메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
법무부 국제법무정책과 통상법률 통상법률 제73호
발행연도
2007.2
수록면
98 - 120 (23page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The purpose of this article is to examine the concept of direction and entrustment in WTO jurisprudence. Under Article 1.1.(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, a “financial contribution” conferring a benefit is deemed to exist when a government itself directly provides a financial contribution or when it directs or entrusts private bodies to do so. In Export Restraints, a WTO panel decided that the act of entrusting and that of directing requires an explicit government action addressed to a particular entity for a particular task or duty. In US DRAMS, this decision was modified to the extent that the act of direction or entrustment need not be explicit as long as it is affirmative, since such act can be explicit or implicit, formal or informal. Furthermore, the DRAMS Panel held that the evidence of direction must be probative and compelling. In the DRAMS Appeal, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel finding that had in effect replaced the notion of direction with “command” and that of entrustment with “delegation”. The Appellate Body also faulted the Panel for having reviewed the DOC determination in substantial deviation from the agency’s “totality of evidence” approach. It is suggested that the WTO law of subsidies as it stands today in respect of direction and entrustment is more or less in favor of national investigating authorities and may give rise to additional disputes in the future.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-360-002332050