论WTO与RTAs争议解决之管辖权冲突——兼谈对中国FTAs争议解决机制建设之启示

On the Jurisdictional Conflict of Dispute Settlement between WTO and RTAs——Also on the Enlightenment for the Construction of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism under China's FTAs

当前世贸组织("WTO")多边体制下,区域贸易安排("RTAs")和优惠贸易安排("PTAs")持续激增的态势,已成为国际贸易格局中越来越鲜明的特征。与此同时,RTAs与WTO在争议解决机制管辖权问题上的冲突在实践中也日益显现。2004年美国诉至WTO的"墨西哥软饮案(WT/DS308)"引发了对"是否存在可以阻却WTO对诉至其处的案件行使管辖权的合法事由"的探讨,由此得出的"WTO具有强制性管辖权"的关键性结论促使人们去寻求诸如对《争议解决谅解》("DSU")第24条进行扩大解释、借助国际法原则等解决两者冲突的合理路径。中国现有的自贸协定("FTAs")中相关条款未能突破窠臼,其仍将面临类似于北美自贸协定("NAFTA")所经历过的困境,为此,本文力图站在前人的肩膀上紧扣中国FTAs的实践,为其提供分析预测及可行性建议。

Currently, under the WTO multilateral trade system, the ever-growing number of regional trade agreements （＂RTAs＂） and preferential trade arrangements （＂PTAs＂） has become an increasingly distinctive feature of the international trading landscape. Meanwhile, the conflict of dispute settlement jurisdiction between WTO and RTAs has been emerging with acceleration in practice. The case ＂Mexico - Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages （WT/DS308）＂ brought to the WTO by the United States in 2004, stimulated the discuss on ＂whether there were any legal impediments able to prevent WTO from exercising its jurisdiction,＂ from which the key conclusion that ＂WTO employs compulsory jurisdiction＂ was reached. This conclusion further pushed forward people to seek various applicable resolutions on this conflict of dispute settlement jurisdiction, including the amplified interpretation of GATT Art.24 and the utilization of the principles of International Law to soften the WTO＇s jurisdiction power, etc. The existed related provisions under China＇s FTAs have not made any breakthrough compared with most of the other existed FTAs, since which China will still face the dilemma that NAFTA has been going through. For all above, this article aims to provide China with exact analyses and applicable suggestion, based on the precedents and focused on the China＇s actual practices.