摘要
TBT协定第2.1条中"同类产品"的判定能否直接适用GATT1994第3.4条的竞争取向型方法是一个富有争议的问题。"美国—丁香烟案"的专家组没有采用竞争取向型方法,而是确立了目标取向型方法,即根据《边境税报告》分析框架重点考察争议措施的规制目标,以此来判定"同类产品"。上诉机构推翻了这一结论,认为TBT协定第2.1条中"同类产品"的判定应采用竞争取向型方法,但如果技术法规的规制目标影响到涉案产品之间的竞争关系,也应予以考虑。这在增加传统分析框架的灵活性的同时也带来了新的问题。
It is a controversial issue to transpose directly the competition-oriented approach under Article 3.4 of the GATT1994 to determine the"similar products"in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.The Panel of US-Clove Cigarettes Case refused the competition-oriented approach and adopted the purpose-based approach.According to which,the determination of"similar products"should be based on the regulatory purpose of the controversial measures in the light of the analytical framework in Border Tax Adjustment Report.The Appellate Body overruled the Panel’s conclusion and adopted the competition-oriented approach to determine the"similar products"in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.The Appellate Body also emphasized that the regulatory purposes should be evaluated if they affect the competition relationships among products.This increases the flexibility of traditional analytical framework but also poses new problems.
出处
《中南财经政法大学研究生学报》
2012年第5期120-125,共6页
Journal of the Postgraduate of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law