지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Anti-dumping issues have almost always created controversy between exporting and importing states. Many importing countries have traditionally emphasised the necessity to prevent unfairness caused by dumping, while exporting countries increasingly regard anti-dumping measures taken by importing states as a new form of protectionism. It has been said that anti-dumping regulations have replaced the concerns of free tradersabout voluntary exports restraints and other grey area measures during much of the 1970s and 1980s. A series of anti-dumping regulations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) such as the onginal Article VI of GATT 1947, Anti-Dumping Code 1967 and 1979, and the present Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 ("the AD Agreement"), can be taken as endeavours to reconcile the above two aspects of the anti-dumping issue.
In this respect, it is important to examine the implication of the WTO panel case on the Korea-U.S. DRAMs dispute(DS 99). At a glance, the panel report seems to be in favour of exporting countries by ruling that the U.S. "not likely" test - a requirement that future dumping should not be likely for the revocation of the existing anti-dumping order - is not consistent with international trade rules. However, further investigation in this essay will find that there is a loophole in the panel decision. In fact the panel recognised the "likely" test whereby anti-dumping duties can be extended If future dumping is likely. This "likely" standard is, if allowed, as vulnerable to protectionist policy as the "not likely" requirement itself.
In this essay, main points of the panel decision in the DRAMs case will be investigated and the problems in the reasoning of the panel and their Implications will be explored, focusing on the attitude of the panel toward the "likely" test. Following this, the WTO rules will be considered to see if they allow the likelihood standard by looking at the relevant provisions of the WTO anti-dumping agreement.
With regard to anti-dumping measures, another conflict can be found between consumers and producers in the same domestic economy. As one commentator has mentioned, anti-dumping is a form of wealth redistribution whereby consumers actively allocate money to producers. The negative impact on consumers IS a very important aspect to consider in assessing the necessity of anti-dumping measures. However, considering the restraints of space, this essay will mainly focus on the conflict between exporting and importing countries.
In this respect, it is important to examine the implication of the WTO panel case on the Korea-U.S. DRAMs dispute(DS 99). At a glance, the panel report seems to be in favour of exporting countries by ruling that the U.S. "not likely" test - a requirement that future dumping should not be likely for the revocation of the existing anti-dumping order - is not consistent with international trade rules. However, further investigation in this essay will find that there is a loophole in the panel decision. In fact the panel recognised the "likely" test whereby anti-dumping duties can be extended If future dumping is likely. This "likely" standard is, if allowed, as vulnerable to protectionist policy as the "not likely" requirement itself.
In this essay, main points of the panel decision in the DRAMs case will be investigated and the problems in the reasoning of the panel and their Implications will be explored, focusing on the attitude of the panel toward the "likely" test. Following this, the WTO rules will be considered to see if they allow the likelihood standard by looking at the relevant provisions of the WTO anti-dumping agreement.
With regard to anti-dumping measures, another conflict can be found between consumers and producers in the same domestic economy. As one commentator has mentioned, anti-dumping is a form of wealth redistribution whereby consumers actively allocate money to producers. The negative impact on consumers IS a very important aspect to consider in assessing the necessity of anti-dumping measures. However, considering the restraints of space, this essay will mainly focus on the conflict between exporting and importing countries.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 한미 D램 분쟁
Ⅲ. WTO 패널 결정 검토
Ⅳ. “가능성”요건의 WTO 합치성 검토
Ⅴ. “가능성” 기준의 정책적 함의
Ⅵ. 결론
參考文獻
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
중국반덤핑제도와 WTO규정과의 부합성
경영법률
2007 .01
-
반덤핑협정의 문제점 및 개정방향-WTO체제적 접근
법학논집
2003 .01
-
중국의 불공정무역 조사제도 현황과 운용에 관한 연구
관세학회지
2010 .02
-
Current Status of Anti-Dumping Investigations: The Korean Perspective
[KIEP] KIEP Opinions
2016 .12
-
관세행정법상 덤핑규제에 관한 節次法規의 개선방안
관세학회지
2005 .12
-
A Study on Measures against Unfair Trade between South Korea and Major Countries in Asia : Focus on Anti-dumping
관세학회지
2010 .05
-
A Study on Anti-Dumping Measures of China and Countermeasures of Korea
관세학회지
2005 .12
-
WTO 규범에 근거한 중국 반덤핑 법규의 비교 연구
관세학회지
2006 .12
-
중국 반덤핑법제상의 문제점과 해결방안
통상정보연구
2010 .09
-
WTO 반덤핑협정 제2.4.2조에 의거한 네거티브 덤핑마진 산정 방식(“제로잉”)의 법적 문제
무역상무연구
2008 .05
-
중국 반덤핑 사실과 절차에 관한 考察
무역상무연구
2006 .08
-
중국의 반덤핑 규제요인에 관한 연구 : 한ㆍ중 양국간 산업경쟁력을 중심으로
무역학회지
2005 .04
-
THE FUNCTION OF ANTI-DUMPING IN THE WORLD TRADE SYSTEM
한국무역학회 국제학술대회
2000 .12
-
미국과 중국의 반덤핑조치에 영향을 미치는 정치·경제적 요인 분석
경영경제연구
2019 .08
-
The Ambiguity and Incompleteness of the ADA, and the Necessity of Dumping Margin Modeling
관세학회지
2010 .08
-
中韩两国的反倾销制度比较研究
중국법연구
2008 .01
-
중국의 반덤핑, 세이프가드조치에 관한 연구
산업경제연구
2002 .12
-
WTO 국제규범과 우리나라 반덤핑제도개선의 선별성에 관한 연구 : 동종물품해석, 재심사, 우회수출의 쟁점을 중심으로
관세학회지
2001 .08
-
미국의 司法的 반덤핑법이 WTO에 위배되는지의 여부
문화산업연구
2001 .02
-
중국의 신 반덤핑조례의 특징과 그 한계에 관한 고찰
무역학회지
2006 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-361-002620809