世贸组织争端解决机制上诉机构的 “先例”效力问题探析

Analysis on Effectiveness of"Precedent"of Appellate Body of WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism

目前世贸组织上诉机构面临着巨大的生存危机,美国指控上诉机构通过确立“强效理由”规则,在事实上赋予了争端解决机构报告以“先例”效力,违背了世贸组织相关协定的要求。从实践来看,构成“强效理由”的门槛相对较高,在上诉机构层面尚无理由得以成功地背离先例。“强效理由”规则所带来的最大风险在于其在操作中可能异化为变相的“遵循先例”制度,超越争端解决机构的职能权限,带来一系列副作用。但是,“强效理由”规则本身并不构成判例法语境下的“遵循先例”制度,且该规则本身具备一定的内在及外在合理性,关键是要规范对于规则的适用。改革“强效理由”规则需要在拒绝遵循先例与保持裁决稳定性之间达到平衡。

At present,the Appellate Body of the WTO is facing a huge vital crisis.The United States accused the Appellate Body of violating the requirements of the relevant agreements of the WTO by establishing the rule of"cogent reason",which in fact made the DSB report become a precedent.In practice,the threshold for what constitutes a"cogent reason"is relatively high,and there is no reason to depart from precedent successfully at the appellate body level.The biggest risk brought by the"cogent reason"rule is that it may be disintegrated into a kind of disguised stare decisis in operation,which goes beyond the jurisdiction of the DSB and brings a series of side effects.However,"cogent reason"rule itself does not equal to stare decisis system,and the rule itself has both inside and outside rationality.The risk of misapplication of the rule in practice does not negate the rule itself,and the key is to apply the rules normatively.Reform of the"cogent reason"rule needs to strike a balance between refusing to follow precedent and maintaining the stability of previous decisions,specifically by providing a regular platform to exchange the views between the appellate body and WTO members.The threshold of departure from precedent should be precisely defined,i.e.the interpretation of"cogent"by revising the Appellate Body's working procedures.