bananas III ), DS27.
7Decision by the Arbitrator, European Communities- Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (hereinafter EC - Bananas III Panel Report), WT/DS27/ARB, p. 52 & 22.6 Panel Report, p. 4.18.
8Steven P. Croley & John H. Jackson, WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 90, 1996, pp. 193 - 196.
9Matthias Oesch, Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 54.
10Georgia Hamann, Replacing Slingshots with Swords: Implications of the Antigua- Gambling 22.6 Panel Report for Developing Countries and the World Trading System, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, May, 2009, p. 1016.